danielneeds
Kick-Ass
- May 5, 2004
- 24,182
- 48,812
Always thought it was a spurious rumour at best.
Takeover talk
- Thread starter jonathanhotspur
- Start date
Yeah sounds unlikely to be honest. They have stuck to tech companies as far as I'm aware so would be bit of a curve ball on their part if they decided to enter the pro sports arena. Maybe naming right/some other kind of other sponsorship deal more likely.
I think it was always a bit of wishful thinking on our part. Wanting it to be true because we can see that the current frustrations on the pitch are caused by our transfer dealings over the last few seasons, and wanting a new owner with a different modus operandi (albeit because they have more resources at their disposal than DL).
But... even if the Alphabet rumours aren't true, there's no saying that they weren't caused by someone putting 2 + 2 together and coming up with 4.1...
And I can't help wondering what is really going on with the stadium naming rights.
I'm sure there are plenty of companies who would do a deal for that, unless Levy is being exceptionally unrealistic (not impossible).
So what's the problem? Well surely a new owner would want the stadium to carry their brand. So maybe the delay in a naming rights deal isn't caused by the lack of a suitable sponsor, maybe it's linked to a bigger deal being done?
#justsaying
But... even if the Alphabet rumours aren't true, there's no saying that they weren't caused by someone putting 2 + 2 together and coming up with 4.1...
And I can't help wondering what is really going on with the stadium naming rights.
I'm sure there are plenty of companies who would do a deal for that, unless Levy is being exceptionally unrealistic (not impossible).
So what's the problem? Well surely a new owner would want the stadium to carry their brand. So maybe the delay in a naming rights deal isn't caused by the lack of a suitable sponsor, maybe it's linked to a bigger deal being done?
#justsaying
Marauder
Well-Known Member
- Aug 20, 2008
- 688
- 2,895
? I don't think you got the point from my message. The trick is that instead of doubling the amount of signings (in number or value etc) now that everything has been built and we are going to be concentrating on the playing side blah blah, it's actually halving them by doing loans! Let me know explain. So Signing A (loan) is announced in Window 1 - hoooraaay! New signing! Great, right? And then suddenly, Signing A is announced again as a new signing in Window 2 when it is turned permanent! Or do you think the money for permanent will be allocated in Window 1? No no. It will be allocated in Window 2 and then when we ask ok but what about new signings in Window 2 we will be told - it is Signing 1! And we will be like, umm but that was a new signing in Window 1?? No no, it was just a loan then. Now we had to spend the money to make him permanent in Window 2, so no other signings in Window 2 I am afraid.
Do you see my point?
Gb160
Well done boys. Good process
- Jun 20, 2012
- 23,679
- 93,466
Yes, I did before, and I think you have a very active imagination.
The club don't give a fuck what the fans think, so to think they'd go to the trouble of all that nonsense you just posted just to appease the more simple fans is far fetched to say the least.
They're doing it so that if the player is a failure, or doesn't settle, they can cut their losses.
It's sensible, and that simple.
dontcallme
SC Supporter
- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,360
- 83,718
I see your point, it's weird.
Gb160
Well done boys. Good process
- Jun 20, 2012
- 23,679
- 93,466
Metalhead
But that's a debate for another thread.....
- Nov 24, 2013
- 25,437
- 38,488
It's nice to put a face to a name.
Marauder
Well-Known Member
- Aug 20, 2008
- 688
- 2,895
"The club don't give a fuck what the fans think"... that's a bit of a problem, isn't it?
slartibartfast
Grunge baby forever
- Oct 21, 2012
- 18,320
- 33,955
Gb160
Well done boys. Good process
- Jun 20, 2012
- 23,679
- 93,466
Reading some of the nonsense on here it's a pretty wise stance to take.
Last edited:
Lighty64
I believe
- Aug 24, 2010
- 10,400
- 12,476
but at the time our top earner was Kane on 100k, and at the time Mane wasn't a better player than Kane, so every player would have wanted a better deal, at a time we were playing in a reduced stadium capacity
Lighty64
I believe
- Aug 24, 2010
- 10,400
- 12,476
have you even considered that loans might be a good option for 3 reasons
1, Kane and Sissoko should be ok by the start of next season
2, not many top talents available in January
3, we already have a squad of 26 players (can only use 25)
GutBucket
Well-Known Member
- May 26, 2013
- 6,860
- 11,555
Only Kane would have wanted a better deal then and there is literally 0 issues with that. Maybe Eriksen too and same story. Do you think everyone got a huge increase at Liverpool when Lovren signed a new huge contract? He makes more than Gomez, TAA, Robertson etc.
Lighty64
I believe
- Aug 24, 2010
- 10,400
- 12,476
if they gave a fuck what 90% of SC or twatter think, we would be going down the Leeds route. we would have a squad of 40 players with 15 players sitting at home on their Xbox/PS4 being paid 80k p/w doing nothing. to make room we would have to give players away way below their values or for nothing and still pay towards their wages
Lighty64
I believe
- Aug 24, 2010
- 10,400
- 12,476
no when someone gets an improved contract, then others that do their job well want an increase. even if you only take into account 5 players at the time would have expected to be at least matching, or improved compared to what they were on. Mane was good at Southampton, but he wasn't doing anything better than Eriksen, Alli, Kane, and Son apart from picking up cards for diving
edit: with Lovren it depends on what he was on before, especially because he most probably requested a rise or leave when you had VVD come in on 170k p/w
Similar threads
