Jump to content

Chansiri - Positives and Successes Timeline (a work in progress)


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, SallyCinnamon said:


So essentially he spent all his cash in the first two seasons in a dangerous gamble to get us promoted. It failed and it has subsequently risked the long term future and sustainability of the club. His expensive gamble could end up sinking us back into League One and potentially on the brink of a financial disaster.

 

How on earth is this being spun as a positive? It’s incredibly reckless from a man who said he’d leave the club in a better place than he found it. 

 

 


 

He still might

 

I don’t think he can be criticised for that statement until he’s gone and if what he said didnt end up happening 

  • Haha 1

 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:


 

He still might

 

I don’t think he can be criticised for that statement until he’s gone and if what he said didnt end up happening 


Maybe not for that statement (although it isn’t looking great is it?)

 

But if the money has ran out as some posters are saying, spending what he had recklessly in a short term punt to get us promoted is not a positive thing. As has shown since the club has suffered massively as a result with points deductions, embargo’s and reduced investment. 
 

We’re clutching at straws if that is making the positive list.

Edited by SallyCinnamon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LondonOwl313
24 minutes ago, SallyCinnamon said:


So essentially he spent all his cash in the first two seasons in a dangerous gamble to get us promoted. It failed and it has subsequently risked the long term future and sustainability of the club. His expensive gamble could end up sinking us back into League One and potentially on the brink of a financial disaster.

 

How on earth is this being spun as a positive? It’s incredibly reckless from a man who said he’d leave the club in a better place than he found it. 

 

 

Because when he spent the money we didn’t know that the gamble was going to fail. It was a coin throw.. half the time you go up and can build like a Leicester, Wolves or Southampton.. the other half you end up like us, Forest or Derby.

 

And besides, 2017 is 4 years ago now. We could have done things differently like sell players or not make really poor managerial appointments like Jos and Monk. I still think we had enough to get to the play offs in some of the seasons since 2017 if we hadn’t had these managers. It’s only this season where things have really fallen apart and that’s because we have no attacking players left 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I'm decently confident that some of them have been introduced since he has been here. How many are his direct choice, probably none, but given the turnover of staff some will have been introduced under people he has hired. I guess it depends how the list maker wants to rule on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ross Wallace does interview - says chansiri gave half time team talk accusing players of making his son cry

 

Rumours of att chansiri interviewing the cowleys. It seemed a bit far fetched at the time but I’m now convinced this happened

 

Fans to blame for scuppering a massive sponsorship deal

 

Calling Steve Bruce simply ‘Bruce’

 

Publicly criticising Paul cook for being unprofessional and literally 2 hours later reports of players not being paid again. Oh the irony!

 

Doubling the price of boxes

 

Paxo. No explanation needed

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Because when he spent the money we didn’t know that the gamble was going to fail. It was a coin throw.. half the time you go up and can build like a Leicester, Wolves or Southampton.. the other half you end up like us, Forest or Derby.

 

Even if the ratio truly was 50:50, it would be mindless recklessness and by definition every bit as likely to fail as it is to succeed. However, I suspect the odds aren't even that favourable. 

 

The strategy that was followed of acquiring costly assets, often in the autumn of their career, fundamentally increased the likelihood that the initial spend would largely not be retrievable (not helped by the board not being savvy enough to capitalise when such opportunities arose) and therefore would bring the wolf knocking before too long. That it appears there wasn't much in reserve even before the last year of upheaval is, to my mind, unforgiveable idiocy that could take years to recover from. If we do end up relegated by 6 points or less this season, it will be a disaster with inescapable symbolism.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LondonOwl313
8 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

Even if the ratio truly was 50:50, it would be mindless recklessness and by definition every bit as likely to fail as it is to succeed. However, I suspect the odds aren't even that favourable. 

 

The strategy that was followed of acquiring costly assets, often in the autumn of their career, fundamentally increased the likelihood that the initial spend would largely not be retrievable (not helped by the board not being savvy enough to capitalise when such opportunities arose) and therefore would bring the wolf knocking before too long. That it appears there wasn't much in reserve even before the last year of upheaval is, to my mind, unforgiveable idiocy that could take years to recover from. If we do end up relegated by 6 points or less this season, it will be a disaster with inescapable symbolism.

I would say that the signings made over 2015-16 were generally of the right age. Hooper, FF, Bannan, Joao, Matias, Hunt, Lopez etc were all 27 or under when brought here and some of them quite a bit younger. We only really added Pudil and Wallace who were in their 30s and both were decent signings. We had the chance to cash in on FF, Bannan, Joao for a lot more than we paid for them. We also sold Hunt for a similar fee to what we paid. So it’s not really year 1 that was wrong.

 

Things went south when we broke the wage structure in 2016 because we overpaid practically the whole team and we started adding the has beens like Abdi and Jones when they weren’t needed, then of course the near £20m commitment on Rhodes.

 

So to my mind year 1 was sustainable and we were only a game away from promotion. It’s what transpired after that that’s the reason we are where we are. So there was nothing wrong with spending to have a go.. if anything I’d say that’s essential if you want promotion 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

So to my mind year 1 was sustainable and we were only a game away from promotion. It’s what transpired after that that’s the reason we are where we are. So there was nothing wrong with spending to have a go.. if anything I’d say that’s essential if you want promotion 

 

 I agree that it was the second year where it started to go awry (and you missed Fletcher).

 

It's not a simple choice of either spending little or going for broke. The strategy has to be more nuanced. Brentford (scoffed at by Chansiri) have been tremendous at realising what their potential was and working within it. It has been a steady process of buying assets, selling them for a profit, then using this to obtain more expensive players so that the cycle is maintained with increasing returns. In the last 5 years, there is a quite incredible difference of £113m in terms of net transfer activity between them and us (they banked £94m, we lost £19m). Not only do they remain competitive, but they are doing so without mortgaging the future. Whilst having little knowledge of the club's infrastructure it is clearly a far superior set up to ours in the long term and I would love it to pay off for them. Any fool can throw money around at a casino and have nothing left for the taxi home or to pay the bills.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe he remodelled the players changing rooms quite early on.

 

He's sponsored us in lieu of real sponsorship.  I can see some positive in this approach, if only it's a greater value than a genuine company would offer.  EFL said the value was about the market rate however.

 

Increased matchday revenue, just don't ask how.

 

Made Hillsborough a bit more exotic, a bit more cultured.  Sometimes I like to think I'm in Phuket.

 

The shirts have been a reasonable success in terms of design (not all). 

 

Already mentioned; topping up furlough, investing heavily in the first two years, pitch and scoreboard etc

 

Genuinely struggling to add anything new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

Also add the blue bit around the pitch that used to be gravel


I'm 100% serious when I say that I really like it

Looks loads smarter - although needs a bit of maintainance if that's possible to make it look clean and fresh again

Yeah I also love that. Makes Hillsborough look ultra modern now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...