As a supporter I'd be rather upset if my money was being spent on providing a overnight stay and a slap up meal on away games to players who our money is already providing a decent living, when it makes not one bit of difference to the results on the pitch."Peña Oxford United" wrote:The trouble with this view is that it portrays Kassam too generous, too nice, too ready to let things go. Does that strike anybody as convincing? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to suggest that people found him unpleasant to work for when they could find him at all, that he communicated no sense of interest or enthusiasm in the club or in what they did, and that he had no idea as to who a good manager might be or how they might need to work."DLT" wrote:Backto your original point, Kassam didn't want to fail. He just couldn't get it right. He should have sacked the moaners in his staff early doors, but he felt that would create a riot. Instead he let the jolly of crew walk round all day spreading a moaning culture.
Kassam presumably knows a very great eal about his business, but it doesn't follow that he understood very much about a very different sort of operation. A common error.
Nor was it what he was primarily interested in. I've said it before and no doubt I'll say it again, but it's hard to see how any organisation can prosper long unless there's enthusiasm from he person at the top. Until the club either falls into the hands of such a person - somebody for whom it will be Priority A - or goes bust, the latter being the more likely eventuality - there is no chance of it recovering.
In my opinion the only person who's been around in the last twenty years who fitted that description was Robin Herd. But Robin, of course, had too little money and too much to drink. But before the money ran out the club was thriving - not because he was spending vast millions (though he was spending, and probably too much) but because it was a good place to be.
But then I live a life of no debt and didn't mind the cost cutting introduced by Kassam - as I've said previously making the club run at a profit (even after paying the rent) is unheard of in the history of OUFC.
Other people think that a spend spend spend approach is the key to success, like Maxwell did in the 80's, but the hangover from that is often pretty severe.
Unfortunitly Merry et al have taken the spend spend spend approach with no success on the field to show for it - quite the opposite.
Had Kassam appointed a good manager and enjoyed a bit of success I think his interest and enjoyment of the club would have grown, however, he lost interest due to the results on the pitch - much like many fans now have. The ironic thing is that the set up he brought in before being forced out of taking a step back putting Patto in charge and looking to bring Magilton in alongside would have prob kept us up and I think Patto and Magic would have done a decent job.
I was never convinced by these he wants Oxford to fail, I took him at his word at the forums I attended and as we're seeing on TiU it doesn't matter who's in charge the masses are never happy unless we're winning on the pitch.
I still don't know why he got rid of Atkins though - that was very very poor timing.
