Jump to content

Assuming Roman really is a controlling meglamaniac..........


Qaz

Assuming Roman really is controlling meglamaniac. What's worse?  

21 members have voted

  1. 1.

    • A controlling meglamaniac owner who constantly interferes in the managers job but invests hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds each year out of his own pocket
      15
    • Bunkruptcy or severe financial hardship with all our players being sold to other clubs and the team being relegated to the Coca Cola Championship
      6


Recommended Posts


Why not something in between? A club that makes enough money to be a top team. I think we'll be there soon.

We are still miles and miles away from that.

Apart from the fact we aren't even close to break even point, the teams revenue is based upon continued success and participation in the Champions League. This is exactly where Leeds failed, they based their revenue projections on regular participation in the Champions League and it all came down like a pack of cards once they missed qualification.

They then revised their revenue projections to compensate and sold all their best players to try and balance the books betting on the revenue of premiership survival as the benchmark. But of course they had sold all their best players and even that was struggle (one which they failed).

Now their revenue projections are based on Coca Cola Championship football and they are still unable to afford the players to compete successfully in that league. I heard something a while back about the possiblity of another demotion for Leeds, if that happens they will need to sell yet more players and to balance the books again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for the middle one - (I find sarcasm is best fought with sarcasm).

Qaz you are doing a great job defending the indefensible - The Owner should never interfere with the manager. If he doesn't like what the manager is doing then he is within his rights to replace him. What Mourinho's crime was I'm still not sure. Playing unattractive football? Not beating Rosenborg? How many clubs are playing attractive AND winning football? Last season in England it was Manyoo. Were AC Milan particularly attractive? Real Madrid? I would say Seville are an attractive outfit but other than them and Manyoo, not many others played 'The Beautiful Game' and won a trophy.

If he thinks that his mouthpiece A farm Grunt will do any better (as he's asked his lackies to tell the press) he's not only a meglamaniac, he's delusional as well. If the new bloke is just keeping the seat warm for Hiddink or some other experienced coach, it beggers the question why didn't he sack Jose in the summer so the new man would have a chance to set the club up the way he wanted?

Face it - the decision to let Jose go after criticising him for over a year was idiotic. Mourinho is the best manager (by a million miles) this club has ever had, or likely to. By every measure this has been a backward step - the fans are angry, the players are de-motivated, the board embarrassed (just look at Buck and Kenyon's faces in that press conference) and the new bloke is being ridiculed. Sacking Jose was the act of a petulant man, egged on by those that surround him - a bunch of hangers on who think they know how to take the club forward but in actuallity have taken us so far backwards we can see our own arses in the distance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for the middle one - (I find sarcasm is best fought with sarcasm).

Qaz you are doing a great job defending the indefensible - The Owner should never interfere with the manager. If he doesn't like what the manager is doing then he is within his rights to replace him. What Mourinho's crime was I'm still not sure. Playing unattractive football? Not beating Rosenborg? How many clubs are playing attractive AND winning football? Last season in England it was Manyoo. Were AC Milan particularly attractive? Real Madrid? I would say Seville are an attractive outfit but other than them and Manyoo, not many others played 'The Beautiful Game' and won a trophy.

If he thinks that his mouthpiece A farm Grunt will do any better (as he's asked his lackies to tell the press) he's not only a meglamaniac, he's delusional as well. If the new bloke is just keeping the seat warm for Hiddink or some other experienced coach, it beggers the question why didn't he sack Jose in the summer so the new man would have a chance to set the club up the way he wanted?

Face it - the decision to let Jose go after criticising him for over a year was idiotic. Mourinho is the best manager (by a million miles) this club has ever had, or likely to. By every measure this has been a backward step - the fans are angry, the players are de-motivated, the board embarrassed (just look at Buck and Kenyon's faces in that press conference) and the new bloke is being ridiculed. Sacking Jose was the act of a petulant man, egged on by those that surround him - a bunch of hangers on who think they know how to take the club forward but in actuallity have taken us so far backwards we can see our own arses in the distance!

Jack are you at the next home game? I wanna buy you a pint!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


it beggers the question why didn't he sack Jose in the summer so the new man would have a chance to set the club up the way he wanted?

That's the big mystery for me too.

I can only conclude that it was down to money, on both sides. Abramovich must have thought, as did I, that Mourinho would walk when Grant was appointed. I still can't believe he didn't although 20 million is a high price for anyone's pride. Since the season started it is clear that there was continuous undermining of Mourinho, again I assume with the intention of forcing a resignation. When it was clear that none was forthcoming the "mutual consent" deal was struck and Abramovich coughed up.

It remains to be seen whether Abramovich will step back again now he has got his way. If he doesn't, as Jack has brilliantly argued over the past few days, we're f**ked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we couldn't afford to pay the wages for more than a few months so the players would have to accept a radical wage cut or leave. Promote the entire reserves of whom many are only boys would mean relegation which in turn would mean reduced TV income although we would get around ?20 million like Sheff Utd. Also, obviously, that would spell the end of European football resulting in a further drop in income. In all likelihood we would not get straight back out of the Championship and from there the possibilities of going down hill are well documented in fact there is a simple template for failure which maps out this fall in detail here

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up

Well, this is awkward!

Happy Tech GIF by Atlassian

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

Sure, let me in!