City and Chiefs same owner.

[Legohead]

Playing Devil's Advocat here, If it is the most sustainable way of running a football club then why out of the 71 EFL clubs there are less than a handful who go down this route, Even with Covid-19 and all the problems this is causing now and in the future there has been no groundswell in support to move in this direction?

With regard to the Chiefs and City being as one, Not for me, while they're still in the top flight and have a lot of media attention we'd always be the poorer relative and it would not enhance the club in any way.

Because it is hard work for the long term for a number of people (fans) to sustain . It is unlikely to bring much success on the pitch and it's easier just to watch one man ride into your club and spend his own cash whilst you sit back and hope that means success and not bankruptcy.

Being fan owned is a slow, gradual process and it's challenging. However it is so rewarding for so many people.

 

[DB9]

Because it is hard work for the long term for a number of people (fans) to sustain . It is unlikely to bring much success on the pitch and it's easier just to watch one man ride into your club and spend his own cash whilst you sit back and hope that means success and not bankruptcy.

Being fan owned is a slow, gradual process and it's challenging. However it is so rewarding for so many people.

It is harder i agree but if most clubs were doing the things our way then we'd be all in the same boat and the success on the pitch would be even amoung teams. As for sitting back watching an owner spend their own money TBH that's what most football fans want, They do not want to get involved in the politics and running of their club, All most are interested in is buying a ST or turning up pay on the day, watch 90 mins of football, Hoping they win and go home and i can bet you most fans don't go home thinking the the club might go bankrupt anytime soon.

Also if one person wants to splash their own money then i have no problem with that, Going on about other teams like Mansfield, FGR etc spending and saying they're on the road to bankruptcy when promotion doesn't happen without knowing their financial situation is just wrong and again airs on jealousy, Mansfield for example have always had cash behind them for years at our level, Hardly any promotion but still they keep spending, We don't know how much their owners have, What they do to raise cash, I have no problem at all with clubs who have money to spend, Its not OUR problem.

We are now getting way off topic, I know I'm guilty of this but was responding to something IBA said so apologies to the mods

 

[malcolms]

Mr Rowe was completely against any cooperation with the football club when the Rugby club was looking to leave the County ground. I'm not personally wedded to any particular ownership structure as long as its in the interest of developing the football club. There is no 'doctrine' that holds all the answers and I believe those who think there is, are only a projection of the way they view the world.

 

[i8cornwall]

Because it is hard work for the long term for a number of people (fans) to sustain . It is unlikely to bring much success on the pitch and it's easier just to watch one man ride into your club and spend his own cash whilst you sit back and hope that means success and not bankruptcy.

Being fan owned is a slow, gradual process and it's challenging. However it is so rewarding for so many people.

Apologies to keep this off topic so I won’t carry it on after this post.

Some clubs are simply to big to be fan owned, for example Bolton Supporters trust looked at buying a share in the club or even running it a few years back.

The cost to maintain the ground and run the hotel alone was astronomical and not something a trust could do. There where other reasons but this was the main one.

Anyway enough of that back onto topic.

 

[elginCity]

....I'm not personally wedded to any particular ownership structure as long as its in the interest of developing the football club......

Who better than the truly interested; the supporters ? Mr Rowe, No.

 

[MJP_Exeter]

I would not want Tony Rowe anywhere near our club. Also remember the level of investment he and the chiefs have done is nowhere near enough to sustain a championship club. In footballing Terms the chiefs would be a lge 1 / champ floater at best.

 

[i8cornwall]

Who better than the truly interested; the supporters ? Mr Rowe, No.

Obviously this is all make believe but would say a rich owner who was a fan be ok?

I’m not suggesting there is one as I’m sure we would have known about them by now.

Just interested to hear what you would think then.

 

[elginCity]

Obviously this is all make believe but would say a rich owner who was a fan be ok?

I’m not suggesting there is one as I’m sure we would have known about them by now.

Just interested to hear what you would think then.

If we have to have a solitary rich owner, then a committed fan would be preferable to one who isn't, yes.

I like the Trust model, and would hope to persuade said fan to invest in the Trust with its no upper limit on subs, and for them to seek election to the Trust Board. Pie in the sky, I know !

 

[lamrobhero]

If ECFC were to become privately owned then I would cease to be a supporter - the emotional attachment would not be there as it would no longer be our Club.

 

[IBA]

Rick Parry chairman of EFL seems very in favour of Community owed clubs when interviewed on BBC today in light of the Wigan debacle : "It's no use just talking about owners' and directors' tests as if that is going to solve all of the problems"....
"Why can we not have community owned, sustainable clubs? That goes for all the structural issues that I have been telling anybody who will listen, and most people who won't listen, for the past x number of months, from the select committee onwards.
".....We've got clubs spending 107% of their income on wages"
"We need to make our clubs sustainable - we shouldn't be relying on random foreign owners."