Jump to content

Potential DaGrosa Takeover


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Chewy said:

While all that maybe true, we are already in the premier league and they aren’t. Irrespective of squad investment, the odds are stacked in favour of a premier league side not getting relegated v a championship side getting promoted.

The next obvious difference is we have a premier league squad and they don’t. Strip out the loans in Lampards season, that squad have been nowhere near good enough for years. You’d therefore think it will cost a lot more to upgrade their squad than the difference in the initial purchase price.

So it’ll cost a lot more and have a much higher risk of having premier league status. 
I do think it’s fair to question why Derby would be seen as a better investment than us from a cold, hard business perspective.

 

 

That isn't a cold hard business perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible that Gao has changed his mind. With Saints playing well and hitting the high notes, our value as a club must be rising by the day. Of course he would want out of a relegation haunted team with no money available to improve matters but a winning team attracting attention presents a whole new set of possibilities for him. Maybe his £200m is looking a bit more affordable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Turkish said:

Similar sized club available for less than a third what Goa wants for us. It’s a no brainier for anyone wanting to buy a football club. 

Exactly, coupled with the fact it wouldn’t take significant investment to get Derby to where we are, lower mid - bottom end PL club. Unless Gao lowers his price to around £150m (which won’t happen), there are far more attractive clubs in the lower divisions. 

The only thing I can realistically say is in our favour is are location and links to London or the docks + the south east is more attractive than the midlands (but I’m not sure that even matters to someone living in the Middle East).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Turkish said:

That isn't a cold hard business perspective.

If it's the cold hard business view then you look at cost v ROI. The ROI with Derby is significantly higher than buying an established premier league club for 3 times more, losing money and in a sh1t load of debt.

Edited by Turkish
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but the investment isn’t just the purchase price, it includes the cost of building a squad good enough to reach the premier league (transfers and wages) and staying there. Debatable what that would be but I’d suggest a Danny Ings alone would account for at least a third of the saving in purchase price (transfer and wages) Derby are also losing money too.

Then to get the return you need to be in the premier league to get the higher income (we are, they’re not). It’s notoriously difficult to get out of the championship so the significant outlay isn’t guaranteed a return. The enhanced income is at best 1.5 seasons away, we already look pretty certain to retain the higher income next season. We are therefore virtually certain to have much higher income for 1.5 seasons, and from a corporate risk analysis perspective, likely longer.


So in Derby’s favour is a cheap initial price and currently lower outgoings. That need to be increased if improvements on and off the field are expected.

In our favour is Premier league income, a premier league squad and a significantly less risky investment.

The ‘growth’ charts for improvement look less impressive for Saints, but as this appears to be a private (or at least not public) investment, that’s frankly irrelevant. It’s just hard cash that matters (assuming he’s not a derby fan and personally invested as a supporter).

In pure cash and risk terms there is a no-brainer choice and it’s not Derby imho.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chewy said:

Yes but the investment isn’t just the purchase price, it includes the cost of building a squad good enough to reach the premier league (transfers and wages) and staying there. Debatable what that would be but I’d suggest a Danny Ings alone would account for at least a third of the saving in purchase price (transfer and wages) Derby are also losing money too.

Then to get the return you need to be in the premier league to get the higher income (we are, they’re not). It’s notoriously difficult to get out of the championship so the significant outlay isn’t guaranteed a return. The enhanced income is at best 1.5 seasons away, we already look pretty certain to retain the higher income next season. We are therefore virtually certain to have much higher income for 1.5 seasons, and from a corporate risk analysis perspective, likely longer.


So in Derby’s favour is a cheap initial price and currently lower outgoings. That need to be increased if improvements on and off the field are expected.

In our favour is Premier league income, a premier league squad and a significantly less risky investment.

The ‘growth’ charts for improvement look less impressive for Saints, but as this appears to be a private (or at least not public) investment, that’s frankly irrelevant. It’s just hard cash that matters (assuming he’s not a derby fan and personally invested as a supporter).

In pure cash and risk terms there is a no-brainer choice and it’s not Derby imho.

Let me ask you this, why in 2009 did Marcus Liebherr buy us and not Fulham, Blackburn, Bolton or Pompey. They were all established premier league clubs with premier league squads and a much less risky investment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Let me ask you this, why in 2009 did Marcus Liebherr buy us and not Fulham, Blackburn, Bolton or Pompey. They were all established premier league clubs with premier league squads and a much less risky investment. 

I don’t know; do you?

i think we’d both be guessing somewhat. I’m sure MLG Will tell us it’s about potential fan base or something ... 🙄

Im really not trying to be a d1ck about this, or be saints-biased. I just think if I had the money, as a neutral, I’d see saints as a better investment.

A key difference could be the lower initial price if the outlay needs to be spread over a longer period of time. At the other end of the scale it he’s dreaming of creating the next Man City it might be easier to ‘accommodate’ FFP rules with Derby?

I don’t know - it is clear that any ROI is risky with them being at the lower end of the championship, and definitely at least a season away, and the investment section will be just as large when you factor in required team improvement than with Saints’ higher asking price. Imho 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chewy said:

I don’t know; do you?

i think we’d both be guessing somewhat. I’m sure MLG Will tell us it’s about potential fan base or something ... 🙄

Im really not trying to be a d1ck about this, or be saints-biased. I just think if I had the money, as a neutral, I’d see saints as a better investment.

A key difference could be the lower initial price if the outlay needs to be spread over a longer period of time. At the other end of the scale it he’s dreaming of creating the next Man City it might be easier to ‘accommodate’ FFP rules with Derby?

I don’t know - it is clear that any ROI is risky with them being at the lower end of the championship, and definitely at least a season away, and the investment section will be just as large when you factor in required team improvement than with Saints’ higher asking price. Imho 

I'd suggest that he probably saw us as a good potential investment and much greater ROI than buying any of the clubs mentioned of similar ones. Wouldn't you agree.

 

You'd buy a business for a quarter of the price and with some strategic investment quadruple it's turnover within 2-3 years (obviously if everything goes well)? Youd chose that over one where you could buy for 4 times the price and the turnover stays roughly the same? Like i said, you're not taking the cold hard business perspective to it. Both are risks but one clearly a significantly better investment, i have no idea why you think that would saints.

Edited by Turkish
Link to post
Share on other sites

Understand that higher turnover equates to more valuable asset, but if the outlay required from your own pocket is as big or greater than the gain, you’re not any richer, or you are poorer.

Of course the product of football can then continue to grow, but then saints would gain the same cash value. Percentage wise it’s not as big, but in cash terms it is. Hence the point about this not being a public investment where growth rates are more important to investors than actual cash.

If I was SISU I’d buy Derby. If I was a sheikh I’d buy as good as I could afford without being ripped off. My understanding is this guy is in the second category, if he isn’t then I apologise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Chewy said:

Understand that higher turnover equates to more valuable asset, but if the outlay required from your own pocket is as big or greater than the gain, you’re not any richer, or you are poorer.

Of course the product of football can then continue to grow, but then saints would gain the same cash value. Percentage wise it’s not as big, but in cash terms it is. Hence the point about this not being a public investment where growth rates are more important to investors than actual cash.

If I was SISU I’d buy Derby. If I was a sheikh I’d buy as good as I could afford without being ripped off. My understanding is this guy is in the second category, if he isn’t then I apologise.

You were talking about who was the better investment, and couldn't understand why anyone would think it would be Derby I'd suggest it's probably only you that thinks its not. Now you're saying if you had a bottomless pit of cash to buy whatever toy you wanted. If you could buy as good as you wanted then again, the answer still wouldn't be Saints. 

Edited by Turkish
Link to post
Share on other sites

Missing the point. Saints are a better investment for anyone. It costs less overall, is less risky and returns more cash. It does, however, require more cash up front and doesn’t have a pretty upward graph.

Of course, if you can’t afford it then Derby is a perfectly good option with a lovely stadium, excellent history (more trophies than us), a prettier growth chart but a bad accent, a fetish, and less cash.

Do you want more cash or less as an investor?

And as far as I’m aware the proposed Derby purchaser is an extremely wealthy individual, which is why I made the point - it’s very obviously relevant.

You suggested choosing Derby over Southampton was a no brainier. It’s riskier, and likely a more expensive option. It’s potential returns are much riskier and in CASH terms no higher, probably less.

whether it is a better ‘investment’ is entirely dependent on what you want to happen to your investment. If you want the highest pile of cash (and can afford the purchase) you’d choose saints. You’re simply likelier to get more.
Personally I’d want more cash.But then maybe this fella has so much he doesn’t care, wants to expand a portfolio, have his face on TV, go partying in Derby’s famous night spots, marry a duck. No idea.

I do know it’s not a no brainer better investment.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Chewy said:

Missing the point. Saints are a better investment for anyone. It costs less overall, is less risky and returns more cash. It does, however, require more cash up front and doesn’t have a pretty upward graph.

Of course, if you can’t afford it then Derby is a perfectly good option with a lovely stadium, excellent history (more trophies than us), a prettier growth chart but a bad accent, a fetish, and less cash.

Do you want more cash or less as an investor?

And as far as I’m aware the proposed Derby purchaser is an extremely wealthy individual, which is why I made the point - it’s very obviously relevant.

You suggested choosing Derby over Southampton was a no brainier. It’s riskier, and likely a more expensive option. It’s potential returns are much riskier and in CASH terms no higher, probably less.

whether it is a better ‘investment’ is entirely dependent on what you want to happen to your investment. If you want the highest pile of cash (and can afford the purchase) you’d choose saints. You’re simply likelier to get more.
Personally I’d want more cash.But then maybe this fella has so much he doesn’t care, wants to expand a portfolio, have his face on TV, go partying in Derby’s famous night spots, marry a duck. No idea.

I do know it’s not a no brainer better investment.

 

if i was an investor i'd want to see a return on my money. I'd get that by investing in a club where i could quadruple it's income. If i was someone where money was no object could buy what i wanted and had no affiliation to Southampton then i wouldn't buy Southampton.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Turkish said:

if i was an investor i'd want to see a return on my money. I'd get that by investing in a club where i could quadruple it's income. 

You COULD get that by investing in a club where you could quadruple its income. 
IF the club gets promoted. 
And once you’ve repaid yourself the investment it took. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chewy said:

You COULD get that by investing in a club where you could quadruple its income. 
IF the club gets promoted. 
And once you’ve repaid yourself the investment it took. 

Or you COULD buy a premier league club for £200m, it gets relegated and you lose £150m, revenue drops by 3/4s and you're left with a wage bill higher than turnover. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Or you COULD buy a premier league club for £200m, it gets relegated and you lose £150m, revenue drops by 3/4s and you're left with a wage bill higher than turnover. 

True. But neither our relegation or Derby’s promotion are at all likely this season, are they.

Without messing up the squad, relegation shouldn’t be an issue for us next season either.

Apart from the season they loaned half of Chelsea, Derby haven’t been a promotion candidate in years. So I’d suggest rebuilding the entire team might take more than this summer too. 
Two extra seasons of PL income is worth what? 
You’re hardly comparing based on similarly likely scenarios, are you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At a very basic level:

£180m  to buy Southampton or £60m to buy Derby.  Potential for ROI significantly higher by buying Derby.  Very limited chance of increasing value in Southampton beyond what it is now without spending on transfers.

Derby have decent ground and training facilities so it becomes how much do you think needs to be spent to build a squad to get promoted.  Spend £60m to go up and then have an asset worth £180m (taking Saints as comparative).  Not  a bad return.

Clearly higher risk with Derby as spending £60m doesn't guarantee promotion plus how much more to stay there but much greater upside if it comes off.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewYorkSaint said:

Patience, friends. Sometimes, good things take a while...  

Nothing's guaranteed. But I'm pretty sure there will be exciting news within a couple weeks.  Wish I could say more.

From out of nowhere..... can you say if the person(s) have been mentioned so far ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Derby going top be bottom of the championship tonight. 

Obviously a long way to go but a League 1 club for £60 million is potentially a lot and there are wage caps in League 1 so even harder to just spend to get out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/11/2020 at 12:43, Chewy said:

Missing the point. Saints are a better investment for anyone. It costs less overall, is less risky and returns more cash. It does, however, require more cash up front and doesn’t have a pretty upward graph.

Of course, if you can’t afford it then Derby is a perfectly good option with a lovely stadium, excellent history (more trophies than us), a prettier growth chart but a bad accent, a fetish, and less cash.

Do you want more cash or less as an investor?

And as far as I’m aware the proposed Derby purchaser is an extremely wealthy individual, which is why I made the point - it’s very obviously relevant.

You suggested choosing Derby over Southampton was a no brainier. It’s riskier, and likely a more expensive option. It’s potential returns are much riskier and in CASH terms no higher, probably less.

whether it is a better ‘investment’ is entirely dependent on what you want to happen to your investment. If you want the highest pile of cash (and can afford the purchase) you’d choose saints. You’re simply likelier to get more.
Personally I’d want more cash.But then maybe this fella has so much he doesn’t care, wants to expand a portfolio, have his face on TV, go partying in Derby’s famous night spots, marry a duck. No idea.

I do know it’s not a no brainer better investment.

 

The mistake you're making is comparing buying Derby now, and adding on what it takes to get them to where Saints on now, with buying Saints now and keeping them where they are now.

It's a bit like buying a run down house (Derby) on Homes Under the Hammer, paying just as much again top do it up, and making it worth well over your total expenditure,, or buying a decent house (Saints) and doing nothing to it except general maintenance and it's value stasys the same (ignoring general market inflation)

What you should be comparing is buying Derby now and getting them to mid-table Premier League (increased value) against buying Saints now and getting them to Champions League regulars (increased value)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wurzel said:

The mistake you're making is comparing buying Derby now, and adding on what it takes to get them to where Saints on now, with buying Saints now and keeping them where they are now.

It's a bit like buying a run down house (Derby) on Homes Under the Hammer, paying just as much again top do it up, and making it worth well over your total expenditure,, or buying a decent house (Saints) and doing nothing to it except general maintenance and it's value stasys the same (ignoring general market inflation)

What you should be comparing is buying Derby now and getting them to mid-table Premier League (increased value) against buying Saints now and getting them to Champions League regulars (increased value)

Exactly. And the cost of getting saints to be long term champions league regulars would be more than the cost of buying the club in the first place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wurzel said:

The mistake you're making is comparing buying Derby now, and adding on what it takes to get them to where Saints on now, with buying Saints now and keeping them where they are now.

It's a bit like buying a run down house (Derby) on Homes Under the Hammer, paying just as much again top do it up, and making it worth well over your total expenditure,, or buying a decent house (Saints) and doing nothing to it except general maintenance and it's value stasys the same (ignoring general market inflation)

What you should be comparing is buying Derby now and getting them to mid-table Premier League (increased value) against buying Saints now and getting them to Champions League regulars (increased value)

Sorry but that’s a gibberish analogy. It’s more like buying the rundown house in a much sh1tter area, spending as much as it would have cost to buy the nicer house in the first place, hoping the sh1t area becomes hip and happening, sky rocketing the value; all while having a massively reduced income (you’ve probably given up your job to do it up yourself) so unless your area does turn into the next Notting Hill you’ve blown a fortune while not having the income  to afford the costs in the short term.

You might get lucky, but chances are you won’t. You’ll be left with an asset worth less than you’ve spent on it in an area that’s still sh1t.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Chewy said:

Sorry but that’s a gibberish analogy. It’s more like buying the rundown house in a much sh1tter area, spending as much as it would have cost to buy the nicer house in the first place, hoping the sh1t area becomes hip and happening, sky rocketing the value; all while having a massively reduced income (you’ve probably given up your job to do it up yourself) so unless your area does turn into the next Notting Hill you’ve blown a fortune while not having the income  to afford the costs in the short term.

You might get lucky, but chances are you won’t. You’ll be left with an asset worth less than you’ve spent on it in an area that’s still sh1t.

 

I’ll ask you again, if what you say is true why did Liebherr buy us over established premier leave teams like Blackburn, Bolton, Portsmouth and Fulham?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Turkish said:

Why did Liebherr buy us over established premier leave teams like Blackburn, Bolton, Portsmouth and Fulham?

Being significantly cheaper of course helps and brings more upside if promoted twice. But I'd guess it was at least in part because we have a bigger fan base and better infrastructure than all of them.

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chewy said:

Sorry but that’s a gibberish analogy. It’s more like buying the rundown house in a much sh1tter area, spending as much as it would have cost to buy the nicer house in the first place

 

Thing is, you don't have to spend as much. It doesn't cost £100m to get to the PL from the Championship, and once you do get promotion, your spending spree to stay up is funded (for now) by the vastly increased TV revenue and the safety net of parachute payments. You also seem to imply that football club owners (outside of Man U, Arsenal and a few others with massively elevated commercial incomes) earn money from their clubs' annual revenues - they don't.

If you're trying to make money from buying a non-elite football club, the only game in town is asset appreciation, in which case there's almost no value in a club like Saints unless you're planning a tilt at the CL, which would be VASTLY more expensive than trying to take a Championship club into the PL.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Being significantly cheaper of course helps and brings more upside if promoted twice. But I'd guess it was at least in part because we have a bigger fan base and better infrastructure than all of them.

For once you are right and despite being the most pedantic man ever to have an internet connection you have confirmed my point

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, verlaine1979 said:

Thing is, you don't have to spend as much. It doesn't cost £100m to get to the PL from the Championship, and once you do get promotion, your spending spree to stay up is funded (for now) by the vastly increased TV revenue and the safety net of parachute payments. You also seem to imply that football club owners (outside of Man U, Arsenal and a few others with massively elevated commercial incomes) earn money from their clubs' annual revenues - they don't.

If you're trying to make money from buying a non-elite football club, the only game in town is asset appreciation, in which case there's almost no value in a club like Saints unless you're planning a tilt at the CL, which would be VASTLY more expensive than trying to take a Championship club into the PL.

No, you have to spend more than £100 million to get promoted - this is a team at the lower end of the championship needing basically an entire new team at (to be premier league standard) an average of what, £20m each plus 4 years of wages to commit to?

While not having the additional premier league income of what, £75m (additional) per year. So that’s £350 m over 2 years plus 4 year wage commitments for a team.

With no guarantee that spend gets you promoted anyway.
It’s more costly buying and developing Derby, with no guarantee of success.

And the losses you’d have to commit to via wages until you secure promotion are eye-watering when you don’t have premier league income. We struggle with it!!

Appreciate saints aren’t guaranteed to stay up either, but the mathematical odds of us staying up v Derby getting promoted are stacked very heavily in our favour, certainly for this season and next.

Edited by Chewy
Add over 2 years for clarity if 350m figure
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Turkish said:

I’ll ask you again, if what you say is true why did Liebherr buy us over established premier leave teams like Blackburn, Bolton, Portsmouth and Fulham?

I’ll answer you again, I don’t know and neither do you.

what I do know is we were spectacularly lucky at securing back-to-back promotions to achieve it. Some real skill undoubtedly, but definitely a lot of luck. It also took us 2 years to get out of league one, showing even in that lowly competition spend isn’t guaranteed instant success (points deduction not withstanding).

Unless Derby get up within a couple of seasons, the outlay in covering income shortfall while spending massively on squad development vastly outweighs any ‘saving’ on a cheaper purchase price. 
Well done on having turned your penny into a pound, but it cost you 2 pounds to achieve it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Turkish said:

For once you are right and despite being the most pedantic man ever to have an internet connection you have confirmed my point

So do Derby have a bigger fan base and better infrastructure than us?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Chewy said:

No, you have to spend more than £100 million to get promoted - this is a team at the lower end of the championship needing basically an entire new team at (to be premier league standard) an average of what, £20m each plus 4 years of wages to commit to?

Sheffield United's Championship promotion squad was not made up of anything remotely close to a squad of £20m signings. Same for lots of other recently promoted teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/11/2020 at 11:43, Turkish said:

Let me ask you this, why in 2009 did Marcus Liebherr buy us and not Fulham, Blackburn, Bolton or Pompey. They were all established premier league clubs with premier league squads and a much less risky investment. 

Because Nicola Cortese convinced him to

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Chewy said:

So do Derby have a bigger fan base and better infrastructure than us?

They don't have a smaller fanbase if that's what you're trying to imply. Even in drab, bang average Championship seasons, Derby pull in gates of 26k pretty easily. In seasons where they challenge for the top six they're up to 29k.

We dropped down to the Championship and we were down to 23k in a flash. In our triumphant promotion season we scraped 26k.

Derby have a very decent fanbase and always have had. Plenty of history and heritage and stadium in a place where it could be expanded.

Derby have decent training facilities but I am sure ours are better but if the Arabs buy Derby I'm sure they'd sort that out.

There's a whole world outside of Hampshire mate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting debate. 

We have a value as an established Premier league club with a premier league squad,but with the wage and other commitments to go with it. Of course Derby would be cheaper, it's a championship club with the players to go with it.

Someone could buy Derby, spend tens of millions and never get promoted, or get promotion and then £100m+ and get relegated. It's a gamble, and hardly a great investment. 

The truth is that it's impossible to know whether Derby could get to where we are, and if so what it would cost. 

Personally, I'd see paying £180m for us as a better option than £60m on a project / gamble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, egg said:

Interesting debate. 

We have a value as an established Premier league club with a premier league squad,but with the wage and other commitments to go with it. Of course Derby would be cheaper, it's a championship club with the players to go with it.

Someone could buy Derby, spend tens of millions and never get promoted, or get promotion and then £100m+ and get relegated. It's a gamble, and hardly a great investment. 

The truth is that it's impossible to know whether Derby could get to where we are, and if so what it would cost. 

Personally, I'd see paying £180m for us as a better option than £60m on a project / gamble.

Isn’t that also applicable to us though? We could easily spend 100m and hardly improve our squad. I mean we pretty much blew nearly that on Carrillo, hodet, lamina, elyounoussi and Gunn. 

the difference being, if we get relegated, our value drops significantly. 
 

on the basis of us not going to keep Ralph forever, we’d need to spend 100-150m (wisely) minimum to break into top 6 regularly. Imo. 

Edited by SKD
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SKD said:

Isn’t that also applicable to us though? We could easily spend 100m and hardly improve our squad. I mean we pretty much blew nearly that on Carrillo, hodet, lamina, elyounoussi and Gunn. 

the difference being, if we get relegated, our value drops significantly. 

Not sure i understand. Someone could buy us as is. They could do a Gao and not put their hand in their pocket. If you buy Derby, you need to put money in to chase promotion, and then more money to have a chance of staying there. Much more chance of a newly promoted club getting relegated than us with our current squad. 

Edited by egg
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

They don't have a smaller fanbase if that's what you're trying to imply. 

There's a whole world outside of Hampshire mate.

It absolutely wasn’t what I was implying. Turkish was implying it was bigger than ours in the way ours is bigger to Bolton’s. I was checking that was what he was suggesting because I don’t agree, I think we’re pretty equal.

And I made the point a few posts back that Derby have had more actual success than us, being very aware of the world outside Hampshire. They have better history, a slightly better stadium, probably poorer training facilities and a similar fan base who are probably a bit more passionate and a bit less entitled than ours. I think that’s a fair, balanced view but happy to be corrected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

Sheffield United's Championship promotion squad was not made up of anything remotely close to a squad of £20m signings. Same for lots of other recently promoted teams.

Exception or rule? How many clubs have invested heavily and failed, leading to financial ruin vs got promoted on a shoe string?

And perhaps the lack of squad depth is beginning to show there? 
Just goes to show sometimes it’s down to money and sometimes a bit of luck ... or good fortune ... or some other definition ...

 

Edited by Chewy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})