Andy Pilley piece on BBC Sport

Wizaard said:
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?
Click to expand...
There seems to be something overlooked with you and BFC X 3 in that crowds dont really make a huge difference in the EFL,where the combined TV money of £1.3 million almost doubles Blackpool's gate receipts where the 2019 average was 4,200. (working at £15 per seat gives £1.5 million).
Fleetwoods average of just over 3k would give just over a million although I'd agree they've little room for improvement,unless they find a way of accommodating more away fans.

The critical thing is sponsorship and owners input which is classed as 'football fortune' [clipped from an article on Bury]:
"SCMP* rules limit League One and Two clubs to spending 60% and 50% of their turnover respectively on players’ wages, but classify cash from owners as “football fortune”, which can all be spent on additional wages." (*Salary Cost Management Protocols)

Pilley might feel that an external income of £2.3 million plus anything else (last year it was 5.4 million) justifies his investment and puts him in a good position compared to other clubs (Sunderland,Bolton the list must be long) ,so in that respect I think he's entitled to ask for the rules to be applied fairly and squarely;where for instance Bury were promoted last season without paying the players wages.

I've no idea either why Sunderland have been given a 'pass' just because they came down from the PL, without allowing for a reduction in wages and subsequent overheads-that for me is the bigger 'sin' than AP who's investment is genuine and by comparison modest.

Still waiting for some clarification BFC X 3 of what constitutes debt and investment with regards to Simon Sadler.Reported purchase price was £10 million then he'll have had to clear up the previous contracts,paid SG off after giving him a budget.

**rules concerning Sunderland and other relegated clubs to L1:

7.1 If a Championship Club is relegated to League One (a Relegated Club) the Relegated Club shall, notwithstanding relegation, remain bound by these Rules following relegation as if it were still a Championship Club until such time as it has complied with all of its obligations in respect of the Reporting Period covering its last Season as a Championship Club. Until such time as the Relegated Club has so complied, each of these Rules shall be deemed to apply to that Relegated Club, other than Rule 6.

7.2 By way of example only:

7.2.1 a Championship Club which becomes a Relegated Club in May 2014 must still submit its Fair Play Information in accordance with Rule 3 for the Reporting Period ending May, June or July 2014 by 1 December 2014 notwithstanding the fact that it is no longer a Championship Club in Season 2014/15; and

7.2.2 if that Relegated Club fails to fulfil the Fair Play Requirement for the Reporting Period 2013/14, or fails to provide Fair Play Information by 1 December 2014 as required by these Rules, it shall not be entitled to a share in the Distribution (if any) (as defined in Rule 10.4) but will not be subject to an Embargo whilst in League One.
 
Wizaard said:
There is no way Blackpool will average 4,200. Even that was fiddled upwards btw.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed but I was trying to make the point on the relevance of attendances and the effects of the extra loot.
LU are now trading on 96% turnover to wages (from 60) and charging fans £39 per seat,but its been widely accepted by the fans in order to have a winning team. Without parachute payments its almost a waste of time trying to compete, and even nicking a top 6 spot is harder than it was.

Sorry gone off topic a bit there but something needs to be done to bring a halt to this madness,and Andy Pilley is dead right to highlight the disparity as too is Andy Holt.
 
Plumbs said:
There seems to be something overlooked with you and BFC X 3 in that crowds dont really make a huge difference in the EFL,where the combined TV money of £1.3 million almost doubles Blackpool's gate receipts where the 2019 average was 4,200. (working at £15 per seat gives £1.5 million).
Fleetwoods average of just over 3k would give just over a million although I'd agree they've little room for improvement,unless they find a way of accommodating more away fans.

The critical thing is sponsorship and owners input which is classed as 'football fortune' [clipped from an article on Bury]:
"SCMP* rules limit League One and Two clubs to spending 60% and 50% of their turnover respectively on players’ wages, but classify cash from owners as “football fortune”, which can all be spent on additional wages." (*Salary Cost Management Protocols)

Pilley might feel that an external income of £2.3 million plus anything else (last year it was 5.4 million) justifies his investment and puts him in a good position compared to other clubs (Sunderland,Bolton the list must be long) ,so in that respect I think he's entitled to ask for the rules to be applied fairly and squarely;where for instance Bury were promoted last season without paying the players wages.

I've no idea either why Sunderland have been given a 'pass' just because they came down from the PL, without allowing for a reduction in wages and subsequent overheads-that for me is the bigger 'sin' than AP who's investment is genuine and by comparison modest.

Still waiting for some clarification BFC X 3 of what constitutes debt and investment with regards to Simon Sadler.Reported purchase price was £10 million then he'll have had to clear up the previous contracts,paid SG off after giving him a budget.

**rules concerning Sunderland and other relegated clubs to L1:

7.1 If a Championship Club is relegated to League One (a Relegated Club) the Relegated Club shall, notwithstanding relegation, remain bound by these Rules following relegation as if it were still a Championship Club until such time as it has complied with all of its obligations in respect of the Reporting Period covering its last Season as a Championship Club. Until such time as the Relegated Club has so complied, each of these Rules shall be deemed to apply to that Relegated Club, other than Rule 6.

7.2 By way of example only:

7.2.1 a Championship Club which becomes a Relegated Club in May 2014 must still submit its Fair Play Information in accordance with Rule 3 for the Reporting Period ending May, June or July 2014 by 1 December 2014 notwithstanding the fact that it is no longer a Championship Club in Season 2014/15; and

7.2.2 if that Relegated Club fails to fulfil the Fair Play Requirement for the Reporting Period 2013/14, or fails to provide Fair Play Information by 1 December 2014 as required by these Rules, it shall not be entitled to a share in the Distribution (if any) (as defined in Rule 10.4) but will not be subject to an Embargo whilst in League One.
Click to expand...
Clearly crowds do have an impact in the EFL....The average Blackpool attendace at BR stands at around 9000, Fleetwod at around 3000....So ST's, Matchday Sales & Other Fan related revenue is likely to add up to £5-6M for Blackpool vs £1.5 - £2M or so for Fleetwood. That's a substantial difference, regatrdless of TV money.

In the case of Fleetwood, they are sponsored by their owner, which is great in terms of getting around EFL rules, but not so great when it comes to generating genuine revenue for the Club.

Pilley can "Feel" whatever he wants....Fleetwood still owe £17M and counting, have limited existing revenue streams and have essentially rolled the dice on making the Championship.

What have Sunderland got to do with the discussion? Unless I've missed something, their owners aren't the subject of yourtube videos etc..either are they?

Simon Sadler BOUGHT Blackpool for £10M...That is not a debt on the Club....If I pay 50 pence for a tin of beans, the tin of beans doesn't owe anybody 50 pence for itself.

I'll try and explain the other bit in as simple terms as possible..

Since he took overat Blackpool, some money will have come into the club and some money will have gone out of the club.... Those two things are called "Revenue"(Money In) and "Expenditure" (Money Out)....If the "Revenue" has added up to more than the "Expenditure" then that means the Club has made a "Profit" and if the "Expenditure" has added up to more than the "Revenue" that is called a "Loss". If the Club makes a "Loss", and has no money in the bank to cover that "Loss" then the Club would then be in "Debt"...That "Debt" might be in the form of a bank facility or a "Director Loan" or the Club could decide to raise funds by issuing shares (like Oyston did with Belekon).

Of course that "Debt" would be referenced in a "Balance Sheet", which not only looks at the simplistic "Money In" vs "Money Out" position, but also takes account of the Club Assets.
 
FTs accounts reference a push for promotion to the Championship which can be construed as either investment or a throw of the dice,as indeed would be buying a provincial club for 10 million.
The point on referencing Sunderland was to demonstrate what clubs have to do to compete,and why ultimately they have to invest/roll the dice which is what Pilley is aggrieved about-where as you've pointed out a club with big gates have the edge.

Top half Championship clubs are paying around 20k pw for average players so in essence a local pissing contest with the Cods pales into almost insignificance,but Pilleys complaints/moans/groans are entirely relevant to the challenges the Seasiders face.
 
Plumbs said:
FTs accounts reference a push for promotion to the Championship which can be construed as either investment or a throw of the dice,as indeed would be buying a provincial club for 10 million.
The point on referencing Sunderland was to demonstrate what clubs have to do to compete,and why ultimately they have to invest/roll the dice which is what Pilley is aggrieved about-where as you've pointed out a club with big gates have the edge.

Top half Championship clubs are paying around 20k pw for average players so in essence a local pissing contest with the Cods pales into almost insignificance,but Pilleys complaints/moans/groans are entirely relevant to the challenges the Seasiders face.
Click to expand...
Well it can't be viewed as an investment really can it.... An investment is when you use your own money to advance your position....If you borrow the money and speculate with it then that puts a different slant on it....That gets into the realms of gambling on an outcome or rolling the dice.

I'm not sure how buying a Club for £10M with the history. land, rental revenue, associated assets and established supporter base that Blackpool has could ever be described as a throw of the dice. Though even if it could, it's a throw of the dice for the owner, not the Club....It only becomes a throw of the dice for the Club when the Club starts to take on debt.

Clubs don't "have to do" anything, they choose to do it... I'm not convinced that Sunderland have really got value for money in terms of transfer fees or wages paid either really. I really don't have an issue with bigger or Wealthier Clubs outsepending Blackpool.... I look at a lot oif it like the £500 on a bottle of wine merchants...It's never going to be 50 times nicer than a £10 Bottle !! So more opften than not, they end up paying orders of magnitude more for players who are often not that much better and create all manner of shyte in deressing rooms.

As I think I've said a few times, I am very happy to see these Clubs spending themselves out of existstance or getting into serious financial difficulty as it opens up an opportunity for the well run Clubs to step in and progress.
 
I think personally that buying any professional sports club is a gamble because you're relying on people coming through the gates, set against a back drop of the armchair/subscription situation which could collapse as ITV digital did- for the lower leagues anyway.

Pilley probably realises that time is against him and the virus has focused that sharply,but in essence he's standing up for the provincial clubs who are finding it hard to make headway despite sticking to the rules.

In the Championship you guys would be hard pressed to chase the PL dream because its changed so much,mainly because its not geared to fair competition and open to abuse.

Like I said Pilley is speaking largely in defence of ordinary fans and I think that has been lost on some of you because of his location.
 
Plumbs said:
I think personally that buying any professional sports club is a gamble because you're relying on people coming through the gates, set against a back drop of the armchair/subscription situation which could collapse as ITV digital did- for the lower leagues anyway.

Pilley probably realises that time is against him and the virus has focused that sharply,but in essence he's standing up for the provincial clubs who are finding it hard to make headway despite sticking to the rules.

In the Championship you guys would be hard pressed to chase the PL dream because its changed so much,mainly because its not geared to fair competition and open to abuse.

Like I said Pilley is speaking largely in defence of ordinary fans and I think that has been lost on some of you because of his location.
Click to expand...


I think theres a big difference between buying something that has a saleable value and incurring debt on a business that is in excess of the business assets and revenue potential.

Pilley is standing for Fleetwood and I wouldn't expect him to do anything else. I'm satisfied that Blackpool as a Club is well managed and financially sound.

I'm sure we would be hard pressed to chase the PL dream, but the opportunity exists for any well managed Club to gain promotion.
 
I've not hidden from saying that Fleetwood have always been a rich man's plaything and economically unsustainable.

It would appear that the bauble owner agrees with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top