Four players released

[London Irish]

lookout...Steve is in Patronising mode


Tin hats on folks


As a journalist I thought you were trained to see the other persons point of view, even if you dont agree with it!


BTW great game at the Stoop!!! Shame about the result but 100% effort all round I thought

Usual character digs from you rather than dealing with the substance of the debate.

 

[Trigger]

Strip away the PR garbage and Branson is actually a very hard-headed and shrewd businessman. The idea of him spending money on the off-chance that it might just come off is laughable.

Knowing him as well as you do like?...

The London Broncos spring to mind...

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Strip away the PR garbage and Branson is actually a very hard-headed and shrewd businessman. The idea of him spending money on the off-chance that it might just come off is laughable.

if you read his autobiography, he did take quite a few punts....even in later life, his purchase of the business then to become Virgin Mobile was such a venture. You being a industry journo I would have thought would have known that


Shame he blotted his copybook by sponsoring the Scum though

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Usual character digs from you rather than dealing with the substance of the debate.

a debate is a two way thing...you never see the other point of view so what is the point in debating anything with you?

 

[rool]

Strip away the PR garbage and Branson is actually a very hard-headed and shrewd businessman. The idea of him spending money on the off-chance that it might just come off is laughable.

He wouldn't have bought Turienzo then?

 

[Silent Bob]

The idea of him spending money on the off-chance that it might just come off is laughable.

But isn't that exactly what we did last summer?

 

[London Irish]

You're clutching at straws a bit here LI. We all know that the MOM awards are often a lottery. The sponsors pick the MOM and are often pissed up, and have been known to pick a random player out of a hat, especially if it's a game that we haven't played well in at all. Newspaper MOM awards are exactly the same, especially as often the hack that has written the piece hasn't even been at the game. You know that, but you keep banging on about it.

I agree with most of what you say in your well-argued post but I think you are wide of the mark on this bit.

Newspaper reports on MOTM are actually I think very instructive because they are made without the same prejudices and agenda that fans always bring as baggage to a game. They are made without the pressure of popular and possibly wrong-headed bandwagon opinion.

The Football League Paper correspondent looked at the Millwall game dispassionately and decided Chippy was the most influential player on the pitch.

I just don't think Chippy would be anywhere near getting the kind of praise like this (and Luton was also from the Argus not just the pissed-up sponsors) if he was as bad as you and others say.

The award of a new contract I think bears that argument out.

 

[London Irish]

a debate is a two way thing...you never see the other point of view so what is the point in debating anything with you?

Another character dig. Can't you just PM me these rather than boring everyone else with them?

 

[Kylies Stunt Arse]

I agree with most of what you say in your well-argued post but I think you are wide of the mark on this bit.

Newspaper reports on MOTM are actually I think very instructive because they are made without the same prejudices and agenda that fans always bring as baggage to a game. They are made without the pressure of popular and possibly wrong-headed bandwagon opinion.

The Football League Paper correspondent looked at the Millwall game dispassionately and decided Chippy was the most influential player on the pitch.

I just don't think Chippy would be anywhere near getting the kind of praise like this (and Luton was also from the Argus not just the pissed-up sponsors) if he was as bad as you and others say.

The award of a new contract I think bears that argument out.

But two decent games don't make a good season. I said earlier that I hope that the rest and a decent pre season will do him good as we all know how good he can be. I stick by that.

I wasn't saying he was awful in those games either, just that the fact he was considered MOM, by anyone fans or impartial journos alike, doesn't actually count for an awful lot. I understand what you are saying about baggage and the like but how many times have we read the paper reports, on games that we don't even care much about but have watched, and wondered if the hack in question had actually watched the game?

 

[London Irish]

if you read his autobiography, he did take quite a few punts....even in later life, his purchase of the business then to become Virgin Mobile was such a venture. You being a industry journo I would have thought would have known that


Shame he blotted his copybook by sponsoring the Scum though

Virgin Mobile was not a "punt", there was tons of business analysis and research that went into that venture before it was launched. It suits his carefully cultivated PR image to paint himself as some kind of free-wheeling, chancing buccaneer, buy into that if you want but the reality is very different.

 

[London Irish]

But two decent games don't make a good season. I said earlier that I hope that the rest and a decent pre season will do him good as we all know how good he can be. I stick by that.

I wasn't saying he was awful in those games either, just that the fact he was considered MOM, by anyone fans or impartial journos alike, doesn't actually count for an awful lot. I understand what you are saying about baggage and the like but how many times have we read the paper reports, on games that we don't even care much about but have watched, and wondered if the hack in question had actually watched the game?

The Football League Paper reports are better than that in my opinion. Also, Chippy played more than just two good games, I have only highlighted them because of the noticable fact that he was singled out as the best player on the pitch by neutral sources in them. The reality I believe is that he did have a handful of bad games where fans got on his back a bit, and I think he is being unfairly written off on the basis of those. I guess we are not going to agree on this though

 

[Les Biehn]

Another character dig. Can't you just PM me these rather than boring everyone else with them?

Its not boring me.

 

[London Irish]

But isn't that exactly what we did last summer?

It's interesting that people keep bringing up El Turi.

I guess if you and Munster were Palace fans, you would be saying Ian Dowie is a shit and useless manager who deserved to be fired because he spent between £750,000 and £1.1m for Jon Macken?

Puts the £150k for El Turi in perspective I think.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

To be fair LI, any money wasted is putting us mucm ore danger of going under. Many clubs with debts, have assets to borrow against and have high turnovers. We have neither! The club made a mistake and a costly one at that.

 

[rool]

It's interesting that people keep bringing up El Turi.

I guess if you and Munster were Palace fans, you would be saying Ian Dowie is a shit and useless manager who deserved to be fired because he spent between £750,000 and £1.1m for Jon Macken?

Puts the £150k for El Turi in perspective I think.

How d'ya know I'm not

Anyway, not really, it's understandable that clubs make the odd cock up even after the most thorough scouting and trials etc, the players have the responsibility to perform to the best of their ability at the end of the day. This one however, if it is correct that it was on the back of a video and a nod and a wink, is so out of character with our club given the financial situation that you wouldn't believe a businessman like Branson would have sanctioned it.

It just seemed so frivelous of us to gamble like then when like for like 150k is probably equivalent to 1.1m to palace.

 

[Les Biehn]

To be fair LI, any money wasted is putting us mucm ore danger of going under. Many clubs with debts, have assets to borrow against and have high turnovers. We have neither! The club made a mistake and a costly one at that.

Trouble is barrel in our position you can't rely on certainties, for the simple fact we can't afford to buy players that we know will almost certainly do well. We have to take a punt. Carole, Frutos and McShane were all educated guesses. The only thing I will say about the El Turi thing is it wasn't particularly educated, some clips and undewhelming 45mins against Lewes does not suggest a decent player. They can't all be the new Zamora, and look where we got on that punt. Sometimes a limited punt needs to be taken to further the club, unfortunately it also has more chance of going tits up. I think I may be starting to actually bore myself now.

 

[London Irish]

To be fair LI, any money wasted is putting us mucm ore danger of going under. Many clubs with debts, have assets to borrow against and have high turnovers. We have neither! The club made a mistake and a costly one at that.

Well, when you look at the revenue (£40m?) that Palace may lose as a result of messing up their promotion, I don't think the issue is as clear cut as you say. El Turi was a mistake, but how big a mistake would only be clear if we knew we had been paying him inflated wages (we don't know that) or how the transfer deal with his agent was structured, was there appearance clauses and staggered payments for example?

For me, the Macken example shows that even very fine managers make costly mistakes in the transfer market, that market can almost be regarded as an industry of errors, it's inevitable.

 

[London Irish]

It just seemed so frivelous of us to gamble like then when like for like 150k is probably equivalent to 1.1m to palace.

Agreed, that was the point I was making.

In fact, I think the situation is, the lower down the transfer market you go (and low down is the bit we are restricted to) the more likely is is that gambles don't come off, because you are dealing almost exclusively with untested or potentially past-it players.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Well, when you look at the revenue (£40m?) that Palace may lose as a result of messing up their promotion, I don't think the issue is as clear cut as you say. El Turi was a mistake, but how big a mistake would only be clear if we knew we had been paying him inflated wages (we don't know that) or how the transfer deal with his agent was structured, was there appearance clauses and staggered payments for example?

For me, the Macken example shows that even very fine managers make costly mistakes in the transfer market, that market can almost be regarded as an industry of errors, it's inevitable.

Palace gate receipts is at least three to four times ours, plus they have received more TV revenue and their sponsorship is obviously more due to size of stadium etc.

The £150k was outright, as that was stated in the agent fees expose. His signing on fee must have been substantial as he had to relocate to Ingerland. Money we could ill afford to waste. Yes, the transfer market is a gamble and managers makes mistakes, but are we in a position to gamble?

Would you not classify McGhee as a very fine manager? You used the Macken example, why not the Turienzo example?

 

[London Irish]

Palace gate receipts is at least three to four times ours, plus they have received more TV revenue and their sponsorship is obviously more due to size of stadium etc.

The £150k was outright, as that was stated in the agent fees expose. His signing on fee must have been substantial as he had to relocate to Ingerland. Money we could ill afford to waste. Yes, the transfer market is a gamble and managers makes mistakes, but are we in a position to gamble?

Would you not classify McGhee as a very fine manager? You used the Macken example, why not the Turienzo example?

Eaxctly, both Dowie and McGhee are fine managers.

I think you are speculating on aspects of El Turi's transfer, you have no evidence whatsoever that his signing on fee was "substantial".

Your point about us not being in a position to gamble is fine words but ignores reality. Unfortunately, the lower reaches of the transfer market generally is more loaded with gambles. If we don't gamble, we don't sign players - that's the reality of it. CKR, Currie, Nicolas, Carole - all gambles. We will this summer I'm sure be making more gambles - that's football at our level even more so than for Simon Jordan or Ian Dowie.