BATES FM

For everything Leeds United related and everything not - Have your say... the Marching on Togehter way!
Forum rules
Please be sure you are acquainted with the forum rules outlined within our FAQs.
white.riot

Re: BATES FM

Postby white.riot » Sat May 12, 2012 11:20 pm

markolufc wrote:my reasoning is a damn sight better than "that's what ken told me" which is the only, and I literally mean only, reasoning to back up the other side of the argument, regardless of whether or not it is definitive. Saying it's not definitive is an excuse to pass it off as speculation and that it shouldn't need to be worried about.

As for "insults", condescending to me is no better. While I am not excused, I am simply responding to the treatment I've been given. I don't resort to insults unless someone speaks to me like this, and riots response of "ken knows what he's doing so pipe down" is extremely condescending and no better.



You need to challenge anyone who tells you to pipe down. That's totally out of order. The mods should deal with that.

By the way, balancing the books is a success. I know folk like you discount it [claim we have no facts], but folk like me prize it far higher than signing a big name player. Investing in ground redevelopment is also a success. Again I realise that folk like you want to buy players whose value deteriorates over time but I take a different view. Other than that, being inspired by someone who claims to have made the ultimate sacrifice - not going to games/investing in the club - is laughable to me. We're all different but when times are hard some of us feel the ultimate sacrifice is turning up, investing in the club and supporting the team. You prefer to kill the club in an attempt to unseat Bates and replace him with a void - so be it.

As for the treatment you've been given - as far as I can see most folk said welcome and 99% of posters probably agree with you in one way or another. Personally I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I think if you love Leeds and have the money/time etc should get along to games. There are posters on here and throughout the world who would love to have the money/time/geography to attend games.Obviously none of them are 'proper' Leeds fans.

We have a club. We balance the books [debt is crippling Championship clubs]. We have an income generating East Stand development. We are not in The Prem - oh dear, this is the mighty LUFC, don't you know, we shouldn't be slumming it with clubs who have more honours than us. The balance is in favour of Bates and would tilt even further his way if fans didn't spend their time working on the divide.

User avatar
weasel
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5711
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:28 pm
Location: Espana

Re: BATES FM

Postby weasel » Sat May 12, 2012 11:30 pm

There has only been one board ever in charge of Leeds that attempted to match the ambition of the fans. In fact the Ridsdale board not only sought to match it but probably blew our ambitions out of the water with the signings of the likes of Rio for £18m etc.

A lot of people give praise to the Leslie Silver board who gave Wilko the money to get us promoted and then the money to buy the likes of McAllister, Dorigo, Lukic, Wallace etc that gave us a chance to compete with the best. However this is also the same board that flogged David Batty to fund the building of the East Stand.

Now hopefully people are more sensible with their level of ambition and more realistic that the days of big spending are gone unless you have the marketing power of a Man Utd or Liverpool or the backing of a wealthy chairman such as Chelsea or Man City.

Where we are now is that we have the potential to be a premiership side but barring the rich owner never likely to threaten the big boys. What we have is a chairman that is not a fan of the football team, doesn't strive to be loved by the fans and is simply a businessman, and rightly or wrong is a good businessman as he has made himself millions (no matter what your opinion on his morals, the way he conducts himself etc). As such Bates will invest more in concrete blocks than on playing talent because no matter how much money you throw at playing resources it doesn't guarantee success (as shown by the likes of Swansea playing in the Prem whilst the likes of Leicester City finished mid table).

Having a new owner come in is not going to instantly see us buy better players unless the new owner is simply gonna use his own money. Just look at what has happened to Blackburn when only a couple of years ago they were being linked with Ronaldinho etc and their fans were really excited about the Vhenkis.

So hey ho lets stop all the name calling and get behind the team. A lot of our problems this season has been to the negative impact the crowd has had on the team at ER. We need to leave the Bates out stuff away from the ground, it won't make him leave and like it or not he has the right, as owner of the club, to spend the money the club earns how he likes.

Lets hope Warnock gets some good signings in and the team gels and we get back to being a mid level prem team again until the financial fair play really kicks in and Casino Utd storm to the League title.
Senor El Weasel

markolufc
First Team
First Team
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 2:22 am

Re: BATES FM

Postby markolufc » Sun May 13, 2012 12:51 am

white.riot wrote:

You need to challenge anyone who tells you to pipe down. That's totally out of order. The mods should deal with that.

By the way, balancing the books is a success. I know folk like you discount it [claim we have no facts], but folk like me prize it far higher than signing a big name player. Investing in ground redevelopment is also a success. Again I realise that folk like you want to buy players whose value deteriorates over time but I take a different view. Other than that, being inspired by someone who claims to have made the ultimate sacrifice - not going to games/investing in the club - is laughable to me. We're all different but when times are hard some of us feel the ultimate sacrifice is turning up, investing in the club and supporting the team. You prefer to kill the club in an attempt to unseat Bates and replace him with a void - so be it.

As for the treatment you've been given - as far as I can see most folk said welcome and 99% of posters probably agree with you in one way or another. Personally I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I think if you love Leeds and have the money/time etc should get along to games. There are posters on here and throughout the world who would love to have the money/time/geography to attend games.Obviously none of them are 'proper' Leeds fans.

We have a club. We balance the books [debt is crippling Championship clubs]. We have an income generating East Stand development. We are not in The Prem - oh dear, this is the mighty LUFC, don't you know, we shouldn't be slumming it with clubs who have more honours than us. The balance is in favour of Bates and would tilt even further his way if fans didn't spend their time working on the divide.


But the East Stand ISNT GENERATING INCOME. Or if it is I'd be shocked. £7 million spent on it, is there £7 million worth of business in there? All it's got is executive boxes, which aren't getting sold, supposedly conferencing facilities, which will be bringing in similar to the pavilion at best on the basis that they are similar facilities to the pavilion - those numbers look pathetic. The rest of the facilities are just extras to squeeze a little more out of the fans who bother to use it, which isn't many. It's cost £7 million and I'd be surprised if it turned over much more than £1.5 million, before operating costs. In the unlikely event it's making a profit, I'd be surprised if it was more than a couple hundred thousand - so it will take 35 years before it actually makes up for the cost of building it, and once that's done that's enough for what? Another £4k a week on a wage? Enough to buy an up and coming youngster? That's barely enough to make any difference to our chances in the Championship, let alone the Premier League.

If it is speculation, at least I've tried to evaluate the potential gains of it. All you've done is said "property = good". There's absolutely no basis for what you've said. You just assume that redeveloping a stand that doesn't need redeveloping is good because the value of buildings doesn't depreciate and players do. Ok then, might as well stop bothering with the football players, lets just build buildings. Lets just all pile into a stadium and support ken bates as he stands there reading out his plans for another new development. Supporting football is old, lets all support a property developer!

For your argument to have any grounds, there has to, and I mean HAS to, be income projections. You have to prove me wrong. None of this "the onus of proof is on you" crap, I've already challenged the validity of it by pointing out these developments are into low margin industries that are struggling due to a recession. I've already challenged the validity by pointing out that snazzy new conferencing facilities do not bring in £7 million business a year, let alone profit. I've already challenged the validity that fancy new executive boxes at a failing football club are USELESS if nobody wants to watch the football.

The casino is a brilliant idea. That's a licence to print money. If they can pull it off that will be brilliant. But spending £7 million on developing the only stand that doesn't need it, adding something that's not getting used and it could have been PREDICTED it wouldn't get used, attempting to start up in a low margin industry that's struggling, where is the good business sense in all that?

That is a simple question. Explain to my simple, mere mortal human brain where the good business sense is in these particular developments. Don't insult my ability to not comprehend it if you're not willing to provide reason why doing so is going to bring in profits.

Also, those assets are still worth nothing. The value of Elland Road to anybody but Leeds United is the value of the land it is on, as it is a specific purpose building. They are worth even less because Leeds United does not own them. So yes, brilliant increasing the value of our assets, by spending millions on a building we don't own that's worth nothing to anybody except us. But property is a license to print money isn't it!

And balancing the books is piss easy if you just write off all the debt through loopholes and shady deals like he does - you cannot argue that he has made his fortune from insolvent businesses. Did you know he made a couple of million by paying off a debt Chelsea owed to RBS using another loan from RBS for the same value under a different organisation? RBS agreed to a deal that meant they would be paid in full if bates was allowed first dibs on all the assets of Chelsea Football and Athletics Club. He then formed another business called Chelsea Football Club, transferred all the assets, took out another loan, transferred the loan to CFAC and used it to pay off the debt to RBS. RBS gained nothing from the deal, bates got control of all assets left over at CFAC and pocketed the money. Good businessman and massive con artist out to screw over businesses if it benefits his own wallet? I'll let you decide. You'll probably say "but property is a better investment for a football club than football players".

He also stripped all of the costs down. Then money started going missing. £2 million on ground rental, £11.6 million on player wages, £4.9 million on non-player wages (alarming amount for none playing staff don't you think), where's the other £15 million gone? Policing, insurance, stock and etc does not cost £15 million a year. Where's all that going? Brilliant balancing of the books isn't it.

And yes, we discount it, because you've ignored these extremely concerning matters. "He balanced the books" means absolutely f**k ALL when you don't provide context. It's you dismissing questions and information. I've looked at it 1000 ways and still cannot figure out why nothing adds up. I've looked at the property developments 1000 ways and still cannot see the massive benefit you're harping on about. The pavilion made an operating loss. WITHOUT ANY STAFF. All the staff were paid for by Leeds United. It brought in £1.1 million, made an operating loss, and all without any staff. What a f**king MASSIVE SUCCESS. If that's a success then I'm going to s**t on a piece of paper and call it a degree. If I call it a degree enough then I can pass it off as a success, right?

As for the treatment I've been given, I've responded to 99% of fans with respect and taking what they've said on board. It's only you who's gone "oh dear, another person who wants bates out because he doesn't like him", then condescended to me with hollow arguments. Everybody else has acknowledged the points I've made and appreciated that I seem to have put the thought into it. All you've done is said "you're wrong calm down" before repeating everything you said before, then told me I have to prove you wrong when I ask you to give backing.

An argument with some facts as backing is better than one with NO FACTS. Yours has no facts, just speculation. The assumption that property = money.

Then again, you actually think it's ok for bates to condition fans to think with a small club mentality. Lowering expectations so we're not disappointed when it goes wrong. That's what you want to do. Except we're more disappointed. At least if we have a big club mentality, we can say we tried every season if we fail. Instead, nope, we're having people try and brainwash our fans that a club the size of Leeds United (regardless of honours, big fish in a little pond barely covers it - the turnover charts that put us at the top by a couple of million AHEAD of clubs on parachute payments - that speaks for itself) is right at home in the middle of the Championship. Even worse, that we've got to come up with alternative methods to even have an outside shot at competing, spouting extremely twisted information that doesn't even cover it. "Clubs have parachute payments and sugar daddies" - this would be fair enough if all clubs in the Championship started on a level playing field - but guess what? They didn't. Even after that they have to step to us on money available. Only difference is they spend theirs on football. And yes, I mean clubs who aren't spending beyond their means. Clubs like Burnley. These are the kind of clubs on parachute payments that are in extremely good financial health. And guess what? Last I checked they spent about £8 million more on wages than we did. "oh but look where they are blah blah blah" - they tried. They. Are. Trying. Leicester City. Are. Trying. Spending doesn't guarantee success, but not spending GUARANTEES FAILURE. That's like saying "look at that tosser he bought a lottery ticket with money he could afford and he didn't win the lottery, what a waste of money even though he could afford it", ignoring the other guy who bought a ticket and won, and conveniently overlooking the fact that he has absolutely 0 chance of winning, because he DIDN'T BUY A TICKET.

Maximising success is always, 110%, no questions asked, always definitely, unquestionably, a better investment in football than property development. If the first priority is not football, then success in football will NEVER HAPPEN.

I'm so glad you're not a businessman, you'd be terrible at it.
Image

markolufc
First Team
First Team
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 2:22 am

Re: BATES FM

Postby markolufc » Sun May 13, 2012 1:11 am

You speak as if I'm not aware that we're not going to be able to compete with the big boys without some kind of outside investment or other kind of revenue. But the way people defend this strategy suggests we can't even compete in the SECOND TIER without it, yet the accounts of all clubs in the Championship say we've got a damn sight more money than they all have.

It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest with the money we make we're stumped for competing in the Championship because we don't have a multi-millionaire owner. The only club in the Championship with a proper sugar daddy is Leicester City. Every other club with outside investment is not getting such ridiculous amounts. Leicester City failing having spent all that money does not prove the opposite is the way to succeed. It just proves that they spent badly. Spending and failing does not have a realistic binary opposite of not spending and succeeding. Not spending guarantees failure. Spending gives you a chance. That famous old business adage, you've gotta spend money to make money! Well guess what? It applies here. Calculated risk.

Even if you overlook the fact that we don't need additional revenue streams to compete in this league based on bringing in more money than every other club in the league, saying we need additional revenue streams and using that as an argument that bates business plan is right is complete bollocks because what he's building is hemorrhaging money.

How does Yorkshire Radio benefit us? Signal coverage is terrible, matchday coverage is ok, non-matchday programming is diabolical. It's independent accounts say its losing money, despite not having any staff (they are all on the books of Leeds United). So how is that beneficial to the club? It's providing match day commentary no better than what we got from BBC Leeds, as well as a weekly propaganda message from our lord and master, and all it costs us? Only costs a few thousand that could be spent on players. No big deal.

How does the centenary pavilion benefit us? It's a nice place to go on match days (if you ignore that it's a complete rip off) and have a bit of scran and a drink, talk to other fans and listen to more propaganda by Peter Lorimer. Last financial year it brought in about £1.1 million turnover, and made a loss. All without having any staff. All it's staff are being paid for by Leeds United. How much does it cost us? £1.5 million to build, and pissing more money down the drain that could be spent improving the football. No big deal, it's an additional revenue stream! Technically. It increases revenue. Not profits though. No, never profits.

And on top of that, if we're struggling so much to compete with all the sugar daddies and parachute payments, logically, we need every penny we can get, right? Wrong. We can afford to spend a couple million a year chasing legal cases that provide no benefit to the club, just to feed bates already gargantuan ego. No big deal, according to most fans it was all the managers fault and it "would just have been wasted any way". Nobody has actually said that, but you might as well. You pass this off as nothing every time I use it as solid evidence of bates being a terrible businessman. Of course, a businessman who owns a company and wastes the companies money on pointless legal cases that have zero benefit to the business, doesn't mean he's a bad businessman. Just look at all the speculation based good ideas he's got! Lets ignore they are proving themselves to be financial black holes. But why let facts get in the way of a perfectly pointless argument?
Image

User avatar
whiteswan
First Team
First Team
Posts: 2072
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:10 am

Re: BATES FM

Postby whiteswan » Sun May 13, 2012 1:49 am

to markolufc...I'm new on here and so are you. But are you for real? Really? Are you just not trying to wind everyone up? From what I've read you just seem to be having a go..

User avatar
PaulUSA
Manager
Manager
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:37 am
Location: Arlington, VA

Re: BATES FM

Postby PaulUSA » Sun May 13, 2012 2:05 am

white.riot wrote:

No, but there is a priority for me and I can live with solvency being at the top. For most on here solvency is to be found somewhere below the Antarctic Circle.

Solvency can't be overrated. The way things are going, the attrition of healthy clubs could be our ticket back to the top tier. HOWEVER, our slippery owner needs to be honest and up front with his managers when he brings them in. None of our recent gaffers have had much in the way of available cash.

Macca did us favor of bringing in Snoddy and Becchio. Simon got us Max, Clayton and a couple better-than-average keepers. But when you're forced to dig for bargains, you win some and lose quite a few others.

I had hoped that Ken's decision to splash a little cash on Warnock was a sign that he was willing to loosen the purse strings enough to give us a realistic hope of a promotion-worthy team. But already we're seeing signs that Warnock won't get the support he expected when he took over the club.

We don't want to go bust, that's number one for sure. But within reason, we need to take a few calculated risks to reap any reward. If Ken's not willing to take any risks, he might as well go low budget on his manager as well. His mind games are getting old.
Helplessly hoping

markolufc
First Team
First Team
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 2:22 am

Re: BATES FM

Postby markolufc » Sun May 13, 2012 2:13 am

whiteswan wrote:to markolufc...I'm new on here and so are you. But are you for real? Really? Are you just not trying to wind everyone up? From what I've read you just seem to be having a go..


I am becoming increasingly frustrated with a small number of fans who continue to condescend to people for wanting the chairman out of the club. riot has, in this thread, claimed I am wrong, said "actually bates is a brilliant businessman, property is a better investment than players" (at a football club with the primary business is football - a ludicrous notion), said it all in a manner that suggests he thinks he knows what he's talking about, belittled my comments and condescended, and shown a set of behaviour that suggests he's dismissed my opinion as just "disliking bates" and "being impatient and wanting to spunk all our money on players like before".

I have, again and again, pointed out that I want bates out because the evidence to say he can't run a football club is piling up rapidly, and simply suggested that all AVAILABLE money (I said available, ie, money we actually have) should be spent on ensuring a return to the Premier League. As long as the club is giving itself the best chance of getting back to the Premier League, without overspending, it is not wasted money - the financial and commercial benefits of reaching the Premier League are too great to ignore, and when it's not a risk to the club because the club isn't spending more than it can afford, there is no issue.

But I've had that opinion belittled, berated, laughed off and any other way you can insult someone without resorting to petty name calling, but I'm the one "having a go" because I have the balls to call someone on stupidity, without prancing around the issue. I've had it dismissed, belittled, insulted and fobbed off because apparently, loss making businesses are a better investment than players just because at least they don't depreciate in value (irrelevant when they had a value significantly less than what was paid in the first place). And the cherry on top? All without giving any sound reasoning, proof, backing, "I'm in business and I've evaluated the potential profits from this venture" or anything along those lines. "It's a good investment because it's guaranteed income/stable industry/growth industry/etc" is all I'm looking for - but I won't get any of these reasons because none of them are applicable to the developments at Elland Road.

The conferencing business is in the shitter as part of the recession - companies aren't conferencing because it costs a fortune of money they don't have, they are having to cut back. They can't afford to send their staff to conferences, they can't afford to run conferences, etc, etc. Yet we've just spunked £7 million on conferencing facilities. riot says it's a good investment, and I'm the one on a wind up? Give me a break. I don't mind if people call me a twat, but at least show me where anything i've said is wrong.

As for Pauls comments, my point is that we do not have to sacrifice solvency and running a profit to spend more on players. The money is there, we're absolutely minted, it's just all going missing or being spent on low priority things. In the current financial climate, property is a dead end. Conferencing facilities, corporate hospitality, all dead end markets in the current financial climate. We've had a double dip recession and going into industries that are suffering for it is an enormous risk, not knowing when we'll come out of a recession and there's no guarantee it will be for long. bates has started businesses that are struggling from day one, the club is keeping them afloat using money brought in by football. Terrible investment, wrong time, wrong industry. The entertainment industries (cinemas, restaurants, etc) all boom during recessions because where people are cutting back on things like carpets and cookers and redoing the kitchen and redoing the bathroom and buying new clothes, they are finding themselves with money laying around and thinking "lets go to the cinema" or "lets go out for dinner" or "lets go out for drinks" or, and brace yourself:










We're going to need a drum roll, the build up isn't enough













"lets go to the Leeds game on Saturday"!
Image

markolufc
First Team
First Team
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 2:22 am

Re: BATES FM

Postby markolufc » Sun May 13, 2012 2:16 am

PaulUSA wrote:Solvency can't be overrated. The way things are going, the attrition of healthy clubs could be our ticket back to the top tier. HOWEVER, our slippery owner needs to be honest and up front with his managers when he brings them in. None of our recent gaffers have had much in the way of available cash.

Macca did us favor of bringing in Snoddy and Becchio. Simon got us Max, Clayton and a couple better-than-average keepers. But when you're forced to dig for bargains, you win some and lose quite a few others.

I had hoped that Ken's decision to splash a little cash on Warnock was a sign that he was willing to loosen the purse strings enough to give us a realistic hope of a promotion-worthy team. But already we're seeing signs that Warnock won't get the support he expected when he took over the club.

We don't want to go bust, that's number one for sure. But within reason, we need to take a few calculated risks to reap any reward. If Ken's not willing to take any risks, he might as well go low budget on his manager as well. His mind games are getting old.


Thank you for making my point in a civilised manner, although it falls on deaf ears to anyone who isn't already on board with this concept.

I'd mind less if the reason people didn't take on board what I said because I was abusive, but messages like this will get dismissed and ignored in favour of bollocks that came straight out of the book "brainwashing 101 - a guide for fascist dictators".
Image

User avatar
Gino 1959
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 11954
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:31 pm
Location: The Emerald Isle

Re: BATES FM

Postby Gino 1959 » Sun May 13, 2012 11:30 am

weasel wrote:a good businessman as he has made himself millions (no matter what your opinion on his morals, the way he conducts himself etc).

That's akin to saying the Great Train Robbers were good businessmen. How he made his money - and the immorality that accompanied him along the way - have to be considered surely?

He is no different than the bankers, hedge fund managers etc that have brought many economies to their knees. They all made millions for themselves - does that make them good businessmen?

I am realistic enough to know that it is about Bates himself and LUFC is only another asset. Like the guy reputedly about to "save" Rangers today, I am sure his only concern is how much he can make out of a future sale.
We must love what we love and hate what we hate.

User avatar
theleedsmango
First Team
First Team
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:32 pm

Re: BATES FM

Postby theleedsmango » Sun May 13, 2012 1:51 pm

markolufc wrote:Terrible investment, wrong time, wrong industry. The entertainment industries (cinemas, restaurants, etc) all boom during recessions because where people are cutting back on things like carpets and cookers and redoing the kitchen and redoing the bathroom and buying new clothes, they are finding themselves with money laying around and thinking "lets go to the cinema" or "lets go out for dinner" or "lets go out for drinks" or, and brace yourself:

We're going to need a drum roll, the build up isn't enough

"lets go to the Leeds game on Saturday"!


Meh, there was an article I was looking for that I read a while ago, but I can't seem to find it. This one http://johndix.co.uk/app/download/4893325002/Is+the+Premier+League+Recession+Proof.pdf
however, will somewhat show my point. Football doesn't 'boom' like other aspects of the entertainment industry. Nor does it drop hugely. The alcohol industry is one of the most likely to rise during a recession as it can be a relatively cheap form of entertainment for people. Of course, you'll have substantial evidence to back up your claim, as you are calling other people out on their's?

In my opinion, we had a team that could have achieved promotion last season. Hear me out. Snodgrass, Howson, Gradel, Johnson, Becchio...add that with the likes of Clayton, McCormack, Lees, White, and a dew solid defenders...we could have had a great chance.

The point I am making with this, is none of those players cost money. I don't know how many times I've to say this, or show the numbers, but spending bucket loads on players sounds great but is no guarantee of success. Howson got a better offer from a premiership side, Gradel wanted to return to France... we could have tried throwing money at them, and maybe in Howson's case, we didn't do enough... but we just couldn't guarantee we could match what other places were offering them.

Had we have had a different manager at the time (not saying Grayson wasn't a good manager, just that he wasn't able to work with what we had at the time, again, in my opinion) that could have convinced Bates to spend a little bit on quality defenders instead of searching out loans or frees, I reckon we could have reached higher last season. Again, not by spending too much, or comparing a players price with his talent, but just by searching out a little better. We had at least 27 permanent signings on our team this year, neglecting the loans we had in.

That sends alarm bells ringing that the strategy at the club isn't good enough, nevermind the business side. We've an excellent youth set-up, have scouted out some brilliant players from lower leagues in the past and have a huge fan base and history that attracts players. So why were we getting average loans in to patch up areas when he had a huge collection of players. Why get them in if they aren't good enough for a rotation role at least? Why were we signing unknown players on frees or old players on frees? Why did we lose the ability to find potential players like Becchio, Snodgrass, Gradel along with raising players up through youth like Howson, Delph, and further back, Milner etc (which we have been able to do with White & Lees at least). Why does no one ever bring this up? Because we all see Leicester, West Ham, Cardiff, and the top Prem teams, spending a lot of money. We aren't that team. We don't have that type of owner. And we don't need to.
"Please understand that the theory that every Leeds discussion converges to a finite, but uninformed, debate on the Chairman is one we must all question and actively counter" - Stephen Hawkings

markolufc
First Team
First Team
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 2:22 am

Re: BATES FM

Postby markolufc » Sun May 13, 2012 5:06 pm

It's not about the money, it's about what the money represents. It's about ensuring you do everything you can to get the best players you can get. And by everything you can, overspending isn't something you can do. The strategy seems to be "if we can't get one player cheap, we'll just go get someone else cheap". It's about the ambition it shows. So yes, I agree, the clubs strategy towards football is a terrible one, but it revolves around the business side. The strategy relies on spending as little as they can get away with, so money can be spent elsewhere, on things that, as a football club, should always be a second priority.

As for the financial climates effect on football, I will admit that no, I haven't looked it up, but my point was that recessions do not destroy the entertainment industry like they do with other industries, because people go out and do things more with the money they save from not spending on expensive stuff. There will be various factors involved, but the main one is that "lets go watch the footy" is on the list of "lets go do something"s that people have for their spare money laying around during a recession.

It is becoming more apparent that Grayson's main failing was failure to grown some balls. Colonel Sanders usual strategy of lowering expectations is not in line with what is actually happening, suggesting Colin has gone "you can stick that up your ass I'm signing players asap".

I don't think this is the whole story, however. bates has a habit of holding the club back, he'll find a way of doing it before long. The early signing might be just to keep the fans quiet, much like the negligible drop in season ticket prices and the "offer" with membership.

And as for proof, I'm not asking for proof per se, I am asking more for some reasoning behind the claims that have been made. It's all very well saying property is a better investment than players, but on what grounds? What basis is there for going into the corporate hospitality business? What basis is there for going into the conferencing business? They are both in the pan - football is fine in a recession, but like I said, businesses cut back during recessions. Conferencing and hospitality are luxuries they can't afford to be spending on.
Image

markolufc
First Team
First Team
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 2:22 am

Re: BATES FM

Postby markolufc » Sun May 13, 2012 5:21 pm

And no, not all quality players cost money, you can get some brilliant, unproven players for very little money. But to rely on that strategy? You end up with players like Nunez on a four year contract. It also doesn't help when you find some gems in the rough and decide to flog them all and start from scratch.

I do not buy into the idea that Gradel and Howson wanted out that much. I think Gradel wanted out because he didn't feel wanted by the club. Club clearly showed no desire to get him to sign on the dotted line, this is important - no player is bigger than the club, but no club is bigger than a player. Players have all the chips, without the talented players you'll go nowhere. Him "wanting out" is a technicality, he was clearly happy at Leeds before the summer, all that changed is the contract negotations. If he wanted out that badly he'd have put in a transfer request at the start of the summer. Putting in a transfer request at the end of the summer suggests panic, he will have thought "s**t, this club doesn't want me here but if I don't go now i'm stuck here till January". It is extremely naive to assume the situation is as we've been told by the club, more likely there's more to it than that.

We already know Howson was herded out the door, Parker told everyone exactly what we'd suspected, and his almost teary interview at Norwich City says "I didn't want to leave my boyhood club". Whether Parker thought it was unjust and that the fans needed to know, or just that he'd blurted it out without thinking, the reaction of Lorimer tells us that Parker wasn't lying (he had no reason to), and that the club wanted to hide it. This is a reasonable assumption based on what we know, before I get the whole "you don't know that" rubbish.
Image

User avatar
1964white
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 55384
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:46 am
Twitter: @1964white

Re: BATES FM

Postby 1964white » Sun May 13, 2012 5:25 pm

Howson didn't want to leave his boyhood club !

User avatar
Drs.Dad
Manager
Manager
Posts: 3210
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:20 pm

Re: BATES FM

Postby Drs.Dad » Sun May 13, 2012 5:44 pm

1964white wrote:Howson didn't want to leave his boyhood club !



Please delete your posting Leon...... absolute minimum of 3 paragraphs in this thread!
:mrgreen:
Image

markolufc
First Team
First Team
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 2:22 am

Re: BATES FM

Postby markolufc » Sun May 13, 2012 5:54 pm

1964white wrote:Howson didn't want to leave his boyhood club !


Not sure if sarcastic...
Image

User avatar
Twiggster
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 54828
Joined: Thu May 22, 2003 2:31 pm
Location: near København, DK
Contact:

Re: BATES FM

Postby Twiggster » Sun May 13, 2012 5:55 pm

Gradel was interviewed by a French soccer journalist, just after he arrived at St.Etienne. "I did not want to leave Leeds and I apologise to the fans who I love and to the club, for waiting to the last minute. Personal situations mean I need to be with my family in France right now and my thanks go to Leeds United for securing me a French club so quickly...I had told the club (Leeds) 3 or 4 weeks before (I was sold) that I wasn't sure about my future ".

So plenty of time for Williams or whoever to bring in a replacement, you would think. :duno:

markolufc
First Team
First Team
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 2:22 am

Re: BATES FM

Postby markolufc » Sun May 13, 2012 6:00 pm

considering the number of offers supposedly piling in and that we supposedly had an offer from a French club earlier, 3-4 weeks to find a French club isn't quick, and not finding a suitable replacement in that time is completely unforgivable. It stinks of "we won't buy until we sell", despite the fact Gradel won't have been on much. Worst case scenario from a financial point of view is that we got somebody in to cover him, and then he stayed at Leeds. And considering how we've suffered for wingers this season, we needed 2 more than we've had - Gradel + one more.

It's just yet another case of pathetic excuses for lack of action by the club.
Image

User avatar
1964white
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 55384
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:46 am
Twitter: @1964white

Re: BATES FM

Postby 1964white » Sun May 13, 2012 7:33 pm

markolufc wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic...


Sacasm is far too clever for the likes of myself

I personally feel Howson was our best player & a massive loss to our club !

User avatar
1964white
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 55384
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:46 am
Twitter: @1964white

Re: BATES FM

Postby 1964white » Sun May 13, 2012 7:35 pm

Drs.Dad wrote:

Please delete your posting Leon...... absolute minimum of 3 paragraphs in this thread!
:mrgreen:


Two lines in my pernultimate post DD :lol:

User avatar
Kepler
First Team
First Team
Posts: 1159
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:20 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: BATES FM

Postby Kepler » Sun May 13, 2012 8:50 pm

markolufc wrote:It's not about the money, it's about what the money represents. It's about ensuring you do everything you can to get the best players you can get. And by everything you can, overspending isn't something you can do. The strategy seems to be "if we can't get one player cheap, we'll just go get someone else cheap". It's about the ambition it shows. So yes, I agree, the clubs strategy towards football is a terrible one, but it revolves around the business side. The strategy relies on spending as little as they can get away with, so money can be spent elsewhere, on things that, as a football club, should always be a second priority.

I have to dissagree on that. 98% of the players we have signed have mentiond the facilities at Leeds as beeing amazing, and this is something that helps us sign players, who have to choose between Leeds and other clubs. The training facilities alsoe play a big part in the development of youngsters comming true oue youth teams, and in the development of the younger players we find at other clubs (Beckford, Johnson, Gradel and so on).
Now you would probably point out that we dont waste money on training facilities, but on the stadium. But if you dont develop the stadium on a regular basis, you end up with a stadium that is in so bad a shape that you need to spen a LOT more in fixing it, or in worst case have to build a new stadium, and how much in dept would that take a club?

And your point about facilities not making a club anything substantial is wrong in my eyes, as it all comes down to how good the club is at using the facilities on non football days. I live in Copenhagen, Denmark. Here we have a club called FC copenhagen, who do this extreemly well. Almost evry year they used to come out with a big minus on the footballing side of the buissness, but their good use of their facilities on non footballing days more than coverd that minus. The last 2 years I think they have had a too big minus, after spendin quite alot on players after their Champions League succes(where have I heard that before?) But investment on facilities can really help a club on the footballing side, if it is done properly.

Was the post long enough, or do I have to add a paragraph or 2? :)
Image

Winning doesn't really matter as longe as you win
- Vinnie Jones


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: whiteswan and 47 guests