PL ownership survey -- Mail on Sunday

[TheSharpeEnd]

Hello, hello! 

I just wanted to let you all know that we're doing a big project on club ownership in the Premier League and as part of it are asking fans of all 20 clubs to complete a very short survey about how well they feel their club (and those of others) are run. It should only take a few minutes.

Here's the link if anyone has the time to spare: https://t.co/sFES3cXV46

From the responses we've got so far from fans of other clubs, as you can probably imagine, the City are doing pretty well!

Thanks all, much appreciated.

[urban.spaceman]

 

Who else put Tottenham?

[StanSP]

Done.

 

[PAULCFC]

Done

 

[Unabomber]

Reluctantly done (don’t like the mail) 

[davieG]

Done

[Nickaj]

Unusually for me, I've completed one to.

Must admit I found the last but one question particully challenging,several possibles coming to mind. 

[NewEnglandFox]

Frankly I find these things massively miss the point because I see it as a HOW the club is run question trying to be answered by WHO owns the club.

 

I bet the approval rating of Fenway Sports Group, Abu Dhabi, the Porn Peddlers, the Glazers, or even the Thai Duty Free Monopoly are going to end up being correlated with trophies and league position in the end.

 

The worst thing that can happen to a football club is not when the North London or Mancunian Accountants hit their projections, but when the Candy Crush Jewels run out.

 

At the end of the day every fan wants to see their club treated as the billionaire's new toy and should fear the day that passion dies. That is when the hobby turns into an asset. Fans never want to hear the word budget in context of their club, do they? It's all about the war chest.

 

The 2nd most popular owner to us is the guy who owns Brighton. Does it matter who he is, how he made his money, that he was a long time fan, or is it that he bought a third division club, turned them into a first division club, and seems to still have unfinished business? The others seem to only come up with fans are unhappy with the results.

 

 

 

 

 

[Free Falling Foxes]

3 hours ago, TheSharpeEnd said:

 

From the responses we've got so far from fans of other clubs, as you can probably imagine, the City are doing pretty well!

Thanks all, much appreciated.

Are we all missing something here? A national newspaper is referring to US as City!

 

Ahh, false alarm, I misread it.

Edited 21 January 2022 by Free Falling Foxes

[Freeman's Wharfer]

Many won’t want to hear it - there’s unbelievably good PR and narrative surrounding King Power’s ownership - but I’m starting to think they have taken the club as far as they can.

 

This narrative of doing it “the sustainable way” and competing with the big boys by somehow being smarter is just smokescreen for limited investment. The fact is the sustainability of football clubs is largely nothing to do with the owners and completely reliant on what happens with tv money.

 

Our owners get kudos for a training ground and stadium expansion as if 8 years in the Premier League with the tv money year on year, selling numerous players for crazy profit and money from a Champions League campaign has nothing to do with it. It’ll be largely paid for from money the club has generated than has been put in by King Power as some kind of benefactor.

 

I’m not disputing they’ve been great for the club and responsible custodians, but if you look at two second half of season collapses and what looks like another transfer window not spending (for the third year in a row) when we’re threadbare then it tells me that they’re not willing to spend when it’s required.
 

If the money they’ve put in versus what they’ve taken out, or accumulated in a saleable asset, since we’ve been back in the Premier League was shown in any granularity then I suspect that quite a number of us would be surprised.

[Riyad_Suarez]

3 hours ago, Unabomber said:

Reluctantly done (don’t like the mail) 

Ditto. Horrible rag.

[Vacamion]

2 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

Many won’t want to hear it - there’s unbelievably good PR and narrative surrounding King Power’s ownership - but I’m starting to think they have taken the club as far as they can.

 

This narrative of doing it “the sustainable way” and competing with the big boys by somehow being smarter is just smokescreen for limited investment. The fact is the sustainability of football clubs is largely nothing to do with the owners and completely reliant on what happens with tv money.

 

Our owners get kudos for a training ground and stadium expansion as if 8 years in the Premier League with the tv money year on year, selling numerous players for crazy profit and money from a Champions League campaign has nothing to do with it. It’ll be largely paid for from money the club has generated than has been put in by King Power as some kind of benefactor.

 

I’m not disputing they’ve been great for the club and responsible custodians, but if you look at two second half of season collapses and what looks like another transfer window not spending (for the third year in a row) when we’re threadbare then it tells me that they’re not willing to spend when it’s required.
 

If the money they’ve put in versus what they’ve taken out, or accumulated in a saleable asset, since we’ve been back in the Premier League was shown in any granularity then I suspect that quite a number of us would be surprised.

 

Blimey.

 

Compared to the Dr Evils running most of our competitors, I think we have every right to thank our lucky stars.

 

Our current ownership and club stewardship has presided over the best times in our history.

 

Is that a coincidence?

 

Maybe we should get Mandaric or Shipman back in...

[kingkisnorbo]

7 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

Many won’t want to hear it - there’s unbelievably good PR and narrative surrounding King Power’s ownership - but I’m starting to think they have taken the club as far as they can.

 

This narrative of doing it “the sustainable way” and competing with the big boys by somehow being smarter is just smokescreen for limited investment. The fact is the sustainability of football clubs is largely nothing to do with the owners and completely reliant on what happens with tv money.

 

Our owners get kudos for a training ground and stadium expansion as if 8 years in the Premier League with the tv money year on year, selling numerous players for crazy profit and money from a Champions League campaign has nothing to do with it. It’ll be largely paid for from money the club has generated than has been put in by King Power as some kind of benefactor.

 

I’m not disputing they’ve been great for the club and responsible custodians, but if you look at two second half of season collapses and what looks like another transfer window not spending (for the third year in a row) when we’re threadbare then it tells me that they’re not willing to spend when it’s required.
 

If the money they’ve put in versus what they’ve taken out, or accumulated in a saleable asset, since we’ve been back in the Premier League was shown in any granularity then I suspect that quite a number of us would be surprised.

Interesting to explore this a little more. How much do you think we are worth now wholesale? More than Newcastle? 

[jonthefox]

10 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

Many won’t want to hear it - there’s unbelievably good PR and narrative surrounding King Power’s ownership - but I’m starting to think they have taken the club as far as they can.

 

This narrative of doing it “the sustainable way” and competing with the big boys by somehow being smarter is just smokescreen for limited investment. The fact is the sustainability of football clubs is largely nothing to do with the owners and completely reliant on what happens with tv money.

 

Our owners get kudos for a training ground and stadium expansion as if 8 years in the Premier League with the tv money year on year, selling numerous players for crazy profit and money from a Champions League campaign has nothing to do with it. It’ll be largely paid for from money the club has generated than has been put in by King Power as some kind of benefactor.

 

I’m not disputing they’ve been great for the club and responsible custodians, but if you look at two second half of season collapses and what looks like another transfer window not spending (for the third year in a row) when we’re threadbare then it tells me that they’re not willing to spend when it’s required.
 

If the money they’ve put in versus what they’ve taken out, or accumulated in a saleable asset, since we’ve been back in the Premier League was shown in any granularity then I suspect that quite a number of us would be surprised.

Try telling Derby fans that.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

7 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

Blimey.

 

Compared to the Dr Evils running most of our competitors, I think we have every right to thank our lucky stars.

 

Our current ownership and club stewardship has presided over the best times in our history.

 

Is that a coincidence?

 

Maybe we should get Mandaric or Shipman back in...

 

2 minutes ago, jonthefox said:

Try telling Derby fans that.

Sorry, but why would the owners of Spurs, Liverpool or Chelsea be considered Dr Evils compared to King Power?

 

If you think they’ve made their money in a fair and pure way, I guarantee they probably haven’t. If you think they wouldn’t have been in on the Super League if given the opportunity, I guarantee they probably would. 
 

And why would we “thank our lucky stars” that they’re running the club in an unscrupulous manner? That’s simply to be expected. It actually happens at Brighton, Brentford, Southampton, Aston Villa or any number of other clubs. It should be the norm so looking at clubs who have had bad ownership and saying “at least we’re not them” is a bit like saying we shouldn’t buy a new car as John up the road had a crash in one of them once.
 

You can be pleased about the past whilst feeling there’s more there for the future. What King Power’s ownership has done is given us an opportunity, a springboard. But if you want to let that pass because we had some poor owners in the past or because Leicester used to be a yo-yo club then guess what Leicester will return to being…?

 

This is not me saying they’re bad owners or that we need to protest or hound them out, just that we might have reached the end of the road. That shouldn’t be a statement that causes shock or outrage. Just think what a little investment on top would do for us right now.

 

Feels like some cannot imagine a future without King Power. Like the club and the brand are one. It’s a bit sad really.

[sacreblueits442]

53 minutes ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

Are we all missing something here? A national newspaper is referring to US as City!

 

Ahh, false alarm, I misread it.

...i did read that part over and over again and came to the solution that he is referring to our club!!!

Seems strange that they would taint their own survey by stipulating the most popular club. Such an action would influence many who are undecided or could not be bothered to answer in an earnest way.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

17 minutes ago, jonthefox said:

Try telling Derby fans that.

Derby fans, of course, famously not being in a league where there is huge tv money and where the actions and stewardship of the owners is directly responsible for the financial performance of the club very often….

 

Not sure what your point is apart from one club was badly managed so no club not currently badly managed shouldn’t ever change ownership.

[Vacamion]

24 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

 

Sorry, but why would the owners of Spurs, Liverpool or Chelsea be considered Dr Evils compared to King Power?

 

You actually went on to mention the Super League but didn't make the connection.

 

You are seriously saying our owners are worse than Newcastle's, Man City's, Chelsea's, the Yanks at Arsenal and Liverpool?

 

 

By all means make your suggestion  against the owners, but our club has enjoyed its *best ever* period under this ownership and the league win, then the helicopter tragedy, then the FA Cup win revealed a connection between the club and the owners which seems to me to be unique at this level.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

 

 If you think they wouldn’t have been in on the Super League if given the opportunity, I guarantee they probably would. 

 

 

You can *guarantee* something which, besides being hypothetical, seems to be pure supposition and speculation on your part? Not sure I like your odds.

 

Which club stood firm against the big six when had Premier League was voting on PPV?  

 

You seem to be making assumptions out of nowhere which go against the club's prior actions.

 

Your posts suggest some kind of agenda against our owners.  I would think that such a negative view of the club ownership is shared by a miniscule percentage of the fan base, but, by all means, you do you.  

 

 

Edited 21 January 2022 by Vacamion

[Freeman's Wharfer]

3 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

You actually went on to mention the Super League but didn't make the connection.

 

You are seriously saying our owners are worse than Newcastle's, Man City's, Chelsea's, the Yanks at Arsenal and Liverpool?

 

 

By all means make your suggestion  against the owners, but our club has enjoyed its *best ever* period under this ownership and the league win, then the helicopter tragedy, then the FA Cup win revealed a connection between the club and the owners which seems to me to be unique at this level.

 

 

 

You can *guarantee* something which, besides being hypothetical, seems to be pure supposition and speculation on your part? Not sure I like your odds.

 

Which club stood firm against the big six when had Premier League was voting on PPV?  

 

You seem to be making assumptions out of nowhere which go against the club's prior actions.

 

Your posts suggest some kind of agenda against our owners.  I would think that such a negative view of the club ownership is shared by a miniscule percentage of the fan base, but, by all means, you do you.  

 

 

No, I’m saying they’re not necessarily better. It’s not that hard.

 

Why would I have an agenda? That’s just laughable. I’m crediting everything they’ve done to get us here, just saying it might be as far as they can take us…

 

For what it’s worth, that’s not a negative view. But if you’re King Power until you die, then, in your words, you do you!

 

 

 

 

[MattFox]

1 hour ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

Many won’t want to hear it - there’s unbelievably good PR and narrative surrounding King Power’s ownership - but I’m starting to think they have taken the club as far as they can.

 

This narrative of doing it “the sustainable way” and competing with the big boys by somehow being smarter is just smokescreen for limited investment. The fact is the sustainability of football clubs is largely nothing to do with the owners and completely reliant on what happens with tv money.

 

Our owners get kudos for a training ground and stadium expansion as if 8 years in the Premier League with the tv money year on year, selling numerous players for crazy profit and money from a Champions League campaign has nothing to do with it. It’ll be largely paid for from money the club has generated than has been put in by King Power as some kind of benefactor.

 

I’m not disputing they’ve been great for the club and responsible custodians, but if you look at two second half of season collapses and what looks like another transfer window not spending (for the third year in a row) when we’re threadbare then it tells me that they’re not willing to spend when it’s required.
 

If the money they’ve put in versus what they’ve taken out, or accumulated in a saleable asset, since we’ve been back in the Premier League was shown in any granularity then I suspect that quite a number of us would be surprised.

Interesting argument 

 

Worth noting that King Power didn’t put any money into the club between 2014 and 2020.

 

The stadium being owned independently by King Power not by the club is also something that deserves more scrutiny.

 

 

[SemperEadem]

10 minutes ago, MattFox said:

Interesting argument 

 

Worth noting that King Power didn’t put any money into the club between 2014 and 2020.

 

The stadium being owned independently by King Power not by the club is also something that deserves more scrutiny.

 

 

That there does feel worrying. 

[KingsX]

11 minutes ago, MattFox said:

Interesting argument 

 

Worth noting that King Power didn’t put any money into the club between 2014 and 2020.

 

1 hour ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

Many won’t want to hear it - there’s unbelievably good PR and narrative surrounding King Power’s ownership - but I’m starting to think they have taken the club as far as they can.

 

This narrative of doing it “the sustainable way” and competing with the big boys by somehow being smarter is just smokescreen for limited investment. The fact is the sustainability of football clubs is largely nothing to do with the owners and completely reliant on what happens with tv money.

 

Our owners get kudos for a training ground and stadium expansion as if 8 years in the Premier League with the tv money year on year, selling numerous players for crazy profit and money from a Champions League campaign has nothing to do with it. It’ll be largely paid for from money the club has generated than has been put in by King Power as some kind of benefactor.

 

I’m not disputing they’ve been great for the club and responsible custodians, but if you look at two second half of season collapses and what looks like another transfer window not spending (for the third year in a row) when we’re threadbare then it tells me that they’re not willing to spend when it’s required.
 

If the money they’ve put in versus what they’ve taken out, or accumulated in a saleable asset, since we’ve been back in the Premier League was shown in any granularity then I suspect that quite a number of us would be surprised.

 

Not sure these posts are even worth the effort to rebut, but it's so easy, why not.  One glance at this graph is all it takes.  If that doesn't do it, bug off and support an oil state club or Chelsea.

 

 

[Freeman's Wharfer]

25 minutes ago, KingsX said:

 

 

Not sure these posts are even worth the effort to rebut, but it's so easy, why not.  One glance at this graph is all it takes.  If that doesn't do it, bug off and support an oil state club or Chelsea.

 

 

I’m sorry but if you find them so easy to rebut then why do you find it so hard to analyse what you’ve just shared?

 

Firstly, the figures shown include owner LOANS. There is no question King Power have LOANED the club money, but unless that LOAN is written off and/or zero interest then it’s not investment. Are the bank just giving money to you with your mortgage?!

 

Secondly, these stats are since 2010. King Power bought LCFC for about £39m so even if they had invested £325m, and supposedly written it off, then that would be a total outlay of around £364m. Newcastle have just been sold for £305m, what do you reckon we’d go for with more valuable player assets and a significantly better training ground?

 

I’d wager to say they’d get their money back. But, of course, we’re not talking about a scenario where they have written off that £325m anyway. they’re clawing that money back from the club over time. So they’ll make a very very handsome profit the day they do sell.
 

I’ll not even mention the 7+ years of international marketing for their brand or the doors to the elite and powerful they’ve been able to use the football club as a vehicle for either.

Edited 21 January 2022 by Freeman's Wharfer

[BenTheFox]

1 hour ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

Many won’t want to hear it - there’s unbelievably good PR and narrative surrounding King Power’s ownership - but I’m starting to think they have taken the club as far as they can.

 

This narrative of doing it “the sustainable way” and competing with the big boys by somehow being smarter is just smokescreen for limited investment. The fact is the sustainability of football clubs is largely nothing to do with the owners and completely reliant on what happens with tv money.

 

Our owners get kudos for a training ground and stadium expansion as if 8 years in the Premier League with the tv money year on year, selling numerous players for crazy profit and money from a Champions League campaign has nothing to do with it. It’ll be largely paid for from money the club has generated than has been put in by King Power as some kind of benefactor.

 

I’m not disputing they’ve been great for the club and responsible custodians, but if you look at two second half of season collapses and what looks like another transfer window not spending (for the third year in a row) when we’re threadbare then it tells me that they’re not willing to spend when it’s required.
 

If the money they’ve put in versus what they’ve taken out, or accumulated in a saleable asset, since we’ve been back in the Premier League was shown in any granularity then I suspect that quite a number of us would be surprised.

I feel as though people have massively overreacted to this. You're not even really criticising the owners of the club either. It's not neccessarily a bad thing that they are not spaffing loads of their own money on big transfers, because that can bring its own issues. 

 

People talk of the new training ground and the stadium expansion as though they are part of a long-term strategy for us to compete at the top of the table and that is is being done out of the goodness of their hearts. They may help, but I believe first and foremost that these decisions have been made to make the club more valuable for them to ultimately sell it when the time is right. I am not saying that this is an issue because they are going to leave behind a far better football club than they picked up, but you are very naive if you think that very wealthy business people from Thailand would buy Leicester City just as a passion project, they obviously want to see financial gain.

 

Disappointing but not surprising that people have gotten very defensive and have suggested that you are ungrateful and that you should support a club who have the worst owners imaginable. It's frankly very immature of them. 

[MattFox]

28 minutes ago, KingsX said:

 

 

Not sure these posts are even worth the effort to rebut, but it's so easy, why not.  One glance at this graph is all it takes.  If that doesn't do it, bug off and support an oil state club or Chelsea.

 

 

I’m not anti the owners by any stretch of the imagination.

 

But I think scrutiny and debate is good as well as essential