Football 19/20

[jyoung]

Sky can do one as well.

[Hugh Jass]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Is it?

Clubs go the wall sometimes if/when they're badly run. Back in the early 90s Aldershot and Maidstone Utd went under.

I don't think clubs going broke is in itself an indicator of very much, except how that club has been run.

Bolton and Bury are in deep, deep shit. Coventry, Macclesfield, Notts County all in big trouble too, and those are only the ones we know about. There are certainly more we don't yet. The pursuit of money has bled down from the Premier League and now infects all levels of the game like a virus, even the likes of Bury are spending well beyond their means in the hope of getting more.

Greedy and/or inept owners, the Premier League, the EFL, Sky Sports, agents, players... they've all played their part in this, and it's only going to get worse.

Normally I wouldn't care, if a business fails it's usually because it deserves to, but football clubs are different, they're more emotive and every single time it's the local community, fans and non-playing staff who carry the can for some twat's recklessness. It isn't right.

[eastynh]

Nice to know FFP is working all fine and dandy. Restricts owner investment but you can have as much debt as you like. That is really sensible. 

So even if an investor wanted to come in and purchase either Bury or Bolton, it is not worth it as he/she could not invest their money to try and make the club succesful and see their investment prosper. Yet the authorities allow clubs to be saddled with debt, before being asset stripped when the clubs go to the wall.

Absolute disgrace. To see 2 local clubs fold is heart wrenching. My club was on its last legs a few years ago and were rescued. Because we then threatened the established elite, they come up with bollocks rules to cement their own places. In what world is debt good but investment bad?

Oldham will be next with their crack pot owner. The EFL will just stand by and allow it to happen.

A sad day for north west football.

[Hugh Jass]

2 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Nice to know FFP is working all fine and dandy. Restricts owner investment but you can have as much debt as you like. That is really sensible. 

So even if an investor wanted to come in and purchase either Bury or Bolton, it is not worth it as he/she could not invest their money to try and make the club succesful and see their investment prosper. Yet the authorities allow clubs to be saddled with debt, before being asset stripped when the clubs go to the wall.

Absolute disgrace. To see 2 local clubs fold is heart wrenching. My club was on its last legs a few years ago and were rescued. Because we then threatened the established elite, they come up with bollocks rules to cement their own places. In what world is debt good but investment bad?

Oldham will be next with their crack pot owner. The EFL will just stand by and allow it to happen.

A sad day for north west football.

FFP’s an even bigger joke when you consider all the loopholes and tricks to get around it. The EFL are an utter disgrace.

It’s a sad day for football in general, not just the NW.

[Hugh Jass]

The biggest problem is that all of these clubs, 100+ year old institutions are at the mercy of the whims of whatever madman comes along with a bag full of cash.

It could happen to any of us.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Because we then threatened the established elite, they come up with bollocks rules to cement their own places.

erm.... aren't City one of the clubs talking about starting a no-relegation Euro super-league?  

I think you're kidding yourself if you're thinking City don't want to play the same lock-out game as you're complaining about there.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

It could happen to any of us.

happened with my club already.

If there's the demand a new club will be born, and it'll progress back to around it's natural level. Anyone who's hung up on '1885' or whatever isn't really worth worrying about.

(and then if it's like Aldershot, it'll all turn to shit again and they'll plummet back down the leagues. Ho-hum. Football. Who'd have it?) 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

clubs talking about starting a no-relegation Euro super-league

PS: this is actually an empty threat by those clubs, being used to screw more to their preference out of UEFA.

Cos none of those clubs wants to be the duffer at the bottom of that league and all of the damage to their image that'd cause.

[jyoung]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

happened with my club already.

If there's the demand a new club will be born, and it'll progress back to around it's natural level. Anyone who's hung up on '1885' or whatever isn't really worth worrying about.

(and then if it's like Aldershot, it'll all turn to shit again and they'll plummet back down the leagues. Ho-hum. Football. Who'd have it?) 

[pink_triangle]

Wrexham was taken over (on the cheap) by someone who wanted to sell the land for houses. We are now living within our means, but finding it hard to compete with clubs who don’t live within theirs. As a fan I know what it’s like to go to the wire, although the reality is that if either/both go bust a new Bury and Bolton will be formed. If the crowds support them they should get to the national league with little problems.

I also have a bit of sympathy for Mansfield fans as Bury would not have finished top 3 without overspending. However admittedly don’t know how Mansfield are funded. Have heard a few people say Man U and Man C should bail these clubs out, but think that would encourage others to chase the dream, if they think there is a bail out waiting.

Im comfortable with Wrexham being fan owned and accept with less risk, there is potentially less reward. I don’t have anything against the sugar daddy model in principle, but think the recent trend of rich non league clubs with small fan bases is overall bad for the football league. I wonder if the solution is limiting the amount of debt owners can put clubs in. If a fan wants to invest unlimited amounts into a club that’s ok, but that money should be gifted and not loaned. No easy solutions as fans of every club are always a asking for one more signing.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

If a fan wants to invest unlimited amounts into a club that’s ok, but that money should be gifted and not loaned.

I was saying that years ago.

However, it's been pointed out that even an owner like that can load a club with future high costs from wages going forwards for the star player he's just bought with his gifted investment.

So it's still not perfect - but should happen to stop owners using their 'loans' to clubs as a tax-write-off (where we the taxpayer help them fuck up a club ).

[Hugh Jass]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Wrexham was taken over (on the cheap) by someone who wanted to sell the land for houses. We are now living within our means, but finding it hard to compete with clubs who don’t live within theirs. As a fan I know what it’s like to go to the wire, although the reality is that if either/both go bust a new Bury and Bolton will be formed. If the crowds support them they should get to the national league with little problems.

I also have a bit of sympathy for Mansfield fans as Bury would not have finished top 3 without overspending. However admittedly don’t know how Mansfield are funded. Have heard a few people say Man U and Man C should bail these clubs out, but think that would encourage others to chase the dream, if they think there is a bail out waiting.

Im comfortable with Wrexham being fan owned and accept with less risk, there is potentially less reward. I don’t have anything against the sugar daddy model in principle, but think the recent trend of rich non league clubs with small fan bases is overall bad for the football league. I wonder if the solution is limiting the amount of debt owners can put clubs in. If a fan wants to invest unlimited amounts into a club that’s ok, but that money should be gifted and not loaned. No easy solutions as fans of every club are always a asking for one more signing.

Whilst I agree that just bailing out clubs is not the answer I do feel the PL and its clubs have a moral duty to assist. They could contribute money, for example, to assist a club’s non-playing staff in the event of trouble. Bolton have normal people with mortgages working for them who haven’t been paid in months.

When you’re giving Alexis Sanchez half a million quid a week you can afford to throw a little to those less fortunate.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

PL and its clubs have a moral duty to assist. They could contribute money

 

The whole point of the Prem in the first place was because the top league wanted to contribute less to anything lower than them.

[pink_triangle]

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I was saying that years ago.

However, it's been pointed out that even an owner like that can load a club with future high costs from wages going forwards for the star player he's just bought with his gifted investment.

So it's still not perfect - but should happen to stop owners using their 'loans' to clubs as a tax-write-off (where we the taxpayer help them fuck up a club ).

I wonder if there could be a system where the owner would have to pay a percentage of the cost of a contract into an independent account on signing the player which would then be used to pay the player, or refunded if the player is transferred. 

[pink_triangle]

28 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Whilst I agree that just bailing out clubs is not the answer I do feel the PL and its clubs have a moral duty to assist. They could contribute money, for example, to assist a club’s non-playing staff in the event of trouble. Bolton have normal people with mortgages working for them who haven’t been paid in months.

When you’re giving Alexis Sanchez half a million quid a week you can afford to throw a little to those less fortunate.

I certainly agree that there are innocent casualties. We also need to remember that in lower leagues/non leagues the players have mortgages to pay. I just think if owners no the big boys will pay these people in a crisis, they have less incentive to pay these people.

[TheGayTent]

31 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

 We also need to remember that in lower leagues/non leagues the players have mortgages to pay.

They do in the top leagues 

[JSmurphy]

Bury now confirmed to have been removed from the EFL.

[JSmurphy]

Bolton have a final 14 day lifeline. 

[Hugh Jass]

4 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

They do in the top leagues 

In the mid 00’s I temped at a finance company processing mortgage applications. I actually came across a few PL players in there (I won’t name names). They often included copies of their contracts as proof of income, it’s fair to say they were illuminating.

[vintagelaureate]

41 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

In the mid 00’s I temped at a finance company processing mortgage applications. I actually came across a few PL players in there (I won’t name names). They often included copies of their contracts as proof of income, it’s fair to say they were illuminating.

A friend of mine leases high end cars and because of the high amounts involved often comes across footballers and celebrities. The amounts being tossed around is ridiculous when you look at what's happened today, and in the past, and will no doubt occur again the future. 

 

[pink_triangle]

It's an amazing contrast for Bury fans to go from promotion to expulsion in 6 months. To have a whole season with no football is unimaginable for me as a football fan.

It's now up to how many of the fans stick with them. If most do they should get back to the national league no problem, spending a few years winning lots of games and visiting new grounds.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I wonder if there could be a system where the owner would have to pay a percentage of the cost of a contract into an independent account on signing the player which would then be used to pay the player, or refunded if the player is transferred. 

that works in theory but i reckon it'd get very complicated to administer across the whole footie structure.

[The Nal]

Sanchez off to Inter. Can't think of a worse signing considering the cash involved.

[jyoung]

10 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Sanchez off to Inter. Can't think of a worse signing considering the cash involved.

Interesting to see how he gets on. Conte wanted Sanchez and Lukaku at Chelsea.

[Hugh Jass]

17 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Sanchez off to Inter. Can't think of a worse signing considering the cash involved.

He was a bad fit from the very start, Mourinho only wanted him to spite City.