In the NBA specifically LOCATION is massive… generally speaking, a free agent superstar is going to gravitate to one of the big or glamour markets unless there are really extenuating circumstances (after Lebron “took his skills to South Beach” he went home to Cleveland)…
Your broader point and variables are all on point. Salary caps, American contracts and contract culture, etc…
Its also true that several of the most “activist” owners have been absolutely terrible for their clubs, cultivating direct relationships with players, forcing personnel decisions, and other nonsense that undermines their GM and other management…
Yeah don’t I know it being Portland Trailblazers fan
You’re not dealing with reality here. When as asset like Arsenal becomes available in the way you’re describing then somebody, somewhere was going to get above the 30% and launch a takeover.
the reality is were fucked due to DDs actions
Except for Carmelo I don’t think this is really true tbh. Or at least overrated. And Melo is a New York guy who went to a very small market to play with George and Westbrook. LeBron went to Miami because D-Wade and Pat Riley were there. Plus they had an owner who was prepared to pay the tax and make sacrifices in order to win/for as long as they won. Do you see Kroenke do that?
Howard went to LA because he was going to play with Nash and Bryant. But that went horribly wrong obviously. Who could they attract the past several years? Now with Lonzo, Walton and Magic they are becoming an attractive destination. But that has nothing to do with location rather with the direction they are heading in and the intent they are showing.
The Bay Area is a great location (I think?). But Durant went to a team which won more than 65+ wins multiple seasons with a championship.
Like you’re saying in your last alinea. Owners broadly determine the direction of a sports team…
Fair enough, I disagree.
how is dean not responsible? you can say it would have happened anyway but it happened the way it did and was completely instigated by him…
he could have even just left it after the he got sacked and kronke was on the board but he went even further and brought in the russian slug to properly fuck things up
Usmanov was a masterstroke that stopped Kroenke getting full control and completely fucking us over imo.
Just because Dein set the train in motion doesn’t mean he’s entirely responsible for everything that followed. There were people in actual power in that boardroom who willingly let Kroenke in. Dein might have introduced him but it wasn’t Dein who let him in or even sold him a single share.
But anyway, we could be owned by a flock of sheep and I still don’t think Wenger would have done things any differently.
He could have been gone sooner .
so why on earth did david dein think we needed a billionaire investor then? he’s supposed to know wenger better than anyone and also be his biggest supporter
it was all to do with dein getting more power at the club
I don’t know what this means.
Yea? So what?
I’ve googled Wenger out sheep and found no hits so this is doubtful.
dein involving kronke was an attempt to gain more power for himself and not because he thought it would be good for arsenal, i don’t know about you but that makes him a cunt in my book
I think it was both. He thought he’d get more power and Kroenke would be good for the club. He was wrong on both counts.
Anyway, I’m in another pointless back and forth here that I’m going to step back from. You think what you think about Dein, I think differently. Neither of us are him so we can’t know his true and ultimate motivations but personally I believe he’s a man who always wanted the best for the club.
ok cool but you started it, my original post was a reply to this new bloke to pre empt the inevitable “we need david den back” post that is bound to come up sooner or later
I’m swings and roundabouts on David Dein. Without him, we’d never have had the invincibles, but then he was out of order to try and do the dirty on Fiszman, which led to where we are.