Dave King: Evening Times

[Gaffer 1,665]

15 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

King needs to get on with the job and forget the charade.  We've had enough empty rhetoric.

 

PC was a bad gamble.  Gerrard had better not be.  

What do you mean?  Any manager is a gamble, and I think we all know this is a gamble too.  Don't you think this one is an exciting one to take?  Would you be happy to accept this gamble?  I think that 99% of gers fans will be behind this one.  It might turn out badly, but it's surely worth taking this risk.  Wouldn't you agree?

[Gonzo79 13,929]

6 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

What do you mean?  Any manager is a gamble, and I think we all know this is a gamble too.  Don't you think this one is an exciting one to take?  Would you be happy to accept this gamble?  I think that 99% of gers fans will be behind this one.  It might turn out badly, but it's surely worth taking this risk.  Wouldn't you agree?

He wasn't my choice.  It's not a gamble I'd have taken.  

 

I meant if it's another bad gamble, Celtc will win 10 in a row.

[buster. 4,851]

7 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

He wasn't my choice.  It's not a gamble I'd have taken.  

 

I meant if it's another bad gamble, Celtc will win 10 in a row.

It could be argued that given current circumstances, a gamble is required if we want to stop 10IAR.

 

The issue for me is timescale.

IMO a realistic gamble is a potentially galvanising management team who bring a culture of excellence and look to build something, targetting 19/20 and/or 20/21 for recapturing the League title.

 

The pragmatic appointment seemed to become less attractive and less 'safe' due to the potential list being short and uninspiring.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by buster.

[DMAA 3,606]

King is right though about Celtic's reliance on European success. Celtic's expenses last year were £76.5m, compared to £33m for us. Obviously some of that is due to participation in so many European games but even accounting for that, they are spending a lot more than us.

 

A little less luck in the qualifiers and they'll be making a significant loss and cutting the cloth. However I think King is till overly optimistic because I think Celtic are in a much better position to deal with a big drop in income than Rangers ever were.

[Gonzo79 13,929]

We have to hope they come a cropper in the CL qualifying rounds in the Summer.  Sad to be worried about what they're up to but if they rake in another £20m+ it's going to be harder to catch them.  

 

As for Gerrard, it's just conjecture until the 2018/19 season starts.  No one knows how it'll go.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Well in that case he needs to find the money to back Gerrard's player acquisitions. Do that and i'm confident the tims house of cards will fall, let's be honest Scottish Football is built on shifting sands as we found out to our costs. There is too many financial variables to be secure these days, but the club that prepares for the rainy days has a chance of staying afloat during turbulent waters.

[Gaffer 1,665]

26 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

He wasn't my choice.  It's not a gamble I'd have taken.  

 

I meant if it's another bad gamble, Celtc will win 10 in a row.

Ok, who would your gamble have been?  Just interested.

[Gonzo79 13,929]

27 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

Ok, who would your gamble have been?  Just interested.

I'd have gone for Proud'homme.

[DMAA 3,606]

52 minutes ago, aweebluesoandso said:

Do that and i'm confident the tims house of cards will fall

I think King is being fanciful describing Celtic's dominance as a "house of cards". They have £30-35m in the bank and a valuable squad with several £10m+ assets (players).

 

We on the other hand have a fraction of their income, lots of loans to repay and a squad who are battling not to finish 4th.

 

I don't like saying it but it is going to take major incompetence on Celtic's part (involving Brenda leaving) and a miracle worker on our side (let's go Gerrard) to stop 10 in a row.

[buster. 4,851]

6 minutes ago, DMAA said:

I think King is being fanciful describing Celtic's dominance as a "house of cards". They have £30-35m in the bank and a valuable squad with several £10m+ assets (players).

 

We on the other hand have a fraction of their income, lots of loans to repay and a squad who are battling not to finish 4th.

 

I don't like saying it but it is going to take major incompetence on Celtic's part (involving Brenda leaving) and a miracle worker on our side (let's go Gerrard) to stop 10 in a row.

The financial will be impossible to match in the short to medium future but football fortunes often do swing and it's not all about money.

 

The 'House of Cards' reference sounds good but is itself, built on sand. They have a playing squad that can realise large sums of money to put in place of CL money and the EL group stages are now worth a lot more than previously. 

 

As far as this century has gone, we have only had one spell of sustained dominance when Walter Smith came back and we lifted 3IAR. That included 3 CL group stages (if you count the season before the 3IAR) and a run to the UEFA Cup Final (which Martin Bain managed to gather 'surprisingly' little money). The 3IAR was based on some quality recruitment post-Kaunas, partly funded by the money from the net proceeds of the Cueller sale.

 

Prior to that we had managed to squeeze a couple of titles away from Celtic on memorable last day wins but the rest of the time they tended to run away with the title, despite us having some excellent quality players at Ibrox. I think it fair to say that they were a better run club with a corporate and partly colliegiate board whilst we had Sir Duped and Bain (SDM left the board in August 2009 but Bain remained).

 

 

It is noteworthy that Dave King mentioned independent businessmen as a potential good fit for the boardroom.

 

What we have to do is to continue building our club from the bottom up. The football operation should be able to reach a point where it pays for itself.