Parky

It has to be said Milner is beginning to look an utter donkey.

Very encoraged by Bassong.

You'd rather win than lose though. It's not even the results, we've not had a shot to speak of in three games (one against Doncaster). Owen and Viduka will get injuries and a striker is absolutely critical in the next 28 days. Totally agree, we need another forward.

Why talk shit like that? Think about it KK would be the last one at the club to be relaxed about our situation.

Coca Cola sponsor the Olympics because they are targeting a mass demographic in a none offensive way, buying a football club is not targeting a mass demographic and will offend some. Spending such sums sponsoring the Olympics is a better way to spend money for Coca Cola than buying a football club. United Emirates would never buy Arsenal, and why? No self respecting Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd, Spurs fans et al would fly with them if they owned Arsenal. Now sponsorship... people don't care about that. Although some get in a pickle over that. mackems and sugar puffs? If owning football clubs were such a cost effective way to promote ideas and a message, all your big companies would be getting on the act. In truth football is one of the most complicated, financially taxing and insecure forms of business there is. Business likes to deal with peoples wallets, not their lives and football clubs represent peoples lives. It is purely for the mega rich (Abramovic), local men turned good (Jack Walker), the mega vain (Simon Jordon), Venture Capitalists & portfolio investers (Dic, Enic) or the deluded (every other chairman or owner). If I were a multi-national, I'd stay well clear of a football club other than through safe forms such as advertising, sponsorship, partnerships etc. Owning a football club would be a bad idea because for one, you're going to create anamosity from rival fans, secondly you're going to have to spend vast sums and lastly the returns are none existant almost. I explained everything in your first para earlier in the thread as to why they don't get too invloved with football clubs. The post you quote was if I WAS a multi-national and of course your analysis applies in many ways. But YES if I WAS a big player, like this Indian telecom bloke I would buy into the club. Of course global brands such as Coke have to be at the olympics and Mastercard support the CL, because the global theme is bigger than any one club. Listen big companies have diversifyied portfolios hence Barton and Nike, Barton is clearly NOT a Nike type, but somewhere in their research, his typeage needed addressing, there is only so much you can do with bland Amercan golfers.. I don't honestly think fans from other clubs neglecting the product is an issue, because the portolio would be diversifyied to cover such exposure and the public is way more sophisticated now than saying I ain't flying Emirates or Virgin or whatever cause who they give their money to.. So I would disagree with that part. Footbal as a vehicle can be complex if you've got idots running the shop. Ownership and association are two different things, companies will bend over backwards to associate themselves with products and brands in the sporting world from clubs to players via boot deals but stop short of full ownership and for all the reasons I've outlined and more. One of the major reasons why big companies stay clear of football clubs is because they can't be owned, sold and bought, stripped and raised in the conventional business way, a football club is an idea, not a product or brand, it can only ever be owned by the spirit of fans. Broadly agree. Ownership of a relative 'idea' however is the holy grail of branding...Because it supeceeds time and the moment, it goes beyond an attention span and it goes beyond simply generating an interest. Vigin for instance is not a brand it is an 'idea'. SwissAir for instance has been very well re-branded, but it will never be an idea or a vision like Virgin is. That transcendence is cause Richard understood early that an idea or a cause (the fight against BA) embeds in a way glossy visuls doesn't. Virgin was an idea, it is now a brand all the same. You can't own an idea Parky. No-one owns pop music, they may own a pop group, but not the idea. That's why it's the holy grail. Same in football. Someone might own the brand to a league (Sky), but who owns the clubs, the ideas? The fans. Companies of course get in on the act by way of sponsorship, advertising and partnership schemes but to own a football club lock stock, for a brand or multi-national? It's just not a cost effective answer to any goal of a company, be it expansion, market leadership, more market share, or whatever else. Hence why they've stayed clear in that regard and always will. Didn't say he owned 'an idea'. I'm saying Virgin has transcended mere 'brand' to become lodged in the publics consciousness. I can't remember how much fiat put into Juve...It might be intersting to see how much Gazprom have put into Zenit. There are good reasons why big companies have resisted completely buying a club and you've mentioned them and right now to an extent I agree with all those reasons, but I think it will happen....Especially with European football now having such a global following. Infact half the Italian clubs would have been bankrupt by now without their sponsors/investors/banks.

But we're talking about an Indian organisation. The starting point of the relationship is neutral. No agency will be able to write 'a story' over the Tesco brand or BT that would seem believeable. Waste of time and money for both sides.

Coca Cola sponsor the Olympics because they are targeting a mass demographic in a none offensive way, buying a football club is not targeting a mass demographic and will offend some. Spending such sums sponsoring the Olympics is a better way to spend money for Coca Cola than buying a football club. United Emirates would never buy Arsenal, and why? No self respecting Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd, Spurs fans et al would fly with them if they owned Arsenal. Now sponsorship... people don't care about that. Although some get in a pickle over that. mackems and sugar puffs? If owning football clubs were such a cost effective way to promote ideas and a message, all your big companies would be getting on the act. In truth football is one of the most complicated, financially taxing and insecure forms of business there is. Business likes to deal with peoples wallets, not their lives and football clubs represent peoples lives. It is purely for the mega rich (Abramovic), local men turned good (Jack Walker), the mega vain (Simon Jordon), Venture Capitalists & portfolio investers (Dic, Enic) or the deluded (every other chairman or owner). If I were a multi-national, I'd stay well clear of a football club other than through safe forms such as advertising, sponsorship, partnerships etc. Owning a football club would be a bad idea because for one, you're going to create anamosity from rival fans, secondly you're going to have to spend vast sums and lastly the returns are none existant almost. I explained everything in your first para earlier in the thread as to why they don't get too invloved with football clubs. The post you quote was if I WAS a multi-national and of course your analysis applies in many ways. But YES if I WAS a big player, like this Indian telecom bloke I would buy into the club. Of course global brands such as Coke have to be at the olympics and Mastercard support the CL, because the global theme is bigger than any one club. Listen big companies have diversifyied portfolios hence Barton and Nike, Barton is clearly NOT a Nike type, but somewhere in their research, his typeage needed addressing, there is only so much you can do with bland Amercan golfers.. I don't honestly think fans from other clubs neglecting the product is an issue, because the portolio would be diversifyied to cover such exposure and the public is way more sophisticated now than saying I ain't flying Emirates or Virgin or whatever cause who they give their money to.. So I would disagree with that part. Footbal as a vehicle can be complex if you've got idots running the shop. Ownership and association are two different things, companies will bend over backwards to associate themselves with products and brands in the sporting world from clubs to players via boot deals but stop short of full ownership and for all the reasons I've outlined and more. One of the major reasons why big companies stay clear of football clubs is because they can't be owned, sold and bought, stripped and raised in the conventional business way, a football club is an idea, not a product or brand, it can only ever be owned by the spirit of fans. Broadly agree. Ownership of a relative 'idea' however is the holy grail of branding...Because it supeceeds time and the moment, it goes beyond an attention span and it goes beyond simply generating an interest. Vigin for instance is not a brand it is an 'idea'. SwissAir for instance has been very well re-branded, but it will never be an idea or a vision like Virgin is. That transcendence is cause Richard understood early that an idea or a cause (the fight against BA) embeds in a way glossy visuls doesn't.

Coca Cola sponsor the Olympics because they are targeting a mass demographic in a none offensive way, buying a football club is not targeting a mass demographic and will offend some. Spending such sums sponsoring the Olympics is a better way to spend money for Coca Cola than buying a football club. United Emirates would never buy Arsenal, and why? No self respecting Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd, Spurs fans et al would fly with them if they owned Arsenal. Now sponsorship... people don't care about that. Although some get in a pickle over that. mackems and sugar puffs? If owning football clubs were such a cost effective way to promote ideas and a message, all your big companies would be getting on the act. In truth football is one of the most complicated, financially taxing and insecure forms of business there is. Business likes to deal with peoples wallets, not their lives and football clubs represent peoples lives. It is purely for the mega rich (Abramovic), local men turned good (Jack Walker), the mega vain (Simon Jordon), Venture Capitalists & portfolio investers (Dic, Enic) or the deluded (every other chairman or owner). If I were a multi-national, I'd stay well clear of a football club other than through safe forms such as advertising, sponsorship, partnerships etc. Owning a football club would be a bad idea because for one, you're going to create anamosity from rival fans, secondly you're going to have to spend vast sums and lastly the returns are none existant almost. I explained everything in your first para earlier in the thread as to why they don't get too invloved with football clubs. The post you quote was if I WAS a multi-national and of course your analysis applies in many ways. But YES if I WAS a big player, like this Indian telecom bloke I would buy into the club. Of course global brands such as Coke have to be at the olympics and Mastercard support the CL, because the global theme is bigger than any one club. Listen big companies have diversifyied portfolios hence Barton and Nike, Barton is clearly NOT a Nike type, but somewhere in their research, his typeage needed addressing, there is only so much you can do with bland Amercan golfers.. I don't honestly think fans from other clubs neglecting the product is an issue, because the portolio would be diversifyied to cover such exposure and the public is way more sophisticated now than saying I ain't flying Emirates or Virgin or whatever cause who they give their money to.. So I would disagree with that part. Footbal as a vehicle can be complex if you've got idots running the shop. Don't forget Murdoch (essentially sky) were only stopped from buying Man U by the monopolies comission iirc. They would have serious market analysis to have even been considering it.

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out. I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising. I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet. Gazprom own Zenit iirc. Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things. I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though. Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method. The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand? It is becoming commonplace however and over the last 5 years or so people are begining to catch onto it. Mittal and Ecclestone didn't buy into QPR for a profit, they are there because once the club develops say into the PL it is a fantasic pr vehicle and at very sensible costs. If you look at say Coca Cola and mcD and the Olympics the core budget is 500m. Now these mega brands can't afford to identify to a single entity ie one football club, but if there was a way they could pull it off they would buy Man U in 5 secs. If that was the main idea of Mittal & Ecclestone, they could have done that deal with another club and got themselves the exposure quicker, at a lower risk & potentially more cost effectively, by taking a current Premier League side. I'd still say its not done much at all, certainly not for the reasons you've mentioned. Football has become a bit of an expensive "play thing" for multi-millionaire/billionaires (unfortunately IMO) I'll say it again though, I do think what you've said is a reason for Ashley taking NUFC on. That would be the main reason I'd be surprised if he was looking to get out. KK has brought it to his attention that even he can't compete on the terms he was dreaming about. That came as a shock to him I'm sure. That said, I still don't think that will prevent him making some good money out of the link up. If no one can compete on those terms, there's no value in anyone taking on a club for any reasons other than those you've listed. I agree. If I was a multi-national and had control of the board I would buy a football club, rather than spend 500m every 4 years on the Olympics. I would buy a club like Newcastle. The growth in identifying with my company and product spreads out easily (as long as their is sucess) from the fanbase, to the city, to the area and across Eurpe as you develop. And you get so much airtime and column inches for free. Its all bad press at the minute though There's a famous saying to that regard.

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out. I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising. I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet. Gazprom own Zenit iirc. Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things. I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though. Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method. The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand? It is becoming commonplace however and over the last 5 years or so people are begining to catch onto it. Mittal and Ecclestone didn't buy into QPR for a profit, they are there because once the club develops say into the PL it is a fantasic pr vehicle and at very sensible costs. If you look at say Coca Cola and mcD and the Olympics the core budget is 500m. Now these mega brands can't afford to identify to a single entity ie one football club, but if there was a way they could pull it off they would buy Man U in 5 secs. If that was the main idea of Mittal & Ecclestone, they could have done that deal with another club and got themselves the exposure quicker, at a lower risk & potentially more cost effectively, by taking a current Premier League side. I'd still say its not done much at all, certainly not for the reasons you've mentioned. Football has become a bit of an expensive "play thing" for multi-millionaire/billionaires (unfortunately IMO) I'll say it again though, I do think what you've said is a reason for Ashley taking NUFC on. That would be the main reason I'd be surprised if he was looking to get out. KK has brought it to his attention that even he can't compete on the terms he was dreaming about. That came as a shock to him I'm sure. That said, I still don't think that will prevent him making some good money out of the link up. If no one can compete on those terms, there's no value in anyone taking on a club for any reasons other than those you've listed. I agree. If I was a multi-national and had control of the board I would buy a football club, rather than spend 500m every 4 years on the Olympics. I would buy a club like Newcastle. The growth in identifying with my company and product spreads out easily (as long as their is sucess) from the fanbase, to the city, to the area and across Eurpe as you develop. And you get so much airtime and column inches for free.

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out. I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising. I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet. Gazprom own Zenit iirc. Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things. I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though. Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method. The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand? That was my point, really. Yes but I'm 5 years ahead of you two. So, then, back to my original question: In what ways can ownership be used to give you more than mere sponsorship. I'm looking for practical possibilities here, not smoke and mirrors about "telling a story". It's simply a highly visible way of showing people how you work/can work. Just sponsoring doesn't give you that as you are never hands on.

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out. I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising. I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet. Gazprom own Zenit iirc. Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things. I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though. Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method. The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand? It is becoming commonplace however and over the last 5 years or so people are begining to catch onto it. Mittal and Ecclestone didn't buy into QPR for a profit, they are there because once the club develops say into the PL it is a fantasic pr vehicle and at very sensible costs. If you look at say Coca Cola and mcD and the Olympics the core budget is 500m. Now these mega brands can't afford to identify to a single entity ie one football club, but if there was a way they could pull it off they would buy Man U in 5 secs. If that was the main idea of Mittal & Ecclestone, they could have done that deal with another club and got themselves the exposure quicker, at a lower risk & potentially more cost effectively, by taking a current Premier League side. I'd still say its not done much at all, certainly not for the reasons you've mentioned. Football has become a bit of an expensive "play thing" for multi-millionaire/billionaires (unfortunately IMO) I'll say it again though, I do think what you've said is a reason for Ashley taking NUFC on. That would be the main reason I'd be surprised if he was looking to get out. KK has brought it to his attention that even he can't compete on the terms he was dreaming about. That came as a shock to him I'm sure.

I would 'buy' the league every year given the choice. From now on it won't happen any other way...The era of the likes of Forest being successful is gone.

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out. I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising. I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet. Gazprom own Zenit iirc. Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things. I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though. Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method. The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand? That was my point, really. Yes but I'm 5 years ahead of you two.

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out. I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising. I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet. Gazprom own Zenit iirc. Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things. I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though. Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method. The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand? It is becoming commonplace however and over the last 5 years or so people are begining to catch onto it. Mittal and Ecclestone didn't buy into QPR for a profit, they are there because once the club develops say into the PL it is a fantasic pr vehicle and at very sensible costs. If you look at say Coca Cola and mcD and the Olympics the core budget is 500m. Now these mega brands can't afford to identify to a single entity ie one football club, but if there was a way they could pull it off they would buy Man U in 5 secs.

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out. I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising. I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet. Gazprom own Zenit iirc.

For a telecom company like Reliance that wants to be a global brand with high visibilty football is a very strong option. It's either that or the Olympics these days. Football is a very interesting vehicle as it gets the most airtime of anything on the planet, especially in Europe. The Indian bloke would look at it in that way to energise Reliance and give it high visibility especiall if he was looking to move into the Euro/Global telecom market. The cost of the club is peanuts for an operation like this. What can he do with owning a club that he can't do with, say, shirt sponsorship and lots of advertising? People emotionally engage with a football club, it also becomes a symbol (if run correctly) that projects the core values of the owner ie Reliance. You don't get this from adv which is has a very short term influence if any. 90% of adv doesn't work (don't tell them). Still doesn't answer my question, really. There aren't actually that many clubs which are owned for reasons of PR, however big the apparent reach. OK, there's Man City, owned by a dodgy politician for reasons of enhancing his popularity. But I can't think of any that are owned for branding purposes, except for the likes of Total Network Solutions. I suppose you could count Bayer Leverkusen, though that has its origins in a works team. Arsenal (the Emirates brand), PSV (Phillips)...off the top of my head. But you're igonoring that this is an Indian company with 0 visibilty in Europe, imo that has to be part of the paradigm when looking at developing a brand...A brand that speaks. Owning a club is much more and says a lot more than 'buying space'. Arsenal isn't owned by the Emirates brand. I know that.

Dave, assuming he bought us to be a success on the field [as its your view], maybe he - like Simon Jordan - has found that its not what he hoped or thought it would be ? Or maybe the opportunity will come along to make a quick profit ? Either is more than plausible. There's also the chance that the article is a complete load of bollocks, which is in fact more likely. why is it more likely ? Because you want it to be ? Its a hypothetical question, it isn't impossible, and these reports are happening too often, and paying off the stadium repayments almost definitely makes the club a more saleable asset ? Dealing in facts (which is what you like), how many of these stories have we seen so far & how many have been proven to have any trurth in them. The balance of probability surely dictates that its more than likely another load of shite. If you really think the clearing of the stadium debt has been done solely to sell the club, then you're a fool. You clearly have no idea about finance & business other than what you read in the papers. FWIW I don't really care who owns the club, whether it be Ashley or someone else, so stop trying to tell me what I think, particularly when you've repeatedly made it clear you want shot of him with your usual agenda-driven drivel. We've been linked with 5 buyers in the last year or so...Can it all be shite?? Linked by whom? Eh? The answer is by the press And? I don't know where you get your news from, is it beamed into your head? Certainly not the Sunday papers which is the point we both know I was making. Strange that these stories only seem to turn up at a weekend? Well the DIC story and the n.Y. groups story was in the Telegraph. Are they against us as well?

Dave, assuming he bought us to be a success on the field [as its your view], maybe he - like Simon Jordan - has found that its not what he hoped or thought it would be ? Or maybe the opportunity will come along to make a quick profit ? Either is more than plausible. There's also the chance that the article is a complete load of bollocks, which is in fact more likely. why is it more likely ? Because you want it to be ? Its a hypothetical question, it isn't impossible, and these reports are happening too often, and paying off the stadium repayments almost definitely makes the club a more saleable asset ? Dealing in facts (which is what you like), how many of these stories have we seen so far & how many have been proven to have any trurth in them. The balance of probability surely dictates that its more than likely another load of shite. If you really think the clearing of the stadium debt has been done solely to sell the club, then you're a fool. You clearly have no idea about finance & business other than what you read in the papers. FWIW I don't really care who owns the club, whether it be Ashley or someone else, so stop trying to tell me what I think, particularly when you've repeatedly made it clear you want shot of him with your usual agenda-driven drivel. We've been linked with 5 buyers in the last year or so...Can it all be shite?? Linked by whom? Eh? The answer is by the press And? I don't know where you get your news from, is it beamed into your head?

For a telecom company like Reliance that wants to be a global brand with high visibilty football is a very strong option. It's either that or the Olympics these days. Football is a very interesting vehicle as it gets the most airtime of anything on the planet, especially in Europe. The Indian bloke would look at it in that way to energise Reliance and give it high visibility especiall if he was looking to move into the Euro/Global telecom market. The cost of the club is peanuts for an operation like this. What can he do with owning a club that he can't do with, say, shirt sponsorship and lots of advertising? People emotionally engage with a football club, it also becomes a symbol (if run correctly) that projects the core values of the owner ie Reliance. You don't get this from adv which is has a very short term influence if any. 90% of adv doesn't work (don't tell them). Still doesn't answer my question, really. There aren't actually that many clubs which are owned for reasons of PR, however big the apparent reach. OK, there's Man City, owned by a dodgy politician for reasons of enhancing his popularity. But I can't think of any that are owned for branding purposes, except for the likes of Total Network Solutions. I suppose you could count Bayer Leverkusen, though that has its origins in a works team. Arsenal (the Emirates brand), PSV (Phillips)...off the top of my head. But you're igonoring that this is an Indian company with 0 visibilty in Europe, imo that has to be part of the paradigm when looking at developing a brand...A brand that speaks. Owning a club is much more and says a lot more than 'buying space'.

Dave, assuming he bought us to be a success on the field [as its your view], maybe he - like Simon Jordan - has found that its not what he hoped or thought it would be ? Or maybe the opportunity will come along to make a quick profit ? Either is more than plausible. There's also the chance that the article is a complete load of bollocks, which is in fact more likely. why is it more likely ? Because you want it to be ? Its a hypothetical question, it isn't impossible, and these reports are happening too often, and paying off the stadium repayments almost definitely makes the club a more saleable asset ? Dealing in facts (which is what you like), how many of these stories have we seen so far & how many have been proven to have any trurth in them. The balance of probability surely dictates that its more than likely another load of shite. If you really think the clearing of the stadium debt has been done solely to sell the club, then you're a fool. You clearly have no idea about finance & business other than what you read in the papers. FWIW I don't really care who owns the club, whether it be Ashley or someone else, so stop trying to tell me what I think, particularly when you've repeatedly made it clear you want shot of him with your usual agenda-driven drivel. We've been linked with 5 buyers in the last year or so...Can it all be shite?? Linked by whom? Eh?

Dave, assuming he bought us to be a success on the field [as its your view], maybe he - like Simon Jordan - has found that its not what he hoped or thought it would be ? Or maybe the opportunity will come along to make a quick profit ? Either is more than plausible. There's also the chance that the article is a complete load of bollocks, which is in fact more likely. why is it more likely ? Because you want it to be ? Its a hypothetical question, it isn't impossible, and these reports are happening too often, and paying off the stadium repayments almost definitely makes the club a more saleable asset ? Dealing in facts (which is what you like), how many of these stories have we seen so far & how many have been proven to have any trurth in them. The balance of probability surely dictates that its more than likely another load of shite. If you really think the clearing of the stadium debt has been done solely to sell the club, then you're a fool. You clearly have no idea about finance & business other than what you read in the papers. FWIW I don't really care who owns the club, whether it be Ashley or someone else, so stop trying to tell me what I think, particularly when you've repeatedly made it clear you want shot of him with your usual agenda-driven drivel. We've been linked with 5 buyers in the last year or so...Can it all be shite??

For a telecom company like Reliance that wants to be a global brand with high visibilty football is a very strong option. It's either that or the Olympics these days. Football is a very interesting vehicle as it gets the most airtime of anything on the planet, especially in Europe. The Indian bloke would look at it in that way to energise Reliance and give it high visibility especiall if he was looking to move into the Euro/Global telecom market. The cost of the club is peanuts for an operation like this. What can he do with owning a club that he can't do with, say, shirt sponsorship and lots of advertising? People emotionally engage with a football club, it also becomes a symbol (if run correctly) that projects the core values of the owner ie Reliance. You don't get this from adv which is has a very short term influence if any. 90% of adv doesn't work (don't tell them).

For a telecom company like Reliance that wants to be a global brand with high visibilty football is a very strong option. It's either that or the Olympics these days. Football is a very interesting vehicle as it gets the most airtime of anything on the planet, especially in Europe. The Indian bloke would look at it in that way to energise Reliance and give it high visibility especiall if he was looking to move into the Euro/Global telecom market. The cost of the club is peanuts for an operation like this.

Reliance Com. Would see us as a very interesting vehicle to develop thier global telcom brand. That's all I'm saying, wouldn't dismiss this out of hand.