Are they really doing things in the right way for owners with means though?
The only thing that PST ownership could not sensibly achieve was large scale investment in the infrastructure of the club - for example to rebuild & expand the stadium.
With their resources the Eisners could have started process that on day 1, and sensibly funded it out of other cash flow with the understanding that said investment would be repaid long term by owning an asset with higher turnover and increased value. If you have the initial assets to fund a rebuild of the North Stand and extension of the Fratton End, you can certainly put together a realistic business plan to show it works.
Instead, they have hidden behind "eat what you kill" (which under PST ownership was our only possible approach). To be clear, I do not want them to be spunking squillions on players, because that way lies bankruptcy, without the developed revenue streams to fund it. PFC did not have those revenue streams in 2017 & after four years of the Eisners still don't.
With their resources, their failure on this so far (and let's be honest, tarting up the Milton doesn't really move the dial on any of this) is hugely disappointing. It certainly prompts the question; why get involved in PFC if you are not going to use your vast assets (in a sensible way) to drive the business forward?
I wonder how they would respond if say Michael & Eric were asked on this? Would they be reasonable, or get a bit tetchy?
