If Leicester were Bought by a Multi-Billionare Chelski/ManCity type Owner?

[The Major]

It's the only way we'd get near some proper honours but that's not what's been a football fan is all about.

It isn't?

Personally I'd love it if we got a billionaire owner. Who wouldn't want to see us beating teams like ManUre and Chelski on a regular basis. I've been lucky enough to see us play in Europe something I never thought I'd see. Wouldn't it be lovely to actually see us win a game in Europe too.

I really doubt that any of you are being honest/realistic when you say that isn't what you want.

 

[Hazzman]

Football's about experiencing the high's and low's. The odd appearance at Wembley to Yeovil on a Monday night.

TBH, I have got very tired of Football with it's greedy ways at the top level this season but I'd love to see us there and Europe again. However, winning things and playing the big sides isn't really what attracted me to supporting City. Thus I'd probably support the whole billionaire thing initially before re-considering it. Where as United and Liverpool have at least built themselves to that level before takeovers, ours would be a plastic win.

 

[Redditch Fox]

We're already the play thing of a rich foreign businessman with no affiliation or interest in Leicester.

What's the difference?

At least if Mandy was wealthy enough to bankroll the club instead of simply overseeing constantly accumulating debt, I'd be a lot more confident about our financial stability.

Look don't come on here pointing out a reality that most people couldn't either understand or if they could wouldn't want to know!

However, put more sympathetically - MM is a relatively wealthy man but not able to compete with very seriously wealthy individuals/ consortia. So he's the best that we have and would undoubtedly sell on in the not very likely chance that serious wealth showed interest. At least he's seen the club to the land of the living for next season and is somewhat nearer being in a position to sell - although my expectation is that he wouldn't get much for the club unless there is the bait of at least a season's premiership revenue.

 

[Biff]

This might not be that far away. Ive heard Cleefox has asked to look at the books............

 

[Jeff]

If we had a billionaire owner we'd still be unlikely to win things, too many other clubs would have the money to compete with us and would be in a better position to attract managers/players.

If a top manager or player has to choose between Leicester or Man U, Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City, Villa, Sunderland etc, where do you think they'd rather go?

 

[Dour]

If we had a billionaire owner we'd still be unlikely to win things, too many other clubs would have the money to compete with us and would be in a better position to attract managers/players.

If a top manager or player has to choose between Leicester or Man U, Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City, Villa, Sunderland etc, where do you think they'd rather go?

Well, certainly not Sunderland.

 

[Jeff]

Well, certainly not Sunderland.

They have more fans, a bigger ground, and a more successful history than us. The only problem is the place, but they wouldn't have to live there.

 

[Harbro-Fox]

I would support Harborough Town.

 

[SwedeFox]

If a top manager or player has to choose between Leicester or Man U, Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City, Villa, Sunderland etc, where do you think they'd rather go?

We won't obviously be able to compete in transfer deals with the big four, but I'd say offering a big paycheck is a huge factor for a lot of players, something that many clubs in Premier League might be careful with if they don't have a multi-billionaire owner.

 

[Dour]

They have more fans, a bigger ground, and a more successful history than us. The only problem is the place, but they wouldn't have to live there.

But they'd still be expected to go there before they sign. And there's no way into Sunderland that doesn't reveal what a shithole it is.

 

[Jeff]

We won't obviously be able to compete in transfer deals with the big four, but I'd say offering a big paycheck is a huge factor for a lot of players, something that many clubs in Premier League might be restrictive with if they don't have a multi-billionaire owner.

The point I was making is that a lot of the clubs outside the top four already have billionaire owners, and they would be more attractive clubs for players/managers. Man City, Villa, Sunderland, Portsmouth (soon) have billionaire owners, and other clubs are owned by companies with similar financial backing.

 

[SwedeFox]

The point I was making is that a lot of the clubs outside the top four already have billionaire owners, and they would be more attractive clubs for players/managers. Man City, Villa, Sunderland, Portsmouth (soon) have billionaire owners, and other clubs are owned by companies with similar financial backing.

I see. I guess making the right appointments is quite crucial then as success breeds success and that's the only way to compete with the bigger clubs. It doesn't matter if you have £100 billions to spend though if you have a Martin Allen responsible for the signings.

 

[DesertFox]

It's all very well having a billionaire owner, but it's no different to anyone else if, like at QPR, they don't actually splash the cash.