The interesting thing for me is why Citeh is somehow different from Chelsea. One difference I suppose is the base from which it began - Chelsea was a Top 4 team before Abramovich started pouring cash into them, Citeh were a midtable side closer to relegation than the Champions League each year. Another is the sheer scale of the spending, year after year. Under Guardiola, they have spent more on fullbacks than most clubs have spent total.
But the two key differences for me I think are: the simple fact that having 2+ clubs like that transforms the competition, where having just one gave us all a club to despise, and the fact that when Chelsea did it, it was not against the rules. To the extent that Chelsea managed to continue massive spending, it was within the framework of intelligent planning and manipulation of compliance with those rules. City has treated the idea of rules with complete disdain all along, and have been rewarded with a series of titles for it. It is hard to keep mentally investing in a competition that allows that.
Spurs are the textbook case of how economic might doesn’t equal trophies or competitiveness. They have historically been lumped in among the powerful group of clubs that has outsized influence on the english football, and if you go back to the founding of the premier league were among the group then called “the big 5”, with us, United, Arsenal and Everton.
Where the wealth at the top of the game has concentrated in the decades since has changed slightly, but Spurs have largely managed to hang on. And so what they show is that money isnt sufficient to be competitive, but can help you stay relevant even if you’re not run particularly well from a sporting perspective.
I agree with all of that. But I would want to dig into what you mean by ‘financial skulduggery’.
If you mean being shrewd, and within the rules, I’m fine with that.
If you mean cheating, such as the things we have seen Man City do, like hiding salary payments, or artificially inflating sponsorship income, then I would not be fine with that.
Gordon I believe has, but not Werner. I actually don’t recall him at Anfield for a few years now, though only on the basis of the camera picking him up
I am also not sure whether they are there or not, is there supposed to be a FSG cam in Anfield where they need to show whether any of them are in Anfield or not? Do they have to be in the stand? Do they have to show you? Can they be in the boxes entertaining sponsors? I don’t know too so its up to anyone to make a story to fit the narrative.
To be honest, I haven’t seen any of LFC’s top brass attending a match at Anfield on camera yet for this season. If they were there, I am pretty sure the cameras will pick them up seating in the VIP seats or VIP box…But there were zero mentions of Gordon who is the man supposedly to run the club on a day to day basis…
Amazes me how little time they spend in Anfield given that we need them to lay bricks, erect steel, make tea etc. If you’re not physically there, you can’t be committed
If only there were methods of long distance communication. Then you could just zoom through meetings.
Nobody is telling them to lay bricks and what’s not. What everybody is expecting is for them to be the link between Boston and the coaching staff. Judging from what Klopp has said about FSG not willing to take a risk, it seems that someone is not pulling their weight?
I mean if you work in an company, you would expect the CEO of the company to be seen executing the management plan, to be heard by the employees and various stakeholders and to show that he is here to at least steady the ship. Sometimes, an appearance by the CEO can help resolve a lot of issues on the ground. An absentee owner is not gonna help in bad times and you know what’s worse? An absentee owner appearing publicly only on the back of good news or after making a PR gaffe.
That’s how an Asian like me think. I have absolutely no idea how a western company works.
CEOs hire people to execute the plan. Fuck, CEO’s dont even devise the plan. They set the vision. Even within the C suite, it is understood that everyone else’s job is figure out how execute the things the CEO says we need to achieve.
A good CEO spends the day on the golf course in the knowledge that the people under her/him can manage the job. If you need the boss in the building, he/she’s a shit boss. Took me a while to work that one out. There’s no such thing as bad staff, just bad appointments, bad training and bad management.
"A CEO’s role varies from one company to another depending on the company’s size, culture, and corporate structure. In large corporations, CEOs typically deal only with very high-level strategic decisions and those that direct the company’s overall growth. For example, CEOs may work on strategy, organization, and culture. Specifically, they may look at how capital is allocated across the firm, or how to build teams to succeed.
In smaller companies, CEOs often are more hands-on and involved with day-to-day functions. "
So LFC has 964 people under its payroll. If LFC is considered as a big company, then we need to question if there is a proper allocation of resources done for this club and is the coaching, scouting and medical team built to succeed given the resources. If LFC is considered as a small company, then you will need to question the results of the direct involvement of LFC’s CEO.