I would much rather be run by a couple of Americans, perceived as tight wads but have still funded a top-notch academy, than a representative of a nation state which executes people without trial.

There are always negatives but the positives outweigh them (IMO).

According to the story in my paper this morning, the Chelsea bidding process is down to a shortlist of 3 and one of them is the Broughton group which has the backing of Harris and Blitzer.

This, however, has not been confirmed by The Raine Group that is handling the sale.

Dad and I watched games standing on the muddy slope of the Holmesdale Road end. He cheered and I rattled.

I'd have thought it highly unlikely RA was taking money out of the club simply because he doesn't need to. Jordan's problem was that his appetite was far bigger than his budget. He was way over-extended owning Palace, which is more or less why he lost the club (when borrowings were called in). RA is swimming in (ill-gotten) money; the last thing he's ever needed to do is find more of it. In fact, as you point out Chelsea (and sports washing) were a pretty good way of getting rid of some of the excesses. Whether that amounts to laundering you would have to know the nuanced legal definition of laundering (I don't) to make a judgment.

Nothing surprises me anymore either but one thing that is clear is that many of today's owners exist in an entirely different financial stratosphere to the sort of businessmen who used to own football clubs. And as such, they bring a different set of legal and financial issues with them. For a long time, clubs were owned by what amounted to "local boys made good" (Bloye, Noades, Jordan, Ken Bates, the Edwards' at Man Utd. among them). These were wealthy people within their communities, but nonentities in international commerce terms. They were wealthy enough to spread a little local flash but many soon ran into trouble when real money was required. In contrast, the sorts who presently own clubs (Man City, Liverpool, Everton, Newcastle, and even Palace with Harris and Blitzer) operate on another planet altogether. Whether they spend a lot or a little on their football investments, only a market crash of unimaginable proportions would ever see any of their clubs go to the wall. They are seriously rich, where their predecessors were really just pound-shop big shots.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

People need to understand that while Textor is wealthy by the standards you and I recognise, he is not particularly wealthy by today's football club owner standards. He's a multimillionaire, yes. He's not a billionaire by any stretch of the imagination. And the source of his wealth (essentially, disruptive technologies and their associated companies, mainly in the broadcasting industry) are exposed to far more risk than, say, the source of Josh Harris' money (hedge funds, investments). Textor could lose his fortune reasonably quickly in adverse market conditions. Harris couldn't (or would be highly unlikely to). Harris is a legitimate billionaire. He IS seriously wealthy. Textor is not.

What separates the two is that Textor clearly enjoys having a high profile, likes the limelight, and as a result is willing to spend money to pursue it. To that extent, he's more like the traditional football club owner. That's all good and supporters love it. And obviously, Palace has benefitted from it. Harris (and Blitzer) on the other hand, prefer keeping a lower profile, see the club as an investment to nurture, but to nurture cautiously and fairly slowly, and there's nothing wrong with that either.

If Harris and Blitzer walked away, I'd be worried until we found another significant investor. If Textor walked away, I might be pissed off that our transfer budget in the next window was smaller but I wouldn't be worried about the stability of our club at all.

Edited by sydtheeagle (25 Mar 2022 11.50am)

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

I find it difficult to believe that arrangements are not already in hand for H & B to sell their Palace stakes should the bid they're involved with for Chelsea be successful. They must have provided some evidence to Raine to show that they can offload their Palace stakes quickly, surely.

The question, of course, is who has been lined up to buy their stakes - not Textor, I suspect and not Parish (although both might buy some shares).

Edited by doombear (25 Mar 2022 11.57am)

Agree with this too. They have the money to run Chelsea; those two guys are seriously rich so I've no doubt about that. But their profile doesn't really fit the club, and the way it's come to expect to be run. As you say, they're not flash. And Chelsea are. In many ways, Harris and Blitzer are quite a good fit for a club our size, notwithstanding that many of our supporters would like owners who dispensed cash of Chelsea-like proportions.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.