Jump to content

Abacus

Member
  • Posts

    3,264
  • Joined

Everything posted by Abacus

  1. Nah. There's probably just lots of short term costs they need to cover, or some immediate spending on the ground etc. Like I say, there's £8m out the door on Bruce alone.
  2. A company can always just issue more shares. It's quite a common way to be raise cash. I'm basing that this is what they've done based on the Athletic article having not checked companies house myself just yet, but it makes sense as otherwise they wouldn't all be putting equal amounts as each other, to keep their proportion of shares the same between the three parties.
  3. It could be for anything, I suppose. Including paying off Bruce, buying out commercial contracts like that, or just funding things day to day. I'd love it if it was the Sports Direct signs too, though!
  4. Two ways to put money into a club directly. The first is a loan, like Ashley did, which you expect to be repaid and might attract interest charges. The second, which based on the Athletic article looks to be the case here, is to do it through equity (i.e. buy more shares). In order to keep the same 80/10/10 ownership split, all parties would need to buy the same proportion of new shares - that's what looks to have happened. It's all based on an assumption that Stavely putting in c.£4m means the rest of the consortium match it. As she has 10%, that means the other 90% owners must be putting in c. £36m That essentially means the club gets more cash, debt free. So, as it hasn't come by way of a loan, it doesn't attract interest charges. Though, the owners might take money back out through dividends - but that's a discretionary choice the board makes. In saying that it doesn't mean you can then just keep doing that, ignore FFP and just spend an extra £40m. My reading of the article is that it is cash to cover existing running costs, i.e. which you'd have spent anyway. One reason for that might be for cashflow reasons - I.e. to avoid going to the bank instead for an overdraft / loan. The benefit of that being that you don't then incur extra external interest costs, and those costs would count against your results from a FFP perspective.
  5. How do think he'll handle a flair player who maybe doesn't work that hard at times? (We only have one flair player in St Max ?)
  6. Bang go my plans for "Do you wanna be in Howe's gang"
  7. Even if he is just in the stands, that would be a big positive for me.
  8. Totally agree. Per my longer post, I've no idea why we're persisting with Darlow if Dubravka is fit. When he first came in I'd wondered why Rafa was prioritising bringing in a keeper when we had other problems. Then it became totally clear - you need someone else that can pass a ball and not just spank it upfield.
  9. I do agree. Maybe we could push someone like Haydn slightly further forward, but that would be a stop gap. I do think there are a few obvious things we could do if we wanted to improve things, but everyone is an expert, and I've derailed things by talking football now so I'll stop
  10. You could argue that we do have the players to be an attacking team and so maybe an experiment with Howe wouldn't be a bad thing. Wilson, ASM, Almiron, Willock (played right, when fit), all have pace enough to scare most opponents, but only if they get the ball in the right areas. It's just that we punt it high to them in the wrong areas, as our selected defenders in the last couple of games just can't pass, so we're constantly under the cosh when dropping deep as the ball comes straight back. Drop Darlow for Dubravka, and suddenly you have a keeper with distribution, for one thing. Swap Clark for Fernandez, and there's a more intelligent upgrade in the centre of defence. Maybe put Schar in ahead of them as DM, and then you have someone who can tackle and pass out from defence onto some willing runners, like the front 3 / 4 above. And that's before we even get onto playing your actual full backs instead of slotting square pegs into round holes using midfielders. Maybe I'm dreaming with all that, or that it would take too long to coach a different style of play. All I do know is the current sit back approach isn't working and only invites pressure onto an inadequate defence, so why not try and turn the tables and ask a few questions of the opposition for a change? If Howe is the man for that and it works, great. If not and we're relegated, then hopefully we come back playing with an actual blueprint and also with the time to get the right players in who can implement it.
  11. Not to sound bitter, but I hope Emery had a shit birthday and his mam burnt his tea and got him a pencil case for his main present.
  12. If this has seriously been derailed by a press leak, from anyone at our club, whoever has leaked it needs to be identified and be gone immediately. I'm still hoping this is just Emery / Villarreal trying to go for damage limitation in the press. But, we'll see.
  13. The only reason I am not furiously agreeing with this is that Emery still hasn't been announced. So if he says no and we end up getting Howe, I'll have to end up coming up with a whole load of reasons in my own head as to why it was probably all for the best.
  14. This really does feel like night and day, compared to the last manager search. I.e. scrabbling about in the bargain bin without a plan, being rejected by anyone with a brain, and then massively overpaying for a complete and utter idiot
  15. Fingers crossed for this. One minor point here is about the consortium. Jones was told he'd be in charge for Palace and Chelsea, so they clearly already had a timeframe in mind for making the decision and then they stuck to it. A bit of professionalism finally.
  16. Everton really don't seem to be playing for their manager. Hands on hips all over.
  17. Abacus

    Sunderland

    Then go on to the Sunderland Vs Newcastle rivalry origins thread, and all your needs will be met. To be honest, he's clearly tongue in cheek, and quite funny in being deliberately OTT.
  18. Abacus

    Sunderland

    I just find it funny how they carry on!
  19. Abacus

    Sunderland

    At the moment, they are claiming the moral high ground over the English civil war on RTG.
  20. He's a real puzzle - one of the few bright sparks of talent and creativity, and I've loved watching him, but it's not altogether clear whether he's good enough to build a system around, and if so what that system should be. You could say the same about a number of our players, albeit not about whether they're good enough to build a team around. Just about what they actually are. See Almiron, Willock, even Fraser. They all have flashes of talent, but they're hard to describe in terms of where you'd actually play them, or in fact what system suits them best.
  21. Abacus

    Graeme Jones

    Tactics and team selection don't seem to be Jones' strengths. But realistically, those are for the new man anyway, so between now and then I think he needs to set some short term goals to give the new boss a chance when he walks in the door. Firstly, work on the squad's fitness and secondly, work on their attitude - particularly if any have lost confidence or are even sulking. The new manager needs to have the best possible chance of getting the most out of the squad we already have up until January, and that is the basic starting point. If he does that, and hopefully flukes a point or three against Brighton, he'll have done a good job as a caretaker in my opinion.
  22. Abacus

    Graeme Jones

    Although, yes, he was part of the coaching team that got us here, albeit as an outsider. So I don't expect him to last long, if maybe a bit longer than some of the others as a bridging coach to the new team.
  23. Abacus

    Graeme Jones

    And that's fair enough. But ultimately, it's the manager that makes the final calls and sets the tone. I think any new manager will indeed bring in his own coaching and back room team, so it may be a bit of a moot point. But I thought it was interesting hearing Jones say something along the lines of how he could make suggestions rather than decisions before now. I find it hard to believe that someone who had the players in every day because training is good was the same person making the decision about players having 7 days in 11 off. And no, I don't think he's absolved of all blame, or would be a good manager. I just don't think he warrants criticism for trying to steady the ship, both under Bruce.and now.
  24. Abacus

    Graeme Jones

    We'd all have different opinions on team selection and tactics no matter who was in charge, though none of us see how the players train. At least I was impressed with Jones' words in his press conference, and with him seemingly getting the players in for actual training. So I'm treating the last couple of games as a mini pre-season, where the results don't matter all that much, but basic fitness does. Especially when Chelsea was a bit of a free shot anyway. There's nothing in his career so far that suggests he would be a good manager, true. But he was appointed as a coach, not a leading man, so I'm not going to be too critical of him for being asked to step in and try to repair some of Bruce's damage.
  25. You've made your mind up about him, and that's OK. I happen to disagree because in Rafa's last season he was pivotal to how we played. He's gone backwards since then under Brucey. But then, so have a lot of players. I just think that of all the players to single out, that's a bit of an odd one. He might not make it in the PL after all, but I rated him under a competent coach and would like to see what he could do under a competent one again.
×
×
  • Create New...