Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
digitalalba

Is the 'owner' too egotistic for his position?

Recommended Posts

Posted

I buy the programme occasionally, to kill some time as I've got there too early.

The price hasn't gone up in years( never going to be 10p increases) and I quite like reading Vichai's/Top's column. They seem quite private people and it's the only time they really communicate.

For what they have done for this club he could put his face on every other page.

Posted

Nowhere near right on your on your figures, you are making out its £400 per game per person.

I personally don't mind him featuring on the front cover with say the manager or the captain. LCFC is not his club, just the other day one of the thais said that they are custodians of the club. I'm an old romantic, I still think the club belongs to the fans, the fans collectively contribute 30,000 X £400 X 20 in ticket sales, tens of thousands via merchandise, whatever the fees city get via Sky and other media outlets = £250 million per year, have I got that about right?

 

Could someone tell me, apart from that money, what have the owners put in? Bear in mind, £250M is one Premiership year.

Posted

If he keeps doing what he's been doing for the club I wouldn't care if he built his own statue out of the ground. Think I might get a Thai red curry to celebrate yesterday's win, too many singas last night. Holiday in Phuket coming up. Gotta love the Thais

Posted

Gate receipts per season around 13million. Sky money 70 million. The fans are not the main contributors. Add in the commercial side and you are close to 86 mill per season. We should have made a tidy profit last season and should be in the black again this campaign.

The owners invested more than a hundred million to get us to where we are. Let's see if they take dividends or continue to invest.

£86m last season, considerably less in the previous years. £200m from fans in total?

By my reckoning and your figures, the fans have collectively invested more?

Their hundred million is on top of our £200m?

Have the owners funded the advert name of the ground, or is it called king power because it's an add-on to their little empire?

Posted

£86m last season, considerably less in the previous years. £200m from fans in total?

By my reckoning and your figures, the fans have collectively invested more?

Their hundred million is on top of our £200m?

Have the owners funded the advert name of the ground, or is it called king power because it's an add-on to their little empire?

You're onto a loser here

Posted

£86m last season, considerably less in the previous years. £200m from fans in total?

By my reckoning and your figures, the fans have collectively invested more?

Their hundred million is on top of our £200m?

Have the owners funded the advert name of the ground, or is it called king power because it's an add-on to their little empire?

I reckon you need a calculator ( on top of other things)

Will just assume you're being a bit dim for the sake of effect rather than anything deliberate.

Posted

£86m last season, considerably less in the previous years. £200m from fans in total?

By my reckoning and your figures, the fans have collectively invested more?

Their hundred million is on top of our £200m?

Have the owners funded the advert name of the ground, or is it called king power because it's an add-on to their little empire?

Your homework needs to be done again, methinks.

Posted

Religious people have no problem praising an egostictical god so why not the millionaire owner of a successful Premier League Football team? At least we are sure he is real.

Guest Bob Hazels shorts
Posted

Not read all posts but some weird stuff on here.

 

I understand the Chairman makes a statement first game and his image on the front cover signified that.

 

I know its not Thailand but this is how they do things and whilst it his ball and we benefit long may it continue.

 

If G-LCFC fell out of the sky beyond the sadness I'd be very fearful

 

Enjoy it.

Posted

Religious people have no problem praising an egostictical god so why not the millionaire owner of a successful Premier League Football team? At least we are sure he is real.

Does he think he's more important to the long term future of LCFC than the fans, probably.

Would he sell LCFC for a substantial profit, probably.

Would we, NO, NEVER, NO.

Posted

I'd say our owners are anything but egotistical. Rarely make a fuss, work hard behind the scenes and have been highly successful, without blowing their own trumpet. Crap thread (although i've only read about 4 posts in it).

Posted

Does he think he's more important to the long term future of LCFC than the fans, probably.

Would he sell LCFC for a substantial profit, probably.

Would we, NO, NEVER, NO.

And because it's conceivable that he might sell, that makes him a bad owner? Don't be daft.

Posted

And because it's conceivable that he might sell, that makes him a bad owner? Don't be daft.

No, because he'd sell because he isn't a city fan, at least not like we are.

Posted

No, because he'd sell because he isn't a city fan, at least not like we are.

And that's a bad thing because? There are decisions fans wouldn't take that have to be taken for long term success (for instance selling a fans favourite who's clearly on the decline), likewise decisions fans would make that shouldn't be (e.g. bringing back O'Neill) - not being a city fan from birth isn't a problem, and you'd be mad to think he doesn't have some emotional investment in us now

Posted

And that's a bad thing because? There are decisions fans wouldn't take that have to be taken for long term success (for instance selling a fans favourite who's clearly on the decline), likewise decisions fans would make that shouldn't be (e.g. bringing back O'Neill) - not being a city fan from birth isn't a problem, and you'd be mad to think he doesn't have some emotional investment in us now

So if he's less important than the fans, how about a front cover picture of city fans celebrating at Sunderland last season.

We wouldn't have sacked NP, both times?

We would call the stadium 'the foxes'? Not some duty free company.

Would we have gambled on Sven?

Would we allow fans to celebrate promotion on the pitch, even if its illegal.

Posted

So if he's less important than the fans, how about a front cover picture of city fans celebrating at Sunderland last season.

We wouldn't have sacked NP, both times?

We would call the stadium 'the foxes'? Not some duty free company.

Would we have gambled on Sven?

Would we allow fans to celebrate promotion on the pitch, even if its illegal.

Why does it actually matter who is on the cover?

Unlikely we'd have reinstated him after the first one, so you can easily turn that round and say we'd not still be in the division if the fans were in charge -and that's true, we'd still be hoofing around league one with the return of heskey and Hume

That's a god awful name for the stadium, but this ones always been corporately sponsored, so where's the laying into Tim Davies?

Who knows, quite possibly.

So you think it's the owners decision that people don't celebrate on the pitch rather than the likes of the police?

Guest MattP
Posted

Of course they are egotistical, you have to be to want to own a football club.

The programme thing was just weird really, I would have been 99% sure Ranieri would be on the front first game.

Posted

It didn't bother me who is on the cover, but I will say this - I don't think having the chairman on the cover will increase sales. We walked past the booth with my son and I asked if he wanted a programme. He took one look at it and said "no thanks"

I am 100% sure if Vardy or Casper was on the cover he'd have wanted one.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...