49ers do what

[Fa1833 353]

26 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

It's an interesting question and one none of us can answer. 

 

For me the real question that's still not been answered is why do they want to buy us?

 

We've had 3 types of owners in 150 or so years.

1. Supporters of the club for who it is an emotional decision - Every owner we've ever had except a handful

2. For the prestige it will reflect on them, to inflate their ego, raise their profile - Sir David Murray

3. An effort to make money - Whyte, Green, Ashley

 

We can remove '1' from their motivation. I think '2' is a stretch too, they aren't Russian oligarchs or Middle Eastern despots with reputations needing sports washed. Which leaves 3. They already own an English side with lot's of potential and that's where the money is, the real money. There's not much money in Scottish football, so their are only 3 ways I can see for them to make money from us. Qualify for the Champion's League, sell players for profits or reduce overheads. 

I think a lot of fans are hoping for the first option; Champion's League. To do that we'll need to win our league and then get through qualifying, or win the Europa League next season. There's not enough money in the Europa or Conference Leagues to make our owners a serious profit, so it's Champion's League or nothing. What kind of investment would it take to turn our club into Champions and strengthen again to qualify for the Champion's League? Including transfer fees and salaries? Gerrard spent in the region of £30 million on transfer fees to win the league, plus a decent number of free transfer signings. That side didn't qualify for the Champion's League. You add signing on fees, agent fees and of course salaries to that number and you get a big number, just to win the league. Now we might get lucky, our current squad is better than the one Gerrard inherited, and maybe we'll appoint a manager who can do something special with them and a couple of new signings. Plus maybe the wheels come off over the city. That would be a gamble though, money has to be invested in our squad, it's not good enough to win the league as it stands. It's a question of how much. 

 

Selling players for a profit is the more attractive option I'd have thought. If you've no emotional attachment, if it's purely about business and winning stuff is a bonus, then developing and selling players is the easiest way to make money. Particularly if you already own the buyer. I mean developing players for Leeds, who if they can get promoted and stay up, not a given for sure, will have access to hundreds of millions just by being in that league is surely the easiest way to make money. Leeds in the EPL will turnover £200 million right away. We'd need to win the Champion's League to make that. So which one of those 2 horses are you going to back? If you wonder how this dual ownership might work have a read about Strasbourg. Currently doing ok in the French League, but very much being used as a support club for Chelsea. Strasbourg are used to buy players not yet ready for Chelsea, then 'sold' onto Chelsea if they develop. It's not about success for Strasbourg, it's about maintaining Chelsea as a cash cow for their American owners. 

 

Option 3, cut overheads. After all we only need to finish second to guarantee a crack at European football, fill the stadium and sell our replica shirts. We've already demonstrated that for the last however many years. What if that could be maintained on lower overheads? I mean we might even breakeven this season, much lower salary bill and a decent Europa run. Just keep that going, take a million out a year in management fees, just keep finishing second, how hard can that be?

 

Anyway, my money is on option 2, I'm not discounting 3, and I'm loving the optimism many have for option 1. 

It's a fascinating puzzle, isn't it? This question of "why?" hangs heavy in the air, especially given our history. You've laid out the landscape of potential motivations brilliantly, and I agree, the romantic notion of pure supporter ownership feels like a distant memory for most clubs at our level now.
Your analysis of the three remaining possibilities – prestige (inflated ego), profit, or a hybrid – feels spot on. I also lean towards dismissing the "prestige" angle in this specific instance. As you say, these aren't individuals typically associated with that kind of image-building through sports ownership.
That leaves the financial motivations, and your breakdown of those avenues is insightful. The Champion's League dream is certainly the one that ignites the fanbase, and you're right to question the level of investment required to make that a consistent reality. Gerrard's spending, while ultimately delivering the league title, didn't guarantee that golden ticket of Champions League qualification. The financial outlay for sustained success at that level is immense and carries significant risk.
Your point about player development and sales being a more "attractive" option from a purely business perspective resonates strongly. The Strasbourg/Chelsea model you highlighted offers a stark illustration of how a multi-club ownership structure can prioritize the needs and financial well-being of the flagship club. The potential for Leeds' growth in the Premier League dwarfs the immediate financial rewards of even a successful Europa League campaign for us, making that pathway seem like the more logical focus for a purely profit-driven entity.
And your final point about reducing overheads is a sobering but realistic possibility. Maintaining a competitive edge domestically to ensure European football while streamlining costs could be a sustainable, albeit less glamorous, strategy. It wouldn't necessarily bring the trophies and European nights fans crave, but it could be a pragmatic approach for owners focused on long-term stability and modest returns.
Ultimately, without any direct communication from the potential owners, we're left to speculate and piece together the clues. Your analysis of the financial realities of Scottish football and the potential synergies (or lack thereof) with their existing club in England provides a compelling framework for understanding their possible intentions. It certainly gives food for thought beyond the initial excitement of a potential takeover. Let’s see what our future brings and may it happen soon as it can’t be any worse than it already is. 
 

[Sutton_blows_goats 6,110]

22 hours ago, buster. said:

Question 

 

How do any new owners make the club a sustainable business?

How do the rest of us manage to live sustainably? It’s not difficult. Keep one number lower than the other.

[Scott7 6,668]

10 hours ago, Fa1833 said:

It's a fascinating puzzle, isn't it?

I think your AI got it right there. It didn’t need to go any further.

[Tannochsidebear 2,515]

On 20/04/2025 at 09:24, CammyF said:

I would also like the new owners to enter into talks with fans regarding safe-standing areas within Ibrox. The current board appear to be absolutely opposed to this for some reason.

I would like the new owners to absolutely rule out safe standing areas within Ibrox. The current board appear to have got something right. Lets not pander to the trouble in our support until they can go at least a full season without causing us any fines or reduced capacity.

[Fa1833 353]

3 hours ago, Scott7 said:

I think your AI got it right there. It didn’t need to go any further.

AI generated, man generated, whichever way you see it, it’s a puzzle indeed. We are no different in solving our future or our direction in which we are going until the deal is done. Let’s hope there is some direction in which we are going and are not just in a line, as I see good things coming from Leeds with the new owners. I suppose it’s been similar with Newcastle and Ashley , get the rotten apples out and hopefully the new apples will be more successful. In my own opinion, I think we should be run by us, the fans, then we will know what’s going on via a voting system, but that ship has long sailed, so we need to rely financially driven decisions rather than just passion and pride. A puzzle is indeed an overrated example here; it’s more like Hellraiser's cube, and only those who are in the loop will actually know its true meaning and outcome.
 

[CammyF 9,324]

2 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said:

I would like the new owners to absolutely rule out safe standing areas within Ibrox. The current board appear to have got something right. Lets not pander to the trouble in our support until they can go at least a full season without causing us any fines or reduced capacity.

I would like Safe Standing, does that mean I'm pandering to the trouble makers, or trouble myself? There is an apatite for safe standing that is outwith the singing section. 

 

Let's not deny that during most games, a large section of our support stand, and not just in the UB section. 

 

I'm in BF4 and have to stand rather than sit most home games. With dedicated safe standing areas those who want to stand can without inconveniencing those who want to sit. 

 

 

[MacK1950 2,455]

5 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said:

I would like the new owners to absolutely rule out safe standing areas within Ibrox. The current board appear to have got something right. Lets not pander to the trouble in our support until they can go at least a full season without causing us any fines or reduced capacity.

Won't rule out safe standing although IMO it would mean another shift of people as it could not be in front of new disabled wiewing in Copland.