Wasn't sure were to post this but, i was just wonder how you all fell about the Wave of Americans taking over Teams in Euorpe? I have heard mixed reviews from the news, but i want to know from the people who live there
On the whole I'm for it (or at least not against it), though there is one major difference between American sports clubs and European sports clubs which is that on the whole we're not franchises. (If anyone wants to kick off the MK Dons debate again don't). Hence Americans have been known to come in and alienate fans not with their plans or their financial input, but their choice of words.
:rant: takeovers are seriously p!ssing me off. Football is a business now, not a game. Clubs like Watford will never win a trophy in the next 15years and probably forever without a big takeover, which as a small club we are unlikely to get. Their ruining football, should be a ban on foreign investors.
i due agree that some Americans run it like a franchise but, i don't think it's bad enough to say that there should be a ban on foreign investors.
By no means should there be a ban on foreign investors. I agree with UEA when he says that owners can come in an alienate fans when they use words that imply separation of the club from their fans. I think that when the Liverpool owners came in they made sure they got the fans on their side which is why it seems there is less hoo-ha about their takeover than United's.
I'm surprised English money isn't catching on to the value and profit available in English football. The American's are buying into it because it's undervalued.
to be honest, i don't like it because then people on the street start complaining about franchises and use the word completely in the wrong context. Use a damn dictionary! when clubs gain the right to vote, given permanent rights to play in a specific league or give other people the right to run their own 'liverpool f.c's around the world then fair play. as it stands they don't so these idiots should just shut up and accept that football is a business. sure we could have club charters like at ajax or elections like in spain, but we don't which is our own fault. did adam smith die for nothing?! and before anyone mentions mk dons that was a relocation. so completely removed from the concept of 'franchise' that if anyone dares to contradict me i will rip out their spleen! do i mind american owners? no. capital is capital is capital. self interest is self interest is self interest. profit is profit is profit.
true. also i imagine that maybe there aren't as many native investors with access to the same levels of capital at the same price with the relevant experience in managing sports business as in the USA.
Fan, I suggest you take issue with Matt Rowson who writes on the website BHaPPY (link below), he's one of the chaps that wrote on Blind Stupid and Desperate if you didn't know. He's dead against the whole MK Dons thing, which he is adamant is a franchise. In fact he wrote an article on the site which has drawn many comments, but he just will not let the issue go. Ok fair enough he's standing by his guns but it's getting to the point of annoyance. I'm sure that you might have something to say about it! Go have a look, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. http://bhappy.wordpress.com/
use a little invention called google, type in define:franchise into the search bar and then tell me how nay of the following definitions relate to what happened at MK Dons. Relocation, Relocation Relocation (a rather uninspiring show) isn’t called franchise, franchise, franchise because when you move house you are basing your legal entity elsewhere that was my reply. not a very good one. perhap not even fully coherent, but what does it matter anyways? i'm not gonna change anyones opinions with a comment or two
i haven't read it but this guy i think makes my point but better OK! Let’s try: 1. “What is right and acceptable….” - Definition of franchise: “….authorisation to sell company’s goods etc in particular area” (Oxford Handy Dictionary) a) Wimbledon did not belong to the fans, it belonged to the owners who had every right to do as they pleased with it; b) the owners could not do anything with it to make it a going concern in its state at that time. Their choices were to liquidate it (after which it would not have existed at all) or sell it for as much as they could and hope someone could revive it. They sold it to Pete Winkelman. c) they DID NOT give “authorisation (to Pete Winkelman) to sell the company’s goods in a particular area (MK)”. They sold the company. d) If the Football League OWNED all 72 clubs and authorised the movement of Wimbledon to MK, then that would be franchising. MK Dons is not a franchise. e) what happened was absolutely right in a business sense. The only way the Wimbledon fans could have had their own say was if THEY (not Pete Winkleman) bought the club and, if my understanding is correct, the fans had every opportunity to do so but couldn’t or really did not want to get it together. f) What is RIGHT (to answer your question further), is that the fans did get together to found and organise their own football club and, in that respect, they deserve every encouragement and congratulations on a splendid job so far. 2. What is likeable……? To whom must it be likeable? Pete Winkleman and the MK board like it; 5000+ fans in MK like it (and you watch, there’ll be many more next season); those fans who still wear their old Wimbledon scarves like it; I guess even the fans of AFC like the fact that they have started something, that it’s increasingly successful and, especially, that it belongs to them. So let me turn the question around - who doesn’t like it? You and a few others, it seems. 3. What is tolerable…..? Nobody “stole” a football club. A dying business was bought by a new owner who put plans into place to resurrect it and make it successful. The owners of Arsenal put plans into place to move the football club to a new home to make it more successful. How many Arsenal fans with Highbury Stadium in their veins do not like the Emirates? A host of other clubs have and will do the same. Ask the fans of Leytonstone, Ilford, Walthamstow Avenue, Redbridge Forest and Dagenham football clubs if they would prefer their old clubs or Dagenham & Redbridge attaining league status for the first time - and ask fans of Torquay United who stole a place in the league. Who stole a place in the football league? The football club moved to Milton Keynes as Wimbledon - the place in the league was not taken by another club. Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic changed its name to AFC Bournemouth - what’s wrong with that? Go through the history books and see how many clubs have changed their names. Milton Keynes is the beneficiary of a mixture of bad management by the former owners and lack of forsight of the local authorities. Does that help?
although again, my main gripe is the constant use of the word franchise. its an action indicative of people just not bothering to learn about what they're angry with.
True. As far as that site is concerned by rearranging these following words you'll find out where your arguement will get you: Against banging head wall brick.
American take overs are ok, they bring a higher pedigree of footballer to these shores... however, it alienates the 'top 4' from the rest, thus making competition non-existent...
