Thats must be a bit of a concern, as you seem to be heading down the same route as HCC. It is my hope that someone, a journalist, such as Conn, is looking at opening up the can-of-worms between AA and his so-called protagonists; I still believe that AA must be taken on and not kow-towed to, as he sees that as a sign of weakness.
Will our club be pimped out with a tartish name just to attract some Far East perv with a Tiger fetish? Where is the ****ing integrity in that, ffs?
Who Wants To Have A Billionaire? With the recent demonstrations by Hull City fans, protesting against the name change of their club, has foreign ownership in football gone too far, or is investment from abroad the right way forward? One of the first to invest in a football club from abroad was Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich. The Russian billionaire became owner of Chelsea in 2003, and since his purchase of the club 10 years ago, the Stamford Bridge side has gone from strength to strength, winning 3 Premiership titles and the Champions League in 2012. Abramovich was a watershed in the ownership of British football clubs, and during his time in charge of Chelsea there has been somewhat of an influx of foreign owners and investors. The question is, however, are these foreign investors a good thing? 11 out of the 20 Premiership clubs have foreign owners or investors, a sign that foreign ownership has taken over English football, especially at the pinnacle of the English game. The clubs that are owned by overseas investors include all 4 clubs in the Champions League. Could this be an indication that foreign ownership is necessary to achieve success? Manchester City first came under foreign ownership in 2007, when Thaksin Shinawatra, a politician and entrepreneur from Thailand, bought the club. However, corruption charges led to Shinawatra selling the club to City’s current owner, Shiekh Mansoor. Mansoor has invested heavily into the club, with an estimated £500 million being set aside for transfers since he took charge of the club. Such investment led to Manchester City winning their first Premier League title in 2012, under the leadership of Roberto Mancini. Chelsea and Manchester City highlight the popularity that foreign owners and investors have, when they pump millions into their football club. However, this investment is less welcome at some clubs. The situation at Cardiff, for example, is a tricky one. Malaysian owner Vincent Tan bankrolled the club to promotion, but in the process changed the club’s colours from blue to red, a move that angered many Cardiff City fans. Some even argued that Cardiff “sold their soul” to Tan, in a bid to gain promotion to the Premier League. The situation is even worse at Hull. Egyptian owner Assem Allam helped the club gain promotion to the Premier League in May, through investment worth around £30 million. However, he has angered the Hull City Supporters Trust, and many fans of other clubs around the country, by changing Hull’s name to the “Hull Tigers”, calling the name City “a lousy identity”. Unsurprisingly, the change of name has brought about protests from fans, and the situation at Hull is one that suggests that foreign ownership is not a good thing for the English game. In the Championship, half of the 24 clubs have significant foreign investment. Blackburn Rovers, owned by Indian company Venky’s, are one example of how foreign ownership can be detrimental to the success of a club. Upon purchasing the club in late 2010, the new owners sacked manager Sam Allardyce, replacing him with the inexperienced Steve Kean. Despite the owner’s ambitions (famously trying to sign Ronaldinho, and publicly stating their intention to challenge for Champions League places), the club went into decline, with relegation in May 2012 leading to widespread discontent from the Ewood Park faithful towards Venky’s . In summary, whilst foreign ownership can be the catalyst for success at a club, it can also be the catalyst for failure and decline, and as a result football clubs must be careful who they allow to invest and control the club, to avoid fan protests and discontent. Without fans, a football club cannot survive, and this must be remembered by owners. http://the72.co.uk/2013/11/26/who-wants-to-have-a-billionaire/
How refreshing to hear the views on the importance of the clubs vs personal egos from the vice president of the most successful intercontinental club on he planet: “It's not the future of the individual people that is important,” Milan Vice-President Adriano Galliani told reporters in Glasgow. “Directors come and go, but Milan remains. “Milan was born before all of us, and will continue after us. Directors, coaches and players all come and go.”
Of course I'm sure you will know that Adriano Galliano is far more dodgy than Berlusca in football terms. Right up there with Bari's Antonio Matarrese in terms of dodginess.
He's vice president. Yeah he is a man with huge power who has a chequered past but what has that got to do with it? If i was accusing Allam of being dodgy whilst proclaiming Galliani an angel then you would have had a point. The point I was clearly making was he notes that the club and its history is far more important than the wishes of any individual.
Ah, I get it. You're saying your opinion is unimportant, and what matters is the long term success of the club. Big of you to put aside your own prejudices and back the Directors.
Well if that's the case Lambo you have nothing to lose, you may as well do what Fez has been repeatedly whinging about on virtually every thread related to this subject, and post the minutes of the CTWD/AA meeting
You see, you've tried to be clever there but there is not any way possible that what you have tried to claim, actually works. Perhaps you should read more carefully before trying to be a cocky ****er.
And the point I was making even more clearly is that although he may be right on this occasion, he is as dodgy as a Made in Naples Louis Vuitton bag so his words unfortunately have to be heard in this context. E vero o no?
Not my decision, it would have to be agreed by the whole group and we've had three unsuccessful votes already.
They don't have to be heard in any context whatsoever. So somebody who has a dodgy past cant be right about anything? In that case that John Lennon was a massive smackhead, adulterous twat so ergo all his songs are ****. But then you're even saying he's right on this occasion?!?!?! I'm completely ****ing lost now.....
Only the minority Only the minority. The ones who do need to walk away are the clueless stewards. What a bunch of clueless nutters they are. They're actiosn almost caused a riot. Sack em.
CORRECT. At least the minority will be happy in 3 years time when Hull City AFC are back in league two playing say Bury at home again.
Unsuccessful votes? Regarding what, disclosure of the minutes? Why, what is there to lose if Pappa Smurf isn't speaking to CTWD anyway? I can only think that the CTWD group are making an attempt at keeping their word to AA that they wouldn't disclose the minutes of the meeting, perhaps then it's a shame that he hasn't returned the compliment and been as good as his word. He's obviously already treating the CTWD group with contempt, so it can't possibly be to remain on speaking terms, so, as I said, what is there to lose?
He may be showing us contempt towards us, but we don't have to do the same in return, if we have an ambitions of talking to the owner again, we need to maintain the current approach.
