Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

Hello?

Ideal chairman would probably not be Chainrai of Portsmouth.

He has admitted he is a "reluctant owner" and is just after money. He intends to make money from the club regardless of the fact we've been in administration under him, the club equity continues to decrease, and future prospects are as bleak as ever.

It seems to me that the more money an owner puts in the more they are likely to want to have a say in how it's spent. Which is understandable.

An alternative view of someone like Romanov at Hearts or some of the owners of the bigger English clubs is that if they are getting involved then that at least means they are interested and motivated to make the club successful.

So it could be argued that that is better than other rich owners like say Tom Farmer, who doesn't even like football, or Stewart Milne - people who have plenty of cash but are not willing to spend it to try to make their clubs successful. While those clubs might be more secure on the face of it, it's not a strategy likely to take the club forward long-term. In Hibs case, financial prudence almost, and could still, led to relegation.

The ideal owner is obviously someone very rich and motivated, but also very quiet and willing to take a back seat. Wishful thinking.

I'm not sure the perfect Chairman exists, Jack!

Fans are asking more & more of their clubs powerbrokers these days & I'm not sure many of the demands are reasonable ones. Roman Abramovich's entry into football has upped expectations amongst supporters.

If they have a local businessman with the clubs best interests at heart, fans tend to criticise because there isn't a blank cheque book available for foreign signings. If there are foreign owners with an alleged blank cheque book, there are complaints they don't have the clubs best interests at heart!

Stewart Gilmour at St. Mirren & Sir Tom Farmer (with Rod Petrie) at Hibs have worked miracles for their clubs in a business sense; both relatively debt-free with tremendous stadiums & quality training grounds, whilst investing heavily in youth players or players discarded by other clubs, both of whom could be sold for a profit. Do the fans see them as successful? Not all of them, no, because they are both at the wrong end of the table.

Give me Farmer & Petrie over Romanov any day!!

@ 2:

I think it's criminal the situation that Portsmouth find themselves in now, especially when you see the heights Milan Mandaric took you to before he sold to Sacha Gaydamak. I wish you all the best in getting back on an even keel, but I don't envy whoever has the task of achieving that.

Do you not feel that, if it wasn't for Balram Chainrai protecting his assets, the club could have disappeared forever? Or would you have preferred to "do a Wimbledon" than go through the disappointment & uncertainty you currently are?



@ Jack:

So, is this going to be your next career move? Are you going to buy Manchester United? :o)

I think it's worth giving a mention to those clubs who are owned by their supporters also. The supporter ownership model that clubs like AFC Wimbledon and FC United implement I think is the way forward.

When it comes to chairmen/manager interaction my feeling is that the manager should be allowed to get on with it. At the end of the day that manager would most likely of been appointed by the chairman themselves anyway and if they are offered the job then they should be left to make their own mark on the team.

was at boston united vs telford on saturday. telford are owned by a supporters trust and their board members were sat behind me in the home end. while they were wearing suits and ties, they also cheered on their team and looked delighted that they managed a victory. they certainly enjoyed it as much as any of their other supporters. certainly a board who always cheer on their team are the sort you need, not people who have no interest in the game what so ever.
the influx of foreign owners to me is a questionable one. at leicester we are now owned by a thai company and they say they want to invest in the club and want to be back in the premier league. but what are the real motivations of these people?

Interesting to read the Football League chief Greg Clarke say that the majority of football league clubs were badly run & could be facing oblivion in the near future.

Maybe Chairmen like Rod Petrie & Stewart Gilmour are about to be appreciated after all?

I think you might be getting to the heart of something here Jack. There is no doubt that within every fan there is a Chairman waiting to burst out. I think Brian Clough said something along the following lines about one of his Chairmen, 'He's a great Chairman. He knows nothing about football - and knows that he knows nothing about football.'

Most fans, me included, and club directors form their opinion on players based on 90 minutes every Saturday or every second Saturday (augmented by some TV coverage, usually highlights). Yet footballers spend the vast majority of their working week on the training pitch. This is where they learn their trade. How many club chairmen visit their training ground every week to watch training? Not many. Certainly not enough of them to allow a valid comment on any player. Directors and players inhabit totally different worlds. The distance between the boardroom and the changing room is not the length of a corridor, it is a gulf. Directors are involved in football mainly because they can afford to be involved. Player's are involved because they need to be involved. It is their livelihood.

In your blog you mentioned Jim McLean as an example of player-turned-manager-turned-chairman. I think Jim was a better-than-average player, an outstanding manager and a hare-brained chairman. He benefitted greatly from being a manager at United under a board who were supportive of their manager but not inclined to interfere in the areas of responsibility of the manager. I think Fergie enjoyed a similar arrangement at Pittodrie. I don't I ever saw Messrs Donald or Grant give interviews of any kind or venture an opinion on any player or on any match performance.

Unfortunately, when Jim McLean became chairman of United I don't think he extended all of the freedoms previously granted to him to his own managers. Of course, he also did positive things during his period in charge. An awful lot of money was spent upgrading Tannadice. It's now an all-seated stadium and unrecognisable from what is was before. This was Jim McLean's achievement. I believe that if he had restricted himself to this task only then results on the pitch during the mid to late 90's and later may have been different for United.

In summary then I think the perfect chairman is an individual who, if not an ex-pro, firstly recognises his own limited knowledge of the game, takes advice on his managerial appointment, seeks an immediate rapport and confidence with his appointee, agrees areas of co-operation and operational parameters re transfer policy, budgets, etc, then sits back and lets the manager do his thing, uttering only the occasional statement of support from time to time. If an ex-pro, then he will know the game and the people in the game. He can appoint his own man based on his own judgement and be confident that transfers and budget issues can be sorted out between the pair of them. But on team selection and tactics he must stay so far away as to be almost invisible. He must dodge every microphone and all interviews knowing rhat the slightest inintentional comment could well be construed by the press to undermine his manager. Some task.

On something completely different. Sorry you've had to hang up yer boots Jack. Never mind. You can come back in 3 years if you still fancy it and get a trialist spot at Dens. We'll doubtless be fighting relegation to the 3rd division by then. More seriously, best of luck to wherever you decide your future lies.