Writer: OyVeh Maria 
Date:Thursday February 7 2013
Time: 5:54PM
'After just seven months of the Al-Hasawi's tenure a third manager has been sacked.
Alex McLeish, after 41 days and seven games at the City Ground helm, manager Alex McLeish gave his notice of resignation, stating 'a difference in the understanding of the development strategy'. For that, we can read that he felt his bosses had left him in the lurch somewhat, particularly over their stance on transfers' 'The American owners of Manchester United pocketed £75million as Manchester nited was floated on Wall Street. Co-chairmen Avram and Joel Glazer added to their fortune as Man Utd sold millions of shares to new investors on the New York Stock Exchange. The float raised £150million and the Glazers took £75 million, with the other half going to cut the club's debts of more than £423million.
The way the cash was split enraged the fans. After costs, only around £65million came off the club's debts. For fans, there aren't equal rights in shares, they only get a tenth of a vote so the Glazers retain power. No dividend is paid, so it doesn't appeal to investors. 'The Glazers are using Manchester United as a cash cow and this flotation is milking time. They're sucking the life force out of the club' said the supporters.
Blackburn's owners invited suspicion and ridicule as they revealed their reasons for sacking manager Sam Allardyce. Chairman John Williams and managing director Tom Finn stopped short of quitting and sending the club into meltdown over the controversial decision by Indian chicken farmers Venky's to end Allardyce's two-year reign. But there was a sense of bewilderment as the new owners began their search for a replacement and said the new man will be expected to put the club in contention for a Champions League place. Steve Kean is appointed as caretaker Manager. Steve Kean says he has been 'forced to resign' as manager of Championship side Blackburn Rovers. The Scot, 44, has left with immediate effect, saying his position had become 'untenable', and assistant boss Eric Black will now take charge of the team.
Chelsea sack Di Matteo. Chelsea's statement read: 'Chelsea football club has parted company this morning with manager Roberto Di Matteo. The team's recent performances and results have not been good enough and the owner and the board felt that a change was necessary now to keep the club moving in the right direction as we head into a vitally important part of the season.
Martin Jol has been sacked as manager of Spurs after three years in the job. Reports swept around White Hart Lane as Jol presided over Tottenham's 2-1 Uefa Cup defeat by Getafe, but the club only confirmed the news after the match. 'Tottenham Hotspur have appointed former Portsmouth boss Harry Redknapp as their new manager after sacking Juande Ramos late on Saturday night' Tottenham also axed sporting director Damien Comolli and first-team coaches Gus Poyet and Marcos Alvarez following their worst start to a season.
When you lump all the headlines together it doesn't make much sense or very good reading. In fact the new foreign owners that have recently arrived to take over some of our most famous clubs appear to have completely no understanding of the game. It seems that no one at Board level in any football club can be really trusted and you have to feel that, after yet another transfer window going by without any marquee signing for Spurs, that AVB has been left to manage a one legged arse kicking competition.
The way in which our Board dealt with Martin Jol, Ramos and then Harry you have to wonder what AVB has to do to stay in his job, what are Levy's expectations of AVB? Should owners of Football clubs have at least a Footballer on the Board or should a Board be more remote from the day to day running of a Football club and would the last high profile sackings and appointments have been better handled by a DOF who would sit between the Board and the day to day Management?
Written by OyVeh Maria
Fixtures for next season! (Wednesday June 19 2013)
With friends like Madrid … (Tuesday June 18 2013)
Reality cheque!! (Tuesday June 18 2013)
Utter Nonsense (Monday June 17 2013)
Our midfield… (Monday June 17 2013)
WHO, WHERE and WHY?. (Sunday June 16 2013)
Adam Smith wants chance at Spurs or PL loan. (Saturday June 15 2013)
Musings of Nonsensical proportions. (Friday June 14 2013)
Wilshere to Man Utd (Friday June 14 2013)
What is an offer we can't refuse? (Thursday June 13 2013)
| 1. | 80deg16minW | 232 |
| 2. | Spursex | 216 |
| 3. | Real Deal | 157 |
| 4. | spurdon | 127 |
| 5. | coopsieyid | 120 |
| 6. | ScottDaYid | 84 |
| 7. | Spurfect11 | 74 |
| 8. | Kinygerbils | 69 |
| 9. | redbloodcell | 66 |
| 10. | ahx00 | 60 |
| Latest Results |
| Team | P | W | D | L | GD | Pts |
| 12. Newcastle | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 13. Norwich | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 14. Southampton | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 15. Spurs | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 16. Stoke | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 17. Sunderland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 18. Swansea | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Saints Starlet Linked To Cherries Loan Move
» Southampton : 19/06/2013 13:18:00
|
| Mata, Mourinho and Barcelona - There`s More!
» Chelsea : 19/06/2013 13:05:00
|
| Staying or Going?
» Chelsea : 19/06/2013 13:04:00
|
| Midfielder Link
» Chelsea : 19/06/2013 13:02:00
|
| The Answer is NO!
» Chelsea : 19/06/2013 13:01:00
|
| Cavani Talk Lingers On!
» Chelsea : 19/06/2013 13:00:00
|
| Romeu, Romeu, wherefore art thou Romeu?
» Chelsea : 19/06/2013 12:58:00
|
As for many of the other owners, yes, there are issues. I think they all see the possibilities of huge riches and an ability to use the forum to cross merchandise their other interests. All well and good but the reality of the riches is that many clubs with huge resources are fighting over those same dollars. Clubs like ManU and Liverpool have huge advantages. Have their new owners helped or hindered their advantages? Time will tell. For the moment ManU seem to still be slowly growing while Liverpool seem to be stagnating. Chelsea and City can buy themselves out of whatever messes they choose. But even they have seemed more restrained of late. I believe that the FFPR and/or the global economy is slowing their largesse. But can they help themselves? One wonders if the super-rich clubs (Anzhi, Shakhtar, Milan, AC, PSG, Barca, RM, Bayern and others), who all generally seem willing to spend money, will curtail themselves going forward or will they just do the same old same old? It is expected that there will be a huge fight for Suarez, Falcao and Cavani. This will be inflationary and will leave a huge vaccuum (funny how just 3 years ago Dzeko, Suarez and Falcao were all on offer for less than 20M each - now numbers bandied about are in the 40-60M range). What does that do to the "nouveau venu" owners, like Fernandez? Do they now fill the void and sign the 30M striker (who right now is worth 18M)? What does Liverpool do if Suarez decides more money and CL makes sense? Do they spend 40M to try to land a player like Demba Ba or better still 55m to buy back Torres? Does Leandro become a 30M talent? It is crazy. Regardless of what PSG win this season and regardless of whether QPR stay up, I cannot fathom how either club offsets their spends and the salary commitments. Sure Remy and Samba can leave, but who is going to pay the reported wages? Harry says both can be sold at a profit. Robbie Keane and other similar signings suggest otherwise. They will not leave on lower wages and clubs will be unlikely to pay anything more than a nominal fee to get them because of the infalted salaries and the selling club may even have to pay the player off to get them to go (see Adebayor or Crouch).
As I see it the FFPR are what is needed to protect clubs and the fans from owners that just can't help themselves. The thing is, I doubt whether there is sufficient "desire" to get the job done. I haven't seen the final decision by the EPL clubs, but they seemed to be leaning to allow clubs a 105M overspend over three years. What kind of a message does this send? Why not 110% of revenues on all club expenses. So a team can only ever run a 10% loss. Then make it so that a club has 3 years to make up for that loss in profits. No one wants to stop clubs going for it, or shoring up where needed, what we don't want is clubs owners, who care not about the club or the fans, going all in and then walking away when it stopped on red, leaving the club and the fans in the wilderness for years. If it is not curtailed, eventually the system will come down around itself and some other sport or League will walk in to take the limited, but vast, resources that are out there. European Hockey League anyone? COYS
Most things in life you can shop around if you feel you`re being ripped off .Football is different ,they know fans have a club & stick by that club ,abusing the fans loyalty to a point it`s getting ridiculous .
Even some players are doing it ,which is why the relationship between fans & players is forever widening .Football will destroy itself if it`s not careful .IMHO if i just started watching football this year ,i wouldn`t like the sport .
Further, such a situation for a PL club is not in any way comparable. Leeds are not finding it easy. Pompey, West Ham, Blackburn. There is a long list of teams that have overspent and been burnt. Much of it was obvious bad planning. Yet, do not be surprised if QPR go down when people are shocked at the ramifications. I have no problem with Fernandez trying to spend to improve, but what is the backup plan? Go down, and then what? He says he's in it for the long haul, but he does not have billions. Not even half a billion as I understand it. 60M, 70M or even 100M might be too much for an owner to swallow when it comes out of their pocket. How do you get planning approval and financing for stadium improvements when that is your plan? All seems folly to me. That aren't the only ones. Southampton are also hugely at risk. Imagine having to sell 2 brilliant young fullbacks to cover some of that as they are the prized assets. You mortgage the future to gamble for today. Villa will be ok, but a drop will be very hard on the fans and the bottom line. Not my money, so I shouldn't care, but I believe it all hurts the game as a whole. COYS
If the fans had more sense, it would be more embarrassing for them than for anyone else. Their affections are being bought, which makes them parallel to hookers. The gods forbid that such will ever happen at Spurs. Surely some supporters would succumb, and therein would lie the true embarrassment for our club. It's one thing to be propositioned by a john, it's another to sell one's affections to a john. Pity the foolish supporters of Chelsea who cheer the money being spent by their Russian gangster to gain their affections and who then provide it. The depths of a depraved Faustian bargain. I will always love our club, but I hope I find the strength to resist giving my affections to someone who will treat us like trollops.
But there a ways to make money and ways to make money. When someone comes in via a highly leveraged buyout of a club, that is, with borrowed money, watch out for the financial future of the club. Typically, the buyer is assuming the he (possibly she) has not intention of paying back to loan out of their pockets. They could pay off the loan by selling off bits and pieces of the club, such as player contracts. They can churn loans, using new loans to pay off old loans, paying themselves massive fees for each go round. They can jack up prices for the supporters to levels that surely approach robbery. They can pretend to sell shares in the club to supports, making sure that the supporters never get a penny of their investment back and making sure that their new partners never have any say in control of the club. And when this new money comes in, only a fraction of it will go to paying off the debt the club holds that was used to buy the club for the financier owners (like the Glazers have done). With a clumsy owner, after pocketing their fees and the profits from sales of contracts and the like, the owners can send the club to receivership and walk away richer than when they arrived. These ways of making money by equity companies is not limited to buying of football clubs, but companies of almost any sort, leaving the investors rich and the company in tatters, and the workers, communities, an supporters left high and dry. Pension funds usually are empty at the end of the process, protected by a corrupt political system that they helped set up with other investments. (Who can deny the massive extent that Ruppert Murdoch has bought British politicians and government officials?).
ENIC surely wants to make money from their investment in Spurs and in N17. So far I haven't seen evidence that their behaviors have been as base as those of owners at Man U or Liverpool or Birmingham. For this we can thank the stars, for we did nothing to merit avoiding these predatory owners, and Liverpool, Birmingham, and Manure did nothing in particular to merit such a blight.
Some rich owners are not buying club to get rich. They spend the money for the same reason that a man pays a prostitute: to feel powerful and successful and for a thrill. I'm not at all sure that that fate is better than being gutted by equity owners who arrive not to own but to pillage.
I'm waiting for the usual childish bile to come spilling on this article from a certain quarter. YYYAAAAAAAAAAWWWWNNN.
I do think however, that Levy has, at times, played it just a little bit too safe & possibly wasted a lot of time & energy pursuing the ridiculous OS venture which was never going to work.