parklane1
Vic Buckingham
My thoughts as well, sadly there are some fans who do not care where the money comes from
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Mauricio Pochettino
- Thread starter Dorothy
- Start date
My thoughts as well, sadly there are some fans who do not care where the money comes from
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Not for 5m and Onomah, or whatever it was we offered them in their desperation.
I didn't even want the bloke at the time, because I thought we could get better players. Shows what I know - we got bloody nobody that summer, and nobody in January as well. Grealish would have been better than f*ck all.
The phrases that were bandied about here, there and everywhere were 'whom do you bench/no one out there who could improve us'. I think they can serve as a fitting epitaph on our Icarus-like fall from the heights this time around.
Jurgen the German
Tommy Harmer
I agree there were times when Poch should have been backed more by the board. But he’s still won nothing and Klopp, Pep and Simeone are all better coaches for me. Poch did blow a lot of money on players like Sanchez, Sissoko (if that was really his signing although I’m not sure) and Aurier. The former being just about the only South American who can’t pass a ball 5 yards and gets bullied by just about every forward in the league. Compare that to Klopp’s signings at Liverpool and I’m struggling to think of a flop.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
A) You think we were entirely self-funded when we broke the British transfer record multiple times in the 1960s to get the players we did? Greaves for £99,999? When we bought the first £100,000 player a few years after that?
Cheating my *rse, it's the way they game has always worked. There is absolutely no morality to being a cheap, unsuccessful investment vehicle for a tax-dodging billionaire exile who shorted the pound on Black Wednesday, costing this country billions in the process.
B) FSG aren't murderers, aren't oil sheikhs, aren't oligarchs, aren't dictators. They haven't even put all that much in over 10 years, relative to Abramovich or Abu Dhabi - I did a long post a while back analyzing it, came pit to roughly 150m. For that limited amount money, they have made history.
ENIC have put in absolutely nothing, and their reign has been the longest, most barren spell in terms of trophies in the history of the club. My hope is that when they eventually sell up and retire to the Bahamas to play with their well-deserved profits, the club remembers them as they treated us - a bloody footnote to the accounts.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
I did an analysis of Poch's career trajectory a while back, I think on this thread. TL;DR - Poch was on about year 8 or 9 of his professional managerial career when he was sacked. At that stage of his own career, Klopp had won nothing - he had been fairly successful at Mainz, much like Poch was at Southampton and Espanyol, and he was still rebuilding Dortmund - they didn't even make the CL in that time.
By contrast, by Year 9 of his own career, Poch was performing absolute miracles with us with no budget, no backing. He transformed us in a way that Klopp only managed much later in his own career.
I think Poch's career trajectory will surpass Klopp's. We'll see, but that's my belief - he's too good not to.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Part of Liverpool's success is having people like Michael Edwards, who used to work for us before being poached by them. Ditto Alex Inglethorpe, and Comolli, further back.
Why were they able to make a difference there, but not here? Well, we can only speculate, but Paul Mitchell suggested a little while ago that the reason he left was because of the constraints around transfers and team-building at Spurs. If accurate, I suspect that is why we lost those others as well - we don't actually want to build winning teams, we want to build profitable teams. The two almost never match, and the latter takes priority for Levy.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Dunno, but it's a bit of a weird take considering he won the league for two years running before that. Crucial backing = success, almost always.
Baleforce
Martin Peters
A. I wasn’t around then, but if it was more than we could afford then it was wrong.
B. Let’s see what state they leave them in and how they make their money before we judge them.
I just can’t understand the attitude of entitlement that leads to fans demanding other people put their own money into football clubs when the chance of a return is so low, that is no way to run a business. It comes off as rude, ENIC don’t owe us anything.
Baleforce
Martin Peters
In the short term, what state are City or Chelsea in if the owners get bored and stop putting money in?
ENIC could sell the club tomorrow, or even give it away, and THFC would remain a viable business that could run itself for years to come.
Bedfordspurs
Arthur Rowe
I certainly agree about the FSG comments
I don’t see ENIC selling Anytime soon though as no one is gonna pay the value they put in the club I’m afraid
There is talk of us being valued in excess of a £b quid.. especially when compared to other clubs ludicrous values. That’s bonkers with £600m debt on the books
And ENIC don’t look like putting any money In soon as they have no money. We’re their sole return now
Bedfordspurs
Arthur Rowe
roman isn’t putting any money in anymore
Their buys have been with the money for sales that they couldn’t spend before and their planning on some sales too to recoup money they want to spend
city’s owners have money to burn literally .... and have points to prove
Bedfordspurs
Arthur Rowe
Agree with this
Baleforce
Martin Peters
chelsea owe RA over a billion quid though don't they, that will have to be paid back somehow
Bedfordspurs
Arthur Rowe
it’s just a way for him to shift money and pay less tax on the past
He will never claim it unless he sells the club
Baleforce
Martin Peters
thats the scenario I'm talking about
Bedfordspurs
Arthur Rowe
Yeah but that’s all a long way off
He ain’t going away but he isn’t pumping money in either
Their now staying on their own two feet so to speak
But of course they cooked the books to get there
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Well, I guess that's...consistent? So let me get this straight - you think we should disavow our titles from the 60s and 70s (our golden age, mind), because we spent a lot and probably beyond our means, and that's wrong? And you would prefer that we be run purely to minimize ENIC's involvement and on a revenue-neutral basis - that is what counts as right and moral in your eyes?
I mean, you're fully entitled to that opinion, but I think almost no one in football, out of all the billions who follow the sport, would agree with you. Almost every club has spent money they don't have at various points in their history, because...
...no one supports a business, mate. No one supports our balance sheets, no one wears ENIC flags to the stadium or cheers when our stock prices go up. We aren't a business, we never will be a business, and thank GHod football will never be about profits for the owners. It is, and will be, about dreams, about winning.
I've asked this question before, genuinely - if fans love that we are run like a business by skinflint owners with nothing to show for it for 25 years, and that's the moral way to do things....what prevents you, or anyone, from supporting the best-run business, instead of us? United earn tons of revenue, much more than us - if you're going by that model being moral, they are far more morally righteous than us, since they earn more than us while remaining a sustainable business. They're more righteous than us, because they're better at being a business. Surely it behooves people to support them over us?
As for ENIC, they owe us nothing, true. By that token, we owe them absolutely nothing either - they exist as faceless investment speculators. When they sell us with their well-deserved profits (which I pray will be soon), hopefully they will go down as a single footnote in our yearly accounts, because all they will have done is run the club semi-competently with our own money for 20-odd years. That's the flipside of being as uninvested as they are.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Chelsea are entirely sustainable. If Abramovich sells tomorrow, short of calling in his loans (a large part of which has been converted to equity anyway, so no debt to repay there), nothing will change.
I have no doubt City are structured similarly. City and Chelsea are viable businesses. They've just won a lot before turning themselves into viable businesses, but I'd wager they are no more vulnerable than we are now. They've been structured that way.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Yeah, we're stuck with them for now, unfortunately. Until they get their massive profit and f*ck off, anyway. Maybe one day.
Bedfordspurs
Arthur Rowe
I think their completely invested
Just that their investment is fine and knowledge of growing a business
In football terms that’s a good thing but possibly a bad thing too when your up against other clubs that don’t do it the same way
It’s like comparing a stupid kid with a 5 star education and the privilege that brings vs a kid off the council block who is supper smart and hard working but is getting an inferior chance due to where he is from and who his parents are..