Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Farhad Moshiri

7+ Years On... Your Verdict On Farhad Moshiri

  • Pleased

    Votes: 111 7.9%

  • Disappointed

    Votes: 1,295 92.1%
  • Total voters
    1,406
TommyDavo said:
And now we get to the nub of the whole net spend argument. Does it matter whether the money comes from selling warm Chang or Stones ( sure that used to be a bitter). In the end it should be total money in less total money out irrespective of source and for me that should always be a negative spend for the company. Now if FM decides he wants to part with his personal fortune (stop laughing at the back) then that's a different matter.
Click to expand...
Sure, over say a five or ten year period, an investor (and let's not kid ourselves, that is what we have, not a benefactor) has to make a return. Where I think we are perhaps a little bit apart in our philosophy is that a short term investment (with a net loss for the company in, for example, one financial year) can actually set a footing for greater returns in the future. Chelsea did this and now have their young player loan farm keeping them financially solvent and competing for major honours, City (with some creative commercial income, I grant you) now turn a profit, the RS have had loss making seasons but are very profitable over a longer period. It was not unreasonable, if we wanted to move on in both commercial and sporting terms, to expect a greater initial investment. That may still happen, we'll have to wait and see, but whether we spent a couple of million or recouped a couple of million, in the crazy world of premier league football, is pretty insignificant was my original point.
 

windymiller said:
Sure, over say a five or ten year period, an investor (and let's not kid ourselves, that is what we have, not a benefactor) has to make a return. Where I think we are perhaps a little bit apart in our philosophy is that a short term investment (with a net loss for the company in, for example, one financial year) can actually set a footing for greater returns in the future. Chelsea did this and now have their young player loan farm keeping them financially solvent and competing for major honours, City (with some creative commercial income, I grant you) now turn a profit, the RS have had loss making seasons but are very profitable over a longer period. It was not unreasonable, if we wanted to move on in both commercial and sporting terms, to expect a greater initial investment. That may still happen, we'll have to wait and see, but whether we spent a couple of million or recouped a couple of million, in the crazy world of premier league football, is pretty insignificant was my original point.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree, but certain posters use it constantly as a stick to beat him with when the truth is that it was only on the whim of a player on the final day that we didn't end up with a significant net spend in this specific area and thank Christ for that after the showings for Spurs
 
Papa Shango said:
Do you not think that we all want that?

Of course we do, most of us realize that its not something that can be changed overnight though.

We wanted Gabbiadini and Perez (That's the Arsenal fella right?) We didnt manage to get either of them due to Gabbiadini wanting to stay in Italy and Perez wanting to join Arsenal instead.

Koeman or Walsh had obviously identified them as the players needed to improve us, going down to the third. fourth, fifth option is risky and they probably require looking at a bit more.

I would prefer to take a risk free Valencia on loan than chuck loads of money on a third choice panic buy and tie him down to us for five years on big wages.

With a bit more time and Koeman having a bit more knowledge about his players maybe the next time we go in for players will prove more fruitful?

That probably wont be in January either for obvious reasons...
Click to expand...

Like we did on Niasse!
 
truebluejersey said:
I'm not sure signing Gueye, Stekelenburg and Bolasie was a disaster
Click to expand...

if we had just spent three times more on the former two then it would be fine, because we'd have "signaled intent."

would anyone care to do some vaulting re Gana?

"no i've never watched him but he's a VILLA player! it logically follows that he was responsible for their entire form! villa + gana + relegation logically guarantees everton + gana + relegation"

etc etc
 

davek said:
Promising to give Everton "all I have" then making a £3m profit in the summer; having absolutely no dialogue with supporters as to why he took over and what his plans are; playing media games over this new stadium situation and thereby following in the foot steps of his predecessor on that score.

That's why I and many others are wary. He'd done nothing at all. Nothing. Balls in his court in January and with his relationship with fans and that stadium. He'll get no free pass off the bulk of the supporters of this club.
Click to expand...

Reality is hard pill to swallow for some folks but this post pretty much nailed it.
 
Just to clarify had we got one of those bigger money signings over the line in the summer and made a loss would that have made a difference?
I do agree though at feeling peed off that he's not paying money to subsidise my enjoyment.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top