Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 273

Thread: Gao FT article

  1. #51

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    18,989
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by for_heaven's_Saint View Post
    If he’s not putting money in to improve our value and he’s not taking money out, what’s in it for him?
    As a springboard to gobble up and redevelop the surrounding land.

    No seriously, Goa’s diversified his wealth: got his money out of a country that can resemble the Wild West, owns a blue chip asset with strong property rights and hopes it’ll appreciate in value by virtue of the PL’s growth worldwide and our participation in it.

  2. #52

    Default

    So we learnt Mr. Gao is "flamboyant". Being a private person he must be annoyed that came out.

  3. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    As a springboard to gobble up and redevelop the surrounding land.

    No seriously, Goa’s diversified his wealth: got his money out of a country that can resemble the Wild West, owns a blue chip asset with strong property rights and hopes it’ll appreciate in value by virtue of the PL’s growth worldwide and our participation in it.
    I think so. He's hoping the pig will fatten itself without being fed.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    18,989
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Munster View Post
    So we learnt Mr. Gao is "flamboyant". Being a private person he must be annoyed that came out.
    Flamboyant in the same way Gadhafi and the fella with the shark tank in James Bond were. FT-speak for dodgy as f**k.

  5. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    As a springboard to gobble up and redevelop the surrounding land.

    No seriously, Goas diversified his wealth: got his money out of a country that can resemble the Wild West, owns a blue chip asset with strong property rights and hopes itll appreciate in value by virtue of the PLs growth worldwide and our participation in it.
    Considering saints have 1% chance of getting cement works opposite and slim chance of gas works, Id disagree. God knows what he is doing.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by charliemiller View Post
    We have a debt ...the money used to buy us to macquarrie bank what else could he secure 200m against he has nothing now lander has gone to the wall
    No we haven't (other than maybe a short term over draft). Gao borrowed money personally to buy us - which is different. All depends on what he used as security, and despite all the usual BS on here, no one knows other than Gao, his inner circle and the bank in question. Seldom can you use the asset you are buying as security (I am buying a house worth 500K, so lend me 500K as security against that - let's see how far you get?) Also, he cannot simply transfer said loan to the club as many on here seem to believe.

    We are an asset and if Gao defaults, someone will step in and buy us - probably on the cheap and make a great return - ala Liebherr (both)

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    West of Fareham
    Posts
    12,727

    Default

    That is pretty depressing reading, just a matter of time until we go down.

    I didn’t believe half of the nonsense that Cortese came out with but at least it showed ambition, when an owner says stuff like this it basically means we’re just going to be **** for the foreseeable.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Plymouth
    Posts
    5,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelman View Post
    KL couldn't give a monkeys about the future. It was about who would pay the most.

    I fear that in a business where owners do lavish money on their teams, there is an inevitability in that we will struggle.
    How dare she?! You'd think she was a business woman, trying to make money or something...

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by charliemiller View Post
    We have a debt ...the money used to buy us to macquarrie bank what else could he secure 200m against he has nothing now lander has gone to the wall
    It doesn't say that he's used the club as security to buy the club.

    I repeat my question - what is the problem with us being a self sufficient club? I ask as I get the impression that many posters seem to think that the club owner is somehow obliged to throw many millions at the club/team.

  10. #60

    Default

    Club is no different to what it was under Kat.
    I renember the days where we were not even able to spend money on players and trying to survive every year so I’m not complaning.

  11. #61

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    18,989
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    It doesn't say that he's used the club as security to buy the club.

    I repeat my question - what is the problem with us being a self sufficient club? I ask as I get the impression that many posters seem to think that the club owner is somehow obliged to throw many millions at the club/team.
    There’s a difference between belt-tightening and self-sufficiency.

  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    It doesn't say that he's used the club as security to buy the club.

    I repeat my question - what is the problem with us being a self sufficient club? I ask as I get the impression that many posters seem to think that the club owner is somehow obliged to throw many millions at the club/team.
    Why else buy the club, he isn't going to make serious money out of little old saints.

  13. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    It doesn't say that he's used the club as security to buy the club.

    I repeat my question - what is the problem with us being a self sufficient club? I ask as I get the impression that many posters seem to think that the club owner is somehow obliged to throw many millions at the club/team.
    Why else buy the club, he isn't going to make serious money out of little old saints.

  14. #64

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Marbella drunk again
    Posts
    649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red View Post
    No we haven't (other than maybe a short term over draft). Gao borrowed money personally to buy us - which is different. All depends on what he used as security, and despite all the usual BS on here, no one knows other than Gao, his inner circle and the bank in question. Seldom can you use the asset you are buying as security (I am buying a house worth 500K, so lend me 500K as security against that - let's see how far you get?) Also, he cannot simply transfer said loan to the club as many on here seem to believe.

    We are an asset and if Gao defaults, someone will step in and buy us - probably on the cheap and make a great return - ala Liebherr (both)

    Yes it is secured on the club ! And yes you are right with the house comparison , which is why it was initially a structured bridge at 80% of PP which was then converted to a term loan for the full amount with the club as security ......what other security has Gao got to secure the loan against ! nothing get real

    Also if he defaults the bank also has a lien against the premiership payments as well as a first charge against the club and stadium .

    Anyone who works in commercial finance structuring will confirm that this is the only way this deal could have been structured . A personal loan Naaa , a loan secured against assets and future income yup .

  15. #65

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    5,139

    Default

    Well, we need to make sure we

    1) don't get relegated, and

    2) sort out the sclerosed Academy talent pipeline

    3) sort out the disastrous scouting since that backroom guy went to Spurs

  16. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by charliemiller View Post
    Yes it is secured on the club ! And yes you are right with the house comparison , which is why it was initially a structured bridge at 80% of PP which was then converted to a term loan for the full amount with the club as security ......what other security has Gao got to secure the loan against ! nothing get real

    Also if he defaults the bank also has a lien against the premiership payments as well as a first charge against the club and stadium .

    Anyone who works in commercial finance structuring will confirm that this is the only way this deal could have been structured . A personal loan Naaa , a loan secured against assets and future income yup .
    ok, you are obviously privy to inside info not many people have, so if true I bow to your greater wisdom/knowlege

  17. #67

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    West of Fareham
    Posts
    12,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by charliemiller View Post
    Yes it is secured on the club ! And yes you are right with the house comparison , which is why it was initially a structured bridge at 80% of PP which was then converted to a term loan for the full amount with the club as security ......what other security has Gao got to secure the loan against ! nothing get real

    Also if he defaults the bank also has a lien against the premiership payments as well as a first charge against the club and stadium .

    Anyone who works in commercial finance structuring will confirm that this is the only way this deal could have been structured . A personal loan Naaa , a loan secured against assets and future income yup .
    Do you know this or are you just speculating?

  18. #68

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fighting Messageboard injustice, Everywhere
    Posts
    2,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by charliemiller View Post
    Yes it is secured on the club ! And yes you are right with the house comparison , which is why it was initially a structured bridge at 80% of PP which was then converted to a term loan for the full amount with the club as security ......what other security has Gao got to secure the loan against ! nothing get real

    Also if he defaults the bank also has a lien against the premiership payments as well as a first charge against the club and stadium .

    Anyone who works in commercial finance structuring will confirm that this is the only way this deal could have been structured . A personal loan Naaa , a loan secured against assets and future income yup .
    I work in Commercial Finance, and your description is certainly not the only way this deal could have been structured. And the comparison to a house purchase is also not valid.

    HTH.

  19. #69

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    There’s a difference between belt-tightening and self-sufficiency.
    There's no evidence that the club has borrowed - that's self suffiency on my book.

    I repeat the question, what is wrong with self sufficiency?

  20. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    There's no evidence that the club has borrowed - that's self suffiency on my book.

    I repeat the question, what is wrong with self sufficiency?
    Nothing, if it's the norm. However, if 3/4 of the rest of the league either have dramatically higher commercial revenue or an owner prepared to inject equity at the maximum rate allowed by FFP, then it becomes a problem.

  21. #71

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by verlaine1979 View Post
    Nothing, if it's the norm. However, if 3/4 of the rest of the league either have dramatically higher commercial revenue or an owner prepared to inject equity at the maximum rate allowed by FFP, then it becomes a problem.
    So your expectation is not self sufficiency, but repeated capital introductions from the owner?

  22. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    So your expectation is not self sufficiency, but repeated capital introductions from the owner?
    My expectation is continued dicing with relegation if we are consistently outspent by the clubs we imagine ourselves to be competing with (as opposed to the newly promoted).

  23. #73

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Norwich
    Posts
    10,252
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The perfect business model is modest outlay allowing us 'just' to finish above the bottom three.

    Has been successful for quite a few years now.

  24. #74

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by verlaine1979 View Post
    My expectation is continued dicing with relegation if we are consistently outspent by the clubs we imagine ourselves to be competing with (as opposed to the newly promoted).
    In other words you feel that the obligation of the owner is to inject cash rather than have a self sufficient club. If this "daddy I want another pony" attitude is typical of our fanbase we've become a spoiled bunch.

  25. #75

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    stamping on peoples dreams since 2010
    Posts
    28,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    In other words you feel that the obligation of the owner is to inject cash rather than have a self sufficient club. If this "daddy I want another pony" attitude is typical of our fanbase we've become a spoiled bunch.
    Is it? Or is it simply that people are fed up with us winning the net spend trophy every year and a few cheer leaders explain it away that we have to pay agents fees and bonuses, like no other club does.

    Weve been in austerity mode since 2014, we had to stop the bleeding after Corteses overspending we were told, which was true, yet here we are 5 years on, still needing to tighten our belts despite 5 years of profit from transfers, posting record profits and supposedly more commercial income than weve ever had before.

    Its absolutely laughable that the cheerleaders try and explain away our profit from transfer windows as being needed to pay agents fees and bonuses whilst Newcastle fans absolutely lamblast Mike Ashley as being a tight fisted cockney waner when hes sanctioned spending of nearly 100m more than theyve raked in from transfers in the same period. Guess they dont have to pay those pesky agents do they.

  26. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek2003 View Post
    The perfect business model is modest outlay allowing us 'just' to finish above the bottom three.

    Has been successful for quite a few years now.
    We finished 8th in 16/17, so not really.

  27. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    In other words you feel that the obligation of the owner is to inject cash rather than have a self sufficient club. If this "daddy I want another pony" attitude is typical of our fanbase we've become a spoiled bunch.
    Surely, no one buys a business just to have it tick over.

  28. #78

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint Billy View Post
    Surely, no one buys a business just to have it tick over.
    Nobody "invests" in a business without a return. Explain to me how gifting X million to our club will result in added of value of at least X. I'll save you the time - it won't. Whatever gets spent, we'll still be a club who's best possible season will see us finish 7th. The last couple of seasons will not reassure Gao that "investing" in players is sensible - carillo, hoedt, boufal, etc, ain't an investment.

  29. #79

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turkish View Post
    Is it? Or is it simply that people are fed up with us winning the net spend trophy every year and a few cheer leaders explain it away that we have to pay agents fees and bonuses, like no other club does.

    Weve been in austerity mode since 2014, we had to stop the bleeding after Corteses overspending we were told, which was true, yet here we are 5 years on, still needing to tighten our belts despite 5 years of profit from transfers, posting record profits and supposedly more commercial income than weve ever had before.

    Its absolutely laughable that the cheerleaders try and explain away our profit from transfer windows as being needed to pay agents fees and bonuses whilst Newcastle fans absolutely lamblast Mike Ashley as being a tight fisted cockney waner when hes sanctioned spending of nearly 100m more than theyve raked in from transfers in the same period. Guess they dont have to pay those pesky agents do they.
    Del, you've always come across as a bright fella. You know better than to confuse investment of owners funds (which is what I'm talking about) and utilising revenue (which is what you're talking about). You're comparing apples with cauliflowers mate.

  30. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turkish View Post
    Is it? Or is it simply that people are fed up with us winning the net spend trophy every year and a few cheer leaders explain it away that we have to pay agents fees and bonuses, like no other club does.

    We’ve been in austerity mode since 2014, we had to stop the bleeding after Corteses overspending we were told, which was true, yet here we are 5 years on, still needing to tighten our belts despite 5 years of profit from transfers, posting record profits and supposedly more commercial income than we’ve ever had before.

    It’s absolutely laughable that the cheerleaders try and explain away our profit from transfer windows as being needed to pay agents fees and bonuses whilst Newcastle fans absolutely lamblast Mike Ashley as being a tight fisted cockney wan’er when he’s sanctioned spending of nearly 100m more than they’ve raked in from transfers in the same period. Guess they don’t have to pay those pesky agents do they.
    No mention here about the elephant in the room: over 100 million per year in player wages.

  31. #81

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    17,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aintforever View Post
    Do you know this or are you just speculating?
    He's talking ****e and he's confused by the credit facility we take out every year.

  32. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Munster View Post
    No mention here about the elephant in the room: over 100 million per year in player wages.
    Wages don’t count to anyone moaning about where the money has gone.

  33. Default

    Depressing reading from v reputable source.

    Makes me wonder about Ralph?? Why has he come here?

    If he hasn’t been promised a transfer pot then he could only be thinking premier league stepping stone ala Pochettino/Koeman?

    However Pochettino came into a good young squad with Rickie up front and Koeman had money to spend after the club had just sold most of the first team before he arrived!

    Ralph had a terrible squad which was then weakened (on paper) during the transfer window at a moment when we were fighting for survival. He now has a terrible squad with a load of over paid loan players coming back into it which means a summer of desperately trying to get them out whilst scraping the barrel to get players in.

    So if the FT and our own concerns are true, why is he here? Big bonus for finishing outside of the bottom 3?

  34. #84

    Default

    I thought Ralph was clear when he joined that a top 6 prem team wouldn't touch him until he'd proven his worth in the league. He's not gonna be here for long, but hopefully it will be successful for both sides.

  35. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bstokesaint View Post
    Depressing reading from v reputable source.

    Makes me wonder about Ralph?? Why has he come here?

    If he hasnt been promised a transfer pot then he could only be thinking premier league stepping stone ala Pochettino/Koeman?

    However Pochettino came into a good young squad with Rickie up front and Koeman had money to spend after the club had just sold most of the first team before he arrived!

    Ralph had a terrible squad which was then weakened (on paper) during the transfer window at a moment when we were fighting for survival. He now has a terrible squad with a load of over paid loan players coming back into it which means a summer of desperately trying to get them out whilst scraping the barrel to get players in.

    So if the FT and our own concerns are true, why is he here? Big bonus for finishing outside of the bottom 3?
    Puel and Pellegrino would have seen us as a Premier League stepping stone as well. Hughes came in the prove the doubters wrong.

    This time next year if Ralph ends up at Spurs, or even those wonderful Toffeemen, then it will only mean he's done a great job for us.

  36. #86

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Perth, in the land of Oz
    Posts
    5,985

    Default

    Property developer! .........the ‘farm’ ( do we still own it?) Staplewood! St Mary’s. he may be quite astute!

  37. #87

    Default

    Biggest land bank we have is in hedge end


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  38. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek2003 View Post
    I suspect we may be sold again in the not too distant future.
    Getting that feeling again myself .............please not to a fake shiek

  39. #89

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    After moving around Kent, Surrey and Sussex have now settled on the edge of Romney Marsh
    Posts
    12,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roo1976 View Post
    Getting that feeling again myself .............please not to a fake shiek
    Gao said that this club is his child. You don’t sell your child. Don’t expect him to sell any time soon. Owning a Premiership club gives him kudos back home. He ain’t going anywhere unless something drastic happens.

  40. #90

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    West of Fareham
    Posts
    12,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Munster View Post
    No mention here about the elephant in the room: over 100 million per year in player wages.
    All clubs pay wages, it’s only us that seem to win the net spend trophy every single year though.

  41. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aintforever View Post
    All clubs pay wages, it’s only us that seem to win the net spend trophy every single year though.
    Perhaps wages can total to vastly different amounts...

  42. #92

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New Forest
    Posts
    5,433

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adrian lord View Post
    Well, we need to make sure we

    1) don't get relegated, and

    2) sort out the sclerosed Academy talent pipeline

    3) sort out the disastrous scouting since that backroom guy went to Spurs
    Correction, 'He' not 'we'

  43. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperSAINT View Post
    Perhaps wages can total to vastly different amounts...
    Right, which is why nobody is comparing our spending with that of clubs like Liverpool and United.

    The apt comparison is the likes of Bournemouth, Leicester etc. - the clubs we imagine we should be competing with in mid-table. Those clubs have largely similar wage bills to ours, largely similar TV, commercial and matchday revenue, but they have had significantly higher net outlay on players over the past five years.

    If you have a moral objection to the idea of wealthy owners injecting cash into their clubs to boost league performance, that's fine. But over the medium-long term, performance in team sports tends to correlate quite strongly with budget, so the corollary of that position is being happy to see us fall behind those clubs and permanently into the lower quartile of the league that traditionally dices with relegation until eventually there's no more dicing to be done.

    The only alternative strategy is to hope that you can make up the difference with better-than-average recruitment, boosting revenue through player sales. However, contrary to received wisdom, we haven't really adopted this strategy with any determination: a) we don't cast a wide enough net bringing in young players with potential - recruitment has always tended to be one in, one out; b) our stance over VVD's departure suggests we don't want to be seen as a selling/stepping-stone club; c) over the past few seasons the average age of signings seems to have risen dramatically towards the 26/27 age range, in which players are already known quantities.

  44. #94

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by verlaine1979 View Post
    Right, which is why nobody is comparing our spending with that of clubs like Liverpool and United.

    The apt comparison is the likes of Bournemouth, Leicester etc. - the clubs we imagine we should be competing with in mid-table. Those clubs have largely similar wage bills to ours, largely similar TV, commercial and matchday revenue, but they have had significantly higher net outlay on players over the past five years.

    If you have a moral objection to the idea of wealthy owners injecting cash into their clubs to boost league performance, that's fine. But over the medium-long term, performance in team sports tends to correlate quite strongly with budget, so the corollary of that position is being happy to see us fall behind those clubs and permanently into the lower quartile of the league that traditionally dices with relegation until eventually there's no more dicing to be done.

    The only alternative strategy is to hope that you can make up the difference with better-than-average recruitment, boosting revenue through player sales. However, contrary to received wisdom, we haven't really adopted this strategy with any determination: a) we don't cast a wide enough net bringing in young players with potential - recruitment has always tended to be one in, one out; b) our stance over VVD's departure suggests we don't want to be seen as a selling/stepping-stone club; c) over the past few seasons the average age of signings seems to have risen dramatically towards the 26/27 age range, in which players are already known quantities.
    All very wordy pal but we're back to this perception that the owner is obliged to put his hand in his pocket and throw money at the club. Let's suppose that the Bournemouth and Leicester owners have done that, why must Gao have that obligation. I get that we all want our club to kick on, and that money may make that happen, but why does the owner have that obligation? What's in it for him? How will be get a return? And please won't reply with this 'net spend winners' stuff - you, Turkish and others are confusing / conflating spending our money with injection on money by the owner.

  45. #95

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fighting Messageboard injustice, Everywhere
    Posts
    2,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aintforever View Post
    All clubs pay wages, it’s only us that seem to win the net spend trophy every single year though.
    Isn’t the point that we are pretty much up against the wages cap? You can argue that we have given vastly inflated contracts when they are/were not deserved, but ultimately it doesn’t matter if the owner puts in 50m if we can’t pay he wages without making losses which aren’t sustainable or desirable in the longer term.

  46. #96

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    West of Fareham
    Posts
    12,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    All very wordy pal but we're back to this perception that the owner is obliged to put his hand in his pocket and throw money at the club. Let's suppose that the Bournemouth and Leicester owners have done that, why must Gao have that obligation. I get that we all want our club to kick on, and that money may make that happen, but why does the owner have that obligation? What's in it for him? How will be get a return? And please won't reply with this 'net spend winners' stuff - you, Turkish and others are confusing / conflating spending our money with injection on money by the owner.
    I don’t think he obliged to spend anything, but fact is we are competing with clubs who have owners who do. If a club our size has a skint owner it’s just a matter of time before we go down, the likes of Bournemouth and Watford are already ahead of us.

    We were told that Gao would take us to a new level, that was clearly lies so why should we believe a word he says now. It’s still not clear why the c*nt even brought the club, now we’re being told we’re gonna just **** about in the bottom half for a few more seasons max until we inevitably go down because our owner is skint. Have we even seen a set of accounts which cover his time in charge yet?

  47. #97

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    17,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    All very wordy pal but we're back to this perception that the owner is obliged to put his hand in his pocket and throw money at the club. Let's suppose that the Bournemouth and Leicester owners have done that, why must Gao have that obligation. I get that we all want our club to kick on, and that money may make that happen, but why does the owner have that obligation? What's in it for him? How will be get a return? And please won't reply with this 'net spend winners' stuff - you, Turkish and others are confusing / conflating spending our money with injection on money by the owner.
    What's your point? I'm really not sure what argument you are trying to advance.

    Is it disappointing to be financially outdone by tinpot clubs like Bournemouth and Watford? Yes.

    Is it disappointing to be owned by a foreigner with no connection, no ambition, no desire to build bridges, no empathy and no plan? Yes.

    This FT interview reinforces those disappointments.

    I don't see people clamouring for hundreds of millions to be poured in. I just see people despondent that their football team, one of their city's prizes assets, an important part of the community, has been sold down the river to a remote chancer whose motives seem ambivalent at best.

    If you can't see a problem with that then you're the problem.

  48. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    All very wordy pal but we're back to this perception that the owner is obliged to put his hand in his pocket and throw money at the club. Let's suppose that the Bournemouth and Leicester owners have done that, why must Gao have that obligation. I get that we all want our club to kick on, and that money may make that happen, but why does the owner have that obligation? What's in it for him? How will be get a return? And please won't reply with this 'net spend winners' stuff - you, Turkish and others are confusing / conflating spending our money with injection on money by the owner.
    You seem to be confused. I'm not saying that Gao is obliged to put money into the club. I'm simply pointing out that in a world where, over time, budget correlates with performance, if we spend significantly less than our peers, we will eventually fall behind them. And in football, there's a specific word for falling behind, and it begins with R.

    My starting point is that I want us to be competitive and work back from there. If the prevailing economic reality in the league is that the owner has to support the club for it to compete, then yes, I'll be dissatisfied if we're one of the small number of clubs in that position where the owner is either unwilling or unable to do so.

    I'm not really sure why you're finding this so difficult to grasp? Or are you just content for the club to be eventually relegated as long as it means we remain pure and self-sustaining?

  49. #99

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Near Exeter
    Posts
    4,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benjii View Post
    What's your point? I'm really not sure what argument you are trying to advance.

    Is it disappointing to be financially outdone by tinpot clubs like Bournemouth and Watford? Yes.

    Is it disappointing to be owned by a foreigner with no connection, no ambition, no desire to build bridges, no empathy and no plan? Yes.

    This FT interview reinforces those disappointments.

    I don't see people clamouring for hundreds of millions to be poured in. I just see people despondent that their football team, one of their city's prizes assets, an important part of the community, has been sold down the river to a remote chancer whose motives seem ambivalent at best.

    If you can't see a problem with that then you're the problem.
    100% this, excellent post

  50. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benjii View Post
    What's your point? I'm really not sure what argument you are trying to advance.

    Is it disappointing to be financially outdone by tinpot clubs like Bournemouth and Watford? Yes.

    Is it disappointing to be owned by a foreigner with no connection, no ambition, no desire to build bridges, no empathy and no plan? Yes.

    This FT interview reinforces those disappointments.

    I don't see people clamouring for hundreds of millions to be poured in. I just see people despondent that their football team, one of their city's prizes assets, an important part of the community, has been sold down the river to a remote chancer whose motives seem ambivalent at best.

    If you can't see a problem with that then you're the problem.
    Good post. The disconnection between club / city and owner is a worrying way forward.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •