> If Ridsdale had spent £12m on improving the ground rather than on Fowler > then, if nothing else, we would have got more money when we sold the ground!
Would we? I was under the impression that the main value of Elland Road was due to it's location and the size of the plot (Car park's et al) for a developer to crack on with Arlington business centre mk II, or White rose Mark II. Ground improvements per se wouldn't necessarily add value to the land would they? Although they would have added revenue to the club when we were at the top because people would actually go to the club and use them. But I can't see the point of doing it to a half empty ground. To my mind it's putting the cart before the horse. > And your point assumes we could attract what you would consider a 'decent' > player. Are you trying to say Tresor Kandal's not decent? =] I agree to a certain degree here I think I am having an emotive 'fan's' point of view but given the Play-Off reciepts, the alleged Chelsea millions - and claims that Ken's fixed the debt I'd of expected a little bit better news in the transfer market. > > Finally, your point about spending money to keep Kilgallon is exactly the > same financial folly that Ridsdale got into a few years ago is it not? You > are presumably advocating paying him enough cash to make sure he stays (not > that it would have been possible any way, if he is that good then he will > want to play in the prem), or sacrificing £1.75m for the sake of 10 games of > football. If he wants to go he wants to go - and I agree that we'd be better off getting as much money for him as we can - but Warnock himself gloated he got him cheaper than the bid he made in the summer - so why didn't we sell him then? We could have had Billy's Burgers across the road next door to Maccy D's for £4 million. I think the main point of making a football club a success financially off the pitch like Man U is success off the pitch first. Then and only are the additional revenue streams from merchandise, ground improvements etc going to be of any use - they're of no value if there's no one to spend money in them. I'm not an economic expert - so fully expect someone else to disprove me - but if the club's debts are managable we should building the team up - not selling our best players - I'm sure we'd get more money from Premiership TV rights than from Billy's Bar. > > We are in the state we are now due to poor business management of the club. > You cannot on the one hand criticise Ridsdale and on the other criticise > Bates. Its one or the other. I'm not convinced - it sounds like you're advocating Bate's as the 'least worse' option - that doesn't necessaryily follow that he should be immune from criticism. His behaviour regarding the supporters club, and personal attacks in his programme notes don't exactly make me thing he has the clubs best interests at heart. > I think the Killa sale is unfortunate, but that it makes sense financially > and also in football terms. If he had 2 years on his contract left I would > be saying something different. As I say - I don't think that a football can be a finacial success off the pitch without success on the pitch first. I think it can prudent business wise (which obviously we haven't been in the past) and successful. I don't think the only way to success is reckless spending a la Ridsdale, but I don't think selling our best players - is a step forward. _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist 'I am in shock,' said Ferguson.
