| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:34 - Feb 6 with 1459 views | TheResurrection |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:03 - Feb 6 by londonlisa2001 |
Actually I'd summarise a little differently and see it as this :
- everyone is unhappy about the actions of Jenkins when it comes to the sale.
- People have mixed views on his success or otherwise in his role at the club (since the reality is that it's a mixed bag).
- Some, despite thinking he did wrong by the Trust want him to stay on at the club as they feel getting rid would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. At least until the summer months. They believe that getting rid or agitating to get rid will hinder our chances of survival.
- others believe that his actions were so heinous that getting rid is the only way to bring the fans and club back together which will improve our chances of survival.
Some are just arguing for the sake of it, but I honestly think that the summary above is a more rational description of people's positions than both sides throwing accusations. |
Exactly right so how come some can't grasp it? |  |
|  |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:34 - Feb 6 with 1459 views | Shaky |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:31 - Feb 6 by TheResurrection |
Oh no Shakeypaedia, I was suggesting you offer your services for any going rate, if, IF, it could help our cause.
It is true you never mentioned any monies, but quite frankly I never believed that. I just allowed you to paint yourself as Saint Shakey of Aarhus if it got us anywhere.
And I am not taking a dump on you mate, you'd know if I did that.
Weak bullshit versus fake wiki piss. Who cares eh? |
Well at least you have retracted one lie.
Maybe there is hope for you. |  |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:35 - Feb 6 with 1446 views | E20Jack |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:34 - Feb 6 by Shaky |
Well at least you have retracted one lie.
Maybe there is hope for you. |
When will you be retracting yours out of curiosity? |  |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:42 - Feb 6 with 1417 views | TheResurrection |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:34 - Feb 6 by Shaky |
Well at least you have retracted one lie.
Maybe there is hope for you. |
No I haven't.
Read carefully, I think the reason you are here is one of a money motivation.
No lie. | |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:43 - Feb 6 with 1409 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:34 - Feb 6 by TheResurrection |
Exactly right so how come some can't grasp it? |
Because emotions are running high and people's positions end up appearing far more polarised than they really are. Particularly on an internet message board.
It's not helped to be honest by some posters who seem to enjoy arguing and do everything possible to keep arguments going by focusing on small areas of difference rather than the overwhelming areas of agreement.
It makes it look like there are huge disagreements when in fact there probably aren't since those are the bits being discussed for pages and pages. |  | | |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:46 - Feb 6 with 1399 views | E20Jack |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:43 - Feb 6 by londonlisa2001 |
Because emotions are running high and people's positions end up appearing far more polarised than they really are. Particularly on an internet message board.
It's not helped to be honest by some posters who seem to enjoy arguing and do everything possible to keep arguments going by focusing on small areas of difference rather than the overwhelming areas of agreement.
It makes it look like there are huge disagreements when in fact there probably aren't since those are the bits being discussed for pages and pages. |
Dont be candid with your comments Lisa, if you are going to accuse someone of something then say it so they can defend themselves and explain why they feel certain things make a big difference.
Are you referring to me? If so I can quite easily explain the obvious difference. I am amzed you would need that explained thhough - that is a compliment by the way, not a dig. | |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:50 - Feb 6 with 1389 views | Shaky |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:42 - Feb 6 by TheResurrection |
No I haven't.
Read carefully, I think the reason you are here is one of a money motivation.
No lie. |
Right, you believe I am trying to make money despite the fact that I specifically declined your suggetion to put an invoice in to the Trust, and then published the legal strategy openly on this very messageboard for all to see.
It's some fcuking plan I have devised there, no doubt suitable for many alternative realities. [Post edited 6 Feb 2018 14:51]
| |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:54 - Feb 6 with 1377 views | TheResurrection |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:43 - Feb 6 by londonlisa2001 |
Because emotions are running high and people's positions end up appearing far more polarised than they really are. Particularly on an internet message board.
It's not helped to be honest by some posters who seem to enjoy arguing and do everything possible to keep arguments going by focusing on small areas of difference rather than the overwhelming areas of agreement.
It makes it look like there are huge disagreements when in fact there probably aren't since those are the bits being discussed for pages and pages. |
Question for you Lisa, new Trust Financial Affiliate,
Do you think the Americans are running the off field matters of the club much differently to the old shareholders ?
It seems we are spending what we can afford and most of what we have? That true? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:56 - Feb 6 with 1368 views | TheResurrection |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:50 - Feb 6 by Shaky |
Right, you believe I am trying to make money despite the fact that I specifically declined your suggetion to put an invoice in to the Trust, and then published the legal strategy openly on this very messageboard for all to see.
It's some fcuking plan I have devised there, no doubt suitable for many alternative realities. [Post edited 6 Feb 2018 14:51]
|
Yes. I think you have a "longer game" plan in mind.
But anyway, I DON'T CARE.
If you've got any reason to still hang around other than declare tin pot signings as big tents, make some posts worthy of reading instead of the pathetic Danish bitch slapping. Just get on with it. | |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:59 - Feb 6 with 1359 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:46 - Feb 6 by E20Jack |
Dont be candid with your comments Lisa, if you are going to accuse someone of something then say it so they can defend themselves and explain why they feel certain things make a big difference.
Are you referring to me? If so I can quite easily explain the obvious difference. I am amzed you would need that explained thhough - that is a compliment by the way, not a dig. |
I wasn't particularly referring to anyone. It was an observation, not an accusation.
But actually, on this thread, yes, you are arguing over nonsense.
The definition of what makes a signing a 'marquee' signing is neither here nor there.
The discussion was over major, or relatively major signings, and whether they were a success or not. Some signings will be major due to their sheer up front cost, some due to the wages being paid to the player (which results in a knock on effect to other players in the squad), some will be major signings for other, non financial reasons (reasons of prestige, as an example, or players that cause other players to want to sign for us).
It's an interesting discussion around effectiveness of such players, and which have been a success and which have not. Diverting that interesting discussion into one of semantics is a shame.
But that's only my view of what is interesting or not. Others will see it differently, which is why as I said, it's not an accusation but an observation. | | | |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:00 - Feb 6 with 1359 views | Shaky |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:56 - Feb 6 by TheResurrection |
Yes. I think you have a "longer game" plan in mind.
But anyway, I DON'T CARE.
If you've got any reason to still hang around other than declare tin pot signings as big tents, make some posts worthy of reading instead of the pathetic Danish bitch slapping. Just get on with it. |
I'm doing what I've always done; not taking any shit from anybody and that includes you. | |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:02 - Feb 6 with 1348 views | E20Jack |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:56 - Feb 6 by TheResurrection |
Yes. I think you have a "longer game" plan in mind.
But anyway, I DON'T CARE.
If you've got any reason to still hang around other than declare tin pot signings as big tents, make some posts worthy of reading instead of the pathetic Danish bitch slapping. Just get on with it. |
I cant believe some are seeing that explaining why judging a CEO on some hand picked signings is a "small difference". It has nothing to do with terminology, it is about parameters set in order to give a one sided view. The terminology allowed that to happen. So taking that terminology away is not a small difference at all, it means as a result we now have to look at the whole picture - it just so happens that whole picture is an awful lot different.
Afie Mawson picked up for what? £5m? He is now being touted for £50m. Whether we would ever get that is another thing all together, but he certainly is a £25m player in this climate. Yet that would be ignored. Picking ip Llorente for £5m and selling him for £12m - again ignored. So it is not a small difference, if the major difference is performance based issues then it is in fact the WHOLE debate. | |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:06 - Feb 6 with 1343 views | TheResurrection |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:59 - Feb 6 by londonlisa2001 |
I wasn't particularly referring to anyone. It was an observation, not an accusation.
But actually, on this thread, yes, you are arguing over nonsense.
The definition of what makes a signing a 'marquee' signing is neither here nor there.
The discussion was over major, or relatively major signings, and whether they were a success or not. Some signings will be major due to their sheer up front cost, some due to the wages being paid to the player (which results in a knock on effect to other players in the squad), some will be major signings for other, non financial reasons (reasons of prestige, as an example, or players that cause other players to want to sign for us).
It's an interesting discussion around effectiveness of such players, and which have been a success and which have not. Diverting that interesting discussion into one of semantics is a shame.
But that's only my view of what is interesting or not. Others will see it differently, which is why as I said, it's not an accusation but an observation. |
Well i feel responsible for this as in my opinion Skakeypaedia needed correcting on his description of Alberto Paloschi being a marquee signing.
What happened next was Shakeypaedia throwing his toys everywhere and bitch slapping all in sight, | |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:06 - Feb 6 with 1340 views | TheResurrection |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:00 - Feb 6 by Shaky |
I'm doing what I've always done; not taking any shit from anybody and that includes you. |
My hero | |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:06 - Feb 6 with 1338 views | E20Jack |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:59 - Feb 6 by londonlisa2001 |
I wasn't particularly referring to anyone. It was an observation, not an accusation.
But actually, on this thread, yes, you are arguing over nonsense.
The definition of what makes a signing a 'marquee' signing is neither here nor there.
The discussion was over major, or relatively major signings, and whether they were a success or not. Some signings will be major due to their sheer up front cost, some due to the wages being paid to the player (which results in a knock on effect to other players in the squad), some will be major signings for other, non financial reasons (reasons of prestige, as an example, or players that cause other players to want to sign for us).
It's an interesting discussion around effectiveness of such players, and which have been a success and which have not. Diverting that interesting discussion into one of semantics is a shame.
But that's only my view of what is interesting or not. Others will see it differently, which is why as I said, it's not an accusation but an observation. |
That has since been answered in a reply to Chris, it is not nonsense at all. It is the whole argument on the oerformance of the man. Taking a small piece of the pie is a ridiculous stand point when the only reason we are doing so is due to incorrect understanding of terminology designed to make the situation look far worse. Take away that terminology and we are enabling us to look at the whole pie which indeed gives a vastly different story in performance - which is the entire concept of the discussion, whether his "expensive" signings arent as good as the slightly less expensive ones is utterly irrelevant. | |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:07 - Feb 6 with 1339 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 14:54 - Feb 6 by TheResurrection |
Question for you Lisa, new Trust Financial Affiliate,
Do you think the Americans are running the off field matters of the club much differently to the old shareholders ?
It seems we are spending what we can afford and most of what we have? That true? |
No. I think they are running it in exactly the same way, other than relatively large investments in off the field commercial activities which they hope will translate into far higher commercial revenue.
In terms of us spending most of what we have, I'm not sure I'd agree with that. It is certainly the case that our expenditure on salaries etc needs to be tightly controlled as it was in danger of spiralling out of control. It is also certainly the case that sums bandied about in the press are not accurate (ins and outs). Do I think we could have spent more in this window? Yes, I do. I think there were targets identified and we didn't bring them in (because they didn't want to come) and we chose not to sign others instead (the manager's decision). So we would have spent more (potentially quite a lot more) if those targets had agreed to join. | | | |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:08 - Feb 6 with 1334 views | TheResurrection |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:02 - Feb 6 by E20Jack |
I cant believe some are seeing that explaining why judging a CEO on some hand picked signings is a "small difference". It has nothing to do with terminology, it is about parameters set in order to give a one sided view. The terminology allowed that to happen. So taking that terminology away is not a small difference at all, it means as a result we now have to look at the whole picture - it just so happens that whole picture is an awful lot different.
Afie Mawson picked up for what? £5m? He is now being touted for £50m. Whether we would ever get that is another thing all together, but he certainly is a £25m player in this climate. Yet that would be ignored. Picking ip Llorente for £5m and selling him for £12m - again ignored. So it is not a small difference, if the major difference is performance based issues then it is in fact the WHOLE debate. |
Bringing Siggy back for peanuts and 45m later?
People forgetting that too somehow | |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:11 - Feb 6 with 1324 views | E20Jack |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:08 - Feb 6 by TheResurrection |
Bringing Siggy back for peanuts and 45m later?
People forgetting that too somehow |
Correct.
Andre Ayew for free and selling him for £22m. Jordan Ayew for £5m and Taylor and is now worth a hell of a lot more. Fabianski another.
It is an absolutely massive part of the discussion on his performance. Bizarre that some think it isnt. | |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:17 - Feb 6 with 1321 views | TheResurrection |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:07 - Feb 6 by londonlisa2001 |
No. I think they are running it in exactly the same way, other than relatively large investments in off the field commercial activities which they hope will translate into far higher commercial revenue.
In terms of us spending most of what we have, I'm not sure I'd agree with that. It is certainly the case that our expenditure on salaries etc needs to be tightly controlled as it was in danger of spiralling out of control. It is also certainly the case that sums bandied about in the press are not accurate (ins and outs). Do I think we could have spent more in this window? Yes, I do. I think there were targets identified and we didn't bring them in (because they didn't want to come) and we chose not to sign others instead (the manager's decision). So we would have spent more (potentially quite a lot more) if those targets had agreed to join. |
So all positive signs then. They're not piggy backing any debt onto us, they are spending relatively within our means and they are offering more money to the manager than he chooses to spend.
And this is what, 2 years in now? I guess we could have been sold to worse owners than these, eh? What's your opinion? | |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:20 - Feb 6 with 1316 views | TheResurrection |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:11 - Feb 6 by E20Jack |
Correct.
Andre Ayew for free and selling him for £22m. Jordan Ayew for £5m and Taylor and is now worth a hell of a lot more. Fabianski another.
It is an absolutely massive part of the discussion on his performance. Bizarre that some think it isnt. |
Very.. very true and Lisa, when pissant posters want to make a big splash by declaring some of the lesser lights as "marquee" signings, E20 has a massive point and is very much correct.
The SCSA cronies have been hamming up and exaggerating since they came into force and the sense of all balance has been lost on them.
Fair play to anyone who levels out the seesaw | |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:22 - Feb 6 with 1310 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:06 - Feb 6 by E20Jack |
That has since been answered in a reply to Chris, it is not nonsense at all. It is the whole argument on the oerformance of the man. Taking a small piece of the pie is a ridiculous stand point when the only reason we are doing so is due to incorrect understanding of terminology designed to make the situation look far worse. Take away that terminology and we are enabling us to look at the whole pie which indeed gives a vastly different story in performance - which is the entire concept of the discussion, whether his "expensive" signings arent as good as the slightly less expensive ones is utterly irrelevant. |
I think it's just a list of the most expensive players in each of the financial years? I don't know without checking, but it looks like that from a quick glance and without thinking about it too hard.
If that's true, I imagine that the reason those players were picked is because they therefore, by definition, represent the greatest financial risk to the club. So it's an assessment of those high risk decisions.
Is it representative of the whole performance of our recruitment? No, it's not, for the reasons you and Chris outline, it ignores the flip side, the bargains picked up and sold for high sums. But it's still an interesting discussion of that one aspect - the players we identify as being worth the biggest financial risk to us.
Now what that outlines to me, just as an example, is that while we are relatively successful in bringing in players for lower cost, who have not been identified elsewhere, or are not valued as highly by the market, we are not so successful when it comes to our flagship signings. We can then discuss that - why is that the case? Is it that our own much maligned recruitment team (the scouts) are better than we think, while the players we get through agents suggest that our ability to deal with agents throwing the bigger name players at us is not so good?
So the reason it's not as irrelevant as you suggest, is it's two groups of players coming from two different sources. Or may well be. That's why it's an interesting discussion.
You seem to suggest that you shape the discussion or it's pointless.
I think that there are many different discussions that can be had. Each has its own value. Everyone knows the limitations of discussing one particular issue, so what the problem? | | | |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:31 - Feb 6 with 1293 views | TheResurrection |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 13:15 - Feb 5 by Shaky |
Was Bob Bradly CEO then? Sorry, didn't realise that. |
Just looking for the infamous marquee post from Shakeypaedia and found this gem.
Bob Bradley was more important a signing than the CEO as the wrong manager would almost certainly mean an end to their investment. That's kindergarten understanding. | |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:34 - Feb 6 with 1290 views | TheResurrection |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 11:30 - Feb 5 by Shaky |
tl;dr
Let's instead examine the purported magician's marquee signings over the past few financial periods:
FY 14/15: Gomis
FI 15/16: Paloschi
16/17: Baston, Mesa
17/18: Clucas, Bony MK II
Any questions? |
This is the original post Lisa and it had nothing to do with highest financial outlay and everything to do with knocking the "magician's" signings.
You are wrong here. | |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:34 - Feb 6 with 1290 views | E20Jack |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:22 - Feb 6 by londonlisa2001 |
I think it's just a list of the most expensive players in each of the financial years? I don't know without checking, but it looks like that from a quick glance and without thinking about it too hard.
If that's true, I imagine that the reason those players were picked is because they therefore, by definition, represent the greatest financial risk to the club. So it's an assessment of those high risk decisions.
Is it representative of the whole performance of our recruitment? No, it's not, for the reasons you and Chris outline, it ignores the flip side, the bargains picked up and sold for high sums. But it's still an interesting discussion of that one aspect - the players we identify as being worth the biggest financial risk to us.
Now what that outlines to me, just as an example, is that while we are relatively successful in bringing in players for lower cost, who have not been identified elsewhere, or are not valued as highly by the market, we are not so successful when it comes to our flagship signings. We can then discuss that - why is that the case? Is it that our own much maligned recruitment team (the scouts) are better than we think, while the players we get through agents suggest that our ability to deal with agents throwing the bigger name players at us is not so good?
So the reason it's not as irrelevant as you suggest, is it's two groups of players coming from two different sources. Or may well be. That's why it's an interesting discussion.
You seem to suggest that you shape the discussion or it's pointless.
I think that there are many different discussions that can be had. Each has its own value. Everyone knows the limitations of discussing one particular issue, so what the problem? |
I am not shaping any discussion. Lets not pretend the discussion was anything other than assessing the performance of the CEO in the transfer market as a reason he should be sacked or replaced.
If it was a simple discussion of "this is not the whole picture but lets look at some of these" then feel free, but when you are discussing the performance of someone (which was clearly the point) then that discussion is then shaped by the logic of that - I am just administering that logic, not creating it. It was non sensical.
But onto your point of why it is an interesting point. A £7m signing is not that much of a greater risk to the club than a £6m one. A £9m one isn't that much a greater risk to the company than a £7m one. It is not as simple as looking at transfer fees. It seems an utterly pointless parameter to set, this is the Premier League there are rarely any bargains and risk comes in far more than just transfer fee. Llorente picked up at £5m and £85k wages over 2 years for example (a guess) is more of a financial risk to the company than soneone picked uo for £7.8m (Paloschi) on 40k over 5 years for example (again a guess) - yet the least risky one is still counted because the picture seems worse.
The parameters were designed not to take into consideration risk at all, they were designed to give a one sided look at a picture far more complex than that - where less successful subjects were taken into consideration while subjects with only slightly less risk on the face of it (some not at all) completely ignored regardless of their immense success. [Post edited 6 Feb 2018 15:45]
| |
| |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:35 - Feb 6 with 1289 views | E20Jack |
| Huw jenkins: Do Swans fans have him ALL wrong? on 15:34 - Feb 6 by TheResurrection |
This is the original post Lisa and it had nothing to do with highest financial outlay and everything to do with knocking the "magician's" signings.
You are wrong here. |
Its also funny that in some years he allows himself two signings (if deemed unsuccessful) and in others just the one.
Anyone thinking that list was anything other than a cheap attempt to knock the overall transfer dealings of the club is simply very misguided.
It was rightly dismantled and was by no means a small point on the subject of the CEO's transfer performance - it was the whole debate. [Post edited 6 Feb 2018 15:37]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
