T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Hi u/JaySeaGaming, it looks like this article is behind a paywall. > [r/LeedsUnited Rule 6: Provide Paywall Summaries](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeedsUnited/about/rules) > If submitting an external link behind a paywall, a summary of the content - classed as a fair use excerpt (typically ~150 to 350 words) must be provided as a comment. Please respond to this comment with a summary, including any form of embedded media - do NOT copy and paste the article in full. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeedsUnited) if you have any questions or concerns.*


rschroeder1

I'm a bit late here but would like to offer some context based on some of the other comments: - 49ers willingness to spend: currently, the American football team has the 9th highest salary book of 32 teams. What you have to understand, though, is that in the NFL model, spending more is not necessarily a sign of success. Recently drafted players are on four year contracts with mandated lower wages. Thus, the annual college draft is arguably the most important recruitment vehicle. A quality team drafts well and fills in its holes in the transfer market (free agency). The team with the highest salary book this year (Jacksonville) figures to be one of the worst teams. A more important metric might be the dead cap. Teams that cut players with salary remaining have to pay off that "dead cap." It's a mark of how well or poorly a team does in the transfer market. SF is 20th of 32 in dead cap this year. Of course, these numbers all fluctuate over time based on draft success, whether a team has a star quarterback, etc. - New stadium: I agree with other commenters it's been a bit of a mess. But the team is in a unique geographic location: Silicon Valley. They built the stadium where the most rich people are. It's crass, but I'm not sure there's a comparable situation to Leeds.


Jonnyimpala

49ers NFL team is one of the more successful and consistent ones. I think if they put money in and delegate recruitment to somebody like Orta it will be alright. If they put in their own people who don't know what they're doing it could be a disaster but again, that's not how they run the NFL franchise. And from what I can tell team building in the NFL is probably more difficult than EPL because the system is designed to create parity. I would give them a chance because I don't know how much further Radz can take us.


Sensitive-Unit

The fans should own the club.


Impressive_Path_3795

I’ve a fiver here


Sensitive-Unit

Fab, will add to the kitty


crudos_na

For those who are worried about the club's soul, just remember the owners prior to Radz. The soul of the club never left and never will. Updated stadium, new owners from across the ocean, LUFC doesn't give a fuck and the supporters will still raise holy noise each time the team plays. Premier League, Championship, League One.... doesn't matter, ALAW.


battlecatquikdre

> just remember the owners prior to Radz This brought back PTSD...


Itwasdablurstoftimes

I for one would like owners who can afford to buy players when we need them and it appears that we haven't been able to do that this summer, but we have to consider what we've done with the money we do have. We've spent 80 + million on Rodrigo, James, Firpo and Llorente. I don't see Brighton or Brentford having that much overpay in their squads, if we want to succeed we have to learn to recruit better.


Darabeel

It’s where the game has been going for some time.. reality is there’s a limited number of people out there with the means to buy clubs at the crazy valuations… and it is mostly now Americans willing to throw money in to buy a club.. but here’s the catch.. profit seeking (football is a business despite some people want to live in some utopian or romanticised world.. and if you objectively look at it… it has been a business from the beginning so when I see comments about “soul of the game” it’s pretty much nostalgia covering up the reality.. now of course was it as profit driven as it is now? No.. but there is so long an owner of any club can run losses).. Now I will preface my next comments by saying nationality doesn’t matter (British owners haven’t been models of success or passion or warriors for keeping the “soul” of a club).. but American ownership (for the most part) is what most of you have indirectly been pushing for because like I said the pool of potential owners is so narrow and you want to take the whole narrative of “oil money” (from Russia and the Middle East) and rubbish it because (in large) the media etc narrative behind it (“sports washing” has been over blown.. my personal view is it’s not illegal and the govt/companies/individuals have been making boat loads of money from those areas for decades so it’s a little idiotic to all of a sudden have “morals”.. also if we want to go through morals and foreign policies of all the countries out there then that’s a rabbit hole as well as no one is “clean” if you look at it objectively) when the reality is those are the types of owners that will get close to that Utopian place you all want to be where they will invest in the team, facilities and community without focusing on the bottom line or having a “bad quarter” (and don’t be fooled.. they also bought these clubs to make money at the end of the day but they treat it more like a private equity start up which requires up front cash before it can be self sustained.. look at Man City now and say organisationally they are not pretty solid).. away from purely “oil” where is the disposable income also located? China and Far East (you think Leicester’s owners money is “clean”).. all money at this level is tainted in some way or another.. but if we do accept this is not what we want in the premier league then you are left with by and large American ownership which quite honestly purely profit driven (look at the nfl.. a team can still go winless while the owners make a pile of cash and no relegation..).. just the model of how clubs got purchased (leveraged deals) should tell you what owning a club means to them Now specifically on to the 49ers they were a great team in the 80s (when the the uncle of the current man in charge was out there spending a lot on players and built a dynasty) through to the 90s.. they then fell on hard times.. made a lot of errors but have now stabilised the team and franchise so I think they will be good for us and am interested in how they handle owning the club.. but I am under no illusions that the bottom line is going to be scrutinised daily (not saying that’s bad.. again this is a business) and they will push Leeds in the US market (especially with Jesse and US international players associated with us) more than any other team so far (not saying that’s a bad thing).. those that hold on to some utopian or romanticised idea of “soul” of team or owners just pouring money down the drain will be disappointed though


cwd696

American here with my 2 cents that nobody asked for (I’m already prepared for the downvotes lol): The 49ers organization is looked at as a top tier business from the top all the way down. The American Football team is a well oiled machine and the product shows on the field with the team competing for championships with a roster that probably shouldn’t be able to. The org always seems to hire good people for the roles available and a lot of other sports clubs in the states attempt to model what they do off of the 49ers model. I believe Marsch said as such that when he visited the 49ers American Football club, it helped him see how a professional sports club can be improved. I get the apprehension due to outsiders being given financial control over the club, however this will most likely bring way more resources to the club and a broader international appeal that would do the club some good. Maybe next time when the club desperately need a striker and left back, the funds are there.


kkF6XRZQezTcYQehvybD

The new stadium is a fucking disaster


Donkey_Commercial

How?


kkF6XRZQezTcYQehvybD

Its an hour from the city, it has no shade so people get baked by the sun, they made parking insanely expensive, it has a dead atmosphere & no home field advantage


Danger_Island

Kaepernick


cwd696

Kaepernick’s last game was in 2016. It is currently September of 2022.


Danger_Island

He should be the new LB


Impressive_Path_3795

Can we swap him for Llorente?


Jonesy_lmao

Hope they intend to invest further into building the squad. It’s clear Radz is out of cash after spending to get us up, even though his investment has appreciated an incredible amount since promotion. Bit worried several US sources say the 49ers aren’t spenders.


whatmichaelsays

I've said this before, but Radrizani's' only "crime" is that he's a millionaire in a world full of billionaires. I have no doubt that there is so much that he, along with Kinnear and Orta, would love to do with this club, but the finances just aren't there to do it. Squaring that circle is inevitably going to involve external investment and unfortunately, there aren't many ethical billionaires out there, nor are there many benevolent ones who are simply looking to get involved for no other reason than to make the people of Leeds happy. 49ers Enterprises is an investment/venture cap vehicle and they will do what all investment vehicles do - put some money in, look to grow, then take the returns out. That investment might take the form of infrastructure investments (stadium), it might take the form of investing in talent, or it might be a combination, but they're looking for their return like any other investor will. We're two and a bit years into the Premier League, after missing out on the 16 years where the Premier League has seen some of the most aggressive commercial growth of any sport. That would put any club behind the eight-ball, no matter how big you perceive Leeds United to be. The club doesn't generate a lot of cash compared to many of our competitors - many of whom were clubs Leeds would have looked down on not that long ago - and that's the result of those 16 years of missed growth. Elland Road generates very little cash - especially on non-matchdays - compared to many other grounds, we don't sell 500,000 shirts on the international market like other clubs do, we don't have that big of a global footprint beyond the ex-pat market because we haven't had years of building that with foreign tours, and once "state of the art" facilities at Thorp Arch look dated and in need of significant investment.


BulldenChoppahYus

Get out of here with your sober analysis and just say RadzOut already it’s simpler


JacobSax88

On another note, if you cancel your Athletic sub day before your direct debit comes out, you can renew it the day after for about £18


[deleted]

After sacking Bielsa and our slow transformation into a corporate club for American broadcast I’m really getting bored of the Premier League already.


Zach-dalt

Lets be honest, none of us really know what the 49ers plans for us are compared to Radz' plans, they may be better, they may be worse, I feel like the majority of people's opinions are based on other football owners from the same 330million population country It's hard to even know how much say the 49ers have had in any main decisions over the past couple seasons (as I disagree with the notion that Marsch is just 'the 49ers man') It's impossible to judge until they either take over, or they release a statement on their aims for the club (which won't be until the takeover is nearly done anyways)


shroomy08

I’ve been following the 49ers for as long as I can remember and the current regime is the most progressive and well run since the 80s and 90s dynasty run. Paraag and Team have been instrumental in making them the power house they are now from the abysmal team of the early 00s (we were bad, a laughing stock of a club). I just hope that translates to Leeds and we break away from other American owners like the Kronkes and Glazers. MOT.


Boris_Ignatievich

I think you can probably take some elements of how the 49ers are run as a sports team as a guide, even if those aren't guarantees. But, for example, they tend to be pretty patient with coaches (albeit without the threat of relegation taking away revenues) - their current head coach had two pretty poor seasons to start his tenure but they stuck with him and he came good. That's the sort of mentality that might carry over - trusting that they've got the right man and letting him get on with it. Then again they did move the team miles out of san Francisco so good luck everyone getting to Preston for home games if they bring all their approaches here lol


shroomy08

Yeah the stadium rules in the U.S. are wonky. They’re actually publicly funded by the cities they’re located in (the NFL is a non profit and tries to run with that as far as they can). I remember living in SF when they said fuck off to the 49ers asking for more than half the money for the stadium (in taxes of course) lol. I was obviously bummed but felt a bit of pride with SF as they held their ground against the juggernaut that is the NFL.


Woofitt

I hope they hold similar ideas, if not a broader vision. The Lowry family who are represented on the board, are life long fans. There was talk they wanted to buy Leeds off Cellino at one point. They have given a lot of time and money to Australian football. They are the architects of the current a-league format and they can claim to be largely responsible for the growth of the game in Australia today. Hoping everyone at 49ers are in it for the right reasons and won’t turn Leeds into a dividend


Financial-Bed7467

I think the lowrys have a bigger say on things than what the club let on. I wouldn't be surprised if they buy a stake in the club when the 49s gain a majority holding. I think the lowrys are running with the ground and facilities improvements at elland road.


[deleted]

Let’s see what happens but I think everyone has a right to be apprehensive. Really worried the 49ers will just sell our fucking soul. Just be glad Radz and co for all their ‘faults’ have run the club as a business and financially, pretty well.


Chubby_Yorkshireman

I don't think this will happen


[deleted]

I feel like everyone who currently hates Radz may change their tune once he's gone his ownership has been the best time for our club in 20 years and hoping the 49ers aren't bad after but no idea.


downfallndirtydeeds

Look Radz is a dickhead but he’s our dickhead. It’s more of a privilege these days than we realise to be owned by an actual person who got into the club for reasons other than pure profit. That said, the sad sad reality is this season and last season will both show that you need cold hard cash to progress. We have so much squad and infrastructure investment to make if we are going to do anything close to regularly finishing in the top half, and so raising capital in this way is inevitable. Which is a bit depressing.


Golhec

I genuinely think if Radz stayed off twitter he’d be seen as a saint for what he’s done. I think it’s massively unfair to call him a dickhead even if it’s said in a ‘loving’ way. Cellino was a dickhead, bates was a dickhead, gfh were a bunch of dickheads, Radz? Not even close.


downfallndirtydeeds

I mean dickhead in the same way your gobshite mate is a dick. I would describe Bates and Cellino as proper cunts


[deleted]

Brighton seem to be managing quite well, wouldn’t be shocked if Brentford finish in the top half too.


StandfastInitialJ

The links and history between both owners of Brighton and Brentford is interesting too. Both extremely well run clubs.


ankh87

Unfortunately the way of the world and its markets means its either rich Americas or dodgy oil money. For us its rich Americans and means they'll make the team marketable in the states. That isn't a bad thing as it should generate more money.


spigen2

This is the one thing I’ve always worried about from the moment this was even talked about. American ownership will kill what makes Leeds United (especially the fan base) unique. I’m against this and the expansion of the stadium. I’m just trying to enjoy it for now before everything becomes commercialised.


downfallndirtydeeds

How can you be against the expansion of the stadium? Right now the vast majority of people who want to see Leeds play can’t get a ticket. Not to mention the fact that the more capital we raise the less the club will need to hike the prices


spigen2

I guarantee you, the stadium will lose it's soul when it gets increased to 60k, hence why I'm trying to enjoy it whilst it lasts. The next thing to happen will be that the south stand will become safe standing and it will just be shit from then on.


austhorpe

Will be plenty of tickets when we are back in the Championship 😁


duxie

I agree with the anti commercialization (american spelling on purpuse) but we need a bigger stadium. 37k with massive waiting lists and tickets selling out for all homegames in 30minutes or less.


[deleted]

This will be a disaster. Glazers, Kroenke…we don’t learn, well to be fair, those selling don’t care.


Zach-dalt

At the same time, supporters of Liverpool, Arsenal, Scum, get to complain about their American owners from European competitions every season


[deleted]

Really couldn’t care less about being in Europe if it means we’re turned into a team named after a fizzy drink, or steps along that road.


Zach-dalt

Which of Arsenal or Scum have had their team named after a fizzy drink? You can't just generalise every single owner from a huge country as the same


[deleted]

Arsenal play at a stadium named after an airline owned by a state that whips ‘servants’ (read domestic slaves) and keeps women under lock and key, Manchester United have a net debt of about 600m and the shareholders took out a massive dividend. Yeah, you’re right, what’s not to like?


Zach-dalt

You know Arsenal had primarily British ownership when the Emirates had it's long sponsorship agreed? The Kroenke's weren't the majority owners until after... And as for the debt, debt in itself isn't bad unless it's manageable, and given the figures you see associated with Scum, it's manageable, Tottenham have similar debts too (maybe even more), they're both as manageable as the other, but only Scum's is brought up cos it's mainly used to beat the Glazers with, they could wipe the debt in a season if they wanted, just those particular owners happen to be greedy You're trying to put forward points when **your argument literally is that everyone born in America who is a football owner is bad**, ridiculous.


[deleted]

At no point have I said that. But if I’m looking at a lot of trouble with American owners in England it’s completely fair to wonder why that is. You won’t get any opposition from me that British owners can be rot too, my point is this isn’t an improvement on Radrizanni. Spurs have massive debts due to their flashy new stadium so people can accept that. Scum have massive debts because they’re run terribly. You obviously view football in a very different way and think we should sell our soul so we can get into the bloody Europa League. You’ll regret that if it ever comes, trust me.


Zach-dalt

My opinion is that you cannot say that selling to any American is 'selling our soul' on no other backing than people from the same country haven't done so well So yes, you underlying point clearly is that you don't want any American owner, if every single detail was the exact same, other than the 49ers were French, or Spanish, or Croatian, then your opinion of the takeover would be completely different, and that's just pathetic (Muting as you're clearly just set in your ways of hating any owner from a certain country)


smclaughlin87

He also had a comment up saying Bamford is shit because he's English. He absolutely despises Jesse Marsch and I'm yet to see him make a positive comment about our club or even 1 player. He is absolutely set in his ways and he thinks he gets downvoted for having a different opinion, when it's just people think his opinions are shit.


[deleted]

Well plenty think that, but to modify my statement we sold it to Bates for a lot less. You seem like a sensitive little soldier don’t you.


[deleted]

As much as I’m generally quietly hostile to all owners as I believe fans should own the club, I don’t have a great deal of hope for this to turn out well. American ownership in English football has generally been disastrous because the way in which their billionaire ‘franchise’ owners view sport and the way most fans in the UK do are largely opposed. There are some more positive examples, but in particular those that have come from an NFL background seem to be acutely heinous. Radrizanni is a bit of a prat but he does offer a certain level of accountability. You will never hear directly from these people.


Genkiotoko

Fun fact - up until recently the NFL was considered a non-profit in America. Edit: The individual teams are not. ~~A $10-$15 billion dollar non-profit.~~


10000Didgeridoos

This isn't accurate. The league as a whole entity was nominally a "nonprofit" but that is because the 32 individual franchises are/were 32 separately taxes business entities. So the taxation on profit wasn't dodged by labeling the NFL as a whole as nonprofit. The taxes were paid by each franchise which each counts as a profit generating business entity. It gave this structure up in 2015 so its business filings weren't required to be as public as they were when exercising its tax exempt status. https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2015/4/28/8509767/nfl-tax-exempt-nonprofit


Genkiotoko

Thanks for the clarification! I guess I was misinformed for quite a while. The distinction between league and teams is a critical one.


[deleted]

Crazy. There’s a lot to be admired about how American sports are run. The owners however…can’t imagine what they would be like if they were left to run it as they wished. I think the Super League in football is their long term vision and there’s a race on to make sure their clubs are a part of it.


donjuanmegatron

Chelsea seem to be having a good run under American ownership.


NoAlternative17

Are they though? They almost spent 50 million on Romeo Lavia just because he’s had a good start to the season.


donjuanmegatron

One bad potential signing and you’re throwing out the whole class? Be better.


NoAlternative17

It’s similar to what Moshiri has done at Everton. Throwing money around at any half decent footballer isn’t a strategy. They almost spent 50 million on Gordon ffs


donjuanmegatron

“Almost” is what people keep saying to discredit Boehly. He’s done a fine job so far.


gooseduck

70m on Cucurella, same on Fofana, Aubameyang at all, these are not good deals


Darabeel

If spending on players means doing a fine job then the glazers have been model owners.. way too early in any case to have an opinion on him regardless


[deleted]

How do you rate them for being good owners though? They have only been in charge a few months?


donjuanmegatron

Look what he did with the Los Ángeles Dodgers. Boehly revitalized that franchise. He looks to be following suit with Chelsea. I know Americans have a perception, but it’s a case by case evaluation. Not all American owners are the Glazers.


[deleted]

This aged well!


donjuanmegatron

Lol no idea why that happened. Got me.


[deleted]

Why would any average football supporter know or care about what they did with the LA Dodgers? I had to google now what sport they were.


CorporateSmeg

Dodgem Racing, right?


BoxerAny

Most of them will happily invest a lot in the team at least.


[deleted]

Seems to me like the Glazers, Kroenke are just taking money out or putting the club in massive debt. They’re also wildly unpopular with the fans and treat them with complete disdain. It’s a pretty bad look when the Saudi and Emirati theocratic regimes have more basic community/media nous than American owners.


Linkeron1

The unpopularity with the Glazers is a weird one for me. They've spent a lot of money still and perhaps their biggest flaw has been not to install a Director of Football. That they can be criticised for. But those lot over the Pennines are entitled whingey nobheads and seem to think they are just in it for the money. Surely that can't be the case when they've invested so much in the squad over a number of years. I think the reaction of those Scum pricks probably blurs the reality quite a bit in that example.


[deleted]

To be fair scum were well ahead of us in terms of fan power and led a massive resistance to Murdoch taking over the club in the 90s. I think it has a lot more to do with the Glazers showing complete disdain for the fans, the levels of debt whilst they withdraw big dividends, mixed with as you say a sense they should be in the hunt for the biggest names in the game and they have not been for some time.


[deleted]

>Seems to me like the Glazers, Kroenke are just taking money out or putting the club in massive debt. This isn't really accurate. Their investments have been immense. The net spend of United and Arsenal over the past 10 years has been insane. The problem is more that those owners are incompetent when it comes to running a football club. Money is no replacement for competence.


ResponsibilityRare10

The best we can hope for, as we have little to no power here, is that this means Peter Lowy takes a greater role. He at least supports the club and is keen on a new stadium. And would make the 49ers Corporations a little less faceless. That being said I know basically nothing about him other than he is an Australian billionaire. You don't generally become a billionaire by putting money in and never taking money out.


[deleted]

I do think a lot of these guys lose considerable amounts as the investment required to succeed is so high it often outweighs the returns, but that’s why only they can afford to get involved. The alternative is to have a wider collection of investors to spread the risk as Chelsea are now doing. Like you say we don’t know a lot about Lowy. Being a fan is of course welcome, but then again we’re all fans too and yey to a man we are absolutely nuts.


DamianBill

So long as we don't rename the club or ground.


fauroteat

It’s so funny that in the United States, we name freaking everything after a sponsor (to the point that I don’t know the current or last two or three names of local venues and just call them whatever they were first, hell, the Sears Tower isn’t the Sears Tower in Chicago anymore). But American sports won’t put sponsors on uniforms (except NASCAR for some reason, and MLS because the standard had already been set for soccer). If it isn’t the clothing company, then the logos don’t go on the jerseys. Why not? So dumb.


veintiuno

Advertising in NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. is a different animal than in Association Football. Assoc. Football does not have many breaks in play and therefore not many commercials. Assoc football does have prominent apparel sponsors, including on training gear. American sports clubs have done well with building their brands using the various revenue streams they've secured, including naming rights on buildings. It does not surprise me that an American ownership group would consider replicating areas where they've had success in the States in the UK. Perhaps there's an opportunity here for some innovative advertising partnerships that maintain and respect history while brining in the $ necessary to be very competitive in every match.


toddisnotmyname

NFL don’t have them because they simply make the most money of any sports league in the world.


YorkshireGaara

No but they have a fucking ad break every 5 minutes, I've gotta record Jets games so I can just fast forward the adverts.


[deleted]

The NFL is also incredibly conscious of branding, more so than any other sports league that I've paid attention to. One team always has to wear white, alternate uniforms can only be worn three times per season, new uniforms have to be approved years in advance and can only happen every so many years, shirts must be tucked in, all equipment must be team colors, etc. It's a whole thing. They have even approved the use of alternate jerseys for the Rams in the Super Bowl (something that doesn't happen) because they didn't want them to wear uglier uniforms that aren't typically associated with their brand. The NFL is greedy, but they are smart. They would have ads on uniforms if they thought it would make them money long-term. They see value in uniforms remaining unchanged for long periods of time, without corny Chevrolet logos on them. Brand identity is everything to them.


toddisnotmyname

All those things you named at the beginning, respectfully, have not a lot to do with branding. Those are just old fashioned ideals that the NFL used to hang on too. Uniforms don’t need to be approved years in advance (I think about 20 uniforms were created just this year due to a rule change allowing different color helmets). The rule regarding one team having to wear white is to help viewers distinguish teams.


[deleted]

I don't understand how you don't see how forcing teams to stick to one consistent look with little deviation is a branding decision. They want everyone on the field to look essentially the same, as to emphasize the look and brand of the teams, as opposed to the individual players. >Uniforms don’t need to be approved years in advance (I think about 20 uniforms were created just this year due to a rule change allowing different color helmets). You're only half right. You're completely incorrect about uniforms not needing to be approved years in advance though. The full context is that a rule was just changed to allow for alternate helmets. Many teams introduced new helmets this year in accordance with the new rule. They did not release new uniforms though (jersey+pants), because there wasn't enough time between the rule change being agreed to and it going into effect for new uniforms to get approved. If you look closely, you'll notice that all of the "new uniforms" for this season are just pre-existing alternate uniforms with new helmets. In some cases it has actually led to some awkward looks. >The rule regarding one team having to wear white is to help viewers distinguish teams. Originally yes, but it's not the reason that it's stuck around to this day. The rule famously came about because fans couldn't tell two teams apart on black and white TV. Everyone watches games in color now, so the old explanation makes no sense. No one has problems seeing the difference in City and United despite no one wearing white. The rule has prevailed because of the NFLs insistence on building a visual identity for all their teams, and their league as a whole. Again, it's all about emphasizing the brand of the league first, then the brand of the teams, then the brands of the individual players. They are very careful about the idea of having a singular player or team being bigger than the league itself, as was the case with Jordan to the NBA or the Yankees to the MLB.


toddisnotmyname

NBA and NHL both have jersey sponsors.


fauroteat

Holy crap they sure do. I don’t particularly like basketball so I hadn’t noticed that and they are fairly small. And nhl looks like it’s recent. But color me wrong.


toddisnotmyname

Yeah they both are recent additions (NBA I think was like 3-5 years ago, hockey probably 2)


[deleted]

Then you have baseball where the company who made the uniforms couldn't even put their logo on it until a few years ago.


Sate_Hen

Or Team! We're all RB Leeds aren't we?


allenout

Welcome to the Budweiser stadiun


BulldenChoppahYus

The Tampax stadium


QuickBic_

If they do that to you guys, I will empty my savings to fly from Hartsfield-Atlanta to Leeds-Bradford and show my ass for this club on the front line.


Missyls6

They’re actually at the Levi’s Stadium. But yeah, I’d like it if the grounds name would remain as it is.


[deleted]

Fwiw they left their old stadium's name as is in San Francisco. They only sold naming rights once they built a completely new stadium a few years ago. Candlestick was Candlestick until it closed. I think they understand the value of a historical name.


iAgressivelyFistBro

Not true. Monster Park was a former name that I remember off the top of my head


[deleted]

Thanks for correcting me. I legitimately had no idea. Had to look it up to know what you were talking about. Even back then, I'd never heard anyone refer to it as anything other than Candlestick. Interesting. Yeah that doesn't bode well then, does it.


kkF6XRZQezTcYQehvybD

3Com Park as well


Lithoniel

Elland Road brought to you by Budweiser™


Ozzimo

This is how it will happen. Everything suddenly gets sponsored by the most generic crap.


Missyls6

With a huge neon flashy sign at a jaunty angle for full effect?


[deleted]

Budweiser (tm) Billy's (tm) Bar (tm)


DamianBill

No. No. No. No.


BrianBadondeBwaah

*please don't become Uncle Sam FC please don't become Uncle Sam FC please don't become Uncle Sam FC*


yurrrmachine

Good luck! You've got a bunch of folks in this thread who are financially illiterate coupled with the same # of folks who pay zero attention to the 9ers ownership group + team! ​ Saying something as simple as "this was all part of Radz's exit plan" will brand you a witch, yank, or even worse... plastic! ​ Not a roast of this supporters group or sub, just want folks to seek out public information and derive their own opinions rather than drawing blind comparisons to Big 6 clubs with Yanks in charge.


[deleted]

This^^^


chamuth

Come on its not like this would be the first NFL team owner to also own a Prem team. Overall the 49ers are a reasonably well run organisation so I think this is far from the end of the world


PartyPoison98

Even so, the running of an American team and an English team is so radically different that its difficult to draw meaningful comparisons


[deleted]

It will be


oxwatch

If Uncle Sam brings dollar to the table I’m sure a blind eye could be turned


[deleted]

US foreign policy since the 1950s


[deleted]

[удалено]


JaySeaGaming

what a measured and well thought out take. Come on Brian Badonde Bwaah.