Owners

Remove this Banner Ad

first to spend money
On 20 February 1986, entrepreneur Silvio Berlusconi acquired the club and saved it from bankruptcy investing vast amounts of money,[2] appointing rising manager Arrigo Sacchi at the helm of the Rossoneri and signing Netherlands internationals Ruud Gullit, Marco van Basten and Frank Rijkaard.[2] The Dutch trio added an attacking impetus to the team, and complemented the club's Italian internationals Paolo Maldini, Franco Baresi, Alessandro Costacurta and Roberto Donadoni. Under Sacchi, Milan won its first Scudetto in nine years in the 1987–88 season. The following year the club won its first European Cup in two decades, beating Romanian club Steaua București 4–0 in the final. Milan retained their title with a 1–0 win over Benfica a year later and remain the last team to win back-to-back European Cups.[19] The Milan team of 1989–90 has been voted the best club side of all time, in a global poll of experts conducted by World Soccer magazine :rolleyes:
 
Chelsea was the first billionaire owner as far as I know

He's also a lot richer than other owners due to exploiting the downfall of the USSR

Not all owners spend 50m pound if they fancy a striker



Magnier and McManus at Man United
Jack Walker at Blackburn (don't know if he was technically a billionaire though)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

On 20modern ary 1986, entrepreneur Silvio Berlusconi acquired the club and saved it from bankruptcy investing vast amounts of money,[2] appointing rising manager Arrigo Sacchi at the helm of the Rossoneri and signing Netherlands internationals Ruud Gullit, Marco van Basten and Frank Rijkaard.[2] The Dutch trio added an attacking impetus to the team, and complemented the club's Italian internationals Paolo Maldini, Franco Baresi, Alessandro Costacurta and Roberto Donadoni. Under Sacchi, Milan won its first Scudetto in nine years in the 1987–88 season. The following year the club won its first European Cup in two decades, beating Romanian club Steaua București 4–0 in the final. Milan retained their title with a 1–0 win over Benfica a year later and remain the last team to win back-to-back European Cups.[19] The Milan team of 1989–90 has been voted the best club side of all time, in a global poll of experts conducted by World Soccer magazine :rolleyes:

Yea fair enough my mistake.

to be fair 89 was some time ago. iI knew That ffamous Milan side bought a few players, iI thought most were home grown. what iI do know is Milan fans are not happy with his lack of spending in more recent years

Even with inflation, he wasnt spending 50m quid on a #9.

In recent or mmodern times, Chelsea was the first mega rich oil barren club. Success came from Obscene money. As citeh, anzil, copied.

Its not special to be a well run club when you initially have unlimited funds
 
Last edited:
chef
Its not hard to be self sufficent, when you spend a billion pounds straight up

Agree that we wouldn't be where we are now without that billion (not that it was spent straight up though). No way we would have gone from a mid sized club to a global giant without it.

But we're now at a stage were we have a second to none academy, are turning a profit and are now a well run business/FC.
 
And playing zero academy players

What's the point when you can just buy what u want eh

John Terry says hi:D

But seriously our academy got overhauled 4 or 5 years ago when Emenalo became our technical director. Since then results wise we are second to none to any other clubs academy(we just won the under 18's UEFA league). Guys like Ake, RLC, Christensen, Solanke etc also got a taste of first team football. I have no doubt that these guys if good enough (got to remember it's easier to get a game at a club like Soton than it is at Chelsea) will get opportunities.
 
i know but no matte how good they are I doubt they will get a go

Doubtful you'd blood a promising youngster when you can spend 40 million pouns on the next big thing

Like Zouma(19), Oscar (20), Hazard(21), Azpi (22), Courtois (21)

I know these guys didnt come through the academy but if they are good enough we'll play them reguardless of age.

We dont just dpend £40m on the next best thing.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

cthis post: 37977669 said:
Like Zouma(19), Oscar (20), Hazard(21), Azpi (22), Courtois (21)

I know these guys didnt come through the academy but if they are good enough we'll play them reguardless of age.

We dont just dpend £40m on the next best thing.

I think this kind of highlights my point ...

Why would they try bamford or kalas

When they can just go and buy the next hazard or zouma
 
Good idea for a thread mate.

I actually saw that bit about Blackpool running out of kits and having to use a signed top during a match yesterday and was going to make mention of it. Pretty comical, you'd expect maybe something like that from a pub team but a professional club in the second division?

Also was a good eye opener as to how bad things are elsewhere. Not sure if it was just myself but I wasn't really aware how bad things were for the Blackpool fans (I know they had a lot of trouble in preseason trying to get a squad together and that they've since been relegated?). That pitch is awful and having an owner who openly antagonises the fans? Surely the Football League or maybe the FA have to step in and intervene?

I'd be curious to understand Oyston's intentions for the club. Surely by seemingly running it into the ground (relegation without a whimper), he's ultimately losing value on an asset he owns and may (subsequently) need to spend more of his money to keep the club solvent?

With Ashley, he spends a bare minimum to 'ensure' the club stay in the PL and thus get access to the TV riches plus free advertising to a global audience for his true passion, his sporting goods empire. For Oyston, I can't see any point or value in seeing the club go down the toilet. If he doesn't want the club, why not sell it? And if he wants to sell? Why not strengthen his asking price by trying to maintain the club's position in the Championship (and not letting the facilities/stadium deteriorate)?

That is an interesting question. One has to wonder what exactly does Oyston actually hopes to achieve? If its for investment purposes, the club is looking a lot worse off compared to their Premier League days, and it's clear he's not doing anything to help the club, like at all. Maybe some men just want to watch the world burn? Everyone seems to hate Oyston, and rightfully so.

In fact, after finding out the fans want him out, do you know what Oyson replied with?

3230011269.jpg


No joke, that's his Land Rover. He's really enjoying this.


Actually, I missed something else: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jan/29/wonga-ends-blackpool-fc-sponsorship-deal Wonga have chosen to not renew their sponsorship of Blackpool. Now that hurts financially and morally, you know it's bad when Wonga want nothing more to do with you.

Here's a further extension on the Blackpool story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...l-laughing-stock-sorry-story-Oyston-mess.html What few fans that are present are actually throwing things onto the pitch to protest... wow.

I'll readily admit that our plight is nowhere near as bad as Blackpool's - and it seems a shame that there probably hasn't been as much coverage/focus of what Oyston is doing to the club.

That being said, if fans become completely dejected/disillusioned with their club to the point where they have literally no enjoyment, passion or optimism anymore, wouldn't that be considered 'terrible' by most standards too?

12 odd years ago, the club was playing in the Champions League and regularly pushing for Europe, fast forward to today and the most exciting thing to happen to the club is the seemingly first organised effort by the fans to try and eject the owner from the club.

There is no more dreams of European glory, or a cup success to end our trophy drought. Heck, we can't even relish our derby anymore or hope to see a Toon side playing entertaining football and having a genuine crack anymore. There are no heroes for the fans to worship and adore - what's the point? They'll be sold off anyway. Everything that was once special with supporting Newcastle (and probably for any other team) has gone under Ashley.

The day Ashley came in was the day that Newcastle United stopped being a football club and became an empty, soulless money machine to promote Sports Direct and profit the owner.

Hmmm, now that's another thing that did get me thinking. The playing group themselves. You look at Sunderland and Newcastle right now, and they're clearly not playing for the club. If the fans don't care, why should they? These teams look very uninterested and unfussed. I think the players were actually quite friendly with each other after the Tyne-Wear Derby, that's just weird! There's no passion!

The way the club is run affects the attitude of all parties concerned, it's a vicious circle.




Just to clarify too, most Toon fans will tell you they don't expect the club to be fighting for top 4 honours or the title. Most are realistic enough to know that without super investment, such talk is essentially a pipe dream.

All Newcastle fans fundamentally want is to restore the enjoyment, excitement, pride and passion of supporting their local team that has gone under Ashley's regime. They want to believe the club that represents them and their city is trying to improve and progress instead of treading water so the owner can profit.

As I said in the matchday thread, most fans would probably change their minds on Ashley if he could just prove he genuinely cared about the club (and not just the balance sheet).

Out of interest, as a Newcastle fan, what exactly would you like Ashley to do? Or in other words, the core duties of an owner to the club. The very basics that a fan can at the very least that the owners of the club are at least showing some degree of care to the club. Not good ownership, just adequate enough to show that he's at least carrying out his responsibilities.
 
All a good owner has to do is:

- Listen to the fans and show that they matter to the club
- Minimise the financial impact on fans of watching their team play
- Spend within the club's means - essentially break even each financial year

Those are literally the only three things an owner has to do. Spend enough on players that the money they are earning from the PL is being reinvested, but not so much as to put the club in debt.
 
Another way of saying it could be; if they are kicking ass at genk, lille or Etienne.

Chelsea will buy them. And playing them instead of homegrown talent.

;)

What home grown talent have we missed?

If we want to be a great side filling it with English men probably aint a great idea:D
 
No English players in the Chelsea academy anyway

Buy em when they young save money...

French and Danish ;)
wtf?
15 of 18 in their u21 are English and 18 of 27 of their academy are English (with 2 other Brits)
 
John Terry says hi:D

But seriously our academy got overhauled 4 or 5 years ago when Emenalo became our technical director. Since then results wise we are second to none to any other clubs academy(we just won the under 18's UEFA league). Guys like Ake, RLC, Christensen, Solanke etc also got a taste of first team football. I have no doubt that these guys if good enough (got to remember it's easier to get a game at a club like Soton than it is at Chelsea) will get opportunities.
In other news, you're 2 points from safety in the English youth leagues and could drop to division 2 next year.

It's easier to win a cup comp than a league :p

EDIT: That's u21s, your U18s are top of the Division 1 South.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Owners

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top