Post by bowranger on Aug 30, 2012 11:28:42 GMT
He talks about 3-5 years developing a squad. Has he stayed 3-5 years at any Club? And 3-5 years is 3-5 years of relatively poor results, while the foundations are being laid.
Looks like he doesn't trust the Board or the supporters to put up with 3-5 years of less than stellar performances while something more long term is prepared.
And doesn't think they trust him.
It is also worth pointing out that 3-5 years is not 'the long term'.
Perhaps the basic objection to this spending spree is that none of these players is OBVIOUSLY superior - real class. Where the quality of performance is guaranteed.
Nevertheless, he is expected to do well. Once, we would have been pleasantly surprised if a motley selection of bargain buys and kids exceeded our expectations.
If they played well, fine. If they didn't, no great surprise.
But now winning isn't an option. He is expected to win.
Will getting the sort of mid-table finishes we had in the 1980s or early 1990s be good enough? Not if the Club is to be effectively trebled in size, build a new ground, and compete at an appropriate level to pay for it.
Optimism - when it means HOPING for the best - is fine. The manufactured optimism we're subjected to is scary when it is the engine of spending on a scale the Club simply can't afford.
There has been no evidence produced to date that Mittal or anyone else is providing the money. If that were the case, the Club wouldn't still be stuck with a 15-year old debt that its representatives repeatedly tell us is 'paid off'.
Great post (though I am not financially minded enough to know much about the 15 year old debt still being around - I know the board repeatedly said it was paid off though, like you say).
The point about manufactured optimism is absolutely spot on. I often get the sensation with the sheer confidence from the board room that it's not just about faith in the project - it's carrying the sub-text that we simply can't afford to fail. We believe in this not necessarily because the process is sound (although it is in many areas and certainly far, far better than it used to be in a lot of ways) - but because the alternative to the process not working out is too grim to think about. There are so many potential variables about the club's future but we only think about the ultimate good, the long term desired goal. My feelings on that is that whilst some of that is because a lot of us really believe everything is going to be ok, a fair chunk of it is because the alternatives are too much to face up to.
That's the crux of the "manufactured optimism" issue for me - it's down to potential consequences and our inability to see them or (most likely) our desire not to because the stakes are now so very high. Like ingham points out, there's a difference between the past and now. We used to be optimistic simply out of the luxury of choosing to be positive fans - if the signings and new kids work out and we go on a run, that's great. If they don't, well, we'll try again. Now though, we perhaps don't have that. A course has been set for us by the board and money is being pumped into it. It's all well and good to use the Mittal's money as the safety valve, but again as ingham implies, there's no definitive reason to believe that should everything go wrong that they will (or indeed, should) soak up such a degree of financial losses.
It is reassuring that the board say that the signings aren't for panic reasons and that everything is done under due diligence towards a defined goal. But the subtext here is that it is all dependent on that defined goal coming to pass. Years ago, our long term goals being scuppered carried the risk of stagnation because we never had the capital up front to take a massive tilt at the big time. But now we are and the inherent risks in not succeeding are massive. I have faith in the board and their plans and their goodwill - but I am certainly not willing to accept that we're not a financial basket case at the moment, particularly when it comes to transfers. That's all well and good if this all works and I really hope it does - but just because all of that spending is going towards a coherent business plan, there's no guarantee that the business plan is going to work. That's where the manufactured optimism comes in to sustain it, and that to me is where my concerns lie.
The worrying trait I see re-occurring here amongst the fan base is eerily reminiscent of the arguments over the Briatore takeover. Now I'm not, before anyone jumps down my throat, comparing the Briatore regime to this one - just the reactions from the fan base. When people questioned the Briatore plan, fans with the manufactured optimism jumped in with references to the past - "oh, so you want us to go back to the days of bucket collections? They saved the club!". The same thing is happening now - already in this thread people are saying things along the lines of "feels like some fans want Briatore back sometimes". It's a real bug bear of mine. People try and split people into camps.
I am sceptical only because of a very small amount of knowledge of football finance and history and comparison to the behaviour of other clubs. My beliefs are also always tempered by the idea that a board room, whether they are wonderful or terrible, are simply custodians of our great clubs. We should back them when they are working well for the club and fight them when they aren't - but overall, we should always question and approach things with an open mind because they are in control over our club. I personally have a lot of time for Fernandes and Co - I think they have our best interests at heart, mean the club well and are definitely working very hard to try and bring us success. But pointing out variables and risks is not the same as undermining that faith. I'm optimistic about the board because I hope we do well. But I'm not going to have unquestioning faith if I and other fans believe there are some potential variables and future problems that should be taken more seriously. That's not wanting Briatore back or not backing Fernandes. To me, that's sensible behaviour about loving our club - there are people in control of something we care about and we should be taking an interest in the workings of the club rather than slamming people for being "negative" simply because Tony says everything's going to be alright and not to think about it. It's not a slight or insult to the current board whatsoever when I say that we should always in the back of our mind carry the idea that the fans are going to be here long after any boardroom or player changes - and we should scrutinise on that basis.
Scrutiny is a positive in my book.
