benno2

When was this? And in relation to what.

I don't see the point in blaming Purslow for the whole player account thing. To all intents and purposes it looks like what he has been saying on that front is true. We have made a modest profit over the last few windows. Had we made a modest loss, the same would have applied. The one aspect of this that I find hard to believe is that the wage bill has risen this summer (his lfctv interview), but in saying this I find it hard to believe because of the fact that there were more outs than ins. That said I don't believe he's lying about it, it just seems improbable without evidence, which we're never going to get. The inevitable consequence of this policy is that we were only ever going to stand still at best, which in the heat of competition where other sides around us are investing, some collosally, is tantamount to regression. But those were the demands of a poisonous regime that sucked all profits into interest payments. None of this is Purslow's fault, which everybody knows, so why the blame game? From where I sit, he hasn't lied about it either. We may always have done things this way, it's just that in the past the player account was supplemented from profits and augmented over time resulting in continual positive net spending. Purslow never said this was a good plan, just that it was the plan. Given the financial position, anything else would have been reckless. The fact that we are debt free means that investment can now resume. It has to, at the very least, if we're to have any ambitions of regaining a top 4 spot. This much is obvious. So there's little point in arguing that we don't need investment in the squad. What is needed is for it to be done shrewdly. We find ourselves in a position where we have a mid-table manager with, seemingly, a prediliction for signing players he knows and has worked with previously. By definition, these are mid-table players. This doesn't bode well. On top of this he employs tactics, which by his own admission (even if he doesn't mean it this way) are out of date. Trusting whatever amounts the NESV regime deems right over the next couple of transfer windows to this man is a real risk. If he signs players suited to his vision of the game, we're stuck with them for 3-5 years, as is the case with Poulsen and Konchesky. This is what happens when short-sighted, short-termist decisions are made. The costs are felt for years. To delay the stadium build for squad building now, would be a similar mistake. This should have been started 10 years ago, it wasn't and we continue to pay the cost, as we fall ever further behind the financial behemoths of the league. To make the same mistake with this regime would not only be costly, it would be profoundly stupid.

The judges comments on throwing out the TRO were pretty damning.

Good point. They don't like enriching current owners though, do they?

If Mill tried to bid too late (meeting with Broughton cancelled last Thursday) then you'd have to question their judgement. Judgement is something we're going to need. However, we're not exactly between a rock and a hard place if what we're being told by 4 posters has any verity. Smart, shrewd rich guys and no debt vs. uber rich f***wits with no debt is better than G&H with a great big rock round our necks.

Especially when these people had an opportunity to join the sales process at £300m, which would also see G&H run off with nothing and could have convinced the board that their offer was overwhelmingly better for the club than anything else out there. Why they didn't do this is always going to be suspicious.

If the people behind Mill are potentially good news, then why have they gone about it this way? There was a legitimate and highly publicised sales process in place. Were they planning to bid late and were caught on the hop by the NESV and Lim bids which were judged and approved quicker than they'd thought likely? If not the route they've taken is so fraught with risks that their judgement must surely be questionable at best.

Surely it cannot be actually lifted until the court opens, i.e. some time just after 1pm our time. Announcing it early has the feel of some sort of trick in an attempt to induce the board, RBS, NESV here into doing something in contempt of it before it can be lifted.

Bingo, that has the ring of hellish truth.

Thanks for sharing RB. As a result of the absurdly low valuation of the bond, do you therefore fear the judge's verdict will also lean Hicks' way? Does this sort of thing happen from time to time? Also, with the way Hicks behaved over the Rangers' debacle, how is Hicks viewed in the Dallas legal, corporate and sporting community there? It's hard to imagine very highly without wishing to presuppose your answer there. If his stock is low though, is this judge taking a risk in enforcing this TRO?

Possible. Just doesn't feel likely.

Oh believe me I've thought about it. Can't wait for confirmation next week.

You think he'd fly over here trusting Hicks to do the decent thing in Dallas?

If Gillett has lost his stake, what is he consulting lawyers in London for?

If we're on Texas law, maybe Hicks can be executed. Grabiner where's your stetson?

Not even that, Delaware isn't it?

Sure, if he's good at it. Thought you were hinting at something else with the Bergkamp / Wenger bit. I'm sure the Americans have their own men on stadia figures though. My bet is Edelman's just an advisor on the deal here.

I read somewhere that he's a businessman pure and simple, not a football man. They had David Dein for that of course.

Ho ho.

Is that wise?

Very well put. It's now the duty of the new owners to be suitably ruthless too. I'd like to think there were a role in this that suits Purslow's ambitions and his skill sets. If not, then it has to be thanks and goodbye.

DH is right, his job was to be MD of the club, with all that entails, which includes running the football side. However, he has shown where his true skills lie and also where they don't. He virtually admitted as much in his lfctv interview, to be fair to him. I'd be surprised if he wasn't privately gutted at how some of his decisions on the football front have turned out. The actual range of skills that his role has required in the circumstances that they were under, since he took over are so wide, yet distinct, that it's hard to imagine anyone fulfilling the profile perfectly. A large chunk of that brief has now disappeared however after his part in successfully staving off the abyss has been achieved. He'll surely be here for the short-term at the very least, it's to be hoped therefore that he learns from his footballing mistakes fast. His last ones have probably set us back 5 years.

Chelsea spent 5 years overspending to the very brink of their extinction and then it took a further £200m under a visionary manager to get to where they got to. United's spending (even under a visionary manager) took almost a decade to bear fruit. City have won nothing (yet) but have been at it for 4 years now, it started way before Mansour. All three, City and Chelsea in particular had the room of being able to afford hugely expensive mistakes along the way (I'm not saying they made (m)any, just that they have that comfort, similar to Souness at Rangers in fact, where there were way more failures in player buying than successes. Furthermore, Inter Milan also took nearly a decade to get to where they are, even then the key was Juventus being heftily penalised and now they're £500m in debt. Lazio and Parma overspent massively for 8-10 years with 1 league title between them to show for it and relative obscurity their only real legacy. Let me clarify, huge spending over a sustained period will always see you in good stead without then guaranteeing anything without the vision and decision-making capacity that's crucial. Nothing about our new owners suggests that they'll be able to do similar though, which is why it's all about management, on all levels. Sustained and sustainable investment in all levels of the club, with top-level decision-making all the way is the only way. The challenge of that is huge, but it is doable. We were actually getting close albeit without a spade in the ground, but the pressure on each decision took its toll eventually and Rafa undoubtedly faltered having no room for mistakes under falling spending conditions. Disastrous steps have been taken since under a ridiculous appraisal of what was reasonably achievable and we've fallen back to an alarming extent. Yours is a FM argument, pure and simple, only possible under a fantasy owner. We haven't got one, deal with it and move on.

This is going to be an almighty balancing act. Putting off the stadium investment (in whatever form) is a non-starter, the only way the club achieves its full potential is down that route and it's been postponed too often and too long to delay any longer. Splashing the cash willy-nilly on the squad almost never works either. The right type of players and characters have to be sought, available and willing to come to us. It's terribly naive to think that 6 or 7 will be able to be brought together in a small timeframe and that they can possibly gel quickly. There's no quick fix from where we find ourselves and there's no point denying this. Priority no. 1 has to be getting the right manager for the medium to long-term to put this together. Interim guys won't do if we're to have this done properly. Actually, priority no. 1 really should be installing the right sort of CEO with the vision and sensibilities to see through what needs to be done. But that's just not forum-sexy. So back to the manager ...

Subway fetish?