Day Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Daveo won't accept anything that isn't stuffed with facts:D Prove it with facts please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 My penis measures 3.5 inches long when fully aroused There's a fact from Daveo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I see that pump equipment is working well then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I am. Not because I particularly want to hang anyone on what they've said or not said - but I just want to know who are the good guys and who are the villains. I'm no expert but it sort of sounds like nobody has really put any money in. LOG, GSE, nobody comes out of the above sounding like philanthropists. And all in all, I don't really care. As long as we're not hurtling towards bankruptcy, as long as we're not laundering some mafia kingpin's ill-gotten gains, and as long as Clough can build a team that competes, I'll be happy. Would be nice to know if GSE have bailed us out, if the LOG have bailed us out, if nobody has bailed us out or what. But my puny little brain just can't take it all in. As I said in the guitar playing thread, a guitar has 6 strings so must be easy to master. Numbers only go from 0 to 9 so accounts must be fairly easy to work out as well. I probably need a nap, come back to it fresh. It's obviously very simple. From memory,LOG put in about £7m,but won tv revenues alone of £55m.GSE have put in £20m.Perhaps that makes it simpler (genuinely not being condescending). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I see that pump equipment is working well then. You guys are out in force tonight-moderation in all things:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 There's a fact from Daveo. Can you prove it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Can you prove it? You wouldn't believe it if you could see it, which you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 From memory,LOG put in about £7m,but won tv revenues alone of £55m.GSE have put in £20m.Perhaps that makes it simpler (genuinely not being condescending). Absolutely much appreciated. With the borrowing against future income, the revolving debt, the allegations from both sides - I genuinely don't know (or at least didn't, until this post) whether LOG/GSE were forces for good or evil. Sounds like LOG took a gamble and it paid off, GSE are being more cautious which involves spending more in the short to medium term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Absolutely much appreciated. With the borrowing against future income, the revolving debt, the allegations from both sides - I genuinely don't know (or at least didn't, until this post) whether LOG/GSE were forces for good or evil. Sounds like LOG took a gamble and it paid off, GSE are being more cautious which involves spending more in the short to medium term. Not sure you've got the last 2 the right way round.LOG had a 3 year plan,which just happened to mature a bit early.Nobody (other than them) knows how much they might subsequently have invested,but one might assume that they'd planned financially for those 3 years.Obviously,they didn't feel they had the firepower to establish us in the Prem. GSE however appear to have gambled on instant promotion by handing out a stream of lucrative 3 year contracts that they knew the club's income couldn't support if promotion weren't achieved (AP virtually admitted this by saying that the wage bill would have to be slashed following failure).The gamble came unstuck when it became obvious that players couldn't just be herded out like cattle. Part of me feels sorry for them because they obviously arrived with good intentions.However,my mind goes back to email exchanges between Appleby and fans,reproduced on other forums.In one,AA bemoans the total power that players have-this dates back to Bosman and the entry of Sky,so hardly something new.It's also obvious from the 'Crains' interview that he didn't understand what constituted a good 'matchday experience' for fans (in the main winning,hopefully with good football),hence no initial appreciation of customer requirements. One of their compatriots,Warren Buffett,would be shaking his head in disbelief-if you don't fully understand a business,then keep the hell out of it. (Also very good advice for any regarding financial transactions-if you don't know exactly what you're signing up to,steer well clear). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Maybe not quite as clear as I meant - sounds like LOG got lucky then had to spend future income in order to keep the ball rolling, and GSE have been forced to work more cautiously, partly because of it but mainly because of their inability to quickly return to the top flight. Sound more like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Can we start another thread 'when will the dogs give up on McClaren?' a team that is truly in turmoil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Maybe not quite as clear as I meant - sounds like LOG got lucky then had to spend future income in order to keep the ball rolling, and GSE have been forced to work more cautiously, partly because of it but mainly because of their inability to quickly return to the top flight. Sound more like? Hmm,not quite sure you're there yet.Future income to me means income relating to future seasons.The LOG spending was actually covered by that season's income,whereas the January spending wasn't.The LOG activity would only have deprived the 08/09 season of £10.4m of income if there hadn't been £10.4m (or more) of unspent 07/08 cash to fill the void (which there would easily have been without the January intervention). If all of the 07/08 expenditure had gobbled up all of the 07/08 cash and the LOG had borrowed the £10.4m for players on top,then you could legitimately have charged them with spending future income.In real terms,GSE effectively spent a big chunk of the chute payment,whereas the LOG spent what the 07/08 season afforded.It would have been so much easier to understand if the £10.4m loan had been secured against (and repaid out of) the later 07/08 tv income.If GSE had wanted to then splash out in January they would have been the ones borrowing against the first chute (assuming they didn't decide to put their own money in,which I suspect they hadn't gathered in at the time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 You're right - I'm probably not getting this. He who shall not be named comes away from this looking good, but our current rulers not so much. The January gambles didn't pay off and that's why we've had a couple of fallow seasons. I think I get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryKrinkle Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 when do we give up on Clough? Not sure, but the first time Lee Croft plays at right back (see DET) will be a huge push in that direction! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 when do we give up on Clough? Not sure, but the first time Lee Croft plays at right back (see DET) will be a huge push in that direction! even if he plays well? just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 when do we give up on Clough? Not sure, but the first time Lee Croft plays at right back (see DET) will be a huge push in that direction! Clough playing players out of postion. Never Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryKrinkle Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 even if he plays well? just saying. you never know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 You're right - I'm probably not getting this. He who shall not be named comes away from this looking good, but our current rulers not so much. The January gambles didn't pay off and that's why we've had a couple of fallow seasons. I think I get it. Very nearly there now-just substitute 6 equals for the unmentionable one and add in the following summer's gambles and you've got it. I reckon Sav's total cost (including value of contract) would have exceeded £5m,so that's a humdinger of a start.We paid for the player he used to be,rather than the one he turned out to be (not his fault). The other big difference between the 2 regimes is that the LOG left several saleable assets (Oakley,Howard,Miller,Earnshaw,Fagan,Jones,Mears and even possibly Bywater,Pearson and Leacock) to more than cover contract buy outs of their duffers (Clod,Todd and Feilhaber)-the same can't be said of GSE (at least not to the same extent). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Very nearly there now-just substitute 6 equals for the unmentionable one and add in the following summer's gambles and you've got it. I reckon Sav's total cost (including value of contract) would have exceeded £5m,so that's a humdinger of a start.We paid for the player he used to be,rather than the one he turned out to be (not his fault). The other big difference between the 2 regimes is that the LOG left several saleable assets (Oakley,Howard,Miller,Earnshaw,Fagan,Jones,Mears and even possibly Bywater,Pearson and Leacock) to more than cover contract buy outs of their duffers (Clod,Todd and Feilhaber)-the same can't be said of GSE (at least not to the same extent). In fairness to GSE when they first came here and spent, they seemed to be a bit naive and followed Jewell in his ultimate wisdom, rather than thinking it through, now I think they have been here long enough and from Cloughies recent interview it sounded like he'd done with players who were over the hill, although we are after a experienced midfielder, but doubt he'll be over 32 (whoever it is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Very nearly there now-just substitute 6 equals for the unmentionable one and add in the following summer's gambles and you've got it. I reckon Sav's total cost (including value of contract) would have exceeded £5m,so that's a humdinger of a start.We paid for the player he used to be,rather than the one he turned out to be (not his fault). The other big difference between the 2 regimes is that the LOG left several saleable assets (Oakley,Howard,Miller,Earnshaw,Fagan,Jones,Mears and even possibly Bywater,Pearson and Leacock) to more than cover contract buy outs of their duffers (Clod,Todd and Feilhaber)-the same can't be said of GSE (at least not to the same extent). It amazes me that nobody bats an eyelid that Bywater and Leacock are now virtually worthless to us, everybody in the league knows we are desperate to get rid of them, if they stay then they will be picking up a wage for doing absolutely nothing, these are players that have won us a promotoin, so they are obviously good enough for this level, and by definition of being in a promotion winning team don't have an in-built bad attitude. If anybody needs proof of bad management then just point to these two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.