What owners would you prefer ?

[LeParisien]

I didn't say it's being taken out, I said majority is reinvested but not into the FC, into the FC value.

If you reinvest into the players on the pitch, the value may increase slightly, remain constant or maybe decrease. Look at League winning teams, they aren't necessarily richer because they've spent in players. Contrary to popular belief, 9 times out of 10 players are a liability to a FC.

E.g. Harry Kane will be sold because he is more valuable being sold than trying to keep him to win a league.

Buildings on the other hand, E.g. The new stadium, Go Cart Track, Art Gallery, etc, have increased the value of Tottenham Hotspur FC.

For the first time, I think I’ve gained some empathy with that point of view. I don’t know why but the way you explained it helped me.

I have always thought - more profit = more money for the football side = good.

You think what you’re saying is that there is an never-ending stream of non-football related projects for ENIC to invest in and that these increased funds will never materialise.

I think the stadium is a good counter-example. But there may be other projects that do seem less clear.

Thanks.

 

[Ed Vanderlay]

I have got to the point where I don't care who owns us, I just want to see attacking, winning football. I know I should not be a 'sell-out' and keep hold of my moral compass. but I am fed up with having to go back 30 years to remember what that was like.

Bingo

 

[Airfixx]

I agree , It’s not rocket science , the two biggest clubs in the country are the two most historically successful . Chelsea and City have grown massively in recent years . Football success has driven that growth not Go Karting or Wall Climbing or NFL games .

That's not football growth.

Besides; deriding our revenue streams remains self-defeating and ignorant..... Even doped cunts like City seek to exploit additional revenue streams and host concerts etc.

 

[LeParisien]

I agree , It’s not rocket science , the two biggest clubs in the country are the two most historically successful . Chelsea and City have grown massively in recent years . Football success has driven that growth not Go Karting or Wall Climbing or NFL games .

So the solution is just to get football success?

Or could it be that Chelsea and City both have something else in common? What could that be… HMMMMMMMMMM

Oh yes they’re both cheating, sports-washing cunts.

 

[Richard Richard]

I want an ownership with a will to win trophies and a strategy to succeed. I would love an owner who would consider winning the league cup to be a bigger achievement than finishing 4th.

I would like an owner that speaks in public about their disappointment that the manager chose to play a weakened team in a domestic cup match and now we’re out.

I would like an owner who can stick with a manager.

I would like an owner with a full head of hair

 

[Richard Richard]

So the solution is just to get football success?

Or could it be that Chelsea and City both have something else in common? What could that be… HMMMMMMMMMM

Oh yes they’re both cheating, sports-washing cunts.

Watching Leicester winning an FA cup, West Ham winning the Euro farmers and the likes of Palace, Watford, Hull, Stoke playing in an FA cup final more recently than we have is what really pizzes me off - Yes we had a CL final and that was amazing but the way we treat domestic cup comps and Euro comps not called the CL really irks me. We act like they are beneath us when they really are not.

The fanbase would be much more patient if we had won a Europa league/League cup/FA cup - possibly the Farmers conference in the last 7/8 years.

We’ve made the League cup final once in that time and sacked our manager the week before it - classic self sabotage.

Finishing in CL spots is clearly more important to the owner and I believe based on what I have seen that we overly incentivise managers for that achievement rather than winning something and that proves detrimental to our trophy chances. I reckon a sizeable majority of our fanbase would have given up a couple of CL qualifications for a League cup win - The game is about glory, it’s not about playing Monaco on a Wednesday night

 

[The Dealer]

A review of the PL clubs highest paid directors might indicate most of the clubs take money out of the profit perhaps rather generously.

Woolwich Highest paid single director 2.7 mil.

Spurs...Levy .. 3 mil

Bournemouth 1.3 mil, Brighton 1.4 mil, Palace 1.6 mil, Pool 1.3 mil, City 5.4 mil ( I don't think is one person )
Utd 4.15 mil, W Ham 898 k.

The only club not paying its Directors is Burnley.

 

[Airfixx]

A review of the PL clubs highest paid directors might indicate most of the clubs take money out of the profit perhaps rather generously.

Woolwich Highest paid single director 2.7 mil.

Spurs...Levy .. 3 mil

Bournemouth 1.3 mil, Brighton 1.4 mil, Palace 1.6 mil, Pool 1.3 mil, City 5.4 mil ( I don't think is one person )
Utd 4.15 mil, W Ham 898 k.

The only club not paying its Directors is Burnley.

Source?

FWIW; not every Director is an owner...... Some will just be employees so it won't constitue owners taking money out.

 

[Ionman34]

I agree , It’s not rocket science , the two biggest clubs in the country are the two most historically successful . Chelsea and City have grown massively in recent years . Football success has driven that growth not Go Karting or Wall Climbing or NFL games .

Unlimited funds have driven that success.

Cheating to the tune of over 100 different breaches has driven that success.

Going £2Bn in debt, then having it wiped out by the Government, has driven that success.

Neither City nor Chelsea would have ANY of their recent success without the above.

 

[mummy]

Good grief, does that mean Roger is mummy ????

Wakey Wakeyyyyyy!

 

[The Dealer]

Source?

FWIW; not every Director is an owner...... Some will just be employees so it won't constitue owners taking money out.

It's still significant money being taken out sanctioned by the owners. In some cases possibly way more than is deserved or warranted. Possibly profit not being pumped back in.
I'm not critical of it by the way. It's to question if it's realistic to pump all profits back in.

 

[Airfixx]

It's still significant money being taken out sanctioned by the owners. In some cases possibly way more than is deserved or warranted. Possibly profit not being pumped back in.
I'm not critical of it by the way. It's to question if it's realistic to pump all profits back in.

Paying a 3rd party director = operational wages..... Do you consider all non-playing staff to be 'money taken out'?

.....If so; that's an entirely flawed perspective.

p.s. Source for you figures/info?

 

[Mrs Perryman]

Wakey Wakeyyyyyy!

.,.,..

Shouldn't be allowed!!! You know I have trouble keeping up.

 

[The Dealer]

Paying a 3rd party director = operational wages..... Do you consider all non-playing staff to be 'money taken out'?

.....If so; that's an entirely flawed perspective.

p.s. Source for you figures/info?

Operational wages at 3 mil for Levy is stretching it. As are possibly most of the payments described as salaries. I did confine it to mostly one top figurehead of which some are not disclosed by the clubs.

The source doesn't matter if my thinking is flawed. It's defining what money is justifiable cost or potential profit that could be invested that is the point.

The Guardian.

 

[Airfixx]

Operational wages at 3 mil for Levy is stretching

I didn't mention Levy...... The point is a broader one when making comparisons.

The source doesn't matter if my thinking is flawed. It's defining what money is justifiable cost or potential profit that could be invested that is the point.

The Guardian.

A link to begin with would have been more practical....

Just cos your interpretation is flawed; doesn't mean the article is.

 

[The Dealer]

I didn't mention Levy...... The point is a broader one when making comparisons.



A link to begin with would have been more practical....

Just cos your interpretation is flawed; doesn't mean the article is.

I disclosed my source which is more civil than the answer I got from you when I requested information. I think it was....go the fuck find out yourself or similar.

Whether or not my point is flawed is open to debate and clarification. I just suspected the sizeable sums could be seen as taking money out of the club irrespective of the individuals status or involvement in the club, be it owner, part owner or employee. Some of the names are not disclosed.

 

[Frankfurter]

I've voting for number 2, but my favorite ist that the fans a the owners

 

[The Dealer]

I've voting for number 2, but my favorite ist that the fans a the owners

What is responsibly as a part of number 2 ?

 

[citizenabel]

The more desirable option would include owners who don't purchase the Club on a leveraged basis using the never ending supply of their own money wherever and whenever its required.

I guess the criteria can only be satisfied by option 3 and 2 with the reference to 'responsible' being omitted. People or Consortiums/States who have more money than God have no need to be responsible with their wealth and I would really look forward to us blowing everyone else out of the water.

On the ethical side I think the arguments are mostly mainly made up by oppositions fans who use the opportunity to jump up on the high horse when it suits but often dismount with haste if/when their club is purchased by one of these concerns......

 

[Spaniel]

I have got to the point where I don't care who owns us, I just want to see attacking, winning football. I know I should not be a 'sell-out' and keep hold of my moral compass. but I am fed up with having to go back 30 years to remember what that was like.

No one else seems to have a moral compass worldwide so why should we....I'm in absolute agreement with you....if we're football fans, let's BE football fans and just enjoy the finished product.....the world will be in flames quite soon so let's enjoy the time we have left....probably about 4-7 years imv