BarclayWazza

Regardless - are the bolded parts of the OP "proof" that the model is sustainable? Were we looking for proof that the model was sustainable? I think what we'd actually like to see is the model providing something other than abject failure on the pitch. And in answer to your previous question, I'd suggest a spend of £85 million over 3 seasons when the vast chunk of that is funded by player sales is nowhere near enough.

I think he got the Conley bit, less so the TSOHF. For the Luddites of the group.... https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tsohf Or not, in which case I'll retire my limited knowledge of the kids text speak for the evening. 🤣

He's Delias pupppppeeeeetttttttt

I believe the kids would call this a TSOHF.

Finally explains where the money has gone....

Can we please stop using the word "invested". We "invested" less than both other promoted teams because none of them sold their best player for £33m.

Strictly speaking, no we dont. I know you're talking specifically about the Gibson/Giannoulis payments but the Normann and Kabak money is clearly budgeted from next years money (funny how we were looking at loan with obligation to buys if we stay up once approx £33m had been spent...) and if we don't go up then we don't have to hand anything over. This number has been generated to make it look like we've spent a sh*t ton of money when actually its essentially spread over 3 seasons and the majority of which was generated from player sales (yes, I know theres covid losses in there as well). Some will look at that number and cry that shows we're showing ambition...

Don't particularly have the time to read through 4 pages at the moment so apologies if this has been covered elsewhere but this is spin at its finest. £75 million "committed" includes whatever the figures paid for Gibson and Giannoulis were (which were replacements for and purchases from the Godfrey and Lewis money) and what we're due to pay for Normann and Kabak if we get promoted. Take that out of the equation and its a different picture. Once again, the usual suspects falling for the club spin.

One of the conclusions that I've come to this weekend, especially following the Newcastle takeover, is that perhaps the only way to have any chance of surviving is to indeed have a tonne of cash. I mean, I like the idea of elements of the model - developing youth players should be applauded. But when your model relies on then selling those players when they want out and trying to fill those gaps, you can't build a team that's going to go anywhere. I thought we'd underestimate the impact of losing Buendia this season but I didn't think it would be this bad. In a top division that's increasingly dependent on billionaire owners, we just aren't going to ever establish ourselves with a self funding model.

The last PL season was an optimum opportunity to establish ourselves. Lots of young, upcoming players to build a team around, crying out for an experienced defender to bring Godfrey, Aarons and Lewis along. But no, a pitiful spend of a few million in loan fees on players who hardly played and perma-injured full backs. All defended by the fans who somehow bought into the mantra that spending any sort of money was wrong because we don't want another Naismith or RVW. Pathetic.

The only money we spent was generated from the sale of the best player ever likely to pull on a city shirt (not counting Gibson and Giannoulis' purchases as from previous seasons budgets). Our net spend won't have been much. You must have missed Brentford keeping hold of their best players and actually adding to their squad. Regardless, its brilliant spending 20 million of the Buendia money on players that you then bench. It's obvious to nearly everyone who isn't a Delia apologist, including Jake Humphrey, who tried his hardest pre game to champion "the model", that said model leaves us sleepwalking towards relegation without as much as a whimper once again and it's the apologists that are left behind scratching around for excuses and misdirection.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59031790 Mason Mount: It was good to see Mount back in a Chelsea shirt and among the goals again. However, this wasn't about Mount but Norwich. Six league defeats and two draws out of eight games and Daniel Farke is still there? I said as early as the first game of the season that Norwich were down and it is as much the owners' fault as the manager. Norwich have made no attempt to avoid what is painfully obvious to me. They are happy to enjoy their time with the Premier League but not prepared to make the investment to at least try to stay there. It's shameful. It really isn't good enough but what I don't understand is why do Norwich fans seem to accept it? That's the most disappointing thing. Baffles me as well fella.

Joe Lewis has done alright for himself after leaving us

We wait 8-9 games to decide whether we have a gun and we have to wait until January to get one. Or just get a gun now.

Let's be honest about this though - he's not too far off the mark. Last time we were in the PL we tried to play the same way that got us up and Liverpool took us apart first game. Lots of positive talk about how we played but lots noting the naivety of how we got caught out and having a soft centre. We addressed that last season with the Gibson and Skipp signings and while Hanley/Zimbo/Omobambidele were enough at champs level, I feel we're missing a top class partner for Gibson and we need a replacement for Skipp. Someone made a thread a while back that the successful promoted clubs are the ones that have a solid defensive base and build from that. We've definitely improved in that department from our last PL campaign but still feel we need more.

Just love the accounting of some on here: Last season we received roughly £15m for Lewis, £25m for Ben Godfrey and £40m in parachute payments. Assuming the Gibson and Giannoulis deals were from last seasons budget, that paid for Sorensen, Placheta, Mumba, Dowell, Hughil, Gibson and Giannoulis. I would wager that we are in credit from the Lewis and Godfrey money. Equally, if the reported fees for Gunn, Lees Melou, Rashica and Sargent are as suggested, we're still in credit from the Buendia money. We still have the approximately £100m PL money to come. What's happening is the bare minimum that can be expected from a policy which allows the sale of your best players, reinvestment into the playing squad. But don't be hoodwinked, some would have us believe that these purchases means that Delia is great and wonderful. Her contribution to this is zero. We sat on the 2018-19 PL money and as it stands, no 2021-22 PL money has gone on players. Currently, our net spend is less than that before the 2018-19 PL season.

Slight irony that "hucks6" was the poster that started this thread. Not sure the actual Hucks will be particularly mourning him.

My tuppence worth (for what it is actually worth) When people say "All Lives Matter" I tend to agree. I'm not for one minute thinking about myself as a white middle class Englishman, but black people are not the only people treated with discrimination - the problem is more multi-faceted. Racism isn't just limited to black people (I would suggest there is more racism against people from the middle east in the UK than there is against black people) and I can't believe we still live in a world where in some countries you can be executed for your sexual preferences. Plus we also need to be able to say that people from a BAME background can also be guilty of racism. Some of the worst racism I've seen personally has been Black on Asian. The Black Lives Matter political movement seeks to go far beyond inclusivity for black people and there have been elements of the movement that have been anti-semitic. One of the main issues I've seen with BLM (as a statement, rather than a movement) is that you hear that you are far more likely to be murdered in the US if you are black, however these murders are predominantly committed by black people (about 90%). So if Black Lives Matter so much, why are we focusing on the 10% of black lives lost and not the reasoning behind the 90%. Why are we focused on the instance of the fate of a black man detained in the process of committing a crime and making it a racial matter (when there is little to no evidence of it being racially motivated) and not also the instances of where this has happened to other races. While I don't necessarily believe that the BLM movement is feeding racism, there are people that ask these questions and the lack of a sensible response (often twisted into accusations of racism) is then, in my opinion, what makes the BLM statement, movement and knee gestures lose a bit of credibility. My issue with just saying "Black Lives Matter" is that I think that does serve to divide by focusing on putting people in a racial group.. The approach I believe we should take as a culture is to focus on promoting inclusivity and acceptance as a whole and across all cultures in the UK, not what are becoming empty gestures for one facet. Within a multicultural country, it's inevitable people are going to still group within their own cultures and certain elements of those cultures are going to be incompatible with other cultures. To progress, we have to be able to have difficult conversations about appropriate ways to mitigate this without being offensive and without being labelled as racist. How we do this.... well, as I said, I'm just a middle class white man who thinks it would have been far better had the Millwall fans just burst into a good old Cockney rendition of "Knees Up Mother Brown".

The thing that makes this type of virus different and more dangerous than the aforementioned strains of flu type virus is that humans have previously had exposure to similar strains as bird flu/swine flu etc and as such our immune systems had some kind of idea as to how to overcome them. Covid-19 is completely different and new so we are having a much harder time fighting it.

One of the few moments I saw yesterday, Kenny blocked a shot with his gentleman area. Respect to that alone.

This post is what is idiotic. Those defending Delia who think we want a stinking rich Chinese owner or want us to be Man City or think that spending at the start of the season = getting us stuck with overpaid players are wrong. Stop going to the other extreme and then attacking that approach. You don't know any better that no-one has approached the club.

How do we know there isn't a billionaire out there. Or even someone with a decent sized wallet? Because of the fact Delia has categorically written the idea off, we will never know. I don't hate her but because of her holding us back with her approach, I certainly don't like her.

Absolutely all of this. Selling Maddison, fans funding the academy, £50 home/away memberships, almost non existent investment in the squad prior to a PL season. All things that has have happened because of a self funding approach necessitated by the relatively shallow pockets of our owners. Still astounded by the fans that laud all of this as a good thing.

She has put a modest amount of money in (although probably a large amount of her net wealth) but had that repaid and her shares are now likely worth a decent amount so she's done well from it. Today we will become the first club to be relegated 5 times. 3 times in the last 10 years we have failed to capitalise on an opportunity and consistently we have failed to put the money in at the start of the campaign and we've either got in trouble when we've thrown money at the situation in the January transfer window or acquired players that we couldn't afford at the start of the season. The reason for this is that we have owners who will not or cannot put money into the club. We had the nucleus of a great young side at the start of the season that with a few sensible additions at the start could IMO have easily reached mid table. As it it, we stand to be relegated again and stand to lose these potentially great young players. At this point it becomes negligent. Their insistence on not selling up and bequeathing the club to their nephew is holding the club back. Look at Sheffield United this season. They identified the gaps in their squad, sensibly invested what was still a relatively small amount in their side at the start of the season and reaped the benefits. That investment will be repaid by another season in the Premier League. The purchases they made weren't financially suicidal and on players with resale value (I make that point to counter any "well what about Aston Villa" comments - I'm nowhere near suggesting we should spend >£100m). I'm also not suggesting that we should be selling out to a stinking rich Chinese owner but I also cannot believe there is no-one out there that wants to put money into a club with a large fan base and good infrastructure. So that leaves me with the conclusion that Delia is obstructing outside investment. It still amazes me that people buy into this sustainable, top 26 club ethos, unaware that it is the only method that enables Delia to remain in control.

As you asked so nicely.... Zoom board meeting 12/5/2020 Webber: So guys, we've put out the presser about how we're going to rebate the fans, but you know, we need that money. Any ideas? Kensell: We gotta be careful boss, you know the sh.tstorm caused by the away membership fiasco. Webber: Yes, we need to be a bit more delicate with this. Delia, what are your thoughts? Delia (after her 11th gin of the morning): We have the besht fooshball shuppoters in the world. Kensell: Quite. Well boss, why dont we ask the fans to donate to the academy. That's probably the least contentious way of going about it. But here's the kicker - however much they donate, we dont need to spend on the academy next year. Mwahahahahaha Webber: Brilliant, quite brilliant. Delia (after misplacing the gin bottle): We need a 12th drink, where aaarrrrrre you?