The mancityfans.net football forum

Something mentioned as a side issue, by Spartacus, in the Mancini thread was; City/football clubs being run as businesses or not. I thought it was quite an important issue that possibly demanded a thread of its own.

In the late 1970s, I was given access by the club curator to a study done, analysing and comparing the differences between general business models and the football business model.
The general conclusion, as I remember it, was that the general business model focused on making profit, whereas the football model, having focused on making profit, then went on to usually spend that profit, even overspend and create debt in order to improve the product and seek success on the pitch.
Another conclusion of the study, was that this type of business model was pretty similar and universal throughout the football industry.

I don't think this now holds true at City. Though we may still see ourselves as a football based business conforming to the old football model. would it not be more accurate to say we are now being developed as the vehicle to globally publicise Abu Dhabi, the ADUG Group and their business interests world wide...eg Etihad, Etisalat, Ferrostaal etc.

If that is the case, would it not be then more accurate to define ourselves as a department or branch of Abu Dhabi, ADUG business interests PLC?

I'm not sure how that may change things for us financially considering the limitations being possibly imposed by the FFPRs but would be interested to get the opinions of our financial experts on here.

john68 wrote:Something mentioned as a side issue, by Spartacus, in the Mancini thread was; City/football clubs being run as businesses or not. I thought it was quite an important issue that possibly demanded a thread of its own.

In the late 1970s, I was given access by the club curator to a study done, analysing and comparing the differences between general business models and the football business model.
The general conclusion, as I remember it, was that the general business model focused on making profit, whereas the football model, having focused on making profit, then went on to usually spend that profit, even overspend and create debt in order to improve the product and seek success on the pitch.
Another conclusion of the study, was that this type of business model was pretty similar and universal throughout the football industry.

I don't think this now holds true at City. Though we may still see ourselves as a football based business conforming to the old football model. would it not be more accurate to say we are now being developed as the vehicle to globally publicise Abu Dhabi, the ADUG Group and their business interests world wide...eg Etihad, Etisalat, Ferrostaal etc.

If that is the case, would it not be then more accurate to define ourselves as a department or branch of Abu Dhabi, ADUG business interests PLC?

I'm not sure how that may change things for us financially considering the limitations being possibly imposed by the FFPRs but would be interested to get the opinions of our financial experts on here.

Ive commonly seen football clubs defined by economists as simply a vehicle of transferring wealth from the supporter to the player - and references to this have been around since the early 70s, and are clearly bang on the money today.

Its an interesting point which I think jf and I discussed in relation to FFP. Arguably, football clubs are to all intents and purposes multi million pound businesses these days, which I contended would be the stick a club uses to beat Uefa round the head with from an anti competition perspective, as someone pointed out that anti-competetive practices dont count for sporting enterprises, which is what football clubs are currently classed as legally in the eyes of EU law.

That aside, the point I was driving at on the other thread is that many owners over the years have set out with the intention of running a football club like a business, but that unique features of this particular type of business has seen pretty much all of them fail / lose money. The exceptions being United & Arsenal more recently.

There are features of football clubs which make them very different to a conventional business, things such as the appointment / choice of a manager are done in a way nobody would ever do in business. For example the only club I can recall who actually waited for a manager to take control was Arsenal with Wenger. Other than that a new manager is generally chosen with the main criteria being that they are available - NOT whether they are the best candidate for the job, and that is far from commercial best practice.

The other issue is with the cost of staffing up the football club. The costs incurred by the club to date will never be recovered. Ever. Clearly the owner thinks that investment will be worth it for intangible benefits in the long run, but that is a subjective decision, and most would quite rightly say that its bollocks, publicity for Abu Dhabi is never, ever worth that amount.

But there is nothing to say that the club cant be run along the lines of a business from hereon in., with the aim of it eventually becoming self sustainable, and maybe even turning a small profit one day. However the unique nature of football means that irrational decisions are only ever around the corner, like extremely competent management sanctioning £28m on JS Veron for example, or any other such example you care to mention.

And the key difference in all of this is that what has to drive you first and foremost as the owner of any football club other than united or arsenal, is the need to keep the fans happy - and if results are shit, or players need improving, the fans will soon let you know, and having 50000 people screaming sack the board etc, is something no ceo (except in banking) will ever have known before as ceo of a successful business, so they are in new territory.

Football can never be a business for all but the very select few with a marketable fan base, and even then, the variable of keeping the fans happy is what makes running a football club so different to running coca cola, where people wouldnt sing about your wife taking it up the shitter etc if you didnt keep them happy

Im_Spartacus wrote:The costs incurred by the club to date will never be recovered. Ever. Clearly the owner thinks that investment will be worth it for intangible benefits in the long run, but that is a subjective decision, and most would quite rightly say that its bollocks, publicity for Abu Dhabi is never, ever worth that amount.

I basically realised at this point you are quite clueless. What makes you think you know better than the Sheikh as to how much value that has? I can never understand people who make statements like that, when clearly they have absolutely no basis or experience to be in any sort of position to judge.

For Abu Dhabi, Manchester City has not been expensive. 1BN or whatever has been spent is not a massive amount in the big picture, from the perspective of an entire country.

Tesl wrote:
I basically realised at this point you are quite clueless. What makes you think you know better than the Sheikh as to how much value that has? I can never understand people who make statements like that, when clearly they have absolutely no basis or experience to be in any sort of position to judge.

For Abu Dhabi, Manchester City has not been expensive. 1BN or whatever has been spent is not a massive amount in the big picture, from the perspective of an entire country.

It doesnt matter whether they have another £100bn in the bank, from a return on investment perspective, (given that it is taken as a given that our owner is a good businessman) Manchester City will not generate £1bn revenue for Abu Dhabi - which means that they are paying for an intangible benefit, maybe a feel good factor from being associated with a successful sports club is what they want

You can add to that the inflated related party sponsorships - with the majority of our sponsorship coming from AD based businesses at massively inflated values, its highly likely that those deals dwarf any tangible benefit in terms of increased sales for etihad, etisalat etc. So you can add those to the cost too.

If they believe a feel good factor is worth it, thats a subjective judgement (and one which academics have recognised does happen, but the value is considered far lower than the people making e investment believe) but is clearly not being done on the basis of a caculation of return on investment hence, that is 1bn they will never see again.

So take your clueless and stick it up your smart arse

Yes, we did discuss but in a different way. I don't remotely disagree that football is now big business, my point was that the treaties of the EU specifically give partial exemption from being considered as such and therefore give the authorities much more leeway for imposition of rules that have anti-competition elements.

This topic warrants serious and calm debate and while I don't agree at all that you are "clueless" I do also think you are partially wrong in your analysis Sparticus. I will explain why.

I look at the Abu Dhabi investment in MCFC as being a much smaller scale version of their Etihad project. Etihad has had a huge investment and incurred large losses but is heading towards a point where it will become self sustaining and profitable. It will almost certainly never produce enough return to pay back the initial investment in full but the intangible benefits are huge to Abu Dhabi in their quest to become a major business centre and tourism hub. Not only has Etihad raised the country's profile it has the huge extra benefit of actually delivering the tourists and business people to the emirate. A benefit that warranted an investment way in excess of that of MCFC. The benefits of a major Premier League club to raise the brand profile of Etihad are worth the sponsorship money to that entity. It is not inflated. They pay a huge amount to sponsor a stadium in Australia too, it is a preferred marketing strategy for them. Naturally, given the ownership of MCFC their choice of who to sponsor here is now clearly going to be us but they were already looking at big sponsorship deals in the UK pre-takeover including reported extensive negotiations with our dearly beloved neighbours.

MCFC is a pretty cheap ready made vehicle for a promotional blitz for Etihad and other Abu Dhabi businesses. The ability to blitz with such advertising via world wide televised matches is a big benefit in itself. They can ensure a high percentage of Abu Dhabi content in the advertising at every home game, seen by many millions worldwide. This alone is worth a billion pounds plus to Abu Dhabi when considered over a length of time of say 20 years. Add in the raising of the profile through the football club's success on the pitch and you have a worthwhile return to the emirate as a whole.

MCFC itself will be steered towards being self sustaining in the same way as Etihad with the initial investment justified by the intangibles rather than ever being returned. It is good business for Abu Dhabi, make no mistake about that! The more successful we are on the pitch, the better it is for them given their goals. That is why they remain very good news for us as fans.

Socrates wrote:Yes, we did discuss but in a different way. I don't remotely disagree that football is now big business, my point was that the treaties of the EU specifically give partial exemption from being considered as such and therefore give the authorities much more leeway for imposition of rules that have anti-competition elements.

This topic warrants serious and calm debate and while I don't agree at all that you are "clueless" I do also think you are partially wrong in your analysis Sparticus. I will explain why.

I look at the Abu Dhabi investment in MCFC as being a much smaller scale version of their Etihad project. Etihad has had a huge investment and incurred large losses but is heading towards a point where it will become self sustaining and profitable. It will almost certainly never produce enough return to pay back the initial investment in full but the intangible benefits are huge to Abu Dhabi in their quest to become a major business centre and tourism hub. Not only has Etihad raised the country's profile it has the huge extra benefit of actually delivering the tourists and business people to the emirate. A benefit that warranted an investment way in excess of that of MCFC. The benefits of a major Premier League club to raise the brand profile of Etihad are worth the sponsorship money to that entity. It is not inflated. They pay a huge amount to sponsor a stadium in Australia too, it is a preferred marketing strategy for them. Naturally, given the ownership of MCFC their choice of who to sponsor here is now clearly going to be us but they were already looking at big sponsorship deals in the UK pre-takeover including reported extensive negotiations with our dearly beloved neighbours.

MCFC is a pretty cheap ready made vehicle for a promotional blitz for Etihad and other Abu Dhabi businesses. The ability to blitz with such advertising via world wide televised matches is a big benefit in itself. They can ensure a high percentage of Abu Dhabi content in the advertising at every home game, seen by many millions worldwide. This alone is worth a billion pounds plus to Abu Dhabi when considered over a length of time of say 20 years. Add in the raising of the profile through the football club's success on the pitch and you have a worthwhile return to the emirate as a whole.

MCFC itself will be steered towards being self sustaining in the same way as Etihad with the initial investment justified by the intangibles rather than ever being returned. It is good business for Abu Dhabi, make no mistake about that! The more successful we are on the pitch, the better it is for them given their goals. That is why they remain very good news for us as fans.

I think partial is one of the key things in your argument that is something that is upto to interpretation for example The European Union has had to deal with countless sports-related legal issues. The most important development in this area was the Bosman ruling, in which the European Court of Justice invalidated restrictions imposed by EU member countries and UEFA (the governing body for football within Europe) on foreign EU nationals. Bosman was extended to countries with associate trading relationships with the EU by the Kolpak ruling.

Rag_hater wrote:

Socrates wrote:Yes, we did discuss but in a different way. I don't remotely disagree that football is now big business, my point was that the treaties of the EU specifically give partial exemption from being considered as such and therefore give the authorities much more leeway for imposition of rules that have anti-competition elements.

This topic warrants serious and calm debate and while I don't agree at all that you are "clueless" I do also think you are partially wrong in your analysis Sparticus. I will explain why.

I look at the Abu Dhabi investment in MCFC as being a much smaller scale version of their Etihad project. Etihad has had a huge investment and incurred large losses but is heading towards a point where it will become self sustaining and profitable. It will almost certainly never produce enough return to pay back the initial investment in full but the intangible benefits are huge to Abu Dhabi in their quest to become a major business centre and tourism hub. Not only has Etihad raised the country's profile it has the huge extra benefit of actually delivering the tourists and business people to the emirate. A benefit that warranted an investment way in excess of that of MCFC. The benefits of a major Premier League club to raise the brand profile of Etihad are worth the sponsorship money to that entity. It is not inflated. They pay a huge amount to sponsor a stadium in Australia too, it is a preferred marketing strategy for them. Naturally, given the ownership of MCFC their choice of who to sponsor here is now clearly going to be us but they were already looking at big sponsorship deals in the UK pre-takeover including reported extensive negotiations with our dearly beloved neighbours.

MCFC is a pretty cheap ready made vehicle for a promotional blitz for Etihad and other Abu Dhabi businesses. The ability to blitz with such advertising via world wide televised matches is a big benefit in itself. They can ensure a high percentage of Abu Dhabi content in the advertising at every home game, seen by many millions worldwide. This alone is worth a billion pounds plus to Abu Dhabi when considered over a length of time of say 20 years. Add in the raising of the profile through the football club's success on the pitch and you have a worthwhile return to the emirate as a whole.

MCFC itself will be steered towards being self sustaining in the same way as Etihad with the initial investment justified by the intangibles rather than ever being returned. It is good business for Abu Dhabi, make no mistake about that! The more successful we are on the pitch, the better it is for them given their goals. That is why they remain very good news for us as fans.

I think partial is one of the key things in your argument that is something that is upto to interpretation for example The European Union has had to deal with countless sports-related legal issues. The most important development in this area was the Bosman ruling, in which the European Court of Justice invalidated restrictions imposed by EU member countries and UEFA (the governing body for football within Europe) on foreign EU nationals. Bosman was extended to countries with associate trading relationships with the EU by the Kolpak ruling.

Which is why have been a hundred times more careful this time, sadly. I want to be wrong believe me, I hate FFP but I think they have made their twisted case for it in a way that allows them to do it. There are other avenues than the EU though, court of arbitration for sport may take a view.

I need Mancio4ever to translate this thread into laymans terms for me.

Just going back to my earlier post on costs, in reality one must ask "what is the cost of changing the image of a repressive autocracy, into one of a dashing, daring, modern state whilst actually still being a repressive autocratic state?"

Because thats what they are paying for, and to be fair, it seems to be working - and investing in city, etihad, F1 etc is a far more sustainable thing to do that the boom and bust approach Dubai took. Having bailed Dubai out, no doubt the cost of achieving a more sustainable future than Dubai through city and sport is a drop in the ocean in comparison.

But only they can put the true value on changing that image - suppose put like that it puts "fair value of sponsorship deals" back in the spotlight doesnt it?

My post was mainly though, relating to the the fact that even successful business people make incredible errors of judgement when it comes to their perceptions of what an association with sport can bring them.

In the US in the 90s and 00's there was a phenomenon where every large town and city wanted a shiny new stadium, as the story went that with the stadium comes jobs, investment, long term benefits to the communities etc. consultants were going round polishing their pitch to gain chunks of public money to fund these stadia, and the administrators were parting with their money on the simple words of snake oil salesmen.

They were caught up in the hype, of the "image" that was being projected from a town having a shiny new stadium without even bothering to see what happened to those towns and cities who had built the stadiums, and the ghettos that soon developed around them as the areas quickly fell into decay. I think the same is happening with football clubs right now, with it being the done thing to own a sports "franchise", and whilst i've no doubt that the sheikh has good intentions and with a key benefit being the promotion of AD, but, I genuinely that they know full well they will never get this money back, and dont much care to be honest.

Which really gets down to the crux of the matter - good business people buy football clubs as a means to popularity of some sort - they dont, u less buying manchester united, buy a club to make money. And therefore, as a vehicle of popularity, sometimes good business sense takes second place in furtherance of that popularity

You are looking at the investment in MCFC in isolation Spartacus, they are not - they have a bigger vision and the small investment in MCFC will be offset elsewhere against much bigger gains that their increased reputation brings them.

Socrates wrote:You are looking at the investment in MCFC in isolation Spartacus, they are not - they have a bigger vision and the small investment in MCFC will be offset elsewhere against much bigger gains that their increased reputation brings them.

It doesn't need to be offset though does it? When you have the cash surplus that Abu Dhabi has and the income stream it does, they can easily afford some "expenses" that fulfil non monetary ambitions of the owners. MCFC does not need to be an investment that generates a return.

Would any of us consider the return on our investment when we buy a mobile phone or TV? It's a totally different scale of course but if you have almost unlimited wealth and a growing income stream, not every decision on expenditure has to be about making more money.

blues-clues wrote:

Socrates wrote:You are looking at the investment in MCFC in isolation Spartacus, they are not - they have a bigger vision and the small investment in MCFC will be offset elsewhere against much bigger gains that their increased reputation brings them.

It doesn't need to be offset though does it? When you have the cash surplus that Abu Dhabi has and the income stream it does, they can easily afford some "expenses" that fulfil non monetary ambitions of the owners. MCFC does not need to be an investment that generates a return.

Would any of us consider the return on our investment when we buy a mobile phone or TV? It's a totally different scale of course but if you have almost unlimited wealth and a growing income stream, not every decision on expenditure has to be about making more money.

Doesn't have to be but am thinking in their minds will be :)

Socrates wrote:You are looking at the investment in MCFC in isolation Spartacus, they are not - they have a bigger vision and the small investment in MCFC will be offset elsewhere against much bigger gains that their increased reputation brings them.

Not really, like I say, city is only one cog in the wheel that includes respected businesses such as etihad. They have a burgeoning media empire with etisalat who are the biggest players in decoders and satellite transmission in the middle east, abu dhabi tv who own the tv rights for the premier league in the middle east, so city is only a small part of it.

My point is that just because they are businessmen, does not necessarily mean that they are seeking to make a profit from the club, (because they will never make a monetary profit on what has been spent) and if it really is about publicity above all else, and a businessman's ruthless mentality to achieve that by winning stuff, then ANY manager is on extremely shaky ground if the clubs long term aim is to intend the manager simply to refine a pre-defined club tactic and pick the team on a matchday, which is where I think we are headed.

This notion of sacking a manager means you have to sign half a dozen new players and spend ever more money becomes redundant - we could have a new coach every year arguably and the only difference would be the managers tactical and motivational ability.

When you remove as many variables as possible, and allow the coach to concentrate on what he is good at, and the businessmen to sort the deals out behind the scenes, that is how you run a good football club on business lines - giving a manager, whose sum total background in business is zero, total control over all aspects of a football club then its no wonder businessmen have been fucked over so many times in the past in football. They wouldnt let their best sales manager run a multi million pound enterprise, so why let a coach who has only experience of playing football and coaching players, have that responsibility? Its one of the most stupid things in football, but managers expect that control because typically thats what managers in the past have had, and it becomes "the way things are done" and an embedded culture in the game

The sooner a club moves away from that, the sooner they can really start to manage a football club along commercial lines, with proper organisation structures, reporting lines and clearly defined roles, responsibilities and objectives.

Because thats how any successful business operates - and 99.9% of football clubs might want to play at being a business, but then have dysfunctional hierarchies which undermine everything else they ever do.

It neednt have anything to do with profit at all (which is what i've said all along) - just running the club as a cost centre of the abu dhabi project, in which case the objective will be to keep the cost as neutral as possible, and obtain maximum exposure per dollar spent

Im_Spartacus wrote:Just going back to my earlier post on costs, in reality one must ask "what is the cost of changing the image of a repressive autocracy, into one of a dashing, daring, modern state whilst actually still being a repressive autocratic state?"

Because thats what they are paying for, and to be fair, it seems to be working - and investing in city, etihad, F1 etc is a far more sustainable thing to do that the boom and bust approach Dubai took. Having bailed Dubai out, no doubt the cost of achieving a more sustainable future than Dubai through city and sport is a drop in the ocean in comparison.

But only they can put the true value on changing that image - suppose put like that it puts "fair value of sponsorship deals" back in the spotlight doesnt it?

My post was mainly though, relating to the the fact that even successful business people make incredible errors of judgement when it comes to their perceptions of what an association with sport can bring them.

In the US in the 90s and 00's there was a phenomenon where every large town and city wanted a shiny new stadium, as the story went that with the stadium comes jobs, investment, long term benefits to the communities etc. consultants were going round polishing their pitch to gain chunks of public money to fund these stadia, and the administrators were parting with their money on the simple words of snake oil salesmen.

They were caught up in the hype, of the "image" that was being projected from a town having a shiny new stadium without even bothering to see what happened to those towns and cities who had built the stadiums, and the ghettos that soon developed around them as the areas quickly fell into decay. I think the same is happening with football clubs right now, with it being the done thing to own a sports "franchise", and whilst i've no doubt that the sheikh has good intentions and with a key benefit being the promotion of AD, but, I genuinely that they know full well they will never get this money back, and dont much care to be honest.

Which really gets down to the crux of the matter - good business people buy football clubs as a means to popularity of some sort - they dont, u less buying manchester united, buy a club to make money. And therefore, as a vehicle of popularity, sometimes good business sense takes second place in furtherance of that popularity

That's an interesting thought, Spartacus and in the last sentence of the paragraph I've highlighted, you also hint at other considerations in the investment policies that ADUG are pursuing; namely, that at some point in the future, their oil and gas reserves will be exhausted.

ADUG are thinking longer term and currently investing in diverse 'projects' (no reference to our previous manager intended) to ensure that there's still a rosy future, decades from now, when the oil revenues are no more. It might be considered some sort of financial master plan which transcends the 'normal' confines of football.

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:
That's an interesting thought, Spartacus and in the last sentence of the paragraph I've highlighted, you also hint at other considerations in the investment policies that ADUG are pursuing; namely, that at some point in the future, their oil and gas reserves will be exhausted.

ADUG are thinking longer term and currently investing in diverse 'projects' (no reference to our previous manager intended) to ensure that there's still a rosy future, decades from now, when the oil revenues are no more. It might be considered some sort of financial master plan which transcends the 'normal' confines of football.

Tourism is clearly one element of the future / masterplan for them, but I think technology is too.

With Etihad they have set Abu Dhabi up as a hub between east and west, with F1, sporting ventures and the world class businesses they have growing in AD they give people a reason to stop there rather than just pass through.

Its almost a mirror image of what happened in Dubai with Emirates firstly becoming the high quality airline with the east west link which got people there, although without the insane property boom. Dubai has a big lead in the tourism stakes, but that can easily be caught up with over time, and whilst Dubai could easily become the blackpool of the middle east, all tacky and garish, I think AD is seeking to become its upmarket cousin in order to offer something different rather than compete directly.

From a footballing perspective, I also suspect that with the stadium climate technology being employed for the qatar world cup, its not inconceivable that a middle eastern super league is around the corner in which serious players may opt for that as an option over the european leagues if FFP really does become a pay restrictor.

There are huge factors at play and its unclear where city fit in with all of this, but as I have said a few times now, we may be run along the lines of a business by business people, but at the end of the day football is the core activity and if they want city to be successful and remain successful, whatever their motivator, then its going to cost them a lot of money they will never ever get back and so as a stand alone business, the city project is not financially viable from a business perspective - but as part of a master plan, there may be reasons why they arent bothered

I read a piece about Roman Abromovich a couple of years ago, which essentially talked about the value of the raised profile afforded him by owning Chelsea.
It pointed out how he was a big name, known in Russian oil circles. It went on to calculate his spend on Chelsea at around half a billion. This figure had transformed him from a name in limited groups to a world figure. The point was made that if he had launched a worldwide "Roman" advertising campaign, then the figure of a half a billion squiddlies would have bought him a far less effective reach. So essentially it was in fact quite a bargain for him. The true value of being a world celebrity is indeed very difficult to quantify, but it suggested that it would be worth many times over the money spent.
So how do you calculate that value in terms of ffp? Surely there will be somebody who attempts to somehow include this in their scribblings on the accounts at some point.
Where there is money there is always a will.

I don't think it impacts at all on FFP, is the other way round FFP has impacted the business plan. First by accelerating spending in anticipation of the effects, now by slowing spending as it kicks in. One other impact, relating more to Spartacus's comments than Piccs, is that FFP makes changes of personnel less likely both in the playing and coaching staff. Offloading players at a loss and paying up contracts can be afforded easily in cash terms but not in FFP terms. The cost of paying off 4 years of the coaching staffs' contracts, for example, would have a huge impact on the profit and loss for that year, maybe £25m+. Pocket change for the sheikh but maybe the difference between meeting FFP and not.

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:I read a piece about Roman Abromovich a couple of years ago, which essentially talked about the value of the raised profile afforded him by owning Chelsea.
It pointed out how he was a big name, known in Russian oil circles. It went on to calculate his spend on Chelsea at around half a billion. This figure had transformed him from a name in limited groups to a world figure. The point was made that if he had launched a worldwide "Roman" advertising campaign, then the figure of a half a billion squiddlies would have bought him a far less effective reach. So essentially it was in fact quite a bargain for him. The true value of being a world celebrity is indeed very difficult to quantify, but it suggested that it would be worth many times over the money spent.
So how do you calculate that value in terms of ffp? Surely there will be somebody who attempts to somehow include this in their scribblings on the accounts at some point.
Where there is money there is always a will.

This. At the very highest level. Sheikh Mansour has said owning City has opened doors. Results from the Etihad sponsorship speak for themselves. In both cases the MCFC business is small beer in comparison to their global profile and a small investment in proportion to the positive impact on their respective business interests.

What other business of such low value as a football club attracts people worldwide in their billions? How can FFP judge value?

What business analysts never say is that football is a cash cow with all sorts of opportunities for extracting monies Yes there are owners who fund losses but there have always been others who take out ie falsify gate receipts, share brown bags, do dodgy transfer deals and a host of other practices. Then there are the ownership scams. Portsmouth, Leeds United again? Going back, us, the rags, and most clubs are not lilywhite.