New owners ?

[stan butler]

Re: New owners ?

But are you happy with it just being better? Consider how much money Tan has put into this club and do you think better is enough or should it be much, much better?

100% we should be in a much better position after the money that's been spent but the way i feel about it is we are still in safe hands and i believe Tan etc have learnt harsh lessons since being here.
Vincent Tan is no mug when it comes to business he took on a business that he knew little about so i'm sure he has learnt quite a lot since owning us and will adapt accordingly.
Some people who want Tan to go have very short memories when it comes to owners.
Ridsdale wasn't to bad but he did a couple of things that raised a few eyebrows like the season ticket yarn and the catering contracts etc.

Sam Hammam got us into all sorts of trouble and debt and still took hundreds of thousands for his companies whilst we were near going under he eventually left us with a 31 million debt in 2004 which would be closer to 49 million today and is still lingering in the hope of taking more money from our club.

I'd have to go back as far as Ricky Wright to find a decent owner. He had visions for the club but knew he couldn't afford to do it on his own which was a shame.

Tan isn't perfect but even if he did sell it won't mean we will have a new owner who will take us to the level of Chelsea or Man City we could get yanks like the Jacks or the Blackburn lot..

[Cleve van Leef]

Re: New owners ?

100% we should be in a much better position after the money that's been spent but the way i feel about it is we are still in safe hands and i believe Tan etc have learnt harsh lessons since being here.
Vincent Tan is no mug when it comes to business he took on a business that he knew little about so i'm sure he has learnt quite a lot since owning us and will adapt accordingly.
Some people who want Tan to go have very short memories when it comes to owners.
Ridsdale wasn't to bad but he did a couple of things that raised a few eyebrows like the season ticket yarn and the catering contracts etc.

Sam Hammam got us into all sorts of trouble and debt and still took hundreds of thousands for his companies whilst we were near going under he eventually left us with a 31 million debt in 2004 which would be closer to 49 million today and is still lingering in the hope of taking more money from our club.

I'd have to go back as far as Ricky Wright to find a decent owner. He had visions for the club but knew he couldn't afford to do it on his own which was a shame.

Tan isn't perfect but even if he did sell it won't mean we will have a new owner who will take us to the level of Chelsea or Man City we could get yanks like the Jacks or the Blackburn lot..

Well said that man, :thumbup:

[The Hooded Claw]

Re: New owners ?

I don’t think anyone is saying that they want Vincent Tan out. The point is that a lot of money has been spent, the debt (though manageable) is high and after all that, we’re still a middling to upper Championship team.
I would expect that there are other clubs in a similar league position to us who haven’t spent nearly as much.

[Rjk]

Re: New owners ?

I don’t think anyone is saying that they want Vincent Tan out. The point is that a lot of money has been spent, the debt (though manageable) is high and after all that, we’re still a middling to upper Championship team.
I would expect that there are other clubs in a similar league position to us who haven’t spent nearly as much.

that's true, there are probably other clubs who've spent even more and done no better as well - I'm thinking about Stoke here in particular

[surge]

Re: New owners ?

Tan made most of his mistakes pre-Warnock and the biggest mistakes since first Neil come in allowing Warnock to spend poorly in premier league winter window and summer window post relegation.

It's taken a long time but I think Tan has a sense of what this club needs to be - the only issue now being he's not able to financially back it as he did when he didn't have a clue.

I though this comment on Loftforwords was interesting though based on i) how non progressive clubs can seemingly do what a progressive club with DoF would do: bringing in element of cohesion and stability and ii) how we're still perceived not to be touching data yet despite our recent crop of signings being well liked by those appreciative of analytics:

Couple things I'd like to pick up on along the analytics theme. There's a bit of misdirection with the wideboy Khan scion in that he actually is very analytics-minded - but in a splashy USA way indulging all sorts of fly-by-night spreadsheet jockey consultants that has been perpetually at odds with the managers it's meant to serve and the competitive situations the club finds itself in. The lack of cohesion and stability has resulted in several potentially canny signings going astray, similar I'd argue to Villa round about the Sherwood era where they had Adama Traore, Gueye (now PSG), Amavi, Veretout (now Roma) Gollini (just signed for Spurs) unsuited and undeveloped, or even Liverpool's early teething troubles with the likes of Iago Aspas and Luis Alberto who went on to have great careers. (Little time capsule here: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-klopp-beware-

Now on the other hand, take Cardiff, who I'd disagree have embraced modernity and departed from traditional models in any substantial way - BUT would argue are counter-intuitively "progressive" nevertheless.

Thing about them is: they are the one club who have gone wayyyyy out of their way to maintain continuity and minimise wastage post-Warnock success. The unlovely style of football has disguised the fact they actively and non-obviously lasered in on Harris and Mick (who no one else would have hired, or will hire after) the exact same way Barnsley have scouted Austrian coaches. It's also the case that picking up lower league gems with resale value like Wintle and Ng is something Mick has a great track record with, despite data still only being something he gets the mop & bucket out for. In a funny way it's like they don't need a director of football, precisely because the "traditional model of having an experienced manager and letting him get on with it" has been boiled down to its most narrow, predictable, and crucially, repeatable essence.

So similar to what you're saying about "this idea that there’s one true way to play football", one could argue that the perception of being a forward-thinking modern club in terms of structure and recruitment has become distorted by the currently dominant signifiers of science, pretty football and cosmopolitanism.

https://loftforwords.fansnetwork.co....contenders/#13