Just reading today that Uzmanov (?) has shot to no. 1 in the world's rich list, yet despite a 30% shareholding they don't want him on the board at Arsenal. How can that be, when the conventional wisdom is that money = success in football? Doesn't work at Blackburn with the Venky's; it did with Jack Walker. So how would you feel if a Russian Oligarch from the top 20 rich list wanted to take over Little Old Charlton?
All these guys are crooks by normal moral standards, and a lot of them are criminals even by the dubious legal standards of their own countries. However they are not all the same. Some having made their pile want to leave peaceful lives in another and safer country. They may be well balanced and thoughtful businessmen. Others are egomaniacs, or delusional, or live in risk of assassination or extradition back to the countries they have raped and pillaged. One of the former category may be no worse than your average British tycoon. Maybe better in the sense that he might be more careful to adhere strictly to the laws of the land and of the FA, and may be anxious to build a reputation as a "jolly good fellow" by treating the club and its fans right, supporting charities, etc. The trouble is knowing which is which. And, to the best of my knowledge, no-one is saying that the problems at Blackburn have come from the Venkys exploiting the club. More from their lack of understanding of the game in this country. So even if you get someone relatively honest with a lot of money, it could still all go pear-shaped. The whole game is so rotten nowadays, with player power, agents, the corruption within the international bodies, the incompetent and fawning media, that none of it bears thinking about too closely. I find it best to take a Kiplingesque attitude and enjoy our occasional highs while being fully prepared for everything to go tits up a couple of weeks or a couple of seasons later.
No thanks - Just look at what happened to Portsmouth and Blackburn as perfect examples of what happens when it can go wrong, look at Manchester City who have lost touch with their fans because others will just come in and take those seats then look at Wolves with Steve Morgan, not so much of a sugar daddy yet fans come in just for the Premiership dont like what they see... complain... get the manager sacked... get the club relegated... dont bother turning up because Championship football isnt worthy of their attention... the club gets itself in further trouble
I wouldn't be opposed to one, but think we can make progress and continue in the right direction with what we're doing now. I also wouldn't want a owner who changes the identity of the club, like Cardiff. I know they are now in the Premiership, but changing club colours because it's your lucky colour is just crazy to me.
i'd do a suarez... bite your hand off if one did come our way... but i'd only like them to pump in the cash to the point where we're self sufficient. I can imagine after 2 or 3 years of prem football and the tv money that comes with it, we'd be able to provide for ourselves.
So there seems to be a change in attitude taking place towards sugar-daddies. A few years ago most fans expected owners to pump loads of their own money into a club indefinitely. I think common sense is prevailing now. For one thing you don't want your beloved club to become a rich man's toy, and for another thing it doesn't always work. Simon Jordan put over £40m. into Palace and they ended up in administration for example. And we did better with a good manager and no money than a bad manager(or two) spending loadsamoney.
I'd rather have a football club owned by the fans, like a co-operative, whereby we vote for individuals whom is best to run our club. That way decisions about the club will be supported by the fans and in the best interest of the fans. That way, if we win any money, or move up the leagues, the money gained will be put straight back into the club, thus ensuring financial stability. Call me an idealist, but I think that is the way it should be run.
That is the only real solution. There would be far less money in the game, but that would apply equally to all clubs. One big problem is that most of the best players would move abroad where the big money still was, and we would be deprived of seeing great players from abroad every week here. But I could live with that if it meant the game was cleaned up in England. Not sure what effect it would have on the England team. On the one hand the top tier would be predominantly peopled with English players, but on the other hand the national team manager would have an even harder job than now to get access to his best players when he wanted them from foreign clubs. People outside the game (politicians, media, etc) often say that the problem with football is that the clubs are not run as efficient companies. There is much truth in that for many clubs. But football clubs are not normal businesses. Yes, we compete with (say) Millwall and Crystal Palace for the support of youngster just starting to follow the game. If we were to remain in the top tier for a decade and the other two in the lower divisions, then we would attract a lot more support, which would most stay with us through thick and thin, from "newborn" football fans. Look at the following Man Utd and Liverpool have all over the country. And that support mainly stays loyal. There are thousands of Leeds fans spread all over England who have never been to that city in their lives, yet their glory days are many decades past. But if a regular customer becomes disenchanted with Sainsbury's they can switch to Waitrose. Very few Charlton fans switched to Crystal Palace or Millwall when we slid from the Premiership to Div One. Tycoons who buy football clubs are buying a captive clientele. They should not enjoy the same freedoms as normal business owners to say "It's my money and I can do what I like". Football clubs should be set up as trusts that limit the powers of investors to incur debts, sell grounds, or even change the club playing kit. If that means vastly less money coming into the game, so be it. Apart from safer and better stadiums, which have been an important plus, I cannot see that all the money awash in the game is doing anything for the average fan. Most families on average wages or below are priced out of watching their team, whereas when I first started watching it was an enjoyment everyone except the totally destitute could afford, perhaps their only weekly treat.
