The first club to get dragged down?

[Colinjb]

Seems West Ham are in a quandry. Their owners assetts have basically dissappeared overnight.

 

http://www.football365.co.uk/story/0,17033,8652_4257452,00.html

 

Along with the Tevez affair this could really f*ck them over.

[Crouchie's Lawyer]

Right, now lets hope Pompey gets phucked too!

[St Landrew]

The Genie is out of the bottle, professional football wise. It's difficult to see how, but it's about time the Beautiful Game went back to its roots, and relied on the stadium supporter, rather than mega-rich owners.

 

Yes, I'm saying that knowing it might improve matters for SFC if that sort of thing happened. But it would also be beneficial to football in the long term too. Less, as the saying goes, is More. And in the context of money in football, it might be appropriate too.

[bridge too far]

Following on from Seb Blatter's comments yesterday, there's been some sort of FA meeting today and Lord Triesman has said that, to paraphrase, that there should be a more incisive review of ownership of clubs.

 

[stevegrant]

Following on from Seb Blatter's comments yesterday, there's been some sort of FA meeting today and Lord Triesman has said that, to paraphrase, that there should be a more incisive review of ownership of clubs.

 

Which, knowing what the FA are like, will involve them asking the clubs to provide them with information about who owns them. They won't get much co-operation from the clubs because it's not in their interests to do so, and the FA will shrug their shoulders and say "we're satisfied that all of the owners of our member clubs have the club's supporters, community and future at the forefront of their thoughts", and it'll all be brushed under the carpet.

 

After all, bugger all's been done about the Quest/Lord Stevens bung inquiry because there wasn't any legal obligation on the part of those involved to co-operate, let alone hand over any personal documents.

[Al de Man]

Right, now lets hope Pompey gets phucked too!

 

There will always be a need for weaponry.

[notnowcato]

Are the bubble blowers about to go pop??

[bridge too far]

Which, knowing what the FA are like, will involve them asking the clubs to provide them with information about who owns them. They won't get much co-operation from the clubs because it's not in their interests to do so, and the FA will shrug their shoulders and say "we're satisfied that all of the owners of our member clubs have the club's supporters, community and future at the forefront of their thoughts", and it'll all be brushed under the carpet.

 

After all, bugger all's been done about the Quest/Lord Stevens bung inquiry because there wasn't any legal obligation on the part of those involved to co-operate, let alone hand over any personal documents.

 

Although I also recall that 'the authorities' (Inland Revenue I think) are now inquiring into tax fiddles carried out by 'a premier league manager'. This was also reported this morning but I can't now find any links to the story.

 

If there's enough pressure, the lid will blow eventually.

[mack rill]

The Genie is out of the bottle, professional football wise. It's difficult to see how, but it's about time the Beautiful Game went back to its roots, and relied on the stadium supporter, rather than mega-rich owners.

 

Yes, I'm saying that knowing it might improve matters for SFC if that sort of thing happened. But it would also be beneficial to football in the long term too. Less, as the saying goes, is More. And in the context of money in football, it might be appropriate too.

 

Some how i don't think you would have the same opinion if SFCs snout was still in the premiership troff.

[bridge too far]

Some how i don't think you would have the same opinion if SFCs snout was still in the premiership troff.

 

 

Trough - HTH

[mack rill]

Trough - HTH

 

Thank you sweetie:smt008

[St Landrew]

Some how i don't think you would have the same opinion if SFCs snout was still in the premiership troff.

 

As BTF says: trough.

 

Err... yes I would actually. I've always thoroughly opposed the idea of the Premier League, and I didn't like the idea of SKY money when it was first mooted. I knew the biggest and most glamourous clubs would get bigger at the expense of ones that, for reasons largely other than football, would get left behind. But I didn't imagine it would get this big and business like.

 

Tbh, I consider the Premiership to be an unmittigated disaster for real football. And that doesn't mean I want my club to have no part of it either. Just that I prefer the Premiership, Championship, League One and Two to be the First, Second, Third and Fourth Divisions, as they were before, and running rather satisfactorily back then too.

 

BTW, I don't have SKY, never have, never will. And although one should never say never. This is an easy never to say.

[the stain]

Like St L says, there was always opposition to the Premiership.

 

Just like the way the existence of football pre-Premiership is an inconvenience that the Murdoch press would do anything to write out of history. So the very real and very noisy opposition to the PL and the attendant Sky cash has been disappeared. Now the crazymental state of football finances seems to get talked of as a completely unforseen by-product of Sky's benevolent altruism, rather than the obvious outcome of the pigheaded short-termist greed of a few parties who didn't want to listen.

[scott_saints]

BTW, I don't have SKY, never have, never will. And although one should never say never. This is an easy never to say.

You should get it. More things to watch n' stuff.

[bridge too far]

 

BTW, I don't have SKY, never have, never will.

 

I like a man of principle

[Saints1980]

You should get it. More things to watch n' stuff.

 

Word.

[St Landrew]

You should get it. More things to watch n' stuff.

 

Hmm, yes. I pay a subscription, on top of my licence fee [at least the Beeb don't advertise]. Which gives me the right to watch SKY programmes. Unfortunately, it gives SKY the right to advertise products to me, while I pay for the privilage of watching them. It also means SKY do not have to budget for the extra programme time in the schedules that they would have to fill if they didn't advertise. Adverts can easily be as much as 15 minutes in the hour. That's 15 minutes, per hour SKY don't have to find money for, but I pay for it, and so do the companies who make the adverts. Rupert Murdoch must have a real belly laugh some times. Add to this the repeats upon repeats that SKY will invariably throw at me [yes, I have looked at the SKY schedules], and which means they do not have to fund extra original programming, and it all adds up to a fair few quid in their pocket, just so I can have that little novelty of a satellite dish sitting on my roof. And I haven't even subscribed to much programming of worth yet [perhaps The Discovery Channel..?] The Movies and Sport are extra.

 

Starting to feel ripped off yet..?

 

If ever the notion of SKY TV becomes even remotely attractive to me, I'll bugger off and do something more interesting instead. Like watching paint dry or sticking my head down the toilet.

 

Here's a little story: About 10 years an elder relative stopped using SKY TV after 3-4 years subscription. He actually realised that most of his viewing was BBC1 and 2 via the satellite dish.

Edited 7 October, 2008 by St Landrew

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Some how i don't think you would have the same opinion if SFCs snout was still in the premiership troff.

 

Let me guess, to roll on floor farting?

[Guest Hacienda]

Starting to feel ripped off yet..?

 

Not at all. I'm more than happy with the deal I get and the product supplied.