Athers
Well-known member
And four of them are Shiite, although you did forget Fleetwood
Oh yeah. So I did. Nothing club, that’s why
Andy Pilley piece on BBC Sport
- Thread starter GJJW
- Start date
Oh yeah. So I did. Nothing club, that’s why
poolseasider
Well-known member
You'd have to change the boundary every season also Athers or you would have an imbalanced league with promotion relegation.
Anyone South of Birmingham you could be playing in the North.
Anyone South of Birmingham you could be playing in the North.
Athers
Well-known member
Ok. Let’s try and split the current league one into a north and south. Let’s put bury in there just to have two even leagues.
North:
Coventry
Rotherham
Fleetwood
Sunderland
Doncaster
Blackpool
Lincoln
Accrington
Rochdale
Tranmere
Bolton
Bury
South:
Southend
Wimbledon
MK Dons
Shrewsbury
Bristol Rovers
Gillingham
Burton
Ipswich
Peterborough
Wycombe
Oxford
Portsmouth
Shrewsbury and Burton still got miles to travel so hardly fair is it
North:
Coventry
Rotherham
Fleetwood
Sunderland
Doncaster
Blackpool
Lincoln
Accrington
Rochdale
Tranmere
Bolton
Bury
South:
Southend
Wimbledon
MK Dons
Shrewsbury
Bristol Rovers
Gillingham
Burton
Ipswich
Peterborough
Wycombe
Oxford
Portsmouth
Shrewsbury and Burton still got miles to travel so hardly fair is it
poolseasider
Well-known member
And don't forget to put lge 2 teams in North and South or you'd only be playing 22 games in a season!
Wizaard
Well-known member
When we were in League 2 three years ago, 16 teams were South of Birmingham.
Athers
Well-known member
Exactly. It’s completely unworkable
Ghosts of Electricity
Well-known member
The positive is we would win a few games!!!
Ghosts of Electricity
Well-known member
Come on Athers, I expect better from you!
Completely unworkable is a bit of a sweeping statement which isn't exactly true. If blackpool can play Plymouth on a Tuesday night now then I'm sure we can have a few games in t'other side of Brum!!!
Athers
Well-known member
So Shrewsbury and Burton, two teams not exactly loaded, have to travel to Plymouth, Bristol, Southend while our furthest trip is Lincoln. Doesn’t seem overly fair and saving clubs money, does it
Blackpool Are Back!
Well-known member
Coventry wouldn't be happy to be regionalised in the North section.
Ghosts of Electricity
Well-known member
But they would be doing that now? Playing these games?
I'm led to believe that a few years ago a team in NLN bounced between that division and NLS, may have been Telford but don't quote me.
If it worked with clubs on a fraction of a league teams budget then I'm sure the EFL can make it work.
I would also think it wouldn't be too much of a problem to reverse and it was introduced and didn't work.
Just imagine though, it may just work...
td53
Well-known member
It's definitely gone up since Covid19. Usually there's £1 tub on offer but nothing today
B
basilrobbie
Guest
The lower leagues - sixth tier downwards - are regionalised to take account of the size of clubs and the fact that almost all of them are part-time. That does not apply from the National League upwards.
We ended regionalism in the League over half a century ago to promote competition and raise standards. I see no argument for going back.
We ended regionalism in the League over half a century ago to promote competition and raise standards. I see no argument for going back.
Blackpool Are Back!
Well-known member
Andy Pilleys latest video is now online. It's not to do with football though. More business related.
Athers
Well-known member
Agreed. But if you WERE to do it I’d do it league 2 downwards. Lower down you go the smaller the crowds the smaller the income
P
Plumbs
Guest
Good points but the core issue has been ignored over the last couple of pages, ie the virus and its effect on clubs' income.
At present a financial hole is being dug and at some point that will need addressing,which could take years to catch up if at all for some clubs.
Same too with some local businesses who have no chance of clawing it back-damage done and probably never recover
Pasty Muncher
Well-known member
The vast majority of Argyle fans would be dead against a regionalised league. Even though a couple of years ago if we had beaten Wimbledon in the 2nd Div play off final our local derby would have been at Walsall !!!
I've been watching Argyle for nearly 50 years & the thing I've enjoyed the most is visiting places I 'd otherwise not go to. Included in that is being introduced to local customs like chips n gravy in Blackburn in the early eighties & you haven't lived without tasting Chesterfield's pies.
Just visiting Swindon, Newport, Bristol Rovers, Gillingham ad nauseum would be a disaster in my opinion.
I've been watching Argyle for nearly 50 years & the thing I've enjoyed the most is visiting places I 'd otherwise not go to. Included in that is being introduced to local customs like chips n gravy in Blackburn in the early eighties & you haven't lived without tasting Chesterfield's pies.
Just visiting Swindon, Newport, Bristol Rovers, Gillingham ad nauseum would be a disaster in my opinion.
Last edited:
P
Plumbs
Guest
Yup but I think they could /should increase the number of relegated Championship clubs to four,thus given more opportunity for lower league clubs to pop up.
As an aside I think they should do what the EFL suggested previously and have four divisions,with the Championship and L1 staying as it is with just L2 and L3 being regionalised. The big plus from this would be a reduced number of clubs in each division which I think is necessary-say 22 or even less.
Seainsea
Well-known member
I don't think re-regionalisation for Leagues 1 & 2 offers anything positive. In light of the Coronavirus I do think there is a case for extending the League season towards the end of June for lower league clubs on a permanent basis. This would minimise long mid-week away trips and take advantage of the better weather/longer daylight for mid-week games in May/June. The play-offs would have to be included in that time-line but could become sudden death at the semi-final stage.
This would then enable a mid-winter break in Jan/Feb which could be used for a regionalised FA Cup competition for Rounds One to Three. Championship/Premier League clubs would enter at the Round Four stage and be seeded so that there would be more chance of League 1&2 (and non-league) clubs drawing a big Premier club.
P
Plumbs
Guest
Fair points on the regional aspect but the third round still holds a special magic for the competition,and with it the chance of a minnow getting the payday that can keep it going for years.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Firstly, I'm struggling to understand how regionalisation resolves the issue of the virus? Surely in the short term, if no fans are likely to be in attendance, then it really doen't matter if the games are played on the moon. Making all league games available on a pay per view basis until normal service resumes might help of course, but I think that should be done in such a way that each individual Club benefits from subscriptions from their own fans, rather than evenly splitting the revenue (A system that most closely mimics what would happen in real life).
Beyond that, it's up to Football Clubs (like any other Business navigating their way through this crisis) to adjust their outgoings to balance the books.
poolseasider
Well-known member
If you have ever watched a live game behind closed doors it's like watching a friendly can't see much income coming that way and wouldn't season ticket holders get it free anyway?
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
I think there's a big difference between watching a game behind closed doors in the context of a ready supply of on tap football and then watching one in the context of not being able to watch your team. If need be, they could use artificial crowd noise to create a bit of atmosphere, but whichhever way, I'd certainly sign up if that was the only way to watch my team for the time being.
I suppose for this Season you'd have to offer it to Season Ticket holders for free....However under the circumstances, I still think the take up would be decent....Entertainment of any sort is in pretty short supply at the moment.
P
Plumbs
Guest
The virus has left clubs without income,a delay on season ticket and merchandising sales and as yet unresolved issues over players contracts. Factor in the 20% required on furlough arrangements and its money that will have be borrowed or stuck on next season's overheads.
Adjusting outgoings in reality means surviving on its junior players and fringe squad.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
So they’re in the same position as the rest of the business community and the vast majority of the working population then?
(Arguably a damn sight better position than most having had a good deal of their revenue up front)
Not sure what you mean about “Factoring in the 20% required one furlough arrangements” as there is no requirement, it’s optional.
Is there something unique about Football that qualifies it for special treatment or should it have to manage the situation making use of available government options (loans,grants, staff furlough) like the rest of us and reevaluate spending and revenue to reflect the circumstances.
We’d all like a magic money fairy to wave her wand and solve our coronavirus problems, but most of us have had to suck it up.
P
Plumbs
Guest
Agree on the last bit but yes there is something special about football clubs, given so many people give up their free time and money and have their clubs as an integral part of their lives.
Its primary problem is contractually it has to pay the players and staff and still maintain its stadia,and has contractual obligations that keep it afloat.
I've commented elsewhere that football never saves for a rainy day and maybe this will bring about a change in how it operates,but at present its had the rug pulled without any warning or indication of what was going to occur.
FT have around 150 staff (aside from players) and I'm sure thats mirrored across the leagues,so all of a sudden a community based entity is deprived of its lifeline-just like thousands of businesses as you've pointed out-but a football club is something different imo.
Edit:forgot to add this https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52372531
poolseasider
Well-known member
Why is football more special than any other sport try telling that to Cricket &Rugby clubs who employ plenty of staff and have no income coming in.
Solo sports Boxers,Tennis players,Golfers etc and their training staff who aren't bringing any coin in also as events get cancelled at least footballers are still getting paid by their clubs.
This football is better than you is no wonder for every person who loves the sport equally you have people who dislike it.
Why on earth do Fleetwood need 150 staff on their books no wonder they are losing money.
Solo sports Boxers,Tennis players,Golfers etc and their training staff who aren't bringing any coin in also as events get cancelled at least footballers are still getting paid by their clubs.
This football is better than you is no wonder for every person who loves the sport equally you have people who dislike it.
Why on earth do Fleetwood need 150 staff on their books no wonder they are losing money.
P
Plumbs
Guest
Yup I understand that there are other priorities but try telling that to the Bury or Charlton fans-or indeed anyone on here about the troubles Bolton have faced over the last 20 years or so.
Clubs-football especially-are at the heart of communities,cherished by all its supporters and become a constant in peoples lives,as we saw when the O's tried to take that away from people;the fact they could go to wall is of huge concern to many people.
Fleetwood nor anyone else arent losing money because they employ 150 people its because of the wages they pay to footballers,which is backed by self generated revenues and TV money. Ironically its fans who have fed premium wages and desire for success but who invariably dont bother turning up when results arent going their way-hey ho and such is life.
poolseasider
Well-known member
The residents of Fleetwood don't give a flying fuck about the football team they care more for the Fisherman's Freinds company and their Blackburn owners more than the club.
Same can be said for Blackpool 6/7k pool fans out of 140k population life went on under the boycott and it's residents are more worried about our holiday industry this year than a football club with a millionaire owner.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Surely people’s families, work and careers are a far more important and central part of most people’s lives than football. Football is merely a sideshow, like any other hobby and so I’d imagine on an individual level that people are far more concern about the health of their families and their own job / business. To that extent the health of the business they work for is going to figure more highly than that of a Football Club (unless they work at one of course.). It certainly doesn’t make football clubs unique (uniquely unimportant perhaps).
I’m not sure Player contracts are a ‘Primary Problem’ at all. Like any other contract, they are subject to negotiation. Players have had it pretty good for many years... so if it’s time to suck it up like the rest of us, then so be it.... I’m sure those players who take the piss will live long in the public memory and so most (under advice from the PFA) should be minded to compromise and play their part in the national / international effort.
You may have commented about football not saving for a rainy day, but I’m struggling to understand how running a business badly is a reason to be singled out for special treatment. The rug has been pulled from us all and every other business is in the same boat.... Some will have more contingency than others and some may go out of business and start again if they can... Football should be no different..
Luckily for football clubs that those who do go to the wall have a ready rolled customer base who will happily fund their resurrection... not many businesses have that luxury.
I doubt very much that the ridiculously high staffing levels at Fleetwood are mirrored at too many Clubs. They are quite unique in their ability to spunk cash by the looks of it... There will be some much bigger clubs who find themselves in trouble of course, but they have the fan bases to resurrect themselves no matter what happens, so it’s no big deal really.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Football Clubs are not “cherished by their communities” at all. The vast majority of the community couldn’t give a crap about the local football club. So football is no different than any other sport, insomuch as it is cherished by those who are fans of that particular sport.
The community of Bury is a great example. They have never supported the local club properly, which is the main reason why the club has always struggled.
The 150 staff at Fleetwood is very much a Window on the Soul of a business that has been run at a level that is way beyond sustainable. The quality of their pitch, the facilities, touches like the big screen etc. (many of which have been rammed down our throats) it’s all unnecessary window dressing at this level and particularly for a Club with such minuscule revenue potential.
Let’s not forget with Fleetwood in particular... That model is very much a path that they have chosen in the full knowledge of both the benefits and potential downsides. Nobody has forced them to adopt budget busting spending policies.
P
Plumbs
Guest
Thats pretty generalised and not what-for instance-Blackburn fans were saying at the BST forum a few seasons ago. There might 'only' be 3k fans turning up to FT but its important to them now,and does help provide secondary incomes for some of their community.
Pretty scathing on your own support although thats reflected at other clubs where there was/is an divisive owner,so entirely justified on your part
P
Plumbs
Guest
Fleetwood and others are permitted to run their clubs over a three year cycle and (I think) the rules for L1 are 60% of turnover on wages,then any additional income which includes player sales. Not so sure that given FTs infrastructure that 150 is 'ridiculous' as its a community based operation that includes an extensive training and sports facility,and it would be interesting to see how other clubs compare.Crewe for instance have always had an extensive scouting network that has worked well, so as a longer term investment FT are lucky to have someone who has decided to follow a similar path.
P
Plumbs
Guest
I'll try again. Pilley isnt adopting 'budget busting' spending policies-he's using the permitted model thats available to all which is underwritten by his own personal wealth.He might have to alter things over the next few years to comply with EFL rules but promotion to the Championship would bring extra money,a bigger TV share and maybe a national sponsor with a major cash injection.
Its funny but for years fans on here ( pre-PL) had called for investment,new training facilities,improvements to BR (thinking of the Gene Kelly here) and all that AP has done is exactly that with the Cods. For the best part of 30 years the Oystons picked up the tab* on a loss making club and no--one batted an eyelid,but down the road and its a major issue.
*2000 accounts show that BFC turned over £2,563,694 but lost £749,110. That left a carried forward debt of over £4 million pounds and there was still some way to go before VB turned up
**no defence of the O's but merely demonstrating that if people want to throw stones etc...
Wizaard
Well-known member
Why are Fleetwood allowed to pay the wages of staff working on a facility that isn't owned by the club? It's like us having the Travelodge staff on the wage bill.
P
Plumbs
Guest
Its a bit like paying groundstaff at Squires Gate from Segesta accounts I guess,but at least the showers work (smiley)
Its clear (going back on topic) that Pilley is supporting the Cods but using every means possible to prioritise football.
I seriously can't see what the issue is particularly as you guys almost lost your club in the 80s and ended up with the O's. Sadler may yet choose to adopt the plan that AP has followed which you'd certainly need in the Championship,where gates of say 16k wouldn't be enough to sustain another run.
Dirty are on a knife edge financially and have nearly 40k every week,where the parachute payment is king.
TKL_Seasider
Well-known member
it isn’t ‘available to all’, is it? It’s available to all who have £6m a year to piss up a wall ... and now he potentially doesn’t have that free cash flow and wants to change the paradigm
I notice that in his latest video he’s moaning that the bank doesn’t want to lend him any money. Now he implies this is because he’s ‘too good a risk’ and there’s no chance of him failing to pay it off on time so the bank feels it won’t make any money off him
Listen to Andy Holt, however, and you get a different perspective ... the biggest impediment to getting a loan from the bank for his main business is that the bank doesn’t want to be funding Accrington Stanley ...
I wonder ...
P
Plumbs
Guest
Aye ok but the individual clubs voted on the financial criteria, which btw they changed because clubs wouldnt stick to said criteria that they voted on! (rolls eyes)I like Andy Holt but when he squealed too much to the PL about the effects the funding was having on football,they asked him to kindly return his money which of course he couldnt do.
Pilley might need a bank loan now as may others and the worse thing they could do is go to an independent international lending entity,which Leeds had for a while with GFH who took around £35 million out of the club and to whom around £7 million is still left (to be paid upon a return to the PL)
There's no argument from me about clubs being run properly,fairly and in having to rely on their natural support to fund that,but for as long as people suffer the nonsense ie subscribe to the evil that is televised football then we get the collective game we deserve.
Edit:forgot to mention that adidas are reported to have asked the German government for a 1 billion euro bailout. Quite astonishing given their business model has been to charge a fortune for something made for relative buttons for years.
Last edited by a moderator:
B
basilrobbie
Guest
If the permitted model allows someone to massively overspend and rely on a top up from outside, that is the very definition of "budget busting", in my book. In fact, it makes you wonder what the point of setting a budget actually is, if it has no bearing on what ends up getting spent.
In addition, I'm not clear how in the first sentence you argue that his approach is "permitted" and in the next you reckon he might have to alter it to stay within the rules. He's either compliant, or he isn't.
As for all this extra revenue coming to his rescue if they get promoted - well, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
I'd stop digging if I were you. The hole is deep enough as it is.
TKL_Seasider
Well-known member
Interesting that you should mention that ... take into account that this filing is from the Before Times (December in the old calendar)
Wizaard
Well-known member
So if they don't go up, what's the business model then? We criticise enough clubs for going for broke from the Championship. Seems to me, from afar, that Pilley is doing exactly the same on a smaller scale.
P
Plumbs
Guest
The specific issue is the effects of the virus and not how FT run their day to day business but do crack on.
Regarding promotion to the Championship then disregard the financial jump if you wish,but check out the extra prize money and consolidarity payment increases before rubbishing it. You could ask the EFL themselves if ever bother turning up for a meeting-its as bad as your personal BFC attendance at lower league level (smiley)
Last edited by a moderator:
P
Plumbs
Guest
Its one where over the 3 year period he'll have to sell any assets or reduce his playing budget,just like many other clubs have had to once relegated from the Championship although those rules are complicated-Sunderland's position is a real head scratcher.
Same for you guys if Sadler wants to stick a wedge in and/or redevelop Squires Gate,where income from gates has a reduced effect for as long as the EFL tap continues to run.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Any contract is subject to negotiation any time somneone chooses to initiate that negotiation. All Clubs are able to engage in negotiations with players concerning existing contracts.
This really is a rubbish argument and one that Players always trot out to try and justify themselves. Most people have a fairly limited period where their earning potential is at it's highest, so football is not unique. Even lower league players will earn very well during their footballing careers and the overwhelming majority will have opportunity to find work either inside football or outseide football beyond their playing career. It's absolute nionsense to try and suggest they would only work and earn during their playing years (unless they are downright lazy).
So how is that situation unique? Most busineses have been subject to a sudden and unexpected loss of income....Some will have contingency measures in place and some will be running themselves on a high risk basis....So football shoul,d be singled out for special treatment because???
So what's the big deal if a few Clubs go bankrupt...?.Thousands of other businesses are likely to suffer that fate...If anything it will probably be good for Football over the longer term for a decent shake up. God knows it's been coming for a long time..Unfortunately (in my view) people keep bailing these badly run clubs out.
Fleetwood have chosen a model, which based on their last accounts has seem them amass an overall level of debt, which is not justified on the basis of their revenue. Like many other Clubs, their future is linked specifically to an individual. Their spending last season was more than double their turnover.
As you say, that's their chosen model..... You live by the sword and you die by it.... I suspect we are about to witness the flaws in their 'business' model.
It really doesn't matter which Club you support...The overwhelming majority of the local community really couldn't give a tuppence hapenny damn about it. BST like and similar groups, largely operate inside a bubble to be fair....I'm not saying Clubs don't play a part in local communities, nor that they aren't important to the people who support them, but that doesn't mean they are any more important than Golf Clubs are to Golfers, Tennis Clubs to Tennis Players, Rugby Clubs to Rugby Fans etc...Even the local Library is important to certain sections of the Community...So Football simply isn't unique at all.
You can try all you like, but you are still wrong....And that's not just opinion, it's absolute fact....Spending Double your turnover is, by definition, "Budget Busting", as is running up a debt of £17M in a business that simply doesn't have the earning capability to ever pay that money back.
We've already done the "Gamble on Promotion" themed discussion. As I said last time that didn't work out too well for David O'Leary and Leeds, when the Champions League Football didn't materialise. Championship Football is unlikely to cover the cost of promotion and will need to be spent on squad improvement......Sponsorship for a Club like Fleetwood is unlikely to be a big money spinner either....Small Crowds, Small Brand, Small Deal. Fleetwood have spentto achieve numerous promotions and their debts have gone up not down.
I'm struggling to understand what you are trying to get at with regard to BFC? You seem to keep going back to the same argument and each time trying to come up with a slightly different angle / justification. It really doesn't matter what you try and come up with, the simple fact of the matter is that Blackpool F.C. could not be compared to Fleetwood...The Clubs and their historic approach could not be more different.
To even try and draw comparison between Fans calling for the Ground of a Championship Club (attracting crowds of 14-15K at that level) to be brought up to a standard beyond a Scaffold uncovered stand and a Club attracting crowds of 3000 who likely spent more on Pitch maintenance (than the cost of that replacement stand) really shows up how ridiculous your argument is. Likewise the idea that a training ground that consists of a garden shed being brought up to a reasonable standard (for a Club having easrned £100M in Premier League Revenue) remotely compares to Fleetwoods Training Facility....As I have said before NIGHT AND DAY!
And of course, as keeps being said....Blackpool owners are not on Youtube bemoaning their circumstances.
P
Plumbs
Guest
BFC X 3-bullet points for (hopefully) clarity:
*at present all clubs are obliged to pay existing contracts and that may include activated extensions from this season.AP seems concerned about the funding of this whilst he/they have no income.
*I havent suggested that players cant work outside football but often those jobs aren't well paid by any means. They might however have a mortgage consummate to their football wages which they could be struggling with,and just because its above average doesnt negate the problem.
*I think clubs going bankrupt is a big deal although (as I've said) not the be all and end all,but I'm a football fan and care passionately about the game.
*The EFL decide how clubs can finance their position and thats within profit and loss criteria,where they can invest if they wish in the playing side to achieve success.'Debt' is a very subjective term but its only really becomes a debt when the investment doesnt yield a return,very much like the 'debt' the Seasiders had when they won promotion was repaid and ditto to the PL (Oyston dividend aside)
*Yup you've made some good points on the other issues within communities, but I dont necessarily visit libraries etc otherwise I'd go on 'A View From the Reference Section' (smiley). I'm a football man and am looking at this from that pers[perspective.
*Good call on FTs possible promotion to the Championship and thats where I think AP will fail because of the shifting (financial) sands therein.When Dirty played in the 2006 POF the winnings were supposed to be about 10 million but thats probably now around ten times that,and the Championship is becoming very much a PL 2 in terms of finance. I doubt what Blackpool replicated could be done now given the disparity in where you have to get to for a top six spot. Edit: so Fleetwood would have no chance.
*The reference to Blackpool FC is more directed at the inconsistencies some have demonstrated previously,and where the finger is pointed at AP and FT simply because they are rivals. The 2006 BFC accounts show over £ 5.2 million owed to the Oystons which many were happy to accept as good governance yet call Pilley for the same/similar,and where there was no criticism of how the Travelodge land/investment was prised from club ownership (not withstanding the land had already been set aside to avoid bankruptcy previously)
*I appreciate the reported £17 million invested by AP is something he may never get back 'on paper' but he runs his business from the club,and there may well be a tax planning schedule given BES makes (or made) a pile of money.
He's not a fool and since promotion to the EFL he runs the club within the financial parameters which -as I've said before- is something that many other clubs do.
I'll ask you a question? Given the amount that Simon Sadler has stuck into BFC and then offered to Grayson (and at some point Critchley),
does that constitute a debt or an investment?
*at present all clubs are obliged to pay existing contracts and that may include activated extensions from this season.AP seems concerned about the funding of this whilst he/they have no income.
*I havent suggested that players cant work outside football but often those jobs aren't well paid by any means. They might however have a mortgage consummate to their football wages which they could be struggling with,and just because its above average doesnt negate the problem.
*I think clubs going bankrupt is a big deal although (as I've said) not the be all and end all,but I'm a football fan and care passionately about the game.
*The EFL decide how clubs can finance their position and thats within profit and loss criteria,where they can invest if they wish in the playing side to achieve success.'Debt' is a very subjective term but its only really becomes a debt when the investment doesnt yield a return,very much like the 'debt' the Seasiders had when they won promotion was repaid and ditto to the PL (Oyston dividend aside)
*Yup you've made some good points on the other issues within communities, but I dont necessarily visit libraries etc otherwise I'd go on 'A View From the Reference Section' (smiley). I'm a football man and am looking at this from that pers[perspective.
*Good call on FTs possible promotion to the Championship and thats where I think AP will fail because of the shifting (financial) sands therein.When Dirty played in the 2006 POF the winnings were supposed to be about 10 million but thats probably now around ten times that,and the Championship is becoming very much a PL 2 in terms of finance. I doubt what Blackpool replicated could be done now given the disparity in where you have to get to for a top six spot. Edit: so Fleetwood would have no chance.
*The reference to Blackpool FC is more directed at the inconsistencies some have demonstrated previously,and where the finger is pointed at AP and FT simply because they are rivals. The 2006 BFC accounts show over £ 5.2 million owed to the Oystons which many were happy to accept as good governance yet call Pilley for the same/similar,and where there was no criticism of how the Travelodge land/investment was prised from club ownership (not withstanding the land had already been set aside to avoid bankruptcy previously)
*I appreciate the reported £17 million invested by AP is something he may never get back 'on paper' but he runs his business from the club,and there may well be a tax planning schedule given BES makes (or made) a pile of money.
He's not a fool and since promotion to the EFL he runs the club within the financial parameters which -as I've said before- is something that many other clubs do.
I'll ask you a question? Given the amount that Simon Sadler has stuck into BFC and then offered to Grayson (and at some point Critchley),
does that constitute a debt or an investment?
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
I'm sure he is.... Though this problem is not unique to Mr Pilley or to Football, as I've said, we're all in the same boat. Some will manage to survive and some won't unfortunately.
How on earth do you know whether or not the Jobs aren't well paid ? Answer...You don't! Some ex-players will be better paid than they were as players, some will be paid equally well, some will be paid a decent salary and some will probably not earn so much. Kind of like the rest of the population really. Like Football Clubs, poor management of their personal finances is their own problem....If Clubs can't afford to pay them, they can't afford to pay them. Forcing Football Clubs into bankrupcy rather than accepting a sensible compromise doesn't help them or anyone else.
Any business going bankrupt is a big deal for the people that it affects and so Football is no different. Football Clubs will be affected by the impacts of the virus just like everyone else and the ones who have managed their business well will have the best chance of weathering the storm.
No, the EFL has put in place a set of rules or a framework within which Football Clubs can make their own decisions about their own finances. Debt isn't a subjective term, it's an absolute term...If you owe money to someone, then that is called a debt. If a business chooses to take on debt in the belief that they might make a return on that debt at some future point then that is called 'speculation'. Any time you speculate you engage in risk ... If that risk doesn't pay off, you may lose your business.
In the case of the seasiders (I note your attempts to again try and go back to your tired argument) the majority of the very small financing that resulted in promotion to the Premier League was funded through the introduction of a new shareholder purchasing shares in the Club. So to that extent it wasn't a debt on the Club.
I get that, but everyone will look at it from their own perspective.... That's life.
It's a huge gamble for Fleetwood and I'd expect that their next set of accounts will look as ominous as the last set. Mr Pilley is an ambitious individual and like many others, he made a decision to take a punt.....Time will tell whether it was a punt too far.
I'm not sure that there are inconsistencies in reality though, the circumstances are completely different. I'm not sure why you want to manufacture similarities where their aren't any.... The Blackpool Fans on here are responding to Pilley and his recent youtube videos and highlighting the 'inconsistencies' in someone having used his finances to maximum effect, now wanting to shut the door on anyone else who might want to do the same. Well that and also trying to stop any bigger Clubs benefitting from having more fans than him. Surely you can see a certain irony in that?? (I mean you don't have to be a Blackpool Fan)
I suspect it's more than £17M by now.... I think you may be reading too much into 'Tax Planning' to be honest. Who do Fleetwood owe the £17M to ? Have BES lent it to them or has Andy Pilley?
Irrespective, it remains a £17M debt, which is much more than FTFC can afford to pay back, based on their revenue.
If Simon Sadler lends the Club money, that is called a debt... If the Club uses it's own money to finance progression, then that is called investment.
Debt is not necessarily an issue, so long as it's proportionate to the revenue and available assets.
Last edited:
Wizaard
Well-known member
As I've said before, Blackpool could easily average 14,000 and have done in the recent past despite the owners. With the post Oyston optimism we can get back to that.
Fleetwood, on the other hand, are doing as well as they've ever done in their history and still can't get anyone in the ground, plus ultimately are limited by the capacity of the ground.
For that reason, any debts at Blackpool accruing as a consequence of putting right decades of neglect are serviceable, whereas Fleetwood?