Screwy Owners of Premier league clubs

[andyjo1982]

Delia may not be perfect (AKA her drunken on pitch rant at home to Man C in 2005), but she has always had Norwich's best interests at heart, even when we went down to League one a few years ago. She's no billionaire, but she's put millions of her own cash in to buy players and keep the club running. As much as I'd love for NCFC to be spending 20-30m on a player, I'm very happy with where my club is at and how we are doing. Our future is very secure.

[bad company]

Very saddened by what is going on at Cardiff and Hull for example. For me no man can really own a football club it will always be 'owned' by the fans. The legal owner is merely the custodian until passed onto new owners at some time in the future. It's a bit like Mrs BC being owners but really custodians of the historic listed building we live in.

So many of the new owners seem to be incredibly arrogant.

Thankfully we have 'Gilbert & Sullivan' at West Ham and they do seem to act in the best interests of the club.

[LiamM45]

The Beaver King said:

I never thought I'd be agreeing with the above statement, but so am I.

Ashley has a tendency to do the outrageous on occassion, but there is nearly always a business case behind it.

At times I've thought 'what the fu...' with Mike Ashley, but he dips his hand in his pocket now and again to get players, and if he did walk out on the club, we wouldn't be a gigantic financial mess like City or Chelsea.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

LiamM45 said:

At times I've thought 'what the fu...' with Mike Ashley, but he dips his hand in his pocket now and again to get players, and if he did walk out on the club, we wouldn't be a gigantic financial mess like City or Chelsea.

Chelsea wouldn't be in a mess. RA has largely written off the money he's loaned to the club. If he went, we'd have to offload some of the players and just go back to being a club hovers on the edges of success, as we had been since our last promotion in 89. As most of us can recall the days when avoiding the drop was the chief aim, it would be no big deal. I've spend far more of my life watching crap Chelsea than good Chelsea.

[DukeDickson]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

LiamM45 said:

At times I've thought 'what the fu...' with Mike Ashley, but he dips his hand in his pocket now and again to get players, and if he did walk out on the club, we wouldn't be a gigantic financial mess like City or Chelsea.

Chelsea wouldn't be in a mess. RA has largely written off the money he's loaned to the club. If he went, we'd have to offload some of the players and just go back to being a club hovers on the edges of success, as we had been since our last promotion in 89. As most of us can recall the days when avoiding the drop was the chief aim, it would be no big deal. I've spend far more of my life watching crap Chelsea than good Chelsea.

Exactly. Neither would be in a mess, even if the reasons are probably similar yet quite different.
In the case of the City lot, it's as much of a marketing tool as anything else (and even if not, a long-term investment punt) so suddenly leaving the club high and dry isn't going to work all that well on that front. The financial aspect probably doesn't register in some respects - the money spent on City hasn't consumed the Barclays profit, let alone anything else.

[bad company]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Chelsea wouldn't be in a mess. RA has largely written off the money he's loaned to the club. If he went, we'd have to offload some of the players and just go back to being a club hovers on the edges of success, as we had been since our last promotion in 89. As most of us can recall the days when avoiding the drop was the chief aim, it would be no big deal. I've spend far more of my life watching crap Chelsea than good Chelsea.

But if RA decided to change the club colour from blue and/or rename it Chelski there would be an uproar.

[Negative Creep]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

LiamM45 said:

At times I've thought 'what the fu...' with Mike Ashley, but he dips his hand in his pocket now and again to get players, and if he did walk out on the club, we wouldn't be a gigantic financial mess like City or Chelsea.

Chelsea wouldn't be in a mess. RA has largely written off the money he's loaned to the club. If he went, we'd have to offload some of the players and just go back to being a club hovers on the edges of success, as we had been since our last promotion in 89. As most of us can recall the days when avoiding the drop was the chief aim, it would be no big deal. I've spend far more of my life watching crap Chelsea than good Chelsea.

Not to mention tat there will be plenty more of potential owners lined up

[TwigtheWonderkid]

bad company said:

But if RA decided to change the club colour from blue and/or rename it Chelski there would be an uproar.

A change of colour would be hard to swallow. But the name, so long as Chelsea is in there somewhere. They do it abroad. Bayer Leverkusen (Bayer is a pharmacutical company), PSV Eindhoven (PSV is Philips Ltd). They can call it Gasprom Chelsea if they want. Not overly fussed.

[bad company]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

bad company said:

But if RA decided to change the club colour from blue and/or rename it Chelski there would be an uproar.

A change of colour would be hard to swallow. But the name, so long as Chelsea is in there somewhere. They do it abroad. Bayer Leverkusen (Bayer is a pharmacutical company), PSV Eindhoven (PSV is Philips Ltd). They can call it Gasprom Chelsea if they want. Not overly fussed.

Cardiff's colour has always been blue. Tan changed it to red which the fans will not accept. I would happily bet on a change back to blue as soon as Tan moves on.

[Robbo66]

bad company said:

Cardiff's colour has always been blue. Tan changed it to red which the fans will not accept. I would happily bet on a change back to blue as soon as Tan moves on.

What part of 'the mob are an irrelevance ' is not getting through ?. Tan has the money, he will do as he wishes, and the Gregg's munchers will have to accept it or the money will walk.
Happy to take his dough....now live with the consequences.

[egomeister]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

A change of colour would be hard to swallow. But the name, so long as Chelsea is in there somewhere. They do it abroad. Bayer Leverkusen (Bayer is a pharmacutical company), PSV Eindhoven (PSV is Philips Ltd). They can call it Gasprom Chelsea if they want. Not overly fussed.

Those are quite different examples though as the clubs were founded as the company team and hence have always been known by those names.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

bad company said:

Tan changed it to red which the fans will not accept.

They have accepted it. Ground is still full of fans. If they were that bothered, they should have boycotted the games and not bought any merchandise.

[TangerinePool]

marsred said:

There are plenty of clubs run prudently enough to survive as businesses even if these wealthy owners all back out and the madness ends. Clubs like... oh I don't know... Blackpool?

Ours is a façade of sorts. The Chairman has made the opposite type of moves and transacted £23m of the parachute payments we got into his father's company. £11m in one fell swoop soon after we were relegated. No, really.

The point seeming to be missed the length and breadth of the country is that the fans i.e. the soul reason such a huge phenomena exists around football, are merely an inconvenience that need things like seats, refreshments, toilets etc. We just don't matter any more and collectively are too short sighted to make a stand.

Take a look at the Liverpool thread right now. The fans are rightly very happy to have secured Suarez's services but at what cost? How long can such polarised wages versus income be propped up by Sky, sugar daddies, late reprieves etc. before it's all over? It makes no sense financially and never has. The Championship's generally accepted business model is s**t or bust as there is simply no other way to do it apart from the rare anomaly such as achieved by Blackpool. And didn't everyone love us that one season for being different the patronising so and so's

It's just a shame we weren't pioneering enough...

[RedTrident]

bad company said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

bad company said:

But if RA decided to change the club colour from blue and/or rename it Chelski there would be an uproar.

A change of colour would be hard to swallow. But the name, so long as Chelsea is in there somewhere. They do it abroad. Bayer Leverkusen (Bayer is a pharmacutical company), PSV Eindhoven (PSV is Philips Ltd). They can call it Gasprom Chelsea if they want. Not overly fussed.

Cardiff's colour has always been blue. Tan changed it to red which the fans will not accept. I would happily bet on a change back to blue as soon as Tan moves on.

Up to the recent craziness by Tam I recall plenty of Cardiff fans wearing red. There was even a handful in red today at Anfield. There is an easy way of getting rid of disgraceful owners. Just don't turn up to games. Unfortunately, even under our darkest days of ownership at Liverpool there were still plenty of tourists that'd buy tickets and fans that couldn't bear to boycott. Maybe it will be easier to boycott at Cardiff. I see no other way really.