|
|
Post by oldnotdecrepit on Aug 30, 2017 8:35:17 GMT
There's no doubt if we were owned by a business man then JM would've gone by now, no business would tolerate these results.
But, we're a fans owned club..............and quite a few fans owned clubs are stagnating it appears, FC United, Telford while other fans owned clubs have been taken over - Portsmouth and progressed.
Just enquiring, fans owned club or proper businessman owned? Which do you prefer and why? Although I think a Sugar Daddy owner is unrealistic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 8:43:36 GMT
Fan owned club every day.
We are in a position where the board are entrusted to make decisions for the club not for themselves (like some trigger happy sugar daddies). However harsh and nice the manager may be.
The members of the board, we elected, need to show some bottle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rio Doherty on Aug 30, 2017 8:55:44 GMT
Fan owned club every day. We are in a position where the board are entrusted to make decisions for the club not for themselves (like some trigger happy sugar daddies). However harsh and nice the manager may be. The members of the board, we elected, need to show some bottle. Ditto. |
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Aug 30, 2017 9:54:19 GMT
But, we're a fans owned club..............and quite a few fans owned clubs are stagnating it appears, FC United, Telford while other fans owned clubs have been taken over - Portsmouth and progressed. On the other hand, you could look at AFC Wimbledon holding their own in League 1, and Exeter currently topping League 2. |
|
|
|
Post by The Angry Agenda on Aug 30, 2017 10:28:58 GMT
How about a businessman who everyone knows is passionate about the club running it, but with input from fans. I'm not talking a Gretna or Forest Green type of scenario where if they disapeared so too
would the club, Just someone who had the financial backing but would run it sensibly, and allow fans representitives on the board etc...How would people feel about a takeover from someone like that ?
|
|
|
|
Post by sqzl on Aug 30, 2017 10:46:37 GMT
How about a businessman who everyone knows is passionate about the club running it, but with input from fans. I'm not talking a Gretna or Forest Green type of scenario where if they disapeared so too would the club, Just someone who had the financial backing but would run it sensibly, and allow fans representitives on the board etc...How would people feel about a takeover from someone like that ? I think that would be pointless. If you want someone in that runs the club sensibly then we can't stretch the budget any further than what it is now. Even now we may make a loss based on the attendances. So what would be the point in bringing in someone when for us to be 'sensible' and live within our means the budget couldn't be improved upon anyway unless we had more faces through the gate. The only reason people would want a backer, is to improve the playing budget, and the squad. Unfortunately for this to happen, there will always be a risk that the club goes when the owner does, regardless. Nothing comes free, unless we get a billionaire superfan in the next few years. At the end of the day, people running football clubs are business men. |
|
|
|
Post by The Angry Agenda on Aug 30, 2017 11:00:26 GMT
How about a businessman who everyone knows is passionate about the club running it, but with input from fans. I'm not talking a Gretna or Forest Green type of scenario where if they disapeared so too would the club, Just someone who had the financial backing but would run it sensibly, and allow fans representitives on the board etc...How would people feel about a takeover from someone like that ? I think that would be pointless. If you want someone in that runs the club sensibly then we can't stretch the budget any further than what it is now. Even now we may make a loss based on the attendances. So what would be the point in bringing in someone when for us to be 'sensible' and live within our means the budget couldn't be improved upon anyway unless we had more faces through the gate. The only reason people would want a backer, is to improve the playing budget, and the squad. Unfortunately for this to happen, there will always be a risk that the club goes when the owner does, regardless. Nothing comes free, unless we get a billionaire superfan in the next few years. At the end of the day, people running football clubs are business men.The majority are yes - but there are some around still who do it for the love of the club and not for the return they'd get. Problem we have and what I was trying to get at, is that if there was a superfan who would happily invest in the club, the fact that he wouldn't actually get control into where it goes or how it's spent in our current setup may actually put them off. So if someone came along who wanted to invest but have more than just one voice, and it was someone people could trust, would they look at that as an alternative. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 11:20:55 GMT
I think that would be pointless. If you want someone in that runs the club sensibly then we can't stretch the budget any further than what it is now. Even now we may make a loss based on the attendances. So what would be the point in bringing in someone when for us to be 'sensible' and live within our means the budget couldn't be improved upon anyway unless we had more faces through the gate. The only reason people would want a backer, is to improve the playing budget, and the squad. Unfortunately for this to happen, there will always be a risk that the club goes when the owner does, regardless. Nothing comes free, unless we get a billionaire superfan in the next few years. At the end of the day, people running football clubs are business men.The majority are yes - but there are some around still who do it for the love of the club and not for the return they'd get. Problem we have and what I was trying to get at, is that if there was a superfan who would happily invest in the club, the fact that he wouldn't actually get control into where it goes or how it's spent in our current setup may actually put them off. So if someone came along who wanted to invest but have more than just one voice, and it was someone people could trust, would they look at that as an alternative. Thats all good while the going is good. Then the owners businesses come under pressure (Max Griggs at Rushden), or worse still they die (Brooks Mileson). Or their paymasters get offed and they stop supplying cash to launder (insert own club and person here). What we have isn't perfect, but it is ours. Torquay fans would kill for it right now. |
|
|
|
Post by sqzl on Aug 30, 2017 11:23:13 GMT
I think that would be pointless. If you want someone in that runs the club sensibly then we can't stretch the budget any further than what it is now. Even now we may make a loss based on the attendances. So what would be the point in bringing in someone when for us to be 'sensible' and live within our means the budget couldn't be improved upon anyway unless we had more faces through the gate. The only reason people would want a backer, is to improve the playing budget, and the squad. Unfortunately for this to happen, there will always be a risk that the club goes when the owner does, regardless. Nothing comes free, unless we get a billionaire superfan in the next few years. At the end of the day, people running football clubs are business men.The majority are yes - but there are some around still who do it for the love of the club and not for the return they'd get. Problem we have and what I was trying to get at, is that if there was a superfan who would happily invest in the club, the fact that he wouldn't actually get control into where it goes or how it's spent in our current setup may actually put them off. So if someone came along who wanted to invest but have more than just one voice, and it was someone people could trust, would they look at that as an alternative. I think in theory, a fan wanting to invest is the better option, after all if it was for the love of the club then surely recognition would be enough for that individual. I think the chances of finding said person are less likely than us signing Rio on a one year deal and playing him up top on Saturday. |
|
|
|
Post by The Angry Agenda on Aug 30, 2017 11:24:16 GMT
The majority are yes - but there are some around still who do it for the love of the club and not for the return they'd get. Problem we have and what I was trying to get at, is that if there was a superfan who would happily invest in the club, the fact that he wouldn't actually get control into where it goes or how it's spent in our current setup may actually put them off. So if someone came along who wanted to invest but have more than just one voice, and it was someone people could trust, would they look at that as an alternative. Thats all good while the going is good. Then the owners businesses come under pressure (Max Griggs at Rushden), or worse still they die (Brooks Mileson). Or their paymasters get offed and they stop supplying cash to launder (insert own club and person here). What we have isn't perfect, but it is ours. Torquay fans would kill for it right now. I'll take me 55 million quid elsewhere then   |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Aug 30, 2017 11:40:09 GMT
The majority are yes - but there are some around still who do it for the love of the club and not for the return they'd get. Problem we have and what I was trying to get at, is that if there was a superfan who would happily invest in the club, the fact that he wouldn't actually get control into where it goes or how it's spent in our current setup may actually put them off. So if someone came along who wanted to invest but have more than just one voice, and it was someone people could trust, would they look at that as an alternative. I think in theory, a fan wanting to invest is the better option, after all if it was for the love of the club then surely recognition would be enough for that individual. I think the chances of finding said person are less likely than us signing Rio on a one year deal and playing him up top on Saturday. I'd agree with that premise - if it was for the love of the club then they shouldn't mind the "one share, one vote" model regardless of how much money they put in. We need investment, yes, but any talk of changing the ownership model should be put to bed IMO. For me, easily the best private owner of any football club is Peterborough's Darragh MacAnthony. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 30, 2017 11:53:04 GMT
There's no doubt if we were owned by a business man then JM would've gone by now, no business would tolerate these results. But, we're a fans owned club..............and quite a few fans owned clubs are stagnating it appears, FC United, Telford while other fans owned clubs have been taken over - Portsmouth and progressed. Just enquiring, fans owned club or proper businessman owned? Which do you prefer and why? Although I think a Sugar Daddy owner is unrealistic. Fan owned for ever....I hope. We have our issues and restrictions, our differences and fall outs, but the club is ours and that will always be the better option for me. If we make mistakes it will be our mistakes. At the end of the day, we all want the best for our club, even if we sometimes disagree on how to achieve it. |
|
|
|
Post by whopper1 on Aug 30, 2017 13:27:00 GMT
We need that Italian owner who was at Leeds, he didn't f**k around with managers! Mcarthy wud of been sacked long ago 😂😂😂
|
|
|
|
Post by billyw on Aug 30, 2017 16:48:18 GMT
In our case it's a trade off - do we have a financial backer (assuming we could get one) and have the chance of experiencing the highs of previous years along with the risk of the club going bust or continue with a fan owned model and settle for life in this league or the one below.
As a senior supporter I have enjoyed the great times of the 1970s and it is a shame that younger fans will never experience such times while we are a fan owned club. We will never again challenge for promotion from League 1 or see quality like Derek Jeffries, Alan Oakes, Ian Edwards, Ian Rush, etc wearing the blue and white, so I guess I am saying I would prefer outside investment.
I appreciate many will say it is not worth the risk, but most clubs operate this way and they don't all have rogue owners. I also don't think the Board of a fan owned club have the business acumen to make those tough decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by midfieldgeneral on Aug 30, 2017 17:27:59 GMT
I think, you are looking at those days through 'rose tinted specs'.
Undoubtedly, the mid -late 1970's, were a great period, in our history and the finance came, in part from selling off the training ground for re-development, but for every 1974-75, we had a 1983-84, where we finished bottom of the football league and the football was every bit, as bad as today, (under private ownership).
It could be argued that Reg Rowlands selling the club to 'Judas Barnes', set in motion the train of events, that eventually led to our demise and things didn't end to well, under our last financial backer, Steven Vaughan, did they?
So it is a No from me.
|
|
|
|
Post by billyw on Aug 30, 2017 18:05:39 GMT
I think, you are looking at those days through 'rose tinted specs'. Undoubtedly, the mid -late 1970's, were a great period, in our history and the finance came, in part from selling off the training ground for re-development, but for every 1974-75, we had a 1983-84, where we finished bottom of the football league and the football was every bit, as bad as today, (under private ownership). It could be argued that Reg Rowlands selling the club to 'Judas Barnes', set in motion the train of events, that eventually led to our demise and things didn't end to well, under our last financial backer, Steven Vaughan, did they? So it is a No from me. You could be right but while we did finish bottom of the football league in 83-84 I don't think you can say that the football was as bad as today. In that season we played the likes of Blackpool, Reading, Bristol City etc and had players of the calibre of Andy Holden, Lee Dixon and Trevor Storton. I'm not knocking Chester being a fan owned club, it is fine as long as no-one has aspirations of seeing league football again and it's just a shame that the younger supporters will never get the chance to experience those heady days. |
|
|
|
Post by oldnotdecrepit on Aug 31, 2017 7:26:52 GMT
Some interesting points in the thread, thanks it's good to read a thread without any name calling or abuse in it.
My other fear, and thanks for the Exeter and Wimbledon reference, is that while we are fan owned I don't think we'll ever have the resources to win promotion back to where we rightfully belong - the Football League. Should we ever find ourselves in the top 6 for a prolonged spell we would benefit from some investment to 'kick on' and I'm unsure if we'd have those resources available to whoever the manager might be We are run according to our means and I wouldn't have it any other way but if we had an owner who could afford to 'write off' about £50k in an effort to secure promotion then I'd welcome that.
All conjecture though, Chester just doesn't seem to have the interest from local wealthy millionaires...............lottery winning supporter anyone? A generous benefactor.......no, didn't think so. Ho hum, off to Torquay.
|
|
