Who doesn't think Short is the problem?


Status
Not open for further replies.
That's what I meant by it depends on the terms of the deal.
I get the crippled us comment but not the asset stripping.
Not with us (as he's left us with no assets to strip).
But that is how he has made his millions. Buying up companies and then asset stripping them. Look him up on t'interweb.
 
He's backed his managers to the point of almost bankrupting the club. His managerial choices have largely been sound. It's not his fault that Bruce, MON and now Moyes have turned to shit.

Other appointments don't look very clever mind, Di Fanti, Maggie Byrne as chair(wo)man and others.

He struck gold with Allardyce but the FA fucked that up which isn't his fault.

So all in all no I don't really blame Short. He could have gifted us cash to clear the debt or an interest free loan tho...

SAFC is paying 8.5% interest to cover the cost of Short's mistakes. Just get your head around that...
 
Oh that one, I think it's just more to do with what is under each heading tbh, if you total up all the commercial elements we come out fairly reasonable.
Fair enough. Given everything I've heard about Bains view of how Hutchinson performed I would be surprised if anyone thought our commercial side was performing well, as Bain obviously didn't.
 
I think that's what I remember, it's a difficult thing to compare because it's classified differently.
That's where we were on The Swiss Ramble's detailed analysis of our last accounts. David Conn is a good journalist but the other fella has a long history of excellent analysis and isn't 'moonlighting' at financial analysis so he's going to be the one to go with.
 
Fair enough. Given everything I've heard about Bains view of how Hutchinson performed I would be surprised if anyone thought our commercial side was performing well, as Bain obviously didn't.
What have you heard? I don't really know, other than the figures I saw we looked not too bad.
 
Nah cos once he leaves the truth about his reign will out and I will have to book a week's holiday and dedicate 12 hours a day trawling through previous SMB posts and tagging every single fucker who defended him and said I was chatting shite.

What will you do if he sells tomorrow, for £1, the new owners take us down, then down again after selling off Pickford, Defoe, etc and appointing Holloway?

Under Short we've remained in the PL and may do this season, thereby securing the TV money.
 
What have you heard? I don't really know, other than the figures I saw we looked not too bad.
That Bain was pissed off with the entire way the club had been run, from previous managers to commerce, hence the change in approach to Moyes and the 'resignation' of the Hair.
 
What will you do if he sells tomorrow, for £1, the new owners take us down, then down again after selling off Pickford, Defoe, etc and appointing Holloway?

Under Short we've remained in the PL and may this season.
Erm what?

So you never want to sack a manager, because if you sack a manger the replacement could always be worse?

On the balance of probabilities I think a new owner would be good for us. I'm not going to pretend it's risk free.

I also think the situation you outline is unlikely. It does happen but it's comparatively rare.
 
SAFC is paying 8.5% interest to cover the cost of Short's mistakes. Just get your head around that...

Short's mistakes or a previously good manager spending £5M plus 3 years wages on Danny f***ing Graham. There's literally dozens of other such examples, Ndong, Papy and McNair only this season.
 
Will be interesting to see how much he can improve it by, if we can stay up at least.
Ironically, if we stayed up for a few years I think we'd be ok. We're doing *some* of the right things. It's just catastrophically stupid at this point, IMO, for Short to be investing so little. We need to get something of a team together and then do this. Not when our squad is shot to bits.
 
Erm what?

So you never want to sack a manager, because if you sack a manger the replacement could always be worse?

On the balance of probabilities I think a new owner would be good for us. I'm not going to pretend it's risk free.

I also think the situation you outline is unlikely. It does happen but it's comparatively rare.


You've previously said it could turn out to be a disaster or words to that effect.

"On the balance of probabilities I think a new owner would be good for us."

What balance of probabilities ..... sounds more like fingers crossed tbh.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That was a serious question on the last page. Can anyone tell me of another business where if it doesn't work out, the owner gets his money back?
I guess the answer to that is that it hasn't 'not' worked out - yet. he wouldn't get that money back if he sold us as a championship club.
 
Erm what?

So you never want to sack a manager, because if you sack a manger the replacement could always be worse?

On the balance of probabilities I think a new owner would be good for us. I'm not going to pretend it's risk free.

I also think the situation you outline is unlikely. It does happen but it's comparatively rare.
He needs to sell...but a new owner won't necessarily be better. Whatever happens....it will be a long dark road ahead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top