Have Foreign takeovers been good for the English Game

peabutler

Simple question really. Over the last few years has the influx of foreign cash been good for the game ? At clubs such as Chelsea, Man City, Man United, Liverpool, Blackburn, Villa etc has it been a good thing or a bad thing ? I personally feel it's done the English game no favours, too many of these owners have created instability at their clubs even if it goes hand in hand with lots of Transfer Money and success.

I'd almost say that 1/2 of some of these Sugar Daddies are incabable of running a club where as about 1/15 English or more local owners are incabable (Mike Ashley etc).

The Money is also a huge issue, is the game better off with Yaya Toure on such huge wages ?

I'd have to say I don't think as a whole foreign ownership has benefited the Premier League.

Neil3030

peabutler wrote: »

Simple question really. Over the last few years has the influx of foreign cash been good for the game ? At clubs such as Chelsea, Man City, Man United, Liverpool, Blackburn, Villa etc has it been a good thing or a bad thing ? I personally feel it's done the English game no favours, too many of these owners have created instability at their clubs even if it goes hand in hand with lots of Transfer Money and success.

I'd almost say that 1/2 of some of these Sugar Daddies are incabable of running a club where as about 1/15 English or more local owners are incabable (Mike Ashley etc).

The Money is also a huge issue, is the game better off with Yaya Toure on such huge wages ?

I'd have to say I don't think as a whole foreign ownership has benefited the Premier League.

Your argument presupposes a plausible alternative scenario which is really more of a romantic ideal than anything else.

There is more money in all sports now than ever. It is what it is.

peabutler

Neil3030 wrote: »

Your argument presupposes a plausible alternative scenario which is really more of a romantic ideal than anything else.

There is more money in all sports now than ever. It is what it is.

I don't think it has to be, their is plenty of Leagues around the world which have solid regulations and ethos around club ownership ala Germany where as the Premier League is essentially a whore with clubs pimping themselves out to foreign owners who know zilch about the game and I believe cause football Inflation due to the fact that these guys are so willing to put outlandish figures on the table.

fkiely

Nearly destroyed West Ham as well.

OhNoYouDidn't

peabutler wrote: »

I don't think it has to be, their is plenty of Leagues around the world which have solid regulations and ethos around club ownership ala Germany where as the Premier League is essentially a whore with clubs pimping themselves out to foreign owners who know zilch about the game and I believe cause football Inflation due to the fact that these guys are so willing to put outlandish figures on the table.

When was it ever otherwise?

What you are basically asking is there a difference between a local clown (Ashley) and a non-English clown (Mansour) inflating wages. Which I can't quite see the point of.

Neil3030

peabutler wrote: »

I don't think it has to be, their is plenty of Leagues around the world which have solid regulations and ethos around club ownership ala Germany where as the Premier League is essentially a whore with clubs pimping themselves out to foreign owners who know zilch about the game and I believe cause football Inflation due to the fact that these guys are so willing to put outlandish figures on the table.

A regulated system, a la Germany, puts an awful lot of faith in a centralised scheme though. Not saying that can't work, but they tend to have a pretty short shelf life before the bigger fish get tired of what they perceive as egalitarian laws holding them back from their proper potential. Watch this space re: the Bundesliga for this reason.

I think in time the free system will balance itself out. For example, imo, Italian clubs are currently undervalue, while EPL teams are overvalued. This will eventually spur investors from the latter market to the former.

Keep in mind, there's nothing wrong with a club being run purely for profit, once profit and success go hand in hand. The bad business decisions seen in football ownership are ripe in any business system, i.e., short-termism at the expense of patient, long-term vitality driven company development.

As for egotistical narcissist owners like Ashley etc, this is a separate issue and one I think where the sellers have a responsibility to ensure they are selling to the right people.

peabutler

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

When was it ever otherwise?

What you are basically asking is there a difference between a local clown (Ashley) and a non-English clown (Mansour) inflating wages. Which I can't quite see the point of.

Yes because as I said I feel Like Ashley is a relative rarity as an English Owner compared to Mansour is who is one of quite a few.

OhNoYouDidn't

peabutler wrote: »

Yes because as I said I feel Like Ashley is a relative rarity as an English Owner compared to Mansour is who is one of quite a few.

Really? A very quick scan of the EPL table and I work out that 14 of the 20 clubs are English owned. Only Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Birmingham and Villa are non British owned.

Basic stuff mate.

There is a stench of something rotten off this, which is ironic, considering you are a foreign fan of the league giving out about foreign influence.

KittyeeTrix

http://www.epltalk.com/owners-of-the-20-premier-league-clubs-2010-11-season-26898

Found this when I had a look at which teams actually had foreign owernership........

Seaneh

The idea that it was the premier league that inflated wages or fees is a bit flawed. The worlds most expensive transfers have almost all been spanish clubs and before that Italian clubs.

In spain, certain clubs have special protection from financial worries as they run as not for profit organisations. Barcelona, Real Madrid etc, no real owners, juts members who elect a board etc. Because of this they can run up insane debt and not really worry too much as they will always be protected to a degree (Barca and Real have a combined debt of well over €750million for example).

Before that was an issue you had the billionare families who own the big Italian clubs pumping silly money into their teams. Even when they were mid table also rans Inter were breaking world transfer records with signings like Ronaldo, Vieri, etc and making players like Alvero Recoba the highest paid in the world.

Of the last 10 record breaking transfer fees 4 were Italian, 5 spanish and only 1 English (Shearer to Newcastle in 96).

Of the 13 highest fees ever paid, only 3 of them were paid by English clubs (#9 Robinho to City, #11 Shevchenko to Chelsea and #13 Berbatov to United), of which only 1 is in the top 10 transfer fees of all time (#9 Robinho to city).
6 of them are to spanish clubs, including all of the top 5 fees ever paid, the other 4 are to Italian clubs.


All of the top 5 were to Spanish clubs. 4 to real, (Figo , Zidane, Kaka and Ronaldo) and one to Barca (Ibrahimovic).


Obviously the real inflation cause if Real and Barca and they make up the vast majority of the top 13.

peabutler

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Really? A very quick scan of the EPL table and I work out that 15 of the 20 clubs are English owned. Only Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Villa are non British owned.

Basic stuff mate.

There is a stench of something rotten off this, which is ironic, considering you are a foreign fan of the league giving out about foreign influence.

I meant as I said above that Ashley is a rarity amongst English Owners in such that you wouldn't find to many English owners who say create instability where as quite a few of the foreign owners have.

Also Interesting to know that i'm foreign, there was me thinking Somerset was in England

as You said

Basic Stuff Mate :rolleyes:

grenache

It has been very bad for English football on a whole. They seem to know little or nothing about football. The sacking's of Mark Hughes and Sam Allardyce pretty much some up where these guys are at. Vendys might know how to sell chickens, but it doesn't mean they know how to run Blackburn Rovers. They view these teams in the same way they would a trophy wife. Since they are not supporters, they have no genuine concern for the real fans. In Chelsea, Man City and Liverpool, we see the importation of many foreign players at the expense of home grown British/Irish talent. And of course it has created a huge inequality in the league, where now the top four is nearly the same every year. And the rest are feeding from the scraps. Arsenal is the only top club that isn't in foreign ownership and are a perfect example of how to run a club on a modest budget. Many of their players are academy ones and its great to see Wenger giving the home grown talent like Aaron Ramsey and Jack Wilshire the chance to shine.

What will happen when Abromovich and the Arabs get tired of their toys and pull out of Chelsea and Man City? Who is going to come in and take on the huge debts? We've seen the debacle at Liverpool and the mess that Gillette and Hicks have left behind. Randy Lerner at Aston Villa seemed to do the opposite of other foreign investors and refused to back Martin O Neill with adequate funds. Now they've gone from a top six side to a midtable one.

Foreign investment sounds great, but in reality it is tearing apart the soul of English football. How i would love to see a competite league like we had in the 70s and 80s where you had not only the big clubs like Liverpool and Arsenal winning, but also smaller clubs like Villa, Everton, Derby and Forest successfully challenging the old order.
England should look to follow the lead of Germany and introduce a rule whereby no more 50% of clubs can be foreign owned. Is it any wonder that both the Bundesliga and German national team are thriving.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

grenache wrote: »

Arsenal is the only top club that isn't in foreign ownership and are a perfect example of how to run a club on a modest budget.

Arsenal is over 50% foreign owned, but they are very well run. Tottenham are also a fine example of how to run a club, and we're British owned. No player is even on half on Yaya Toure's wages, yet we've been powering up the table in recent seasons, and very much consider ourselves a top club. A few years ago we were a mid-table club, now look where we are, way ahead of Liverpool and just above Chelsea.

grenache

THFC wrote: »

Arsenal is over 50% foreign owned, but they are very well run. Tottenham are also a fine example of how to run a club, and we're British owned. No player is even on half on Yaya Toure's wages, yet we've been powering up the table in recent seasons, and very much consider ourselves a top club. A few years ago we were a mid-table club, now look where we are, way ahead of Liverpool and just above Chelsea.

I wasn't aware that Arsenal were in part foreign owned. I had just finished posting when i thought of Spurs, of course another great example of how to run a club, a good mix of British and foreign talent. And more importantly British owned.

Coillte_Bhoy

peabutler wrote: »

Also Interesting to know that i'm foreign, there was me thinking Somerset was in England

as You said

Basic Stuff Mate :rolleyes:

Ha ha that told him, it wont stop him though.

fkiely

THFC wrote: »

and very much consider ourselves a top club.

Ye always have...

Paully D

Some have, some haven't. That's the very simple but correct answer.

Mitch Connor

Can't say either way for sure.

United: Not happy with it.
Liverpool: We know they weren't happy with the last one but they have welcomed the new one with open arms, again.
Villa: Should be happy enough with theirs.
Chelsea: Should be delighted.
City: Should be delighted.

Paully D

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Can't say either way for sure.

United: Not happy with it.
Liverpool: We know they weren't happy with the last one but they have welcomed the new one with open arms, again.
Villa: Should be happy enough with theirs.
Chelsea: Should be delighted.
City: Should be delighted.

Sunderland: Absolutely over the moon :cool:

OhNoYouDidn't

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Ha ha that told him, it wont stop him though.

In the absence of anything in his profile, it was a safe assumption he was Irish, it being an Irish site and all that.

But the basic point remains, the overwhelming majority of EPL clubs are not foreign owned, and those that are are no better or worse run on average than the rest.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

fkiely wrote: »

Ye always have...

Yeah but now we can fully justify it. Not the point of the thread anyways..

GavRedKing

Well I think Chelsea have been transformed under RA.

Without his and his vast investments i dont think we woud have won the league once, let alone 3 times and his short reign. He made money available for players and coaching staff and build us proper world class training facailities, and setting up a proper youth academy and scouting system that should produce in the long term.

On the other hand he seems to want to get involved to much with the managing of the players and tactics and employ some of his own men within the coaching staff, bank rolled moves for players that managers didnt want.

So for me the pro's out weight the con's in this case, we have enjoyed success that I dont think was possible without Roman.

Leiva

Foreign Takeovers .....Yes

Cash rich Sugar Daddy's ...No

There is a difference !

Foreign take overs themselves have no real negative impact on the EPL , but the billionaire sugar daddy's that pay silly money for players are having a real negative effect and distorting the transfer market which is a bad thing for every other club .

Suppose I wouldn't be complaining if LFC had a bag of cash to spend .

peabutler

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

In the absence of anything in his profile, it was a safe assumption he was Irish, it being an Irish site and all that.

But the basic point remains, the overwhelming majority of EPL clubs are not foreign owned, and those that are are no better or worse run on average than the rest.

The Overwhelming Majority hey ??

It's an 11-9 majority actually and if you count Arsenal as foreign ownership it's 10-10.

I think that the foreign owned clubs are in more cases than the English or British owned clubs badly run (definetly finacially). As for causing instability look at the list of owners and the one Englishman you see who has caused instability is Mike Ashley, however you see The Venky's at Blackburn and Sheik Al Mansour ready to wield the axe easily and guys like Lerner arguably pushing O' Neill out the door and Abramovich who has showed no qualms in a high management turnover.

So I think the English owned clubs are better run than the rest.

As for your presumption how about you keep them to yourself and your horse.

thebaz

as an Everton fan, I would have to say - yes - how i look on in jealousy at the money chelsea and Man City have - and are thus able to challenge for honours domestically and internationally - despite Moyes miracles, everton have to be pleased with mid table mediocrity - there is also some terrible domestic owners - take a bow Ashley - our own Kenwright does his best - but has not the clout to compete in todays game, and as such , we as a club have gone from the big 5, to mediocrity

OhNoYouDidn't

55% of posters on an Irish forum think that foreign intervention in English football is bad. I think its safe to assume that all of those posters are fans of those English clubs

I really despair for humanity

kilburn

As a Villa fan, I think the best thing to happen the club was somebody anybody to buy it from Deadly Doug, thats what Randy Lerner did and he put in a lot of money and moved the club forward the current plight cannot be blamed on him.

OPENROAD

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

55% of posters on an Irish forum think that foreign intervention in English football is bad. I think its safe to assume that all of those posters are fans of those English clubs

I really despair for humanity

Foreign ownership

OhNoYouDidn't

OPENROAD wrote: »

Foreign ownership

Its a bizarre and surreal situation when fans of a foreign club object to foreign ownership of that foreign club without a hint of irony.

OPENROAD

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Its a bizarre and surreal situation when fans of a foreign club object to foreign ownership of that foreign club without a hint of irony.

Don't agree to be honest,that said what is bizarre is claiming the club you support is not English because of foreign ownership, that does amuse me.

OhNoYouDidn't

OPENROAD wrote: »

Don't agree to be honest,that said what is bizarre is claiming the club you support is not English because of foreign ownership, that does amuse me.

Who said that?

But if the foreign fans of English clubs want to get hot and bothered because foreign ownership is somehow diuting the purity of the English game, best of luck to them. Its surreal, but its a human right to fundamentally miss the point I suppose.

L'prof

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Who said that?

But if the foreign fans of English clubs want to get hot and bothered because foreign ownership is somehow diuting the purity of the English game, best of luck to them. Its surreal, but its a human right to fundamentally miss the point I suppose.

It's the right of everybody on this forum to ignore your points because you only ever have one!

Warper

It has been good for the English game but bad for the English team.

gosplan

Given that English football has successfully pimped itself out to emerging consumer sports markets all over the world and become a global hit, you could read the 'English Game' in the question as 'the global product that is the Premier League'.

With that in mind, it's obvious (and kind of just) that foreign owners would take stakes in Premier League clubs. Clubs hovering just off the main dining table need a huge cash injection to survive against the massive resources of teams like United and Liverpool. Portsmouth needed a cash injection and no-one in England would provide for them. Mistakes were made but did it make a difference that they were made by foreign owners whereas Leeds' mistakes were made by British owners?

Edited to include:Also, someone mentioned that the Blackburn's change of management is indicative of a foreign owner-led instability which may be bad for the Premier League. Trust me, one thing that's appallingly bad for the English game is Sam Alerdyce and his 'we'll eblow, shove and set piece our way to mid table obscurity' MO.

It actually deserves a thread of it's own but what exactly is the goal of managers like Pulis and Alerdyce? It seems to me that they ensure survival but then due to their style of management are incapable of building anything. As soon as the club get's a bit of ambition they realise that the manager actually has none beyond just managing a premier league team and so they get moved on to repeat the mind numbing feat elsewhere.

smokedeels

I’m more concerned with the club being well-run and invested in, than I am about passports tbh

OhNoYouDidn't

gosplan wrote: »

Given that English football has successfully pimped itself out to emerging consumer sports markets all over the world and become a global hit, you could read the 'English Game' in the question as 'the global product that is the Premier League'.

With that in mind, it's obvious (and kind of just) that foreign owners would take stakes in Premier League clubs. Clubs hovering just off the main dining table need a huge cash injection to survive against the massive resources of teams like United and Liverpool. Portsmouth needed a cash injection and no-one in England would provide for them. Mistakes were made but did it make a difference that they were made by foreign owners whereas Leeds' mistakes were made by British owners?

Nail on head. The idea that foreign fans of the globalised EPL object to aspects of that globalisation they don't like is so far beyond rational its insane.

The only people with the right to object to the globalisation of their team are the locals.

peabutler

Do you like repeating yourself, we get it everyone should support Domestic football yadda yadda yadda .

gosplan

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Nail on head. The idea that foreign fans of the globalised EPL object to aspects of that globalisation they don't like is so far beyond rational its insane.

Yeah, I wouldn't really stop at foreign fans either. The irony stops there but Pompey fans were delighted with the resources brought into the club and in general fans will pretty much go along with anything that looks like bringing more success to their club.

I have untold respect for those that set up and continue to support FC United of Manchester. It's such a massively principled stand for fans to take, particularly when they're turning their back on the most successful club in England.

I hope they continue their rise and that I'm still alive the first time the derby comes around.

doncarlos

Warper wrote: »

It has been good for the English game but bad for the English team.

It has been good for the Premier league but bad for the English game

OhNoYouDidn't

peabutler wrote: »

Do you like repeating yourself, we get it everyone should support Domestic football yadda yadda yadda .

I support a British club too you oaf, and one with foreign owners.

But I have enough wit to not stand in the Gallowgate giving off about the foreign owners, being foreign myself and all that. You must realise that its fans like you make the EPL a target for the money men to turn a buck. Surely that has dawned on you?