For argument's sake, Sam Morgan says to Terry I will buy Wgtn Phoenix off you for $150,000. Terry says, done, let's shake hands. The two of thm go to the FFA, FFA says great, we agree and approve Morgan as owner, club sold to Morgan - are you telling me that situation cannot occur?[/QUOTE]
Of course not, but I would expect that someone as smart as Sam Morgan would also be able to appreciate the reality of the situation and that he was not buying control over some very important things; such as the Wellington Phoenix brand. All we are disagreeing about here is what really defines "ownership". I think that the A-League "owners" are closer to being funders. You don't. No biggie.
[QUOTE=james dean]This is absolute myth making. First you've said Terry shouldn't go because he wasn't in trouble. WHen is has become clear that he is, you say he shouldn't go because there is no-one else. Now you're saying that he shouldn't go because in fact he can't sell the club.
Of course not, but I would expect that someone as smart as Sam Morgan would also be able to appreciate the reality of the situation and that he was not buying control over some very important things; such as the Wellington Phoenix brand. All we are disagreeing about here is what really defines "ownership". I think that the A-League "owners" are closer to being funders. You don't. No biggie.
[QUOTE=james dean]This is absolute myth making. First you've said Terry shouldn't go because he wasn't in trouble. WHen is has become clear that he is, you say he shouldn't go because there is no-one else. Now you're saying that he shouldn't go because in fact he can't sell the club.
"Absolute myth-making"? That seems a little unfair! I'm not saying that Terry "shouldn't go because in fact he can't sell the club" at all. My point is simply that when potential investors look at the substance of "owning" an A-League franchise they may be disappointed to find out what that really means.