Which is richer?

Basically, out of the Tycoon style takeover, and Consortium takeover which one is or at least most frequently the better off of the two? I've seen in some club histories that a Tycoon or Consortium has tried to takeover, now obviously a Consortium doesn't have to be bursting with cash, but then neither does a Tycoon. So, just out of curiosity, which seems to be richer on peoples games?

Tycoons obviously.But they give you less time

my tycoon always topped up my balance every month if it was below 28 million then in the prem 35 million after 2 and a half years of doing this,a meassge came where he said hes not going to be putting money anymore.so i have to make do with what i have now.

Surely it depends on the consortium. If it's a consortium of tycoons then the consortium will be richer

That's what I was thinking lol, despite there being so much scope for takeovers in FM, I've still only ever had takeovers from within lol.

Yeah I have only seen 3 tycoon take overs in the UK by 2016 and none at premiership clubs as yet. I have had 2 take overs from within but no significant investment from either.

But which is richer... there's only one way to find out - FIIIIGGHHHTTT! Ahem, sorry i thought i was watching Harry Hill for a minute there.

Back on topic - in my experience Tycoons are richer. Everytime ive had a consortium take over, it has been led by a former footballer who has invested between 10 - 20 million. better than a kick up the jacksie but still dissapointing when you want to improve your squad to challenge for the EPL.

I've never been taken over by anyone. Sucks.

But i'd imagine tycoons to be richer.