[Archived] Dialogue With The Owners

[Rover_Shaun]

I'm sure someone can forward contact details to you EiT

We could have a sweep on which tub thumper acts first you or Gav and his protest.

My thoughts are to ignore them and protest through non-attendance. The only thing that will make them take notice.

[Exiled in Toronto]

I'm sure someone can forward contact details to you EiT

We could have a sweep on which tub thumper acts first you or Gav and his protest.

My thoughts are to ignore them and protest through non-attendance. The only thing that will make them take notice.

Worked well for you so far!

[punerover]

A serious answer?

Well they have to be given something that would make them WANT to speak.

Obviously they've seen nothing yet.

There is no other way. We all saw how the protests stuff went. The only thing it was good enough was to get the ex manager out and to that extent it was successful. There is no way to "stick" them out for sure. The only way is to "Carrot" them out. So, I agree that you have to give them something to make them WANT to speak.

Attendance as a percentage of club revenue is not enough to get anyone out. It impacts, yes for sure, but only if the attendance is ZILCH all year around. So, while in theory it sounds all good and nice, we all know this is nearly impossible to implement as we learnt from experience.

[Rover_Shaun]

Worked well for you so far!

Lack of support just like any other form of protest or dialogue will suffer from. I am entirely fine with my money not going to those ignorant, pss taking, charlatan bstsrds. Kean was just a symptom. This lot are the disease. Pure scum as Abbey would testify to.

[yoda]

And your idea to get their attention is? Posting Venky's out Venky's out a 1000 times on a messageboard? I completely agree your idea is better.

Don't have a go at ABBEY for the Rao's failings, we all do things differently, currently the Rao's are responsible for wrecking ABBEY's lifetime football club and 140 years of history

[Claytons Left Boot]

As I said, they have already spoken to fans and it made no difference. The two Ian's wrote to them and they weren't interested. The Trust tried to communicate with them and they didn't have the courtesy to reply. I know you're saying keep trying, but it all seems to be a forlorn hope. Then again - what on earth is anyone actually going to say to them? Sack Bowyer? Bring back Williams?

More importantly, how can anyone lucky enough to get an audience, be happy that they represent anyone apart from themselves?

I agree, den, with a lot of what you say. It is a forlorn hope and an almost impossible task.

To be honest, I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the attitude of our support. Whatever suggestions are put forward to try and orchestrate some change, these are met with resistance from every angle.

En masse no one is willing to restart demonstrating, no one is willing to either invade or peacefully walk onto the pitch. No one is willing to boycott games. No one is willing to try and talk to the owners. A paltry few will but the majority sit idly by.

I honestly don't know what Venky's game is but one thing is for sure, they couldn't have picked a better club for such a feeble bunch of supporters, resigned to whatever fate awaits without barely a whimper.

[punerover]

Yoda, not having a go. Abbey is frustrated with the owners and rightly so. Fair enough. From his reply it would appear that he was having a go at me and NOT the other way around. I was merely stating that the only way to talk to the Venkys is to put an offer on the table. Just like the blackpool fans. Its different that the Oystons laughed at their 16 million offer. Also, my point is completely valid. I will back it up with the following.

1. Football club = Business. Anything that involves transfer of money is a business. It can be a profitable business, a not for profit business or a loss making business but its a business. If you need to pay wages, its a business. A club is NOT a charity organization. e.g. People all around the world love coca-cola and they have cherished a lot of good and bad moments of their lives drinking it, offering it others, parties etc. same goes for beer U might have shared a lot of good and bad moments with friends and family at a pub does not make it any LESS of a business. In the modern day and NOT like back in the 19th century, all clubs are businesses. They are owned privately / publicly and are not a government funded charity. So in order to remove a owner, one has to find a NEW owner. Unless you can counter this argument, my point stays valid.

2. Fan ownership = To get this to work properly, the fundamental problem is equal share from each fan. If one fan contributes more than the other, he / she thinks they are entitled to a larger share in the say of how the club should operate. If X puts in more money then Y then obviously X will feel he is entitled to a larger say as compared to Y. To contribute equally, there has to be a large enough fan base so that contribution per fan is minimal and manageable. Also, then there is the issue of too many cooks where each fan thinks they know the right way forward and keep fighting internally.

3. Protests = This only works if you can convince everyone to join you. Or atleast what we call a critical mass to join you. Any movement, in order to be successful has to gain momentum. We have protests happening on a day to day basis here and most just fizzle out regardless of the cause. For that to happen, you have to convince everyone with a logical explanation as to why protesting is a good idea. Also, all protests require a good leader. This is just human behavior. If there is no central point of focus, there will be no unity. Plus protests require a objective and a plan to execute that objective.

So, while i agree and respect his views on the owners and rightly so, his comments are often criticisms. Criticism is good when used constructively. It does not help the club go forward nor the thread where the comment is made. If he had replied saying why putting an offer on the table is a bad idea, it would have helped the discussion. Wont you agree? How does me going to Venkys door and saying Uncle Abbey has sent me help the discussion? I fail to understand that.

[yoda]

Yoda, not having a go. Abbey is frustrated with the owners and rightly so. Fair enough. From his reply it would appear that he was having a go at me and NOT the other way around. I was merely stating that the only way to talk to the Venkys is to put an offer on the table. Just like the blackpool fans. Its different that the Oystons laughed at their 16 million offer. Also, my point is completely valid. I will back it up with the following.

1. Football club = Business. Anything that involves transfer of money is a business. It can be a profitable business, a not for profit business or a loss making business but its a business. If you need to pay wages, its a business. A club is NOT a charity organization. e.g. People all around the world love coca-cola and they have cherished a lot of good and bad moments of their lives drinking it, offering it others, parties etc. same goes for beer U might have shared a lot of good and bad moments with friends and family at a pub does not make it any LESS of a business. In the modern day and NOT like back in the 19th century, all clubs are businesses. They are owned privately / publicly and are not a government funded charity. So in order to remove a owner, one has to find a NEW owner. Unless you can counter this argument, my point stays valid.

2. Fan ownership = To get this to work properly, the fundamental problem is equal share from each fan. If one fan contributes more than the other, he / she thinks they are entitled to a larger share in the say of how the club should operate. If X puts in more money then Y then obviously X will feel he is entitled to a larger say as compared to Y. To contribute equally, there has to be a large enough fan base so that contribution per fan is minimal and manageable. Also, then there is the issue of too many cooks where each fan thinks they know the right way forward and keep fighting internally.

3. Protests = This only works if you can convince everyone to join you. Or atleast what we call a critical mass to join you. Any movement, in order to be successful has to gain momentum. We have protests happening on a day to day basis here and most just fizzle out regardless of the cause. For that to happen, you have to convince everyone with a logical explanation as to why protesting is a good idea. Also, all protests require a good leader. This is just human behavior. If there is no central point of focus, there will be no unity. Plus protests require a objective and a plan to execute that objective.

So, while i agree and respect his views on the owners and rightly so, his comments are often criticisms. Criticism is good when used constructively. It does not help the club go forward nor the thread where the comment is made. If he had replied saying why putting an offer on the table is a bad idea, it would have helped the discussion. Wont you agree? How does me going to Venkys door and saying Uncle Abbey has sent me help the discussion? I fail to understand that.

English humour mate, he also know that the Rao's will do just what they want, so whatever ABBEY or anyone else says is immaterial.

Which sort of blows your point of view out of the window for finding a new owner.

If the Club is a business as you say, what is in it for the Rao's ?

[ABBEY]

Wonder if this mon will get a warning for flaming ? I can have an educated guess pal.

Yoda, not having a go. Abbey is frustrated with the owners and rightly so. Fair enough. From his reply it would appear that he was having a go at me and NOT the other way around. I was merely stating that the only way to talk to the Venkys is to put an offer on the table. Just like the blackpool fans. Its different that the Oystons laughed at their 16 million offer. Also, my point is completely valid. I will back it up with the following.

1. Football club = Business. Anything that involves transfer of money is a business. It can be a profitable business, a not for profit business or a loss making business but its a business. If you need to pay wages, its a business. A club is NOT a charity organization. e.g. People all around the world love coca-cola and they have cherished a lot of good and bad moments of their lives drinking it, offering it others, parties etc. same goes for beer U might have shared a lot of good and bad moments with friends and family at a pub does not make it any LESS of a business. In the modern day and NOT like back in the 19th century, all clubs are businesses. They are owned privately / publicly and are not a government funded charity. So in order to remove a owner, one has to find a NEW owner. Unless you can counter this argument, my point stays valid.

2. Fan ownership = To get this to work properly, the fundamental problem is equal share from each fan. If one fan contributes more than the other, he / she thinks they are entitled to a larger share in the say of how the club should operate. If X puts in more money then Y then obviously X will feel he is entitled to a larger say as compared to Y. To contribute equally, there has to be a large enough fan base so that contribution per fan is minimal and manageable. Also, then there is the issue of too many cooks where each fan thinks they know the right way forward and keep fighting internally.

3. Protests = This only works if you can convince everyone to join you. Or atleast what we call a critical mass to join you. Any movement, in order to be successful has to gain momentum. We have protests happening on a day to day basis here and most just fizzle out regardless of the cause. For that to happen, you have to convince everyone with a logical explanation as to why protesting is a good idea. Also, all protests require a good leader. This is just human behavior. If there is no central point of focus, there will be no unity. Plus protests require a objective and a plan to execute that objective.

So, while i agree and respect his views on the owners and rightly so, his comments are often criticisms. Criticism is good when used constructively. It does not help the club go forward nor the thread where the comment is made. If he had replied saying why putting an offer on the table is a bad idea, it would have helped the discussion. Wont you agree? How does me going to Venkys door and saying Uncle Abbey has sent me help the discussion? I fail to understand that.

Yet again a humour by pass when I post . Was not having a go at you stop being a princess , it was a joke Jeeeeez .

[punerover]

English humour mate, he also know that the Rao's will do just what they want, so whatever ABBEY or anyone else says is immaterial.

Then what is the point of discussing it? If everything is immaterial. What is the point of this messageboard? What is the point of the manager? players? Will you be able to change how the manager manages? Will you be able to change how the player plays?

Which sort of blows your point of view out of the window for finding a new owner.

Not really. The point of view is valid in terms of being a more practical approach. The same way as why one needs a new manager or why one needs better players?

If the Club is a business as you say, what is in it for the Rao's ?

The same thing that the owners of every other championship club? I donno. How many championship clubs are profitable? Then none of those owners should be there as well. Glory hunters, free advertising, name and fame, rich brats? The hope that they will be profitable at some point in time even if they are not as of now? You know the answer to this question better than I do, and I am surely not having a go at you.

[Stuart]

Yoda, not having a go. Abbey is frustrated with the owners and rightly so. Fair enough. From his reply it would appear that he was having a go at me and NOT the other way around. I was merely stating that the only way to talk to the Venkys is to put an offer on the table. Just like the blackpool fans. Its different that the Oystons laughed at their 16 million offer. Also, my point is completely valid. I will back it up with the following.

1. Football club = Business. Anything that involves transfer of money is a business. It can be a profitable business, a not for profit business or a loss making business but its a business. If you need to pay wages, its a business. A club is NOT a charity organization. e.g. People all around the world love coca-cola and they have cherished a lot of good and bad moments of their lives drinking it, offering it others, parties etc. same goes for beer U might have shared a lot of good and bad moments with friends and family at a pub does not make it any LESS of a business. In the modern day and NOT like back in the 19th century, all clubs are businesses. They are owned privately / publicly and are not a government funded charity. So in order to remove a owner, one has to find a NEW owner. Unless you can counter this argument, my point stays valid.

2. Fan ownership = To get this to work properly, the fundamental problem is equal share from each fan. If one fan contributes more than the other, he / she thinks they are entitled to a larger share in the say of how the club should operate. If X puts in more money then Y then obviously X will feel he is entitled to a larger say as compared to Y. To contribute equally, there has to be a large enough fan base so that contribution per fan is minimal and manageable. Also, then there is the issue of too many cooks where each fan thinks they know the right way forward and keep fighting internally.

3. Protests = This only works if you can convince everyone to join you. Or atleast what we call a critical mass to join you. Any movement, in order to be successful has to gain momentum. We have protests happening on a day to day basis here and most just fizzle out regardless of the cause. For that to happen, you have to convince everyone with a logical explanation as to why protesting is a good idea. Also, all protests require a good leader. This is just human behavior. If there is no central point of focus, there will be no unity. Plus protests require a objective and a plan to execute that objective.

So, while i agree and respect his views on the owners and rightly so, his comments are often criticisms. Criticism is good when used constructively. It does not help the club go forward nor the thread where the comment is made. If he had replied saying why putting an offer on the table is a bad idea, it would have helped the discussion. Wont you agree? How does me going to Venkys door and saying Uncle Abbey has sent me help the discussion? I fail to understand that.

You really don't understand football.

Football is not just a business, it's not like having a Coke instead of a Pepsi. This is exactly the problem with football club ownership. The crap ones - like Venkys - misunderstand this crucial, fundamental point.

[punerover]

Abbey sorry . I take my words back.

[yoda]

English humour mate, he also know that the Rao's will do just what they want, so whatever ABBEY or anyone else says is immaterial.

Then what is the point of discussing it? If everything is immaterial. What is the point of this messageboard? What is the point of the manager? players? Will you be able to change how the manager manages? Will you be able to change how the player plays?

Which sort of blows your point of view out of the window for finding a new owner.

Not really. The point of view is valid in terms of being a more practical approach. The same way as why one needs a new manager or why one needs better players?

If the Club is a business as you say, what is in it for the Rao's ?

The same thing that the owners of every other championship club? I donno. How many championship clubs are profitable? Then none of those owners should be there as well. Glory hunters, free advertising, name and fame, rich brats? The hope that they will be profitable at some point in time even if they are not as of now? You know the answer to this question better than I do, and I am surely not having a go at you.

This MB is not solely to discuss the Rao's so lets take that out of the equation right away. Practical you say, well we are sinking like the Titanic and it looks like we have less lifeboats. So the practical course for the Rao's would be to employ an experienced manager and a chairman that had Blackburn Rovers best interests in his sights. Can't see any movement on that front can you ?

[mustard]

Punerover, are you situated in Pune now? If so, do you have the Venky HQ address, a Rovers top and a basket of rotten vegetables handy?

[punerover]

Stuart. I agree football should not be a business. But we were lucky to get Jack Walker. Their own trust sold the club to the Venkys. If it is not a business, people should NOT be allowed to buy or sell it. Or all clubs should be crowdfunded by their fans and supporters with everyone contributing an equal share.

[ABBEY]

Punerover, are you situated in Pune now? If so, do you have the Venky HQ address, a Rovers top and a basket of rotten vegetables handy?

Careful .. Tetchy alert

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

A serious answer?

Well they have to be given something that would make them WANT to speak.

Obviously they've seen nothing yet.

What about a 'RAJ ROLLER'?

[Stuart]

Stuart. I agree football should not be a business. But we were lucky to get Jack Walker. Their own trust sold the club to the Venkys. If it is not a business, people should NOT be allowed to buy or sell it. Or all clubs should be crowdfunded by their fans and supporters with everyone contributing an equal share.

Again, you are missing the point. Football clubs don't have owners, not really, they have custodians, foster parents, even. They only have it for a short time too. They are under no obligation to spend money and they only benefit from the brand if they make it a success. Otherwise they are the landlords of a pub with no punters, and they close the doors.

The usual market forces don't even apply, there won't be another club that opens up next door and takes all of your fans away. And, much like landlords, they can't just stick the pub on a truck and clear off. They have to attract the local population and if they can't then the enterprise goes bust. Wimbledon's 'owners' tried it by upping sticks and moved the 'club' to Milton Keynes. But actually they didn't. The effectively kidnapped the League Share from Wimbledon and absconded, giving it to their new entity MK Dons. The real Wimbledon (the fans, the community) had to work really hard to get another one.

No, it isn't just a business. You can't expand, you can't diversify, you can't globalise. You can exploit a brand, if you are successful but the club itself has a base, a home, foundations, a soul.

Btw, you refer to 'we' and talk about Jack Walker. I take it you aren't really from Pune then. That would be very poor taste if so.

[A cup of beans]

Really interested in exciled in Toronto 's experience and knowledge of the Indian culture.

I wonder if Ian Battersby was to approach them again, would they now be more receptive?

It's going to take something like that, by someone of that type or similarly respected and knowledgeable, as Ian, to open any channel.

Wonder if the new Indian overseer is the man to approach.

[punerover]

Stuart you are right. But only partly so. Let me put your post in context. Football in this day and age is not limited to being played or viewed in some corner in England.

1. I am sure you know that premier league matches are not viewed only by people in the stadium at ewood or only in blackburn or only in manchester or only in UK. Care to remind me why the Premier league is the richest in the world? I am assuming you do agree that the premier league is the richest in the world.

2. If football clubs don't have owners and only have custodians as you put it, why are the supporters afraid of relegation and liquidation? The club will just go to another custodian or foster parents if the current ones arent good enough. The supporters will remain forever right? You have nothing to fear.

3. The market forces dont apply in the traditional sense. But yes, they are at play. You say "there won't be another club that opens up next door and takes all of your fans away" and yet counter that with "Wimbledon's 'owners' tried it by upping sticks and moved the 'club' to Milton Keynes. But actually they didn't. The effectively kidnapped the League Share from Wimbledon and absconded, giving it to their new entity MK Dons. The real Wimbledon (the fans, the community) had to work really hard to get another one." Why did they care for the league share and not the fans share? The Wimbledon fans should not complain as they only lost their league share to MK Dons and not their Actual fan base.

4. "No, it isn't just a business. You can't expand, you can't diversify, you can't globalize. You can exploit a brand, if you are successful but the club itself has a base, a home, foundations, a soul." So it is not ONLY a business but still a business none the less. If a company makes chocolates that kids absolutely love and it brings smiles and happiness on their faces, you might argue that "hey me making chocolates is NOT just a business. It affects lives of millions of kids and makes them happy." You would be technically right. You cant expand the stadium capacity. Does not mean you are limited to viewers at the stadiums. You can globalize. You think the new deal was for audiences in the UK? Come on. What are the sales figures that come from season tickets or match day walk ins for a club in the premier league compared to the revenue from television rights? I am not saying stadium fans or season ticket fans are not important. Ofcourse they are. But they cannot choose which landlord they get. Only the previous landlord can choose who the next landlord or custodian will be. Should fans have a say in the club? Yes, do they? No. Should the fans have a say in who the next landlord or custodian should be? Yes. Do they? No. The fans have to become a landlord or custodian of the club in order to have a say. Sad fact but true.

5 .Yes the club does have foundations, a home, a soul but it is still partially a business if not only a business.

Would it be fair to say that the England national football team is NOT a business? Yes absolutely. They have guardians or custodians or foster parents. They only have it for a short time. But to say any of the clubs are not a business is a bit over the top and No i am not missing the point. That is the difference between the national team and the club team. I dont see great players like frank lampard or steven gerrard being sold to the highest bidding country. Do you ever hear the english FA saying "Hey the germans are offering 43 million pounds for Wayne Rooney. Lets sell him?." And then the next year Rooney is playing for Germany. Or "Hey we lack some midfielders, lets buy Xavi for 65 million from Spain or Pirlo for 40 million from Italy." The english football team cannot be bought or sold. The clubs can. Or to put it your way, the clubs aren't sold, they are simply changing custodians at the right price.

I referred to we as fan of blackburn rovers football club. I am sure you are not proposing that only people who live in blackburn are supposed to be blackburn rovers fans.

[47er]

I'm just making the point that if the Trust want dialogue with the owners, giving up won't get it. Keeping on trying may well not get it either, but it has more chance than taking their ball home.

Yes they did. So he figured it out.

I don't know why you keep having a go at the Trust. At no point did I, or anyone else, say they were giving up or taking their ball home.

[A cup of beans]

Stuart you are right. But only partly so. Let me put your post in context. Football in this day and age is not limited to being played or viewed in some corner in England.

1. I am sure you know that premier league matches are not viewed only by people in the stadium at ewood or only in blackburn or only in manchester or only in UK. Care to remind me why the Premier league is the richest in the world? I am assuming you do agree that the premier league is the richest in the world.

2. If football clubs don't have owners and only have custodians as you put it, why are the supporters afraid of relegation and liquidation? The club will just go to another custodian or foster parents if the current ones arent good enough. The supporters will remain forever right? You have nothing to fear.

3. The market forces dont apply in the traditional sense. But yes, they are at play. You say "there won't be another club that opens up next door and takes all of your fans away" and yet counter that with "Wimbledon's 'owners' tried it by upping sticks and moved the 'club' to Milton Keynes. But actually they didn't. The effectively kidnapped the League Share from Wimbledon and absconded, giving it to their new entity MK Dons. The real Wimbledon (the fans, the community) had to work really hard to get another one." Why did they care for the league share and not the fans share? The Wimbledon fans should not complain as they only lost their league share to MK Dons and not their Actual fan base.

4. "No, it isn't just a business. You can't expand, you can't diversify, you can't globalize. You can exploit a brand, if you are successful but the club itself has a base, a home, foundations, a soul." So it is not ONLY a business but still a business none the less. If a company makes chocolates that kids absolutely love and it brings smiles and happiness on their faces, you might argue that "hey me making chocolates is NOT just a business. It affects lives of millions of kids and makes them happy." You would be technically right. You cant expand the stadium capacity. Does not mean you are limited to viewers at the stadiums. You can globalize. You think the new deal was for audiences in the UK? Come on. What are the sales figures that come from season tickets or match day walk ins for a club in the premier league compared to the revenue from television rights? I am not saying stadium fans or season ticket fans are not important. Ofcourse they are. But they cannot choose which landlord they get. Only the previous landlord can choose who the next landlord or custodian will be. Should fans have a say in the club? Yes, do they? No. Should the fans have a say in who the next landlord or custodian should be? Yes. Do they? No. The fans have to become a landlord or custodian of the club in order to have a say. Sad fact but true.

5 .Yes the club does have foundations, a home, a soul but it is still partially a business if not only a business.

Would it be fair to say that the England national football team is NOT a business? Yes absolutely. They have guardians or custodians or foster parents. They only have it for a short time. But to say any of the clubs are not a business is a bit over the top and No i am not missing the point. That is the difference between the national team and the club team. I dont see great players like frank lampard or steven gerrard being sold to the highest bidding country. Do you ever hear the english FA saying "Hey the germans are offering 43 million pounds for Wayne Rooney. Lets sell him?." And then the next year Rooney is playing for Germany. Or "Hey we lack some midfielders, lets buy Xavi for 65 million from Spain or Pirlo for 40 million from Italy." The english football team cannot be bought or sold. The clubs can. Or to put it your way, the clubs aren't sold, they are simply changing custodians at the right price.

I referred to we as fan of blackburn rovers football club. I am sure you are not proposing that only people who live in blackburn are supposed to be blackburn rovers fans.

Gordon? Is that you...????

[Stuart]

Stuart you are right. But only partly so. Let me put your post in context. Football in this day and age is not limited to being played or viewed in some corner in England.

1. I am sure you know that premier league matches are not viewed only by people in the stadium at ewood or only in blackburn or only in manchester or only in UK. Care to remind me why the Premier league is the richest in the world? I am assuming you do agree that the premier league is the richest in the world.

2. If football clubs don't have owners and only have custodians as you put it, why are the supporters afraid of relegation and liquidation? The club will just go to another custodian or foster parents if the current ones arent good enough. The supporters will remain forever right? You have nothing to fear.

3. The market forces dont apply in the traditional sense. But yes, they are at play. You say "there won't be another club that opens up next door and takes all of your fans away" and yet counter that with "Wimbledon's 'owners' tried it by upping sticks and moved the 'club' to Milton Keynes. But actually they didn't. The effectively kidnapped the League Share from Wimbledon and absconded, giving it to their new entity MK Dons. The real Wimbledon (the fans, the community) had to work really hard to get another one." Why did they care for the league share and not the fans share? The Wimbledon fans should not complain as they only lost their league share to MK Dons and not their Actual fan base.

4. "No, it isn't just a business. You can't expand, you can't diversify, you can't globalize. You can exploit a brand, if you are successful but the club itself has a base, a home, foundations, a soul." So it is not ONLY a business but still a business none the less. If a company makes chocolates that kids absolutely love and it brings smiles and happiness on their faces, you might argue that "hey me making chocolates is NOT just a business. It affects lives of millions of kids and makes them happy." You would be technically right. You cant expand the stadium capacity. Does not mean you are limited to viewers at the stadiums. You can globalize. You think the new deal was for audiences in the UK? Come on. What are the sales figures that come from season tickets or match day walk ins for a club in the premier league compared to the revenue from television rights? I am not saying stadium fans or season ticket fans are not important. Ofcourse they are. But they cannot choose which landlord they get. Only the previous landlord can choose who the next landlord or custodian will be. Should fans have a say in the club? Yes, do they? No. Should the fans have a say in who the next landlord or custodian should be? Yes. Do they? No. The fans have to become a landlord or custodian of the club in order to have a say. Sad fact but true.

5 .Yes the club does have foundations, a home, a soul but it is still partially a business if not only a business.

Would it be fair to say that the England national football team is NOT a business? Yes absolutely. They have guardians or custodians or foster parents. They only have it for a short time. But to say any of the clubs are not a business is a bit over the top and No i am not missing the point. That is the difference between the national team and the club team. I dont see great players like frank lampard or steven gerrard being sold to the highest bidding country. Do you ever hear the english FA saying "Hey the germans are offering 43 million pounds for Wayne Rooney. Lets sell him?." And then the next year Rooney is playing for Germany. Or "Hey we lack some midfielders, lets buy Xavi for 65 million from Spain or Pirlo for 40 million from Italy." The english football team cannot be bought or sold. The clubs can. Or to put it your way, the clubs aren't sold, they are simply changing custodians at the right price.

I referred to we as fan of blackburn rovers football club. I am sure you are not proposing that only people who live in blackburn are supposed to be blackburn rovers fans.

You are just proving further that you know nothing about football.

You said "we were lucky to have had Jack". Were you a fan before Venkys turned up?

[davulsukur]

I referred to we as fan of blackburn rovers football club. I am sure you are not proposing that only people who live in blackburn are supposed to be blackburn rovers fans.

Perhaps he's looking at the time of your posts and wondering if you ever go to bed?

[Stuart]

Perhaps it's his proximity to Pune and his insistence that we are simply a business.