| Stoke 20:54 - Aug 22 with 19918 views | Magic_Michu |
They are really in a mess... spending millions gambling on going straight back up and looking like relegation fodder at the moment. |  |
| |  |
| Stoke on 12:42 - Aug 23 with 1482 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 12:37 - Aug 23 by 34dfgdf54 |
Wouldn't a budget indicate what money there is to spend?
Our outgoings have compensated for the drop in revenue from Premier League to Championship, it's not money readilly available. |
You are confusing a budget with a transfer fund. |  |
| |
| Stoke on 12:42 - Aug 23 with 1483 views | jack247 |
| Stoke on 12:23 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
So you are glad we are cutting our cloth accordingly then?
Me too. |
You think we are likely to breach FFP by giving the manager a fraction of our transfer income to address the obvious shortcomings in squad depth? |  | | |
| Stoke on 12:47 - Aug 23 with 1469 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 12:36 - Aug 23 by jack247 |
There aren’t lists as long as your arm of that many signings in a single season that misfired as badly as ours did at every club. It’s very rare, it’s spectacularly bad recruitment and the reason we went down.
Yes, I totally take your point that if we’d been run more prudently we would likely have been relegated sooner. I wouldn’t have said so at the time, but that would have been preferable to 3?seasons circling the drain followed by selling those assets off for a fraction of their cost.
At the moment, we’ve got a bright young manager playing great football with a paper thin squad. It’s not sustainable as it is, we are papering over the cracks.
If we ever go up again, I’d take a shorter stay and a smoother transition into the Championship over knowing we are going to go down eventually and when we do, we’ll be a complete mess. |
It is not the reason we went down. We went down because costs outstripped growth and we were left with ever decreasing options. If we didn’t go down last season then we would have probably gone down this season. It was the natural state of things. If we go up again and do not improve off field revenue streams then the same will happen again. It won’t be anyone’s fault, it will be the natural course of things and the reason why every single club our size that gets promoted - goes back down. Every single one.
Who knows what the transition would be. Look at Stoke, their budget is massive and they are awful. Especially so if Jenkins goes as is wished by many. Who will be in control then? And what basis do you have that who you believe will be in charge could lead the smooth transition you are talking about? [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 12:51]
| |
| |
| Stoke on 12:49 - Aug 23 with 1459 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 12:42 - Aug 23 by jack247 |
You think we are likely to breach FFP by giving the manager a fraction of our transfer income to address the obvious shortcomings in squad depth? |
Of course not, hence why I said I am happy we are cutting our cloth accordingly.
Do I think we could have breached FFP had we not made the drastic cuts that people have been complaining about? Certainly. | |
| |
| Stoke on 12:51 - Aug 23 with 1453 views | vetchonian |
| Stoke on 12:13 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
I don’t understand the question in order to tell you if I believe it or not.
If you are asking me if I believe that people choose to be negative intentionally in order to push a narrative based on revenge as opposed to the actual situation, even if they know that their negativity could have an impact on the club - then yes absolutely. Not even in question.
In fact, I would bet that there are people within our very own Trust that would find it very hard to choose between the benefit of the club offset against revenge against the likes of Jenkins. |
I dont believe people are looking for revenge as you put it.
Firstly most true fans are supportive of the team and the manager BUT are really angered by the way that the club has been sold out especially as it was done by so called fans.
I was so thankful when my club was saved from the likes of Tony Petty by local people who were fans. Whilst Martin Morgan was a prime financier in the deal Huw et al also contributed this would not have been possible wothout Mel Nurse buying the debt ....he gifted his shares to the club receiving no benefit. Lets move on and as grateful as I am to Huw for taking us the Prem and the league cup final BUT I was taken in by the "by the fans for the fans". SInce the troubles of the 80s and the numerous owner changes..including the farcical Michael THompson Kevin Cullis situation I was relieved that the club was now in the hands of local fans who also cared aaaabout the football and didnt just view it as "business" whilst also having some nous to keep us in a sensible operating position.....Oh how wrong I was.......why did Huw need to award himself sucha a high salary? Why now post sale is DIneen "hanging " around what has in reality the sale done to benefit the club? NO investment....what the old board could have done was to employ a proper commercial whizzkid...probably would cost us less than the current outogings! Why did they deny the Trust the chance to sell their shareholding? Who at the time were the single largest shareholder.
I crtainly do not want revenge...I wnat my club protected.....which is what I beleived happened when Petty had his pound back.
For long term fans who have lived through re- election, the high court battles including handing buckets around Ninian Park on Boxing day in 1985 following the winding up order and all that has followed the "saving " of the club by our local consortium was seen as "securing " us from the likes of Petty evermore...as stated by the same group of fans who now owned us.....the only issue we now find oursleves in a position where our owners are only in it for the money...but given our football position we are no longer the "cash cow" that they believe they were sold. For me legal action is not about revenge but ensuring the Trust recieves the monies it should have got form a slae to allow us to be in a position to maybe rescue the club in the future. I originally thought we should retain our stake but have changed my mind. As regards Huw no revenge I would prefer he resigned....or offered to take a paycut to relieve some of the financial burden on the club.
SO the negativity is not about thje team per se but the ownership regime and the worry of the future as we will go through this all again when the Yanks have got us saleable and sold us on to make their profit
They have no thought of the benefit of the club as neither did Huw et al when they sold out and excluded the Trust. | |
| |
| Stoke on 12:54 - Aug 23 with 1441 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 12:51 - Aug 23 by vetchonian |
I dont believe people are looking for revenge as you put it.
Firstly most true fans are supportive of the team and the manager BUT are really angered by the way that the club has been sold out especially as it was done by so called fans.
I was so thankful when my club was saved from the likes of Tony Petty by local people who were fans. Whilst Martin Morgan was a prime financier in the deal Huw et al also contributed this would not have been possible wothout Mel Nurse buying the debt ....he gifted his shares to the club receiving no benefit. Lets move on and as grateful as I am to Huw for taking us the Prem and the league cup final BUT I was taken in by the "by the fans for the fans". SInce the troubles of the 80s and the numerous owner changes..including the farcical Michael THompson Kevin Cullis situation I was relieved that the club was now in the hands of local fans who also cared aaaabout the football and didnt just view it as "business" whilst also having some nous to keep us in a sensible operating position.....Oh how wrong I was.......why did Huw need to award himself sucha a high salary? Why now post sale is DIneen "hanging " around what has in reality the sale done to benefit the club? NO investment....what the old board could have done was to employ a proper commercial whizzkid...probably would cost us less than the current outogings! Why did they deny the Trust the chance to sell their shareholding? Who at the time were the single largest shareholder.
I crtainly do not want revenge...I wnat my club protected.....which is what I beleived happened when Petty had his pound back.
For long term fans who have lived through re- election, the high court battles including handing buckets around Ninian Park on Boxing day in 1985 following the winding up order and all that has followed the "saving " of the club by our local consortium was seen as "securing " us from the likes of Petty evermore...as stated by the same group of fans who now owned us.....the only issue we now find oursleves in a position where our owners are only in it for the money...but given our football position we are no longer the "cash cow" that they believe they were sold. For me legal action is not about revenge but ensuring the Trust recieves the monies it should have got form a slae to allow us to be in a position to maybe rescue the club in the future. I originally thought we should retain our stake but have changed my mind. As regards Huw no revenge I would prefer he resigned....or offered to take a paycut to relieve some of the financial burden on the club.
SO the negativity is not about thje team per se but the ownership regime and the worry of the future as we will go through this all again when the Yanks have got us saleable and sold us on to make their profit
They have no thought of the benefit of the club as neither did Huw et al when they sold out and excluded the Trust. |
With respect, you say that - then go off reeling paragraph after paragraph of how betrayed you feel.
Yet not once did you touch upon what you believe life would be like after Jenkins. It’s almost as if it doesn’t matter.
It’s incredible. | |
| |
| Stoke on 12:58 - Aug 23 with 1430 views | jack247 |
| Stoke on 12:47 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
It is not the reason we went down. We went down because costs outstripped growth and we were left with ever decreasing options. If we didn’t go down last season then we would have probably gone down this season. It was the natural state of things. If we go up again and do not improve off field revenue streams then the same will happen again. It won’t be anyone’s fault, it will be the natural course of things and the reason why every single club our size that gets promoted - goes back down. Every single one.
Who knows what the transition would be. Look at Stoke, their budget is massive and they are awful. Especially so if Jenkins goes as is wished by many. Who will be in control then? And what basis do you have that who you believe will be in charge could lead the smooth transition you are talking about? [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 12:51]
|
Of course it’s the reason we went down.
If we’d spent half the fees and wages we did on Ayew, Bony, Sanches, Clucas, Tammy and Mesa sensibily, we’d have stayed up at a canter.
We’d have gone down eventually, but that was absolutely the reason we went down last season. That and the reluctance to sack Paul Clement.
If we’d been relegated three years ago, we wouldn’t have had the financial outlay we do now. Stands to reason that it would then have been easier to adapt to a reduced income. | | | |
| Stoke on 13:07 - Aug 23 with 1393 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 12:58 - Aug 23 by jack247 |
Of course it’s the reason we went down.
If we’d spent half the fees and wages we did on Ayew, Bony, Sanches, Clucas, Tammy and Mesa sensibily, we’d have stayed up at a canter.
We’d have gone down eventually, but that was absolutely the reason we went down last season. That and the reluctance to sack Paul Clement.
If we’d been relegated three years ago, we wouldn’t have had the financial outlay we do now. Stands to reason that it would then have been easier to adapt to a reduced income. |
It’s not the reason we went down.
If we had spent half the fees and wages we spent on them, then it sinply means we would have gone down with half the fees and wages still in the bank. They were the options we had. As I said, the longer you stay there the more costs stagnate the club after it peaks, when that happens the playing side regresses and becomes a less attractive place to go. You are then left with ever decreasing options as we saw last year, those were the ones willing to come to us who had proven experience. It was them or nobody - and nobody was never going to be a viable option , and in fairness it nearly bloody worked another miracle, in fact it probably should.
If you agree we would have gone down eventually then you must understand that is a sentence you could have said 5 years ago and it coming to fruition last year, you only seem to finding it acceptable on your terms which is bizarre. On one hand you accept it is inevitable and then look for blame when the inevitable happens. We were there for almost a decade for God’s sake, of course we were going to go back down any given season. We should have gone down long ago, almost nobody stays there as long as we did with such small stature. It was incredible.
If we had been relegated 3 years ago we may well be in league 2 now. Again, look at Stoke and their budget. Or, had we never been promoted then we would probably be in an even better financial position, maybe we should be hoping to just make playoffs and fail in the final every year?
The ambition of any club is to play at the highest level for as long as possible. This will always be the case. Criticising the club for staying there for 7 years instead of getting relegated after 3 is ludicrous.
I don’t see any logic in your view what so ever. [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 13:13]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stoke on 13:16 - Aug 23 with 1365 views | jack247 |
| Stoke on 13:07 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
It’s not the reason we went down.
If we had spent half the fees and wages we spent on them, then it sinply means we would have gone down with half the fees and wages still in the bank. They were the options we had. As I said, the longer you stay there the more costs stagnate the club after it peaks, when that happens the playing side regresses and becomes a less attractive place to go. You are then left with ever decreasing options as we saw last year, those were the ones willing to come to us who had proven experience. It was them or nobody - and nobody was never going to be a viable option , and in fairness it nearly bloody worked another miracle, in fact it probably should.
If you agree we would have gone down eventually then you must understand that is a sentence you could have said 5 years ago and it coming to fruition last year, you only seem to finding it acceptable on your terms which is bizarre. On one hand you accept it is inevitable and then look for blame when the inevitable happens. We were there for almost a decade for God’s sake, of course we were going to go back down any given season. We should have gone down long ago, almost nobody stays there as long as we did with such small stature. It was incredible.
If we had been relegated 3 years ago we may well be in league 2 now. Again, look at Stoke and their budget. Or, had we never been promoted then we would probably be in an even better financial position, maybe we should be hoping to just make playoffs and fail in the final every year?
The ambition of any club is to play at the highest level for as long as possible. This will always be the case. Criticising the club for staying there for 7 years instead of getting relegated after 3 is ludicrous.
I don’t see any logic in your view what so ever. [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 13:13]
|
You’re trying to tell me that players on £100k p/w salaries were our only viable options?
I’d always want as to play at a high a level as possible. I wouldn’t want the clubs future risked on it. I’d rather be a solid championship club than a Portsmouth.
And don’t twist my words please. I haven’t criticised us for staying in the PL for 7 years, if we’d done that on a stable financial footing I’d be delighted. | | | |
| Stoke on 13:18 - Aug 23 with 1354 views | Neath_Jack |
| Stoke on 13:07 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
It’s not the reason we went down.
If we had spent half the fees and wages we spent on them, then it sinply means we would have gone down with half the fees and wages still in the bank. They were the options we had. As I said, the longer you stay there the more costs stagnate the club after it peaks, when that happens the playing side regresses and becomes a less attractive place to go. You are then left with ever decreasing options as we saw last year, those were the ones willing to come to us who had proven experience. It was them or nobody - and nobody was never going to be a viable option , and in fairness it nearly bloody worked another miracle, in fact it probably should.
If you agree we would have gone down eventually then you must understand that is a sentence you could have said 5 years ago and it coming to fruition last year, you only seem to finding it acceptable on your terms which is bizarre. On one hand you accept it is inevitable and then look for blame when the inevitable happens. We were there for almost a decade for God’s sake, of course we were going to go back down any given season. We should have gone down long ago, almost nobody stays there as long as we did with such small stature. It was incredible.
If we had been relegated 3 years ago we may well be in league 2 now. Again, look at Stoke and their budget. Or, had we never been promoted then we would probably be in an even better financial position, maybe we should be hoping to just make playoffs and fail in the final every year?
The ambition of any club is to play at the highest level for as long as possible. This will always be the case. Criticising the club for staying there for 7 years instead of getting relegated after 3 is ludicrous.
I don’t see any logic in your view what so ever. [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 13:13]
|
The reason we went down is because we didn't score enough goals to stay up.
Whether that was because of the tactics, the playing staff, the coaching staff or just the general malaise about the club, is up for debate, probably a mixture of all of them i'd guess.
Football is a simple game chaps.
We didn't score enough goals. |  |
| |
| Stoke on 13:20 - Aug 23 with 1350 views | vetchonian |
| Stoke on 12:54 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
With respect, you say that - then go off reeling paragraph after paragraph of how betrayed you feel.
Yet not once did you touch upon what you believe life would be like after Jenkins. It’s almost as if it doesn’t matter.
It’s incredible. |
Of course I feel betrayed..
Life after Jenkins now then .....you and your alter ego seem to think without him we are doomed. Guess what no one is indispensible Is he still really a chairman...we have Pearlman as CEO so im most organsiations he would be the "main man". SO is Huw now Do F?
Of course I would worry who the Yanks might appoint but I wonder how much influence is he really having?
He also made some real howlers along the way the biggest of which surrounds the full time appointment of Monk as manager without any proper support or an assistant with some maturity and distance form the dressing room along with the sidelining of curt.
At some point there will come a life after Huw...our next owners may well not want him.
I am sure a decent DoF could be employed at a fraction of Huws salary.....he is not a football guru he had some luck! His forst managerial appoinment of Nick Cusack failed.He tthe went to tried and tested Brian Flynn,followed by steady Kenny. Risked a punt with ROberto..who has a football brain and also assembled a good team around him...Grame JOnes to sort out issues with his ex dressing room mates , Kevin Reeves as Roberto had realised he had a good knack for spotting players,part of the reason ROberto left was at the time Huw told him the club could not afford to buy Jordi Gomez to help mount a challenge to the Premier......whilst in later seasons we have thrown high sums of cash we didnt have to try to keep us up there. subsequent appointments varied Sousa sort of ok Brendan and Laudrup speak for themselves but since?
OF course it matters who replaces Jenkins but he is not irreplacable and he is certainly not the "superman" you and your alter ego seem to worship and defend.There is a risk i replacing him...just as the same risks existed when he sold out to new owners...we have had to livew with that so guess what we would learn to live with that too...maybe even give us something more to be negative about! Or maybe? | |
| |
| Stoke on 13:23 - Aug 23 with 1339 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 13:16 - Aug 23 by jack247 |
You’re trying to tell me that players on £100k p/w salaries were our only viable options?
I’d always want as to play at a high a level as possible. I wouldn’t want the clubs future risked on it. I’d rather be a solid championship club than a Portsmouth.
And don’t twist my words please. I haven’t criticised us for staying in the PL for 7 years, if we’d done that on a stable financial footing I’d be delighted. |
It wasn’t just any player on 100k a week was it. It was a former player with a court case hanging over us. What other player with PL experience, willing to go to us and in that bracket do you think we had banging our door down then? Our options were severely limited, clearly.
The clubs future wasn’t risked - hence we are now financially manageable and sit just outside the automatic spots in the Championship. Also the reason we were not going to bow to popular demands and spend more than we could afford on players.
I am not twisting your words. We just agreed we would not have been able to stay there for 7 years had we not invested most of our money in the playing staff. So your notion of staying there for 7 years with minimal outlay is an unrealistic pie in the sky one which history suggests is almost impossible. | |
| |
| Stoke on 13:24 - Aug 23 with 1333 views | Loyal |
| Stoke on 12:54 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
With respect, you say that - then go off reeling paragraph after paragraph of how betrayed you feel.
Yet not once did you touch upon what you believe life would be like after Jenkins. It’s almost as if it doesn’t matter.
It’s incredible. |
A bit of a crystal ball required for that. |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Stoke on 13:33 - Aug 23 with 1296 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 13:24 - Aug 23 by Loyal |
A bit of a crystal ball required for that. |
My point exactly.
Now program that crystal ball with historical data regarding the owners appointments in similar roles at other sports clubs - and their subsequent track records.
What does said crystal ball come up with? Worth trading in what we have now for? Unprecedented 15 years of continuous success (yes surviving relegation is success).
Of course we are not going to know for sure who will come in, but we can make a realistic scenario based on what we know.
So then tell me, why would they have the club at heart? Why would they put the club above personal wealth? I presume they won’t be from the area, or have any connection to the club at all. Would you agree? So would their track record be better? I doubt it.
It seems someone people want to replace a Rottweiler in their basement with a Tyrannosaurs Rex because he pissed on your favourite trousers. It’s bonkers. [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 13:34]
| |
| |
| Stoke on 13:33 - Aug 23 with 1292 views | jack247 |
| Stoke on 13:23 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
It wasn’t just any player on 100k a week was it. It was a former player with a court case hanging over us. What other player with PL experience, willing to go to us and in that bracket do you think we had banging our door down then? Our options were severely limited, clearly.
The clubs future wasn’t risked - hence we are now financially manageable and sit just outside the automatic spots in the Championship. Also the reason we were not going to bow to popular demands and spend more than we could afford on players.
I am not twisting your words. We just agreed we would not have been able to stay there for 7 years had we not invested most of our money in the playing staff. So your notion of staying there for 7 years with minimal outlay is an unrealistic pie in the sky one which history suggests is almost impossible. |
As much as I was against it at the time, keeping hold of Llorente and losing him for free in the summer would have been better than getting relegated and still paying Bonys wages. It’s the end of the sensible discussion if you can’t see we could have spent wiser. Andre Ayew cane when we looked odds on for relegation, I doubt his wages would have been much lower. That’s without Clucas et al.
Do you think it’s a good job we didn’t stay up for 10 years and find ourselves in an even worse position on relegation? We’ve had to sell everyone with any value at knock down prices as it is.
Our current league position is not sustainable without bolstering the squad. I wish it was. | | | |
| Stoke on 13:35 - Aug 23 with 1288 views | vetchonian |
| Stoke on 13:33 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
My point exactly.
Now program that crystal ball with historical data regarding the owners appointments in similar roles at other sports clubs - and their subsequent track records.
What does said crystal ball come up with? Worth trading in what we have now for? Unprecedented 15 years of continuous success (yes surviving relegation is success).
Of course we are not going to know for sure who will come in, but we can make a realistic scenario based on what we know.
So then tell me, why would they have the club at heart? Why would they put the club above personal wealth? I presume they won’t be from the area, or have any connection to the club at all. Would you agree? So would their track record be better? I doubt it.
It seems someone people want to replace a Rottweiler in their basement with a Tyrannosaurs Rex because he pissed on your favourite trousers. It’s bonkers. [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 13:34]
|
So then tell me, why would they have the club at heart? Why would they put the club above personal wealth?
So tell me is that what Huw did when he awarded himself such high salaries or when he sold his shares and the voting rights to those he retained? [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 13:37]
| |
| |
| Stoke on 13:35 - Aug 23 with 1287 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Stoke on 13:33 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
My point exactly.
Now program that crystal ball with historical data regarding the owners appointments in similar roles at other sports clubs - and their subsequent track records.
What does said crystal ball come up with? Worth trading in what we have now for? Unprecedented 15 years of continuous success (yes surviving relegation is success).
Of course we are not going to know for sure who will come in, but we can make a realistic scenario based on what we know.
So then tell me, why would they have the club at heart? Why would they put the club above personal wealth? I presume they won’t be from the area, or have any connection to the club at all. Would you agree? So would their track record be better? I doubt it.
It seems someone people want to replace a Rottweiler in their basement with a Tyrannosaurs Rex because he pissed on your favourite trousers. It’s bonkers. [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 13:34]
|
"Now program that crystal ball with historical data regarding the owners appointments in similar roles at other sports clubs - and their subsequent track records."
If someone had the competence to do that at the time we would not have sold out to these Americans for purely personal gain. |  |
| |
| Stoke on 13:43 - Aug 23 with 1267 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 13:33 - Aug 23 by jack247 |
As much as I was against it at the time, keeping hold of Llorente and losing him for free in the summer would have been better than getting relegated and still paying Bonys wages. It’s the end of the sensible discussion if you can’t see we could have spent wiser. Andre Ayew cane when we looked odds on for relegation, I doubt his wages would have been much lower. That’s without Clucas et al.
Do you think it’s a good job we didn’t stay up for 10 years and find ourselves in an even worse position on relegation? We’ve had to sell everyone with any value at knock down prices as it is.
Our current league position is not sustainable without bolstering the squad. I wish it was. |
No it wouldn’t.
Bonys signature represented a chance to remain in the league and recycle the money. Llorente staying with a broken arm, no pre season and a contract measured in months is the sort of decision made by utter imbeciles. If you think that was the right decision then you don’t really have any grounds to criticise other decisions because that is just off the chart bonkers. It is reaigning yourself to relegation after just admitting your ambition would be to remain at the highest level.
“Could have spent wiser” is such a silly point of view though. You have absolutely no idea what our realistic options were at the time. None. Had our most successful PL striker Bony failed to make an impact the first time around you could say “could have spent it wiser”. It’s juat reactionary rubbish based on not a lot of information.
Your options represent a doomsday scenario, just like your last post when you referenced Portsmouth. That wasn’t a scenario here so a futile discussion. Costs had peaked, they were not outstripping income. It means we would stagnate, not be financially crippled. So 10 years in the PL please - without question.
You have no idea what is and isn’t sustainable with the plans in place for this side. You are just decided it will be a negative slant regardless. | |
| |
| Stoke on 13:44 - Aug 23 with 1263 views | Catullus |
| Stoke on 12:29 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
Better off in what way?
Many people disguise their vendetta as that but then don’t offer any realistic alternative to what the future may hold as a result of their wish.
Again, I think Pearlman would take control with an advisor. Possibly Landon Donovan. Who do you think the Americans would put in charge?
Then put that against the most successful chairman we have ever had who put all that you are excited about in place and tell me why Pearlman and Donovan - probably part of the consortium to appoint Bradley - and tell me why we would be better off?
To me it is a huge dose of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Deep down everyone knows we would be worse off but they want it anyway, because they feel hurt and betrayed and want to get one up in him regardless of what it takes or what it costs. It’s awfully sad to witness. [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 12:30]
|
WE'd be better off because the vast majority of the hate and bile being spewed forth is aimed at Jenkins, he is the focal point for most of the ill will, people blame him for....in no particular order, lying about the sale of the club, that the Americans were needed for investment to take us to the next level, making asuccession of bad decisions that saw us spend a lot of money on failures (I haven't spoken to anyone or seen online any post saying Clucas was a good deal yet, beforehand I spoke to many who hoped we didn't sign him, specially at that price) and the constant turmoil we seem to have been in with the Trust being frozen out and several rumours of dodgy business deals, like a certain shareholder who got a supply contract supposedly only because of those shares/being with the in crowd.
People don't like or want the Americans anymore yet I accept we have to go with them because we have no choice. Huw Jenkins however, well he can be removed and after all, he himself said his position would be untenable if we got relegated. The Turkey predicted Christmas is coming and is still managing to avoid the oven but the heat is rising! | |
| |
| Stoke on 13:46 - Aug 23 with 1255 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 13:35 - Aug 23 by vetchonian |
So then tell me, why would they have the club at heart? Why would they put the club above personal wealth?
So tell me is that what Huw did when he awarded himself such high salaries or when he sold his shares and the voting rights to those he retained? [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 13:37]
|
My point was that replacing him for that - you would then surely believe that his successor would not. Yes?
I have asked why you think this.
Unless you don’t of course, and acknowledge that his successor with no connection to the club or area will also put himself and his wealth before the club... then your motive is purely vengeful.
Unless you genuinely think the successor will have a better track record - which of course you would have to look very hard and pay a lot of money for. Could you name anyone that has a better track record that wouldn’t put personal wealth ahead of the club?
Me neither. | |
| |
| Stoke on 13:47 - Aug 23 with 1249 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 13:35 - Aug 23 by JACKMANANDBOY |
"Now program that crystal ball with historical data regarding the owners appointments in similar roles at other sports clubs - and their subsequent track records."
If someone had the competence to do that at the time we would not have sold out to these Americans for purely personal gain. |
Yes they would.
Hence why they did it for personal gain. | |
| |
| Stoke on 13:50 - Aug 23 with 1240 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 13:44 - Aug 23 by Catullus |
WE'd be better off because the vast majority of the hate and bile being spewed forth is aimed at Jenkins, he is the focal point for most of the ill will, people blame him for....in no particular order, lying about the sale of the club, that the Americans were needed for investment to take us to the next level, making asuccession of bad decisions that saw us spend a lot of money on failures (I haven't spoken to anyone or seen online any post saying Clucas was a good deal yet, beforehand I spoke to many who hoped we didn't sign him, specially at that price) and the constant turmoil we seem to have been in with the Trust being frozen out and several rumours of dodgy business deals, like a certain shareholder who got a supply contract supposedly only because of those shares/being with the in crowd.
People don't like or want the Americans anymore yet I accept we have to go with them because we have no choice. Huw Jenkins however, well he can be removed and after all, he himself said his position would be untenable if we got relegated. The Turkey predicted Christmas is coming and is still managing to avoid the oven but the heat is rising! |
Exactly, my point in a nutshell.
People only want him gone because of how they feel about his actions. Yet they are not thinking that they will be replacing him with someone not from the area, no affinity to the club and even more likely to stab it in the back than Jenkins - almost certainly with a worse track record too.
It’s revenge. Pure and simple. The effect it has in the club as a result is an after thought.
The replies in this thread alone is proof of that.
- he also did not once state his position would be untenable if relegated. That’s a similar sort of thing to “next level” stuff. It is a mantra based on twisted words and then repeated until believed. It’s utter nonsense. [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 13:52]
| |
| |
| Stoke on 13:59 - Aug 23 with 1213 views | Jacket |
Since Pulis left they've basically bolted on a couple of quality players like Allen, Shaquiri and Arnautovic on top a squad Pulis built in his own image, cloggers basically. Since going down, they've tried to keep hold of as many members of last season's failing squad as possible, while signing random players with an absolute scatter-gun approach - expensive rubbish like Clucas and Afobe and an Ashley Williams whose ego, obnoxiousness and belly have grown at about the same rate as his quality and skill have reduced. The end result is an imbalanced squad that has unsurprisingly in my opinion bombed. Add to this mix a manager who "knows the Championship inside out", damn right he does, because he's never taken any one out of the division. He spent heavily last season at Derby and could only take them to mid-table mediocrity. Like his predecessor at Stoke an uninspiring appointment. Pipe down Potters you're in the shite. | | | |
| Stoke on 13:59 - Aug 23 with 1212 views | Catullus |
| Stoke on 13:50 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
Exactly, my point in a nutshell.
People only want him gone because of how they feel about his actions. Yet they are not thinking that they will be replacing him with someone not from the area, no affinity to the club and even more likely to stab it in the back than Jenkins - almost certainly with a worse track record too.
It’s revenge. Pure and simple. The effect it has in the club as a result is an after thought.
The replies in this thread alone is proof of that.
- he also did not once state his position would be untenable if relegated. That’s a similar sort of thing to “next level” stuff. It is a mantra based on twisted words and then repeated until believed. It’s utter nonsense. [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 13:52]
|
Didn't he,,,,,,,was this a fake story then? At the very least he said ,maybe he should resign....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5222081/Swansea-chairman-Huw-J | |
| |
| Stoke on 14:00 - Aug 23 with 1209 views | vetchonian |
| Stoke on 13:46 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
My point was that replacing him for that - you would then surely believe that his successor would not. Yes?
I have asked why you think this.
Unless you don’t of course, and acknowledge that his successor with no connection to the club or area will also put himself and his wealth before the club... then your motive is purely vengeful.
Unless you genuinely think the successor will have a better track record - which of course you would have to look very hard and pay a lot of money for. Could you name anyone that has a better track record that wouldn’t put personal wealth ahead of the club?
Me neither. |
YOu contradict yourself......I am not vengeful I just point out that in fact Huw did put his personal wealth ahead of the club.
You talk of his track record well I have discussed that too and yes Huw played his part inappointing Roberto, Brenadan and Laudrup who really were the architects to our success on the field . During this time we came to the notice of the media and were held up as a model due too our "supporter ownership" and a history of not buying "stars" but acquiring players for good value to fit into "the SWansea way". Huw also was reswponsible for the appointments of Monk,Guidolin and more so the sacking of Guido,CLement and his sacking..alomg with the spend spend spend philsophy we adopted. For some reason you and your altewr ego seem to ignore the mistakes and negatives about Huws reign these all count ..in other organisations he would have been sacked by now....like the critics on here you are only as good as your last game.
Yes it appears he is responsible for the appointment of Graham Potter et al ...or is he?
As someone else has discussed why isnt he banging on the door of the yanks ensuring the necessary backing Potter needs is delivered in the shape of loan transfers. It is said the Woods deal fell down over 500K HUw could have said " hey guys Ill work for the next 12 months for free to allow this much needed transfer to take place" thats if of course he was nt putting personal wealth ahead of the club....its not like he need the slalary to survive! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
