Printable View
A mate sent this link to me. Not sure what to think I don't really agree with switching teams(you main team anyhow) but hard to argue with his reasons. Also a good view on how football has changed in last 10-15 years
http://www.urban75.org/blog/goodbye-...lower-leagues/
The trouble is if his new team, Dulwich Hamlet FC, reaches Premiership "glory", it will go the same way. At least Cardiff hasn't changed its name. Different livery I can live with (Wednesday changed from their stripes in the 1960s) but a name change to a club I support (e.g. Shamrock Rovers to Tallaght Rovers or Sheffield Wednesday to Sheffield Tigers) would be a disaster.
It raises the question: what is a club? Rovers "left" Milltown and played in numerous other grounds but the constant thing was the name:- the brand. Shamrock Rovers. Hence I can understand how Hull City fans are getting upset by the proposal to change the name of the club.
The Cardiff City name lives on so I wouldn't share the blogger's concerns. The fact that he has to sit down in a much more comfortable stadium rather than being crushed on the terraces wouldn't worry me, although that might be an age thing. Would he prefer his team to be relegated and go to the non-league with his neighbours Wrexham?
It is true the money men own football but they always did. Show me a poor football chairman going back decades. The trouble is now that they are much richer and there is far more money and many are not locals. What annoys me is that teams play weakened sides, including Cardiff, in the cups to try and hang on to the riches in the Premiership. If I was a Wigan fan, I would have been content to be relegated with an FA Cup win under my belt. Otherwise it's seasons of meaningless existence, just surviving and not trying to win anything. In the 1970s and 1980s, the clubs always put on their stongest sides in all competitions and it didn't seem to cause any difficulties. Then enter the "Tinker man" and others.
In summary, the Cardiff fan is wrong to give up on his team who are now rubbing shoulders with the best players in the world in a state of the art stadium in the same city with the same name name, albeit with a different colour jersey. Some people should be careful what they wish for.
I don't think its the fact that modern owners are richer that is the problem, more the fact that they often from foreign countries to where the club is based and they have not connection to the club or area. In the past the owner/chairman usually was local and was a supporter of the club wanting to see what best fro the club, it wasn't just a play thing
I wouldn't overstate the foreign country element - the likes of Tan and Allam just don't understand football at all and what motivates supporters. Abramovich, on the other hand, has based his entire management strategy around creating links with the supporters and ensuring they feel represented within the club (even if he ultimately makes some mad dictatorial decisions the fans revolt against).Quote:
Originally Posted by Neish
But thats my point it has nothing to do with the amount of money they have. Perhaps I used in wrong wording what I intended was people who have not interest or previous experience in the game what are they doing running a football club when they havn't a clue
Vanity, I think. A lot of these rich people think they can go in to football clubs and become the hero who leads them to success and leave a legacy. Probably not many of them think of spending their money to help people less fortunate.