What kind of ownership do you prefer?

[Blueboy 14]

When reading the Roman Abramovich thread on here, i began to think about different kinds of ownership.

And i wondered what you guys do prefer most.

Because almost all people on here seem to be glad with the current ownership of Roman, including myself. Because he really seems to care and doesn't use the club as a toy to show off in front of his friends.

However, what if Roman does leave at a certain moment for a certain reason. What would you guys prefer for the new ownership?

1. An investment group (Manchester City), not only wanting to bring 'succes' to the club, but also looking for profits were possible (Manchester United, although in this case it is a family!)

2. A system with multiple big share holders and a gentlemen's agreement between them, not to sell their shares. So the club remains 'theirs', aka a safe and steady (but greedy) ownership (Arsenal)

3. Individual ownership (Chelsea) or duo ownership (Liverpool). With the risk that the club is fully dependent of the preferences on players, transferpolicy and using the money the club generates, of the owners!

(4.) The club is 'property' of the fans. Wich means the club doesn't have any shares to sell, and has to make the profits on its own. I honestly think this is barely possible anymore, although it would be a great idea to really bring back the club to the fans!

[zolayes 14,489]

When reading the Roman Abramovich thread on here, i began to think about different kinds of ownership.

And i wondered what you guys do prefer most.

Because almost all people on here seem to be glad with the current ownership of Roman, including myself. Because he really seems to care and doesn't use the club as a toy to show off in front of his friends.

However, what if Roman does leave at a certain moment for a certain reason. What would you guys prefer for the new ownership?

1. An investment group (Manchester City), not only wanting to bring 'succes' to the club, but also looking for profits were possible (Manchester United, although in this case it is a family!)

2. A system with multiple big share holders and a gentlemen's agreement between them, not to sell their shares. So the club remains 'theirs', aka a safe and steady (but greedy) ownership (Arsenal)

3. Individual ownership (Chelsea) or duo ownership (Liverpool). With the risk that the club is fully dependent of the preferences on players, transferpolicy and using the money the club generates, of the owners!

(4.) The club is 'property' of the fans. Wich means the club doesn't have any shares to sell, and has to make the profits on its own. I honestly think this is barely possible anymore, although it would be a great idea to really bring back the club to the fans!

4 is the Barcelona model but can only be sustained because they have individual TV deals and an 80000 stadium

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Abramovich-style ownership. We'll probably never know what his involvement was in the Mourinho sacking but the financial backing he has shown is incredible. He is a passionate Chelsea supporter and whilst he obviously wants a return for the money he has put into the team he seems just as concerned with how we play and what we win. A true owner who isn't just in it for the cash.

[Rambo 1,729]

Abramovich-style ownership. We'll probably never know what his involvement was in the Mourinho sacking but the financial backing he has shown is incredible. He is a passionate Chelsea supporter and whilst he obviously wants a return for the money he has put into the team he seems just as concerned with how we play and what we win. A true owner who isn't just in it for the cash.

I agree, that's the best part of Roman.

[Rubber bullets 1,183]

Probably Abramovich - like ownership. becuase it means more stability in the club, unlike club like Arsenal which draw nearer and nearer to hostile takeovers.

[Blueboy 14]

4 is the Barcelona model but can only be sustained because they have individual TV deals and an 80000 stadium

We already have problems with even building a new stadium, let alone a 80000-seater. But who knows, in the future, if Roman wants to pay for it

[CHD 30]

It is all well and good saying Abramovich style if it is done right. We are incredibly lucky to have probably the best owner about who genuinely cares. Look at other clubs who have had the same kind of ownership. Liverpool and United fall under this bracket and just look at the state those clubs could potentially be in soon. Pompey were fucked over. Villa won't ever get the cash they need to break the top 4. Newcastle have been raped.

It can work well and not bring success like with those two gimps at West Ham who did a good job at Birmingham. Fulham have a decent owner and then Hull, Wolves, Bolton, Birmingham should never end up in trouble but will never achieve anything amazing.

City are blessed.

We have a owner who is super rich, cares, is a football fan and has Chelsea' best interests at heart. His only downside is his hunger for the CL which gave us a 2 year slump of sorts after getting rid of Jose. We are incredibly lucky.

I think I would prefer a system like Arsenals if we weren't lucky to have the worlds best chairman.