Vincent Tan

[banno]

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.

But the opportunity was there for Villa to establish themselves. O'Neill messed up big style and squandered the money but the point of the matter is they did have investment, they had the opportunity to move on, a bad manager messed up the opportunity. What opportunity have we had at Everton? We have had a decent manager and now have a good manager, just image if they had £150m of investment but the argument is mute as we haven't had any investment just good managers and the 2 need to go hand in hand.

 

[dholliday]

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.

Good post. Sport is about many beautiful things, not just winning, and football (the king of sports), is about all these things amplified.

Money has become so dominant an issue for some fans that they've forgotten what sport is really about.

 

[Goat]

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.

Why did you mention 2 teams that hold elections to choose a Chairman?

 

[bluejock]

It's the clique.....

I've seen you post some absolute tosh but to suggest that Liverpool fans are jealous of us having Kenwright as chairman is just complete nonsense.

 

[dholliday]

Why did you mention 2 teams that hold elections to choose a Chairman?

Because that fit my argument. Bluescot was 'debating' that not a single fan cares who the chairmen or owners are, as long as money comes in and turns into success (like Man City's example).

The poll I started in the other thread suggests we don't wanna go that far, that we do indeed care what kind of chairman we have.


Kapow.

 

[dholliday]

It's the clique.....

I've seen you post some absolute tosh but to suggest that Liverpool fans are jealous of us having Kenwright as chairman is just complete nonsense.

You've retreated to an earlier debate now.

I suppose you don't agree. That's fair enough, lad. Keep in mind that I stressed some Liverpool fans, not the majority.

 

[Goat]

Because that fit my argument. Bluescot was 'debating' that not a single fan cares who the chairmen or owners are, as long as money comes in and turns into success (like Man City's example).

The poll I started in the other thread suggests we don't wanna go that far, that we do indeed care what kind of chairman we have.


Kapow.

You are very strange.

 

[dholliday]

You are very strange.

Top top response that.

Not sure what you find strange, I'm just trying to inject some reason into debates like this, as are others. But some of you are here for the hyperlols, which is also cool b)

 

[Carlito]

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.

Couldn't agree more. The idea that Kenwright is anything more than another in a long line of corporate suits is ridiculous.

 

[WarwickHunt]

Imagine him at Everton

 

[WarwickHunt]

He would get laughed at