Foreign ownership of Premier League clubs.

[SkidsFox]

It's brought a lot of investment into the game, and many clubs (not least ours) have benefitted from foreign ownership.

But, is it all going to come apart now?

[SemperEadem]

Put on my hard hat but I do hope so you know. Fan ownership is the way forward, protect clubs as community assets. 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, SemperEadem said:

Put on my hard hat but I do hope so you know. Fan ownership is the way forward, protect clubs as community assets. 

Totally agree, I very much doubt it will happen mind.

[SkidsFox]

32 minutes ago, SemperEadem said:

Put on my hard hat but I do hope so you know. Fan ownership is the way forward, protect clubs as community assets. 

I can't see it happening with the current government, as they are too comfortable with sleazy money donations. And unfortunately I suspect the replacement lot will not make it a priority either.

[Jimothy]

The problem isn't so much foreign owners it's the lack of proper checks to see if they aren't dodgy. The fact the like of Ambramovich or the Saudis at Newcastle, have managed to slip through and buy clubs shows the checks aren't up to scratch. But then there are plenty of British owners who screw over clubs, Steve Dale at Bury for example, Mel Morris at Derby. Its not where they are from that's the problem, it's who we allow through the vetting process.

[Smashing-Pumpkin]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

The problem isn't so much foreign owners it's the lack of proper checks to see if they aren't dodgy. The fact the like of Ambramovich or the Saudis at Newcastle, have managed to slip through and buy clubs shows the checks aren't up to scratch. But then there are plenty of British owners who screw over clubs, Steve Dale at Bury for example, Mel Morris at Derby. Its not where they are from that's the problem, it's who we allow through the vetting process.

Even if they arent "dodgy", its not illegal to run a business badly.

 

 

[Smashing-Pumpkin]

1 hour ago, SemperEadem said:

Put on my hard hat but I do hope so you know. Fan ownership is the way forward, protect clubs as community assets. 

Fan ownership would just make the game more predictable, no?

 

How can a team come through the divisons or get better within its division in the long term, if its not allowed to pump money in through someone?

 

The owners at Newcastle are the only chance theyve got of being any good, ever.

[BenTheFox]

Generally speaking I think the 50+1 rule in Germany is great. However, the downside is that it means that Bayern will probably continue to dominate forever. If that was to be introduced in England I can't help but think that only Man United or Liverpool would ever win the league. 

[Fox92]

35 minutes ago, Smashing-Pumpkin said:

Fan ownership would just make the game more predictable, no?

 

How can a team come through the divisons or get better within its division in the long term, if its not allowed to pump money in through someone?

 

The owners at Newcastle are the only chance theyve got of being any good, ever.

On the other hand, it'd be a level playing field.

 

Nowadays it's usually only the same clubs with money that win the league. A bit boring tbh. I'm not impressed Man City win the league every season when they have the option to spend £100m on a player.

 

A level playing field where all clubs have a chance of challenging for the league title would be great. Like when teams used to get promoted and challenge.

Edited 10 March 2022 by Fox92

[Smashing-Pumpkin]

Just now, Fox92 said:

On the other hand, it'd be a level playing field.

 

Nowadays it's usually only the same clubs with money that win the league. A bit boring tbh. I'm not impressed Man City win the league every season when they have the option to spend £100m on a player.

But under 50+1, it would solidify the position of the big teams within that league, no?

 

Im not sure how a club could expect to attract investment, if the investors dont have the control over how their money is used?

[Guest kristianity77]

Massively far fetched I know and never gonna happen but I'd like to see players not owned by clubs, but by the Premier league.  And then at the beginning of every season each team has a raffle so to speak on players.  That way the season is open completely. 

 

Let's say the tv money (it's surely close to a billion a season) pays all the players wages, and the clubs keep the money from gate receipts.

 

Kind of like a real life fantasy football where teams bid on real players each season. 

[BenTheFox]

37 minutes ago, Smashing-Pumpkin said:

But under 50+1, it would solidify the position of the big teams within that league, no?

 

Im not sure how a club could expect to attract investment, if the investors dont have the control over how their money is used?

It's a tough one. In Germany Bayern obviously dominate and Dortmund finish second pretty much every season. Aside from that the rest of the league is very competitive. As I've said, if it were to be enforced here I believe that only Man United or Liverpool would win the league, as they are the two clubs that have far and away the biggest brands and global support. Aside from that, we would have a genuine say in how Leicester City is run and we would be able to to put measures in place that would ensure its long-term future and preserve its identity. Positives and negatives. 

Edited 10 March 2022 by BenTheFox

[KingsX]

2 hours ago, Facecloth said:

The problem isn't so much foreign owners it's the lack of proper checks to see if they aren't dodgy. The fact the like of Ambramovich or the Saudis at Newcastle, have managed to slip through and buy clubs shows the checks aren't up to scratch. But then there are plenty of British owners who screw over clubs, Steve Dale at Bury for example, Mel Morris at Derby. Its not where they are from that's the problem, it's who we allow through the vetting process.

 

This!

 

Fan ownership has worked well for the Green Bay Packers -- in the NFL's level-playing-field franchise system.

 

But it has ruined Barcelona.  The socios voted for every dribbling idiot who promised them they could keep their cake (a solvent club) and eat it too (Galacticos).  Candidates who ran on realistic platforms were roundly rejected.

 

Anybody who thinks football fans are smarter than the average Joe Citizen has never wandered onto a footy forum.

[The Horse's Mouth]

1 hour ago, kristianity77 said:

Massively far fetched I know and never gonna happen but I'd like to see players not owned by clubs, but by the Premier league.  And then at the beginning of every season each team has a raffle so to speak on players.  That way the season is open completely. 

 

Let's say the tv money (it's surely close to a billion a season) pays all the players wages, and the clubs keep the money from gate receipts.

 

Kind of like a real life fantasy football where teams bid on real players each season. 

That idea is absolutely disgusting 

[filbertway]

1 hour ago, Fox92 said:

On the other hand, it'd be a level playing field.

 

Nowadays it's usually only the same clubs with money that win the league. A bit boring tbh. I'm not impressed Man City win the league every season when they have the option to spend £100m on a player.

 

A level playing field where all clubs have a chance of challenging for the league title would be great. Like when teams used to get promoted and challenge.

It'd just mean Liverpool and Man U are at the top as they'll make the most money from sponsorship deals.

[Smashing-Pumpkin]

If there hadnt been a European war between Russia and Ukraine, i doubt we would seriously be talking about this topic.

 

Of course sanctions need to be brought against Abramovic but other than that, I dont see what else people want.

 

You can put all the fit and proper person tests in place that you want, you can still run a business badly.

 

If Derby had have gone up under Lampard, would Mel Morris be considered to be running his business badly? who knows

 

Was Mike Ashley running his business badly, by doing the exact opposite of Mel Morris and being very fiscally conservative? most people would say without doubt.

 

So theres no answer to this whatsoever.

[Sampson]

Doesn't matter about their nationality or which country made their money, it's just how easy it is for people with ties to brutal regimes can own an English football club that needs sorting.

We've seen with Mike Ashley that local owners can be just as bad as any foreign owners.

I've never been convinced with the German 50+1 model. Feel like it would lead to the same thing here where only 1 team can realistically win the league.

[Jimothy]

A lot of the problems with owners, especially lower down the leagues is how the asset strip a club or get their money back out when they leave. That's what kills clubs like Bury, Macclesfield and Derby. For all his faults at least Abramovich doesn't want his invested money back. Investors should be allowed to pump money into clubs as they wish, but there needs to be safe guards on how that investment is recuperated by the investors. FFP just let's the clubs already at the top stay there, and as we've seen ourselves even if you break that glass ceiling briefly on sporting merit, it's very difficult to keep up financially, so we need a way that allows investors to grow a club without it being linked to revenue, but also safeguarding clubs from then going under should that investor pull the plug. There should be nothing stopping a club like Accrington Stanley getting to the top if someone wants to plough billions in, build new facilities and buy the best players for their level until they are the best, at the minute that's almost impossible.

Edited 10 March 2022 by Facecloth

[Smashing-Pumpkin]

2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

A lot of the problems with owners, especially lower down the leagues is how the asset strip a club or get their money back out when they leave. That's what kills clubs like Bury, Macclesfield and Derby. For all his faults at least Abramovich doesn't want his invested money back. Investors should be allowed to pump money into clubs as they wish, but there needs to be safe guards on how that investment is recuperated by the investors. FFP just let's the clubs already at the top stay there, and as we've seen ourselves even if you break that glass ceiling briefly on sporting merit, it's very difficult to keep up financially, so we need a way that allows investors to grow a club without it being linked to revenue, but also safeguarding clubs from then going under should that investor pull the plug. There should be nothing stopping a club like Accrington Stanley getting to the top if someone wants to plough billions in, build new facilities and buy the beat players for their level until they are the best, at the minute that's almost impossible.

Very nice post, agreed

[David Hankey]

5 hours ago, SemperEadem said:

Put on my hard hat but I do hope so you know. Fan ownership is the way forward, protect clubs as community assets. 

What bollocks!! Do you really want Soulsby to get his grubby hands on the Club?

[David Hankey]

As I've said before on numerous occasions before if Clubs had owners like ours the game wouldn't be in the mess it's in.

[The Horse's Mouth]

I think my only issue is with foreign ownership is these assets are either bought to turn profits or to sportswash. And I feel these reasons shouldn't be what a football club is about, even if we personally have highly benefitted from it as well and the city itself. In my ideal world everyone would just have a jack walker in charge 

[oxford blue]

Foreign ownership in itself is not a problem. I cannot believe anyone would suggest the current owners have been nothing but hugely beneficial, both to the club and to the city of Leicester generally. We could not  have achieved what we have done without them and there is no suggestion their wealth is not solely legitimate. 

 

Contrast that to the previous(domestic) owner of Newcastle whose wealth was also legitimate but did Newcastle fans appreciate it?

 

Where there should be change is in definition of a 'fit and proper' owner; my view is there should be individual owners (if not fan owned) rather than state owned as is case with Man City and Newcastle. t would be reasonable to have a fan based input to key decisions which should stop asset stripping as has happened with some clubs by their owners.

[ajthefox]

2 hours ago, Facecloth said:

A lot of the problems with owners, especially lower down the leagues is how the asset strip a club or get their money back out when they leave. That's what kills clubs like Bury, Macclesfield and Derby. For all his faults at least Abramovich doesn't want his invested money back. Investors should be allowed to pump money into clubs as they wish, but there needs to be safe guards on how that investment is recuperated by the investors. FFP just let's the clubs already at the top stay there, and as we've seen ourselves even if you break that glass ceiling briefly on sporting merit, it's very difficult to keep up financially, so we need a way that allows investors to grow a club without it being linked to revenue, but also safeguarding clubs from then going under should that investor pull the plug. There should be nothing stopping a club like Accrington Stanley getting to the top if someone wants to plough billions in, build new facilities and buy the best players for their level until they are the best, at the minute that's almost impossible.

The difficulty with this as well at that I don't see how you can plan against it. Someone could be a pretty legitimate owner, but they might run the club in such a way that they make money by doing so and the club suffers. Unless there are other, additional controls added to prevent that sort of thing too. Maybe someone more enlightened than myself can offer some thoughts on that.

 

[Fox92]

18 hours ago, Smashing-Pumpkin said:

But under 50+1, it would solidify the position of the big teams within that league, no?

 

Im not sure how a club could expect to attract investment, if the investors dont have the control over how their money is used?

 

17 hours ago, filbertway said:

It'd just mean Liverpool and Man U are at the top as they'll make the most money from sponsorship deals.

Sorry, I wasn't talking about this 50+1 thing as I have no idea about it, I was talking about fan ownership in general.