So much sense and no ridiculous over the top nonsense. Excelelnt measured article as the usually are from The Score.
I am not sure sure that all 1st/2nd chopice will be saying no - the market for them is not big enough for all these players given the fees and wages needed. And although we are at a low ebb, they will know that the club is heavily invested in (if not all done properly) so the will is there to improve and be one of the best.
"How they’re still in jobs is beyond me, the damage they’ve single-handedly done to our club on so many levels is incalculable". Because Clearlake gave them a huge rise at the beginning of the season and now can't afford to sack dumb and dumber. For so called financial genius's the financial tightrope they are walking is a joke. All it will take is one strong puff of wind.
I would be shocked if the SDs don't have break clauses for certain milestones not being met, what they are I don't know. But I dont see it not being there.
Rob said something similar in the chat yesterday; if we miss out on all forms of Europe - even conference league - then there will be a review of the SD's performance.
Maybe Diarmuid, but given the faith they have in them and the total lack of financial savvy they have shown nothing would surprise me. Getting a FOS deal would certainly help if they just stopped being so greedy and unrealistic.
I think when we get the FOS deal, they may well say why they didn't jump earlier. I don't understand it, but they are money men, so they likely think long term it is a better option to hold out. And we cannot invent companies to sponsor us like Man City did :)
The problem is they will be playing catchup. My daughter works at Chelsea, they had agreed a deal with Oracle and then messed them about the day it was about to be announced. If they somehow get another £20m a year extra for a 5 year deal, (which now seems highly unlikely) they will have missed out on three years at say £40m a year. Their idea was to go for ideally one and two season deals, which put sponsors off. Even if they could get a deal for an extra £20m a year over five years, you still end up £20m down, best case scenario. Basically they got greedy and have screwed up IMO. Sometimes you can just try being too clever for your own good. Another £80-100m in the coffers for the past two seasons would have made an enormous difference to the bottom line. The longer the situation goes on the harder it is to play catchup, especially with a recession looking likely thanks to The Oompaloompah king.
As I’ve said before, your perspective is excellent, calm and realistic. Thanks for your review which I can’t really argue against. The reality is whatever the outcome of this season from here on and whoever our new manager is we need to take a step back to move forward. Clean house of unnecessary players that will not perform for us and review the whole sporting director structure. As you and Si have said for ages we need to have one figurehead at the top of whatever sits behind it (some of the existing do have a value and can add to the project going forward unlike many think)
So much sense and no ridiculous over the top nonsense. Excelelnt measured article as the usually are from The Score.
I am not sure sure that all 1st/2nd chopice will be saying no - the market for them is not big enough for all these players given the fees and wages needed. And although we are at a low ebb, they will know that the club is heavily invested in (if not all done properly) so the will is there to improve and be one of the best.
"How they’re still in jobs is beyond me, the damage they’ve single-handedly done to our club on so many levels is incalculable". Because Clearlake gave them a huge rise at the beginning of the season and now can't afford to sack dumb and dumber. For so called financial genius's the financial tightrope they are walking is a joke. All it will take is one strong puff of wind.
I would be shocked if the SDs don't have break clauses for certain milestones not being met, what they are I don't know. But I dont see it not being there.
Rob said something similar in the chat yesterday; if we miss out on all forms of Europe - even conference league - then there will be a review of the SD's performance.
Maybe Diarmuid, but given the faith they have in them and the total lack of financial savvy they have shown nothing would surprise me. Getting a FOS deal would certainly help if they just stopped being so greedy and unrealistic.
I think when we get the FOS deal, they may well say why they didn't jump earlier. I don't understand it, but they are money men, so they likely think long term it is a better option to hold out. And we cannot invent companies to sponsor us like Man City did :)
The problem is they will be playing catchup. My daughter works at Chelsea, they had agreed a deal with Oracle and then messed them about the day it was about to be announced. If they somehow get another £20m a year extra for a 5 year deal, (which now seems highly unlikely) they will have missed out on three years at say £40m a year. Their idea was to go for ideally one and two season deals, which put sponsors off. Even if they could get a deal for an extra £20m a year over five years, you still end up £20m down, best case scenario. Basically they got greedy and have screwed up IMO. Sometimes you can just try being too clever for your own good. Another £80-100m in the coffers for the past two seasons would have made an enormous difference to the bottom line. The longer the situation goes on the harder it is to play catchup, especially with a recession looking likely thanks to The Oompaloompah king.
Hi "The Score"
Perhaps I should email you with what I'm thinking about the club and let you write it.
100% agree with your article and when you write it down it sounds so much better than when I do.
As I’ve said before, your perspective is excellent, calm and realistic. Thanks for your review which I can’t really argue against. The reality is whatever the outcome of this season from here on and whoever our new manager is we need to take a step back to move forward. Clean house of unnecessary players that will not perform for us and review the whole sporting director structure. As you and Si have said for ages we need to have one figurehead at the top of whatever sits behind it (some of the existing do have a value and can add to the project going forward unlike many think)