Perhaps more owners are in it for their own egos that previously, and certainly a lot of them are considerable richer than the old brigade and with that comes a degree of arrogance and, again, ego.
The likes of Walker, Hayward and Ellis were primarily fans of their club who had money (often paltry sums by today's standards) and acted in what they thought was their club's best interests. The modern owner is often as interested in the value of the brand and protecting their assets as they are in results, although the latter impacts on the former.
Had you offered Walker/Hayward/Ellis a league title at almost any cost they would have taken it. The modern bridge would swap the title for increased market share in Asia, a buoyant share price and a lucrative Champions League place.
I suspect all the crap that the Telegraph uncovers in its football investigations will give the reasons why so many fans are turning on their clubs. I think the prime reason is that all of those greedy feckin' bastards forget that it's not their club and that they hold all of it in trust for both us and future generations.
I suspect all the crap that the Telegraph uncovers in its football investigations will give the reasons why so many fans are turning on their clubs. I think the prime reason is that all of those greedy feckin' bastards forget that it's not their club and that they hold all of it in trust for both us and future generations.
Good read, and I believe it says so much about Charlton fans that our campaign to oust our owners is deemed to be the best organised and most vocal.
But it does ask the question, why do these guys stay? They're losing money, they're unpopular, they're not even interested? Is it like the gambler who can't give up of is at a face-saving campaign whereby selling up would be considered admitting failure, something, according to Ms Meire, Roly would never do?
There's something in the business mentality of these people that needs to be understood and an Achilles' heel found somewhere if fans of Charlton and the other clubs mentioned are to remove these dreadful owners.
Comments
Something needs to change in the governance of this sport in this country.
The likes of Walker, Hayward and Ellis were primarily fans of their club who had money (often paltry sums by today's standards) and acted in what they thought was their club's best interests. The modern owner is often as interested in the value of the brand and protecting their assets as they are in results, although the latter impacts on the former.
Had you offered Walker/Hayward/Ellis a league title at almost any cost they would have taken it. The modern bridge would swap the title for increased market share in Asia, a buoyant share price and a lucrative Champions League place.
I think the prime reason is that all of those greedy feckin' bastards forget that it's not their club and that they hold all of it in trust for both us and future generations.
But it does ask the question, why do these guys stay? They're losing money, they're unpopular, they're not even interested? Is it like the gambler who can't give up of is at a face-saving campaign whereby selling up would be considered admitting failure, something, according to Ms Meire, Roly would never do?
There's something in the business mentality of these people that needs to be understood and an Achilles' heel found somewhere if fans of Charlton and the other clubs mentioned are to remove these dreadful owners.