Quote Originally Posted by wendun View Post
John, I shall overlook the insults. I have argued at length my opposition on political and philosophical grounds to the "sugar daddy" model of club ownership. I have also laid out the economic aspects.
I find it sad that so-called socialists on here can see no alternative to being "saved" by a rich benefactor. It doesn't matter a fig to me if the owner is "good", it still means we operate at the whim of an individual and that principle is more important to me than sitting in a shiny new(ish) rented stadium. Many people - see for example John Nicholson's article in March 2022 - agree with me. In parts of Europe the English model is considered ridiculous. You can't have it both ways: if undemocratic ownership is wrong in the wider economy it's wrong in football.
Have you heard the expression "don't hate the player, hate the game"?

TS is in no way responsible for the English model of football. It is what it is.

He has run the club about as well as he can under that model.

Football in the UK is a private, capitalist, industry.

As things stood in 2008, without TS the club would have ceased to exist.

Of course, the idealist in me can see the appeal of a community-owned football club, but it's a fantasy in the current system. Who would run it? Who would invest? How would we have built a stadium?

The closest we could have come would have been the Millers Trust taking over in 2008 as a last resort. If that happened do you think we'd be in a better position than we are now?

It's one thing to idealistically prefer a community ownership model, but you probably follow the wrong sport in the wrong country. Regardless, to take out your frustrations at the system on TS is just downright bizarre.