you said he was loyal, i wasnt quoting your sacking bit. to me he is only loyal if he can get his own way, if he doesnt he walks, sounds a bit like keane to me. sorry i just dont think he is the right man for us or short (we dont have much money by the looks of it and never have) and he needs money to do anything, and even then its not fantastic.
, I'd think most SAFC fans would have permanent hard ons with with either!!![/QUOTE] yep count me in to that one mate
bruce has spent 6 million in 2 years, so how has short spent anything, everyone keeps saying he has spent millions, where?? as that has me scratching my head. Buying the club and wages fair enough, but on actual transfers, he has hardly spent a penny.
bruce has spent 6 million net in 2 years, so how has short spent anything, everyone keeps saying he has spent millions, where?? as that has me scratching my head. Its like ppl just see the 70million spent, and forget all about the 60 million recouped (or whatever it is). Buying the club and wages fair enough, but on actual transfers, he has hardly spent a penny. PS: oops didnt mean to double post sorry.
Loyalty works both ways though. Learner wanted top 4 football; MoN told him\he would have to spend to get there. Learner let MoN walk away when they were a fanny hair away and it nearly cost Villa their EPL status. O Neill is a top class manager. A bit of a head case maybe but a top manager with a cv that dwarves Bruces?
Haven't you heard... Madonna and Guy Ritchie got married in his shed in Wales... He made his money through twinkle, twinkle, little star funds I think, not sure but I think they manufacture piggy banks. BCS... what are you on.
i have already explained it, if he had spent millions Bruces net spend would have been 70 million, its 6 million ffs.
You're not looking at Agents fees, signing on fees, Stadium maintenance (didn't we spend ã6-8m to replace the faded pink seats) and the rest...
well we get 40million from sky + prize money + ticket and merchandise sales. All i am saying is, on transfers, Short hasnt exactly let Bruce loose with his chequebook.
Well, we could start with the many millions of debt he has personally converted into shares. Add your ã6million (it's substantially higher, as ã6million would be if we'd received the full ã24million for Bent up front) Add in loan fees, people don't lend you players for free, you pay. Add that with the increase in standard of the playing staff, there will have unquestionably been an increase in salary, although admittedy reducing the numbers and removing some of the Keane crazy contracts will have helped. Ellis has sunk an absolutely gargantuan amount into the club, and even if he hadn't the fact would remain that we are solely owned bu a multi-billionaire, meaning as an entity we DO have money to spend and ALWAYS HAVE. Whether we do, we'll have to wait and see.
To add, What do you imagine the 'general running costs' are for a premiership football club? AOL, SOL, electricity bill alone will be 6 figures, minimum. HUNDREDS of off field staff and community workers, it is a mammouth operation. Whenever BRuce has asked for more money, he's got it. The ã13million for Gyan being the biggest example. Not having a pop marra, not at all, but Ellis has backed this club, above and beyond.
well we didnt pay spurs all the cash up front either, so than evens itself out, i already mention the buying the club etc, i was not taking that into account, but if we have made 60 million back in transfers, where has it gone, its not like Keane who spent 90 million and only got back 20 million, the books on transfers (which i am pretty sure includes loan fees btw) nearly tally up. I just fail to see how bruce has spent millions and millions and will short bankroll him again, he hasnt bankrolled him yet.
It's still in the club... we're being well run and not haemorrhaging money like City, Chelsea and so on.
It's gone back on transfers, hence the fact that there is a ã6million deficit. That's before wages, agents fees etc, which often outweigh the actual fee, sometimes even doubling it , or more.
I am not saying we should be like City lol but bruce is getting lambasted for spending all this cash, and even if he did, its shorts cash not ours so who cares, apart from short. When if you look at the books, he has had to sell to buy for the most part, some good buys some bad, some good sells, some bad (not cash wise but player/position wise). I am also not having a go at Short either, he is a businessman and he wont want to throw his cash away, but he hasnt exactly bankrolled Bruce like Drumaville bankrolled Keane. If they keep bruce and he does bankroll him IE he gives him 40 million and he only gets back 10 from outgoings) then have a go at him, but for what has gone on the past 2 years, i just think its unfair on Bruce to blame him for everything under the sun that has gone wrong.
