25-03-2022, 12:01 AM
It's all a bit "whatever" for me.
More interesting than the previous tarting up but still way short of what is possible with means. And let's not forget the Eisners have shedloads of "means". Such "means" can be used to quickly scale up a business and that's how most really wealthy people improve the value of their investment and make more money.
TBH I still cannot get my head around why the Eisners bothered to buy the club and then have failed to use their huge resources to sort the infrastructure properly, and quickly. Any major capital investment on infrastructure would have increased the value of their club (for a potential future sell on) and the revenue streams to it.
Also, I don't get why we as fans are so understanding of our billionaire owner's almost comical desire to go slow & avoid major investment on the ground, which is a completely different business prospect (& plan) to spunking gazillions on players, while banging on about the "long-term". The infrastructure is the long-term. Back pedal on that and you wind up reversing away from the future.
ME is now 80 and he has owned us since he was 75, but how much progress have we really made in that time?
How do we compare with the progress made by say AFC Wimbledon with their new ground? Of all of the comments that could have come Michael Eisner's way after 2017, I'm surprised that "bit-of-a-time-waster" now seems at least plausible.
More interesting than the previous tarting up but still way short of what is possible with means. And let's not forget the Eisners have shedloads of "means". Such "means" can be used to quickly scale up a business and that's how most really wealthy people improve the value of their investment and make more money.
TBH I still cannot get my head around why the Eisners bothered to buy the club and then have failed to use their huge resources to sort the infrastructure properly, and quickly. Any major capital investment on infrastructure would have increased the value of their club (for a potential future sell on) and the revenue streams to it.
Also, I don't get why we as fans are so understanding of our billionaire owner's almost comical desire to go slow & avoid major investment on the ground, which is a completely different business prospect (& plan) to spunking gazillions on players, while banging on about the "long-term". The infrastructure is the long-term. Back pedal on that and you wind up reversing away from the future.
ME is now 80 and he has owned us since he was 75, but how much progress have we really made in that time?
How do we compare with the progress made by say AFC Wimbledon with their new ground? Of all of the comments that could have come Michael Eisner's way after 2017, I'm surprised that "bit-of-a-time-waster" now seems at least plausible.