I don't agree that if they succeed, we succeed. If Gregory had succeeded in scrapping the Club in 1967 and 1987 or Wright had succeeded in doing so in 2001, there would have no QPR to achieve any kind of success.
And we must remember that that was Gregory's intention from the outset. In 1967, he had only been Chairman for 2 years.
Gold and Sullivan succeeded in pocketing £81 million which I assume was almost entirely profit.
But Birmingham didn't make £81 million from the deal. And if the pattern of the modern game is repeated at St Andrews, Birmingham will LOSE £81 million, assumning the incoming chairman dumps the purchase price on the Club as debt.
Gold and Sullivan were successful from their own point of view, but Birmingham was no more successful under them than it has been at any time in its history.
To be honest, I would say that investors are successful to the extent that the Club isn't. And, from their point of view, the competition is not between 'their' Club and other Clubs, but between the interests of their business, and the interests of the Club.
When debts are run up, who incurs the debt? The investors, or the Club? When they sell their shares, who receives the profits? The Club? Hardly. And aren't their business activities - including the activities of the holding company - confidential? Certainly, the different businesses which own shares in the holding company operate confidentially. We don't see their accounts, and we have no idea what their intentions or purposes are.
And we can be very sure they won't tell us anything they don't want us to know.
As a supporter, it is instinctive for me to give the credit for everything - as well as the blame for its shortcomings - to the Club. While it is in their interest - through all the apparatus of PR and advertising - to present the an 'image' for public consumption which is no more than any 'business' - or any gangster - does.
Even Gregory's unusual successes on the field didn't discourage him from pursuing his own interests at the expense of the Club's. On the contrary - and as Venables suggested - Gregory saw success as 'his'. The Club was entirely dispensable, and the supporters, for practical purposes, didn't exist.
Yet it was QPR which provided HIM with a place in football, with a ready-made footballing institution, not only in the League, but with a track record of staying in the League for the best part of a century, with sizeable support, and a ground more than sufficient in capacity for its present level of (in)competence.
None of these 'creative' people have created anything in the game. Neither success - which, in any case, is the Club's - still less the 'business' of QPR itself.
Yet QPR gets little or no credit. THEY have acquired it, THEY will fund it - ha ha ha - THEY will make all the decisions, and THEY will pocket the 'value' of the Club if they sell THEIR shares.
Do they work for the Club? Are they under the Club's direction. Were they appointed on the basis that they were the best football people available? Can they be dismissed by the Club?
The vast sums which the Club receives from its supporters - I think it is something like £165 million in my time at a very conservative estimate - these are never referred to.
Lacking footballing know-how and talent, do any of them put any money in, all these millionaires and billionaires. The debts running into billions suggest not.
So it will be fascinating indeed - and I'm sure Bhatia wouldn't lie
- to see how far the supporters 'ownership' of the Club goes under whoever the new bloke is. When they 'sell', for example. What, exactly, WILL they be selling, if the supporters 'are the real owners of the Club'?
Perhaps that is the 64,000 dollar question. What exactly is the significance of the word 'real' to them? And what is their interest in suggesting that they are not the real owners of the Club. I assume that's what they are saying. With a view to ... getting us to believe something they clearly do not?
Handsome is as handsome does.
On that basis, I'm minded to reverse the proposition. Taking the view that the Club is - and will prove to be - successful - largely
to the extent that they are not.