Best and worse owners

[Guest]

A lot of people would say mike Ashley is the worst premier league club owner.  Kronke is a cunt with a face you want to punch. Man city probably have the best owners.  I don't know a lot about other clubs ownership so who do you think are the best and worse? 

[DeadLinesman]

Glazers by far. Completely bled the club of its profits to finance their own debt in another country whilst feeding the playing squad the bare scraps to survive in the hope Ferguson would continue making miracles and live forever. Only in the last 4 seasons has it come home to roost as the spine of ‘92 disappeared and we decide to go for single Glamour signings than consistently pay more decent money for several players. 

[Stan]

I don't wanna say we have the best owners as 1) there's a lot of variables to consider (they're better at some things, and worse at some things) and 2) I don't want to come across as biased.

When it comes to giving out free stuff to fans, our owners definitely come near the top.

When it comes to being patient with managers, our owners are nowhere near the best. They're quite ruthless but wouldn't most owners have to be in this business of football now?

Financially, our owners are multi-billionaires and so they've never really struggled in that aspect. No manager could complain about not being backed in the transfer market. The club/owners have kept season ticket prices frozen as well for a number of years. They plan to invest millions and millions in to a new training complex fit for our stature now as well as expanding the stadium. So I don't think any fans could moan they've been tight.

Ultimately without our owners, we'd not have made the Premier League in 2014. Mandaric was wise when he sold the club as he was adamant that it would not be sold to just anyone; he made sure the incoming owners, whoever they may be, were suitable and viable for the club and where we wanted to be. 

 

I don't really know enough about owners of other clubs other than the negative ones i.e. Mike Ashley who's tight as fuck. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Are Cardiff still run by the people who tried to change their kit colour?

[Berserker]

Best owners, City's. Worst owner, the fat mong who owns NUFC.

[Dr. Gonzo]

City's owners are a bunch of human rights abusers, lads. Let's not forget that.

[Dan+]

I think our owners are on the whole pretty good, but a sizeable number of our fans are a bit too easily blinded by some of the things they do.

The freebies are a perfect example. Stan alluded to them. They're decent, I think fair play for them, but a beer and or a donut or whatever isn't enough to make me sure that they're brilliant owners and yet I get the feeling some of our fans act as if they are, using those kinds of things as the basis for their support. Our owners have made a number of good decisions, and a number of bad.

 

The good...

- Bringing back Nigel Pearson. He was disgracefully sacked the first time around to make the club more appealing to these owners to buy (that kind of thinking worries me a bit), so it's quite ironic that they turned to him to eventually get us promoted. Regardless, they got the call spot on.

- Appointing Claudio Ranieri. Being brutally honest here, I think this was a fluke. There was nothing to suggest that he was going to be a good fit for us. The stars aligned though and he was part of a footballing miracle.

- Converting the clubs debt to equity in December 2013.

- Two recent things. They've made plans to expand our stadium to 42,000 and they've drawn up a plan for an absolutely top class training facility. I'm not exagerrating, it could be one of the best in Europe. This points to ultimately about what's good about them - I feel like they genuinely are ambitious. I know they're businessmen and it's not a gift (though we happen to be getting a good deal from it) but they do think big for us. A club of our size spending eighty million on a training complex is unheard of really.

 

The bad...

- Appointing Sven-Goran Eriksson. Now I could half understand it, they were new to football and he was a name well above our level at the time, though it transpired that really he wasn't right at all for that league. He wasted an absurd amount of money here for a Championship side, and the owners were right to sack him. It took us a while to recover from his mess, Pearson did that and got us up.

- Appointing Jon Rudkin and making the man seemingly bulletproof. I am not comfortable with the fact a man who was our academy director for a decade (with very little produced may I add) became director of football, has survived a number of stupid errors in the transfer window including poor negotiations, overpaying for players, failing to register a player on time after selling the bloke he replaced while we go through manager after manager, and I expect Puel to go soon too. I feel like the club don't look at the whole footballing operation and merely look solely at the manager. Craig Shakespeare was not the man to lead us forward, but he had less black marks against his name for me than Rudkin yet Rudkin's the one delivering the news that he's sacked. Not good enough for me.

- Over the top branding at the ground. There is very little commemoration of our history at our ground and it makes the place pretty soulless. They wrote a book in Thailand and they're supposedly taking the bulk of the credit for our success which, while they obviously take some, I do think they've had a lot of good fortune in the process. I don't dislike them, but I'm not comfortable with things like doing fireworks on the chairman's birthday and trying to change our second colour to gold rather than white. It's over the top.

- I can't put this entirely on them but so many aspects of the club are just hopeless when it comes to fan engagement. Things like the club shop being a joke, the ticket sites not working etc... you would think for owners with a retail background that these issues would be rectified but they haven't been.

 

So overall for me, they are good owners, and compared to most foreign businessmen that buy English clubs they are good (and I think that's worrying what a lot of our fans compare them to), but I feel our fans slightly over-hype them.

[Eco]

10 minutes ago, Berserker said:

Best owners, City's. Worst owner, the fat mong who owns NUFC.

 

4 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

A lot of people would say mike Ashley is the worst premier league club owner.  Kronke is a cunt with a face you want to punch. Man city probably have the best owners.  I don't know a lot about other clubs ownership so who do you think are the best and worse? 

Aren't City's owners the worst of the worst scum abusers? 

[Dan+]

The best of the top clubs you'd have to say is Man City, although they're so rich that they haven't really got to do anything. They can bankroll that club without it having any serious impact on them.

The Glazers are parasites, Arsenal are questionable, Chelsea I think are in serious danger of being left behind, Liverpool have made errors but I think are learning from them, Tottenham I actually do have a fair bit of respect for and they run things in a way similar to have I would - however, I think the reluctance to spend has gone a bit far this year and they are likewise in danger of being left behind.

Worst I'd have to say is Mike Ashley. Bloke's a complete disgrace. Newcastle fans should be doing everything in their power to get this bloke out of the club. He's holding them right back.

[Berserker]

14 minutes ago, Eco said:

 

Aren't City's owners the worst of the worst scum abusers? 

I'm talking about what they do for their club, they can well be outright pricks in their country but they run the club excellently.

[Azeem]

Shahid Khan is also looking a good owner so far. Fulham have really got themselves a team with their signings.

[Eco]

1 minute ago, Berserker said:

I'm talking about what they do for their club, they can well be outright pricks in their country but they run the club excellently.

So PSG's owner would also be considered...'good owners'? 

[Azeem]

Quick rant if Alexander can be considered the 'Great' considering his track record on human rights than anyone can be considered as 'good owners'.

[Berserker]

5 hours ago, Eco said:

So PSG's owner would also be considered...'good owners'? 

Kinda, they've fucked up a couple times recently though. Selling Matuidi don't think was  good for them, also not tying Rabiot to a longer contract. Also buying Buffon may be good marketing but he's not what he used to be and because of that they've had to sell Trapp.

[Dr. Gonzo]

59 minutes ago, Devon Von Devon said:

Quick rant if Alexander can be considered the 'Great' considering his track record on human rights than anyone can be considered as 'good owners'.

One major difference is it's not 330 BC anymore though.

[Guest]

Are the glazers that bad though? I mean they have heavily backed the club? Maybe on bad players but that is partly the scouts and managers fault shorly? 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Are the glazers that bad though? I mean they have heavily backed the club? Maybe on bad players but that is partly the scouts and managers fault shorly? 

I think the worst thing the Glazers have done is leverage debt against Man Utd when they purchased the club and have put debt on the club in regards to other businesses they own. For a lot of clubs, this would be a major issue - but United are one of the most marketable clubs in the world with fans everywhere. And they did enjoy success under the Glazers. I don't know how many other clubs could sustain debt unrelated to that club other than a club that has as big of a fanbase worldwide as United/Barca/Real Madrid for that long - but United have profitability that most clubs don't. The fact that despite this additional debt not related to actual Manchester United business, the profitability of the club hasn't dried up despite the lack of success in recent years. They've got no problem paying off the debt slowly with the money United make.

For the fans it's irritating, because they'd want to see more of United's money go towards United. But considering they last won a title 2012 with the same owners... I don't think they'd fit the bill for worst owners in the league.

Honestly, I don't know who the best owners are. It's a bit of a weird question in an era where football is such a major money spinning industry - they're largely disconnected from the fans. I think FSG have been good with us, sure they've made mistakes but they've always learned from them. They cleared our debt from the G&H era where we were staring administration in the face and from day one have shown a willingness to spend money and for Liverpool to be ambitious... even if it didn't come off for the first few seasons under them. Any owner that cares for the club's finances while also having the ambition to push the club onto the next level is probably a contender for good owner.

I'd echo the shouts for Mike Ashley for the worst owner in the league. He owns a club so he can have his Sports Direct advertised, he doesn't give a fuck about the fans, the players, or the manager... so long as the club manages to just hang onto where it is in the league. He's got fuck all ambition for the club and would be happy to be a turd that's difficult to flush that he has to throw little money at for Sports Direct to get publicity. What he values Newcastle as a club at is unreasonable when it's in the top flight, so anyone who'd have ambition that wants to try to take the club places would have to play too much.

[LFCMike]

Whatever happened to 'Green and gold until it's sold'?

[The Liquidator]

Check out what we have won since our guy turned up. He has changed the face of English league football destroying the status quo of the previous few decades.

Its hurt army's of club fans and given us something we could only dream of. He has done it without taking the media limelight & with a number of different managers, unlike the two previous most successful clubs.

Id say he has been every bit as good as any of the owners who have followed him into the billionaires playground and continues to be so.

By all means inflict your hurt in your replies. We have heard it all before and to be brutally honest, I love your pain!

[Bluebird Hewitt]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Are Cardiff still run by the people who tried to change their kit colour?

We are and we did have our kit changed (from blue to red if you remember, as we had it in our previous premiership campaign).

However, in arguably a bit of a rarity for a foreign owner, he has admitted to past mistakes such as that, turned most of the club debt into equity and cut back on spending (which admittedly was to comply with FFP when we got relegated, but it appeared to be an eye opener as other than Madine, we've not spent as much compared to when we get promoted last time as well as the previous prem season).

It's strange as despite being expected to be the whipping boys this season, we look more prepared and united than we were before.

[Smiley Culture]

What makes a “good” owner and what makes a “bad” owner in any sense? 

[Berserker]

14 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said:

What makes a “good” owner and what makes a “bad” owner in any sense? 

How they run the club, if they buy good players, hire good managers, support them, sell dross for a decent price, tie good players to long contracts and prevent them from leaving for free or with a year left. Growing the brand, generating revenues other than sales, TV or league's/championship's money. Investing in the long term, ie, facilities, young development & recruitment. I'd say that sums it up.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think the worst thing the Glazers have done is leverage debt against Man Utd when they purchased the club and have put debt on the club in regards to other businesses they own. For a lot of clubs, this would be a major issue - but United are one of the most marketable clubs in the world with fans everywhere. And they did enjoy success under the Glazers. I don't know how many other clubs could sustain debt unrelated to that club other than a club that has as big of a fanbase worldwide as United/Barca/Real Madrid for that long - but United have profitability that most clubs don't. The fact that despite this additional debt not related to actual Manchester United business, the profitability of the club hasn't dried up despite the lack of success in recent years. They've got no problem paying off the debt slowly with the money United make.

For the fans it's irritating, because they'd want to see more of United's money go towards United. But considering they last won a title 2012 with the same owners... I don't think they'd fit the bill for worst owners in the league.

Honestly, I don't know who the best owners are. It's a bit of a weird question in an era where football is such a major money spinning industry - they're largely disconnected from the fans. I think FSG have been good with us, sure they've made mistakes but they've always learned from them. They cleared our debt from the G&H era where we were staring administration in the face and from day one have shown a willingness to spend money and for Liverpool to be ambitious... even if it didn't come off for the first few seasons under them. Any owner that cares for the club's finances while also having the ambition to push the club onto the next level is probably a contender for good owner.

I'd echo the shouts for Mike Ashley for the worst owner in the league. He owns a club so he can have his Sports Direct advertised, he doesn't give a fuck about the fans, the players, or the manager... so long as the club manages to just hang onto where it is in the league. He's got fuck all ambition for the club and would be happy to be a turd that's difficult to flush that he has to throw little money at for Sports Direct to get publicity. What he values Newcastle as a club at is unreasonable when it's in the top flight, so anyone who'd have ambition that wants to try to take the club places would have to play too much.

Liverpool administration wow didn't know that almost happened. The thing is man utd have spent ridiculous money under the Glazers so not sure  they can be the worst 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, The Liquidator said:

Check out what we have won since our guy turned up. He has changed the face of English league football destroying the status quo of the previous few decades.

Its hurt army's of club fans and given us something we could only dream of. He has done it without taking the media limelight & with a number of different managers, unlike the two previous most successful clubs.

Id say he has been every bit as good as any of the owners who have followed him into the billionaires playground and continues to be so.

By all means inflict your hurt in your replies. We have heard it all before and to be brutally honest, I love your pain!

Yep he turned you from a tinpot club with no history that hadn't won the league in over 50 years to 5 times premier league winners with an army of plastic fans.

[Dan+]

9 hours ago, Stan said:

I don't wanna say we have the best owners as 1) there's a lot of variables to consider (they're better at some things, and worse at some things) and 2) I don't want to come across as biased.

When it comes to giving out free stuff to fans, our owners definitely come near the top.

When it comes to being patient with managers, our owners are nowhere near the best. They're quite ruthless but wouldn't most owners have to be in this business of football now?

Financially, our owners are multi-billionaires and so they've never really struggled in that aspect. No manager could complain about not being backed in the transfer market. The club/owners have kept season ticket prices frozen as well for a number of years. They plan to invest millions and millions in to a new training complex fit for our stature now as well as expanding the stadium. So I don't think any fans could moan they've been tight.

Ultimately without our owners, we'd not have made the Premier League in 2014. Mandaric was wise when he sold the club as he was adamant that it would not be sold to just anyone; he made sure the incoming owners, whoever they may be, were suitable and viable for the club and where we wanted to be. 

 

I don't really know enough about owners of other clubs other than the negative ones i.e. Mike Ashley who's tight as fuck. 

To be fair, in terms of transfer backing, have they really put that much in themselves? Their heaviest backing was in 2011 when they backed Sven with an effectively open chequebook in the Championship and he signed a load of old shite. I think ever since then they've been a bit cannier. I don't blame them for it but I don't think they've given as big a transfer backing as people think. This summer for example our net spend is still negative (that's before Soyuncu & Benkovic sign) and even then, we're pocketing big money from TV.

The league win definitely propelled us to a new level of financial dealings. It's just a shame that, as usual, once we got a load of money we completely wasted it.