Comments for en-gb 30 Sun 26 Apr 2015 02:06:08 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at D Of course it does especially now we have these yanks coming over here and fleecing us at Liverpool, United and Villa! Tue 10 Aug 2010 08:59:42 GMT+1 Tony Harrison2 This post has been Removed Tue 10 Aug 2010 07:57:53 GMT+1 bazzerman If football clubs were good investments then there would be a ready market for shares and the fans would buy shares. As it is they are a drain on financial resources, there is no economic sense in owning a club, the sole reason is the vanity of the owner. Tue 10 Aug 2010 07:40:10 GMT+1 mocambique1 whom so ever pays the salary has the right to own and rule, does it care whom this is Tue 10 Aug 2010 06:25:26 GMT+1 The Leveller Until fans have a significant share in the ownership of clubs they should stay away. Clubs don't represent local areas, towns or cities nor do the owners or players. They are just in it for the money. For example, you may think that you support Chelsea or Manchester City but you don't, unless you want to give your money to a Russian oligarch or an Arab Sheikh. Wise up! Tue 10 Aug 2010 06:13:56 GMT+1 Martin1983 Perhaps the fans ought to own the football club. Not exactly a silly idea; I believe Barcelona and Real Madrid have some sort of scheme where the fans own shares in the club. Closer to home, Stirling Albion have done this sort of thing. Mon 09 Aug 2010 22:51:54 GMT+1 leslog yes it does matter football clubs and British Companys being sold off to the highest bidders it will all end uP to the detriment of the British people are other Countrys selling off all their assets to foreigners who are more loyal to there own Countrys and people Mon 09 Aug 2010 21:15:19 GMT+1 matt-stone Who owns a football club should matter to England or we may have to send our youngsters abroad to learn how to play football. Foreign owners like to buy ready made footballers to help attract customers to their grounds, as they are in it for the money, and not for the glory of England. Complacency has already crept in, with English fans already claiming we have the best league in the world, and hence it must follow the assumptions we also have best team in the world. If proof be needed - check World Cup 2010, South Africa - we were found out, weren't we?? So, its vital ownership stays local to help foster our young talents to world standard. Mon 09 Aug 2010 20:17:43 GMT+1 deanarabin Mr Martin O'Neill seems to think so. Mon 09 Aug 2010 20:13:31 GMT+1 righteoussasquatch "Does it matter who owns a football club?" A football club is a slice of a community and so someone who buys the club as an investment needs to understand that community and relate to it. How can someone in China or Syria relate to the local fan base without moving to the UK? Some clubs have been profitable when taken over and then become saddled with massive debts of less scrupulous new owners! Other clubs have been mismanaged and the HMRC have decided to sort them out. Football clubs are not above the law or government of the land. Fans end up so angry at their club being treated as an investment commodity and young players sold to line the owners pocket. Mon 09 Aug 2010 18:56:35 GMT+1 John Hudson 295. At 11:58am on 09 Aug 2010, confusus wrote:In France every company must be 50% French owned, in America every major company, particularly media must be solely American owned.I can hear the Grundian readers ripping their hair shirts off to beat their breast at this racism. Then realising that this is not within England and therefore it is not racism it’s OK because it is their culture!It is about time we did the same, it cannot be wrong if they do it, can it?---Total nonsense, confusus. There is no rule in France that French companies must be 50% owned. Michelin and Total are two examples of 'French' companies that are more than half in the hands of foreigners. You can check it out on their websites.The same goes for the US. I work for one of the biggest media companies in the US. We have our head office in the US, we are listed on the New York Stock Exchange, and we have an American CEO, but our owners are not solely (or even 50%) American. In fact I own some shares in that company myself, and no one has ever told me off for not being American.The reason that British companies inlcuding football clubs are bought by foreigners is that capitalism works that way. It has been going on for years, and not only in Britain. And it will go on for much longer. If you have a problem with it, buy stocks in British companies and convince all your mates to do the same. Mon 09 Aug 2010 18:53:40 GMT+1 John Stratford Shame that a once great sport has become corrupted by money and frequently deplorable player behaviour. Alan Sugar once said that if they couldn't play football many players would end up in prison. Ask a few people who regularly see Man U and City players about town in Manchester. They are regularly described as overpaid yobs. So why care who owns Liverpool? It will change nothing for the better. Mon 09 Aug 2010 18:03:02 GMT+1 bounce bounce bounce This post has been Removed Mon 09 Aug 2010 16:43:09 GMT+1 anncbd "The beautiful game"? No, a game which is now utterly corrupt. It really saddens me that there are still grown men out there whose whole lives revolve around the fortunes of "their team". I couldn't care less which team is sold to which foreign billionaire, the sooner the whole system collapses the better. Mon 09 Aug 2010 16:20:56 GMT+1 Eeyore Money at this level is certainly polluting the game. A team's actual following used to have something to do with their success or lack thereof but now you can just trump everything with a pure naked infusion of cash. The premiership is the garish gold watch on the wrist of the billionaire owner. A lot of people in this financial bracket have gotten there in ways that are less than above board and the Premiership's message so far is `welcome.' As far as leveraged buyouts are concerned, its a parasitical practice that's a bad idea everywhere, not just in football. Mon 09 Aug 2010 15:35:54 GMT+1 feral child I would go one further and say: does it matter who owns UK PLC as most of jewels of the UK are now owned by foreign nationals or companies where the profit does nothing for this country, but only for the other country. I.E Santander. The motor industry, ET AL. And lets be honest, they only want the profit as much as they can make, at our expense. And we as a nation get lumbered with the debt they have to obtain to buy the company in the first place. NO. KEEP it British for our sakes and no-one Else's! Mon 09 Aug 2010 15:12:18 GMT+1 ciconia Potential benefits of foreign ownership:I seem to remember China trying to discourage the spitting habit before the Beijing games. If they could do that here it would be a bonus at all levels of football.So that would only leave the occasional swearing, diving, and disrespect for the ref's authority. What nationalities have cultures that might raise standards in those areas? Mon 09 Aug 2010 14:07:09 GMT+1 aardvark12 "I just can't understand why the fans and Liverpudlians in general don't buy it and keep the club exclusively under their control. It doesn't matter which external buyer buys the club, their only reason for buying will be to make a fast buck. 1 million people x £250 = £250,000."Erm, actually, it's £250,000,000. Mon 09 Aug 2010 14:02:21 GMT+1 aardvark12 Can anyone who comments here actually spell? Mon 09 Aug 2010 13:58:48 GMT+1 aardvark12 Liverpool football club, or any Englsh football club being owned by foreign millionaires is a travesty. However, it just shows how football has turned from being the working class sport it used to be, to just being another commercial enterprise. The managers are foreign and so are most of the players. The only reason they're called a 'team' is because they all happen to play together in the same coloured shirt once a week. There's now obviously no dedication to the club, as there was when it was the 'local' team. It annoys me and I don't even follow football. The players are now just a load of over-paid prima-donnas with girly diamond studs in their ears. Mon 09 Aug 2010 13:56:31 GMT+1 Brian Brown People who contribute to this site who deliberately click onto it just say " I don't care about football" are numbskulls. If you don't care WHY ARE YOU SAYING IT. We don't care that you don't care. Have Your Say mean exactly that HAVE YOUR SAY, not Have Your Say to pronounce that you don't want to have your say. Mon 09 Aug 2010 13:18:35 GMT+1 ProfPhoenix Does it matter who owns a football club?No Mon 09 Aug 2010 13:11:39 GMT+1 Brian Brown The Chinese government owning Liverpool FC. Bring it on! They can be no worse than the Yankee incompetents who are 'running' it now, mainly into the ground. Maybe China is a Third World totalitarian country, but its morals are no worse that the greedy self serving scum who run the banking system. If it is not a Chinese frontman, at the end of the month it will be RBS, so the moral imperative is questionable either way.The advantage for Liverpool (The City) is that when a Chinese tourist, or manufacturing firm, want to extend its influence into Europe, the first name that will come to mind is, LIVERPOOL! When the Japenese first started to import cars into Britain, the cry was 'torturers of our POW's, don't buy Datsun!' But time moves on and countries want to belong to the rest of the world, so they improve their behaviour and they need to enrich their own population in order to expand their economies. Our own democracy is nothing to write home about. Vote LibCon, a mixture of colours which gives you Brown.Liverpool has the oldest Chinese community in Europe and there are BILLIONS of possible customers who Never Want to Walk Alone. So come on you oppressed peoples of China! Come and walk with me along Oakfield Road to Anfield.All together now!# The people's flag is deepest red.An' in the middle's the Liver Bird!# Mon 09 Aug 2010 13:03:42 GMT+1 old codger what doe`s it matter most of the first league payers are foreign .so a foreign owner or manager won`t make much difference , th ptrbel; with top clubs they pay their players too much ,after the recent world championship antics none of them ar worth it , Mon 09 Aug 2010 13:00:42 GMT+1 Keith Football clubs nowadays are just big businesses that produce nothing of any value to anyone. I have never had the misfortune to endure watching a football match live or on a television. I have come to the conclusion that any activity that creates a few overpaid "superstars" like football, television, etc. for no end result is the only thing Britain is interested in. Perhaps that is why i have opted out of television ownership for many years and now no longer pay any income tax, National Insurance tax or Council tax and have the satisfaction i no longer contribute to government overspending. Mon 09 Aug 2010 12:57:29 GMT+1 jamesev Players transfer fees will continue to rise as they chase new goals (there comes a point where salary is irrelevant when you can buy a new Aston Martin from a weeks wages) One of them being the accolade of having the highest transfer fee. This costs the clubs more and more and ticket proces will rise and Sky Sports Subscriptions will rise. Cost of ownership will therfore increase to a point where only foreign investment wil be able to aford clubs. Most of these won't be for profit but as a commodity or collectors item buying in players as they won't be interested in the long term investment of bring players up from grass roots. When they eventually get bored and move on to owning an F1 team or the latest fad the clubs will be left with huge debt and end up in administration. As seen with Portsmouth, this will not be the exclusive domain of the non premiership. So there will be no home grown talent and thereofore no England / Ireland / Scotland or Wales National Team that can realistically compete on the world stage.If we want a national team then the FA needs long term vision to develop a generation of players and not just focus on continually scrape together a team to qualify for tournaments just to keep the world ranking in the top 10 for imageFrance disappeared into the World cup wilderness then came through to win. Netherlands did a similar thing. Germany top flight team collective chose to field a minimum number of domestic players, Spain have ~700 qualified coaches at top level (as opposed to England with ~150). All the European countries that have flourished on the world stage in the last 15 years have taken steps to address what is needed. the Home countries are satisfied just to be seen at these eventsThis needs a harder line on gaining control back to football as a sport rather than as businesses who own their assets (footballers) and give pride back to playing for country as opposed to just being corporate puppets. Mon 09 Aug 2010 12:45:40 GMT+1 Littlefork WHAT I AM AGAINST IS ANYTHING WHICH COSTS BRITISH TAXPAYERS. I SUPPOSE ANYONE (FOREIGN OR NOT) WHO CHOOSES FOOTBALL AS A MEANS OF OFFSETTING TAX (TAX AVOIDANCE) SHOULD BE BOOTED OUT. IT'S A SCANDAL THAT THE TAXPAYERS COME DOWN THE PECKING ORDER AFTER PLAYERS WHEN IT COMES TO PAYING OFF DEBTS. THEY ARE PAID ENOUGH. CHANGE THE LAWS AND LETS SEE IF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP IS STILL ATTRACTIVE. Mon 09 Aug 2010 12:16:25 GMT+1 Littlefork CAN EVERYONE WHO HAS A SKY SPORTS PACKAGE PLEASE CANCEL IT IMMEDIATELY. WHEN THE CASH COW THEN DRIES UP WE'LL SEE WHAT THESE FOREIGN OWNERS MAKE OF FOOTBALL.FANS HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF THEY WORK IN UNISON Mon 09 Aug 2010 12:11:59 GMT+1 bobbgooduk Football is only a game. Like bar-skittles, it doesn't matter at all. The importance lies not in the game itself but in the finances and the interests involved. The world of big business has profitted from sky-high TV fees to broadcast the matches and the situation is wildly out of hand.In the Netherlands, only 4 teams have been declared "financially sound" and only one of those is in the premier division. The situation seems to be the same all over the world.To me, it matters far more that water companies, energy companies and other utilities are in the hands of foreign conglomerates much more than whether a foreigner owns a football club. If the professional game disappeared in a cloud of smoke, it wouldn't really substantially affect anybody. Not so if vital industries and utilities fall prey to market forces.The demose of professional football has been on the cards for a number of years - it's inevitable that the administration of the game will have to change radically. Mon 09 Aug 2010 11:59:33 GMT+1 Droschke I don't Like Football and don't care about it. I am though disgusted by the obscene amount of money paid to the players, who are mainly foreign, and that money disappears out of the UK never to be seen again. No wonder the Country is in such a state. Mon 09 Aug 2010 11:57:18 GMT+1 Trumpton911 Many people on here seem unable to understand the concept of 'Having Your Say' Vs 'Having Nothing to Say'. You don't HAVE to say anything, particularly if the subject is not of any interest to you. Do all you idiots feel the need to start smoking because there's an ashtray outside which says, 'Please Put Cigerette Butts Here'?Cretins. Mon 09 Aug 2010 11:56:37 GMT+1 riveradur10 Who cares who owns the club, but the debt issue needs looking at very seriously,i read an article that said many footballclubs are in heavy debt.This must stop ,the situation is out of control, if it were any other business they would be stopped and unable for loans.This is a business,but do we want to continue to support failing debt ridden business.Remember if you were a foreign investor you would be critical of the way business is run in the U.K.,P.S i could'nt give a hoot about european clubs in debt ect, i care about us. Mon 09 Aug 2010 11:26:31 GMT+1 Npd McNpd Practically all the high profile football clubs are now valued so highly and in such debt that any owner or institution funding them must be detached from the football aspect and see these as business investments. To that extent, which institution or individual it is has less relevance as long as the money behind it is genuine and gained by legitimate means.There are, though, two matters that are still relevant. First if looked at by the same rules as any other commercial business, the ratios of debt to profit and cash generation in football continue to be extremely high. Both Manchester United, and even worse Liverpool on its significantly smaller earnings, would be looked at as close to if not actual toxic debt if they were in any other business sector. And sectors that have carried on as if normal business rules don’t apply have a habit of always coming to an unpleasant day where reality catches up with them.Secondly, the increased commercialisation that this inevitably results in is fine but delivers a rather soulless end product. Football in its upper reaches is now far more about who has the most cash (funded by debt), who just buys the best players up. The structures of European football competitions have also been adjusted over the years to enable this polarisation, with a group of clubs pooling together to exert their influence and financial muscle to preserve themselves at the top of that order. It is all rather far away from the ideals and nostalgia that football still tries to trade off. Ironically, Liverpool try to use this more than most, to present a present image based on a perception of the past that could not be more disconnected from the club’s current status as a mere business commodity. Mon 09 Aug 2010 11:05:51 GMT+1 confusus In France every company must be 50% French owned, in America every major company, particularly media must be solely American owned.I can hear the Grundian readers ripping their hair shirts off to beat their breast at this racism. Then realising that this is not within England and therefore it is not racism it’s OK because it is their culture!It is about time we did the same, it cannot be wrong if they do it, can it?Then we would still have;Corus, or any steel industry,Minis,Jaguar,Landrover, or any automotive industry and its components, Rowntree,And the list goes on, and on. Also UK owned satellite tv, not just another market for the Australian-American owner to regurgitate Fox programming!If Camers and Cleggyweggy wanted to make a mark here is an area that matters! Mon 09 Aug 2010 10:58:27 GMT+1 chiptheduck What matters is not who owns a football club, rather who regulates it (or indeed fails to do so).Unfortunately the Premier League, Football League and FA are still sitting in their smoke filled rooms pouring the gin and tonics rather than working with UEFA and FIFA to establish sensible maximum transfer fees and wages. Once these are controlled the FANS could afford to own the clubs - but then the vested interests will disappear.Time for a "fit andf proper person test" for those who run the PL, FL and FA - investigation will undoubtedly uncover all manner of irregularities! Mon 09 Aug 2010 10:20:29 GMT+1 Trainee Anarchist Doesn't matter if you care or long as you subscribe to Sky and keep renewing your season ticket.Money is the God not football.Lots of teams are in deep trouble with debts that players and managers think will just go away somehow.....some hope!Football has convinced it's self that they are far to important to fail and continue to pay out obscene wages to people who kick a ball around and, judging by England's dismal performance in the World Cup should be repaying the fans expenses.The dimwits that run football...managers...FA etc are living in a dreamworld that will come crashing down regardless of their thinking that they are crucial to society. Mon 09 Aug 2010 10:20:25 GMT+1 Danny I just can't understand why the fans and Liverpudlians in general don't buy it and keep the club exclusively under their control. It doesn't matter which external buyer buys the club, their only reason for buying will be to make a fast buck. 1 million people x £250 = £250,000.------------------------------------------------------Er, no it isn't. Mon 09 Aug 2010 10:00:37 GMT+1 SSnotbanned Disappointed yesterday. People booing in the Charity Shield match. Wonder why they shouldn't go to see Punch and Judy, or some Panto instead.Little wonder then that it turns into a circus at times. These people(''fans'') can't complain when it does. Mon 09 Aug 2010 09:45:29 GMT+1 Pugin Professional football is the most tiresome, irksome, boring and most ridiculous waste of money imaginable, financed by hordes of people so who either have far too much disposable income or who are so thick its unbelievable.They pay through the nose for tickets and merchandise, they gleefully support those that are robbing them blind.Who cares who owns the clubs, crime bosses, Al-Queda, Sainsbury's or the Royal Family.IT SHOULD BE THE SUPPORTERS !! Mon 09 Aug 2010 09:29:06 GMT+1 P J Walton Sports teams/franchises are not big money spinners for investors except through murky resale deals. The year by year revenue is nothing to shout about really compared to the money that can be made in other investments.For many investors it is a hobby to own a football club or a passion. Whether it is actually good for the club when the investor's personal passion wanes is another question. One thing is sure, that the huge salaries of Premiership players cannot be paid with gate receipts. There must be regulation, but not so much that it would repel the capital which the modern game requires in order to operate. Mon 09 Aug 2010 09:27:15 GMT+1 Brian Berlin There are about 8 billion things more important than who owns a football club. Mon 09 Aug 2010 08:26:03 GMT+1 William_prunier Yes it does matter to me - as football is one of my passions. The beautiful game is not so beautiful anymore though as it has been turned into a market, at mercy to "the forces" and now look what we have.Football is our national game. Yeah you might not like it, blokes chasing a ball around for 90 mins e.t.c e.t.c but like it or not, it is a fundamental part of our culture, particularly of the working classes. Just look where the grounds are located (and if your team has a plastic soulless ground, look where the original was) in industrial, working heartlands. Id wager no one who goes on a regular basis, to a premier league club, these days earns less than £35,000 a year.It's a business, it's a market, we live in a capitalist society some of you will cry. And we do. But this the critical point of why a market in football is wrong. If I have a bad experience in ASDA then I might think I'm not going in there again I might try Tesco. Tesco offer a better product and experience so I choose there. YOU CANNOT DO THAT IN FOOTBALL! I cannot go to Old Trafford and think, crikey this is expensive I'm going to go and watch Man City next time. Your team is your team. You just do what I, and many like me have done, and jack it in because it is too expensive to go.The owners are crucial. The owners of my team are the Glazer family who have no idea of Billy Meredith, Ernest Magnall, Sir Matt striding in to a bombed ground in 1945 and building 3 great teams, one of which died at Munich. They don't care because they want to make a huge amount of money. So, for me, if the game is to be brought back from the abyss, we need fan ownership of clubs, so there are people in charge who care about the club. But, realistically, how is this going to happen when this market is completely unregulated beacuse the regulator, the F.A, instead of addressing it, is too busy driving the gravy train. Mon 09 Aug 2010 08:02:22 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality This post has been Removed Mon 09 Aug 2010 07:56:41 GMT+1 TD_Pete I think a club is something that is shared with its participants for altruistic aims. Yes they should be run like a business but the aim of making a quick profit shouldn't be the key aim which is what some of these newer breed of leveraged investor/owner are trying to do i.e. the Glazer's and the Gillett/Hicks I welcome serious owners like Roman Abramovitch or Al Fayed who are putting more into the club that they are getting out of it. I think the Liverpool board need to look long and hard at these buyers and consider what's best for the club and where they're from shouldn't matter. NOT just take the highest offer! Mon 09 Aug 2010 07:47:02 GMT+1 Del_Herts Of course it matters who owns football clubs. The current business model is that football clubs are owned as the playthings of very rich foreign businessmen. Star players are payed obscene wages and fans are ripped off at every opportunity. For the top clubs much of their income comes from television rights, so the fans are not considered important. Sorry, but this does not seem to be a sustainable model. Mon 09 Aug 2010 07:32:10 GMT+1 Wheelies Football is almost solely about business now, so why does it matter who owns the business? Mon 09 Aug 2010 07:07:30 GMT+1 SnoddersB As most football firms employ a large majority of foreigners in the teams it seems irrelivant who owns them. Football is irrelivant in the world and should be seen as just a sport with the players paid a living wage for what is a useless occupation in all ways. I find it hard to understand the loyal following for any "club" that has foreign owners and 99% foreign players. Mon 09 Aug 2010 05:34:00 GMT+1 Sudhir Menon Yes it does make a difference. I remember what the Bhatti Brothers did to The Wolves in the 80's. I'd hate to see that happen to any club (even Liverpool). A foreign owner is not necessarily bad, and conversley, an English owner is not necessarily good (ask Leeds United). Choose carefully. A LOT depends on it. Mon 09 Aug 2010 02:37:57 GMT+1 lordBanners I'm bemused over terms like 'LOVE & CARE" concerning Ownership. CAPITALISM at work baby, it's Business.China is in the process of doing Exactly what we've been doing for the past couple Centuries, and with the shoe on the other foot 'We don't like it one little bit, being the Commodity'.By our own sense of Values, we're being beaten at our own game by an inferior System. And the longer we cling to that Structure, the worse will be our LOSS. Big question for me is:- Will China succomb to similar ARROGANCE we did? It was primary reason for being displaced from the Top. AND, regardless of Race, Culture or Ideology is Humans' greatest FLAW. Mon 09 Aug 2010 00:18:43 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 Does it matter who owns a football club?Personally, I don't see that WHO owns it as being the issue. I think WHAT they do with it after they buy it matters the most.That's just me opinion though. Mon 09 Aug 2010 00:03:19 GMT+1 Mark Bennett The question of ownership of a football team matters almost as much as the brand of beer I am drinking as I write this. Sun 08 Aug 2010 23:55:53 GMT+1 MaxWax Obviously the person who composed this debate has no interest in football or they would not ask such a silly question. Sun 08 Aug 2010 22:35:11 GMT+1 Pete 19. At 1:56pm on 05 Aug 2010, pzero wrote:Anyone but another big business simply in it for the money! Haven't you figured it out yet? The only reason anyone is interested in football is money. Players. in the main, overpayed morons. Managers. As above. Club owners. Disposable (in most cases) assets. Promoters. Know a good scsm when they see one. TV companies. Get the idiots to watch, and watch the advertising revenues go through the roof. Then add in the cash made from sponsership deals, and the sale of (mainly) substandard crap such as team strips for kids. It all adds up to money. Nothing at all to what is really a childs game. Then comes cost cutting. Advertising budgets are reduced. TV companies income drops. Payments to clubs falls. Banks start to call in debts. Sudenly there is a glut of players on the market. Values fall. Wages shrink to real levels. Sanity returns. A bit like the South Sea Bubble. Naturaly, long before it all hits rock bottom, the real players (The money men)will have asset stripped the whole thing. Can't happen soon enough, aftr all, it's monopoly money. No club has the reall assets to stand on gate reciepts alone. Sun 08 Aug 2010 22:16:02 GMT+1 Wrinklyoldgit Flying overseas to work, I sat next to the owner-manager of a clothing factory that made club colours T-shirts - he said they paid their workers about US $8 a day for making about four dozen shirts each day on average, these shirts were then sold by the clubs for upwards of £35-£40 each, he concluded he was in the wrong business, he should have put his efforts into buying a football club.A discussion on who was or was not a suitable owner followed, to repeat his assessment on some of the big names would break most of the moderators rules, the team he supported from boyhood was hundreds of millions in the red, which matched their shirt colour, highly appropriate he concluded. Sun 08 Aug 2010 20:52:07 GMT+1 Wrinklyoldgit Hundreds of millions of pounds has been pumped into the game by Sky and the BBC each year for far too long, what improvement has this made to out national sport?To the game - NOTHINGTo the bottomless pockets of the players - EVERYTHINGTo our national side - we don't have a national side worthy of mention - a motley collection of overpaid, overhyped under-achievers more concerned with their bonuses and their exotic sports cars and their foreign villas and their tax matters and their managers cut, who tiptoe through the game more concerned over the possibility of getting hurt than with being good enough to win. Sun 08 Aug 2010 20:40:53 GMT+1 Wrinklyoldgit Foreign ownershio seems to come in two kinds - those who spend millions and achieve success, and those who borrow millions and achieve something akin to bankruptcy. We have seen both - and the results have been Overseas United with not a single British player in the side (great way to improve our national squads), and owners who have effectively borrowed to the hilt (for whom administration looms on the horizon).I have no objection to foreign owners - BUT - and heres the rub, they should be prohibited under penalty of forfeiture from mortgaging the clubs assets.While on the subject of foreign owners, it would be time to implement a strict maximum of three foreign players on any team match list, including reserves. Sun 08 Aug 2010 20:31:20 GMT+1 Seqenenre It doesn't matter who owns Liverpol as long as they take them even further down the pan... Sun 08 Aug 2010 20:16:25 GMT+1 GBcerberus Try and but anything like this in America. The law would be changed, and all sorts of barriers would be placed in the way of the foreigner. Not so in the uK. They have a history of letting any foreigner to just waltz in and take over. It seems national pride only extends to them wanting our young people to lay their lives on the line for one of their wars. Sun 08 Aug 2010 20:06:00 GMT+1 magnificentpolarbear Does it matter? Of course not but somehow football is 'different' and all sense and logic go out of the window of even the most sensible person.Football is a world which looks after itself rather than pay its taxes or creditors and when it does its never on time with no thought of the consequences.Where it is acceptable to pay star players tens of thousands of ££ a week but not to pay a charity its reasonable costs for providing first aid or the clubs own staff little more than minimun wage.A world where the star players act in a totally less than professional way yet promote a 'clean cut' image.Maybe the Chinese should buy Liverpool and bring some of their work and other ethics such as respect for the community to the club. Sun 08 Aug 2010 19:39:35 GMT+1 laughingirl If a British football Team cannot be brought by a British Company it should be brought by the fans who support them Sun 08 Aug 2010 19:29:58 GMT+1 jrr123 Who cares about who owns a football club.There must be numerous important topics that could be discussed, but The BBC chooses not to. Sun 08 Aug 2010 19:14:32 GMT+1 Conner De Public Does it matter who owns a football club?Does it matter who owns the BBC?Does it matter who owns all our media?Does it matter who owns all our industry?If you have to ask the question, you are from China,Russia or the USA. Sun 08 Aug 2010 19:10:06 GMT+1 Dewex Sport is a pleasure, not a business. Sun 08 Aug 2010 18:53:19 GMT+1 Otto Sump 253. At 2:55pm on 08 Aug 2010, Doozie wrote:Why not sell the whole country to China ?----------------------------------------------------India please, I prefer the food. Sun 08 Aug 2010 18:43:42 GMT+1 Otto Sump Liverpool FC is a business. It is run as a business, it rips off it's fans by charging massively for football shirts and season tickets when it should just be there for locals, shouldn't it? It employs players from around the world, not just Liverpool. Liverpool FC is dead, it died long ago and is just a brand name now, and has no longer any allegance to its roots (like BP). Even the (very) occassional token local scouse player is just good marketing.It's a business like any, and can be sold to the highest bidder like any business.People buy into football like a religion as it gives their (usually fairly empty) lives some meaning. These people are a great resource to tap into if you run a business. Sun 08 Aug 2010 18:41:55 GMT+1 Kadazan For Liverpool, it's not before time that it's up for sale. UK investors haven't got the brass thanks to our banking system so I just hope that this time, Liverpool bosses will look closely into the finances of any prospective buyer and that goes for Man U if they also end up on the market, again not before time. Sun 08 Aug 2010 18:31:29 GMT+1 John Hudson When football clubs became corporations the idea was that good results on the pitch would turn into higher revenues from ticket sales, TV rights and merchandise, and that therefore it was in the owner's interest to invest in good results on the pitch. This line of thinking was a bit too simplistic. Owners of corporations are interested in making money for themselves. And that is achieved through high revenues and low costs. And winning the Champions League may result in high revenues, but it also costs a great deal.As an owner it is better to own a 2nd Division club with a consistent good attendance than a Champions League winner full of £30m players that just manages to balance the books. But of course every fan dreams of being that Champions League winner.I think that therefore the whole concept of 'owners' of football clubs is wrong. Corporations were invented to make money, not to score goals.Of course, some owners genuinely love the club they own, and invest in it to see good results on the pitch. And it is great for a club to have an owner like that. And if so, it doesn't matter whether the owner lives in Liverpool, Damascus or Shanghai.But as long as football clubs work under the misconception that their corporate structure will guarantee successes on the pitch, there will be owners who are happy to prove them wrong. Sun 08 Aug 2010 17:30:52 GMT+1 sean56z Walt Disney was racist, avaricious, and snide. His cartoons represent his banal addleness. Walt created a tourist trap called Disneyland because he said that it fleeced the gullible with idiotic rides. Hershey Park was influenced by Disney's shell game amusements. The company insists that they attract rubes all the time to pay a high price to walk the park. Sun 08 Aug 2010 17:21:42 GMT+1 Littlefork does it matter who owns our power providers or water utilities.......why should we think football is somehow different to any other kind of foreign owned, formerly British asset/liability (in the case of football) Sun 08 Aug 2010 16:59:22 GMT+1 Pancha Chandra A national coach with British football expertise and credentials could have an edge over a foreign coach. Having said that money, a certain degree of luck and the manner in which the the coach gels or gets on with the players certainly play the most important roles. When team has a winning streak, there is noreason to fire the coach, foreign-born or British. It is only when the team starts losing that the coach's position is in real jeopardy. Everyone loves a winner and that is especially true in football. Sun 08 Aug 2010 15:35:38 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality A dog will normally lick the hand of those that feed it. As long as whoever buys Liverpool feeds the desire of the fans, the fans will continue licking, if like with George Gillett and Tom Hicks the fans are starved of wants/desires, the licks will turn to barks and bites, and a bit of leg cocking. Sun 08 Aug 2010 15:30:06 GMT+1 ProfPhoenix I would like the Israelis to buy up some of our clubs. Hope this comment gets through the moderators who getting a bit iffi of late. Sun 08 Aug 2010 15:20:37 GMT+1 ProfPhoenix This post has been Removed Sun 08 Aug 2010 15:18:26 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers "253. At 2:55pm on 08 Aug 2010, Doozie wrote:Why not sell the whole country to China ?"No, the Chinese would remember Labour selling London Bridge to the Americans - they'd smell a rat. Sun 08 Aug 2010 15:16:02 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality If sold to Syria then we should demand prefertial oil trade, if sold to Chinese business then we should insist upon preferential trade with China.Oh, forgot, its a one way "fwee" twade" system, and oooooops, we're always on the wrong side!!!!Maybe if we chucked in Accrington Stanley it might make a difference!!!! Sun 08 Aug 2010 15:03:39 GMT+1 Doozie Why not sell the whole country to China ? Sun 08 Aug 2010 13:55:05 GMT+1 milvusvestal Who knows and, frankly, who cares? What matters is what happens on the field.Billionaire sponsors and owners merely apply their wealth and influence to purchase players from abroad who have more desire to win. Clubs should refocus their attention on organic growth of players from within. There is surely enough flair and skill there, both of which can be nurtured if patience is applied. Just look at what England achieved in 1966 - a time when a foreign player was the exception. Sun 08 Aug 2010 13:16:37 GMT+1 Bradfordbelle Since the only counties with sufficiently wealthy investors are those who did not get involved in the western international banking scam, that has left us nationally destitute, are the Chinese and the Oil Sheiks , etc., there is not much point in bleating about who own the clubs. The thing to worry about is someone who 'buys' a club at bargain rates then asset strips it, or runs up enormous debts using it as collateral. Sun 08 Aug 2010 12:08:09 GMT+1 sean56z A UK firm should consider buying a Major League Baseball team. The New York Yankees might be sold in a few years. The franchises earn a good revenue broadcasting games on radio, television, and internet. Sun 08 Aug 2010 11:35:11 GMT+1 leoRoverman Well this is of course why I consider football to be an irrelevance because appart from the exorbitant season ticket prices there is no connection with the supporters. Sun 08 Aug 2010 11:27:22 GMT+1 glamorgan9560 Who cares! You can't play football but you pay $$$ to say it's an English football set-up! Ask Fabio ;) Sun 08 Aug 2010 10:14:09 GMT+1 plainspeakit Who cares who owns our ridiculous football clubs? I care more about who owns and runs our parks and playing fields. Football, once a great sport, is now a tedious game watched by morons. Sun 08 Aug 2010 09:25:52 GMT+1 Andrew Lye Should we be in a position to sell a club to a country that may not allow a Brit to buy a club in that country?Maybe the free market has become TOO free in the UK and we could wake up to find so much of our major companies in foreign hands and we're left with the bits that no one else would touch with a barge pole. Sun 08 Aug 2010 09:14:25 GMT+1 Sjeh76 In the great scheme of things, it cannot matter one jot, no. There will never be a trickle-down effect with regards to funding anyway, so the rich clubs will continue to exist no matter what and the poorer ones will continue to vanish until they are propped up by local interests or restarted from scratch.It probably matters to the supporters though. Sun 08 Aug 2010 09:08:31 GMT+1 bjarlington It definitely matters to us in America. Tom Hicks is absolutely verboten! He played a really, really dirty trick on American Baseball, and, indeed, on all of us who love the sport. I am grateful that Nolan Ryan and his group of benefactors finally won the auction, but it was totally unnecessary. We Texans seem to breed a group of eccentric millionares, don't we? To wit, Mark Cuban! Sun 08 Aug 2010 05:44:35 GMT+1 britishgoose 1 wordNO Sun 08 Aug 2010 01:47:49 GMT+1 Peter Dewsnap This post has been Removed Sun 08 Aug 2010 01:26:37 GMT+1 Mythbuster Maybe if Portsmouth FC had paid their taxes in full and on time the children, the OAP's, the sick and needy of Portsmouth would not be facing huge cuts in services over the next few years. Sat 07 Aug 2010 23:31:28 GMT+1 Mythbuster 12. At 1:39pm on 05 Aug 2010, lightoftruth wrote:The answer is no. Maybe you should off use my suggestions for Have Your Say topics?Perhaps they may have done, if only you could string a sentence together. Sat 07 Aug 2010 23:27:41 GMT+1 Michelle Lenoir This post has been Removed Sat 07 Aug 2010 20:30:07 GMT+1 U14532624 They need a paycut Sat 07 Aug 2010 18:38:33 GMT+1 Conner De Public Does it matter who owns a football club?Does it matter who owns the BBC?What a stupid question by an increasingly stupid HYS team. Sat 07 Aug 2010 18:35:17 GMT+1 corum-populo-2010 Football club supporters/families have to change their whole mind-set and keep up? In fact, we should all keep up on whose buying UK plc from under our feet?Corporate boxes and advertising keeps many clubs going? Fair enough - good stuff, nothing new there. But, bearing in mind that many 'top-flight' players, of ALL nationalities, have shares in certain famous and popular football clubs? Footballers are increasingly becoming like ... racehorses .. traveling the globe, but perhaps with more advertising rights?! What is particularly interesting about Liverpool FC., and it's no secret about the 'financial' 'demise' and handling by it's American owners, is that many high profile football clubs, all over the UK, hold land in very prime areas? So, if I were buying a football club - I would be more interested in the parcel of land it occupied and any 're-development' opportunity of that prime land in the future and offset losses? I would also enhance the opportunity for gambling/betting opportunities for income and cash flow?The future for UK football clubs will be an increasing propensity to be purchased by foreign owners with the finance and power to re-locate the purchased football club and re-develop the prime city/town centre ground for more lucrative purposes?As, I think (?) Mark Twain once said "buy land, they ain't making it anymore". Sat 07 Aug 2010 17:50:23 GMT+1 Dr Malcolm Alun Williams Does it matter who owns a football club? It doesn't make an iota of difference as it all boils down to money and who's got enough of it. Sat 07 Aug 2010 17:19:16 GMT+1 Hanhams81 Yes it does matter. However, the FA needs to get its frail act together to properly vet owners and establish beyond doubt they have enough cash to buy and subsequently run a club efficiently and successfully. Potential owners should be required to subscribe to a multi-million pound Bond to cover against club failure. This should discourage the charlatans.Why do I feel this? Well many of our so called Trophy brands (industrial,retail and leisure companies) have been sold to overseas interests. Immediately this happens cash flows out of the UK. The Nation loses all intelectual rights (always very valuable). Politicians have failed to understand this so the Nation's family silver eventually migrates to other countries. It is probably too late now rectify past calamities but we should be more careful of the future. I have no objection to a minority share interest because this enhances share holder value. Sadly UK share holders are too short term in outlook and always keen on a fast buck. Sat 07 Aug 2010 17:07:26 GMT+1 StEnglish British Football should be just that "British", football is getting to be a commodity that is bought and sold as if in a supermarket.British Managers, football players and owners would make this sportsomething to be proud of, now when you watch football its the one with the most money who buys players from abroad, so really not fair and not sportslike. So please keep Liverpool in British Hands why not a massive lottery held in U.K. and whoever wins gets a free season ticket for life??Just a thought, good one though!! Or sell shares???Cap wages though for players and incentive to score for extra money! Sat 07 Aug 2010 15:59:51 GMT+1 Nick Vinehill As long as thousands of fans of top flight professional football clubs are brainwashed into believing it's 'their' club and not the property of profit hungry capitalists who financially exploit their loyalty and support with large chunks out of their incomes (and in some cases welare benefits) paid to watch 'their' team it doesn't really matter who owns the darn club! Sat 07 Aug 2010 15:02:28 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers The days when sports were actually games and rules were obeyed are sadly long gone - win by any means seems to be the rule now.Not football, but one lone reminder of the fact that a game or a race doesn't mean so much - Pete Goss and the Vondee Globe race in 1996 when he turned back to rescue a competitor.You want big, and you must win - you have lost the true meaning of sport. In that case, anyone can own the club as long as you win? The fans made the choice themselves. Sat 07 Aug 2010 14:25:04 GMT+1 deanoburnett Clubs should be run by the fans, for the fans. A lot of the 'Monopoly money' should be removed from football. Players, and there staff get way too much money, and those running these clubs are trying to run them as a profitable business with no thought for the original intentions. Football was originally entertainment for the working class. The working class now struggle to afford to go watch there favourite team play! Sat 07 Aug 2010 12:50:51 GMT+1 Martin Swift This post has been Removed Sat 07 Aug 2010 12:42:28 GMT+1