Which would you choose

[EwarWoo]

I have yet to see any evidence that G&H are bad for the club, apart from the ridiculous public fallout from last year, which has now been overcome.

If it wasn't for running up our debt whilst not deliverring the stadium I'd agree with ya.

[Skillz]

I just don't see any owners anywhere in Western Europe who have bought a club and built a stadium. My point is that if such beneficent, forward thinking owners had been out there they would have bought us as the situation has been much the same (if not better given the current financial climate). A prudent investor would never put their money in a football club IMO - you have to have either an over riding ego or a passion for sport or the team I would have thought. The cost/benefit analysis of a football club is lowsy considering the amount of money required.

Quite possible but I would suggest that if our current owners forfeit their loan there will be a queue lining up to buy us. They just want us on the cheap.

The stadium is self sufficient and will be the cataslyst for profit for whoever delivers it. It's the 3-4 years of building it that presents the problem.

[the rev leeroy brown]

it has to be win the league and have them stay on. simple really. new owners wouldn't garauntee winning the league so better the devil you know........especially if they have helped you win the league.

[dww]

Quite possible but I would suggest that if our current owners forfeit their loan there will be a queue lining up to buy us. They just want us on the cheap.

The stadium is self sufficient and will be the cataslyst for profit for whoever delivers it. It's the 3-4 years of building it that presents the problem.

That is my point though - only truly commited owners will want to be in it for that length of time. I agree that in the end the stadium is good for business but Chelsea nearly went bankrupt under Bates getting theirs and Man City got theirs for free off the government and Arsenal are now feeling the pinch of building theirs - it is a huge short term risk and one I just can't see anyone wanting to bank roll at the minute.

The argument about people wanting us on the cheap is potentially one with merit. However the real danger of the strategy is the 10pt penalty associated with administration and the possibility of missing CL competition because of such. If you add to that the potential of players being lost in the process I would suggest even financially it would make sense to take a punt early (i.e. now).

Lots of people willing to take the club at a very low cost does not appear to me to be very likely to mean that those people have the sort of deep pockets people tend to want of whoever takes over from G&H.

I still think there is almost no chance of us defaulting on the loans or failing to renegotiate the loan.

[dom9]

If it wasn't for running up our debt whilst not deliverring the stadium I'd agree with ya.

As long as the interest payments are met, and the club's revenues continue to improve (funding player purchases plus interest payments), as they have done in the last 12 months, then there is no problem.

[Sadgeek]

The thing is I really think that G&H, while no ones dream owners, are far from as bad as people make out. They have provided further debt each transfer window...

Corrected. They haven't put any more money into the club than right at the start.

I voted number two.

The reason is the long term safety of the club being more important than one title.

However, the gruesome twosome have had a buyer (DIC) reportedly offering them a shedload of money and turned it down. Come the summer, they may be desperate to sell/the banks may wish to sell us, and then there's no guarantee of any owner coming forward.

We'll be royally ****ed then, and things may be even worse than with G&H.

**** call really. Don't suppose there's any chance of us winning the championship and G&H selling up, is there

[DannyMan2006]

If the poll means Perfect Owners or League Title then I would obviously pick the new perfect owners.

But there is no guarantee the next owners will be any better so I choose the title.

[AFII]

Anybody who voted for option 2 is a numbskull.

I have yet to see any evidence that G&H are bad for the club, apart from the ridiculous public fallout from last year, which has now been overcome.

If we don't qualify for the CL every season then it's selling our best players on the menu. The alternative would be administration.

I don't know what you call a situation like that. I call it very bad ownership because it's a high risk gamble.

[Scratch]

If we don't qualify for the CL every season then it's selling our best players on the menu. The alternative would be administration.

I don't know what you call a situation like that. I call it very bad ownership because it's a high risk gamble.

Proof of this statement would be appreciated, or is it just your idle speculation?

[AFII]

Proof of this statement would be appreciated, or is it just your idle speculation?

You only need to look at our latest figures to understand that I'm right, so it's not idle speculation.

[Scratch]

You only need to look at our latest figures to understand that I'm right, so it's not idle speculation.

Well, post them up then so we can all see, and let the doom and gloom spread some more.

[AFII]

CLICKY

[MrMichael]

Fascinating results to this poll.

I wonder what the numbers would have been if the same question was asked 12 months ago?

[dww]

Did we not have a similar poll at some point in the past?

[memzey]

CLICKY

That link isn't working for me?