King Power - Good or bad or both?

[ajthefox]

It's all fairly unsettling and I think @MattP summed up my feelings pretty well.

 

I don't agree with the apathy about owners doing bad things (there's a bit of a difference between your average joe getting a few hundred quid in an envelope every so often and not telling her majesty and some billionaires avoiding tax by relocating accounts off shore) but my quandry lies in the action that comes from this.

 

I am against giving the club money for the sake of it and buying all of the shit they peddle, but what else can we do? Protest? Boycott the club? 

If there were a significant group of fans doing it (e.g. Bayern fans at Arsenal) I would be up for it but unfortunately I think there is too much apathy. Football hasn't been about fans for a while now.

 

 

[Arriba Los Zorros]

Good. Sorry but I don't care about company accounts and/or if they fiddle tax all that matters to me is that since they came we've gone from being an underachieving Coventry City /Forest mark 2 type of club to an established PL team. As fans thats all we dhould be looking at.

[Guest ttfn]

More than anything King Power have shown how little thinking the majority are prepared to do for themselves and how much deference we grant those with acquired authority.

 

The minute's applause for the King of Thailand was (to my mind) grossly misjudged and yet it seemed that virtually everybody joined in. Similarly, the "Happy birthday Mr Chairman" business I find slightly tough to stomach (especially last season when the more pressing issue on the day was that birch was in hospital) and there's been at least one more occasion (which escapes me now) when the stadium had resembled more a re-assembling of the Politburo than a crowd gearing up for a football match.

 

But it would be churlish to suggest they've been anything other than a hugely positive influence on the football side of the club. Presumably this is why people are happy to go along with all of the other stuff.

[purpleronnie]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

 You can be ethical and successful.

Pfft what's happened to you Mattp?

 

[rn9013]

First things first, I do accept that we probably have one of the best owners in the country, no question about that-however in all honestly it's not the best pool of people to choose from is it. 

 

One thing I have always felt is that these owners have not done what they've done for the love of the city or club-make no mistake they have used the club as much as we have used their cash. Even in the Championship when the club (thus the owners) was losing money, I'm sure they looked at it as relatively cheap advertising. 

 

I think things such as sticking the owners face on our first Champions League matchday programme reinforced my beliefs that the owners are here for a reason-it's not out of the goodness of their heart. As members of our club, we have a duty to hold every aspect of the club to account, and that includes the owners, so I hate it when I hear people criticise others for in someway criticising the owners. 

[Bayfox]

24 minutes ago, Arriba Los Zorros said:

Good. Sorry but I don't care about company accounts and/or if they fiddle tax all that matters to me is that since they came we've gone from being an underachieving Coventry City /Forest mark 2 type of club to an established PL team. As fans thats all we dhould be looking at.

Was the 1 title win, worth the future of the club tho, if they get hit with fines, or be found to have been avoiding tax here as well as an example, we go back to being a Cov, possibly in the same sodding division if we go bust etc.

 

I'm not saying, they have or will etc, and nowdays football clubs are meant to be run within income generated, but as the debate about the top 6 wanting more cash shows, it helps if you have a billionaire backer to fall back on.

 

We got lucky with these guys to a point, we haven't ended up like a Villa, Sunderland where the owners get bored when they realise it's not the NFL, or a Leeds or Fword who had clueless morons running them, but never say never, the owners have probably got a 50/50 record so far on managers, Sousa and Sven disasters, getting Pearson back after listening to the right people, was a result, they got Lucky with Claudio, and the jury is still out on shakey.

 

Scarves, donuts, bacon cobs, cakes etc don't mask that for me, but it seems like the national press think claudio should have had a job for life, the owners get a free hit with the majority of our fans, and maybe correctly, but i think we should always be slightly concerned, little things can soon turn into bigger problems.

[Livid]

They have thrown some serious money at the club and anyone who remembers the boards we had in the 70's, 80's and earlier should be grateful for that.

 

I'm not quite sure they are totally at one with our fan base. On one hand we have the freebies, the interest free DD ST instalments, and decent cup ticket prices but then we get niggling little things like the changing the kit (I've always liked us in blue and white, can live with the all blue but the gold is creeping in), dropping the 10% ST Discount (Claiming consultation with supporters....anyone?), the £10 reward which they tell you is useable online and it's not, the shop and ticket office in general.

 

I don't know what they're like to work for but it feels as everything to do with the squad, training facilities, pitches, hospitality etc is first class, any area that has to actually deal with the support on a day to day basis (@lcfchelp exempt) leaves a bit  to be desired. 

 

 

[Lionator]

If it wasn't them it'd probably be someone else equally as patchy. I'm pretty sure that there isn't a squeaky clean owner in the Premier League.

[Fox92]

1 hour ago, rn9013 said:

First things first, I do accept that we probably have one of the best owners in the country, no question about that-however in all honestly it's not the best pool of people to choose from is it. 

 

One thing I have always felt is that these owners have not done what they've done for the love of the city or club-make no mistake they have used the club as much as we have used their cash. Even in the Championship when the club (thus the owners) was losing money, I'm sure they looked at it as relatively cheap advertising. 

 

I think things such as sticking the owners face on our first Champions League matchday programme reinforced my beliefs that the owners are here for a reason-it's not out of the goodness of their heart. As members of our club, we have a duty to hold every aspect of the club to account, and that includes the owners, so I hate it when I hear people criticise others for in someway criticising the owners. 

Why do we? Gibson is brilliant at Middlesbrough as is Hoyle at Huddersfield.

 

King Power did not 'save the club' which I see a lot of people bang on about. I thank them for investment but I do not like the amount of advertising - not only do we have their logo on our shirt and stadium, we also have it around the stadium. There's nothing inside the ground that signifies the history of the club.

[rn9013]

2 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Why do we? Gibson is brilliant at Middlesbrough as is Hoyle at Huddersfield.

 

King Power did not 'save the club' which I see a lot of people bang on about. I thank them for investment but I do not like the amount of advertising - not only do we have their logo on our shirt and stadium, we also have it around the stadium. There's nothing inside the ground that signifies the history of the club.

That's why I used the term 'one of the best'. I'm not saying they're top of the list, but they're certainly good owners when you compare them to many of the ones around. 

 

I agree with you regards to the amount of advertising, hence my reference to 'cheap advertising'. 

[Fox92]

6 minutes ago, rn9013 said:

That's why I used the term 'one of the best'. I'm not saying they're top of the list, but they're certainly good owners when you compare them to many of the ones around. 

 

I agree with you regards to the amount of advertising, hence my reference to 'cheap advertising'. 

Apologies I mis-read, thought you said "best".

[shen]

1 hour ago, Arriba Los Zorros said:

Good. Sorry but I don't care about company accounts and/or if they fiddle tax all that matters to me is that since they came we've gone from being an underachieving Coventry City /Forest mark 2 type of club to an established PL team. As fans thats all we dhould be looking at.

How do you not care if they fiddle tax? Unless you are one that evades tax yourself, wouldn't you be somewhat miffed if KP aren't paying and contributing to the welfare of the society that LCFC resides in and benefits from? Why should these be exempt when others aren't?

 

33 minutes ago, Lionator said:

If it wasn't them it'd probably be someone else equally as patchy. I'm pretty sure that there isn't a squeaky clean owner in the Premier League.

You're probably right. Does it make it OK though? I'm not saying everyone has to be squeaky clean either, that would be too naïve. But surely that's why we have laws and rules in place, to at least keep this to a minimum and preserve the integrity of society. And when you see the allegations aimed toward KP, they're not small matters either.

[Lambert09]

Unfortunately there is a common theme of corruption in Thailand. There's not a successful company in the country who hasn't dabbled in it. 

 

In terms of their personal ethics, I honestly think they are just doing what everyone else does in the country. It would be unfair to judge them because we come from a more strict legislative country. If we had rules that could be bent it would be exactly the same with all of our big corporations.  

 

It's hard to understand but this is a country where you can buy your way our of far worse crimes than they commit. It's a business 101 out there. 

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, ajthefox said:

 

I don't agree with the apathy about owners doing bad things (there's a bit of a difference between your average joe getting a few hundred quid in an envelope every so often and not telling her majesty and some billionaires avoiding tax by relocating accounts off shore) but my quandry lies in the action that comes from this.

Do you apply the same standards to everything else you consume? Amazon, Boots, Take That, Jimmy Carr, Sky, whatever company you work for?

 

I see it as a professional foul, if you can prevent a goal by wiping someone out on the half way line and take the red card you do it for the good of the team. It's immoral and unethical but it is a part of the game. We want what's best for ourselves and what's best for the club and we want to win. A bit of financial jiggery pokery to allow us to compete at the highest level as long as it remains legal is par for the course. Is it ethical or moral? No. Is it legal? As far as I know, yes and all clubs are doing it so it is just a level playing field. 

 

If if there is any proof they've been involved in anything more sinister then I'll listen, but taking measures to reduce tax bill is par for the course for all companies.

[HighPeakFox]

Good thread, and an awful lot of reasoned thinking I can agree or sympathise with. 

[shen]

4 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

Unfortunately there is a common theme of corruption in Thailand. There's not a successful company in the country who hasn't dabbled in it. 

 

In terms of their personal ethics, I honestly think they are just doing what everyone else does in the country. It would be unfair to judge them because we come from a more strict legislative country. If we had rules that could be bent it would be exactly the same with all of our big corporations.  

 

It's hard to understand but this is a country where you can buy your way our of far worse crimes than they commit. It's a business 101 out there. 

I realise the thread theme is very broad and can go down several tangents, but one of my main motivations for starting this is: Have we as fans and people of this society become so apathetic as to just overlook criminal/unethical actions when it doesn't suit us? Just because "everyone else does it", is it OK for our owners to act this way? As fans of LCFC we can influence how the club we support acts and it's surely our moral obligation to do so. How else will things change?

[SpacedX]

4 hours ago, shen said:

Feel free to merge this thread if needed. I couldn't find a thread which focuses on a critical ethical discussion of the club's owners.

@MattP made a comment in the PL £1 bn cash TV row thread which emphasised the feeling I keep experiencing when King Power get brought up.

 

Most of us will be well aware that King Power haven't been picture perfect before or since they've been involved with Leicester City.

Yet it feels like they are a big white elephant on this forum, which no-one is willing to address.

 

They have obviously had a massive hand in the club's recent successes, mainly by virtue of the massive cash influx, which no doubt is the main reason for our fans to turn a blind eye towards any news/info that doesn't suit us.

How often have we not seen the "The owners have been great for us"-comment on here?

Their many charitable gestures do a lot for their public image in Leicester and England in general.

 

But are King Power and the Srivaddhanaprabhas really that good for us? If they are contributing to the PL elitism, are they any better than owners of other clubs we generally perceive as bad?

The off-shore holding companies to avoid paying taxes, the circumvention/breach of fair play rules (which the Football League to my knowledge are still investigating), the connections to shady powerful figures in their homeland and much more.

Maybe all these allegations and suspicions are not true, but there is no smoke without a fire it is said.

As fans and members of the club, it has to be our responsibility to scrutinise the owners and make sure they live up to a certain ethical and moral code.

 

I for one am quite skeptical of them, and growing increasingly so. If I take off the blue-tinted specs, I see them as another contributor to the collective undermining of football as the sport and community we have learned to love.

 

Although I completely empathise with your sentiments and to a certain extent, your misgivings, nonetheless, I couldn't help but wonder how a Cov City fan would react to reading this.

[davieG]

19 minutes ago, shen said:

I realise the thread theme is very broad and can go down several tangents, but one of my main motivations for starting this is: Have we as fans and people of this society become so apathetic as to just overlook criminal/unethical actions when it doesn't suit us? Just because "everyone else does it", is it OK for our owners to act this way? As fans of LCFC we can influence how the club we support acts and it's surely our moral obligation to do so. How else will things change?

Sadly fan's can't even act together for their own benefit so you'll need to wait a long time to see them do anything to influence how ethical a club is. 

 

Eg the recent Sheffield derby Championship game had match tickets priced at £37-£42  and it was a sell out. 

Kop/West Lower	Members	Non Members
Adult	£37	£42
Senior/Under 21	£27	£32
Student & Armed Forces	£32	£42
Junior under 17	£10	£15
Junior under 11	£5	£10
Junior under 5 (advance sale only)	£5	£5

 

[murphy]

4 hours ago, shen said:

Feel free to merge this thread if needed. I couldn't find a thread which focuses on a critical ethical discussion of the club's owners.

@MattP made a comment in the PL £1 bn cash TV row thread which emphasised the feeling I keep experiencing when King Power get brought up.

 

Most of us will be well aware that King Power haven't been picture perfect before or since they've been involved with Leicester City.

Yet it feels like they are a big white elephant on this forum, which no-one is willing to address.

 

They have obviously had a massive hand in the club's recent successes, mainly by virtue of the massive cash influx, which no doubt is the main reason for our fans to turn a blind eye towards any news/info that doesn't suit us.

How often have we not seen the "The owners have been great for us"-comment on here?

Their many charitable gestures do a lot for their public image in Leicester and England in general.

 

But are King Power and the Srivaddhanaprabhas really that good for us? If they are contributing to the PL elitism, are they any better than owners of other clubs we generally perceive as bad?

The off-shore holding companies to avoid paying taxes, the circumvention/breach of fair play rules (which the Football League to my knowledge are still investigating), the connections to shady powerful figures in their homeland and much more.

Maybe all these allegations and suspicions are not true, but there is no smoke without a fire it is said.

As fans and members of the club, it has to be our responsibility to scrutinise the owners and make sure they live up to a certain ethical and moral code.

 

I for one am quite skeptical of them, and growing increasingly so. If I take off the blue-tinted specs, I see them as another contributor to the collective undermining of football as the sport and community we have learned to love.

 

Oh stop moaning! 

[KingsX]

On the one hand, a very intelligent and open-minded OP and discussion, especially by "sports forum" standards.

 

On the other, a bunch of addicts discussing whether the heroin trade is good or bad.

[Lambert09]

56 minutes ago, shen said:

I realise the thread theme is very broad and can go down several tangents, but one of my main motivations for starting this is: Have we as fans and people of this society become so apathetic as to just overlook criminal/unethical actions when it doesn't suit us? Just because "everyone else does it", is it OK for our owners to act this way? As fans of LCFC we can influence how the club we support acts and it's surely our moral obligation to do so. How else will things change?

But to me that is overlooking the point. The club has acted ethically, we do pay our taxes and follow the rules... sometimes 14 seconds late but we do try. Its not the club side of things that is unethical its the owners personal business. But my point was that in an environment where everyone is brought up this way they really are just following the path everyone has to in order to be successful. Im not justifying it, but I wouldnt be so quick to say that they are bad people.

 

Its a hell of a lot better than the oil billionaires responsible for the deaths of people, these guys are just bending some rules for financial gain. 

[Dan]

My honest opinion? I think they've made some sensible moves, but have had some unbelievable luck too.

[GaelicFox]

They are serously lucky people 

 

but that luck will run out one day 

 

I’m with @MattP many questions are being revealed and the answers don’t seem to paint a very nice picture 

[Corky]

Good- Prepared to back their managers with money, have been willing to give them time as well. Don't appear to meddle in team selection/ affairs and are actually visible- we know who they are which is more than can be said for some owners of clubs. Have helped deliver titles and Champions League football through their appointments (however lucky or fortunate, they were appointed and given the chance).

 

Bad- The stadium is almost totally King Power branding, the ticket prices still too high, the club-sactioned brithday wishes for the owner, the minute's applause last October for the King of Thailand, the sacking of Ranieri and his handling (although I believed the decision was correct).

 

As ever, their legacy will be the comparison with who follows them. They've been streets ahead of Mandaric in virtually all areas but hopefully the next set will be an improvement still.

[Vardinio'sCat]

2 hours ago, shen said:

I realise the thread theme is very broad and can go down several tangents, but one of my main motivations for starting this is: Have we as fans and people of this society become so apathetic as to just overlook criminal/unethical actions when it doesn't suit us? Just because "everyone else does it", is it OK for our owners to act this way? As fans of LCFC we can influence how the club we support acts and it's surely our moral obligation to do so. How else will things change?

 

My point is that we do this every day, so it is harsh to hold our owners to a higher standard than we do, in other aspects of our life. Being an ethical consumer is the equivalent of a nightmarish task, given how reluctant folks are to advertise their 'tax efficiency'.

 

I think the national/international tax systems are an absolute disgrace, and it is very hard for an ethical (in tax terms) company to compete with other companies who work very hard to minimise their contributions, a point made recently by one of the top bods at John Lewis.

 

Doing the right thing makes it almost impossible to compete with your Amazons of this world, sadly.