Which would you choose

[OzzyNev]

easy choice really!

title 100%

[Darkon]

Title for me...

If G+H can deliver the title, who are we to complain??? Well with some help from rafa and his men, but still...

[AFII]

I just don't like owners that puts us close to administration.

All it takes is a no from the banks in the summer with no interested buyer and administration it's.

[Skillz]

I voted for the title purely because

- If G&H stay on I assume they refinanced
- No idea who is taking over

If the question was

a) Win the title this season but G&H stay on and we go broke

b) Miss out on the league but see G&H sell to someone who can afford the stadium

My answer would of been different.

[dww]

I just don't like owners that puts us close to administration.

All it takes is a no from the banks in the summer with no interested buyer and administration it's.

Yes but given that that is generally true for a huge range of businesses why would they decide against continuing to do business with a large company with revenue streams large enough to virtually guarantee continued payment (and hence profits) for the banks themselves? I really think that there has been a great deal of scaremongering about this issue - I can't see a single scrap of incentive for the banks to withdraw the loans.

It is possible that in the current financial climate we will have to accept less favourable payment terms and hence have less free money for signings (and obviously a new stadium will continue to be unlikely).

On the basis that there appears to be no dream owners about and there has never been an owner who has bankrolled team development and stadium development I think that a change in ownership may well in fact add uncertainty to the clubs future.

[Skillz]

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 funds each transfer window and increased revenue. In the context of our revenue stream our debt while large is not unmanageable IMO.

The only real let down has been the lack of a new stadium. I don't see any owners anywhere building a stadium in the current economic situation.

I'm not 100% sure that there are any more Man City style owners about and it is, I believe, notable that both they and Abramovich chose clubs with Stadia already modernised.

I can. If there are any potential billionaire buyers out there wanting to get involved in the Premier League at the top level we are ripe. Looking at our squad, inparticular the age of it we have a great first 11 that will not need overhauling. We have a fantastic manager who is committed to building a long lasting legacy.

The only hurdle is the stadium so any new owner just needs to be able to afford to get us through the 3 year building phase. Having said that, the cost of building the stadium will have reduced and interests are low so now is as good a time as any to buy in.

[Elvoz]

Don't even see that as a question !
Will be amazed if option 2 were to win out.

[AFII]

Yes but given that that is generally true for a huge range of businesses why would they decide against continuing to do business with a large company with revenue streams large enough to virtually guarantee continued payment (and hence profits) for the banks themselves? I really think that there has been a great deal of scaremongering about this issue - I can't see a single scrap of incentive for the banks to withdraw the loans.

It is possible that in the current financial climate we will have to accept less favourable payment terms and hence have less free money for signings (and obviously a new stadium will continue to be unlikely).

On the basis that there appears to be no dream owners about and there has never been an owner who has bankrolled team development and stadium development I think that a change in ownership may well in fact add uncertainty to the clubs future.

If we don't get a new stadium then there is no guarantee that we will be able to pay the interest every year.

One missed CL and we simply wouldn't be able to pay the interest without selling one or two of our best players, that it's all it takes.

Then it's downhill from there.

[dww]

I can. If there are any potential billionaire buyers out there wanting to get involved in the Premier League at the top level we are ripe. Looking at our squad, inparticular the age of it we have a great first 11 that will not need overhauling. We have a fantastic manager who is committed to building a long lasting legacy.

The only hurdle is the stadium so any new owner just needs to be able to afford to get us through the 3 year building phase. Having said that, the cost of building the stadium will have reduced and interests are low so now is as good a time as any to buy in.

My point is ultimately look at the clubs which billionairres have taken over and they go for ones with a new stadium. I suspect they have no interest in long, expensive building projects that will only pay off in the very long term.

The club has been effectively 'for sale' for over a year according to most media reports and yet we have had no progress on any takeover approach for a long while.

[dww]

If we don't get a new stadium then there is no guarantee that we will be able to pay the interest every year.

One missed CL and we simply wouldn't be able to pay the interest without selling one or two of our best players, that it's all it takes.

Then it's downhill from there.

That may be true but the only way for that not to be even worse (i.e. we have to have a huge stadium debt added to what we already have) is for these mythical billionaire enthusiast owners to emerge from nowhere. I don't believe the owners people want exist. (I actually think that we may well be able to go a year without the CL the worry is that we would not be able to improve the team to get back in, but that still leaves your point as a valid worry).

[Maxiedge]

In the current economic climate who would come in to replace G&H?

[captain-caveman]

League every time. plus i don't think keeping them this year or them selling now will make much difference to this season.

[Skillz]

My point is ultimately look at the clubs which billionairres have taken over and they go for ones with a new stadium. I suspect they have no interest in long, expensive building projects that will only pay off in the very long term.

The club has been effectively 'for sale' for over a year according to most media reports and yet we have had no progress on any takeover approach for a long while.

It comes down to the actual motives of these buyers. They are all individuals with their own interests so saying what any potential buyer will prefer based on very limited exposure is a little naive IMO. A prudent investor with enough resources eg a ****load wanting to get in should look first and foremost at Liverpool, if they want to be contenders.

Once the stadium is finished we will be set, the only problem with building it now is opening in three years time hoping the finanacial crisis is over. It will more than pay for itself once complete.

[dww]

It comes down to the actual motives of these buyers. They are all individuals with their own interests so saying what any potential buyer will prefer based on very limited exposure is a little naive IMO. A prudent investor with enough resources eg a ****load wanting to get in should look first and foremost at Liverpool, if they want to be contenders.

Once the stadium is finished we will be set, the only problem with building it now is opening in three years time hoping the finanacial crisis is over. It will more than pay for itself once complete.

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.

[dom9]

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 funds each transfer window and increased revenue. In the context of our revenue stream our debt while large is not unmanageable IMO.

The only real let down has been the lack of a new stadium. I don't see any owners anywhere building a stadium in the current economic situation.

I'm not 100% sure that there are any more Man City style owners about and it is, I believe, notable that both they and Abramovich chose clubs with Stadia already modernised.

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.