Board Sells - Kroenke Takes Control Of Club!!

Deise Gooner · Post by **Deise Gooner** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:18 pm

1989 wrote:I guess they interpreted "new success" as being = trophies.

Doesnt anyone equate succes with trophies

USMartin · Post by **USMartin** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:22 pm

TeeCee wrote:Boomer - Fair enough, I don't know if some of that is scare mongering but there was one report in the papers today.....can't remember which one, which said that one of the Nuggets top bods went to Stan and told him about one of the top players being available...Stan just said 'Go and get him'. Also, I'm sure I read that the Rapids were nothing years ago but they won the championship in 2010? If those are true it doesn't sound like he's been running them down, I don't understand why any owner would do that to be honest?

I think the trick here is that American Sports are run very differently with salary caps. the result is far greater competitive parity. As I said last night exacly four clubs have won the Premier League and six total have finished in the top two since 1992 - in the NFL 23 teams have played in the Super Bowl, 18 in the NBA Finals, and and 24 in the Stanley Cup finals over the same period.

Even the FA Cup open to over 100 more clubs as any of those league competitions has only had 17 different teams play for it since 1992.

So its quite different than in football really at this point at least. You can make the sort of moves you refer to to go and get your man but once you do then you have to compensate by cutting salary somehwere else.

1989 · Post by **1989** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:25 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/footbal ... 454871.stm

VERY interesting.

Says he will buy when needed and if it means success on the pitch

Will not accept under performance from anyone and that includes our seemingly untouchable manager!

Demands success

Deise Gooner · Post by **Deise Gooner** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:25 pm

USMartin wrote:
TeeCee wrote:Boomer - Fair enough, I don't know if some of that is scare mongering but there was one report in the papers today.....can't remember which one, which said that one of the Nuggets top bods went to Stan and told him about one of the top players being available...Stan just said 'Go and get him'. Also, I'm sure I read that the Rapids were nothing years ago but they won the championship in 2010? If those are true it doesn't sound like he's been running them down, I don't understand why any owner would do that to be honest?
I think the trick here is that American Sports are run very differently with salary caps. the result is far greater competitive parity. As I said last night exacly four clubs have won the Premier League and six total have finished in the top two since 1992 - in the NFL 23 teams have played in the Super Bowl, 18 in the NBA Finals, and and 24 in the Stanley Cup finals over the same period.

Even the FA Cup open to over 100 more clubs as any of those league competitions has only had 17 different teams play for it since 1992.

So its quite different than in football really at this point at least. You can make the sort of moves you refer to to go and get your man but once you do then you have to compensate by cutting salary somehwere else.

Would you not also agree that teams with good Owners such as the Rooneys in Pittsburgh lead their teams to being at the top of the league each decade

Boomer · Post by **Boomer** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:27 pm

USMartin wrote:
TeeCee wrote:Boomer - Fair enough, I don't know if some of that is scare mongering but there was one report in the papers today.....can't remember which one, which said that one of the Nuggets top bods went to Stan and told him about one of the top players being available...Stan just said 'Go and get him'. Also, I'm sure I read that the Rapids were nothing years ago but they won the championship in 2010? If those are true it doesn't sound like he's been running them down, I don't understand why any owner would do that to be honest?
I think the trick here is that American Sports are run very differently with salary caps. the result is far greater competitive parity. As I said last night exacly four clubs have won the Premier League and six total have finished in the top two since 1992 - in the NFL 23 teams have played in the Super Bowl, 18 in the NBA Finals, and and 24 in the Stanley Cup finals over the same period.

Even the FA Cup open to over 100 more clubs as any of those league competitions has only had 17 different teams play for it since 1992.

So its quite different than in football really at this point at least. You can make the sort of moves you refer to to go and get your man but once you do then you have to compensate by cutting salary somehwere else.

Keep up I've just said that.

Peeman · Post by **Peeman** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:29 pm

Deise Gooner wrote:
USMartin wrote:
TeeCee wrote:Boomer - Fair enough, I don't know if some of that is scare mongering but there was one report in the papers today.....can't remember which one, which said that one of the Nuggets top bods went to Stan and told him about one of the top players being available...Stan just said 'Go and get him'. Also, I'm sure I read that the Rapids were nothing years ago but they won the championship in 2010? If those are true it doesn't sound like he's been running them down, I don't understand why any owner would do that to be honest?
I think the trick here is that American Sports are run very differently with salary caps. the result is far greater competitive parity. As I said last night exacly four clubs have won the Premier League and six total have finished in the top two since 1992 - in the NFL 23 teams have played in the Super Bowl, 18 in the NBA Finals, and and 24 in the Stanley Cup finals over the same period.

Even the FA Cup open to over 100 more clubs as any of those league competitions has only had 17 different teams play for it since 1992.

So its quite different than in football really at this point at least. You can make the sort of moves you refer to to go and get your man but once you do then you have to compensate by cutting salary somehwere else.
Would you not also agree that teams with good Owners such as the Rooneys in Pittsburgh lead their teams to being at the top of the league each decade

Well we do have the manager of the decade

1989 · Post by **1989** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:35 pm

Can someone change the title, it's not breaking news anymore.

Peeman · Post by **Peeman** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:49 pm

Martins either gone out or he's writing a humdinger

I hope he's gone out

Deise Gooner · Post by **Deise Gooner** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:52 pm

Peeman wrote:Martins either gone out or he's writing a humdinger

I hope he's gone out

His "niece" probably spilled "ice-cream" on his keyboard again

USMartin · Post by **USMartin** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:55 pm

Yes Deise but this is their record since 1992, and it shows that while they have been one of the most successful franchise in that time no doubt that it is still far less consistent than even out or own success over the same period

1992 11 5 0 .688
1993 9 7 0 .563
1994 12 4 0 .750
1995 11 5 0 .688
1996 10 6 0 .625
1997 11 5 0 .688
1998 7 9 0 .438
1999 6 10 0 .375
2000 9 7 0 .562
2001 13 3 0 .813
2002 10 5 1 .656
2003 6 10 0 .375
2004 15 1 0 .875
2005 11 5 0 .688
2006 8 8 0 .500
2007 10 6 0 .625
2008 12 4 0 .750
2009 9 7 0 .562
2010 12 4 0 .750

As excellent as the steelers have been which as a Dallas Cowboy fan I despise they still have missed the playoffs six times since 1992 (bolded), the equivalent of finishing 13th or worse in the NFL.

That is the effect of the salary cap as its harder to kepp your team together and other teams cvan spend to pass you very quickly and then vice-versa.

Deise Gooner · Post by **Deise Gooner** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:08 pm

USMartin wrote:Yes Deise but this is their record since 1992, and it shows that while they have been one of the most successful franchise in that time no doubt that it is still far less consistent than even out or own success over the same period

1992 11 5 0 .688
1993 9 7 0 .563
1994 12 4 0 .750
1995 11 5 0 .688
1996 10 6 0 .625
1997 11 5 0 .688
1998 7 9 0 .438
1999 6 10 0 .375
2000 9 7 0 .562
2001 13 3 0 .813
2002 10 5 1 .656
2003 6 10 0 .375
2004 15 1 0 .875
2005 11 5 0 .688
2006 8 8 0 .500
2007 10 6 0 .625
2008 12 4 0 .750
2009 9 7 0 .562
2010 12 4 0 .750

As excellent as the steelers have been which as a Dallas Cowboy fan I despise they still have missed the playoffs six times since 1992 (bolded), the equivalent of finishing 13th or worse in the NFL.

That is the effect of the salary cap as its harder to kepp your team together and other teams cvan spend to pass you very quickly and then vice-versa.

3 losing seasons in 18 years is very successful i would suggest as its very hard to achieve year in year out. Sometimes a 9-7 season is good enough to get into the play-offs as you know look at this yeat the Seahawks made the playoffs with a 7-9 record albeit down to their poor division in which Stans very own Rams play. It may be hard to win it all in the NFL every year but there are certain teams who compete at the highest level year in year out. It certainly is hard to compare sports with different rules but good ownership does hold true in each one.

USMartin · Post by **USMartin** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:20 pm

Deise Gooner wrote:
USMartin wrote:Yes Deise but this is their record since 1992, and it shows that while they have been one of the most successful franchise in that time no doubt that it is still far less consistent than even out or own success over the same period

1992 11 5 0 .688
1993 9 7 0 .563
1994 12 4 0 .750
1995 11 5 0 .688
1996 10 6 0 .625
1997 11 5 0 .688
1998 7 9 0 .438
1999 6 10 0 .375
2000 9 7 0 .562
2001 13 3 0 .813
2002 10 5 1 .656
2003 6 10 0 .375
2004 15 1 0 .875
2005 11 5 0 .688
2006 8 8 0 .500
2007 10 6 0 .625
2008 12 4 0 .750
2009 9 7 0 .562
2010 12 4 0 .750

As excellent as the steelers have been which as a Dallas Cowboy fan I despise they still have missed the playoffs six times since 1992 (bolded), the equivalent of finishing 13th or worse in the NFL.

That is the effect of the salary cap as its harder to kepp your team together and other teams cvan spend to pass you very quickly and then vice-versa.
3 losing seasons in 18 years is very successful i would suggest as its very hard to achieve year in year out. Sometimes a 9-7 season is good enough to get into the play-offs as you know look at this yeat the Seahawks made the playoffs with a 7-9 record albeit down to their poor division in which Stans very own Rams play. It may be hard to win it all in the NFL every year but there are certain teams who compete at the highest level year in year out. It certainly is hard to compare sports with different rules but good ownership does hold true in each one.

I think that what you are saying would be reasonably true but we are not in the NFL or the NBA or the NHL, which is all I am saying. I am saying it is hard to guage what to expect based on that - including your point about the Seahawks.

The only thing am I saying is that success is not nearly as constant or consistent in our systems here as it is in the Premier League for its top clubs. Ask your self about Arsenal Man United Chelsea and Liverpool and each club's worst finish since 1992, and then look at the fact the Pittsbugh missed the playoffs six times - equivalent to six seasons of finishing 13th or worse. Says more about the system maybe than the Steelers or anyother pro team in American Sport really.

augie · Post by **augie** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:43 pm

Deise Gooner wrote:
1989 wrote:I guess they interpreted "new success" as being = trophies.
Doesnt anyone equate succes with trophies

Simple answer to that.....No !!

For wenger success equates to finishing in the top 4 every season - more important than winning a trophy he says

For the outgoing board success equates to reeling in the cash, spending fcuk all, having a healthy balance sheet and seeing the value of your shareholding go through the roof

All this of course in keeping with the true values of our football club (no foreign owners, no single owner, being committed to our club for the long haul etc etc etc

)

Deise Gooner · Post by **Deise Gooner** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:51 pm

augie wrote:
Deise Gooner wrote:
1989 wrote:I guess they interpreted "new success" as being = trophies.
Doesnt anyone equate succes with trophies

Simple answer to that.....No !!

For wenger success equates to finishing in the top 4 every season - more important than winning a trophy he says

For the outgoing board success equates to reeling in the cash, spending fcuk all, having a healthy balance sheet and seeing the value of your shareholding go through the roof All this of course in keeping with the true values of our football club (no foreign owners, no single owner, being committed to our club for the long haul etc etc etc )

Well for anyone normal

1989 · Post by **1989** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:04 pm

Sorry for not replying to you Deise.

I think different clubs/people have different definitions of success. For us it's obviously not been trophies for the last few years, as confirmed by Wenger and Hill Wood's comments recently. Whereas a club like Blackpool for example would view success as just staying up in the league for another season.

I'm sure Kroenke's definition of success is much closer to what the supporters want.