Is 'Old Style' Ownership still feasible or likely in modern football?

[Charlie-Brown]

This subject was touched upon on another thread but I thought it deserved it's own thread.

 

previously clubs like Hearts and many other Scottish & UK clubs were owned by local businessmen or businesses and some prominent businessman or local politician or ex-player was usually club chairman.

 

At Hearts we've seen the likes of Bobby Parker, Wallace Mercer, Chris Robinson / Leslie Deans, George Foulkes......etc.

 

However at Hearts & many other clubs these days, clubs are being bought & replaced by much wealthier individuals or groups often with little direct local connection......in recent weeks even a medium sized SFL club like Livingston's owner Pierce Flynn sold out to an Italian consortium as the local businessman no longer wanted nor could afford the levels of finance required.

 

Rangers, Celtic, Aberdeen & Hibs are currently owned by very wealthy individuals but most other SPL clubs have ownership of the sort that Hearts used to have. One has to wonder how Dundee United will fare once Eddie Thomson has departed.

 

Is 'local' ownership that Hearts previously had still feasible or likely in modern football where the traditional owners are selling off UK clubs in an apparently growing trend?

[Guest jambomickey]

the quicker we get back into the hands of somebody with hearts at heart the better, we being run by paranoid liers right now:107years:

[Alan_R]

edit- [nevermined i typed something that was totally wrong]

 

is there any good examples of big clubs with 'old style' ownership now?

[Ray Winstone]

This subject was touched upon on another thread but I thought it deserved it's own thread.

 

previously clubs like Hearts and many other Scottish & UK clubs were owned by local businessmen or businesses and some prominent businessman or local politician or ex-player was usually club chairman.

 

At Hearts we've seen the likes of Bobby Parker, Wallace Mercer, Chris Robinson / Leslie Deans, George Foulkes......etc.

 

However at Hearts & many other clubs these days, clubs are being bought & replaced by much wealthier individuals or groups often with little direct local connection......in recent weeks even a medium sized SFL club like Livingston's owner Pierce Flynn sold out to an Italian consortium as the local businessman no longer wanted nor could afford the levels of finance required.

 

Rangers, Celtic, Aberdeen & Hibs are currently owned by very wealthy individuals but most other SPL clubs have ownership of the sort that Hearts used to have. One has to wonder how Dundee United will fare once Eddie Thomson has departed.

 

Is 'local' ownership that Hearts previously had still feasible or likely in modern football where the traditional owners are selling off UK clubs in an apparently growing trend?

 

 

Foreign ownership is definitely on the increase - esspecially in England.

 

Local buisness men are as you say finding that they cannot afford the expense of running a football club these days and it has passed to those with larger expendable incomes to come in and take over.

 

As for Dundee United - Thomson's son will take over the buisness and the club along with his daughter.

 

What he decides to do with it is anyones guess - apparently he is a bit of a prat!

 

It seems unlikley that many clubs who have been taken over by foreign buisness men or consortiums will revert back to local ownership.

[Jarhead]

 

It seems unlikley that many clubs who have been taken over by foreign buisness men or consortiums will revert back to local ownership.

 

I think you may be right but never say never. What goes around comes around.

Football in the UK, especially in Englandshire, is popular right now but if history is anything to go by there is nothing to say it may not drop away again.

[Era Macaroons]

I get the feeling more & more Americans will 'play' with owning a soccer club as the game grows in popularity there

 

they seem to move the American football teams around like furniture, but theres only so many of them....shucks you could pick up a brit soccer team for cents.

[Hearts Heritage]

This subject was touched upon on another thread but I thought it deserved it's own thread.

 

previously clubs like Hearts and many other Scottish & UK clubs were owned by local businessmen or businesses and some prominent businessman or local politician or ex-player was usually club chairman.

 

At Hearts we've seen the likes of Bobby Parker, Wallace Mercer, Chris Robinson / Leslie Deans, George Foulkes......etc.

 

However at Hearts & many other clubs these days, clubs are being bought & replaced by much wealthier individuals or groups often with little direct local connection......in recent weeks even a medium sized SFL club like Livingston's owner Pierce Flynn sold out to an Italian consortium as the local businessman no longer wanted nor could afford the levels of finance required.

 

Rangers, Celtic, Aberdeen & Hibs are currently owned by very wealthy individuals but most other SPL clubs have ownership of the sort that Hearts used to have. One has to wonder how Dundee United will fare once Eddie Thomson has departed.

 

Is 'local' ownership that Hearts previously had still feasible or likely in modern football where the traditional owners are selling off UK clubs in an apparently growing trend?

 

Do you know anything of the History of Hearts?

 

There have been at least 3 occasions where Hearts have been on the verge of going out of business when Hearts had 'old fashioned' ownership. Not to mention the way the legacy of the 1950s was thrown away.

 

I'm in no way defending the current regime but to imply that the 'old days' were better is myth making.

[Charlie-Brown]

I get the feeling more & more Americans will 'play' with owning a soccer club as the game grows in popularity there

 

they seem to move the American football teams around like furniture, but theres only so many of them....shucks you could pick up a brit soccer team for cents.

 

I always thought this is a sad story typical of american sport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebbets_Field

[Charlie-Brown]

Do you know anything of the History of Hearts?

 

There have been at least 3 occasions where Hearts have been on the verge of going out of business when Hearts had 'old fashioned' ownership. Not to mention the way the legacy of the 1950s was thrown away.

 

I'm in no way defending the current regime but to imply that the 'old days' were better is myth making.

 

Of course I know the history of Hearts 12august1893 it was this post on another thread that prompted this thread...I'am asking is it likely given the current economic & financial trends not only in football but also the wider economy........who wants Hearts? who could afford Hearts? are these questions able to be reconciled?

 

my praise is for the hearts support and not our paranoid regime, the quicker hearts back in hands of people with a genuine love for the club the better.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

?21m debt to ?36m debt

 

No manager.

 

Best players flogged. Replacements utter junk.

 

ST's sales down 25%

 

Definitely the way forward for HMFC.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

It might be a growing trend

 

It doesn't mean it is good

 

 

[Charlie-Brown]

It might be a growing trend

 

It doesn't mean it is good

 

 

 

History will be the judge if it's good or a disaster or neither here nor there.....but it seems to me that unless clubs want to be run as community clubs like say Hamilton promoting & based on local young players then the others are caught in a deadly game of poker with increasing amounts of money required to even buy into the game ie raising the stakes for everyone, are the likes of Mercer, Robinson & Deans simply being priced out of the game?

[Toxteth O'Grady]

History will be the judge if it's good or a disaster or neither here nor there.....

 

I can't argue with that

 

but it seems to me that unless clubs want to be run as community clubs like say Hamilton promoting & based on local young players then the others are caught in a deadly game of poker with increasing amounts of money required to even buy into the game ie raising the stakes for everyone, are the likes of Mercer, Robinson & Deans simply being priced out of the game?

 

Perhaps?, Business men from outside the UK are having a big influence, but for me the crucial thing that is they have not been born and bred supporting the clubs they have bought( like us) and they don't care as much as we do, they are not bothered about winning every game (e.g. Velicka sold in January) and I'm not convinced that they care at all when the going gets tough.

 

Unfortunately I can't see an easy way out, maybe a collective ownership is the way to go but we didn't come up with the dosh before when Robinson was selling.

 

I cling to the idea that I was here before VR and I will be here long after he has gone.

[Jammy T]

It might be a growing trend

 

It doesn't mean it is good

 

 

 

or right

 

The "current trend" if there is such a thing in modern football will be the death of it.

 

If Hearts plight is defended on the basis of it happening and being normal elsewhere fair enough, I dont have the inclination to spend energy arguing the toss on that at present.

 

But if it is the case, you can rest assured that fans of other clubs will eventually grow tired of interference, underperforming teams, impotent managers etc

 

Apathy will set in and football will lose punters, will lose TV interest, will lose sponsorship.

 

You dont believe it?

 

Every single overinflated boom ends at some point. What usually happens in the last phase of the boom is that people want a piece of the action of the boom, people who dont know the market that well, people who are ill placed to move their respective market forward.

 

People that have arrived at the party too late

 

Read any economic book.

 

We're getting there. For the sake of football there needs to be less of the Hearts ownership model but I fear the end of the boom dictates there will be more.

[Charlie-Brown]

Ian Wright and Adrian Durham were debating & speculating tonite IF Manchester United sold Ronaldo to Real Madrid for ???????? would Liverpools Gillet & Hicks consider selling Torres to Man Utd if the price was high enough? ie would the prospect of a massive profit over-ride their historic rivalries?

[Jammy T]

Ian Wright and Adrian Durham were debating & speculating tonite IF Manchester United sold Ronaldo to Real Madrid for ???????? would Liverpools Gillet & Hicks consider selling Torres to Man Utd if the price was high enough? ie would the prospect of a massive profit over-ride their historic rivalries?

 

Yes

[Charlie-Brown]

or right

 

The "current trend" if there is such a thing in modern football will be the death of it.

 

If Hearts plight is defended on the basis of it happening and being normal elsewhere fair enough, I dont have the inclination to spend energy arguing the toss on that at present.

 

But if it is the case, you can rest assured that fans of other clubs will eventually grow tired of interference, underperforming teams, impotent managers etc

 

Apathy will set in and football will lose punters, will lose TV interest, will lose sponsorship.

 

You dont believe it?

 

Every single overinflated boom ends at some point. What usually happens in the last phase of the boom is that people want a piece of the action of the boom, people who dont know the market that well, people who are ill placed to move their respective market forward.

 

People that have arrived at the party too late

 

Read any economic book.

 

We're getting there. For the sake of football there needs to be less of the Hearts ownership model but I fear the end of the boom dictates there will be more.

 

Capitalist economic models are not known for being too moral regards what 'should' happen J_T ..... do you think 'traditional' type ownership as I described it is more or less likely in the short term (ie next 5-10 years).....this isn't really a Hearts thread - it affects an increasing amount of clubs - even relative minnows like Livingston - it's a BIG question for football....but as I see it nobody except big money has any will or power to do anything about it. Could they? Should they?

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Capitalist economic models are not known for being too moral regards what 'should' happen J_T ..... do you think 'traditional' type ownership as I described it is more or less likely in the short term (ie next 5-10 years).....this isn't really a Hearts thread - it affects an increasing amount of clubs - even relative minnows like Livingston - it's a BIG question for football....but as I see it nobody except big money has any will or power to do anything about it. Could they? Should they?

 

The only way I can see it changing in the current economic climate is by it getting worse before it gets better.

 

If enough supporters get disillusioned with it and stop spending money on football then the venture capitalist owners will cut and run.

 

What we will be left with is anybody's guess but it's getting to the stage where it is not such a scary option.

[Jammy T]

Capitalist economic models are not known for being too moral regards what 'should' happen J_T ..... do you think 'traditional' type ownership as I described it is more or less likely in the short term (ie next 5-10 years).....this isn't really a Hearts thread - it affects an increasing amount of clubs - even relative minnows like Livingston - it's a BIG question for football....but as I see it nobody except big money has any will or power to do anything about it. Could they? Should they?

 

Check my post again - I'm possibly agreeing with you that it is happening and it is more likely to accelerate - like any parabolic growth spike where the herd mentality kicks in.

 

So in replying whilst I might have mentioned Hearts it wasnt Hearts focussed - although my own personal thoughts are I dont care what is happening at other clubs, they can sign their own death warrants. I do care about what is happening at Hearts though

 

But, I still argue you cant align Scotland with England, but then possibly Vlad has started something in Scotland like Abramovic in England.

 

In England individual wealth is driven by the desire to succeed and possible earn cash from success in the wealthiest league in the world. This makes some semblance of sense even though we all know it is practically impossible to make money from any club other than around 4 or 5 in the world

 

In Scotland? Use a backwater football environment to earn slightly less money showcasing players - whether Lithuanian, or flawed players needing western european exposure or lower league Italian players?

 

Maybe this new breed of Scottish club owner takes a cut of the sale profits? Maybe they just take a 6 figure agency or management fee per transfer then post it in a vague ?3.8m liability in the accounts....

 

I'm surprised at the Livvie development, but I dont see this thing happening widely in Scotland. I do see it happening in England. I do see it killing the game as we know it.

 

You get more than half EPL teams with self made money driven men in control of the teams and Bang solely financially driven decisions will be made. Random games in foreign countries, rule changes etc

[magicTs]

The sick thing is by far the biggest obstacle we have encountered during this regime is the owner himself. At a time when a fantastic opportunity existed he has not only wasted it but actually put us in a worse place in many respects.

[Jammy T]

The only way I can see it changing in the current economic climate is by it getting worse before it gets better.

 

If enough supporters get disillusioned with it and stop spending money on football then the venture capitalist owners will cut and run.

 

What we will be left with is anybody's guess but it's getting to the stage where it is not such a scary option.

 

Correct

 

If what happens at Hearts is replicated at other clubs, the Hearts fans reaction will be the mildest of them all. Practically guaranteed. If things at these respective clubs didnt change fans would just walk away and do the shopping option

[portobellojambo1]

It seems unlikley that many clubs who have been taken over by foreign buisness men or consortiums will revert back to local ownership.

 

I think it is possible that many, in fact probably most, clubs will have no option but to revert back to local ownership. There will come a day, probably more so in Scotland where there is not the ready income available from Sky TV (whose financial input effectively keeps 90% of the EPL clubs afloat), when clubs may have to revert back to depending on local businessmen who have a passion for their local club.

 

I suspect a time will come when many of the wealthy foreign owners realise that there isn't really a huge amount of finance to be gained through ownership of a club in the UK, don't think it will happen overnight, but it is an outcome I suspect could come about.

 

Then it is back to tapping into local businessmen, downsizing, downgrading accordingly, and hanging on to see what the future holds.

[Charlie-Brown]

Whether it was the right thing or wrong thing to do for Hearts from a financial perspective what is undeniable is that the Old Firm have been forced into higher spending to maintain their monoply over the SPL since Romanov arrived and that SPL->OF tansfer fees are higher now than they were previously, Rangers & celtic have also upped their player & transfer budgets after a consolidation period for a few years prior to Romanov's arrival - but also the Champions League is necessitating higher spending as well as bringing higher revenue.......it's seems that the stakes are being raised at many levels both in the SPL as well as the EPL & CCC.

[Jammy T]

Whether it was the right thing or wrong thing to do for Hearts from a financial perspective what is undeniable is that the Old Firm have been forced into higher spending to maintain their monoply over the SPL since Romanov arrived and that SPL->OF tansfer fees are higher now than they were previously, Rangers & celtic have also upped their player & transfer budgets after a consolidation period for a few years prior to Romanov's arrival - but also the Champions League is necessitating higher spending as well as bringing higher revenue.......it's seems that the stakes are being raised at many levels both in the SPL as well as the EPL & CCC.

 

I disagree

 

As much as it pains me to say so, I think Hibs have more to do with the inflated SPL old firm expenditure than Hearts

 

Hibs nurtured home grown talent, didnt spend too much on it, tied it up to long term deals then played hard ball on fees.

 

I still dont know how they raked in what they did.

 

We lucked out mostly down to one exceptional talent. Other than that on your point the only club that have really frittered away large amounts of money in the SPL without any gain/reward are us.

 

Celtic are trading a profit are they not?

 

I dont think Vlad has anything much to do with anything the old firm spend. We might have spooked them for half a year but they are only driven in outdoing each other not us.

 

They are now well aware the joke Vlad is and Hearts have become

[magicTs]

Whether it was the right thing or wrong thing to do for Hearts from a financial perspective what is undeniable is that the Old Firm have been forced into higher spending to maintain their monoply over the SPL since Romanov arrived and that SPL->OF tansfer fees are higher now than they were previously, Rangers & celtic have also upped their player & transfer budgets after a consolidation period for a few years prior to Romanov's arrival - but also the Champions League is necessitating higher spending as well as bringing higher revenue.......it's seems that the stakes are being raised at many levels both in the SPL as well as the EPL & CCC.

 

Utter nonsense. The Old Firm are as far ahead as they have been for the last 20 years and a couple of months of Romanov leaving an actual football manager to do what he is paid for has changed nothing. The one club who have wasted vast sums of money in the last 2 seasons due to gross mismanagment is Heart of Midlothian.

[shaun.lawson]

In answer to the OP: self-evidently, no. In the EPL, and before long, Serie A and La Liga too, the vast wealth offered by qualification for the CL will no doubt attract more and more overseas investors - and unhappily, as we've seen with Shinawatra and Abramovich as well as Romanov, what the lord giveth, the lord taketh away.

 

In many ways, the situation may be even worse for a club like Hearts. Most Jambos want to challenge and some day overcome the Old Firm, even if it's just for one solitary season: seeing the league flag fluttering over Tynie again is, surely, our collective hearts' innermost desire. But the sad reality is, even if the stadium is increased to 25 or even 30,000 capacity, the revenue the OF pull in mean the only way we can ever hope to challenge them is via an outside investor with seriously deep pockets.

 

Think of it. If I, or anyone reading this thread, were to win the Euro lottery, we'd already require ?20-30m, and quite possibly much more, to buy Romanov out. The club would remain heavily in debt - and on our gates, probably ?5m per year extra would need to be spent on the wage bill. It's completely unsustainable - and the fact that even lottery winners would effectively be priced out says it all about the direction modern football, even in a league as modest as the SPL, is heading in.

 

Of course, if there was ever an acceptance across our support of these realities, it might be possible for someone to take us over and just run us within our natural means. But bear in mind that without the excitement of someone making grandiose claims regarding our ambitions, crowds would fall back, making it ever harder not to run ourselves at a loss - and more than likely, however shrewdly the new man in charge were to run things, fans would get increasingly frustrated at our inability to go beyond 3rd place. "Lack of ambition! Fleecing the club of its stars!" And so on, and so on: indeed, it's this very criticism which may have prompted Chris Robinson to keep living beyond our means in the vain hope of finding a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

 

One thing though. However Romanov, Shinawatra, Abramovich or Mandaric might behave, it does not follow that all 'new' owners of football clubs will emulate their pigheadedness, highhandedness, arrogance and flat out stupidity. Indeed, it continues to astonish me that successful businessmen, who must, surely, have been prepared to take advice while rising to the top of their various professions, seem to treat owning a football club as a toy - when they'd have much better chance of enjoying success if they could only listen, learn, and leave it to the professionals. At Aston Villa, Randy Lerner has pumped in considerable amounts of his own money, not simply lumped it on the club's debt as at Man Utd, Liverpool or indeed Hearts, maintained (up until now, at least) a low profile, and allowed Martin O'Neill to get on with what he does best: namely, running and improving a football team.

 

If Lerner is able to behave with such good sense and respect, why shouldn't others be? My hope is that more new owners appear and follow his lead: in which case, the behaviour of the tyrants will seem more and more abnormal, and increasingly at odds with how successful clubs are run. Because frankly, there's only so much of this 'cultural clash' stuff I can take: yes, Romanov will have grown up in a very different environment, and has his own ideas. But dignity, manners and simple common sense are a universal language - and there's no reason at all why any owner, however powerful, however wealthy, shouldn't be able to speak it themselves.

[Charlie-Brown]

I disagree

 

As much as it pains me to say so, I think Hibs have more to do with the inflated SPL old firm expenditure than Hearts

 

Hibs nurtured home grown talent, didnt spend too much on it, tied it up to long term deals then played hard ball on fees.

 

I still dont know how they raked in what they did.

 

We lucked out mostly down to one exceptional talent. Other than that on your point the only club that have really frittered away large amounts of money in the SPL without any gain/reward are us.

 

Celtic are trading a profit are they not?

 

I dont think Vlad has anything much to do with anything the old firm spend. We might have spooked them for half a year but they are only driven in outdoing each other not us.

 

They are now well aware the joke Vlad is and Hearts have become

 

Hibs & Killie lost the likes of Riordan, Caldwell & Boyd to a predatory Old Firm at a time when Hearts had increased average wages & put most or all players on long term contracts, Hibs in particular learned from this and put their remaining players on longer term deals thus ensuring a transfer fee.

 

What has really driven transfer fee & wage inflation is the money pouring into the EPL & CCC plus money from European competitions - you still have the same limited supply of players / good players but a huge amount of extra money sloshing about the system......any economics textbook will tell you that increased money supply chasing a fixed supply of goods (players) = price inflation.

[Charlie-Brown]

Utter nonsense. The Old Firm are as far ahead as they have been for the last 20 years and a couple of months of Romanov leaving an actual football manager to do what he is paid for has changed nothing. The one club who have wasted vast sums of money in the last 2 seasons due to gross mismanagment is Heart of Midlothian.

 

It is not utter nonsense - Rangers & Celtic had been constraining their wage bill and transfer spending for a couple of seasons prior to 2004-05 - their published accounts prove this - since 2006-07 both have increased their transfer spending and their player budgets, Romanov's arrival & hearts success may only be a smaller part of this and their Champs League ambitions the greater part however the figure's don't lie - their spending bottomed out before increasing again.

[magicTs]

It is not utter nonsense - Rangers & Celtic had been constraining their wage bill and transfer spending for a couple of seasons prior to 2004-05 - their published accounts prove this - since 2006-07 both have increased their transfer spending and their player budgets, Romanov's arrival & hearts success may only be a smaller part of this and their Champs League ambitions the greater part however the figure's don't lie - their spending bottomed out before increasing again.

 

Thanks, I'm glad you were good enough to admit it has nothing to do with Romanov and everything to do with competing against each other for the lucrative Champs League spot. As I said your first post was utter nonsense.

[Jammy T]

It is not utter nonsense - Rangers & Celtic had been constraining their wage bill and transfer spending for a couple of seasons prior to 2004-05 - their published accounts prove this - since 2006-07 both have increased their transfer spending and their player budgets, Romanov's arrival & hearts success may only be a smaller part of this and their Champs League ambitions the greater part however the figure's don't lie - their spending bottomed out before increasing again.

 

Oh come on. You were doing relatively well not reducing yourself to laughing stock comments until this one.

 

The old firm were force into nothing by the arrival of Romanov.

 

They were forced into paying stupid amounts for Hibs players because they both showed interests in the same players

 

They were forced into outspending each other to try and ensure they got the guaranteed group place through 1st in the league

 

Just because there may have been an increase in spending at around the time Vlad came proves nothing.

 

They had been cost cutting. Celtic had good Champs League campaigns under ONeill, they cut the slack on spending and Rangers felt compelled to compete not to lose ground

 

Romanov forced the old firm into bigger spending.....Charlie, thats an embarrassing claim

[Charlie-Brown]

Thanks, I'm glad you were good enough to admit it has nothing to do with Romanov and everything to do with competing against each other for the lucrative Champs League spot. As I said your first post was utter nonsense.

 

What you are missing though is they had competing against each other for champs league virtually unchallenged for a decade - what changed was that Hearts (albeit briefly) added some extra unwanted competition - the result of that was that they both reversed their spending patterns and started to increase their wage bill & transfer budget having previously been reducing these.

[magicTs]

What you are missing though is they had competing against each other for champs league virtually unchallenged for a decade - what changed was that Hearts (albeit briefly) added some extra unwanted competition - the result of that was that they both reversed their spending patterns and started to increase their wage bill & transfer budget having previously been reducing these.

 

It had absolutely nothing to do with Romanov. Your beyond help.

[Charlie-Brown]

Oh come on. You were doing relatively well not reducing yourself to laughing stock comments until this one.

 

The old firm were force into nothing by the arrival of Romanov.

 

They were forced into paying stupid amounts for Hibs players because they both showed interests in the same players

 

They were forced into outspending each other to try and ensure they got the guaranteed group place through 1st in the league

 

Just because there may have been an increase in spending at around the time Vlad came proves nothing.

 

They had been cost cutting. Celtic had good Champs League campaigns under ONeill, they cut the slack on spending and Rangers felt compelled to compete not to lose ground

 

Romanov forced the old firm into bigger spending.....Charlie, thats an embarrassing claim

 

Strachan got knocked out of europe completely before the season even began denying Celtic of any european money for a whole season in 2005-06.

[Jammy T]

What you are missing though is they had competing against each other for champs league virtually unchallenged for a decade - what changed was that Hearts (albeit briefly) added some extra unwanted competition - the result of that was that they both reversed their spending patterns and started to increase their wage bill & transfer budget having previously been reducing these.

 

No, what changed was Celtic started to get quite good at the Champs league malarky and the old firm being the old firm Rangers started overspending in an attempt to keep up

 

Jeezo - your love and defences of all things Romanov has no boundaries.

 

You certainly practice "out the box" thinking

[scott_jambo]

I always thought this is a sad story typical of american sport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebbets_Field

On May 23, 1958, Manchester City of England lost to Hearts of Scotland 5 - 2 in front of 20,000 patrons at Ebbets Field.

 

I like this bit particularly...

 

[Charlie-Brown]

It had absolutely nothing to do with Romanov. Your beyond help.

 

It had EVERYTHING to do with Hearts denying Rangers a champions league place - given their co-efficient they can reasonably expect to progress beyond a 3rd round tie but not if their not even in the competition to begin with.

 

Celtic were already champions but Rangers missing the CL in 2006 & Celtic failing to beat Artmedia in 2005 denied them both CL placings - that is something their finances simply cannot afford, Hearts were unwanted competition that could've (possibly) denid them CL and both returned a level of spending they'd managed to get by without prior to failing to get into the CL.

[Jammy T]

Strachan got knocked out of europe completely before the season even began denying Celtic of any european money for a whole season in 2005-06.

 

Yeah Romanov arrived, spooked Strachan and he shat it, screwing up their campaign that season.

 

And the fact Celtic failed in Europe didnt ensure that they started spending to succeed next year.

 

No no no. This new loony Lithuanian that cant keep a manager for more than half a year came along and the old firm thought. Feck me this guys a genius, you'd better splash ?3m on Venegoor, ?4m on Brown and ?4m on Whitaker and Thompson to keep Hearts at bay....

[magicTs]

It had EVERYTHING to do with Hearts denying Rangers a champions league place - given their co-efficient they can reasonably expect to progress beyond a 3rd round tie but not if their not even in the competition to begin with.

 

Celtic were already champions but Rangers missing the CL in 2006 & Celtic failing to beat Artmedia in 2005 denied them both CL placings - that is something their finances simply cannot afford, Hearts were unwanted competition that could've (possibly) denid them CL and both returned a level of spending they'd managed to get by without prior to failing to get into the CL.

 

Absolute nonsense. I will say something more though which I'd imagine you will take as a compliment, you and Romanov's credibility are the same.

[Charlie-Brown]

No, what changed was Celtic started to get quite good at the Champs league malarky and the old firm being the old firm Rangers started overspending in an attempt to keep up

 

Jeezo - your love and defences of all things Romanov has no boundaries.

 

You certainly practice "out the box" thinking

 

Celtic only started getting good at it after a spectacular & costly failure partly as a result of their cost-cutting whilst Rangers missed out completely because they too had been cost cutting & repaying debts whilst at the same moment Hearts temporarily added extra competiton and denied the Gers entry - the unthinkable! They have both made strenous attempts to ensure they get the CL placings since then.

[shaun.lawson]

What you are missing though is they had competing against each other for champs league virtually unchallenged for a decade - what changed was that Hearts (albeit briefly) added some extra unwanted competition - the result of that was that they both reversed their spending patterns and started to increase their wage bill & transfer budget having previously been reducing these.

 

I can only add my voice to those pleading with you to see sense over this. In Summer 2006, Celtic had a CL group stage place guaranteed, so were able to spend in the knowledge of what was likely to come in. Following their successful campaign, they were then able to reinvest as part of a virtous cycle of steady growth and team building: and also because of a solid financial base developed over a number of years.

 

For Rangers, though, the situation was very different. It's very probable that Walter Smith only agreed to return on the proviso that they would spend significantly - because they had fallen intolerably far behind Celtic, and David Murray was desperate to restore some credibility and ultimately, make the club sellable. So last summer, they gambled on reaching the CL groups - and luckily for them, it paid off, with the money recouped from going all the way to the UEFA Cup Final a very handy return.

 

But what on earth any of this has to do with Romanov, heaven only knows. Sure, the OF were probably worried at one point: Strachan, for one, plainly thought we were for real after our 1-1 draw there in October 2005. We all know what happened next. And while we'd already accrued such a big lead over Rangers that it was always odds against that they could catch up, the farcical events which followed at Tynie will, I've no doubt, have swiftly reassured the boardrooms at Parkhead and Ibrox that we posed no significant medium or long-term threat.

 

Look at it this way: Hearts enjoyed our best season in living memory in 2005/6, and Rangers their worst in two decades. Yet our eventual advantage over them in 2nd place? One measly point. We could only get worse from there, and they could only get better - so the idea that old Minty Moonbeams would've sat there during the summer petrified of what Hearts were about to do to his club is absolutely risible. We had a brief window of opportunity, but blew it with startling levels of ineptitude - and are now not even a flicker on the OF's radar. And we all know who's responsible for that.

[magicTs]

Celtic only started getting good at it after a spectacular & costly failure.

 

Whilst our one and only pitiful experience was just a spectacular failure and wasted all the efforts of getting into that position in the first place.

[Charlie-Brown]

Whilst our one and only pitiful experience was just a spectacular failure and wasted all the efforts of getting into that position in the first place.

 

Hearts haven't played enough European ties in the last decade to get a co-efficient high enough to give us any real hope of progressing beyond the 3rd round of the champions league - what qualifying for the champions league did do was financially damage Rangers for season 2006-07 and PLG was given the lowest transfer budget & wage bill of any Rangers manager in the last decade - this was reversed when Walter Smith took charge.

 

Hearts only experience in the UEFA Group stages was more pitiful losing 3 of the 4 group games wasting all the efforts of getting into that position in the first place.

[Charlie-Brown]

I can only add my voice to those pleading with you to see sense over this. In Summer 2006, Celtic had a CL group stage place guaranteed, so were able to spend in the knowledge of what was likely to come in. Following their successful campaign, they were then able to reinvest as part of a virtous cycle of steady growth and team building: and also because of a solid financial base developed over a number of years.

 

For Rangers, though, the situation was very different. It's very probable that Walter Smith only agreed to return on the proviso that they would spend significantly - because they had fallen intolerably far behind Celtic, and David Murray was desperate to restore some credibility and ultimately, make the club sellable. So last summer, they gambled on reaching the CL groups - and luckily for them, it paid off, with the money recouped from going all the way to the UEFA Cup Final a very handy return.

 

But what on earth any of this has to do with Romanov, heaven only knows. Sure, the OF were probably worried at one point: Strachan, for one, plainly thought we were for real after our 1-1 draw there in October 2005. We all know what happened next. And while we'd already accrued such a big lead over Rangers that it was always odds against that they could catch up, the farcical events which followed at Tynie will, I've no doubt, have swiftly reassured the boardrooms at Parkhead and Ibrox that we posed no significant medium or long-term threat.

 

Look at it this way: Hearts enjoyed our best season in living memory in 2005/6, and Rangers their worst in two decades. Yet our eventual advantage over them in 2nd place? One measly point. We could only get worse from there, and they could only get better - so the idea that old Minty Moonbeams would've sat there during the summer petrified of what Hearts were about to do to his club is absolutely risible. We had a brief window of opportunity, but blew it with startling levels of ineptitude - and are now not even a flicker on the OF's radar. And we all know who's responsible for that.

 

 

From Graham Spiers 'Paul Le Guen ENIGMA' page 68 quoting David Murray in November 2006...

 

"This [youth] is the road we have chosen to go down. 5 Years ago people were complaining that we didn't have the players or the training ground but we did have spiralling debt. So, we decided to go down a route which has brought us to where we are today. It's very easy to say "throw money at it", but that's what I was getting pilloried for four of five years ago, and I am not prepared to run this club in the financial way [of] the past. Today we can only spend what we are creating. Nor is all of this a short-term move. We're not thinking that playing young players will make it happen all overnight. There is going to be inconsistency but, I repeat, this is the road we have chosen to go down"

 

6 weeks later PLG was gone and policy & spending has remarkably REVERSED since then.

 

Rangers & Celtic's finances are predicated on European money - Romanovs money helped Hearts achieve a CL place & deny Rangers over ?10M year on year......I find it incredible that people think this had little or no influence on their thinking....they MUST get CL places at all costs even if it means jettisoning Murray's PLG project and his biggest about turn ever.

[shaun.lawson]

From Graham Spiers 'Paul Le Guen ENIGMA' page 68 quoting David Murray in November 2006...

 

"This [youth] is the road we have chosen to go down. 5 Years ago people were complaing that we didn't have the players or the training ground but we did have spiralling debt. So, we decided to go down a route which has brought us to where we are today. It's very easy to say "throw money at it", but that's what I was getting pilloried for four of five years ago, and I am not prepared to run this club in the financial way [of] the past. Today we can only spend what we are creating. Nor is all of this a short-term move. We're not thinking that playing young players will make it happen all overnight. There is going to be inconsistency but, I repeat, this is the road we have chosen to go down"

 

6 weeks later PLG was gone and policy & spending has remarkably REVERSED since then.

 

Rangers & Celtic's finances are predicated on European money - Romanovs money helped Hearts achieve a CL place & deny Rangers over ?10M year on year......I find it incredible that people think this had little or no influence on their thinking....they MUST get CL places at all costs even if it means jettisoning Murray's PLG project and his biggest about turn ever.

 

So why appoint Le Guen in the first place then? Why start out 06/7 looking to spend very little? Self-evidently, because they didn't see us as a threat - and when things started looking a bit hairy, they dumped PLG, appointed Smith, and started spending - because they had to. At that point, Celtic seemed to have a grip on Scottish football as iron clad as Rangers' in the 90s: an intolerable situation.

 

Rangers hoped they could gradually change the club while maintaining tight controls on spending and still staying in touch with Celtic. When this didn't work, they had little option other than to change tack; but it was way, way more about closing the gap to their great rivals than seeing off some 'threat' from ourselves and Aberdeen that was never serious in the first place.

[Charlie-Brown]

So why appoint Le Guen in the first place then? Why start out 06/7 looking to spend very little? Self-evidently, because they didn't see us as a threat - and when things started looking a bit hairy, they dumped PLG, appointed Smith, and started spending - because they had to. At that point, Celtic seemed to have a grip on Scottish football as iron clad as Rangers' in the 90s: an intolerable situation.

 

Rangers hoped they could gradually change the club while maintaining tight controls on spending and still staying in touch with Celtic. When this didn't work, they had little option other than to change tack; but it was way, way more about closing the gap to their great rivals than seeing off some 'threat' from ourselves and Aberdeen that was never serious in the first place.

 

They started with PLG & the 'Plan' because they thought PLG was a miracle worker and most or many predicted that Rangers would walk the title like Advocaat did (hindsight is a wonderful thing) PLG was the next Wenger and what difference was ?25M in their spending budgets......

 

Never-the-less serious or not we were a threat they couldn't ignore as we'd already cost them ?10M+ and although we'd fallen back they couldn't guarantee we wouldn't come back stronger - yes Rangers are always mindful of Celtic but the only thing that frightens them more than what is happening above them is when the 'minions' below start getting too close for comfort.

[Charlie-Brown]

Good article about Livingston's new owners

http://sport.scotsman.com/football/New-Italian-owners-will-not.4159096.jp

[leginten]

One thing though. However Romanov, Shinawatra, Abramovich or Mandaric might behave, it does not follow that all 'new' owners of football clubs will emulate their pigheadedness, highhandedness, arrogance and flat out stupidity. Indeed, it continues to astonish me that successful businessmen, who must, surely, have been prepared to take advice while rising to the top of their various professions, seem to treat owning a football club as a toy - when they'd have much better chance of enjoying success if they could only listen, learn, and leave it to the professionals.

 

This is the crucial part. Although there may be more millionaire/billionaire owners in the short to medium term - until their fancy is taken by building hotels on the moon or acquiring real estate on Mars - there is nothing inherently wrong with having them and their money around. The only danger is that as none of them are really football people, their interest is likely to wane once the next billionaire fad takes off.

 

Nor is there anything inherently wrong with the traditional, local-money-and-directors model. Its ability to challenge at the top is going to suffer compared to clubs with more money at their disposal, but many of these clubs never actually win things anyway, and nor do they expect to.

 

What you do hope, with either model, is that common sense prevails and that the rich amateurs leave the seasoned professionals to run the club. It can go either way. Some clubs in the EPL appear to have been fortunate in this respect. We, on the other hand, have been lumbered with a despicable, ignorant individual who knows nothing about football and has filled the club with nobodies in his own image, including his bawbag son, and meanwhile systematically got rid of anyone who knew what they were doing.

 

By the way, NMH, and no offence intended, to me this thread just looks like part 5 or 6 of your tangential attempts to persuade us all that what has happened at Tynecastle over the last three years has been nothing more than an everyday tale of footballin' folk. Nobody's buying.

[Charlie-Brown]

No it was more about Pierce Flynn's comments that he had neither the money required nor the inclination to be able to take Livingston any further, that and I.Wrights & A.Durham's musings about Torres on talksport last nite.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Whether it was the right thing or wrong thing to do for Hearts from a financial perspective what is undeniable is that the Old Firm have been forced into higher spending to maintain their monoply over the SPL since Romanov arrived and that SPL->OF tansfer fees are higher now than they were previously, Rangers & celtic have also upped their player & transfer budgets after a consolidation period for a few years prior to Romanov's arrival - but also the Champions League is necessitating higher spending as well as bringing higher revenue.......it's seems that the stakes are being raised at many levels both in the SPL as well as the EPL & CCC.

 

The biggest ever raising of the stakes was in 1986 when a Scottish owner appointed a Scottish player Manager.

 

He bought half the England team and things have never been the same in Scotland since.

[John Findlay]

Do you know anything of the History of Hearts?

 

There have been at least 3 occasions where Hearts have been on the verge of going out of business when Hearts had 'old fashioned' ownership. Not to mention the way the legacy of the 1950s was thrown away.

 

I'm in no way defending the current regime but to imply that the 'old days' were better is myth making.

 

Touche, touche.

 

 

 

 

 

John