davieG Posted 31 January 2009 Posted 31 January 2009 Unlike most owners of Premier League clubs, I know what it is to buy one out of love. Investing in Leicester City certainly wasn’t for money, given that I ended up getting back 10 per cent of my outlay and losing a six-figure sum. I don’t complain about that because it really was out of lifelong affection that I and 40 or so like-minded people bought Leicester out of administration in 2003. There was a genuine risk of the club going out of business, and we couldn’t let that happen. My involvement didn’t go much farther, even if my passion was deep. With my job at the BBC, we decided that there was a risk of a conflict of interests if I sat on the board and I can’t say I was unhappy about that. I spoke last week about my lack of enthusiasm for management, and you can double the antipathy when it comes to budget meetings and negotiations with agents. My representative, Jon Holmes, was chairman at Leicester for a period and it drove him to distraction. Of course, it would have been nice to have recouped more of our money, but we were happy to have stabilised the club and then sold it on to Milan Mandaric, someone with more chance of taking the club forward. He has been through a few managers and a relegation, but the club are now set fair for promotion to the Coca-Cola Championship under Nigel Pearson, the manager. Our motives were clear, but you can’t say that about most of the Barclays Premier League owners. There has been a huge injection of funds and, at a time when so many businesses are struggling, you feel as though we should be grateful. But it is only natural to have worries when rich businessmen from all across the world are buying clubs with whom they have no affiliation. The majority are on ego trips or are out to make money, which does not mean that they are necessarily bad for business, but so much depends on an owner’s whim or personal circumstance. My biggest concern is to wonder how many decisions by owners are being made for the good of the game, and particularly for the good of the England team. If I had one wish, it would be to lock the chairmen in a room until they voted for the reduction to 18 teams, which was in the original blueprint for the Premier League. I know that it is the issue of turkeys voting for Christmas, and they’ve shown their hand on reducing games by seeking to do the opposite and tack on a 39th. But some slack in the calendar would make a big difference to the national team’s chances of success. Any owner who underestimates the importance of the England team’s health to the wider game’s prosperity is making a big miscalculation. The other issue for clubs to tackle is ticket pricing, and this is for their own sake. It is not only about the revenue itself and ensuring the game keeps in touch with its hardcore supporters, but satisfying the broadcasters. With my BBC hat on, I can tell you that it looks terrible and causes a lot of agitation when you can see rows of empty seats in the stands. We’ve seen it in some of the FA Cup ties, in particular, and it puts off the advertisers and broadcasters who prop up the game financially. Clearly, with money tighter in many families, there will be some effect on football’s ability to sell out matches and I just hope that the game is not prey to the sort of boom and bust that we are witnessing in so many other industries. I’m not itching to reach for the chequebook for another buyout. Or how about reducing the number of European games because that's where most of the England players pick up their extra games.
StanSP Posted 31 January 2009 Posted 31 January 2009 Nice to know he still keeps track and wants to be involved with Leicester City for a long time to come. As for the amount of games, the idea of a 39th game should be abolished. It would get teams nowhere, and is a total waste of time and money. In some ways, I like the idea of a 18-team league, but obviously, I'm only thinking narrow-mindedly and probably haven't thought it through as much as those who put it forward in the original blueprints.
Fosse Boy Posted 31 January 2009 Posted 31 January 2009 Or how about reducing the number of European games because that's where most of the England players pick up their extra games. Exactly. When we won the World Cup there were 22 teams in the top flight. Reducing the number of clubs would serve only to make the rich clubs richer and cut the rest adrift.
JakeShingler Posted 31 January 2009 Posted 31 January 2009 Gary Lineker is a hero 3 times over. What he said.
Webbo Posted 1 February 2009 Posted 1 February 2009 Gary Lineker is a hero 3 times over. Slightly off topic but I've met various people through my life who claim to have been to school with Gary or knew him from off the market and not 1 of them have ever had a good word to say about him.
Ultra Posted 1 February 2009 Posted 1 February 2009 Slightly off topic but I've met various people through my life who claim to have been to school with Gary or knew him from off the market and not 1 of them have ever had a good word to say about him. I went to school with him. Ironically, he had a poor disciplinary record - probably because he was so good at sport that he never really bothered with lessons.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.