Angus Kinnear


Bedfordblue said:
I understand, but my view is whether an ‘owner’ has £8b or $800b, a team will only ever be able to field 11 players and have another 11 or so in reserve. So is the 2nd best left back in the world going to be happy to spend at least 50% of their career on the bench because the best LB is keeping them out of the the team, or are they going to seek to be a starter elsewhere?
Notwithstanding having the two best players in the league for every position doesn’t always equate to the best team.
Man U have continued to spend eye watering amounts of money but hasn’t don’t them much good (nor our own splurge!)
Also in terms of restrictions, i agree in so much an owner should not be able to spend (or owe) so much money that it risks the future of the club if they somehow find their own finances somehow at risk. I said before about escrow accounts to cover any liabilities the owners commit their clubs too.

I just don’t see it as much different from when it was local businessmen only there’s more zeros on the balance sheet nowaday’s.
Click to expand...

The second best left back will stay at the club mate, collecting his MASSIVE wage that is unattainable elsewhere. He'll get more game time anyway due to the 5 subs rule they have brought in, which was only ever to make it possible to promise more game time to players, so they can stockpile players. It isn't and never was about player welfare.

His agent will make sure it happens as well cause he was his 10% of the £60m rather than 10% of the 20m he's probably worth, and he'll likely take a cut of any win bonuses he's negotiated.

The moment states were allowed to purchase teams, we lost the game as it once was.
 

blueloon said:
I was thinking similar when I saw United’s Loan as “ 0” despite the Glazers loading them with debt.
Click to expand...
It's not really same kind of loan. Glazers' haven't exactly been generous with ManU, on the contrary they have pumped hundreds of millions to themselves. That loan was not a shareholder loan but the loan they took to purchase the club - and which the club has since been paying off.
 
I’m
Makis said:
It's not really same kind of loan. Glazers' haven't exactly been generous with ManU, on the contrary they have pumped hundreds of millions to themselves. That loan was not a shareholder loan but the loan they took to purchase the club - and which the club has since been paying off.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s the point I was making . United don’t have any loans showing against them , it’s zero in the table, yet the Glazers loaded the club with debt .
 
blueloon said:
I’m
Yes, that’s the point I was making . United don’t have any loans showing against them , it’s zero in the table, yet the Glazers loaded the club with debt .
Click to expand...
The table was shareholder loans not commercial loans.
Commercial loans come with commercial interest rates and are already a contributing fee in PSR calcs.
 

I dont have a particular beef with Angus, but I do find it promosing that Leeds sold 110m more of players than they bought and yet are top of the Championship. They should be in a really good position to add talent in the summer and hold onto a PL spot.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top