Taking my rant from the other thread here
Even the owner of a pisspot club like Brighton has invested 150m into their stadium and another 70m into mostly shit players. Meanwhile this is the rest of the league up until 2017
[Twitter]
Middlesbrough are only down there with us because they haven't published any figures by the way.
I'll be honest around ten years ago I bought into the whole self sustainable horseshit, mainly because it was so easy to because of the repulsive owners and the sources of their money. How could you not subscribe to something that's the obvious antithesis to a piece of shit like Abramovich?
But then what does self sustainable really mean? Do misplaced passes from Senderos to Mustafi create or cost money? What's the RoI of a goal by Auba or Lacazette? It's zero obviously every pound the club "generates" is simply gate revenue or coming from Sky subscriptions ie the fans pay for it. Sponsorships are the same thing the Emirates wouldn't pay a penny if it weren't for people everywhere tuning in and buying merchandise.
If you disregard the source of owners funds how is a club relying just on fans paying for everything intrinsically better than a piece of shit owner putting in his own? We rightly deride others as sugardaddy clubs or rentboys and for good reason, I wouldn't want the club I support to live on money stolen from a people. On the other hand we're not fan owned ourselves, there's no socios or 50+1 rule around to give us at least some sense of being selfgoverned. Our owner is a piece of shit billionaire, large parts of his wealth comes off the backs of millions of retail workers living on the breadline and unlike other murderous leeches he doesn't invest a single pound into the club but would rather pay 750m to own a ranch as big as Luxembourg.
So really where's the pride in having an owner around who's possibly the only one in the four professional tiers in English football to not invest in his prized asset?
