The New Realities

[Commander Harris]

Has he? Have Chelsea fans been happy during much of this season? Hardly - mainly because Grant's been perceived as a puppet, so has struggled to achieve the respect Mourinho enjoyed. Indeed, the more clubs go in the Romanov direction, the more NMH may find this apparently golden rule holds less and less firm.

I suppose it's relative - if they were winning enough to win the league I imagine they probably would be happy.

[Jammy T]

good post tc, and just about the first one that actually tackled what was said in the post.

 

Am I on your ignore?

 

To be fair, I'm sure that TC would agree, that reaction to what certain posters post is quite rightly affected by what general stance they take and whether they are perceived to have an agenda or not

[Commander Harris]

sorry jammy, you've been very fair too.

 

"that reaction to what certain posters post is quite rightly affected by what general stance they take and whether they are perceived to have an agenda or not".

 

I would generally agree with that statement but it's still always better to argue the specific points rather than any perceived agenda, then a poster would either have to make any agenda explicit or be stuck debating points that aren't that important to them. If one choses to attack a perceived agenda that hasn't actually been stated in the post then the other poster can claim the moral victory anyway.

 

(I am speaking generally here)

[Sherlock]

...I would generally agree with that statement but it's still always better to argue the specific points rather than any perceived agenda, then a poster would either have to make any agenda explicit or be stuck debating points that aren't that important to them...

 

I agree with you but can also understand why NMH gets the reaction he does.

 

For instance, on this thread alone, although he has received some posts not looking for debate, he's also received some good posts worthy of continuing the debate yet has avoided responding to them despite continuing to view the thread.

 

What the point in stating that you want to talk about certain issues and then hiding when your bluff is called?

[Commander Harris]

sorry, I've inadvertently taken us

[Guest JamboRobbo]

good post tc, and just about the first one that actually tackled what was said in the post.

 

simply not true.

[shaun.lawson]

I suppose it's relative - if they were winning enough to win the league I imagine they probably would be happy.

 

Thing is though, I think NMH is wrong. I don't think football fans are concerned with winning and losing anywhere near as much as moments we share together, and especially, feeling an emotional connection and identity with our club. That glorious event exactly ten years ago is a perfect example of this: yes, we won something, but it was about so much more than that: whole families who'd grown up following the club, the journey and heartache we'd all been through, the hope that sustained us throughout, the unbelievable drama of those final ten minutes, the true Jambo heroes (most notably, John Robertson and Jim Jefferies) we identified with.

 

People might read this and think this is romantic claptrap. After all, hasn't football changed out of all recognition now? Isn't it just a playground for the rich and very rich, with the common man priced out? And how are we supposed to identify with players who are paid so much, they hardly seem of this world, and have an arrogance and apparent disdain for ordinary fans to match?

 

But take a look throughout Britain, and across Europe too. There's a reason football clubs were named after places - and somehow, even at the wealthiest, biggest, most successful clubs around, they've still managed to sustain a unique identity, and yes, a clear connection with their supporters. I honestly think you can detect in every major club some sort of link with their past: Manchester United, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, Internazionale, Juventus, Liverpool, Bayern Munich and many, many others all have their own unique characteristics which continue even in this ever more plutocratic era.

 

Want to know why Newcastle fans love Kevin Keegan? It's because he gets it: he understands them, and knows what their club and region are all about. Similarly, a couple of years back, when they seemed to be falling further and further behind Chelsea and were even dumped out of the CL group stages, Man Utd fans were on Fergie's back not because they weren't winning, but because they weren't being true to the club's history of thrilling, exhilarating football. Hard as it might be for many reading this to believe, United have had two golden periods in their history, and much mediocrity for the rest of it - yet have always tried to play gloriously expansive football, something Sir Alex has always understood very clearly.

 

Continuing the theme, Liverpool could never have appointed Jose Mourinho as their manager. He's too brash, too provocative - yet the much calmer, more dignified Rafael Benitez fits them perfectly, which is why their fans are still behind him. Remarkably, for all Abramovich's money, even Chelsea are still recognisably Chelsea: they've actually had an Italian style of play ever since the mid-90s now, and the club is still somehow true to the area it represents.

 

The only exception I can think of are Arsenal - a club literally turned on their head by the vision of one man. For the club of WM, Herbert Chapman and George Graham to now aspire to the most slick, gorgeous football on the planet is astounding: but Wenger had a job taking the supporters with him, and in any case, very, very few clubs are lucky enough to unearth a genius such as him. Tottenham, West Ham, Everton, Villa, even Rangers and Celtic: you can honestly look at all those sides and detect something which would've applied just as much decades and generations ago.

 

There is simply no point to being a football fan without that sense of identity - and that, as I've written before, is what this club is in chronic danger of losing under Romanov. Sorry, but it's not about eleven faceless automatons who just happen to wear a maroon jersey scoring one more goal than the opposition: to believe that even for a moment is to fail to understand football completely. And that's the problem: Vladimir Romanov, and Thaksin Shinawatra too by the look of things, just do not understand.

[Guest JamboRobbo]

I suppose it's relative - if they were winning enough to win the league I imagine they probably would be happy.

 

Agree entirely. The problem is the most successfull way to run a football club is with a manager running the football side, as has been proven time and again over the decades.

 

If having the owner interfere in everything was successful, then all clubs would've been doing it decades ago.

 

Even the past two years at HMFC have shown just how much damage a rogue owner who thinks he's jose mourinhio can do to a club, in a very short period of time.

 

Supporters who are so upset and frustrated at the state of the club, and they lies being told by the club, that they are fighting amongst themselves over what is the problem and what is the way forward.

 

Financially, Millions and millions thrown down the drain. A team gutted of ANY players worthy of wearing the shirt. And a club that no decent manager would come to work with, without assurances in his contract that the owner won't try to interfere.

 

All of this, because the owner can't keep his nose out of other peoples areas of expertise.

 

The Original Post IS the reality of what is happening at Hearts, but it is not some new way forward for running football clubs, and it will be the death of our club if the problem (Vladimir Romanov) isn't sorted soon.

[Commander Harris]

simply not true.

it was a bit over the top and I regret that, I've already apologised to jammy.

 

It was sloppy wording on my part and for that I apologise, I do think a lot of the responses didn't deal with the Original Post though.

[Guest JamboRobbo]

it was a bit over the top and I regret that, I've already apologised to jammy.

 

It was sloppy wording on my part and for that I apologise, I do think a lot of the responses didn't deal with the Original Post though.

 

no need to apoliges mate. Just saying I don't think the replies were any more than the OP deserved.

 

by OP, I mean post, not poster.

[Commander Harris]

Agree entirely. The problem is the best most successfull way to run a football club is with a manager running the football side, as has been proven time and again over the decades.

 

If having the owner interfere in everything was successful, then all clubs would be doing it.

 

Even the past two years at HMFC have shown just how much damage a rogue owner who thinks he's jose mourinhio can do to a club, in a very short period of time.

 

Supporters who are so upset and frustrated at the state of the club, and they lies being told by the club, that they are fighting amongst themselves over what is the problem and what is the way forward.

 

Financially, Millions and millions thrown down the drain. A team gutted of ANY players worthy of wearing the shirt. And a club that no decent manager would come to work with, without assurances in his contract that the owner won't try to interfere.

 

All of this, because the owner can't keep his nose out of other peoples areas of expertise.

 

It IS the reality of what is happening at Hearts, but it is not some new way forward for running football clubs, and it will be the death of our club if the problem (Vladimir Romanov) isn't sorted soon.

 

I wouldn't disagree with a lot of that JR, like I said earlier:

I don't disagree that the way the club has been run is detrimental to the club. I also believe that the only way out of this is to appoint a manager who has control over team affairs. I didn't say I liked it, I just said I felt the picture charlie was painting was accurate.

[Commander Harris]

I can identify with a lot of what you say SL, there is more to following a team than winning (let's face it, if there wasn't then following Hearts would be pretty foolish!) but I think in the context of the OP, what was meant was that IF there is a winning team on the pitch then fans will be happy regardless of the structure behind the club.

[Guest JamboRobbo]

I can identify with a lot of what you say SL, there is more to following a team than winning (let's face it, if there wasn't then following Hearts would be pretty foolish!) but I think in the context of the OP, what was meant was that IF there is a winning team on the pitch then fans will be happy regardless of the structure behind the club.

 

Woudln't argue with that. Only problem is, it's been proven over the decades that this is NOT the most successful way to run a football club.

 

I agree though, that if every club was just as much as a shambles as us, and we were the most successful of the shambolically run football clubs, then the fans would be happy we were being successful, and wouldn't be aware that we were being run shambolically, because we would be the best of a sorry sorry bunch......

[Del1812]

Have to share CH's sentiments, I think a lot of people have debated the poster rather than the post. While I agree with a lot of the football idealism Shaun stated in his post, I love that romantic side of the game, I think he may be giving football supporters in general way too much credit.

 

You don't even have to look any further than this message board to see that things are that little bit more critical after a loss. We are perhaps not the best example as things aren't exactly all rosey in the garden when we win, but there is definitely a heighted optimism, even after wins in 'meaningless' games against St. Mirren and ICT. The mood was still down on JKB at the time but had been raised since the Kilmarnock draw and were much higher than they are now - on the back of three straight defeats. Now, all of these games are pretty meaningless in the overall state of the club. Win, lose or draw, Vlad was still being Vlad, we still didn't have a manager and Christain Nade was just as fat as Santa after gorging on deep fried food for six months. But when we won and as a result the mood lifted even when there is little reason to explain why.

 

If we start to win again under Romanov, even without a manager and him still being him, optimism will improve in most of the support. Of course there will Hearts fans who will fear for the direction the club is headed but that will go back to being a minority. Just like it was when Valdas was manager (before he buggered off to recouperate).

 

As for the original post. I think there is a trend starting. Many will disagree but I thought the OP was merely stated what is happening in British football as opposed to making it all about Romanov. If he was making it as a point to defend Romanov then I would disagree whole-heartedly. Not sure if I'd go as mental as some on this thread, but there you go.

[rudi]

1. With ownership of top level UK Football Clubs now costing tens of millions (SPL / Championship) and hundreds of millions (Premiership) the prospect of ownership is increasingly moving away from traditional local businessmen & supporter groups to Multi-Millionaire / Billionaire Owners.

 

2. Increasing club ownership is passing to non-UK residents as the UK wealthy are increasingly keen to sell their stake as well as having inferior wealth by comparison to compete with other clubs who do have very wealthy owners.

 

3. The concept of the football manager being the controlling influence at a football club is in certain instances being replaced with the owner becoming the dominant personality and the ultimate decision-maker regardless of how popular or capable the football manager's reputation. (Burley, Eriksson & Mourinho are testament to this)

 

4. Supporter protests whilst raising attention, publicity & awareness are increasingly futile as the huge financial sums involved and personalities & motivations of the rich / super-rich owners are a stronger opposing force - supporter power & protests has become marginalised even at the biggest clubs Manchester Utd, Chelsea, Manchester City.....

 

5. The traditions of British football face a culture shock with regards to the increasingly dominant & autocratic decision making style of newly arrived club owners with whom most of the real power now resides.

 

The Eternal Reality of Football Fans.

 

1. Football fans are happy when their team is winning / upset when their team is losing.

 

So by what you are saying combined with what we have witnessed the past couple of season's then it "bye bye football",if not please explain where I've went wrong with my assessment.

[Charlie-Brown]

OK Charlie, let's talk about Glazer.

 

Where do you want to begin?

 

Despite other people inventing their own flights of imagination as to the purpose or intention of this thread it was this article that i stumbled across that was the real inspiration for this post....

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_page_id=1951&in_article_id=510586&in_author_id=355

 

I deliberately barely even mentioned Hearts or Romanov in the OP as I knew we would get bogged down in that anyway - Hearts season is now just ended can't we take a break from that even for a few days and discuss some other things or just football in general? For the hard of understanding every club situation and every owner is unique and I am not trying to say that any or all are like or unlike Romanov or Hearts situation in anyway!

 

Here are some questions / issues I wanted to discuss on this thread.

 

1) Why do FC United continue to exist? and prosper? will FC Utd & Man Utd ever be re-united?

 

2) Why were the massive anti-Glazer protests ultimately futile?

 

3) Why do very few people talk about the massive debts that Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool & others have been saddled with?

 

4) Why do the Liverpool fans talk about the American owners having brought disrepute and made them a laughing stock?

 

5) Also Liverpool's foreign manager has a very controversial / unpopular squad rotation policy - is this because it challenges traditional opinions or because Liverpool don't win as often as fans would like?

 

6) Why is Michael Ballack prominent in the Chelsea team again when he was on the way out under Mourinho? Shevchenko to a lesser extent? Will Owners 'picks' become more prevalent or accepted? Does this make Avram Grant a 'puppet' ? If so is he a good puppet or a bad puppet or does he better understand how to balance the owners demands whilst managing the team?

 

7) Do Man City fans currently feel as bewildered as Hearts & Chelsea fans felt when Burley / Mourinho were sacked? Could Noel Gallagher have been talking about Romanov or Abramovich if you changed the names he used?

 

8) Why do Leicester / Mandaric change managers so frequently? How do Leicester fans feel now?

 

9) Why have fan protests at Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea and possibly in future at Man City / Hearts? brought no significant change of direction or reversal of unpopular decisions?

 

10) Are fans becoming much less influential at clubs now that previously or is this just a perception?

 

11) Is local ownership of major clubs becoming less likely now as Media Companies & rich / super-rich owners continue to invest huge sums of money into football?

 

12) Will fans feeling of remoteness from their club or the owners continue as things appear to be 'different' than before?

 

13) Are these changes brought more into focus or become more apparent when teams are losing or struggling as opposed to winning games & trophies?

14) Are football fans now the lender-of-last-resort when their clubs get into financial trouble / administration / bankruptcy etc?

 

15) Will people in time adjust to these new 'realities' or will people turn away from their club / football? or maybe both will be true depending on each individuals choice & preferences?

[The xx]

Have to share CH's sentiments, I think a lot of people have debated the poster rather than the post. While I agree with a lot of the football idealism Shaun stated in his post, I love that romantic side of the game, I think he may be giving football supporters in general way too much credit.

 

You don't even have to look any further than this message board to see that things are that little bit more critical after a loss. We are perhaps not the best example as things aren't exactly all rosey in the garden when we win, but there is definitely a heighted optimism, even after wins in 'meaningless' games against St. Mirren and ICT. The mood was still down on JKB at the time but had been raised since the Kilmarnock draw and were much higher than they are now - on the back of three straight defeats. Now, all of these games are pretty meaningless in the overall state of the club. Win, lose or draw, Vlad was still being Vlad, we still didn't have a manager and Christain Nade was just as fat as Santa after gorging on deep fried food for six months. But when we won and as a result the mood lifted even when there is little reason to explain why.

 

If we start to win again under Romanov, even without a manager and him still being him, optimism will improve in most of the support. Of course there will Hearts fans who will fear for the direction the club is headed but that will go back to being a minority. Just like it was when Valdas was manager (before he buggered off to recouperate).

 

As for the original post. I think there is a trend starting. Many will disagree but I thought the OP was merely stated what is happening in British football as opposed to making it all about Romanov. If he was making it as a point to defend Romanov then I would disagree whole-heartedly. Not sure if I'd go as mental as some on this thread, but there you go.

 

Fair point(s), but do you not agree that most of the optimism after the meaningless wins against St.Mirren and ICT were due to having such a young team on the field, especially that Glen had finally got his first start and not only played quite well but scored in both matches.

 

Some people got carried away with Glen after his first two starts, thinking he was our saviour. But now three terrible results later, everyone has realised we are still in an awful state.

 

Actually, I may even be backing up your point. Oh well.

[Charlie-Brown]

Despite other people inventing their own flights of imagination as to the purpose or intention of this thread it was this article that i stumbled across that was the real inspiration for this post....

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_page_id=1951&in_article_id=510586&in_author_id=355

 

I deliberately barely even mentioned Hearts or Romanov in the OP as I knew we would get bogged down in that anyway - Hearts season is now just ended can't we take a break from that even for a few days and discuss some other things or just football in general? For the hard of understanding every club situation and every owner is unique and I am not trying to say that any or all are like or unlike Romanov or Hearts situation in anyway!

 

Here are some questions / issues I wanted to discuss on this thread.

 

1) Why do FC United continue to exist? and prosper? will FC Utd & Man Utd ever be re-united?

 

2) Why were the massive anti-Glazer protests ultimately futile?

 

3) Why do very few people talk about the massive debts that Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool & others have been saddled with?

 

4) Why do the Liverpool fans talk about the American owners having brought disrepute and made them a laughing stock?

 

5) Also Liverpool's foreign manager has a very controversial / unpopular squad rotation policy - is this because it challenges traditional opinions or because Liverpool don't win as often as fans would like?

 

6) Why is Michael Ballack prominent in the Chelsea team again when he was on the way out under Mourinho? Shevchenko to a lesser extent? Will Owners 'picks' become more prevalent or accepted? Does this make Avram Grant a 'puppet' ? If so is he a good puppet or a bad puppet or does he better understand how to balance the owners demands whilst managing the team?

 

7) Do Man City fans currently feel as bewildered as Hearts & Chelsea fans felt when Burley / Mourinho were sacked? Could Noel Gallagher have been talking about Romanov or Abramovich if you changed the names he used?

 

8) Why do Leicester / Mandaric change managers so frequently? How do Leicester fans feel now?

 

9) Why have fan protests at Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea and possibly in future at Man City / Hearts? brought no significant change of direction or reversal of unpopular decisions?

 

10) Are fans becoming much less influential at clubs now that previously or is this just a perception?

 

11) Is local ownership of major clubs becoming less likely now as Media Companies & rich / super-rich owners continue to invest huge sums of money into football?

 

12) Will fans feeling of remoteness from their club or the owners continue as things appear to be 'different' than before?

 

13) Are these changes brought more into focus or become more apparent when teams are losing or struggling as opposed to winning games & trophies?

14) Are football fans now the lender-of-last-resort when their clubs get into financial trouble / administration / bankruptcy etc?

 

15) Will people in time adjust to these new 'realities' or will people turn away from their club / football? or maybe both will be true depending on each individuals choice & preferences?

 

Bump

[portobellojambo1]

I'm struggling to see the point tbh

 

My thoughts as well, I was waiting for the line beginning, "so before you decide to let off steam with regard to Mr Romanov, think about this, blah de blah de fecking blah......"

[Charlie-Brown]

My thoughts as well, I was waiting for the line beginning, "so before you decide to let off steam with regard to Mr Romanov, think about this, blah de blah de fecking blah......"

 

It's got nothing to do with Romanov PJ1 but rather the changes that rich / super-rich have changed our clubs and their relationship with the fans of those clubs - I suppose Hearts could be a study in miniature as we were quite an early adopter of 'foreign' ownership but that wasn't the motivation for the thread it was an article about Dubai International Capital compared to Hicks & Gillette and also recent events at Man City.

[portobellojambo1]

I can identify with a lot of what you say SL, there is more to following a team than winning (let's face it, if there wasn't then following Hearts would be pretty foolish!) but I think in the context of the OP, what was meant was that IF there is a winning team on the pitch then fans will be happy regardless of the structure behind the club.

 

I don't think anyone would or could argue with that CH, I don't think you would find many football fans who would answer yes to the question "do you get upset if your team are winning".

 

In relation to what we are talking about, or appear to be getting at in a roundabout way, i.e. owner involvement/interference, my idea of the owner of any football club having a say is deciding which players will and will not come to the club, based on requests put to him by the manager/scouts. The owner has a valid right to veto the signing of any player, however I do not think the owner has a valid right to impose players on a club, without the knowledge of the manager/scouts. And I don't care if said owner's surname is Romanov, Abramovich, Glazer, Murray, Desmond or Duck (as in Donald).

[portobellojambo1]

It's got nothing to do with Romanov PJ1 but rather the changes that rich / super-rich have changed our clubs and their relationship with the fans of those clubs - I suppose Hearts could be a study in miniature as we were quite an early adopter of 'foreign' ownership but that wasn't the motivation for the thread it was an article about Dubai International Capital compared to Hicks & Gillette and also recent events at Man City.

 

I know NMH, there was a certain element of "je ne sais quoi" in my response.

[bighusref]

1. With ownership of top level UK Football Clubs now costing tens of millions (SPL / Championship) and hundreds of millions (Premiership) the prospect of ownership is increasingly moving away from traditional local businessmen & supporter groups to Multi-Millionaire / Billionaire Owners.

 

2. Increasing club ownership is passing to non-UK residents as the UK wealthy are increasingly keen to sell their stake as well as having inferior wealth by comparison to compete with other clubs who do have very wealthy owners.

 

Not much there to disagree with.

 

3. The concept of the football manager being the controlling influence at a football club is in certain instances being replaced with the owner becoming the dominant personality and the ultimate decision-maker regardless of how popular or capable the football manager's reputation. (Burley, Eriksson & Mourinho are testament to this)

 

Hardly a reality. This has been seen at Hearts and Hearts alone in the U.K. Manchester City are looking like they may go this way, but have not...yet.

 

134 clubs in the U.K. and one (definitely, possibly another this time next year) is run by a bampot that has no idea what he is doing.

 

4. Supporter protests whilst raising attention, publicity & awareness are increasingly futile as the huge financial sums involved and personalities & motivations of the rich / super-rich owners are a stronger opposing force - supporter power & protests has become marginalised even at the biggest clubs Manchester Utd, Chelsea, Manchester City.....

 

Can you show an example of this?

 

5. The traditions of British football face a culture shock with regards to the increasingly dominant & autocratic decision making style of newly arrived club owners with whom most of the real power now resides.

 

This is possible, however, if Romanov is joined by other foreign investors that run the clubs into the ground then people will all of a sudden start to hold off selling to foreigners.

 

The Eternal Reality of Football Fans.

 

1. Football fans are happy when their team is winning / upset when their team is losing.

 

Of course this is true. If VR's lunacies brought us success, I would be happy. Instead his lunacies have cost us shed loads of cash and put us at our worst league position for 27 years despite spending a collossal amount of money.

[Charlie-Brown]

 

 

Can you show an example of this?

 

 

 

.

 

There was massive & high profile demonstrations against Glazer's takeover of Man Utd over a prolonged period but even at such a giant club it didn't prevent Glazer gaining total control, buying out all remaining shareholders and taking the club completely private and saddling the club with hundreds of millions of debt he needed to buy the club.

 

Chelsea fans protests again the sacking of their most successful manager in the modern era were fruitless - I imagine anything similar at Man City will achieve the same non result.

 

Liverpool fans protests against Hicks & Gillet have brought no appreciable change at that club or their 'circus' .....

 

These are some of the biggest clubs in europe but the ego's & motivations of their super-rich owners are more powerful factors than fan opinions in those instances.

[topcat]

Despite other people inventing their own flights of imagination as to the purpose or intention of this thread it was this article that i stumbled across that was the real inspiration for this post....

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_page_id=1951&in_article_id=510586&in_author_id=355

 

Your original post was inspired by an ageing English Daily Mail columnist?

 

That would explain a lot.

[Charlie-Brown]

Your original post was inspired by an ageing English Daily Mail columnist?

 

That would explain a lot.

 

It was the comments in the article about the futility of the protests TC because the owners weren't even there ..... that & other things that have happened since the new breed of owners started acquiring major UK clubs.

[Charlie-Brown]

I agree with you but can also understand why NMH gets the reaction he does.

 

For instance, on this thread alone, although he has received some posts not looking for debate, he's also received some good posts worthy of continuing the debate yet has avoided responding to them despite continuing to view the thread.

 

What the point in stating that you want to talk about certain issues and then hiding when your bluff is called?

 

I was at work & we have an internet policy that precludes such things as JKB during working hours - break times are okay as long as it's kept to a minimum.

[bighusref]

There was massive & high profile demonstrations against Glazer's takeover of Man Utd over a prolonged period but even at such a giant club it didn't prevent Glazer gaining total control, buying out all remaining shareholders and taking the club completely private and saddling the club with hundreds of millions of debt he needed to buy the club.

 

Not by any stretch of imagination. There WAS a high profile demonstration, a couple of songs sung, that was about it. I cannot remember the stats for attendances, but IIRC the team formed by Manchester United fans is not exactly being attended by tens of thousands.

 

Chelsea fans protests again the sacking of their most successful manager in the modern era were fruitless - I imagine anything similar at Man City will achieve the same non result.

 

IIRC, one day. Certain games they have occasionally voiced concern re Grant, certainly far from the sort of protest that you would expect to force a change.

 

Liverpool fans protests against Hicks & Gillet have brought no appreciable change at that club or their 'circus' .....

 

PROTEST? Possibly a flag or two, maybe three, that is about your lot there.

 

These are some of the biggest clubs in europe but the ego's & motivations of their super-rich owners are more powerful factors than fan opinions in those instances.

 

Thank you, you have answered my question, you have no instances where your suggestion of a "reality" is what is occurring.

[Charlie-Brown]

Not by any stretch of imagination. There WAS a high profile demonstration, a couple of songs sung, that was about it. I cannot remember the stats for attendances, but IIRC the team formed by Manchester United fans is not exactly being attended by tens of thousands.

 

 

 

IIRC, one day. Certain games they have occasionally voiced concern re Grant, certainly far from the sort of protest that you would expect to force a change.

 

 

 

PROTEST? Possibly a flag or two, maybe three, that is about your lot there.

 

 

 

Thank you, you have answered my question, you have no instances where your suggestion of a "reality" is what is occurring.

 

Okay BH - do YOU think Fan opinion or protest holds much sway with Romanov or Abramovich or Hicks & Gillet or Shinawatra or Mandaric or whoever? (Clubs with rich and/or foreign owners?)

[bighusref]

Okay BH - do YOU think Fan opinion or protest holds much sway with Romanov or Abramovich or Hicks & Gillet or Shinawatra or Mandaric or whoever? (Clubs with rich and/or foreign owners?)

 

Like all situations, it depends on the level of the protest.

 

Just last week, we had a "protest" at St Andrews where both prominent members of the board offered their resignation/sale of shares, if the MAJORITY of fans wanted it.

 

Abramovich has not even seen any sort of serious protest yet, he has kept control but allowed a manager ENOUGH control to keep up results. He has after all signed two Russian players and one Ukranian since he came to power, one Russian played sporadically but was sold (Smertin) the Ukranian is a squad player (Shevchenko) and the final Russian has not even played yet (Ivanovic).

 

I think that Hicks OR Gillet will give way next year, not that they have had any real protest yet.

 

As with Shiniwatra, time will only tell, he has THREATENED to do as bad as Romanov, how long will City fans take it?

 

Mandaric? Foreign yes, but he puts his full trust in a manager, very british in his approach.

[Charlie-Brown]

Like all situations, it depends on the level of the protest.

 

Just last week, we had a "protest" at St Andrews where both prominent members of the board offered their resignation/sale of shares, if the MAJORITY of fans wanted it.

 

Abramovich has not even seen any sort of serious protest yet, he has kept control but allowed a manager ENOUGH control to keep up results. He has after all signed two Russian players and one Ukranian since he came to power, one Russian played sporadically but was sold (Smertin) the Ukranian is a squad player (Shevchenko) and the final Russian has not even played yet (Ivanovic).

 

I think that Hicks OR Gillet will give way next year, not that they have had any real protest yet.

 

As with Shiniwatra, time will only tell, he has THREATENED to do as bad as Romanov, how long will City fans take it?

 

Mandaric? Foreign yes, but he puts his full trust in a manager, very british in his approach.

 

 

Would the Birmingham resignation offer been on the cards if Jeung-wang(?) had gained control?

 

Abramovich hasn't really promoted Russian players however I don't think anyone would really doubt that Ballack, Shevchenko, Ben-Haim were his / A.Grant choices as opposed to Jose Mourinho? when these players started to be sidelined Mourinho was sent packing......

 

Hicks & Gillett will sell because Dubai International Capital offer represents an excellent profit on their 18-24 month investment not because any fans complained they brought shame on the club or weren't doing things the 'Liverpool' way?

 

I doubt Manadaric has seen eye to eye with most managers hence most of them have only had very short tenure at Portsmouth or Leicester.

 

Shinawatra like Romanov & Abramovich before him seems to care not a jot about experienced managers of excellent repute or fans opinions of these managers when it comes to personality clashes or power struggles.....

[topcat]

Okay BH - do YOU think Fan opinion or protest holds much sway with Romanov or Abramovich or Hicks & Gillet or Shinawatra or Mandaric or whoever? (Clubs with rich and/or foreign owners?)

 

As opposed to all those poor people who own football clubs?

[Charlie-Brown]

As opposed to all those poor people who own football clubs?

 

Well precisly TC so is it a perception regards 'foreign' or super-rich club owners or does it hold true even for minor or traditional club owners.....I don't remember protests affecting Robinson decision making processes very much however I would contest that they probably affect non-UK resident owners even less?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I'll agree with NMH in a couple of regards. Yes, nothing is made of the debts of United, Liverpool, Chelsea et al and this is a direct consequence of the fact that these clubs are relatively successful. Therefore, there is less media scrutiny on that side of things. Even Leeds weren't examined until things started going pete tong and there was no way of reversing the slide.

 

If HMFC had continued with the levels of success shown in 2005-06, then the same would apply to us. Now that we have finished outside the top 5 for the first time since 1999, it is natural that questions will be asked about the problems the club has. Significantly, I'm not that bothered about our debt provided Vlad is good for it. What bothers me is that our performance on the pitch would be significantly improved if Vlad would learn to leave things alone in terms of tactics and selection.

 

As for protests, yes they are ultimately futile in that money is the ultimate spokesperson. However, they provide a point about which fans can rally AND a coherence of strategy. That said, protesting about Vlad in demos is even more of a waste of time because he is never here, which is why the withholding of funds, however small, is a more significant way of getting the message across.

[bighusref]

Would the Birmingham resignation offer been on the cards if Jeung-wang(?) had gained control?

 

Carson Yeung? Jeezo, stereotyping or what! As for your question, are you suggesting simply because he was foreign and had "foreign money" they would still be in the Premiership?

 

Abramovich hasn't really promoted Russian players however I don't think anyone would really doubt that Ballack, Shevchenko, Ben-Haim were his / A.Grant choices as opposed to Jose Mourinho? when these players started to be sidelined Mourinho was sent packing......

 

Ben Haim would tell you differently on that, he has recently stated that he would not have signed had he known that Mourinho was to be sacked and Grant left in charge. Shevchenko has played a handful of games since Mourinho left, in fact, I would wager he got a higher percentage of game time prior to Mourinho leaving. Wasn't his appearance recently his first for months?

 

Hicks & Gillett will sell because Dubai International Capital offer represents an excellent profit on their 18-24 month investment not because any fans complained they brought shame on the club or weren't doing things the 'Liverpool' way?

 

I would say that the fans opinions has not been to the unilateral stage to merit the term "protest".

 

I doubt Manadaric has seen eye to eye with most managers hence most of them have only had very short tenure at Portsmouth or Leicester.

 

Rupert Lowe didn't see eye to eye with a lot of managers, Ken Bates, the biscuit tin brigade, etc, seeing eye to eye with managers is not a British trait, nor does it have anything to do with fans' protestations being ignored.

 

Shinawatra like Romanov & Abramovich before him seems to care not a jot about experienced managers of excellent repute or fans opinions of these managers when it comes to personality clashes or power struggles.....

 

Well, we will have to see on that. On the face of it (as I stated in my first reply) we seem to be on the verge of Romanov II at City, it is early days but that may be the case.

 

Still, your point is not there, two bampots out of 134 clubs hardly suggests a sweeping change.

[Charlie-Brown]

Carson Yeung? Jeezo, stereotyping or what! As for your question, are you suggesting simply because he was foreign and had "foreign money" they would still be in the Premiership?

 

 

 

Ben Haim would tell you differently on that, he has recently stated that he would not have signed had he known that Mourinho was to be sacked and Grant left in charge. Shevchenko has played a handful of games since Mourinho left, in fact, I would wager he got a higher percentage of game time prior to Mourinho leaving. Wasn't his appearance recently his first for months?

 

 

 

I would say that the fans opinions has not been to the unilateral stage to merit the term "protest".

 

 

 

Rupert Lowe didn't see eye to eye with a lot of managers, Ken Bates, the biscuit tin brigade, etc, seeing eye to eye with managers is not a British trait, nor does it have anything to do with fans' protestations being ignored.

 

 

 

Well, we will have to see on that. On the face of it (as I stated in my first reply) we seem to be on the verge of Romanov II at City, it is early days but that may be the case.

 

Still, your point is not there, two bampots out of 134 clubs hardly suggests a sweeping change.

 

I am confused where you think I said it was a sweeping change or universal BH - I said they had brought changes at those clubs that had a new breed of owner (rich / super-rich) and that certain things could now be observed and that the relationship between club and fans now is very different to what it was when local business or politicians or chamber of commerce guys ran these clubs.

[bighusref]

I am confused where you think I said it was a sweeping change or universal BH - I said they had brought changes at those clubs that had a new breed of owner (rich / super-rich) and that certain things could now be observed and that the relationship between club and fans now is very different to what it was when local business or politicians or chamber of commerce guys ran these clubs.

 

Come on! You are an intelligent guy, you knew what you were posting and I knew what you were posting, you may be right, in ten to fifteen years, but your point is incorrect right now.

 

Please don't reign yourself in as if you "didn'y mean it".

[topcat]

I am confused where you think I said it was a sweeping change or universal BH - I said they had brought changes at those clubs that had a new breed of owner (rich / super-rich) and that certain things could now be observed and that the relationship between club and fans now is very different to what it was when local business or politicians or chamber of commerce guys ran these clubs.

 

You titled your thread "The New Realities" . That indicates that you're talking in general as opposed to special cases.

 

But moving on...

 

It is correct to a point to suggest that popular campaigning and protest can't cause the owners of professional sports clubs to ignore the fundamental economic realities. Nobody is going to alter multi-million pound decisions simply because of some slogans painted on bedsheets.

 

Where it might make the difference is if the economic realities behind the decision are marginal. In our city neither "Hands off Hibs" and "Save Our Hearts" actually solved their respective underlying problems but arguably both bought enough time for someone with serious capital to emerge and address the issues.

 

In a present day Hearts context shouting "Romanov GTF" is indeed currently a fairly futile activity as there is no obvious alternative but should someone, who isn't a plumber, emerge with a takeover bid good enough to make the current ownership at least consider it then public pressure could well tip the balance.