14

[Terrier]

Just reading that Leeds and ourselves takes american owned clubs in the prem to 11, people starting to worry what will happen when(if)it gets to 14 when then apparently they have a lot bigger say in things.
Liverpool owner already saying his dream is to have prem matches taking place in new York.

[GetIntoEm]

Would love to go and watch Burnley play in New York tbf

[Middle-agedClaret]

Well - I know I’m probably old-fashioned, and a bit reactionary, but I don’t see it as a positive.
I think the American involvement is all about money, marketing and commercial exploitation.
I don’t think there is ever anything more than a superficial and transient regard for the club, or its history, or traditions.
The almost inevitable outcome of growing Americanisation would be a bland, homogeneous corporate league, with an erosion of local affiliation. Fans would be come even more incidental, and owners would be happy to market their “product” to Premier League tourists with no regard for the clubs playing.
And I would have no desire to see BFC play in the USA.
UTC.

[Spike]

Would love to go and watch Burnley play in New York tbf

Not going to happen . Overseas matches with Clarets viewing seem taboo under the current regime

[CyrilEbokiPoh]

Would love to go and watch Burnley play in New York tbf

I would. In a friendly. Perhaps an international cup. MAYBE if we ever got there a community shield game.

In a league or domestic cup match?! No, Nay Never!

[ClaretTony]

Just reading that Leeds and ourselves takes american owned clubs in the prem to 11, people starting to worry what will happen when(if)it gets to 14 when then apparently they have a lot bigger say in things.
Liverpool owner already saying his dream is to have prem matches taking place in new York.

It really is a worry and that number will grow

[CyrilEbokiPoh]

It really is a worry and that number will grow

The problem is, what's the alternative?

The days of being able to compete with a local business owner are sadly long gone in most cases. We were really lucky with our previous regimes.

Wealthy local owners are non existent (or at least more sensible)

Brentford are owned by a Brit. But in grand scheme of things he is not that wealthy (I wouldnt mind being a quid behind him)
Brighton are the only other Brutish owned club and even though Tony Bloom is a billionaire - he is the third poorest owner and by some stretch!

and then there is us - the only ones owned by Americans who have no money

Ethically would I be happy with Newcastle's ownership? Probably not. But I don't see what our options are. There are very very few very wealthy North West business people. And even less from East Lancs.

So we have to either hope we get bought at some point by a nation state, deal with the sort of consortium we have today, or punch above our weight in other ways.

Not beyond the realms of possibility. There are clubs way down the leagues in England with owners much wealthier than ours. Not that it ever helped Preston!

[NottsClaret]

The 'connection' between top clubs and their communities is getting pretty tenuous, maybe less so at ours but it's still heading in that direction. Playing matches away from your town - let alone country - and you may as well call it a day, it's basically franchise football at that point.

[BigGaz]

Whilst I agree with the broader sentiment, there is some very lazy generalism and prejudice going on in here

The path we are on in football started with the inception of the Premier League, and owners of all nationalities, including British ones, have propelled us down it. The Premier League themselves are culpable as much as the owners by not showing strength and bringing them all to heel.

It's already a homogenous, bland, corporate league and it has been for a decade or more. If you think that the ongoing march towards late stage capitalism would be halted by 20 English owners being parachuted in then I've got some magic beans to sell you.

[dsr]

The apparent prejudice about American owners is not because they're American per se, it's because the American sports model involves two things which are anathema. One, that the owners expect to take money out of the club; two, that incomes should be safeguarded by having no promotion or relegation.

Not all American sports owners are necessarily like that, but that is the basic template.

[TheFamilyCat]

Just reading that Leeds and ourselves takes american owned clubs in the prem to 11, people starting to worry what will happen when(if)it gets to 14 when then apparently they have a lot bigger say in things.
Liverpool owner already saying his dream is to have prem matches taking place in new York.

Probably back down to nine next season then, so no urgent need to worry.

[Nonayforever]

Probably back down to nine next season then, so no urgent need to worry.

As far fetched as it sounds, I could envisage a scenario whereby American owned clubs struggling at the foot of the PL "somehow " win enough points to stay up at the expense of other clubs in the relegation places.

[IanMcL]

The apparent prejudice about American owners is not because they're American per se, it's because the American sports model involves two things which are anathema. One, that the owners expect to take money out of the club; two, that incomes should be safeguarded by having no promotion or relegation.

Not all American sports owners are necessarily like that, but that is the basic template.

When you add in the fact that they all appear to buy by leveraging the club itself, whilst there is relegation, clubs hang by a thread.

American model is, potentially, bad for our football, where local identity matters.