a pyramid built on sand

basilrobbie

Well-known member
There is a good article about the changing face of football finances in the Guardian today.

The situation at Burnley would worry lots of people, I would guess. But Derby is the one that interests me ; how is a club that is mortgaging itself to the hilt to get in money still struggling to pay wages? While we are on the subject, how does an established EPL club manage to lose over £70m in a year? Have they learned nothing from their previous financial crisis?


 

Davepick

Well-known member
It doesn't mention the fact that Sunderlands' new owner is apparently worth £2.5 Billion. Whilst his mother is worth £6.2 Billion.
I read that in a paper last week. True? Or not? I don't know.
 

td53

Well-known member
It doesn't mention the fact that Sunderlands' new owner is apparently worth £2.5 Billion. Whilst his mother is worth £6.2 Billion.
I read that in a paper last week. True? Or not? I don't know.
I've read similar.
 

fcblackpool

Well-known member
There is a good article about the changing face of football finances in the Guardian today.

The situation at Burnley would worry lots of people, I would guess. But Derby is the one that interests me ; how is a club that is mortgaging itself to the hilt to get in money still struggling to pay wages? While we are on the subject, how does an established EPL club manage to lose over £70m in a year? Have they learned nothing from their previous financial crisis?


Because they are allowed to.

I've said many times that owners should not be allowed to borrow using club assets. Furthermore, Owners should have to deposit money on takeover with a 'body' who would use that to protect the Club in the future.

Derby are in a 'when we get promoted these debts will be chicken feed' mentality, which is why they are of interest. Soton (no details, bar the basics from me) are in a position that future income guarantees the debt.

Why the football industry doesn't come under some governmental regulatory body I don't know- and therein lies the problem, and solution.
 
Last edited:

1966_and_all_that

Well-known member
Capital funding running costs is a slippery slope. It depends heavily on the continuing viability of the product which, for these teams has to involve playing in the top division. Where these highly leveraged teams are playing further down the pyramid then they are reliant on having saleable assets to charge against their investment. This can only mean the ground, the training ground and the players. This is not a strategy that can possibly benefit the clubs in the long term, especially when success can only be realistically measured in terms of reaching the Europa Cup at best and scraping along in an EPL relegation battle as a bare minimum.
 
Last edited:

Wizaard

Well-known member
For at least 12 teams, survival is the best they can hope for. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if no-one outside of Man City, Liverpool and Man United ever won the title again. Others might look like they're challenging in the occasional season, but no-one sane would say that West Ham are title contenders, and they're third.

The London teams flatter to deceive but are really looking at the third and fourth places as a decent season. Last time I looked, no-one gets an open top parade for finishing fourth in a League. Leicester are threatening, but they won't win it again.

As such, survival is the key to being a step away from potential oblivion. Just look at Blackburn for an example of where the owners took over not realising relegation was even a thing.
 

basilrobbie

Well-known member
Capital funding running costs is a slippery slope. It depends heavily on the continuing viability of the product which, for these teams has to involve playing in the top division. Where these highly leveraged teams are playing further down the pyramid then they are reliant on having saleable assets to charge against their investment. This can only mean the ground, the training ground and the players. This is not a strategy that can possibly benefit the clubs in the long term, especially when success can only be realistically measured in terms of reaching the Europa Cup at best and scraping along in an EPL relegation battle as a bare minimum.

Agreed. Which is why I think Southampton's approach is so short-sighted. Yes, they have another season and a bit of guaranteed EPL funding to look forward to. But what if they have a bad season next time out? It does happen ; after all, who saw Sheffield United's current predicament coming?
 

hampshire_exile

Well-known member
I think that, particularly in the EPL, fans simply don’t acknowledge how much money has been lost during the pandemic. They would rather bury their heads in the sand and hope it goes away.

Southampton have been the one club to acknowledge the cost to them, and it’s a lot. It is also worth noting that their wage bill is unaltered from the previous year. In a time when TV revenue was less than in previous years because the season wasn’t completed on time. One possible scenario there is that players haven’t been prepared to take even temporary pay cuts.
 

20togo

Well-known member
For at least 12 teams, survival is the best they can hope for. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if no-one outside of Man City, Liverpool and Man United ever won the title again. Others might look like they're challenging in the occasional season, but no-one sane would say that West Ham are title contenders, and they're third.

The London teams flatter to deceive but are really looking at the third and fourth places as a decent season. Last time I looked, no-one gets an open top parade for finishing fourth in a League. Leicester are threatening, but they won't win it again.

As such, survival is the key to being a step away from potential oblivion. Just look at Blackburn for an example of where the owners took over not realising relegation was even a thing.
We got an open top parade for coming sixth. That's a fact. The Champions league has teams in it that aren't even champions in their own country. We've had plenty of seasons over the last twenty years or so where we've been looking over our shoulders. That's been all about survival. And sometimes we haven't. That's football today.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
We got an open top parade for coming sixth. That's a fact. The Champions league has teams in it that aren't even champions in their own country. We've had plenty of seasons over the last twenty years or so where we've been looking over our shoulders. That's been all about survival. And sometimes we haven't. That's football today.
The fact was we won something. A trophy and promotion. That makes it a worthwhile celebration.
 

Phil_bfc deux

Well-known member
Agreed. Which is why I think Southampton's approach is so short-sighted. Yes, they have another season and a bit of guaranteed EPL funding to look forward to. But what if they have a bad season next time out? It does happen ; after all, who saw Sheffield United's current predicament coming?
Sheff Utd are in this predicament because they haven't spent big to improve their squad

Hard work with honest journeymen pros will only take you so far in the EPL

I would say given their lack of quality it was obvious they would struggle during their 2nd season
 

RUSTY_2_STANDS

Well-known member
For at least 12 teams, survival is the best they can hope for. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if no-one outside of Man City, Liverpool and Man United ever won the title again. Others might look like they're challenging in the occasional season, but no-one sane would say that West Ham are title contenders, and they're third.

The London teams flatter to deceive but are really looking at the third and fourth places as a decent season. Last time I looked, no-one gets an open top parade for finishing fourth in a League. Leicester are threatening, but they won't win it again.

As such, survival is the key to being a step away from potential oblivion. Just look at Blackburn for an example of where the owners took over not realising relegation was even a thing.
It wouldn’t surprise me if no one outside of Man City won it again. Not for a long while anyway. Perhaps United if they got in a top experienced manager. Maybe Chelsea if their rich owner maintains an interest
There is just too much money and too much debt in football, particularly the Prem. It’s surely not sustainable unless you have a billionaire owner
And with a billionaire owner you shouldn’t be able to break FFP rules. But City have shown that you can break those rules and get away with it. UEFA are scared stiff of getting sued because they don’t have pockets as deep as the rich owners
It’s all a bit sickening and is undoubtedly putting people off the Prem. And rightly so
 

gjr69

Well-known member
Agreed. Which is why I think Southampton's approach is so short-sighted. Yes, they have another season and a bit of guaranteed EPL funding to look forward to. But what if they have a bad season next time out? It does happen ; after all, who saw Sheffield United's current predicament coming?
I did, they were never going to have a good second season, their form was on a downward curve at the end of last season and with those players they had massively over achieved.
I would like to think that the conservative transfer policy they have is due to playing a long game, similar to how Burnley operated, looks like Norwich are doing it too.
 

Costero Poderoso

Well-known member
The problem is that football isnt actually that different to other industries. The fully privatised energy industry is now litterred with debt encumbered companies who will never make any profit or certainly not for shareholders, almost every government outsourcing company is in the same boat, the tech industry is fundamentally set up to only benefit early investors who build the entities on the back of massive debt in the hope of hitting it big. its the model of current business practice.
 

1966_and_all_that

Well-known member
Sheff Utd are in this predicament because they haven't spent big to improve their squad

Hard work with honest journeymen pros will only take you so far in the EPL

I would say given their lack of quality it was obvious they would struggle during their 2nd season
I think you're right about journeymen pros only taking a team so far in the Prem. However, there's a glass (even concrete) ceiling that nearly all teams cannot break through, even though they spend astonishing sums trying to do it. It seems to me that there is a law of diminishing returns in the Prem. Stick with your promoted lads and you probably won't make the top half of the division. Stick with them for more than a season and you'll fall faster than a lead balloon. But invest zillions and the benefits aren't going to be proportionate. So, where and when do you say enough's enough?
 

gjr69

Well-known member
I think you're right about journeymen pros only taking a team so far in the Prem. However, there's a glass (even concrete) ceiling that nearly all teams cannot break through, even though they spend astonishing sums trying to do it. It seems to me that there is a law of diminishing returns in the Prem. Stick with your promoted lads and you probably won't make the top half of the division. Stick with them for more than a season and you'll fall faster than a lead balloon. But invest zillions and the benefits aren't going to be proportionate. So, where and when do you say enough's enough?
The Burnley model looked effective, like I said earlier I think Norwich are doing something similar, to a certain extent I think we did it for the 1st season after relegation from the Prem.
If you are a smaller club don't think that you will be like Everton or Arsenal, you will at some point get relegated so spend with one eye on that probable outcome.
Unfortunately for Burnley fans they are now on a knife edge, which is why Americans hate relegation.
Wherever possible in all businesses we should try and avoid what Americans do, as to my untrained business eye it appears that they create a short term illusion designed to benefit one person with little regard to the future.
 

20togo

Well-known member
It wouldn’t surprise me if no one outside of Man City won it again. Not for a long while anyway. Perhaps United if they got in a top experienced manager. Maybe Chelsea if their rich owner maintains an interest
There is just too much money and too much debt in football, particularly the Prem. It’s surely not sustainable unless you have a billionaire owner
And with a billionaire owner you shouldn’t be able to break FFP rules. But City have shown that you can break those rules and get away with it. UEFA are scared stiff of getting sued because they don’t have pockets as deep as the rich owners
It’s all a bit sickening and is undoubtedly putting people off the Prem. And rightly so
Read the other day that more people are watching PL football than ever before. I'm sure attendances at the games before were pretty healthy so just because a few people off AVFTT are unhappy, I'd say the general trend is anything but what you allude to.
 

RUSTY_2_STANDS

Well-known member
The Burnley model looked effective, like I said earlier I think Norwich are doing something similar, to a certain extent I think we did it for the 1st season after relegation from the Prem.
If you are a smaller club don't think that you will be like Everton or Arsenal, you will at some point get relegated so spend with one eye on that probable outcome.
Unfortunately for Burnley fans they are now on a knife edge, which is why Americans hate relegation.
Wherever possible in all businesses we should try and avoid what Americans do, as to my untrained business eye it appears that they create a short term illusion designed to benefit one person with little regard to the future.
But then you look at Fenway Sports Group who own Liverpool. They also own Boston Red Sox in the States. They don't splash the cash around and run their clubs to a strict financial plan which doesn't include taking risks. Liverpool have a very low net spend compared to most of their rivals and not too long ago a lower net spend than even the likes of Bournemouth.
So not all American owners are reckless with their money. I don't think the Glazers at United like spending too much either, even though their spending dwarfs Liverpool's.
But doesn't it shows just how reckless the spending is in the Prem when a small club like Bournemouth are outspending Liverpool. It's crazy and for those small clubs it's surely not sustainable. As other have said on this thread, it's a road to ruin.
 

RUSTY_2_STANDS

Well-known member
Read the other day that more people are watching PL football than ever before. I'm sure attendances at the games before were pretty healthy so just because a few people off AVFTT are unhappy, I'd say the general trend is anything but what you allude to.
I know plenty of people who have turned off from the Prem 20's. Can any genuine football fan say hand on heart, the outcome of the Man City and UEFA FFP fiasco was good for the game? Probably only Man City fans. And apart from Newcastle fans, I'd bet most genuine football fans were glad the Saudi take over didn't happen.
I honestly think sooner or later the growing disdane for the crazy spending is going to start showing in attendances and viewing figures. And the clubs keep putting up attendance prices to eye watering amounts. But they'll keep trundling along and spending obscene amounts of money as even if the figures drop in this country, the viewing figures in Asia will continue to grow and more than make up any shortfall. The Prem is without doubt a global brand now and could probably survive without any tv viewers in this country.
 

gjr69

Well-known member
But then you look at Fenway Sports Group who own Liverpool. They also own Boston Red Sox in the States. They don't splash the cash around and run their clubs to a strict financial plan which doesn't include taking risks. Liverpool have a very low net spend compared to most of their rivals and not too long ago a lower net spend than even the likes of Bournemouth.
So not all American owners are reckless with their money. I don't think the Glazers at United like spending too much either, even though their spending dwarfs Liverpool's.
But doesn't it shows just how reckless the spending is in the Prem when a small club like Bournemouth are outspending Liverpool. It's crazy and for those small clubs it's surely not sustainable. As other have said on this thread, it's a road to ruin.
Liverpool and Manchester United aren't really a gamble, but I think the purchase of United put the club into a debt they didn't previously have, same thing with Burnley, that doesn't seem right to me.
I'm sure there are good American owners but their aversion to relegation being part and parcel of the game doesn't sit well with me.
If you look at the list of owners of clubs that are owned or part owned by Americans I hope that they dont use their influence to stop movement round the divisions.
Its promotion and relegation that keeps football healthy, clubs need to be able to manage their finances to cope with all possibilities.
 

20togo

Well-known member
I know plenty of people who have turned off from the Prem 20's. Can any genuine football fan say hand on heart, the outcome of the Man City and UEFA FFP fiasco was good for the game? Probably only Man City fans. And apart from Newcastle fans, I'd bet most genuine football fans were glad the Saudi take over didn't happen.
I honestly think sooner or later the growing disdane for the crazy spending is going to start showing in attendances and viewing figures. And the clubs keep putting up attendance prices to eye watering amounts. But they'll keep trundling along and spending obscene amounts of money as even if the figures drop in this country, the viewing figures in Asia will continue to grow and more than make up any shortfall. The Prem is without doubt a global brand now and could probably survive without any tv viewers in this country.
Just simply point out that record numbers are watching the EPL games. Of course, people are getting turned off as well but for me, football is more about the game itself than the owner sat in the directors box. For instance when I watched Liverpool lose 7-2 to Villa, it was all about the game not which owner had the most money. But even so, haven't football clubs always had rich owners? Blackpool for Instance, is about a rich owner before that etc. And the fact that the EPL is such a global game it's always gonna attract the very rich to it.
 

RUSTY_2_STANDS

Well-known member
Yes the Glazers off loaded their debt on to United. Hence all the fans protests. Same at Liverpool with the Americans Hicks and Gillett. Again fans protests. Apparently Liverpool were only a couple of days from administration under those two, such was the size of the debt they put on the club.
An example of bad American owners. FSG are an example of decent American owners.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
The Burnley model looked effective, like I said earlier I think Norwich are doing something similar, to a certain extent I think we did it for the 1st season after relegation from the Prem.
If you are a smaller club don't think that you will be like Everton or Arsenal, you will at some point get relegated so spend with one eye on that probable outcome.
Unfortunately for Burnley fans they are now on a knife edge, which is why Americans hate relegation.
Wherever possible in all businesses we should try and avoid what Americans do, as to my untrained business eye it appears that they create a short term illusion designed to benefit one person with little regard to the future.
Burnley are by no means safe this season. A few games ago I would have said Fulham were as doomed as WBA and Blades. Now I'm not so sure.
 

RUSTY_2_STANDS

Well-known member
Just simply point out that record numbers are watching the EPL games. Of course, people are getting turned off as well but for me, football is more about the game itself than the owner sat in the directors box. For instance when I watched Liverpool lose 7-2 to Villa, it was all about the game not which owner had the most money. But even so, haven't football clubs always had rich owners? Blackpool for Instance, is about a rich owner before that etc. And the fact that the EPL is such a global game it's always gonna attract the very rich to it.
Yes football clubs have always had rich owners. But what's happening now is on another level entirely. But I still think fans will eventually start turning away. My Sky contract is up in a couple of months and I'm 100% cancelling the Sports. Not just because of the money being spent I admit, but I'm finding televised games a turn off and have been feeling like that for a while. I can only seem to watch 10 or 15 minutes of a game then get bored. Previously I'd be glued to it for 90 minutes, no matter even if it was a crap game.
But I sat through the entire 90 mins of Pool's televised game at Eastbourne. So maybe I'm one of those getting bored with the Prem.
I can't wait to get back to Bloomfield Rd for a proper live game.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Are they? As I understand it Sky are losing millions because of the devalued product of empty grounds football putting off the casual fan and therefore advertisers. We won't have ifollow games on Saturdays as soon as a minimum number of fans are back in the ground.
Just simply point out that record numbers are watching the EPL games. Of course, people are getting turned off as well but for me, football is more about the game itself than the owner sat in the directors box. For instance when I watched Liverpool lose 7-2 to Villa, it was all about the game not which owner had the most money. But even so, haven't football clubs always had rich owners? Blackpool for Instance, is about a rich owner before that etc. And the fact that the EPL is such a global game it's always gonna attract the very rich to it.
 

gjr69

Well-known member
Burnley are by no means safe this season. A few games ago I would have said Fulham were as doomed as WBA and Blades. Now I'm not so sure.
Fulham have looked quite good all season, just don't score enough, but now they are turning some of the draws into wins.
I would think Newcastle are nervously looking over their shoulders as well, Fulham have given themselves a good chance, I hope they do it.
 

20togo

Well-known member
Yes football clubs have always had rich owners. But what's happening now is on another level entirely. But I still think fans will eventually start turning away. My Sky contract is up in a couple of months and I'm 100% cancelling the Sports. Not just because of the money being spent I admit, but I'm finding televised games a turn off and have been feeling like that for a while. I can only seem to watch 10 or 15 minutes of a game then get bored. Previously I'd be glued to it for 90 minutes, no matter even if it was a crap game.
But I sat through the entire 90 mins of Pool's televised game at Eastbourne. So maybe I'm one of those getting bored with the Prem.
I can't wait to get back to Bloomfield Rd for a proper live game.
We're all different. I've never watched as much football as I'm doing now. I can't switch off to football. It's a passion, it's a way of life.
 

20togo

Well-known member
Fulham have looked quite good all season, just don't score enough, but now they are turning some of the draws into wins.
I would think Newcastle are nervously looking over their shoulders as well, Fulham have given themselves a good chance, I hope they do it.
In the grand scheme of things, I'm not too fussed who goes down but yes, every credit to Fulham. They play decent football and from looking pretty much a certainty for the drop, they've turned it round and given themselves a chance to stay up.
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
For at least 12 teams, survival is the best they can hope for. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if no-one outside of Man City, Liverpool and Man United ever won the title again. Others might look like they're challenging in the occasional season, but no-one sane would say that West Ham are title contenders, and they're third.

The London teams flatter to deceive but are really looking at the third and fourth places as a decent season. Last time I looked, no-one gets an open top parade for finishing fourth in a League. Leicester are threatening, but they won't win it again.

As such, survival is the key to being a step away from potential oblivion. Just look at Blackburn for an example of where the owners took over not realising relegation was even a thing.
Talking of West Ham, they were following the current Derby model by all accounts in 2011/2012 and were one Dobbie scuff away from going bankrupt.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
In the grand scheme of things, I'm not too fussed who goes down but yes, every credit to Fulham. They play decent football and from looking pretty much a certainty for the drop, they've turned it round and given themselves a chance to stay up.
Anyone up as far as Leeds arent safe, although a couple of wins for them will see them well on the way. A Brighton win tonight would see Palace right in it.
 

gjr69

Well-known member
In the grand scheme of things, I'm not too fussed who goes down but yes, every credit to Fulham. They play decent football and from looking pretty much a certainty for the drop, they've turned it round and given themselves a chance to stay up.
The title is done and dusted and two relegation spots are virtually nailed on, so watching Fulham try to avoid the drop is probably the most interesting thing left to play for in the Premier league.
And I really hope West Ham dont get in the top 4, Moyes is a decent bloke but there is nothing else good about West Ham!
 

RUSTY_2_STANDS

Well-known member
We're all different. I've never watched as much football as I'm doing now. I can't switch off to football. It's a passion, it's a way of life.
That's fine 20's and I'm glad to hear you're enjoying your football. It used to be a passion for me. But that passion has diminished where the Prem is concerned. I actually wish that wasn't the case but sadly it is.
 

1966_and_all_that

Well-known member
Yes football clubs have always had rich owners. But what's happening now is on another level entirely. But I still think fans will eventually start turning away. My Sky contract is up in a couple of months and I'm 100% cancelling the Sports. Not just because of the money being spent I admit, but I'm finding televised games a turn off and have been feeling like that for a while. I can only seem to watch 10 or 15 minutes of a game then get bored. Previously I'd be glued to it for 90 minutes, no matter even if it was a crap game.
But I sat through the entire 90 mins of Pool's televised game at Eastbourne. So maybe I'm one of those getting bored with the Prem.
I can't wait to get back to Bloomfield Rd for a proper live game.
I agree with your point about getting bored with the Prem but beinh able to watch th Pool for the full game isn't really a fair comparison is it? I mean, you have a significant emotional investment with Blackpool, as we all do.
 

RUSTY_2_STANDS

Well-known member
I agree with your point about getting bored with the Prem but beinh able to watch th Pool for the full game isn't really a fair comparison is it? I mean, you have a significant emotional investment with Blackpool, as we all do.
I agree but I used to really enjoy just watching football on tv no matter who was playing and watching prem games on the tv came second only to going to watch Blackpool live
My interest in the prem has just waned
As I’ve said in a previous post I wish it hadn’t as I used to really enjoy it
 

Phil_bfc deux

Well-known member
We're all different. I've never watched as much football as I'm doing now. I can't switch off to football. It's a passion, it's a way of life.
Yep I'm with 20s on this

I'm a football fan and I watch football on tv even though I don't support a Premier league club, i also watch other leagues and nations

Its what i do

And if I'm not watching football on tv i will be playing football with the kids or watching them play football

And if I'm not doing that i will probably be on football manager on my lap top or playing Fifa on the X box

I'm a football addict...
 

fcblackpool

Well-known member
Read the other day that more people are watching PL football than ever before. I'm sure attendances at the games before were pretty healthy so just because a few people off AVFTT are unhappy, I'd say the general trend is anything but what you allude to.
I don't doubt the numbers, however that could be because every game is on TV and we have staggered KO's like never before, so the numbers may not tell the whole story.
 

20togo

Well-known member
I don't doubt the numbers, however that could be because every game is on TV and we have staggered KO's like never before, so the numbers may not tell the whole story.
Yep realise that, but I think the last recorded figures that I found were from as such a normal season which would be 2018/2019.
 

Whenthepoolcomemarchingin

Well-known member
I love football and will watch any game of football, but even myself after watching maybe 10 full games between Friday and Sunday was fed up with it, I also don't think it is the same product without fans there, they play it more like a training matches.

Also so many games on TV is bad for the game, the days of getting excited as a big match is on TV feels a thing of the past.
 

20togo

Well-known member
So your statement about record numbers is 2 years old? Ok.
Well clearly this seasons totals aren't recorded yet. And again, last seasons might have been unreasonable to use as well as so many PL fans weren't in the grounds and so might have been using tv to watch their teams play. So, I was trying to be balanced.
 

Davepick

Well-known member
Rox, my nieces' partner is a Sunderland fan (Born & Bred). He is also a BFC STH.
You might have seen him with me at home games, we go together.
 
Last edited:

fcblackpool

Well-known member
But then you look at Fenway Sports Group who own Liverpool. They also own Boston Red Sox in the States. They don't splash the cash around and run their clubs to a strict financial plan which doesn't include taking risks. Liverpool have a very low net spend compared to most of their rivals and not too long ago a lower net spend than even the likes of Bournemouth.
So not all American owners are reckless with their money. I don't think the Glazers at United like spending too much either, even though their spending dwarfs Liverpool's.
But doesn't it shows just how reckless the spending is in the Prem when a small club like Bournemouth are outspending Liverpool. It's crazy and for those small clubs it's surely not sustainable. As other have said on this thread, it's a road to ruin.
I'd be amazed if that Liverpool figure did not include the £200m for Coutinho (sp) and certainly Bmouth have never spent £75m on a player as Lpl did with VvD and still were £125m up.
 
Top
X