[England2Canada]

I am sick as a parrot with all these takeovers of late.......it started with chelski just before I left blighty, and the manure joined the list, followed by pool and the other little clubs.

Now my gunners might be going down that road, followed by bolton What the hell is happening with british football and are owners really becoming skint to run a club with all the ticket fare hikes and sky money?

I think we should put our foot down and tell these buyers to "foxtrot oscar"

[Steven]

Money makes the world spin around

I could give a much longer answer but...

*Rolls out red carpet for overkill*

[overkill]

Originally Posted by LFC_SL

Money makes the world spin around

I could give a much longer answer but...

*Rolls out red carpet for overkill*

......why thank you LFC!

Answered before, greed, short sightedness and laziness is what's causing these takeovers. End of.

Without doubt, they are the biggest (and probably bigger) threat to English footballs future since the bad days of organised hooliganism and poor stadia in the 80's.

[England2Canada]

Time to take back the clubs I say

[RMCF]

The 1 posts above me (overkill and Canada) sum it all up.

Football is finally a money exercise. No longer a game. It is on its last legs.

[bjd]

You know, sometimes these threads are like listening to the Four Yorkshiremen sketch

[Kazman]

I have to disagree here. Randy Lerner has been a breath of fresh air at Villa Park and has proven himself to be a man of the people and the fans adore him.

Doug Ellis was happy with Lerner and turned down offers from much richer parties as he felt that Randy Lerner was the right man for the job, and so far, he has been superb.

So, for now then, I feel Randy Lerner is the exception to the rule, let's hope that the future will allow us to use Randy and other investors to disprove the rule.

[Marc]

to say that the takeovers are detrimental to the clubs isn't really true, Villa, Pompey and Chelsea have most definitely benefited from a change of ownership, and it doesn't seem to have harmed Man Utd (yet at least) so i don't see what the fuss is all about. Liverpool probably need it to go to the next level as well; a world class striker costs a lot, and makes a world of difference; just ask the last three teams who won the premier league

[MedMick]

Originally Posted by Marc

to say that the takeovers are detrimental to the clubs isn't really true, Villa, Pompey and Chelsea have most definitely benefited from a change of ownership, and it doesn't seem to have harmed Man Utd (yet at least) so i don't see what the fuss is all about. Liverpool probably need it to go to the next level as well; a world class striker costs a lot, and makes a world of difference; just ask the last three teams who won the premier league

What about the manures 14% increase in season ticket prices when other clubs are freezing/lowering prices?

[plonky]

Originally Posted by England2Canada

I think we should put our foot down and tell these buyers to "foxtrot oscar"

How exactly? If the majority shareholder agrees to sell, what can you do?
I sold my share reluctantly but if I hadn't, it would have been potentially worthless

[Marc]

Originally Posted by MedMick

What about the manures 14% increase in season ticket prices when other clubs are freezing/lowering prices?

Be realistic though, Man Utd's season tickets are still cheaper than half the Premier League teams and you can't deny their 'product' is superior to most if not all of the other teams in the league.

[Digger]

Not too knowledgeable about this subject but I certainly had some sympathy with Hearts when there appeared to be discord in the ranks involving majority shareholder Vladimir Romanov sticking his (dictatorial?) oar in when he probably shouldn't have. Even the players were seemingly about to revolt in that particular situation. Goodness knows how their fans felt.

[domtheone]

Just going the way of of everything else.

Overseas buyers taking over ownership of everything, slowly but shurely.

Look at the financial markets. Companies are not allowed to take over each other (Competition concerns) but we have no issues with selling everything off to the overseas bidders.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by Marc

to say that the takeovers are detrimental to the clubs isn't really true, Villa, Pompey and Chelsea have most definitely benefited from a change of ownership, and it doesn't seem to have harmed Man Utd (yet at least) so i don't see what the fuss is all about. Liverpool probably need it to go to the next level as well; a world class striker costs a lot, and makes a world of difference; just ask the last three teams who won the premier league

What we are talking about is hostile bids from US owners. European based owners with an interest in football are a different animal altogether and cannot be compared. Even the Russian.

@ Kazman, it's way too early to make that sort of judgement. US owners are not in it for the football, but for the money. You can only judge them on what happens in three or four years time, not now. Sadly, going on the (massive) body of evidence with regards how these guys behave from their own country I doubt very much Villa fans (or Utd, Liverpool and the way it looks, Arsenal) will be using the word 'love' with regards their (probably former) US investors in years to come.

I'm sorry but it continues to amaze me how shortsighted football fans are. Or how unwilling to check the facts. US investors have a poor record with regards vital words like 'loyalty' and issues like 'support in the bad times'. I've seen too many US football supporters (who know just a little more than we do about these guys) expressing deep concerns over their English clubs, not to take the comments with regards the 'benefits' these guys might bring, as there's little tangible evidence yet of their philanthropy, with anything but a large dose of salt.

To call football a business is a joke. What other business could offer such a poor product so consistently, pay it's workers so much for delivering such a poor product, and yet keep going. Answer? None. Because it isn't. It still relies on blind loyalty, something that stops people from switching to alternatives, and something no other business in the World can count on.

[BrianC]

Wouldn't this imply that the current/previous owners had nothing but respect for their previous charges and didn't put the club in debt or sell their best players on to make a profit or vote to join the prem or increase ticket prices time and again? In the main we are just changing one set of money grabbing for another set of slightly more money grabbing .

The only thing that does worry me is the clubs that have been put into major debt in order to put the purchase through. Granted I'm debt averse with my own money, but it seems risky to me.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by BrianC

Wouldn't this imply that the current/previous owners had nothing but respect for their previous charges and didn't put the club in debt or sell their best players on to make a profit or vote to join the prem or increase ticket prices time and again? In the main we are just changing one set of money grabbing for another set of slightly more money grabbing .

The only thing that does worry me is the clubs that have been put into major debt in order to put the purchase through. Granted I'm debt averse with my own money, but it seems risky to me.

Oh, I quite agree Brian.

However, the difference is that the US investors are utter cynics, interested only in a fast buck, rather than, as the traditional English worst case club investor is/was, just hopeless muddlers. I'm sure there were English investors who just wanted the club name, and to make a fat profit before cutting and running, but I can't think of that many offhand. However, in the space of just 18 months we now have four examples of those sort of investor getting involved at some of Englands top clubs. They are also masters of spin. Like any wolf in sheep's clothing.

So no, US investors are not like the ones we've had before. Just ask some of the US sports fans who've had to put up with their kind over the last twenty odd years.

I'd rather have some hopeless European idiot run the club down, but only to a degree from which it can usually be saved, than some asset stripping Yank who leaves the club without a name, without a ground, and without a hope of recovery.

That's the difference. That's the danger. And no, it's not one the game has faced before.

[BrianC]

May be I'm all bitter and twisted after putting up with Ellis for so many years but the main difference between the old guard and the new guard is the level of their ambition to make money at any cost.

One of the rumours I like to believe is that Ellis diverted the bricks from one building project at Villa to another location, in effect being paid for them twice. He was also the first club chairman to take a proper wage out of the club if I remember correctly. Pocket money really compared to what the Glaziers and their ilk expect to make out of Man U (when you factor in the cost of buying the club).

Also if the existing owners where such saints then they would never have sold out in the first place to anybody putting the club into hundreds of millions of pounds of debt. I fail to see how that can ever be a sensible thing to on behalf of the club and to me proves they don't have the best interests of the club at heart.

Edit: what I'm trying to say is that we've gone from some small time Del Boys to some big time sharks, but that doesn't mean that the Del Boys wouldn't have caught up with their US brothers given time.

[DJT75]

Originally Posted by overkill

What we are talking about is hostile bids from US owners. European based owners with an interest in football are a different animal altogether and cannot be compared. Even the Russian.

Can't grumble at the moment - this guy is in love!

George Gillett believes nothing in world sport compares to what he experienced at Anfield on Tuesday night.
And while the American knew he was buying something special when he arrived on Merseyside earlier this year, he admits it has only this week dawned on him what it means to be part of Liverpool Football Club.

"What can I say after Tuesday night? It was magical," said Gillett.
"It was like attending the greatest sports event you ever go to on steroids. Nothing can compare to it.

"I couldn't have imagined when we bought the club the kinds of experiences we've already had. David Moores told me I had to understand what it was like and I would nod and say, 'Yes, we understand'.

"Really, neither I, Foster or the Hicks family could say we did. This is so much bigger and so much more important to so many people than we could ever have imagined.

"We walked around town on Tuesday to see some of the sights. There was a lot of singing going on, and I know this may shock a few people, but there was quite a lot of beer drinking. And I'm sure there was a lot after the game, too!"

Gillett again spoke of his desire to one day sit on The Kop – whether in its current form or in its new incarnation as the centerpiece of the club's new stadium.

"I wish I had been on The Kop on Tuesday, but I was concerned it would be a distraction. We've acknowledged the importance of The Kop already since we arrived and it's clear why the new stadium must be designed around it.

"We'll try to have as many seats in there as there used to be when it was originally a standing area. That's our ambition.

"That was once 24,000. We may not be able to get that many, but we'll certainly go beyond the 12,000 we have now."

On the subject of The Kop and its inhabitants, Gillett also made public his concern about ticket allocations for Athens.

He said: "What's on our minds more than anything now is the fans. This is all about them. I'm really interested in the statistics for the tickets to the finals.

"UEFA has taken over 20,000 tickets already, so it's going to be very difficult for everyone to get tickets.

"We have huge support and I'm really sorry for those fans who follow the club everywhere and won't be able to get tickets. It's a huge challenge for the organisers but a very difficult situation.

"Our aim now is to go on and win the Champions League, but there's one thing we can be absolutely certain of: the players and the fans will never quit.

"They'll give their all to win. They have a spirit unique to the north west of England, which you see on the pitch in Jamie Carragher and Steven Gerrard.

"I saw the banner on The Kop before the game which read, 'Not English but Scouse'. It sums it up.

"When you have that heart in the team and combine this with the energy and ability of those around them, it's quite a combination.

"I could not believe the passion of Dirk Kuyt on the pitch. He never stopped running and it was amazing to see."

[overkill]

Originally Posted by BrianC

May be I'm all bitter and twisted after putting up with Ellis for so many years but the main difference between the old guard and the new guard is the level of their ambition to make money at any cost.

One of the rumours I like to believe is that Ellis diverted the bricks from one building project at Villa to another location, in effect being paid for them twice. He was also the first club chairman to take a proper wage out of the club if I remember correctly. Pocket money really compared to what the Glaziers and their ilk expect to make out of Man U (when you factor in the cost of buying the club).

Also if the existing owners where such saints then they would never have sold out in the first place to anybody putting the club into hundreds of millions of pounds of debt. I fail to see how that can ever be a sensible thing to on behalf of the club and to me proves they don't have the best interests of the club at heart.

Edit: what I'm trying to say is that we've gone from some small time Del Boys to some big time sharks, but that doesn't mean that the Del Boys wouldn't have caught up with their US brothers given time.

I can understand that. Ellis was a menace. However, like all of that 'old guard' he still believed that the football club should be just that, and not just another corporate wing of his business portfolio. The US investors by contrast view the situation as the complete opposite.

When it comes to the shares, what can the chairman do? He cannot force the shareholders not to sell, nor has he any control over the market. These guys are very aggressive even over the share issues, and that alone should serve as a warning. Yet some clubs have just invited them in regardless!

On the last point, no I don't think so. The 'old guard' were 'del boy's' but they were football men, not just corporate investors looking to make a new buck in a new 'market'. If that market isn't to their liking, as has happened in the US, they just change it. Football as baseball/gridiron with stupid names, background music and advertising breaks?! Well, if that's your cup of tea - all yours m8!

Oh and DJT, that's the words of a corporate shark through and through. He probably said (and in fact, looking elsewhere, he has) similar soothing words of praise to his last investment - just before he stripped them of every asset in sight and sacked all the employees!

[BrianC]

Originally Posted by overkill

I can understand that. Ellis was a menace. However, like all of that 'old guard' he still believed that the football club should be just that, and not just another corporate wing of his business portfolio. The US investors by contrast view the situation as the complete opposite.

When it comes to the shares, what can the chairman do? He cannot force the shareholders not to sell, nor has he any control over the market. These guys are very aggressive even over the share issues, and that alone should serve as a warning. Yet some clubs have just invited them in regardless!

On the last point, no I don't think so. The 'old guard' were 'del boy's' but they were football men, not just corporate investors looking to make a new buck in a new 'market'. If that market isn't to their liking, as has happened in the US, they just change it. Football as baseball/gridiron with stupid names, background music and advertising breaks?! Well, if that's your cup of tea - all yours m8!

I'll admit I'd rather they treated it as a business more than an ego boost as Ellis did. Success on the pitch these days can only come off the pitch first. Man U were hardly disorganised in this area before the take over. I hate a lot of American business practices (mostly centred around their labour laws) but mostly they are better run than UK firms. The way Villa was run was a shambles and at the rate Doug was going it was only a matter of time.

It depends on the club regarding shares, how many have no controlling force like Arsenal? At Villa Randy could never have gotten control without Doug's support (I am still pleased we swapped Doug for Randy, not that I expect to convince you that its going to be a good thing) and I expect that to be the case for most clubs that have sold out.

Sky and the other TV companies already or nearly have that sort of control so I don't see it any worse than the situation we are trapped in at the moment with the TV money. I've been to plenty of clubs this season that insist on playing music when they score and none of them were US owned. Its already here, I'm just glad our board has enough sense not to do that (crosses fingers).

[overkill]

Originally Posted by BrianC

I'll admit I'd rather they treated it as a business more than an ego boost as Ellis did. Success on the pitch these days can only come off the pitch first. Man U were hardly disorganised in this area before the take over. I hate a lot of American business practices (mostly centred around their labour laws) but mostly they are better run than UK firms. The way Villa was run was a shambles and at the rate Doug was going it was only a matter of time.

It depends on the club regarding shares, how many have no controlling force like Arsenal? At Villa Randy could never have gotten control without Doug's support (I am still pleased we swapped Doug for Randy, not that I expect to convince you that its going to be a good thing) and I expect that to be the case for most clubs that have sold out.

Sky and the other TV companies already or nearly have that sort of control so I don't see it any worse than the situation we are trapped in at the moment with the TV money. I've been to plenty of clubs this season that insist on playing music when they score and none of them were US owned. Its already here, I'm just glad our board has enough sense not to do that (crosses fingers).

I wouldn't be to sure on the way the US boys run businesses, Labor laws not withstanding. I talk to a lot of US guys online and their gripes are pretty much the same as ours. Which isn't surprising, as, with so many things, we tend to copy US practices rather than European, or Asian. Both of which I would prefer. On so many levels.

..............and which takes me back to the point. I'm not going to convince you, as sadly, only time and the (highly) probable situation I've already outlined will do that. My views on this are not based on 'gut' feelings, or a desire to have the same useless shower running the clubs as have done for years, but because of the first hand warnings being handed to me by people who do know these investors - as they have already had problems with them.

I'm sorry, but if people cannot take on board US sports fans clear warnings about what will happen and prefer to listen these masters of Spin lullabying them while they put themselves in an unassailable position, well.............

You have been warned.

[Kazman]

Originally Posted by overkill

I wouldn't be to sure on the way the US boys run businesses, Labor laws not withstanding. I talk to a lot of US guys online and their gripes are pretty much the same as ours. Which isn't surprising, as, with so many things, we tend to copy US practices rather than European, or Asian. Both of which I would prefer. On so many levels.

..............and which takes me back to the point. I'm not going to convince you, as sadly, only time and the (highly) probable situation I've already outlined will do that. My views on this are not based on 'gut' feelings, or a desire to have the same useless shower running the clubs as have done for years, but because of the first hand warnings being handed to me by people who do know these investors - as they have already had problems with them.

I'm sorry, but if people cannot take on board US sports fans clear warnings about what will happen and prefer to listen these masters of Spin lullabying them while they put themselves in an unassailable position, well.............

You have been warned.

From what I remember, the US fans of Lerners team in the States speak quite highly of him. In fact, I remember many Villa fans asking for thoughts on Lerner across the pond and they mostly came back quite favourable.

I also respect Doug, yes, the club could have done more when he was around, and should have, but the man loves Villa, this much is plainly obvious.

He only sold to Lerner when he was sure he was the right man for the job, and that he would not asset strip the club or put it into debt. It's a stark contrast to the Glazers.

[BrianC]

Originally Posted by overkill

I wouldn't be to sure on the way the US boys run businesses, Labor laws not withstanding. I talk to a lot of US guys online and their gripes are pretty much the same as ours. Which isn't surprising, as, with so many things, we tend to copy US practices rather than European, or Asian. Both of which I would prefer. On so many levels.

..............and which takes me back to the point. I'm not going to convince you, as sadly, only time and the (highly) probable situation I've already outlined will do that. My views on this are not based on 'gut' feelings, or a desire to have the same useless shower running the clubs as have done for years, but because of the first hand warnings being handed to me by people who do know these investors - as they have already had problems with them.

I'm sorry, but if people cannot take on board US sports fans clear warnings about what will happen and prefer to listen these masters of Spin lullabying them while they put themselves in an unassailable position, well.............

You have been warned.

Personally I'd prefer we copied the West Germans pre absorption of East Germany but that's not going to happen and even the Germans are giving up on it now otherwise I'd have moved out there when I had the chance a couple of years ago.

I don't think we are that far apart of this, my main points are that we already had a bunch of money grabbing incompetents running clubs and the game, all we've done is put more efficient, ruthless people in at the top clubs so people will get fleeced quicker (see the last two years of Man U price rises). This would have happened regardless (far too much cash involved not to) of the takeovers and just taken longer as a new breed of UK owners came through. I also see the biggest short term problem to be debt that almost all the Yanks have brought with them, there is a very real risk of "doing a Leeds" with so many other clubs going to be pushing on next year and can mount a sustained challenge. The debt also leads to increased pressure on the owners, they have had their new TV money increase, where else are they going to get further increases?

I completely agree about spin, but then any new owners aren't often going to go in and start slagging the club and its history off, I don't think even Romanov is loony enough to do that. You blame the investors, I blame the debt that most of them have brought with them, it'll force their hands.

[DJT75]

Originally Posted by overkill

Oh and DJT, that's the words of a corporate shark

Pah! Not our Georgie Porgie, he's just a harmless wealthy teddy bear

[overkill]

Originally Posted by DJT75

Pah! Not our Georgie Porgie, he's just a harmless wealthy teddy bear

You hope!

[overkill]

Originally Posted by BrianC

Personally I'd prefer we copied the West Germans pre absorption of East Germany but that's not going to happen and even the Germans are giving up on it now otherwise I'd have moved out there when I had the chance a couple of years ago.

I don't think we are that far apart of this, my main points are that we already had a bunch of money grabbing incompetents running clubs and the game, all we've done is put more efficient, ruthless people in at the top clubs so people will get fleeced quicker (see the last two years of Man U price rises). This would have happened regardless (far too much cash involved not to) of the takeovers and just taken longer as a new breed of UK owners came through. I also see the biggest short term problem to be debt that almost all the Yanks have brought with them, there is a very real risk of "doing a Leeds" with so many other clubs going to be pushing on next year and can mount a sustained challenge. The debt also leads to increased pressure on the owners, they have had their new TV money increase, where else are they going to get further increases?

I completely agree about spin, but then any new owners aren't often going to go in and start slagging the club and its history off, I don't think even Romanov is loony enough to do that. You blame the investors, I blame the debt that most of them have brought with them, it'll force their hands.

On the first point so would I. West Germany was a model of how to run an economy and state - until the 80's and the change to 'new right' thinking. Add that to the (disastrous in some ways) re-unification and the practices we still admire had in fact long gone by the new millenium. Part through the same crap thinking as in the 80's UK, partly, in recent times due to the problems that EG has brought with it. I don't think any German politician was really prepared for (or cared about) what lay over the wall. It's not just economic problems either. 40 years of separation have created a mental fence as powerful as any physical one.

But I digress...........

I think you're absolutely right Brian, the debt problem is going to be a millstone in future years. Add to that the cynicism of those in debt this time, and a lot of clubs may be quaking in their wellies by the turn of the decade.

Regardless of even how well regarded a US owner may be, sheer economics should warn us that should times get hard, the US investors, as they've done elsewhere in the business World, will shut down UK assets before even thinking about harm coming to their home ones. Just ask the UK staff of all the US companies who lost their Jobs in the 80's and 90's so that the US market would be preserved.

I agree totally about the 'old guard' Brian, but I have never felt as uneasy about a wave of football investors as I have about the Americans coming in.

They just aren't to be trusted - purely on a business basis I mean.

[plonky]

Originally Posted by overkill

What we are talking about is hostile bids from US owners.

Hostile to who though?

[overkill]

Originally Posted by plonky

Hostile to who though?

Other shareholders, the fans, etc. Just because some are happy to be Lambs to the proverbial, not everyone is.