Blimey Henry, that's harsh. Has Off_it hacked your account?
He makes the decent point that some types of businesses/men are more suited to football club ownership than others, and I think on the basis of publicly available information he's right to give Koc a positive review. What did you find so 'unbelievably crass'? I've read far worse here.
The writer states 'My real name? I’ll tell you when CAFC tell us who really owns the club. But I’m not Airman Brown, Henry Irving or AFKA Bartram in case you were wondering'.
At least Man U, Arse, Liverpool generated the income to spend big - fair play to 'em. Chelsea and Man City totally different, don't think (not really sure tho' tbh) I'd want us like that
They only managed to do that because they screwed over every other club much worse then City or Chelsea have done, they just did it back in the so called "glory days" of football when money didnt matter, which is laughable.
Sorry Gretna - you have lost me with that one, I don't like any of the clubs I mentioned, they made money thru' winning, big crowds, merchandise and kept re-investing - who and how did they screw over ?
I don't have long but the basic principle is that Arsenal/Utd/Liverpool with the other bigger European clubs made the system that rewarded them much more then there league opponents, which helped make a gulf of finances, the system was so corrupt it has meant the only way for any team to on a regular basis change things is if they have a big investor, if they had never created the corrupt system then we would not have the need for clubs like City/Chelsea to do what they do.
Ideally we would not have them spending hundreds of millions on players but blame those clubs not City/Chelsea.
Defending those clubs is like the people who think we should all still bow to the royals, keep everyone in there place.
Hope that helps but im in a bit of a rush.
GGA
I generally agree with you. You are referring to the consolidation - rigging perhaps, of TV money into the hands of the few when it could have been more sensibly divided to create amore equal and more healthy football industry.
I would add to this that, the FAPL deal preceded the Champions League deal, and is far more damaging to English football, and had global repercussions. And Ken Bates was one of the prime movers of the FAPL deal so don't spare Chelsea, please. They were run by an English **** before the Russian one took it off his hands.
Blimey Henry, that's harsh. Has Off_it hacked your account?
He makes the decent point that some types of businesses/men are more suited to football club ownership than others, and I think on the basis of publicly available information he's right to give Koc a positive review. What did you find so 'unbelievably crass'? I've read far worse here.
It's nonsense. Sure, give Koc credit for their ethical trading and football connections but all the rubbish about RM being of Polish extraction being the factor that made him run the Club the way he did and the other huge leaps of logic are beyond comment. WUM of the worst sort. Ignore.
The writer states 'My real name? I’ll tell you when CAFC tell us who really owns the club. But I’m not Airman Brown, Henry Irving or AFKA Bartram in case you were wondering'.
I was not wondering if it was any of those three.
Blimey, what did I do wrong to get mixed in with the 'Principals of Popularity' ?????
The writer states 'My real name? I’ll tell you when CAFC tell us who really owns the club. But I’m not Airman Brown, Henry Irving or AFKA Bartram in case you were wondering'.
I was not wondering if it was any of those three.
Blimey, what did I do wrong to get mixed in with the 'Principals of Popularity' ?????
The writer states 'My real name? I’ll tell you when CAFC tell us who really owns the club. But I’m not Airman Brown, Henry Irving or AFKA Bartram in case you were wondering'.
I heard music when I read this...Sire, what is this comedic / lyrical web of mystery that you weave. Fooks off back to the Shakespeare thread...hmmm, wait a minute, theres a clue here! Sheik Speare middle eastern Bardouin...could be the guy.
My take on Reams of Verse is that he is definitely getting interesting info, but then overreaches himself. He claims that it was always the deal that Cash would invest in the Jan window if we were top half. Well, such a specific plan would be news to Richard Murray at least, and it would be kind of surprising if this bloke knew more about Cash' s intentions than RM does
That Reams fella is a bloody fruit loop.Thinks the sport PERSONality of the year should have won by a horse.
At least Man U, Arse, Liverpool generated the income to spend big - fair play to 'em. Chelsea and Man City totally different, don't think (not really sure tho' tbh) I'd want us like that
They only managed to do that because they screwed over every other club much worse then City or Chelsea have done, they just did it back in the so called "glory days" of football when money didnt matter, which is laughable.
Sorry Gretna - you have lost me with that one, I don't like any of the clubs I mentioned, they made money thru' winning, big crowds, merchandise and kept re-investing - who and how did they screw over ?
I don't have long but the basic principle is that Arsenal/Utd/Liverpool with the other bigger European clubs made the system that rewarded them much more then there league opponents, which helped make a gulf of finances, the system was so corrupt it has meant the only way for any team to on a regular basis change things is if they have a big investor, if they had never created the corrupt system then we would not have the need for clubs like City/Chelsea to do what they do.
Ideally we would not have them spending hundreds of millions on players but blame those clubs not City/Chelsea.
Defending those clubs is like the people who think we should all still bow to the royals, keep everyone in there place.
Hope that helps but im in a bit of a rush.
GGA
I generally agree with you. You are referring to the consolidation - rigging perhaps, of TV money into the hands of the few when it could have been more sensibly divided to create amore equal and more healthy football industry.
I would add to this that, the FAPL deal preceded the Champions League deal, and is far more damaging to English football, and had global repercussions. And Ken Bates was one of the prime movers of the FAPL deal so don't spare Chelsea, please. They were run by an English **** before the Russian one took it off his hands.
Thanks for the extra info/view im always interested in the more factual discussion over the general football fan/pundit nonsense.
Im also sure you could have written up what i was trying to explain a lot better then me, especially as i was attempting to do it within a minute and after a few pints celebrating the birthday of a close friend.
At least Man U, Arse, Liverpool generated the income to spend big - fair play to 'em. Chelsea and Man City totally different, don't think (not really sure tho' tbh) I'd want us like that
They only managed to do that because they screwed over every other club much worse then City or Chelsea have done, they just did it back in the so called "glory days" of football when money didnt matter, which is laughable.
Sorry Gretna - you have lost me with that one, I don't like any of the clubs I mentioned, they made money thru' winning, big crowds, merchandise and kept re-investing - who and how did they screw over ?
I don't have long but the basic principle is that Arsenal/Utd/Liverpool with the other bigger European clubs made the system that rewarded them much more then there league opponents, which helped make a gulf of finances, the system was so corrupt it has meant the only way for any team to on a regular basis change things is if they have a big investor, if they had never created the corrupt system then we would not have the need for clubs like City/Chelsea to do what they do.
Ideally we would not have them spending hundreds of millions on players but blame those clubs not City/Chelsea.
Defending those clubs is like the people who think we should all still bow to the royals, keep everyone in there place.
Hope that helps but im in a bit of a rush.
GGA
I generally agree with you. You are referring to the consolidation - rigging perhaps, of TV money into the hands of the few when it could have been more sensibly divided to create amore equal and more healthy football industry.
I would add to this that, the FAPL deal preceded the Champions League deal, and is far more damaging to English football, and had global repercussions. And Ken Bates was one of the prime movers of the FAPL deal so don't spare Chelsea, please. They were run by an English **** before the Russian one took it off his hands.
Thanks for the extra info/view im always interested in the more factual discussion over the general football fan/pundit nonsense.
Im also sure you could have written up what i was trying to explain a lot better then me, especially as i was attempting to do it within a minute and after a few pints celebrating the birthday of a close friend.
My favourite source for understanding all the shite is Tom Bower's book "Broken Dreams", which details how the whole dirty deal was done. It is a marvellous book (albeit you will feel like jumping in the bath afterwards to wash away all the slime). It has a complete chapter on Harry Redknapp, with the mind-boggling stat that while at West Ham he signed 144 players in 7 years...
At least Man U, Arse, Liverpool generated the income to spend big - fair play to 'em. Chelsea and Man City totally different, don't think (not really sure tho' tbh) I'd want us like that
They only managed to do that because they screwed over every other club much worse then City or Chelsea have done, they just did it back in the so called "glory days" of football when money didnt matter, which is laughable.
Sorry Gretna - you have lost me with that one, I don't like any of the clubs I mentioned, they made money thru' winning, big crowds, merchandise and kept re-investing - who and how did they screw over ?
I don't have long but the basic principle is that Arsenal/Utd/Liverpool with the other bigger European clubs made the system that rewarded them much more then there league opponents, which helped make a gulf of finances, the system was so corrupt it has meant the only way for any team to on a regular basis change things is if they have a big investor, if they had never created the corrupt system then we would not have the need for clubs like City/Chelsea to do what they do.
Ideally we would not have them spending hundreds of millions on players but blame those clubs not City/Chelsea.
Defending those clubs is like the people who think we should all still bow to the royals, keep everyone in there place.
Hope that helps but im in a bit of a rush.
GGA
I generally agree with you. You are referring to the consolidation - rigging perhaps, of TV money into the hands of the few when it could have been more sensibly divided to create amore equal and more healthy football industry.
I would add to this that, the FAPL deal preceded the Champions League deal, and is far more damaging to English football, and had global repercussions. And Ken Bates was one of the prime movers of the FAPL deal so don't spare Chelsea, please. They were run by an English **** before the Russian one took it off his hands.
Thanks for the extra info/view im always interested in the more factual discussion over the general football fan/pundit nonsense.
Im also sure you could have written up what i was trying to explain a lot better then me, especially as i was attempting to do it within a minute and after a few pints celebrating the birthday of a close friend.
My favourite source for understanding all the shite is Tom Bower's book "Broken Dreams", which details how the whole dirty deal was done. It is a marvellous book (albeit you will feel like jumping in the bath afterwards to wash away all the slime). It has a complete chapter on Harry Redknapp, with the mind-boggling stat that while at West Ham he signed 144 players in 7 years...
At least Man U, Arse, Liverpool generated the income to spend big - fair play to 'em. Chelsea and Man City totally different, don't think (not really sure tho' tbh) I'd want us like that
They only managed to do that because they screwed over every other club much worse then City or Chelsea have done, they just did it back in the so called "glory days" of football when money didnt matter, which is laughable.
Sorry Gretna - you have lost me with that one, I don't like any of the clubs I mentioned, they made money thru' winning, big crowds, merchandise and kept re-investing - who and how did they screw over ?
I don't have long but the basic principle is that Arsenal/Utd/Liverpool with the other bigger European clubs made the system that rewarded them much more then there league opponents, which helped make a gulf of finances, the system was so corrupt it has meant the only way for any team to on a regular basis change things is if they have a big investor, if they had never created the corrupt system then we would not have the need for clubs like City/Chelsea to do what they do.
Ideally we would not have them spending hundreds of millions on players but blame those clubs not City/Chelsea.
Defending those clubs is like the people who think we should all still bow to the royals, keep everyone in there place.
Hope that helps but im in a bit of a rush.
GGA
I generally agree with you. You are referring to the consolidation - rigging perhaps, of TV money into the hands of the few when it could have been more sensibly divided to create amore equal and more healthy football industry.
I would add to this that, the FAPL deal preceded the Champions League deal, and is far more damaging to English football, and had global repercussions. And Ken Bates was one of the prime movers of the FAPL deal so don't spare Chelsea, please. They were run by an English **** before the Russian one took it off his hands.
The rot started in the 70's (I think) when the so called big clubs stopped the away teams from receiving any revenue from gates.
Comments
He makes the decent point that some types of businesses/men are more suited to football club ownership than others, and I think on the basis of publicly available information he's right to give Koc a positive review. What did you find so 'unbelievably crass'? I've read far worse here.
I was not wondering if it was any of those three.
I generally agree with you. You are referring to the consolidation - rigging perhaps, of TV money into the hands of the few when it could have been more sensibly divided to create amore equal and more healthy football industry.
I would add to this that, the FAPL deal preceded the Champions League deal, and is far more damaging to English football, and had global repercussions. And Ken Bates was one of the prime movers of the FAPL deal so don't spare Chelsea, please. They were run by an English **** before the Russian one took it off his hands.
http://addickschampionshipdiary.blogspot.dk/2012/12/from-rumour-mill.html
DB? Is the B for Benny or Bjørn?
:-)
Thank you Sheffield and Curb-it. Would have been quite distressing to think anyone did : - )
Im also sure you could have written up what i was trying to explain a lot better then me, especially as i was attempting to do it within a minute and after a few pints celebrating the birthday of a close friend.