Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 65

Thread: Nuno's at the wheel

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    23,098
    Taksin

    It really is quite funny. For a start I haven't even mentioned money yet you seem to be obsessing over it.. Do try and read what I said and maybe in context too AND not after cutting it up as you tend to do so often.


    The inner monologue you seem to be calling the center of the debate is as follows:
    Let's see which clubs are better run, BUT don't include the ones who are actually half our size and better run because - their billionaires made their money in oil - or gas but not in soybeans..

    Come on man - can you not see how ridiculous this is?

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Steveo View Post

    I said I prefer the billionaire Roman over the Billionaire Henry.. One is football obsessed the other doesn't know how to say defence properly despite English being his first language.
    Now you are using a slight of hand to make them equivalent in all the ways that would get you off the hook. They aren't.

    One has flooded the club with his own money in the sugar daddy fashion and made the club his personal toy, tied to his identity

    the other has used business acumen to redirect the club's own resources towards success, without imposing his/their identity on the club. This implies 'running the club' is crucial as pouring in money is not part of the model. As running of the club is the source of our argument, that was the reason I specifically excluded those clubs from the debate - the one you've got lost in.

    That's why they are viewed differently by the general footballing public. You may see them as the same thing but I don't and neither do most people.

    if you want a sugar daddy, I'm not that interested. We are all free to want whatever we like. I can see why some Newcastle fans are delighted by the developments - I wouldn't be.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Steveo View Post
    For a start I haven't even mentioned money
    please try and be serious when writing your thoughts down.. otherwise it's pointless

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    23,098
    I am being serious, where did I say I want Roman because of his money? Surely I would want an Elon Musk or a petrodollar owner in that case?

    Once again you are confusing what you believe to be the case with the reality.

    I prefer a guy like Roman due to his genuine love of the sport. The fact - when not in exile - he is around the club and not absent. He puts his money in where he thinks it is needed, what wickedness. He will fund the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge (if allowed) himself, rather than do so expecting the club to pay him back. Is that wrong? Is that bad?

    Should I prefer a billionaire who doesn't want to risk any of his own money but prefers to have the club pay for itself? What is the real motive behind this type of ownership? Is it noble? Will FSG say when they sell: "we will only take back what we put in, for we love this club and just do this for the joy of the game?"

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,010
    Ah, but now you are confusing two arguments

    You criticised FSG on the basis of not injecting money and/or not spending our money
    You accused them of pilfering
    You said we only have the amazing players we currently have due to the fortunate details of the Coutinho sale etc etc

    The ensuing argument has been about how to run a club well and if we are seeing that (as opposed to a managerial miracle)

    The only club that you could think of that was run better than ours was Tottenham
    (for example with the creative use of debt to finance a stadium)

    This helped you to continue your criticism of the way our club was being run

    Way back then, I asked you to eliminate clubs who added money from their own pockets as this is
    a) a different model
    b) associated with oligarchs (or whatever you wish to call them), which most people agree are bad for the game (you don't but that's irrelevant for the original argument)


    If you now want to talk about how cool Roman Abramovic is, fill your boots but it's irrelevant to this debate unless you can show he has not injected his own money into the club and their success is not dependant on his personal financing

    So it is about money - that's all its about
    Last edited by Taksin; 3rd November 2021 at 01:57 PM.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,010
    By the way, Steveo, you referred to Chelsea as a club that is half our size. On what basis do you think the correct way is to measure that?

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    23,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Taksin View Post
    Ah, but now you are confusing two arguments
    How so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taksin View Post
    You criticised FSG on the basis of not injecting money and/or not spending our money
    You accused them of pilfering
    You said we only have the amazing players we currently have due to the fortunate details of the Coutinho sale etc etc
    And are they not pilfering Taksin..? They make no money from this club no? Quite sure of that are we..? Regardless of whether they do or have, they will be making 10 times what they put in when they sell. That's great business no argument but there are owners around who would win 5 times more with a manager like Jurgen Klopp.

    Who said we ONLY have amazing players because of the Coutinho sale? (are you again changing what was said?) - I said Virgil, Alisson & Fabinho...and stated it as extremely unlikely for that trio to arrive without the cash Coutinho generated. It's a belief many hold and one you seem unable to fathom. Just opinions

    Quote Originally Posted by Taksin View Post
    The ensuing argument has been about how to run a club well and if we are seeing that (as opposed to a managerial miracle)

    The only club that you could think of that was run better than ours was Tottenham
    (for example with the creative use of debt to finance a stadium)
    Not how I see it at all. Your triumphalism over FSG's brilliant outlay to success ratio was countered by me suggesting that perhaps the manager (Klopp) was the culprit most worthy of adulation.

    That miracles like the 4:0 turn around v Barca - more than any brilliant ownership model, more than any design, are just that - miracles - miracles inspired by a great leader, our manager. Turning players, not close to world-class to perform way beyond their natural ability.

    Just as last season when we had no right to take 26 points from 30 - with no senior defenders at all and no captain - again an inspired miracle for a team that was on the floor physically and mentally IMO due to being massively overtaxed playing in just 2 of 4 competitions.

    One could ask: why are these players so heavily used? Why when the club is so brilliantly run.. ?


    Quote Originally Posted by Taksin View Post
    This helped you to continue your criticism of the way our club was being run

    Way back then, I asked you to eliminate clubs who added money from their own pockets as this is
    a) a different model
    b) associated with oligarchs (or whatever you wish to call them), which most people agree are bad for the game (you don't but that's irrelevant for the original argument)


    If you now want to talk about how cool Roman Abramovic is, fill your boots but it's irrelevant to this debate unless you can show he has not injected his own money into the club and their success is not dependant on his personal financing

    So it is about money - that's all its about
    It is not about money it is about so much more...You refuse to see any benefit in having a genuinely passionate owner. look at what they have won. They haven't spent close to the most.. Are they just lucky?

    Most people are as thick as pig shit Taksin - a majority of idiots voted for Brexit and gave this shower of shit Tory "government" a landslide.

    Stop using "most people" - the very ones you wouldn't sully your own hands with, to back up your misguided view of the football landscape.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    in the past
    Posts
    7,281
    @Steveo - I still don't get what you mean?

    I never thought you wanted "sugar daddy" owners - wanted to understand.

    The mod bit is just a legacy btw. I was out of this place for a good 2 years and there were no mods.
    "...and my inch is like a freight train, so I only use it in self defence"

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    23,098
    I get that - I thought it was funny - as I don’t want a sugar daddy owner at all and never said I did.

    Taksin posted it and then I was asked about it as though I had said it. Precisely the point I was making.

    Do I want a sugar daddy? Hmm many would say we already have one. Relative to many clubs we spend huge sums.

    What I like about Roman as opposed the the glazers - Kroenke or FSG - Mansour - Saudi or any billionaire/state owners is that he is passionate about the sport.

    He loves football - and boy does it show.

    I believe with more passionate owners following the CL win in 2019 - we would have improved the squad significantly. Added what we did in 2020 in 2019 and at least the same again in 2020 and this summer gone done so again,

    Think we would be out of sight had we done that. I am counting down to Klopp leaving - sorry and just hope we haven’t missed the boat

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Steveo View Post
    That's great business no argument but there are owners around who would win 5 times more with a manager like Jurgen Klopp.
    Like who exactly?

    See. You have lost the argument. The way we know this is because you have had to change the argument.

    What you haven't said is

    "There are owners around who would win 5 times more with the same resources by running the club better."

    Previously you thought Daniel Levy would do a better job. Now you're saying about Spurs "they're still a threat", which is a bit like scientists using predictive models to assume things are going to go wrong in the future when the present still shows no evidence to support them.

    By changing it to "with Jurgen Klopp" you, of course, include all the sugar daddies in your reckoning. But I have always excluded them in the question of how owners make use of the resources available (including choosing the manager and keeping him happy).

    The reason I did this was precisely to address the question of stewardship. If Abramovic leaves Chelsea as a club which is half as big as us, then they will be half as big as us without the sugar daddy money. If FSG leave us twice as big as them, then we will be twice as big, which will be useful to future owners.

    The other reason I excluded the sugar daddy model from the debate was because I assumed 'most people' at our club would not want that culture at our club. In your case I was wrong. But in principle it stands as the only way of debating the running of the club. By muddying the waters (as if you can ever be expected to refrain from this) once more, you avoid having to deal with what you said so many times, with so many insults along the way.

    If at the outset you had said 'FSG will never have enough money for my liking', that would have been taking a different position. But you didn't.

Similar Threads

  1. Keeping Ole at the wheel
    By worldpanel in forum Football Forum
    Replies: 214
    Last Post: 7th November 2021, 05:45 PM

Bookmarks

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
  •