chase v delia..

[singing canary 0]

who would you rather have in charge..??

[Lenny-boy 0]

cleaning the toilets? Delia,

if you mean success levels or playing ability- chase

if you mean nice ground, nice food, -The cook of course.

 

[ncfcstar 287]

I''m convinced you are either a binner or Chris singing canary.

[singing canary 0]

whys that... my choice chase ....

[Hans Castorp 0]

Beatles or the Stones?

Schumacher or Fangio?

Different people for different times - it is impossible for a ''what-if'' analysis if Chase''s tenure had continued.

Perhaps an investor that would allow a representation of fans (Trust) on the board with a holding of around 10 - 15% of the OSC that would then mean the majority shareholding would be reduced to under 50% and allow a greater (proactive) involvement with the running of the club. Hopefully this would alleviate the tension that grows and act as a conduit between those that run the club and those that support it. I wonder whether this would be a far more interesting and achievable means of ''proper'' executive influence than perhaps the Barcalona model mentioned in previous posts.

But then the above is possibly out of reach, as how do you fund this?

[xxxx 0]

Chase , no contest.

[National express super guard 0]

the current board. working in lower league they have kept the debt manageable, chase almost brought the club to its knees.but can we have a 3rd way, a rich oil sheik??!?!?!?!

[singing canary 0]

i think the whole thing is a mess... how much can you win on the euro lottery maybe thats the answer..

[First Wazzock 902]

[quote user="Hans Castorp"]

Beatles or the Stones?

Schumacher or Fangio?

Different people for different times - it is impossible for a ''what-if'' analysis if Chase''s tenure had continued.

Perhaps an investor that would allow a representation of fans (Trust) on the board with a holding of around 10 - 15% of the OSC that would then mean the majority shareholding would be reduced to under 50% and allow a greater (proactive) involvement with the running of the club. Hopefully this would alleviate the tension that grows and act as a conduit between those that run the club and those that support it. I wonder whether this would be a far more interesting and achievable means of ''proper'' executive influence than perhaps the Barcalona model mentioned in previous posts.

But then the above is possibly out of reach, as how do you fund this?

[/quote]

So true Hans, so why do we keeping getting the same posts over and over again ?

[singing canary 0]

because of the situation now..and how everyone is feeling about it,

[Hans Castorp 0]

 

So true Hans, so why do we keeping getting the same posts over and over again ?

I really do not know (apologies if this is recycling earlier posts).

[Hans Castorp 0]

 

So true Hans, so why do we keeping getting the same posts over and over again ?

I really do not know (apologies if this is recycling earlier posts).

[mr carra 0]

This is the easiest question out.  Delia has put her own money into the club when it needed it, whereas Chase to my knowledge never put any of his own money in (he took plenty out to his various companies).

It is football''s finances which have changed since our ''glory days'', not the quality of top level management at the club.  If the current board had been in charge when Chase was I see no reason whatsoever to doubt they we could have achieved what we did then on the field.  In fact we could well have done better, because by putting money in (something Chase would never have considered) Delia & MWJ could  have prevented the bank-enforced fire-sale from 94/5 that got us relegated and then forced O''Neill out i.e. their money could have kept us in the Prem at that crucial time.

However, if Chase had been in charge in the financial environment the current regime have been operating in I have no doubt whatsoever we would have been into admin and possibly have sunk to League 1 (or even League 2) by now.

Chase had no inspired ability to pick good managers - he generally just picked a cheap option, preferably from on the staff, and got lucky in that the outgoing managers from Bond onwards generally made excellent choices in respect of their backup staff so the cheap choice fortuitously turned out to be a good one.

 

[blinded by the story 0]

Chase invested in the land around the ground that has reaped rewards for Smith by virtue of increasing land prices. Smith has not given, just loaned and will understandably be demanding that this loan is repaid by any new investor. So in a way this is also a stumbling block to take over talks as we are of little asset and much liability.

Smith was also at the helm when we failed to invest to stay in the Prem.

I see Smiths strategy as short term and Chases as longer term. both have had fortune with the economy and both have presided over selling our best players.

Overall I prefered the days of Chase.