Forums / The Stands: Intelligent Footy Debate
Order: Newest / Oldest
The Billionaire Owners Mass Debate: POLL
Footytubeblog (Blog) 2 years ago


No – Billionaire Owners are Not Good
The answer is no, absolutely no. (that means click 'NO' on the poll below)

Football clubs are not toys. They are steeped in history and the fans truly, madly deeply care for them. Picking your club (or does the club choose you!) is akin to taking marriage vows, in fact I think as you buy your first replica shirt you should have to recite the following:

“I,____, support thee,_____, as my only team, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in relegation and in promotion, to love and to cherish, till death or insolvency us do part”.

At which point the store worker would pronounce you Fan and Club.

The new super rich owners do not care for the club it's just a play thing basically they are doing what the rest of us have to use FIFA ultimate team for. Now I can understand as a fan of these clubs it must be a lot of fun and instantly gratifying to see your side go from no hopers to challenging for titles. The problem with these owners will only raise its head if they become bored and decide they now want to build a ladder to the moon and leave the club and take their money.

Last year Manchester City made a record loss of £197 million (previous holder £141 million by Chelsea in 2004) the wage bill alone is £174 million which is £21 million quid more than they make as a club. Simply put without their owners money on an everyday basis Manchester City, and other clubs, would be facing administration and maybe even extinction.

That's not the only problem with the 'kid in the candy store' mentality to running a club. Player development is stifled. Full internationals that other clubs would kill for can't even make the bench. This is not to mention the trouble young players have in trying to break through and because the club don't need or even care about the money they are not interested in loaning the players out either.

The new financial regulations should alleviate some of these concerns but if you have a brother who is as rich as you willing to spend £350 million on shirt and stadium sponsorship there are ways around it and the problems persist.



Yes – Billionaire Owners are Good
Footballing glory was once nothing more than a pure and true romantic pursuit to which profit was a mere money midget standing in the face of a gigantic dream. Unadulterated by hedge funds or loans leveraged against club assets, and untainted by those with strict business intentions willing to commit epic swindles in order to win ownership in court rather than pay for it with hard cash at the bank.

The great heroes of the real football dream, who bought clubs for nothing more than deep love are becoming replaced by the starched suit brigade who see clubs as businesses with managers and players as assets and commodities to be traded and supporters as customers to be won over by fancy PR.

Ambramovich and Monsoor’s anti-business-models are unsustainable cash black holes which will eventually collapse in on themselves if left unchecked by financial regulation but football is not about balance sheets and P ‘n’ L. It is about undeterred passion. Bringing glory to your team and supporters no matter what the cost. Burning £25m on Lescott, or Santa-Cruz in the vein hope that he might be the man that makes the tiny difference between success and failure.

Football is a game so rich with history and pride that every player and every supporter knowingly runs the risk of perpetual pain for that dim glimmer of hope that glory may one day come. That all the 40 years of hurt will make that moment of sweet success all the more intense and emotional, and in that moment of unbridled joy I dare you to remember the financial statement or how much the man who scored the winning goal cost, because in that moment he will be worth certain bankruptcy to any real football man.

I welcome the Romans and the Sheiks. Their bottomless pits of unconditional cash breathe life in to fading dreams, creates a second team in Manchester, or destroys the old guard bringing us more competition and entertainment. Their cash allows more clubs to attract the best players in the world and pay them money that they do not deserve or earn, but who cares about that. Football purists want to see the finest strutting their stuff for our pleasure every week. This is the cost of football glory and if your owner has the guts and selflessness to spend his hard earned on your 11 men then build a statue of him









This blog does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of footytube or its partners.
MemoNick (Olympique Lyon) 2 years ago
Money doesn't guarantee success - at least immediate success. City have just won one FA cup after hundreds of millions just in transfers, Roma are playing disastrously, Anzhi have not been impressing in Russia, PSG are the most hated team in France and are out from two Cups already (CdL and EL) and Malaga will never compete with Real Madrid and Barca
Oddshot (Newcastle United) 2 years ago
Fairly certain City won the F. A cup last season
MemoNick (Olympique Lyon) 2 years ago
You're right on that  
Thestacks717 (Chelsea) 2 years ago
I completely agree with you, memonick
Ant (Liverpool) 2 years ago
City have also been top of this years premier league for the whole season apart from 4 hours.

At what point will people stop saying money doesn't buy success
Araz (Queens Park Rangers) 2 years ago
No one is saying.... Get money = win all the titles

But getting that money makes a massive difference, your club can attract players it couldn't dream of before, and your ambitions become something you didn't dare imagine.

Take City as an example lets not forget that before their billionaire owners arrived just 10 years ago they finished bottom on England's second league, were relegated to the 3rd tier and nearly went out of business. A couple of billionaires and 10 or so years later you're lambasting them for not winning the Premier League titile? I would call that a resounding success.

In that time they've become established as a solid top flight, top 4 club, won their first trophy in over 50 years and swapped Shaun Goater for Kun Aguero. Chelsea can boast a roughly similar rise to the top. They may have not won the title yet but surely it's on the way and this is the stuff football dreams are made of?
MemoNick (Olympique Lyon) 2 years ago
As someone said, it would be OK if all the teams were as rich. The problem arises when one team is as rich as an oil rig and buys talent other clubs can't. Take PSG for example, they have the money to buy whoever they want. This greatly changes Ligue 1's previously equilibrated nature.

Some years back, it was considered almost impossible for a team to retain the championship. OL's seven-year domination was considered almost impossible. However it shows that it is possible to surprise without money. I think that this money will make things like this normal. Clubs in France are already feeling pressure to inject a lot of money. Anigo (if I recall correctly) and JMA have already talked about this, although both are against
Jatin666 (Liverpool) 2 years ago
Money cannot buy success alone, but it can get you close. The sheer entertainment value in watching a team of all stars try to prove their worth is reason enough to warrant a few sugar daddies.

At best they provide a breath of fresh air to a league set in it's ways and at worst they are the team all fans love to hate.

At the end of the day a quote from Gladiator says it best, "Are you not entertained? "
[account-removed] 2 years ago
I like what you said my man
Spursaussie3 (Tottenham Hotspur) 2 years ago
Ironically, the quote you used was said in a context that is against everything you said
Janman (Kickers Offenbach) 2 years ago
The bad thing about the investors is they come and when they leave, they leave a destroyed and in debt club behind
Tony (footytube staff) 2 years ago
They may be good for ONE team, but football as a whole.... No.
And what if they up sticks and walk away? , teams like chelsea and city who don't cover their wage bill and running costs every week could end up in big trouble should one of these billionaire owners throw the head up.

Yes.... If every team has one.... Lol
NO if only a few teams have them.

Teams should not be allowed to spend more than they bring in, that needs sorted out
MemoNick (Olympique Lyon) 2 years ago
That's the reason for the Financial Fair Play
Tony (footytube staff) 2 years ago
I know.... Lol
Methods89 (Arsenal) 2 years ago
Completely agree with you. Clubs like Man city are simply just driving up transfer fee's and wages It's getting to the point where other top teams who CAN balance their books. Arsenal for example Can't compete with them. Maybe it's just sour grapes...
Tony (footytube staff) 2 years ago
I think its a shame that clubs because of the money they have can just buy every decent player available, then let them rot in the stands watching the lucky 11 that have been picked that day.
That in itself is ruining the league, when you have very good players sitting watching a game instead of enhancing the league by playing for one of the lesser teams.
So we end up with the big guns fielding 11 great players, with maybe another 11 players doing nothing when they could be enhancing the smallers clubs in the epl.
So makes for a big divide, as the lower clubs are fielding championship players with the odd decent player thrown in.
What a waste of talent
Flavio1975 (CA River Plate) 2 years ago
I agree with tony, its not fair or fun to watch if only a few have them.... In fact, I fu.... In´hate 'em.... I'm sorry that's just the way I feel. I've been watching and playing football since I was 6 (I'm 36) and it makes me sad to see which direction the game is heading.... Just my humble opinion
Araz (Queens Park Rangers) 2 years ago
Gents, let me ask you to judge this as a neutral, not as a supporter of your club. Do you not think those men help bring the best players to the league you watch, and by buying non-top-4 teams make the entire league more entertaining?

Remember the question is are they good for the game (the big picture) not for your club.

I'm a QPR supporter and have watched them come along and constantly help break down the old establishments, creating new top 4 clubs, and then one comes along and buys us and we're back in the Prem for the first time in 15 years
Tony (footytube staff) 2 years ago
What I am saying araz is? .... Clubs like city, chelsea, even united to a degree have as many great players sitting in the stands every week as they have on the pitch, now that's a waste for a start.
Just think how good teams of a lesser standard could become if these players were playing for the lesser teams, therefore enhancing the league itself, rather than a breakaway top 3-4 or whatever.
I would cut squad sizes for a start, I have never agreed with that, I hate to harp on about back in the day.... Lol, 60's-70-s.... You were lucky if you had a squad of 14-15 at most, guys had to play with injuries etc:, plus the youth got a chance, it seems now we just go out and buy more players these days, and the only people to benefit are the players and agents, its a hell of a lot of dosh going out of the game, which is another waste
Araz (Queens Park Rangers) 2 years ago
That's a fair point mate especially about agents and players taking far too much cash out of the game.

But the IMO before this lot arrived there had been an established elite "the big 4" who had been unchallenged for 8 straight seasons, no one other than Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Man UTD finished in the top 4 for nearly a whole decade, this was starting to make the league a bit boring and predictable, after their arrival it stirred things up a bit and now it;s more like a top 7 or 8.

It does leave a lot of players rotting in the stands but the 25 man squad rule is a whole other argument and I'm not sure all of those players lingering on the stands would actually join a lesser club, some are happy to sit it out (Wayne Bridge, michael Owen etc) and others would just leave and go abroad. Though I admit some might occasionally find their way to QPR
Fromtheisland (Toronto) 2 years ago
I feel Man city is gettin a bad rep for doing essentially what other clubs have done in the past. And isn't Man UTD in a load of debt from there last owners.
Man city has raised the overall level in EPL and if it wasnt for them buying alot of these players. These players would prob be playing somehwere else in europe.

Sure they spend stupid amounts on players but if they werent snatching players another club would.

And if I'm a stoke fan or a wolves fan I'm buyin tickets when city comes to town so I would yes its good for football. Man city has been brought to life from the dead.
Everyone wants things to be fair and I guess I undestand a little but life is far from fair and I feel football represents life accurately.
I feel like complaining about city, what about Man UTD and all the other clubs who take kids from other countries. I'm sure those clubs fans are pissed too.
Big picture we live in a capalistic world
C'est la football
Tony (footytube staff) 2 years ago
The difference there is mate.... United generate their OWN money, and could survive no problem.
These other clubs which have been taken over don't bring enough money in through the turnstyles etc to cover the wage bill nevermind anything else, that's bad business, and if that's not bad for the game, I don't know what is.
You should not be spending beyond your clubs means, this money doesent belong to the club, it belongs to a rich owner, and as I said.... What if they just up and leave? .... Then what for these clubs?
Araz (Queens Park Rangers) 2 years ago
Tony' you're right, it is bad for business, but my argument is that football and business don't mix, and there was a time when owners used to buy clubs knowing they would lose cash and did it anyway because they loved their club.

Now businessmen buy assets which they can make profit out of, and quite frankly I liked it better the old way, and today's billionaire owners are bringing the old ways back
Juno (AC Milan) 2 years ago
Football and Business do mix Araz. Look at what Thaksin Shinawatra did to Man City? City are just lucky that Thaksin Shinawatra deserted them to a even richer owner. Its a business to him, but one of the oldest football club in England could fall apart from crippling debts. In fact, I'm sure City will close down if the Abu Dhabi guy decided this is not fun anymore. In oxymoron terms, this is the heavenly hell situation
Araz (Queens Park Rangers) 2 years ago
Come on guys, where's the romance? Just lose your cool, and your senses, and think of the glory.

We all live for that moment of football glory and there is no doubt these owners can bring it, or move us a long way towards it
FootyRulz (Chelsea) 2 years ago
@Juno: I don't think it's likely someone that has already invested this much money would walk out on the club without getting any return from it
IHadYouAll (Manchester United) 2 years ago
I really don't mind having billionaires (agree with Araz) as not having them at all (agree with Tony). What really concerns me in this topic is that there are no limitations to a bet size in football. Actually there are no limitations at all when it goes to money in this game. I am talking about: wages, bonuses, amount of players in a team, players dependencies, player value on a market and so on. That is why billionaires have an upper hand when it goes to getting any player they want by having too much transfer control at their disposal.
However if to think about it and to change some rules to those provided below, we would actually get some stability in all leagues in general, no more highs and downs on a market, and also decrease financial risk for teams that just can't afford buying Torres or Carrol for 50 and 30 millions of pounds respectively.
Here are some possible caps on football Worldwide:

1. Max bet on player on a transfer market is 10 millions (pounds/us/euros one of those can be picked from start)
2. 18 players in first team max, 18 players in reserve team max, unlimited for youth camps (so in total only 36 pro contracts can be signed per club at a time)
3. No more 3 player sub rule in EPL and everywhere else (other league/cup tournaments) in the world. Make it 5 already. Why? Because 3 sub rule sucks for many reasons? (We can make 3 standard ones when manager can freely change a player, and 2 risk ones, where player can get injured and need sub only for this reason)
4. Cap salary: Player should go on a work like everyone else does, and also yes he can have a fixed amount of salary, but not 250k pounds per week.
There should be 3 possible cap values: 1st League - 160k max, 2nd League - 120k max, 3rd and lower leagues - 80k max.

5. Bonuses and Misc on players contract: Today some of enclosed value goes to a player and its agent usually on those "tiny" pieces of additional information and agreement. They are usually private to media, but we all know they exist, and believe it sometimes those can take 3, 4, 5 and even 9 pages to feel out and review.
Now the only question is: Are they good for you?
If you are a professional player or his agent than YEAH absolutely! If you are a football fan and you see that player leaves your small club just because of those pieces of paper to the bigger club than this is probably not that good. There should be only one standard value, when player plays 50 matches for a team, and then he gets 10 million max bonus for example in the 1st League, 5 million in 2nd League and so on. And that is all. No additional bonuses should be included in players contract.

6. If player wants to leave a club, it is his own right to do that, and team should not have a right to keep him unless an interested club didn't pay enough value for him to make a transfer. For example, player Armin doesn't want to play for Villay anymore. Villay is a big club with a huge fan base. Fans doesn't seem to understand a reason for him to leave, however Armin's wife want to move back with her husband to the other location for whatever reason (woman). In that location smaller club "Rivals", but in a different league don't mind having him in their club. They make a first proposition of 3 millions to Villay, but Villay rejects bet immediately stating that "Armin is a World class player and this amount is suited only for clowns". (Note: lets make Armin to be as good as Messi or Ronaldo just for this example) So Rivals understanding situation, but still having a huge interest in this player, are making a cap sized bet to Villay. So Rivals make a 10 million bet for Armin, thus making the highest bet possible. Now the Villay club cannot reject this bet, but only to hope that Armin wants to stay. However Armin makes final decision to leave. He signs a contract of 160k wage with Rivals and completes transfer with no problems to a new club (fast, convenient, and less media involved in Armins live)

This way billionaires would concentrate on actually finding a talent by searching more and not only seen talent in value of a player (as many players will have 10 millions caps set up when buying them, thus blocking additional information on them, like recent skill and form ratio)

They will actually buy more scouts and search for young future stars that were dreaming to play for their club. Also they would concentrate on promoting club more and building youth camps around the world. Thus player would have an interest working with club not because of money, but just because he likes the club itself and dreams playing there
Juno (AC Milan) 2 years ago
@Footyrulz, sometimes, in business, you have to accept you are never gonna' make a profit, and then you make a decision to pull out early to cut losses. Look at what HP did with Touchpad. It paid big money for webOS and then spent big on advertisement, saw no returns, and killed the project without giving it chance to stabilise
Fromtheisland (Toronto) 2 years ago
Tony, you have to spend money to make money. When you embark on any business venture, you have to be prepared to lose money in the first couple years and take hits until things start to even out. City will not have to pay as much for players in the next few years becuz players will want to come to city rather than being paid so much where they can't say no.

Another thing, Man city is building a youth academy facility to develop youth and hopefully transition away from fielding teams from the market. Hopefully this will aid Englands international squad as well one day.

Its about time there was another team in Manchester, finally this derby means something
[account-removed] 2 years ago
I was kinda hoping the front page article would be about Henry! Lool, Money makes the world go around so what is everyone talking about? If I offered you (the gent who said NO in the article) a million pounds, are you not going to take it? Now if I gave you a billion pounds, arn't you going to buy a football team? It would be a childhood dream I am sure.... But then, arn't you being the same thing you're disagreeing with? The only time people hate the rich is when they don't have the money.... Its human nature, has nothing to do with the sport. Its something like mixing religion and politics...
Matt (Footytube Staff) 2 years ago
I would need at least 2 Billion before I would consider it.

What I would like to do and what is in the best interests of the club or game at large are totally different things. Which is why we need the financial fair play regulations to come in as quick as possible
Jeroen (Barcelona) 2 years ago
I completely agree with Matt here. The question wasn't what we should do if we were in the billionaires' shoes, but if what they're doing is right or not. And I think it's f****d up. I'd like to see clubs only getting revenue from ticket sales, marketing, a few sponsors and TV-rights. But all of that would have to be monitored big time, so that not cheating can occur. For instance, I do not like City's plans to get funds legally (according to the FIFA) by sponsoring them with exorbitant sponsorship deals. I also do not like how money from TV-rights is divided in Spain, for example.

The whole world could take an example of German football: probably the only league on a European level where the monetary aspect of the game is not completely out of bounds
Champi0n (Manchester City) 2 years ago
Gareth Bale in Man City
Ant (Liverpool) 2 years ago
Berbatov in Man United
LumpOfCelery (Chelsea) 2 years ago
RVP in Liverpool
Jeroen (Barcelona) 2 years ago
Ant in France
Ant (Liverpool) 2 years ago
Patrick Swayze in Ghost
LumpOfCelery (Chelsea) 2 years ago
Brad Pitt in Moneyball
Ant (Liverpool) 2 years ago
More blogs like this! We have someone to agree with and someone to disagree with - AND the people who write the blog comment under it in response
LightningToad (Bolton Wanderers) 2 years ago
If every club had a billionaire owner, then each club got to spend £300m. 3 clubs would still have to get relegated, only 1 club could win the title and all the other clubs would be back at square 1. Plus there would be managers getting sacked left right and center
FootyRulz (Chelsea) 2 years ago
I'm not so sure about other leagues but in the EPL having rich owners has only contributed to the competitiveness at the top end of the table. In 1995 Blackburn won the title because of spending money to buy players such as Alan Shearer and Chris Sutton. Chelsea won it 10 years later because of Roman Abramovich's billions. City haven't won the EPL yet but they've spent the majority of the season sitting on top of the table so far this season. Without the billionaire takeovers that we have seen in the past the only clubs I would ever see winning the title is Man UTD or Arsenal
HangTime (Chelsea) 2 years ago
Well.... Don't we all wish more Spanish teams will be bought by a rich owner and be able to compete with Barcelona and Real Madrid. At this rate, no club will be able to compete with them. Athletico Madrid, Valencia always sell their top players instead of keeping them and buying more players to strengthen their squad in order to compete with Real madrid and Barcelona (Augero, De Gea, Silva, Villa, Mata, Mecherno? , ect)
MyroomisMESSI (Liverpool) 2 years ago
The only reason I disagree with you is because Barca's youth system is the best in the world. They've grown Messi, Pique, Puyol, Pedro, Fabregas, Valdes and of course the incredible Xavi and Iniesta. And yes, I know some of these players were initially bought when they were teenagers but they were trained by a world class youth system
FootyRulz (Chelsea) 2 years ago
Disagree? When did he say anything about Barca's spending big?
HangTime (Chelsea) 2 years ago
Thank you footyrulz. I am aware of Barcelona's youth system. A lot of their current players now came through their youth system. But Barcelona also spend a lot on a player or so each season to make their team elite. I think that if Valencia kept Mata, Villa, Silva, and their other top players, they will be a good team right now to at least compete or scare Real Madrid and Barcelona a little
Borg (Manchester United) 2 years ago
Some of the comments in here are saying "well let's get ALL the teams billionaire owners, then it's fair". Or, "It's breaking up the big 4". If every team has a money tree then what happens to the youth? What happens to the development of new players in that country? They will never get a game. The comparative quality of other lesser leagues will continue to diminish. It might seem ok if you're a fan of EPL, La Liga, or even Bundesliga. But, how would you feel if you were a supporter in France or Portugal? Seeing the life get sucked out of your countries league. Just look at the baltic leagues and all the talented players who come from there, they will never have decent teams if this keeps up from now until the end of time and to a certain extent this applies to countries like Brazil and France. Lesser leagues will and have effectively become "feeders" and soon enough they will not be able to compete and may ultimately die because the big money tv contracts will run out. Sure, you get to see all star teams for a few years but that's short term greed and the small picture. The only answer is to get rid of the ridiculous spending and protect the long term football. Can you justify spending approx £200m a year on a GAME when the average supporter in the stands earns £30, 000 a year, it's shameful. The money is coming from somewhere and it has consequences
Ant (Liverpool) 2 years ago
The premier league this season has opened out to perhaps eight teams fighting for the top four spots. From a purely entertainment perspective that has to be an improvement over the normal 'top 4' getting them every year, right? That change is in part due to the external riches of the owners of Chelsea, Man City etc hoovering up all the talent.

Frankly I'm happy that the biggest clubs aren't guaranteed to stay the biggest purely because they already are the biggest. City have gone from 'noisy neighbours' who haven't won a trophy in almost 50 years, to a club that is a dominating, free scoring threat to any team in the world.

Has there been a case in the past of a billionaire owner just walking away and letting the club implode? It sounds like scaremongering to me
LumpOfCelery (Chelsea) 2 years ago
It's nice to see someone who is a fan of a club with such history at least be open to the ideas of billionaire owners, and not exaggerated it to the point that Roman and Sheikh Mansour are Palpatine figures
Achiox (Manchester United) 2 years ago
When I watch football on the tele, my brain thinks about the economy, news, and drama.

When I play football outside, my brain thinks about fun, friends, and personal development.

Why is there such a disconnection between professional and amateur football? The gap between the two is why I often "drop down" (no offence to any Football League One, Two, Championship fans) to follow lower clubs in the English leagues, because they all have limited, small budgets, and display better team chemistry than most top clubs.... (Chesterfield FC - Go Blues!)
Vishal024 (Arsenal) 2 years ago
Billionaire owners are steadily ruining football and it's image. They corrupt players by provoking their greed, they splash shtieloads of money at a huge loss and little profit and ignore the fanbase of their clubs. For them, results are the principal priority and footballing culture and religion have no significance. Thanks to them the main motivation behind football has become money. "What disgusts me is the love of the lousy buck, over the love of man." They lack morality, they can be likened to cold-blooded dictators.




And YES, the wild generalisations are required for effect.

LumpOfCelery (Chelsea) 2 years ago
Where are the Glazers when they're club was on the brink of champions league Expulsion, having a bath with their money. Where was Abramovich last season when Chelsea were about to go out of the champions league? Right in the stadium.

This is way too much exagerration, you act as if we Chelsea and Citeh fans are unhappy? Newsflash, neither of these two clubs complain about there upper management, we are happy with our success, this just seems to be a rant on what type of people owners are all together, and you are in no position to judge them. How about you base your arguments in reality
Borg (Manchester United) 2 years ago
Ayyam, why is he in no position to judge them? The state of the transfer market and the accounting books speak for themselves
LumpOfCelery (Chelsea) 2 years ago
I mean judge them as human beings calling them dictators when he has never spoke to them before,
FootyRulz (Chelsea) 2 years ago
"the can be likened to cold blooded dictators". Dictators that are willing to spend loads of their hard earned cash into the club to bring success? If your suggesting that all rich owners have absolutely no passion at all and only want success and money then I suggest you look at things from a different perspective



   
Kick4Life - changing lives through football