Originally Posted by
Zippity
Listening to and reading the news about the Leicester owner, I've been taken back by just how high a regard he was held in. I don't mean I'm surprised about why he was so liked, more that I just hadn't realised the relationship between him/his family and the city/club. He was genuinely loved by the fans not only because of what they achieved under his ownership but because of the way he 'bought into' the club and the city and the way he conducted himself as their owner. Also hadn't realised how much he did for charities in the city.
Now contrast this with our abomination of an owner. He had the chance to be a legend in our city yet every story associated with him is a negative one from insulting buyers interested in taking the club off his hands and disgracing himself at board meetings to being forced in court to admit to lying and wilfully running this club into the ground. The list of complaints against him is almost endless and that's before you get into his other main business. Buying a football club like ours should be as much an investment in the fans, the city, the people, the area as it is an investment in a team. It wouldn't have taken much to show an interest in the area, get involved in a local charity, show some respect to an institution which has so much meaning in people's lives but instead, he's shat all over all those things I mentioned.
Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha showed how to buy and run a club properly; Mike Ashley is the exact opposite. Much as Leicester City are the better for having had him as owner, we are, to an equal extent, poorer for having had Ashley as ours.
(Let's keep any replies classy, folks...)
