Bristol City Investment

[Red_Alligator]

I would suggest that looking for ethically sourced multi billion pound investment would be like trying to find a Bristol Rovers centre forward on a Saturday afternoon. 

[Major Isewater]

8 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

I've had the foot long mate, very impressive! 

[mozo]

9 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t care what country it comes from as long as it’s legal, club do due diligence, etc and it’s right for Bristol City and SL..

No guarantee that English money is any better either.

I find that a bit laissez faire. Look what the Glazers are doing. 

The only way to protect our club is to have fan ownership like the German clubs.

 

[Harry]

Perhaps we’ll see the size of Mr Lansdown’s cahuna’s and whether he’s going to do what’s in the best interest for Bristol City or what’s in the best interest for himself. 
 

What he could do, is sell the club for £100million and for BCFC to be wholly owned by an American consortium with no history or ties to the club. 
Or he could sell it for £50million and the consortium only owns 49.9%, with SL handing the other 50.1% to the fans - as in the German model. 
 

Let’s see the size of your nads Mr L. 

[mozo]

3 minutes ago, Harry said:

Perhaps we’ll see the size of Mr Lansdown’s cahuna’s and whether he’s going to do what’s in the best interest for Bristol City or what’s in the best interest for himself. 
 

What he could do, is sell the club for £100million and for BCFC to be wholly owned by an American consortium with no history or ties to the club. 
Or he could sell it for £50million and the consortium only owns 49.9%, with SL handing the other 50.1% to the fans - as in the German model. 
 

Let’s see the size of your nads Mr L. 

Yeah I personally think that selling a majority share leaves us open to abuse.

[Hxj]

46 minutes ago, Harry said:

What he could do, is sell the club for £100million and for BCFC to be wholly owned by an American consortium with no history or ties to the club. 
Or he could sell it for £50million and the consortium only owns 49.9%, with SL handing the other 50.1% to the fans - as in the German model. 

Who would pay £50 million for a minority stake in a business owned by football fans???  More likely nothing.

[the1stknowle]

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t care what country it comes from as long as it’s legal, club do due diligence, etc and it’s right for Bristol City and SL..

No guarantee that English money is any better either.

If you were a Newcastle fan would you be ok with the (indirect) MBS money? I wouldn’t be. Even if the money was invested legally. 
 

Or do you mean ‘due diligence’ not just being a financial investigation into the existence and legality of funds but also including some wider look at a bit of basic morality of the person investing? 

[Hxj]

The implicit suggestion on here is that investment from other super wealthy individuals would be a great thing for the club.

Can someone explain how?  I just don't see it.

 

[the1stknowle]

2 hours ago, Red_Alligator said:

I would suggest that looking for ethically sourced multi billion pound investment would be like trying to find a Bristol Rovers centre forward on a Saturday afternoon. 

Potentially. But all billionaires are not created equal. Although both a moral issue, there  is a big difference between using zero hours contracts and having a journalist hacked up because he made you a bit upset with his words. 

[Super]

Have we found ourselves a fake sheikh?

[the1stknowle]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

Perhaps we’ll see the size of Mr Lansdown’s cahuna’s and whether he’s going to do what’s in the best interest for Bristol City or what’s in the best interest for himself. 
 

What he could do, is sell the club for £100million and for BCFC to be wholly owned by an American consortium with no history or ties to the club. 
Or he could sell it for £50million and the consortium only owns 49.9%, with SL handing the other 50.1% to the fans - as in the German model. 
 

Let’s see the size of your nads Mr L. 

But these aren’t independent options, right? You wouldn’t have the same interest for the 49.9 if the plan for the 50.1 was to give it to the fans. 
 

I’m also not as certain as you that handing that big a chunk to fans would be good thing. Where is the extra investment coming from? Not the fans. And likely not this hamstrung minority investor who suddenly has to negotiate massive fan power. 
 

And has SL not run the club pretty much as a fan? Overspending etc. What do we gain with this majority ‘fans’ share. 
 

Genuine questions. I don’t necessarily have strong feelings on this so long as new investment isn’t totally immorally sourced . But trying to understand why you think your idea is the ballsy thing for SL to do in that it will clearly have the best outcome. 

[Steve Watts]

10 hours ago, mozo said:

The signs are that significant investment in our club could be announced any day now.

But strangely, we're not even talking about it.

There's a lot of outrage about the Euro Super league with the likes of the Glazers and John W Henry / Fenway Sports poised to trash the history of Man U and Liverpool respectively, but we seem very calm about the fact that City could be half-owned by American business very soon.

The USA, a country in which 'Soccer' is derided as a cissy sport.

So how do we feel about the short term changes if, as has been mooted, we see foreign investment at City?

Is this just a sensible move to push the club to the next level? Or are we soon to become the Bristol Robins franchise with hot dogs and cheerleaders but no soul?

And is US investment better or worse than Chinese, or Russian or Saudi oil money?

I presume it was a tongue in cheek comment, but I would just like to point out that American ownership didn't bring the world Manchester Red Devils or Birmingham Villains....

[supercidered]

10 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

I've had the foot long mate, very impressive! 

ooooooo Maaatron !

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, mozo said:

I find that a bit laissez faire. Look what the Glazers are doing. 

The only way to protect our club is to have fan ownership like the German clubs.

 

A Glazer deal fails the “right for Bristol City” test.

All I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t rule out foreign investment, anymore than domestic investment....but SL should be clear what the fans can expect, so we know what we’re getting.

[ashton_fan]

25 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The implicit suggestion on here is that investment from other super wealthy individuals would be a great thing for the club.

Can someone explain how?  I just don't see it.

 

We already have a wealthy owner so the only way is down as far as I'm concerned. However SL knows he can't go on forever and Jon is not interested in taking it over so he's got to find somebody else to invest in the club. Also I expect he thinks he can do without all the abuse he gets from a number of our fans so change is bound to happen in the next few years, he might want to retain interests in the infrastructure he's built though, he could lease the stadium and training ground back to the new owners.

[Riaz]

11 hours ago, mozo said:

The signs are that significant investment in our club could be announced any day now.

But strangely, we're not even talking about it.

There's a lot of outrage about the Euro Super league with the likes of the Glazers and John W Henry / Fenway Sports poised to trash the history of Man U and Liverpool respectively, but we seem very calm about the fact that City could be half-owned by American business very soon.

The USA, a country in which 'Soccer' is derided as a cissy sport.

So how do we feel about the short term changes if, as has been mooted, we see foreign investment at City?

Is this just a sensible move to push the club to the next level? Or are we soon to become the Bristol Robins franchise with hot dogs and cheerleaders but no soul?

And is US investment better or worse than Chinese, or Russian or Saudi oil money?

What signs are these??

[robin_unreliant]

Won't it become less attractive to investors if a super league sucks the money out of the PL? The dream of getting rich through promotion won't be quite the same. 

[mozo]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

A Glazer deal fails the “right for Bristol City” test.

All I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t rule out foreign investment, anymore than domestic investment....but SL should be clear what the fans can expect, so we know what we’re getting.

Do you mean that the Glazers would have failed the test before this Super League talk? 

Prospective investors might be saying the right things and have no baggage, but when an opportunity crops up down the line, how do we safeguard against the wrong kind of decision making?

26 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

I presume it was a tongue in cheek comment, but I would just like to point out that American ownership didn't bring the world Manchester Red Devils or Birmingham Villains....

...yet! 

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, mozo said:

Do you mean that the Glazers would have failed the test before this Super League talk? 

Prospective investors might be saying the right things and have no baggage, but when an opportunity crops up down the line, how do we safeguard against the wrong kind of decision making?

...yet! 

No, it’s MY “right for Bristol City” test.  If the Glazers approached SL and said they were gonna convert the assets to loans to them I’d say that is not right for Bristol City.  Bye bye.

Your second sentence.....that is the bit we need SL to ensure he protects.  If he doesn’t he’s as bad as every other owner who sells their soul.

 

[Major Isewater]

40 minutes ago, supercidered said:

ooooooo Maaatron !

You need to get up earlier...

[Harry]

48 minutes ago, the1stknowle said:

But these aren’t independent options, right? You wouldn’t have the same interest for the 49.9 if the plan for the 50.1 was to give it to the fans. 
 

I’m also not as certain as you that handing that big a chunk to fans would be good thing. Where is the extra investment coming from? Not the fans. And likely not this hamstrung minority investor who suddenly has to negotiate massive fan power. 
 

And has SL not run the club pretty much as a fan? Overspending etc. What do we gain with this majority ‘fans’ share. 
 

Genuine questions. I don’t necessarily have strong feelings on this so long as new investment isn’t totally immorally sourced . But trying to understand why you think your idea is the ballsy thing for SL to do in that it will clearly have the best outcome. 

No, not independent options, just one that I thought I’d throw out there for discussion. 
I think it would be ballsy as it would be looking at what is universally (amongst fans) deemed as a successful model in Germany and having the courage to implement it in England. 
If you look at the German clubs, they make a profit. They even do this with lower ticket prices. They bring more money in through sponsorship and commercial revenue. 
FFP pretty much restricts what an outside investor can put in (and thus take out) anyway. Perhaps it’s time to consider a different model, one where the fans are at the heart of it and the clubs run themselves as ‘proper’ businesses (ie budgeting themselves based on matchday revenue, commercial revenue, sponsorship etc) rather than relying on rich men to cover their own losses. 

[RUSSEL85]

2 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

Indeed!

[Midred]

11 hours ago, Bat Fastard said:

Maybe the Late Kenny Rogers Roasters Stadium?

Kentucky Fried Robin's?

[Merrick's Marvels]

1 hour ago, robin_unreliant said:

Won't it become less attractive to investors if a super league sucks the money out of the PL? The dream of getting rich through promotion won't be quite the same. 

I agree.

And this Super League nonsense has been coming for a while - anyone could see which way the wind was blowing. Which is why I could never understand why the owner didn't seize the momentum created by promotion under Cotterill and try and ride that wave to the Premier League. ASAP. Instead he was more interested in indulging a pet project, as if there was all the time in the world to get promotion.

It's been increasingly clear for years that the sooner we're sitting at the top table, the better able we are (whoever is owner) to afford the exorbitant costs of running a football club. But by the time we get there (if ever) the party might be over.

[mozo]

41 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

No, it’s MY “right for Bristol City” test.  If the Glazers approached SL and said they were gonna convert the assets to loans to them I’d say that is not right for Bristol City.  Bye bye.

Your second sentence.....that is the bit we need SL to ensure he protects.  If he doesn’t he’s as bad as every other owner who sells their soul.

 

Yeah I agree with you on both points. 

My worry is that we sell a hefty stake to US investors. A few years down the line, all is going fine so the Lansdowns sell up completely and retire. Then, with no moral/ethical anchor, things start changing...

The reason I'm trying to ignite this debate is that a massive event could happen at our club and us fans will be so giddy with the idea of new signings that we will have a massive blind spot. 

In the interview in which Lansdown revealed we are courting investment he also chose to criticise supporters clubs/trusts. 

Are the fans going to be heard? Are we even going to tell Lansdown what kind of safeguards we want? 

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, mozo said:

Yeah I agree with you on both points. 

My worry is that we sell a hefty stake to US investors. A few years down the line, all is going fine so the Lansdowns sell up completely and retire. Then, with no moral/ethical anchor, things start changing...

The reason I'm trying to ignite this debate is that a massive event could happen at our club and us fans will be so giddy with the idea of new signings that we will have a massive blind spot. 

In the interview in which Lansdown revealed we are courting investment he also chose to criticise supporters clubs/trusts. 

Are the fans going to be heard? Are we even going to tell Lansdown what kind of safeguards we want? 

Absolutely.  We will know whether SL is Jekyll or Hyde through this won’t we?

[mozo]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Absolutely.  We will know whether SL is Jekyll or Hyde through this won’t we?

I hope the supporters groups are getting prepared now. 

[pillred]

28 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

I agree.

And this Super League nonsense has been coming for a while - anyone could see which way the wind was blowing. Which is why I could never understand why the owner didn't seize the momentum created by promotion under Cotterill and try and ride that wave to the Premier League. ASAP. Instead he was more interested in indulging a pet project, as if there was all the time in the world to get promotion.

It's been increasingly clear for years that the sooner we're sitting at the top table, the better able we are (whoever is owner) to afford the exorbitant costs of running a football club. But by the time we get there (if ever) the party might be over.

Looks like it might be already if this Super league goes ahead, though it might in some ways make the top division more competitive and in so doing make it more exiting in that it wont the same old teams dominate every year, well that is until a new BIG six appear out of what's left.

[mozo]

Just heard a sports lawyer on Radio 5 talking about how the ESL concept embodies a battle between the European sports model and the US model.

Do we really want US investment?

[CyderInACan]

36 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

It's been increasingly clear for years that the sooner we're sitting at the top table, the better able we are (whoever is owner) to afford the exorbitant costs of running a football club. But by the time we get there (if ever) the party might be over.

Sometimes, the after-party is better