Toffeelover
Player Valuation: £80m
I would not, my loyalty and support is for Everton not the chairman, chairmen come and go but the club would/should always be there.
- Status
dholliday
deconstructed rep
Agree with that. Therefore the more identity the chairman takes away from the club, the more it becomes an issue.
I wouldn't miss anything if we started winning trophies with the money they can give to the manager. I would rather wins things rather than being a proper club and winning nothing.
Pat's Van
Player Valuation: £70m
I know the Owls was the best option, but didn't we all agree that we'd lost fair and square to Shef Wed on that one ??
Honey Badgers would be boss of course, but would be better if it was alliterative,
so if we moved to say Higher Bromborough for example, that would be the perfect scenario for everyone I feel.
bluejock
Boss coat aficionado
What an absolute crock of sh*te you're talking. Complete and utter mince.
Fans don't give a [Poor language removed] who the chairman is. Having a local businessman in the boardroom doesn't give the club its identity. Fans care about the chairman giving the manager money to buy players, those players playing well and the club winning trophies and playing well.
Tan and the boy at Hull are extreme cases. Most chairman don't have even the slightest effect on a club's identity. Have Werner and Henry changed Liverpool's identity even in the slightest? No. Has Sheik Mansour changed City's identity? Nope. How about Kroenke at Arsenal? Again, no. They've given their managers money, won some tin, built a new stadium, and they all still play in the same colours, sing the same songs, have the same name.
Crowing over having a local chairman is something people use in desperation when they can't use success to win an argument.
Fans don't give a [Poor language removed] who the chairman is. Having a local businessman in the boardroom doesn't give the club its identity. Fans care about the chairman giving the manager money to buy players, those players playing well and the club winning trophies and playing well.
Tan and the boy at Hull are extreme cases. Most chairman don't have even the slightest effect on a club's identity. Have Werner and Henry changed Liverpool's identity even in the slightest? No. Has Sheik Mansour changed City's identity? Nope. How about Kroenke at Arsenal? Again, no. They've given their managers money, won some tin, built a new stadium, and they all still play in the same colours, sing the same songs, have the same name.
Crowing over having a local chairman is something people use in desperation when they can't use success to win an argument.
Chang Elephant
Forum God
Probably another two weeks of posting inanities before you slip a thread in with a dig about Everton hidden inside it. Takes some patience tbf.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
You're stating things as if they are fact, as if you speak for all fans. You're not, and you don't.
I've spoken to plenty of mates of fans of other clubs, chiefly Chelsea & Arsenal, who feel a bit more disconnected since the Abramovich-era and Emirates-era, to the point where they don't go to the games as much.
It's an issue for some fans, but likely not for the majority, as the younger fans chase the $ thanks to the Sky-era.
Anyway, I started talking about this as Chang Elephant is fond of calling other blues kopites. If you have other theories what his game is, then do share.
What thread might that be? You got examples? Anything that's any more of a dig (and more inane) than submitting thousands of posts about how much you hate our Chairman?
dholliday
deconstructed rep
Sounds like you'd discount quite a lot of chairman of the rest of Premiership's clubs. Levy is a good example of a chairman with the club close to his heart, yet willing and able to pump money into it to improve their chances of Europe and silverware.
I'd have a Levy over Kenwright*. But not many others.
*as long as he would cure his sacking habit.
^^
Last edited:
efc.1878
Player Valuation: £10m
This.
Heard from Cardiff mate today that the new manager could be Sven. Can't see it myself.
royalblue66
Player Valuation: £70m
He reminds me of that Sinatra fella That owned Citeh.
D
Deleted member 28206
Guest
You are missing the point, sir.
They had the investment....it was squandered, they are back at square one.
Ergo a wealthy sugar daddy coming in ain't a panacea.
Hope this helps.
evilwebby
Player Valuation: £50m
I got no problem with businessmen being involved in football, but there clearly needs to be understanding between the board and the manager, and any businessman involved in a club should understand that money should not be the over-riding factor that dictates how a club is run. Of course every club nees to be financially responsible, but this is sport, not business. Sport is about winning and the intangibles that come with that, not about monetary profit.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
kapow, my arse. more like cliquepow!
bluescot's babbling post discounts all the thoughtful football fans who do actually care who the chairman of their club is. The players and manager take utter precedence, of course. But the chairman, owners and source of income are part of the club's identity too.
Just ask Bayern München, or Barcelona fans, if they feel who their owners or chairmen are don't count towards the club's identity.
- Status