Budget for incoming.

[pommpey]

So, let's all accept the Pomps position which I think is:

1. McCabe is a disingenuous snake oil salesman expert in the use of smoke and mirrors.
2. As a result whatever he says cannot be believed or trusted.
3. On one particular matter, being the game changing investment, as a result of 1 and 2 above it never existed or if it did, it was investment but less than what we as supporters might term game changing.

OK. Let's say I accept that. But what could have been the motive for such an alleged untruth? To somehow keep power? He already has it and I don't see the massed ranks of the South Stand Casuals and Westfield Ultras waving pitchforks in the car park trying to oust him in a fans take over. To look good? To somehow increase his Bigger Blade quotient? Can't see it myself, but if that is all you have to complain about, some bloke bigging himself up by bullshitting then gerralife.

If there is no money, where does beating the owners get you or us?

Or is it something else? Is it that it there was money but it has been spent unwisely, wrongly or been misappropriated? What precisely is the complaint and if there is one what do you think will occur if you just keep banging on about it?

Okay. A reasoned response, to which comes a reasoned reply. I will try to answer this in a onner, so as not to fragment the issue

The two statements you posit at the top I feel more or less describe McCabe. He's not crooked (by a long stretch) but he is disingenuous. A lot of fans also swallow his bullshit to eagerly and that bullshit he uses as a surfboard to ride the rocks of criticism spending (WWF's figures, so blame him) some sixty million on the club in 'x' years. The statements - 'game changing' and 'when promoted' have both turned out to be nothing more than taglines for the evangelical to latch onto. Strangely, I believed him to an extent when he said about us being promoted because I envisaged more cash being available to the club over a forcasted financial period and the requirement - players above Division One standard - is evident. We have signed one player from above our previous league position and the rest from below. That player is now injured. So criticising the owners is a perfect gesture that in our opinion (and forgive me for speaking collectively, but there's more than me opining this) it just isn't good enough saying one thing and hoping we'll forget what was said, and further hoping this club will progress on goodwill and tankful of donkeypiss. Turning back to the pitch, it is very evident we are not the complete article with Basham covering centre back and still not showing solidity, the midfield relying on the fitness and availability of Fleck and Coutts and the frontline having some ability but zero pace. Why do I keep on banging on about it? Because two, three, five years ago it was still the same with galacticos like Flynn, Doyle, Sammon, Woolford, Higdon and McEveley all showing (after 'game changing') and the side screaming out for that investment. Now we are promoted ... what?

pommpey

 

[pommpey]

Why would you say that??? WHYYYY??

Great isn't it. Can't answer properly, so resort to old arguments or insults.

pommpey

 

[Pierre's PC]

Great isn't it. Can't answer properly, so resort to old arguments or insults.

pommpey

You surely can't fail to see the irony in this post?

 

[pommpey]

You surely can't fail to see the irony in this post?

Feller, if you want to talk about the Desso, bring it on. Many on here (like with McCabe and transfers) have failed to provide evidence to the contrary. But if you want the pages filled with it, the floor's yours.

pommpey

 

[Pierre's PC]

Feller, if you want to talk about the Desso, bring it on. Many on here (like with McCabe and transfers) have failed to provide evidence to the contrary. But if you want the pages filled with it, the floor's yours.

pommpey

No thanks, don't see the point in getting involved in circular discussions. It's pointless and no one has ever had their opinion changed on a interwebz forum.

Have fun though

 

[The Crab]

Why would you say that??? WHYYYY??

 

[S5Blade]

because I envisaged more cash being available to the club over a forcasted financial period and the requirement - players above Division One standard - is evident. We have signed one player from above our previous league position and the rest from below. That player is now injured. So criticising the owners is a perfect gesture that in our opinion (and forgive me for speaking collectively, but there's more than me opining this) it just isn't good enough saying one thing and hoping we'll forget what was said, and further hoping this club will progress on goodwill and tankful of donkeypiss.

pommpey

- Can you please enlighten us exactly how much cash we have available? Or even, if possible, where Wilder has said he hasnt got enough and needs more? Or that the board is not backing him correctly, as expected?
- Why do any players we sign have to be from the division above? What difference does it have to do with anything? If the Manager (who you so rightly back) decides these are the players he wants to sign to take us forward as a club, then what difference does it make what division they played in the previous season? and, how, is that the boards fault?

If you could please answer those 2 points succinctly, it would be very much appreciated.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

We have signed one player from above our previous league position and the rest from below. That player is now injured. So criticising the owners is a perfect gesture that in our opinion (and forgive me for speaking collectively, but there's more than me opining this) it just isn't good enough saying one thing and hoping we'll forget what was said, and further hoping this club will progress on goodwill and tankful of donkeypiss. Turning back to the pitch, it is very evident we are not the complete article with Basham covering centre back and still not showing solidity, the midfield relying on the fitness and availability of Fleck and Coutts and the frontline having some ability but zero pace. Why do I keep on banging on about it? Because two, three, five years ago it was still the same with galacticos like Flynn, Doyle, Sammon, Woolford, Higdon and McEveley all showing (after 'game changing') and the side screaming out for that investment. Now we are promoted ... what?

pommpey

Seeing as we're discussing this reasonably, can I ask why this is s criticism of the owners excluding the manager?
Signing players from the lower leagues seem to be his strategy, and I've not seen any quote or comment from him that he is frustrated with the board not backing him for the players he wants.

For the record I largely agree with your other points.

 

[Snowman]

Thanks. So it boils down to, he is disingenuous (though I still don't get the motive) and we haven't got the money (defined as game changing) that he "promised". The necessary (agreed) recruitment process is therefore suffering?

Contra to that is, we've had the game changing money but it got spent on paying off Weir, Clough and family, Adkins and removing assorted bad signings. Your response presumably that it's his fault he recruited such crap which then means you have to accept money was needed to pay them off.

This one could run and run! I'm out!

 

[I should coco]

This one could run and run! I'm out!

Me too.

There's some unattended paint drying away all on its own.

 

[Deaneandagana]

Thanks. So it boils down to, he is disingenuous (though I still don't get the motive) and we haven't got the money (defined as game changing) that he "promised". The necessary (agreed) recruitment process is therefore suffering?

Contra to that is, we've had the game changing money but it got spent on paying off Weir, Clough and family, Adkins and removing assorted bad signings. Your response presumably that it's his fault he recruited such crap which then means you have to accept money was needed to pay them off.

This one could run and run! I'm out!

Fascinating debate - seriously, however as I stated in an earlier thread, the problem has been created by McCabe in the use of his chosen terminology.

To the average man in the Cricketers public house enjoying a pint on a Saturday lunchtime prior to a home game, the phrase "game changing investment" only means 1 thing, it does not mean supporting the club through injections of cash to cover trading losses - also this statement came shortly after McCabe claimed that he & his family were no longer going to support the club financially & therefore the club had to stand on its own feet (credit goes to Sean Thornton for this)

McCabes single biggest failing is his inability to control his emotions & more importantly realise who his audience is.

 

[Harrisblade]

Fascinating debate - seriously, however as I stated in an earlier thread, the problem has been created by McCabe in the use of his chosen terminology.

To the average man in the Cricketers public house enjoying a pint on a Saturday lunchtime prior to a home game, the phrase "game changing investment" only means 1 thing, it does not mean supporting the club through injections of cash to cover trading losses - also this statement came shortly after McCabe claimed that he & his family were no longer going to support the club financially & therefore the club had to stand on its own feet (credit goes to Sean Thornton for this)

McCabes single biggest failing is his inability to control his emotions & more importantly realise who his audience is.

From another point of view, what if the "game changing investment" referred to the McCabe family rather than SUFC and without the said investment, McCabe was going to walk away, or at least, not pour any more money into the abyss?
(Though the last paragraph still applies to this scenario)

 

[Fulwood Blade]

For the record I largely agree with your other points.

Is that the long playing record that continually plays the same tune over and over and over and over............?

UTB

 

[More Bladier than thou]

Clarity. We would all like an explanation for the game changing investment comments and why it has not been acted upon, has something changed? Was there no money in the first place? It seems that way.

 

[pommpey]

Clarity. We would all like an explanation for the game changing investment comments and why it has not been acted upon, has something changed? Was there no money in the first place? It seems that way.

Hooray. Now, can you tell him ... him ... him and him please? There seems to be some sort of lack of understanding about this. Maybe they might admit that McCabe was a bit of a fibber when we questioned why he was taking on HRH as a partner and said it, and fibbed a bit more when he said 'money in the Championship' too. Rather than the messianic saviour of our club. Maybe the next time he goes on record making these statements to fend off criticism we should treat it with the contempt it deserves. Because that is what he has shown the supporters by making such statements.

Ten days to prove us wrong, mind.

pommpey

 

[pommpey]

- Can you please enlighten us exactly how much cash we have available? Or even, if possible, where Wilder has said he hasnt got enough and needs more? Or that the board is not backing him correctly, as expected?

a. No idea. WWF fan knows, mind. I have asked him, but he's gone all quiet now. b. Historically, no manager under contract has said any such thing. c. We need a central defender and have done since Harry left.

- Why do any players we sign have to be from the division above? What difference does it have to do with anything? If the Manager (who you so rightly back) decides these are the players he wants to sign to take us forward as a club, then what difference does it make what division they played in the previous season? and, how, is that the boards fault?

a. Because the players we sign from below won't have the skillsets, maybe? I dunno. Maybe Carruthers is the answer. Baldock? Thomas? Wilder is certainly running them straight out, isn't he? b. See above. c. See above. d. Because, apparently, we were meant to be getting investment when we were promoted.


pommpey

 

[chipsncake]

From another point of view, what if the "game changing investment" referred to the McCabe family rather than SUFC and without the said investment, McCabe was going to walk away, or at least, not pour any more money into the abyss?
(Though the last paragraph still applies to this scenario)

If this was the case then why did he refer to "Liverpool"?

 

[TarquinDelouche]

Re: "game changing investment" problems. I don't know which game you were watching some four or so years ago but the one I were watching were fucking shit and it got us relegated to League One. The game done changed.

 

[TarquinDelouche]

a. No idea.

d. Because, apparently, we were meant to be getting investment when we were promoted.


pommpey

So what you've said there is that you don't know the budget, but you're disappointed in how much (or little) it is.

 

[pommpey]

So what you've said there is that you don't know the budget, but you're disappointed in how much (or little) it is.

Yes, I don't know what the budget was but:

a. Woodward Fan does. He's 'spoken to people' about it and it is 'significantly higher'. I'm intrigued

b. If it is (and I have no reason to disbelieve anyone on this ... its not as though you lie like a fucking hairy egg about things like transfer capability and investment, is it?) then I'm sure you, me him ... everybody would be really bally grateful if WWF would spill tha beanz and tell us.

If it's two cracked conkers, a fart and a spider with no legs however I will be disappointed. Given what we have signed so far, I'm starting to wonder ...

pommpey

 

[S5Blade]

a. No idea. WWF fan knows, mind. I have asked him, but he's gone all quiet now. b. Historically, no manager under contract has said any such thing. c. We need a central defender and have done since Harry left.



a. Because the players we sign from below won't have the skillsets, maybe? I dunno. Maybe Carruthers is the answer. Baldock? Thomas? Wilder is certainly running them straight out, isn't he? b. See above. c. See above. d. Because, apparently, we were meant to be getting investment when we were promoted.


pommpey

Sorry. My bullshit meter blew up. So everything is just conjuncture and opinion on your part, but that obviously means you are right.

Deary me. Back under your rock Pompey. 6 points already from 4 games, above the pigs, in 10th place, with a manager who loves the club, is getting everything he wants for the player HE wants yet still your boring rhetoric is poisoning the forum and trying to put a negative slant on everything.

Yawn off

 

[TarquinDelouche]

Yes, I don't know what the budget was but:

a. Woodward Fan does. He's 'spoken to people' about it and it is 'significantly higher'. I'm intrigued

b. If it is (and I have no reason to disbelieve anyone on this ... its not as though you lie like a fucking hairy egg about things like transfer capability and investment, is it?) then I'm sure you, me him ... everybody would be really bally grateful if WWF would spill tha beanz and tell us.

If it's two cracked conkers, a fart and a spider with no legs however I will be disappointed. Given what we have signed so far, I'm starting to wonder ...

pommpey

So your biggest complaint is that someone on a message board has said he knows something and you don't know if he really does or not.

 

[S5Blade]

So your biggest complaint is that someone on a message board has said he knows something and you don't know if he really does or not.

I think his biggest problem is McCabe once turned him down in Dempsey's or kingdom or something

 

[Barney]

I get that people wish to defend the club, but the simple fact remains; we were given assurances that a lot of investment would take place upon reaching the championship. We've reached the championship, and so far we have not seen that level of investment and are currently not even in a deficit but a substantial surplus. Most sensible people would recognise people's concerns with this.

 

[Sean Thornton]

[Q

If this was the case then why did he refer to "Liverpool"?

He didn't.

 

[PeteBlade]

I hope Wilder takes note and signs some "names" in the next week or so to satisfy the select group of people who like to piss and moan whatever's happening and still managed to find time to piss and moan about insignificant nonsense as we were pissing the league last year.

NB-
Must be from top 2 leagues.
Must cost enough money to count as game changing

 

[Pollingtonblade]

Seeing as we're discussing this reasonably, can I ask why this is s criticism of the owners excluding the manager?h
Signing players from the lower leagues seem to be his strategy, and I've not seen any quote or comment from him that he is frustrated with the board not backing him for the players he wants.

For the record I largely agree with your other points.

It's a good job message boards weren't about back in the 90s under Bassett when we used to sign players like Paul Rogers

 

[Sean Thornton]

I get that people wish to defend the club, but the simple fact remains; we were given assurances that a lot of investment would take place upon reaching the championship. We've reached the championship, and so far we have not seen that level of investment and are currently not even in a deficit but a substantial surplus. Most sensible people would recognise people's concerns with this.

Spot on, however we have to relive everything from the past rather than just stick to that point. I expressed an opinion which said that I felt they hadn't actually put cash in yet and why I thought that was so. Only my take on it but while demanding answers off others some are so scared of putting their head above the parapet they can't even bring themselves to give their own thoughts.

 

[Th!stledo]

How about we offer brass plates for seats with fans' names on at two grand a pop with the forlorn promise of free season tickets if we get to the promise land of PL ... nah, you would really have to think the fans are total idiots to fall for that one?

 

[Harrisblade]

If this was the case then why did he refer to "Liverpool"?

Wasn't that Phipps?