Soccer: How about owning your own club?

[cmstaab]

[ QUOTE ]

However, the "if we sell the team, profits are donated" is really dumb. That needs to be voted on. At a very minimum, the owners should be able to recoup their spendings on the team before money is dished out to charity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definately agree here

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

B) Non-profit is dumb. Let the owners decide what to do with the profits. If they want to reinvest it, great. If they want to donate it, great. If they want to put it into their own pockets, great. This should be a business, not just some fantasy game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. One of the main selling points of this model is that rather than having an owner that may be operating to line his own pockets, you have a group that is operating solely for the good of the team and reinvesting every penny to benefit the team. This will make the idea more palatable to the current fans of the team chosen and also make it more likely to garner future fans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I can see there are benefits to that. I personally want a for-profit organization, but I can see how others would want your way.

However, the "if we sell the team, profits are donated" is really dumb. That needs to be voted on. At a very minimum, the owners should be able to recoup their spendings on the team before money is dished out to charity.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I can tell, you wouldn't even really own the team. After one year, you have to send in another $75 to keep voting.

[DonkeyKongSr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

B) Non-profit is dumb. Let the owners decide what to do with the profits. If they want to reinvest it, great. If they want to donate it, great. If they want to put it into their own pockets, great. This should be a business, not just some fantasy game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. One of the main selling points of this model is that rather than having an owner that may be operating to line his own pockets, you have a group that is operating solely for the good of the team and reinvesting every penny to benefit the team. This will make the idea more palatable to the current fans of the team chosen and also make it more likely to garner future fans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I can see there are benefits to that. I personally want a for-profit organization, but I can see how others would want your way.

However, the "if we sell the team, profits are donated" is really dumb. That needs to be voted on. At a very minimum, the owners should be able to recoup their spendings on the team before money is dished out to charity.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I can tell, you wouldn't even really own the team. After one year, you have to send in another $75 to keep voting.

[/ QUOTE ]

The more I look at it, the less this is "owning a team". Yeah, it's really paying $75/year to make 1/50,000 of the decisions for the team. I want to be a team owner, not just someone on a humongous board of directors.

[raju]

What happens when the team needs a bit more investment?
At the club i support the chairman gets his hand in his pocket for £10 million or whatever.

Are the 50,000 owners going to do the same? are 3/4 of them going to say: whoa, you said $75 a year!?

at Manchester City we had an owner called Peter Swales once. He wouldn`t put the money in the fans wanted him to and they found out where he lived.
Things got pretty messy.
They found out where his Mother lived.
Things got messier.

There were reports of bombs.

DONT BUY CITY.


infact, why dont you get a few more people together and ruin United. i will definately be in for that.


EDIT: dont buy an english club and start calling it soccer all over the place. seriously, dont.

[PITTM]

the owners have to invest 75 more every year. Also, the team will have sponsors.