The question, however, is less about the number of interviews and more the circumstances of the timing Various articles have said Fonseca is Paratici's choice, yet Paratici supposedly doesn't start the job until next Monday, so either we were in contact with Paratici as soon as he announced his departure from Juve or...I did say TuttoMercato, right?
You don't think that when we interviewed Paratici we might have asked him to list possible managers and their pros and cons. I would certainly have that on my list.
Yes, I wrote about it on the stadium thread weeks ago... The issue is whether we have the funds to buy a golf course when there's going to be sweet FA by way of a transfer budget. I'd love an MV Agusta 750 America (£75,000+ for a good one), but if I buy one whilst I'm struggling for paid work, Mrs B might very well have a good case to call me "a stupid ****".
Aren't the infrastructure developments separate, though? I doubt it'll have any impact on the transfer budget.
Didn't you know? We only haggle on transfer fees because we're always late ordering the beer for our bars
The football club is the only thing earning any money right now. There's no stadium sponsorship or events earning extra income. Anything that the club spends IS football money, no matter what ENIC choose to call it. As ENIC put nothing in, the football club is paying and has paid for everything, barring a couple of NFL games.
Personally I do think Paratici is behind the potential Fonseca appointment. Not gonna pretend I'm overwhelmed by the choice (largely because I know little about the guy) but I want the DoF taking over control of the football matters and if he believes Fonseca is the man he wants to work with and (hopefully) build the new team with then I'm gonna trust him. Hopefully this is the beginning of Levy relinquishing some of the footballing control as we couldn't keep on going the way we were. Time will tell if Paratici's made the right choice(s) and able to put a halt to the regression but personally I'm pretty happy knowing we're potentially moving in a new direction - or at least trying too.
But they're not spending money as it comes in. We wouldn't have been able to build the stadium, if that was the case.
So we've reached the point where people have to pretend that Ryan Mason wasn't in charge of our last six games to make misleading infographics... please log in to view this image
We've just borrowed £250m. It's quite likely that there are covenants on that and the stadium loans which differentiate between transfer spending and infrastructure spending. Also we’ve only leased the land which given it is owned by the council and has been loss making for years can't be for more than a pittance.
They did for a long time. That's where all the land purchasing came from...and what funded the stadium plans...and the design and planning permission on all the sites other than the old stadium land...oh, and that too..and the Stratford disaster...and...and. Even interest on any borrowing they've done is money earned by the football club and spent on other stuff. It's why we spend so little on transfer fees and wages. We don't lack income, ENIC just spend it on non-football stuff
I thought we raised it via US private placements (not going to pretend I have a clue what they are), not borrowed it? I think we done that to help pay off the £175m we borrowed from the BoE which essentially leaves us with £75m to presumably play with?
We couldn't spend the government money on transfer fees but wages are a different matter. The issue on covenants is simply what the club wanted the money for and was prepared to to acquiesce to. As their priority is always infrastructure, it is entirely possible that they would have agreed to such terms, as they'd never borrow to improve the team. It always comes back to the football club earning money that ENIC use elsewhere because they can sell that stuff at a profit, further down the line. There's little resale value in success on the pitch The training facilities aren't going to pay for themselves and ENIC have and will continue to use money earned by the football club for non-footballing purposes. Football isn't their main priority...or anywhere close to it.
I understand the apprehension surrounding Fonseca's appointment but in all honesty I'll get behind manager and team until I see a clear reason not to. Unless there are obvious reasons not to appoint a particular manager (e.g. Maureen about whom every shred of evidence suggested would be a terrible fit for the club, and so he was), I would strongly disagree with anyone already throwing their hands up and writing off next season as a fait accompli. While I am disappointed Conte didn't work out, I wasn't really expecting it to given his normal parameters for success. And historically we have faired terribly when trying to match marquee managers to our sleeping bag and tent approach. Santini, Ramos, Maureen - all utterly disastrous. It has often been the left-field managers and signings who have achieved disproportionate and unexpected success here. BMJ is the strongest example of this. Came here with zero experience and a string of mid-table finishes in Holland with a team playing in a 7500 seater stadium. No one aside from Arnesen predicted the success he would reach. So I'm willing to get fully behind this Paratici-Fonseca pairing. But I honestly make this Levy's last chance. He has got far too much wrong over 4-5 years to be given any more.
It was forbidden by ffp to borrow to spend on players so literally the only way to borrow to improve the team was to spend it on infrastructure and use the additional income to fund the team.
