Wrexham...

"Wrexham are where they are because of their owners"

As I've said, I'm struggling with your logic that it's bad for owners to come in, increase revenues (however they've done it), and thus improve the club and get them up the leagues.

Explain to me why it's a bad thing, because I'm missing it.

How else do you expect clubs to do it?

 

The argument of they are where they are because of money is ridiculous, of course they are, tell me the last team to have the intensity of success in the space of time without money?
Man city and Chelsea would have been no where near without money 13 PL titles and 3 UCL between them, Man utd, Liverpool and Arsenal can't touch them for league titles in the last 15 years.
Further down the scale Ipswich's owners put 35m investment into them and achieved successive promotions, Bournemouth has huge investment to rise through the league, Brentford's Mathew Benham has funded Brentford, there's Tony Bloom at Brighton who's done an unreal Job.
It's 2025 not 1985 where Joe bloggs manager gets a group of players together and goes through the league, it takes money these days.
Tell you what if someone had walked into Oakwell and spent a ton of cash and had us in the PL there wouldn't be a peep.

Seems like if you are a small club it's a case of stay in your lane how dare you spend money and have success.
Good luck to them, gives hope to others whilst others lose there s***

 

Surely ALL clubs are where they are because of their owners?

 

Again, I haven’t said it’s a bad thing. It’s obviously good for Wrexham, at the moment at least.

You keep making the wrong assertion that I said it’s a bad thing. I haven’t. It’s obviously good for Wrexham at the moment , just as investment was good for Wigan & Reading for a short period of time, but neither could sustain their success. It’s just not for me.

I think it’ll go tits up for wrexham once they’ve reached their ceiling too, but time will tell.

 

The argument that they’re ‘where they are because of the owners’ isn’t ridiculous in the context that you’ve broken your neck to make out that they’re doing something different, but investment is investment, regardless of how it’s raised.

If we can agree on that, then that’s all that matters. Little point in arguing over opinions. It’s either your thing or it isn’t.

 

That’s not the point. The argument was ‘they have done well because of the money invested’ v ‘but they’ve raised the money a different way’, which I honestly get, but either way they’ve still given the club a huge boost.

 

I'm really not sure what you're arguing so let's just give it up.

 

You obviously didn't read the part where I said of course they are.
They bought a club for 2.5m valued at just over 1m, now valued over 100m that has a turnover close to 30m achieving 3 promotions on the trot which has never been done before in the history of the English leagues posting a 7m loss in 3 seasons which included paying the owners 13m back.
Their expansion in the U.S and plans for the far East are on an astronomical scale and the interest in them is huge through Ryan Reynolds profile and the documentary.
There hasn't been a club come from the same standing point they have that's grown to the scale they have financially - fact, so yes they have done something different.

Right here and now in 2025 as a club profile they dwarf us, there might only be one league difference but they are way ahead of us.
They've shown innovation, its been a very clever model using the status of the owners.
In the same period we've regressed and lost 13m more than they have.
Other than folk having their noses shoved out I really don't see the problem, Good luck and let them crack on, be great to see them get to the PL, it would be boring have the same old same old year in.

 

Yeah, please do.

 

I get all that. It’s just not for me, and if everyone was doing it there would be a stalemate with no advantage to be had.

Let’s see how all the smaller sugar daddy clubs get on long term before deciding it’s the way to go.