0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.
Mate the longer the stadium is delayed the longer we stay behind the other teams in relation to revenue. Saw a stat recently just shows how far we are behind Utd and arsenal in terms of match day revenue. I remember moores saying the main reason he was selling was so owners could build a stadium so we could compete with others. The current owners are here a year and a half really would have expected some announcement by now.
Oh dear: What have the Romans ever done for us?Let's have a look...* Got rid of Hicks & Gillett* Got rid of a crippling debt.* Got rid of Hodgson.* Brought Kenny back.* Got rid of Purslow.* Re-united all but the most idiotic of 'fans' and brought belief back to the club.* Spent £100m plus on players whilst cutting out deadwood and players who didn't want to be with us.* Increased our revenue.* Raised our profile in the U.S.* Have conducted business in a highly professional manner.* Behaved with both dignity and respect.Alas tho'... they aren't wealthy oil tycoons, haven't built a new stadium (yet) oh and... they didn't sign Juan Mata - woe is me. They say patience is a virtue whilst greed and envy are 'deadly sins'; hmmm... How's that wealthy oil tycoon, his £50m striker and Juan Mata doing as of now? Fact: the wage bill was cut because we got rid of players who either were not good enough or wanted to play elsewhere. Was that wrong of F.S.G.?Fact: our net spend is lower because we were able to get good money for a bad lot (the oil tycoon can vouch for that). Maybe we should have asked for less?Fact: F.S.G. promised to weigh up all the options before either building or refurbishing; that's what they're doing. Those options are each very complex. Wouldn't it be wiser, instead of just saying 'wait-see', to have the wit to actually wait and see?F.S.G. do not come out of the Suarez affair smelling of roses (in my opinion) and they'll have learned a hard lesson but to round on them for what they haven't done (yet) whilst ignoring what they have done is both churlish and puerile in equal measures. It's bad enough that the Mancs and the media are giving the club we all say we love a kicking without having to fend off Quislings. Stay strong, be patient and stay together Reds... our day is coming.
And they have given Kenny freedom.
Facts we have a net spend of 30 million over 3 transfer windows less than hicks and Gillette first 3 windows. We cut 30 million off the wage bill last summer. Absolutely no sign of a new stadium sorry if these facts seem negative. Posters can hide behind his negative argument all the want doesn't mean what im saying is wrong just a weak argument to get personal on other posters part. Dont think i made any sweeping comments on you rod or az. Sick of people debates with me turning personal because people can't debate the points. Srs the reason i probably havent responded is because ive had to spend most of my time defending myself for having an opinion.
I'll be honest, the whole concept of "net spend" gets on my tits, and while one may argue it doesn't lie, its also pretty misconceiving.
Net spend is paramount lets not try and dress it up any other way.We used net Spend to defend Rafa at all costs so we can't change that now just to suit arguments.FSG are good owners, they've just made a monumental f**k up in the handling of the Suarez affair, but its their first stint of dealing with such an episode in the English Media where its ten times worse and ten times more verocious than it is in the states, they will learn from this.So lets move on as until this incident most were content with their ownership.Lets see where we are in 3 or 4 years under their stewardship other than 18 months down line.
To suggest three seasons of damage can be repaired in one go is insane.
Exactly mate, it took City a good 3 years to start making a serious impression and lets be honest we have a better platform to build on than what they did.
I don't see anything to suggest we are going to invest money at the required level and we are as we have been for the past 20 years 4 players of sufficient quality to win the league.Our best X1 is good but if you take out 1 or 2 key players we look weak.
Net spend is paramount lets not try and dress it up any other way.We used net Spend to defend Rafa at all costs so we can't change that now just to suit arguments.
I personally never said we had bad owners just dont think they have the finance to get us back challenging for titles. Like arsenal i think we will be a well run business but like arsenal i dont expect us to be competing for titles. Personally i think for their plan to work spend what we make we needed a serious investment from them on the playing side something we have yet to see I think the city comparsion is a poor one as well our owners are not prepared to spend what Citys owners are so unlike city we are not able to make the same mistakes in the transfer market something we did last summer. This summer will tell us a lot about Fsg That is my final say on the matter for now I'll let others debate how negative i am to make themselves feel better.
I agree with blood i hope people saying net spend doesn't matter weren't using it to defend Rafa
Of course net spend is relevant Blood but whether we like it or not there are very real, very clear and very different causes behind "low" net spend. These 'causes' are fact mate not an attempt to dress anything up. In fact the real dressing up of net spend only comes when one choses to ignore them. Which, to be fair, you haven't.Spot the difference folks:* Net spend under Hicks & Gillett (in both the Rafa and Hodgson eras) was "low" only because we sold quality players, at a high price, replacing them with players of lower cost - with the rest going to pay down debt. That's fact.* Net spend under F.S.G. is "low" only because we got rid of a sh*t load of deadwood and players who wanted to play elsewhere. We replaced them with players who were of a high quality and high price - none of the profits disappeared to pay off debt. That's fact too. When we look at 'net spend' in a logical, honest, manner we can see that only the slowest among us won't see there is a massive difference in the causes of "low" 'net spend'. The fact that those with an agenda against F.S.G. won't admit to there being a difference doesn't mean there isn't one. The reasons behind "low" net 'spend' matter more that the 'spend' it's self. Surely we're all intelligent enough to accept that?I guess now that we've debated the 'arguments' against F.S.G. and exposed the hyperbole it'll be time to move on.
Ive actually given my points for everyone of the points and a look above will show that I havent just mentioned cost cutting stadium and net spend crouch like your trying to portray. I understand my views may upset some people because i dont buy into the we have brilliant owners argument. I tend to need to see evidence for this.