wolves sold for 10 pounds

thebaz

Steve Morgan has snapped up wolves for 10 pounds , conditional on him spending 30 m on the club .
West Ham was sold for 100 million at the start of the season, with all the hulabaloo about the Argentinans , i wonder who got the better deal ?

Seaneh

the owner of wolves has always said (well for the last 10 years) that he would sell the club for a tenner to any man who proved to him that they would erease the debts and give a comittment to investing in the club.

Fair play to him, he followed through on it.

Big Chief

thought this was a joke when i read the subject title.. ah well, who cares i suppose

fair play to him, spend a tenner for god knows how many millions worth of debt - great deal sure

Savman

Rip off.

gucci

fair play to the owner who sold them on, he obviously is a lover of the game and not making money (which probably explains why theyre in dept!) steve morgan will have plenty in the bank, he was trying to buy control of liverpool last year.

Raskolnikov

It's crazy just how much money is being plowed into the English Premier League at the moment. Half the clubs in Serie A or La Liga would give their eye teeth to be taken over likes Wolves.

~Rebel~

wolves might be a good bet to go up this year, have a great young squad and were damn close this year. with money to spend they could be looking at a top 2 finish..

mike65

Exellent news! Steve Morgan is rich and loves footie, expect a promotion next year. Whether Mick the Magician (ahem) is still in charge is another matter.

Mike.

cson

The sugar daddy league with identikit stadia.

thebaz

cson wrote:

The sugar daddy league with identikit stadia.

i wouldn't snigger at it too much , considering how competetive it is, with fairly strong strength in depth , a league which is too good for the likes of Notts Forest and Leeds ... this all from a league that was in ruins only a couple of years ago

mike65

I don't get that crack from cson, Molineux was one of the first proper modern clean, safe stadiums in Britain. If Jack Hayward had spent the money on players instead Wolves, by now would be in the CL final on Wednesday!

Mike.

cson

mike65 wrote:

I don't get that crack from cson, Molineux was one of the first proper modern clean, safe stadiums in Britain. If Jack Hayward had spent the money on players instead Wolves, by now would be in the CL final on Wednesday!

Mike.

No, thats not at all what I meant. On the contrary the fizzy league is more competitive than the premier league and in some cases much more exciting to watch. A lot of teams can realistically have notions of winning the league in the championship.

The point im making is that an awful lot of clubs in England are being bought by Sugar Daddies, think Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool, West Ham, Villa, Portsmouth in the premiership, now Wolves in the championship. Conversely most La Liga clubs are owned by the fans - Barcelona for example.

As for the stadiums, Leicester, Coventry, Derby, Boro, they're all the same souless identikit stadia. Not that its a bad thing, better than having squalid stadia.

Necronomicon

cson wrote:

No, thats not at all what I meant. On the contrary the fizzy league is more competitive than the premier league and in some cases much more exciting to watch. A lot of teams can realistically have notions of winning the league in the championship.

The point im making is that an awful lot of clubs in England are being bought by Sugar Daddies, think Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool, West Ham, Villa, Portsmouth in the premiership, now Wolves in the championship. Conversely most La Liga clubs are owned by the fans - Barcelona for example.

As for the stadiums, Leicester, Coventry, Derby, Boro, they're all the same souless identikit stadia. Not that its a bad thing, better than having squalid stadia.

Identikit? Squalid? Not familiar with either of these terms.

But you cited Portsmouth as one of your sugar-daddy examples, they have one of the most atmospheric stadiums in the country.

And as for La Liga, well, aren't Madrid bankrolled by the Spanish government?

cson

Necromomicon wrote:

Identikit? Squalid? Not familiar with either of these terms.?

Identikit:A term used to describe things that are very similar - Boro, Derby, Leicester, Coventry etc have stadiums of a similar capacity and architecture.

Squalid: A term used to describe something derelict, neglected - generally disgusting and horrible. Think a lot of stadiums back 20 years ago.

Necromomicon wrote:

But you cited Portsmouth as one of your sugar-daddy examples, they have one of the most atmospheric stadiums in the country.

Not for much longer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fratton_Park

Necromomicon wrote:

And as for La Liga, well, aren't Madrid bankrolled by the Spanish government?

Afaik its the fans that elect a president who then runs the club - Ramon Calderon at present.

Mitch Connor

cson wrote:

Afaik its the fans that elect a president who then runs the club - Ramon Calderon at present.

The fans may have a say in who runs the club, but the people running it are extremely wealthy individuals, back by extremely wealthy individuals. Or, as mentioned, the government helps them out by, i dunno, buying a training ground for far and above what it is worth and supply a state of the art training ground in return for nothing.

Savman

cson wrote:

The point im making is that an awful lot of clubs in England are being bought by Sugar Daddies, think Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool, West Ham, Villa, Portsmouth in the premiership, now Wolves in the championship.

Sorry but I think that's an ignorant generalisation. If you had used the term "wealthy individuals" I might be inclined to agree but to call them all "sugar daddies" is out of order. Although being a fan of a club now owned by one of said individuals, maybe I would lean that way but I certainly wouldnt tar them all with the same brush.

As for the stadiums, Leicester, Coventry, Derby, Boro, they're all the same souless identikit stadia. Not that its a bad thing, better than having squalid stadia.

I don't understand you here, you obviously have some gripe with modern stadium designs - but then you dont seem to be a traditionalist either because you call the rest "squalid". Does a 3rd option exist?

Newsflash, eventually all stadiums across the world will be almost uniform in their design and layout. That's called a standard. In fact, it is footballs governing body that insists upon conformity for a country to host large scale events such as the World Cup. The "soul" can only be created by the people whose bums sit on them shiny new seats.

cson

Savman wrote:

Sorry but I think that's an ignorant generalisation. If you had used the term "wealthy individuals" I might be inclined to agree but to call them all "sugar daddies" is out of order. Although being a fan of a club now owned by one of said individuals, maybe I would lean that way but I certainly wouldnt tar them all with the same brush.

Do you think Randy Lerner took over Aston Villa for the good of his health?

Savman wrote:

I don't understand you here, you obviously have some gripe with modern stadium designs - but then you dont seem to be a traditionalist either because you call the rest "squalid". Does a 3rd option exist?

I actually have no arguments at all, I made the observation that the prem/championship was "sugar daddy league with identikit stadia", perhaps I should have put one of these > after it. Cos I wasn't looking for an argument.

Savman wrote:

Newsflash, eventually all stadiums across the world will be almost uniform in their design and layout. That's called a standard. In fact, it is footballs governing body that insists upon conformity for a country to host large scale events such as the World Cup. The "soul" can only be created by the people whose bums sit on them shiny new seats.

Yeah, you're right. Old stadiums are closer to the pitch which imo enhances the atmosphere, Anfield and Fratton Park being a prime example. I know about all the 4/5 star rated stadia needed for Uefa Cup/Champs League/World Cup etc if thats what you're trying to tell me.

Savman

cson wrote:

Do you think Randy Lerner took over Aston Villa for the good of his health?

No but he certainly didn't do it just for the good of his bank account. I can't speak for the rest of the bunch, but nothing in the past season has led me to believe the man is anything other than genuine. Certainly no sugar daddy.

I actually have no arguments at all, I made the observation that the prem/championship was "sugar daddy league with identikit stadia", perhaps I should have put one of these > after it. Cos I wasn't looking for an argument.

Fair enough but you still choose to dismiss the entire league based on your own distorted view. Its not secret the game has changed in England, that's because now more than ever english clubs are good long term investments so will inevitably attract wealthy individuals. Some folks dont like change, but after years of ineptitude at Villa Park we can safely say we embrace the new ownership culture.

Yeah, you're right. Old stadiums are closer to the pitch which imo enhances the atmosphere, Anfield and Fratton Park being a prime example.

That may be true about Anfield, I dunno about Fratton Park. I've never been to either but reports I've read from fans about Fratton were less than flattering (the stand for away fans is not covered) and IIRC that stadium is next in line for renovation anyway so soon it'll be under your label of "soul-less".

Just seems to me you have some issues with modern stadiums and wealthy owners, both of which are indications of how things are gonna be in the future. Old stadiums, while often better for atmosphere, are gradually on the way out. Most fans happy to adapt, but there will always be golden oldies ranting about how things were different back in the day

cson

My view will probably change if we (Arsenal - Stan Kroenke) get one of these "wealthy owners". Im jealous.

I'd love to have any of the stadiums mentioned in Ireland. We are in need of a stadium around that capacity. Nothing really against those stadiums, they're just all the same to me (Emirates included).

I can assure you that im not a "golden oldie"! Far from it in fact.

Bateman

The Emirates, and Bayern Munich's new ground have been compared favourably to Wembley. You can't turn around and say Arsenal's new ground is like the identikit matchbox stadiumm from the Championship; it's totally different.

Savman

There's not a club in the world who wouldnt want a stadium like Emirates. Didn't David Dein resign from Arsenal cos he wanted to go with wealthy foreign owner Kroenke but the Arsenal board wouldnt back him??

Looks like most of the Premiership clubs will have ownership from overseas in the future but, and Im trying to keep this on topic, at least Wolves ownership has stayed British.

But, and I must insist, £10 still a ripoff

cson

The emirates is too small imo, should have been 70,000. Anyway shant complain, it was long enough coming.

That is indeed the reason why David Dein resigned, due to Peter Hill-Woods opposition to Kroenke. Kroenke collects sports teams like pogs though, all the same it'd be interesting to see what Wenger would do with a bit of cash at his disposal.

On topic finally, yeah £10 for a couple of million quids worth of debt would indeed be considered by most to be a bad deal. Steve Morgan is lucky he can afford it.

Secondly, I wonder why Hayward accepted his bid yet turned down the Souness consortium earlier in the season?