LeroysBoots 8:22 Sat Jan 27
Blame The Board
|
|
26th Jan...first new blood through the door
No new defenders
No new strikers
No new defensive midfielders
Years of chaotic mismanagement
Lying
Cheating
Thieving
Cunts
100% blame Sullivan today..not Moyes
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Jim79
6:33 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
But a rampant rabbit or black mamba can be reused for their primary function (in this analogy the cross reference would be a footballer playing football again. The cucumber however wouldn't (using the nutritional value comparison would be like using a footballer for compost)!!!
|
Razzle
6:27 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
Jim79 5:45 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
Some very valid observations there, but i think you miss an important point that the cucumber could be eaten and therefore has a higher nutritional value than a black mamba or rampant rabbit...
|
Jim79
5:54 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
Alan, maybe like the world of football the Chinese would be prepared to pay through the nose for used up old stuff, in this instance sexually abused vegetables!!!
|
Alan
5:47 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
Jim, the cucumber's value might be enhanced in certain circles.
|
Jim79
5:45 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
Alex V's post has intrigued me about what we see as value and the metric to then quantify that versus the asking price of players.
Maybe we've got all this wrong and should be contextualising our transfer policy in terms the porn dwarves understand.
Lets say you want to buy a rampant rabbit or black mamba but you only want to spend a quid. Yes you could buy a cucumber and yes it will still do the same job albeit not as well with no special features like vibration and needless to say the cucumber will have no sell on value. Would you now agree that spending the extra money is worthwhile?
See its all about how you position it.
|
Jim79
5:45 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
Alex V's post has intrigued me about what we see as value and the metric to then quantify that versus the asking price of players.
Maybe we've got all this wrong and should be contextualising our transfer policy in terms the porn dwarves understand.
Lets say you want to buy a rampant rabbit or black mamba but you only want to spend a quid. Yes you could buy a cucumber and yes it will still do the same job albeit not as well with no special features like vibration and needless to say the cucumber will have no sell on value. Would you now agree that spending the extra money is worthwhile?
See its all about how you position it.
|
goose
5:23 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
comes up with a list of viable players........... midget Dave then screws up that list and chucks it out the window. he is the director of football afterall.
|
Private Dancer
5:17 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
Does anyone know what Tony Henry does?
|
Russ of the BML
5:11 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
13 Brentford Rd 5:02 Mon Jan 29
Those two cunts have never met in the middle in their lives. It's either in their favour or nothing. That may work in the porn industry but in todays top level football industry they are getting short shrift.
They don't like the message "Pay what we want or fuck off" and that is what they are getting. They can't handle it and so we are losing good targets. There is no transfer strategy. They just make measly offers on who's available and hope it comes off.
Most of the players we signed in the summer were just because we had not bought anyone. There was no strategy to it. It's just roulette.
|
13 Brentford Rd
5:02 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
It is arguable whether we needed a keeper or not, however signing Hart on the way down and only in loan at 100k a week was not the answer. A keeper is probably where you start building from, it is the worst position to have loanees and doubt in. Why not go out and sign a decent keeper permanently if needed as any respectable club does? Why fuck about with even more loans?
As for Dendonker, Sullivan is infamous for underbidding, you are saying that unless a club accepts our first low offer we should walk away, music to Sullivan's ears!
The idea is that you have your price, the seller has his, no doubt the sellers will be higher, it's a sellers market. IF you really are serious you meet in the middle or then offer the full amount or near, that is how transfers work. 20m is not an outrageous amount in today's market, not as if they want 30 or 40m is it.
|
stewie griffin
5:01 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
SPANISH LANGUAGE TWITTER FEED
|
Alex V
4:51 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
13 Brentford Rd 4:38 Mon Jan 29
I think we did need a keeper last Summer. I don't have a problem with getting Hart for a season - it hasn't worked out that well but no long term damage done. I don't see a problem there.
I don't have a problem with going for Dendoncker now. Isn't that what the club has been looking at? He fits the template of the sort of player I think we should be targetting. But what price is right for us to get value and balance the risk? That's harder to say - I'm not convinced the club is very good at working with those questions (because of a lack of infrastructure to gain expertise that might give better answers to that question). But regardless, if the club think Dendoncker is worth £15m to us as a signing, and his club ask £20m, they should absolutely not buy him - it's a net loss of £5m, throwing money away. What's the point in having any methodology in recruitment if you throw out the logic every time an asking price is too high. Imo the correct judgement is to stick to your guns, but make improvements to the methodology to improve our performance over time. We cannot just sign whoever we want - we can only sign players where the benefit to the club outweighs the cost.
>>> You see Sullivan IS terminally stupid. All he has to do is show a bit of ambition with these types of signings and we would all shut up, not a lot to ask for...
But that's to assume that doing what WE want is going to benefit the club, just because we want it. Your solution might threaten its long-term health. What is important is what the right decision is for the club, not what fans are demanding - I think many fans have those ideas distorted. Most fans, it seems to me, wanted Hernandez in the Summer. And Carroll, and Ayew and Valencia etc. Just pleasing the fans is not the same as improving the club.
|
El Scorchio
4:51 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
No, Sullivan is NOT stupid.
That's the exact problem. He knows exactly what he's doing and is very calculating.
Signing Hart and pea were never about necessarily improving the team. It was all about growing the business and the brand and revenue/merch streams- why do you think we suddenly got a Spanish language twitter feed and version of the website?
Improving the team is a handy co-incidence if it happens as well.
|
13 Brentford Rd
4:49 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
How do you know that, and if that is the case why sign Chica and then either not play him or don't set up the team to suit his style?
|
master
4:46 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
bilic approved every single one of the players signed for the first team and had final say.
|
13 Brentford Rd
4:38 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
Sullivan is terminally stupid. Signs a keeper on loan we don't need paying him 100k a week, and a striker we don't need for 16m paying him 120k, loves a big name to boost his ego, whether we need them or can afford them or not. Has to be the director of football despite the fact he's fucking clueless and has made countless similar mistakes before.
Why not go for Dendonker NOW Alex? Young, good player, in a position we are crying out for and have been for a year or two, available for around 20m? One good reason please? Why wait until the summer?
Bear in mind that according to Sullivan we had a deal agreed for Carvalho, but after having over 4 months to finalise a deal over the summer we allegedly were minutes away on deadline day? Surely the money is still there then? He thinks we've forgotten about the Carvalho farce.
You see Sullivan IS terminally stupid. All he has to do is show a bit of ambition with these types of signings and we would all shut up, not a lot to ask for, nobody is expecting Messi and CL football, just a bit of ambition, a sign of us moving forward and validation for the move, but he can't even manage that.
|
stewie griffin
4:38 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
Alex V 4:00 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
Fans, and all their Facebook friends, do want that, yes.
Supporters don't
|
cup of tea
4:03 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
If you are going to bring in a 'big signing' unless it is needed you DO NOT bring in a GK on massive wages when you have Adrian and Randolph - surely that makes sense? The problems lie not with the GK position but EVERYWHERE else.
Also, hate to say it, Chicarito doesn't seem happy to me (cannot blame him really) Cannot see him lasting long at West Ham
|
Alex V
4:00 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
>>> THEY think a nine year old wants a "big name" signing, so they bust a gut getting one in, not even giving a thought as to finding out what the fans really want by actually ASKING them.
Trouble with this is, all the indications I can see is that what most fans basically want IS another big name signing. Despite that strategy being utterly hopeless for us in recent years. I think most fans are simply hopelessly addicted to the rumour mill / Sky Sports / capitalist belief that spending money alone equals success. And worse, I think Sullivan believes it too.
|
cup of tea
3:58 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
At least most SENSIBLE fans can now really see what this regime brings.
FACT is their remit is PL SURVIVAL, that is it, there will be no "next level"
Of course anyone with any sense would have known this would be the case under these spivs anyway. Fuck me, Brown was bad, these 3 (G, S and that fat slag) are fast becoming hated
|
Mike Oxsaw
3:55 Mon Jan 29
Re: Blame The Board
|
cup of tea 3:39 Mon Jan 29
The board treat ALL fans as though they have the intelligence and emotional stability of a nine year old.
THEY think a nine year old wants a "big name" signing, so they bust a gut getting one in, not even giving a thought as to finding out what the fans really want by actually ASKING them.
To do so, in THEIR eyes, would be tantamount to an admission that you don't know what to fucking do, and their egos will never allow that sought of thought out - even though that is exactly the perception they are broadcasting by their actions (or, rather, inactions).
As was pointed out earlier, if the BUSINESS plan is simply PL survival, they've really only got to be slightly better than the 3rd worse team in the league - every year.
If the GAME plan is success on the field and the (albeit delayed) increase in potential income that creates, then they really need to adopt a new strategy.
There are far too many variables and unknowns to the core product over a season for football to be treated like any other business, no matter what all the books and "experts" claim.
|
| 
