Is the Grass Greener

I will open this article by saying that i do not know the answers to my own questions and that i am not a Bates supporter but hear goes...

hypothically speaking if the takeover is complete are we actually going to be better off? and i am thinking long term here.

We have all made an assumption that the grass will be greener on the other side and the take over will give a fresh injection of cash to purchase those 1 or 2 star players that will turn an average, workmanlike team into promotion candidates.

But over the past few years we have seen forign investment in clubs actually be to the detriment of the club.

Look at Portsmouth - successive takeovers by russian and middle eastern businessmen proved false dawns and after an inital upturn in spending the funding dried up and the club ended up in a worse position

Same at Man City - everyone seems to have forgot the takeover by Shinawatra prior to the current regime. After boasting that he would bring back the glory days and spend bit, he was done by the Thai authorities for fraud, all his funds were siezed and City were in a financal mess (Ok i know it turned out ok but it could so easily have gone the other way).

Those are just the most famous 2 i can think of off the top of my head but i am sure there are others (Gillett and Hicks, the icelandic guy at Villa etc etc)

Ok a bit of a ramble there but basically my point is how much do we know about the potential investors (from what i have heard they are successful businessmen but then so were a lot of other failed investors).

Getting Bates out is definitly a priority, Yes, but lets not get to over exited until we see what the new guys are like!