Goals on Sunday

[yorkshirecoast]

The only mistake in the original statement was the misinterpretation by some who heard it. As you say, a steady investment over years like Liverpool, rather than a massive splurge up front like Man City. It was all about the type of investing rather than actual amounts, which some jumped on. Though why people would think that SUFC in the 3rd division would match the hundreds of millions invested by Liverpool, chuff knows!

Let me get this right. When McCabe said "think Liverpool" he just meant steady investment? And he didn't mean at anything like the levels Liverpool invest, he just meant steady? So basically we won't see much investment but what we will see will remain steady? Why the hell did he even mention Liverpool and not say "think Southend United" or "think Forest Green Rovers" - as they also follow a steady investment approach. Unbe-fkin-lievable.

 

[Revolution]

The only mistake in the original statement was the misinterpretation by some who heard it. As you say, a steady investment over years like Liverpool, rather than a massive splurge up front like Man City. It was all about the type of investing rather than actual amounts, which some jumped on. Though why people would think that SUFC in the 3rd division would match the hundreds of millions invested by Liverpool, chuff knows!

I don't think this is 100 per cent accurate. McCabe said the investment would be "Game changing". That implied a significant increase in investment.

No one thought it would be hundreds of millions, but you could be forgiven for thinking we will have one of the bigger budgets in the division if we go up.

Personally, I have adopted "ignore what they say, watch what they do" since about 2008 where this regime is concerned.

 

[Harrisblade]

Let me get this right. When McCabe said "think Liverpool" he just meant steady investment? And he didn't mean at anything like the levels Liverpool invest, he just meant steady? So basically we won't see much investment but what we will see will remain steady? Why the hell did he even mention Liverpool and not say "think Southend United" or "think Forest Green Rovers" - as they also follow a steady investment approach. Unbe-fkin-lievable.

Didn't he actually say "Think Liverpool, not Man. City"?
How do you want to explain the contrast between 2 PL clubs rather than just picking the spending level of one of them?

 

[siblade]

Huddersfield and Preston?! Ffs. The excuse in L1 for poor investment was that we would only see the Prince investing big once we were in the Championship. This comment proves that was just more crap from our joke of a Board.

Does this poor investment exclude the vast amounts put in to keep the club afloat (eg £8M last season alone)?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Does this poor investment exclude the vast amounts put in to keep the club afloat (eg £8M last season alone)?

Never happend. I read it on here.

 

[Revolution]

Does this poor investment exclude the vast amounts put in to keep the club afloat (eg £8M last season alone)?

That's not investment. That's the cost of owning the asset.

 

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

I am sorry but I don't rate Uwe Rosler highly. I feel he is a 'sunshine manager' who is great and believable when things are going well but struggles when times get difficult. He has never achieved promotion with an English club. He jumped ship to Wigan from Brentford - leaving Mark Warburton to finish the task. He has since been sacked by Wigan and Leeds.

He originally set the bar low at Fleetwood and increases it when the target is met and has discounted 'automatic promotion' so that he does not feel under pressure.

His comments about Man City typified his approach. He said it will take a couple of transfer windows before they can come good because they won't have the funds to do it all in one go. At a value of of £532 million, their squad are ranked third in Europe - only below Man U and Real Madrid!!!

No matter how much you polish it, bullshit is still bullshit - as we found out with Madkins last season. There is a reason why Chris Wilder has never been sacked and I hope no matter what hardship the job brings him, that he will keep his open and honest approach.

Finally I would like to acknowledge the partnership of Alan Knill and Chris Wilder. Individually they are formidable but as a team they complement each other and bring so much to the table that they are really top drawer.

COYRAWW !!!

Spot on . Rosler has found his level . Second rate manager at a second rate club . Bit like Phil Brown taking the job at Southend . Both are at last chance saloon .

If Rosler gets the boot , his next job will not be any higher than being a TV pundit.

As you say , he ain't that good . Think he got found out at Brentford .

 

[Sean Thornton]

That's not investment. That's the cost of owning the asset.

They invested in shares.

 

[Revolution]

They invested in shares.

They invested in shares in a company which has a business. There are costs associated with running that business. Owners of all clubs who do not make a profit have to meet these costs.

 

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

I don't think this is 100 per cent accurate. McCabe said the investment would be "Game changing". That implied a significant increase in investment.

No one thought it would be hundreds of millions, but you could be forgiven for thinking we will have one of the bigger budgets in the division if we go up.

Personally, I have adopted "ignore what they say, watch what they do" since about 2008 where this regime is concerned.

Unfortunately in the past Kevin McCabe has not always engaged his brain when opening his mouth . Comments he has made with good intentions , but the anology being way off the mark .

Actions are louder than words as you rightly say. . We all wait with baited breath of what happens in the summer . One thing with Wilder , we will not be shafted , and have money well spent .

 

[Sean Thornton]

They invested in shares in a company which has a business. There are costs associated with running that business. Owners of all clubs who do not make a profit have to meet these costs.

They could have made loans. It's investment, due to losses or whatever.

No they don't. They could have borrowed. They haven't.

 

[seanbeenstattoo]

We should have gone full on for Samantha Hashimi. He'd have delivered like McDonald and Hinchcliffe did. That's where we went wrong.

 

[siblade]

That's not investment. That's the cost of owning the asset.

No it's not.

 

[Revolution]

No it's not.

Yes it is.

 

[Revolution]

They could have made loans. It's investment, due to losses or whatever.

No they don't. They could have borrowed. They haven't.

We've had this debate before. It's servicing your asset. Covering losses.

Even if it is investment, its not game changing investment though, is it?

 

[siblade]

Yes it is.

It's been explained to you why it's an investment, if you want to ignore the truth then fair enough.

 

[Revolution]

It's been explained to you why it's an investment, if you want to ignore the truth then fair enough.

again, I disagree.

But are you claiming this investment is "game changing"?

 

[Sean Thornton]

We've had this debate before. It's servicing your asset. Covering losses.

Even if it is investment, its not game changing investment though, is it?

And you were wrong before.

Have I said it was game changing?

If it's not investment, why bring up "game changing investment".

 

[Revolution]

And you were wrong before.

Have I said it was game changing?

If it's not investment, why bring up "game changing investment".

That's what we were talking about. Read the thread.

 

[Bayingblade]

Why all the arguing/pontificating/predicting/assuming/supposition? The bottom line is none of us know but we will see if......IF....we go up!

Then we can all slag the board and fall out with each other!

 

[Sean Thornton]

That's what we were talking about. Read the thread.

I've read it. After going on and on about "game changing investment" for years, you now decide that the £28m in shares isn't investment but the cost of doing business. Presumably if the club eventually makes profits, puts the balance sheet in a positive position and they take dividends out you'll be quite happy with that as its in the normal way of business?

 

[Revolution]

I've read it. After going on and on about "game changing investment" for years, you now decide that the £28m in shares isn't investment but the cost of doing business. Presumably if the club eventually makes profits, puts the balance sheet in a positive position and they take dividends out you'll be quite happy with that as its in the normal way of business?

There has, as yet,been no game changing investment per McCabes own definition. We were debating what people thought it meant when he said it when you did your WuMao bit and leapt in. Calm down.

And McCabe can do what he wants re dividends provided things go well for the team.

 

[siblade]

again, I disagree.

But are you claiming this investment is "game changing"?

Nope, never mentioned that quote

 

[Revolution]

Nope, never mentioned that quote

Well there's nothing further to say then, given that this is the issue I was originally addressing.

 

[Sean Thornton]

There has, as yet,been no game changing investment per McCabes own definition. We were debating what people thought it meant when he said it when you did your WuMao bit and leapt in. Calm down.

And McCabe can do what he wants re dividends provided things go well for the team.

Well that's the debate lost. Posting ""Calm down" guarantees a victory

Softened up by "leapt in" and "Wu Mao" then out for the count with an "angry"reference.

Top Bantz. Well done.

Love the last bit though. I for one believe you.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Nope, never mentioned that quote

Revolution did. Just to clarify like.

 

[siblade]

Revolution did. Just to clarify like.

Yes, I noticed, even though my original post was to someone else entirely which he jumped on.

 

[itsinyerblood]

Hopefully people will stop jizzing over Jags now.

Jizzing Over Jags - I intend to copyright that title, you never know, one minute a footballing moneybags, the next selling The Big Issue.

 

[Bladesman]

Google "game changing investment" and see what articles come up.

You maybe surprised by what other media outlets consider to be game changing.

 

[I should coco]

That's not investment. That's the cost of owning the asset.

Owners of all clubs who do not make a profit have to meet these costs.

We've had this debate before. It's servicing your asset. Covering losses.

Here we go again....

McCabe took over from the Texas/Mcdonlad shambles and it would seem everything since then has been his fault (except the promotion to the PL which was down to Warnock).

Presumably McCabe is expected continue paying this 'price' into eternity, as it is his 'fault' for getting involved with the club he supports?

No one has ever asked what would happen when/if McCabe's funds run dry. Whatever divsion we were in, wages would have to be cut to break even levels. This would probably mean underperformance on the pitch, leading to relegation and a drop in income, hence further cuts to wages.

This model is being tried at Coventry under the wonderful SISU stewardship.

Perhaps a little more thought as to what other options McCabe has might focus the minds of one or two on here. Please understand there is NO legal requirement for McCabe/HRH to keep chipping in to fund losses. The alternative is to let the club fold........