Andy Pilley piece on BBC Sport

[basilrobbie]

Sorry to interrupt you and your pals weekly game of Fleetwood bashing but pray do tell us of this mystical club borne out of nothing but footballing excellence?

It doesn't exist. The most successful clubs simply have benefactors with the massive wallets. The bigger the wallet, the more footballing excellence. No club in the modern game succeeds from having big crowds.

Carry on.

We are discussing Fleetwood, because it is their chairman who wants to rig the game's structure to suit his club. Had you missed that?

I didn't say it was just his wallet - I said that it predominated. Ask any club that tried to compete with them in the NW Counties League, or the Unibond, or even the Conference, if you don't believe me.

Your last paragraph is factually incorrect, to begin with, and intellectually dubious. I don't think either Sheffield United or Newcastle fit within your hypothesis, to name but two. I think your love of one of the Scottish giants, and your pre-disposition towards anyone who isn't Blackpool is skewing your judgement a little.

 

[Wizaard]

The whole regional stuff is Small Town Club mentality for me. Obviously the fixtures should take travelling fans into account, but if your revenue streams aren't able to cope with proper football, then get yourself back down to the baby leagues IMHO.

That's exactly what I've been trying, and failing, to articulate.

 

[Plumbs]

I don't think either Sheffield United or Newcastle fit within your hypothesis, to name but two. I think your love of one of the Scottish giants, and your pre-disposition towards anyone who isn't Blackpool is skewing your judgement a little.

Yes they do indeed the Blades turfed out an 'old school' Chairman for a Middle Eastern megabucks owner and Ashley for all his faults has pumped millions into the Magpies.

If you're going to set out some sort of format then try and be consistent,or indeed come back on why Belekon was 'allowed' to invest in Blackpool to make them a PL club. You didn't whinge like a bitch over that did you?

 

[Plumbs]

That's exactly what I've been trying, and failing, to articulate.

But you keep ignoring the damage caused by the virus which underscores this particular debate.

 

[Wizaard]

But you keep ignoring the damage caused by the virus which underscores this particular debate.

Not ignoring it. All clubs are facing the same issue. Don't want to throw away the baby with the bathwater by over reacting to one issue.

 

[Loco]

Mid week trips to Pompey, Ipswich, Southend etc especially in winter times are ludicrous and anyone who came up with such an idea nowadays would be assigned to the asylum.
Under no circumstances could anyone suggest that the same home support turns out never mind travelling support. It’s ok for those who are retired, self employed etc that can take additional time off work to travel horrible distances for a mid week game, doff my cap to you Uber fans.

I certainly wasn't advocating for these games to be played midweek. Agree with your comments.

 

[Plumbs]

Not ignoring it. All clubs are facing the same issue. Don't want to throw away the baby with the bathwater by over reacting to one issue.

I agree but the changes suggested are merely to overcome the present issues in a season where we've lost an established club too. Lower league football has had major issues for many years now and this has simply rushed things along

 

[BFC_53]

The problem with regionalisation is that if league 2 for example is split into regions, it just means either playing the same team 4 times, or promoting half the league below. It doesn't necessarily mean you get bigger crowds; yes the clubs are closer but they also tend to be smaller and less well supported.
Proximity doesn't always equal big away followings. We should know that from when our nearest have visited!

 

[basilrobbie]

Yes they do indeed the Blades turfed out an 'old school' Chairman for a Middle Eastern megabucks owner and Ashley for all his faults has pumped millions into the Magpies.

If you're going to set out some sort of format then try and be consistent,or indeed come back on why Belekon was 'allowed' to invest in Blackpool to make them a PL club. You didn't whinge like a bitch over that did you?

Belokon never took to the internet to argue that the League should give preferential treatment to teams with Latvian benefactors (which would be broadly analogous to what Pilley is doing). And £4.5 million - or even £9 million - is hardly "megabucks", in my book. So the comparison is meaningless.

As for my comparators - Sheffield United came all the way from L1 on modest levels of investment. They have still got two of OUR ex-players in the team, and the significant spending all came last summer - AFTER they had made the big time and had expectations of a huge TV handout to pay for it. Newcastle just prove that asserting that money equates to success is simply not true.

 

[Plumbs]

Belokon never took to the internet to argue that the League should give preferential treatment to teams with Latvian benefactors (which would be broadly analogous to what Pilley is doing). And £4.5 million - or even £9 million - is hardly "megabucks", in my book. So the comparison is meaningless.

As for my comparators - Sheffield United came all the way from L1 on modest levels of investment. They have still got two of OUR ex-players in the team, and the significant spending all came last summer - AFTER they had made the big time and had expectations of a huge TV handout to pay for it. Newcastle just prove that asserting that money equates to success is simply not true.

Belekon wasnt presented with the coronavirus crisis so that assertion is irrelevant,indeed you guys were lucky because had things not been concluded then I reckon the O's would have found the perfect opportunity to go and groundshare with AFC Blackpool.
The investment VB made was valued in court around £25 million, but if you've issues with what constitutes investment and a dividend then fine,because at some point Pilley may well get back his investment in the longer term like VB did.
Dont forget his input is restricted by financial fair play and FT are getting over a million a year from TV money etc,so if he keeps them in the league for the longer term he'll more than make his money.

Sheff Utd were fortunate to find probably the best English manager for a generation but the previous January they were able to bring in some quality,and that came from their wealthy owner who's already shelled out some significant sums in wages-inc the two players you mention.

I'd beg to differ on Newcastles lack of 'success' because in Ashleys tenure they've had some good years,and only suffered relegation twice when they bounced back on both occasions. Their average PL position since his tenure has been 12th and last season they broke their transfer record twice I believe.

 

[Wizaard]

Belekon wasnt presented with the coronavirus crisis so that assertion is irrelevant,indeed you guys were lucky because had things not been concluded then I reckon the O's would have found the perfect opportunity to go and groundshare with AFC Blackpool.
The investment VB made was valued in court around £25 million, but if you've issues with what constitutes investment and a dividend then fine,because at some point Pilley may well get back his investment in the longer term like VB did.
Dont forget his input is restricted by financial fair play and FT are getting over a million a year from TV money etc,so if he keeps them in the league for the longer term he'll more than make his money.

Sheff Utd were fortunate to find probably the best English manager for a generation but the previous January they were able to bring in some quality,and that came from their wealthy owner who's already shelled out some significant sums in wages-inc the two players you mention.

I'd beg to differ on Newcastles lack of 'success' because in Ashleys tenure they've had some good years,and only suffered relegation twice when they bounced back on both occasions. Their average PL position since his tenure has been 12th and last season they broke their transfer record twice I believe.

Hardly through Ashleys funding though, just management of income streams.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Yes they do indeed the Blades turfed out an 'old school' Chairman for a Middle Eastern megabucks owner and Ashley for all his faults has pumped millions into the Magpies.

If you're going to set out some sort of format then try and be consistent,or indeed come back on why Belekon was 'allowed' to invest in Blackpool to make them a PL club. You didn't whinge like a bitch over that did you?

You keep referring to Belokon as if he was pumping money into Blackpool on a scale comparable to most wealthy benefactors. I think that point needs addressing don't you?

He bought a 20% stake in the Club and a moderate amount of money was used to fund the playing side. The scale of investment from VB wasn't even comparable to Andy Pilley at Fleetwood, never mind the investment made at peer Clubs.

You keep bringing this up as if Blackpool has ever been subject to any kind of substantial investment....It hasn't.....Never has been...

Both the success of Newcastle and the success of Sheffield United has very little to do with their current owners or their investment and everything to do with the size of the Clubs and their supporter base.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

The investment VB made was valued in court around £25 million

No it wasn't....That's an outright Lie!

 

[Plumbs]

Hardly through Ashleys funding though, just management of income streams.

Look-theres no way that Ashley has ticked all boxes on good ownership but compare his tenure to Sunderland,where he's largely kept them in a reasonable position both on and off the pitch.
He's taken their nett worth to £300 million and now they're in a prime position to go and challenge the top clubs in Europe,and I'd swop what they've had right now.

The Newcastle fans I bumped into at FSA meetings needed to get their heads out of the collective arses and see how the real world functions,because they never had the divine right to break into the top six in the first place.

 

[basilrobbie]

"The investment VB made was valued in court around £25 million".

The prejudice he had suffered was valued at around £26.7m, which is a different thing entirely. Not for the first time, you are trying to compare apples with lampshades.

And if you think that a team with average gates of over 50,000 averaging 12th place, with the odd relegation thrown in, and no major trophy win since 1969 is doing OK, good for you.

 

[Plumbs]

You keep referring to Belokon as if he was pumping money into Blackpool on a scale comparable to most wealthy benefactors. I think that point needs addressing don't you?

He bought a 20% stake in the Club and a moderate amount of money was used to fund the playing side. The scale of investment from VB wasn't even comparable to Andy Pilley at Fleetwood, never mind the investment made at peer Clubs.

You keep bringing this up as if Blackpool has ever been subject to any kind of substantial investment....It hasn't.....Never has been...

Both the success of Newcastle and the success of Sheffield United has very little to do with their current owners or their investment and everything to do with the size of the Clubs and their supporter base.

I'm using the Belekon scenario on a pro rate basis which it is and at a time when it was enough to challenge for a top six spot in the Championship.
I've only quoted the figures but equally how much did the O's lose pa during their tenure? It'd be interesting to see how they compared over that 30 years or so to Pilley when he's done.Losses that you all accepted and which included the disposal of long term BFC assets (argued to death on the old board)

Some folk have one rule for one and one for another,which by and large is the point I'm addressing.

 

[Plumbs]

"The investment VB made was valued in court around £25 million".

The prejudice he had suffered was valued at around £26.7m, which is a different thing entirely. Not for the first time, you are trying to compare apples with lampshades.

And if you think that a team with average gates of over 50,000 averaging 12th place, with the odd relegation thrown in, and no major trophy win since 1969 is doing OK, good for you.

The figure was £31 million but his share was reported as £25 million so it seems you are comparing apples with lampshade coloured apples,but investment and dividends are the issue and the same with other clubs-whether its FT or NU.
I think Sunderland,Portsmouth and a host of other big clubs would take what Newcastle have had where the same small number of clubs have been winning the same trophies for a while now,which includes Liverpool who havent won a League title for nearly 30 years.

Thats set against an artificial situation since 1993 where the likes of Wimbledon had been able to compete with no ground of their own,and with no willingness to invest in an infrastructure while traditional big clubs like Newcastle couldnt get a look in.
Right back at ya BRR (smiley)

Blackpool put into receivership

Blackpool are put into receivership by the High Court, forcing owner Owen Oyston to pay ex-director Valeri Belokon £25m.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I'm using the Belekon scenario on a pro rate basis which it is and at a time when it was enough to challenge for a top six spot in the Championship.
I've only quoted the figures but equally how much did the O's lose pa during their tenure? It'd be interesting to see how they compared over that 30 years or so to Pilley when he's done.Losses that you all accepted and which included the disposal of long term BFC assets (argued to death on the old board)

Some folk have one rule for one and one for another,which by and large is the point I'm addressing.

It's not one rule for one and one rule for another at all, in fact it is quite the opposite...

We are talking about two complete extreme ends of the spectrum

Blackpool have maintained themselves largely by minimal investment and simply getting by on the basics...(Training Ground, Pitch Covers, Skeleton Staff etc...). The Belekon investment was tiny and we were one of the lowest spending Clubs in the Championship when we got promoted, so you are simply making stuff up to suit I'm afraid.

In relative terms Fleetwood Town have substantially overspent and up unti fairly recently have been at the very higher end of the spenders (if not the highest spenders in the league) by some significant margin. The difference between the models of the two clubs is Night and Day!!

And as Robbie points out, the owners of Blackpool are not the ones on youtube calling for changes to a system that would uniquely benefit our Club.

If you don't mind me saying, your perspective on this is utterly ridicuous.....

 

[deary]

Its a good debate, like many i think regional leagues would be a backward step.
But obviously long travel is not ideal for the majority of fans.
Look at the National League & how far Dover have to travel for instance.

Things may change with the virus.
Do we really want hordes of Londoners infesting the North with that there Covid

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Blackpool put into receivership

Blackpool are put into receivership by the High Court, forcing owner Owen Oyston to pay ex-director Valeri Belokon £25m.

www.bbc.co.uk

The award to VB related to damages and interest in a claim for Prejudicial Treatment of a Minority Shareholder. It was awarded after Blackpool had reached the Premier League and OO had removed around £30M of Premier League money from the Club. The award was not the amount that VB had invested into Blackpool F.C.

 

[Plumbs]

It's not one rule for one and one rule for another at all, in fact it is quite the opposite...

We are talking about two complete extreme ends of the spectrum

Blackpool have maintained themselves largely by minimal investment and simply getting by on the basics...(Training Ground, Pitch Covers, Skeleton Staff etc...). The Belekon investment was tiny and we were one of the lowest spending Clubs in the Championship when we got promoted, so you are simply making stuff up to suit I'm afraid.

In relative terms Fleetwood Town have substantially overspent and up unti fairly recently have been at the very higher end of the spenders (if not the highest spenders in the league) by some significant margin. The difference between the models of the two clubs is Night and Day!!

And as Robbie points out, the owners of Blackpool are not the ones on youtube calling for changes to a system that would uniquely benefit our Club.

If you don't mind me saying, your perspective on this is utterly ridicuous.....

Pilley had shoved a huge wedge in to get the club going granted,but he has always complied with EFL rules on finance. He built the stadium without a grant but Blackpool were fortunate to get one for the West and North then have Belekon fund the South,so that's a 'trade off' for want of a better description.
Where would you guys be without that stadium grant or the investment (small by comparison at the time)? You cant genuinely begrudge what Pilley has done given its what you have had,albeit with some fortune and different ways of getting to where you're at.

The models may be different but in todays football everyone is driven by the artificial monies coming in from elsewhere,which up until now Pilley has taken full advantage of.

 

[Plumbs]

The award was not the amount that VB had invested into Blackpool F.C.

Correct.-a huge difference between investment and dividend.
For some reason Andy Pilley isnt 'allowed' to invest and draw a dividend further down the line because FT have never been in the EFL.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Pilley had shoved a huge wedge in to get the club going granted,but he has always complied with EFL rules on finance. He built the stadium without a grant but Blackpool were fortunate to get one for the West and North then have Belekon fund the South,so that's a 'trade off' for want of a better description.
Where would you guys be without that stadium grant or the investment (small by comparison at the time)? You cant genuinely begrudge what Pilley has done given its what you have had,albeit with some fortune and different ways of getting to where you're at.

The models may be different but in todays football everyone is driven by the artificial monies coming in from elsewhere,which up until now Pilley has taken full advantage of.

What are you talking about?

Like I said...The two examples are Night and Day...There literally is no comparison whatsoever!!

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Correct.-a huge difference between investment and dividend.
For some reason Andy Pilley isnt 'allowed' to invest and draw a dividend further down the line because FT have never been in the EFL.

What are you talking about again?

Nobody is stopping Pilley taking a dividend further down the line, if that's the way he wants to try and go...However that doesn't mean that the way his Club have amassed their success is in any way comparable to Blackpool or that the extent of VB's investment doesn't pale into insignificance by comparison.

What IS being said here... is that some of us object to Pilley suddenly trying ti restructure the game to better suit his newly found circumstances, instead of him (and others) addressing their own issues and letting the rest of football get on with it.

 

[Plumbs]

What are you talking about again?

Nobody is stopping Pilley taking a dividend further down the line, if that's the way he wants to try and go...However that doesn't mean that the way his Club have amassed their success is in any way comparable to Blackpool or that the extent of VB's investment doesn't pale into insignificance by comparison.

What IS being said here... is that some of us object to Pilley suddenly trying ti restructure the game to better suit his newly found circumstances, instead of him (and others) addressing their own issues and letting the rest of football get on with it.

On comparable investment I'm trying to make the point that all AP has done is what VB did with the Seasiders,in a totally different way granted - but investment just the same. Some chose to sneer at that but laud it for their own club and that's what I find irritating and of course entirely hypocritical.

Yup I'd agree that Pilley is being entirely subjective is in his assertions but he's earned the right,and of course set up an infrastructure thats entirely sustainable given the consolidarity payments.

On a more general note I'm amazed he draws so much angst and criticism on here,unless its the frustration of some who have dismissed FT as simply an irritant who can never be rivals

 

[basilrobbie]

The figure was £31 million but his share was reported as £25 million so it seems you are comparing apples with lampshade coloured apples,but investment and dividends are the issue and the same with other clubs-whether its FT or NU.
I think Sunderland,Portsmouth and a host of other big clubs would take what Newcastle have had where the same small number of clubs have been winning the same trophies for a while now,which includes Liverpool who havent won a League title for nearly 30 years.

Thats set against an artificial situation since 1993 where the likes of Wimbledon had been able to compete with no ground of their own,and with no willingness to invest in an infrastructure while traditional big clubs like Newcastle couldnt get a look in.
Right back at ya BRR (smiley)

Blackpool put into receivership

Blackpool are put into receivership by the High Court, forcing owner Owen Oyston to pay ex-director Valeri Belokon £25m.

www.bbc.co.uk

Portsmouth and Sunderland have both won an FA Cup since Newcastle last did. It kind of trumps the Intertoto and Texaco Cup. I have no idea what on earth you think Wimbledon have got to do with the price of fish.

Going back to us, the figure was actually £31.27 million, of which £4.5 million was money VB had already put in and the rest was an estimate of the prejudice he had suffered due to the behaviour of the O's. That was recompense for a loss, not a dividend, and again these are two completely different things.

Intellectually, what you are posting is absolute tripe. It's not helped by the fact that you are as careless with detail as you sometimes are with the truth.

 

[20togo]

"Dont forget his input is restricted by financial fair play and FT are getting over a million a year from TV money etc,so if he keeps them in the league for the longer term he'll more than make his money."

Is that true. I don't think so. And how will Pilley take a dividend down the line? Pilley is a benefactor to Fleetwood. I don't see him as an investor who wants a return. Any time he wants a return will pretty much be the end of the club as a going concern and they would have to downsize immediately. Pilley taking a return would mean most of the players wouldn't be drawing a wage anything like the amount I'd imagine they are currently on.
There is only Fleetwood with Pilley as a benefactor. Pilley as an investor is not a going concern either now or at any time in the future.

 

[jack_bfc]

Its a bit worrying that someone who has some sort of active partcipation in the FSF has no clue what he is on about!!

Although Im not suprised..

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

On comparable investment I'm trying to make the point that all AP has done is what VB did with the Seasiders,in a totally different way granted - but investment just the same. Some chose to sneer at that but laud it for their own club and that's what I find irritating and of course entirely hypocritical.

Yup I'd agree that Pilley is being entirely subjective is in his assertions but he's earned the right,and of course set up an infrastructure thats entirely sustainable given the consolidarity payments.

On a more general note I'm amazed he draws so much angst and criticism on here,unless its the frustration of some who have dismissed FT as simply an irritant who can never be rivals

There is no "Comparable Investment"

One Club has consistently operated on the lowest budget within the League and carefully managed revenue in vs revenue out, the other has consistently outspent it's rivals and amassed significant debts, due to spending far more than it earns.

In what world is spending more than twice your annual turnover considered to be sustainable?

The angst and criticism is simple...The competition in football is fierce and we support Blackpool F.C. I don't mind admitting that I struggle with the idea of Fleetwood attaining partity (in terms of League position) with Blackpool. That said, I have accepted that has been achieved by massive investment by Pilley and to a certain extent comfort myself in the knowledge that the success will inevitably be short lived.

So from a personal perspective, I would feel somewhat short-changed if Fleetwood 'Get away with it' .... As I see it, I'll accept you gaining success through excessive spending, just so long as you wipe your own arse when needed. As it is, Pilley is referencing his and then referring to other Clubs who might go bust and citing that as a reason for them to have their collective arses wiped and the League structure changed so that their past financial incompetence doesn't come home to roost.

Some might care if so called "Big Name Clubs" go to the wall...I don't....I see it as an opportunity for those that remain to improve their standing and an appropriate penalty for Clubs who seek to enjoy the excessive spending. So it matters not to me if Sunderland are forced to go bump and start again at the bottom of the Football Pyramid...Plenty of other lesser known Clubs have suffered that fate...

So Football shouldn't restructure or change to accomodate these Clubs and particularly should not build it's rules, financial set up and structure around accomodating Clubs like Fleetwood Town. Clubs should never be denied the opportunity to invest and punch above their weight, but they should not be wetnursed when it comes to being involved in the costs of supporting professional football either....So if Fleetwood can;t afford to maintain League Football, the answer is not for football to change, bvut for Fleetwood to readjust their ambitions.

 

[td53]

I'd say the long term success of Football Clubs is far more likely to be directly proportionate to the number of supporters than individual benefactors. Of course, it is likely that a wealthy individual is much more likely to invest in a Club with revenue generating potential than one without any.

To an extent yes, but at the top level you have clubs like Citeh and Chelsea who have become global phenomena with 'supporters' all over the world, simply because they've had the right backing at the right time. Other clubs who are historically comparable, say, Leeds, the Massive, Villa etc don't have that global reach and thus don't have the number of 'fans' worldwide. Fans through the gates isn't a problem for them, but being able to brand themselves as a globally appealing success story is.

Obvs, Fleetwood is a long way from that!

 

[Big_Flag_Man]

I dont think most fans support regionalisation just want the EFL to better plan the fixtures to try and minimise the long distance away midweek fixtures. I noticed he did'nt mention charging Blackpool fans £4 for a pie .

 

[td53]

There is no "Comparable Investment"

One Club has consistently operated on the lowest budget within the League and carefully managed revenue in vs revenue out, the other has consistently outspent it's rivals and amassed significant debts, due to spending far more than it earns.

In what world is spending more than twice your annual turnover considered to be sustainable?

The angst and criticism is simple...The competition in football is fierce and we support Blackpool F.C. I don't mind admitting that I struggle with the idea of Fleetwood attaining partity (in terms of League position) with Blackpool. That said, I have accepted that has been achieved by massive investment by Pilley and to a certain extent comfort myself in the knowledge that the success will inevitably be short lived.

So from a personal perspective, I would feel somewhat short-changed if Fleetwood 'Get away with it' .... As I see it, I'll accept you gaining success through excessive spending, just so long as you wipe your own arse when needed. As it is, Pilley is referencing his and then referring to other Clubs who might go bust and citing that as a reason for them to have their collective arses wiped and the League structure changed so that their past financial incompetence doesn't come home to roost.

Some might care if so called "Big Name Clubs" go to the wall...I don't....I see it as an opportunity for those that remain to improve their standing and an appropriate penalty for Clubs who seek to enjoy the excessive spending. So it matters not to me if Sunderland are forced to go bump and start again at the bottom of the Football Pyramid...Plenty of other lesser known Clubs have suffered that fate...

So Football shouldn't restructure or change to accomodate these Clubs and particularly should not build it's rules, financial set up and structure around accomodating Clubs like Fleetwood Town. Clubs should never be denied the opportunity to invest and punch above their weight, but they should not be wetnursed when it comes to being involved in the costs of supporting professional football either....So if Fleetwood can;t afford to maintain League Football, the answer is not for football to change, bvut for Fleetwood to readjust their ambitions.

I'd seriously look at limiting playing budgets and transfer fees and ensuring that buying sporting success was far more difficult. I'd allow clubs to invest in infrastructure and training and community facilities (as to be fair Fleetwood have done) but I'd make it much harder for the Fleetwoods. Salford's and plucky little Wigans as effectively, their spending raises the bar for everyone else who may be living within their means. To some extent FFP does this, but it's full of loopholes and seems to be retrospectively activated...

I'd apply that to the top clubs as well as the 'minnows'

 

[Wizaard]

If anything Pilleys recent pronouncements have comparisons with Gartside when he was running Bolton.

We're doing well, let's stop others doing the same, although Pilley has gone a stage further and wants to penalise clubs with big fanbases as that's unfair too.

 

[Wizaard]

I'd seriously look at limiting playing budgets and transfer fees and ensuring that buying sporting success was far more difficult. I'd allow clubs to invest in infrastructure and training and community facilities (as to be fair Fleetwood have done) but I'd make it much harder for the Fleetwoods. Salford's and plucky little Wigans as effectively, their spending raises the bar for everyone else who may be living within their means. To some extent FFP does this, but it's full of loopholes and seems to be retrospectively activated...

I'd apply that to the top clubs as well as the 'minnows'

Just to clarify, Fleetwood have nothing invested in Poolfoot, it's all privately owned by Pilley and rented to the club.

 

[Plumbs]

Portsmouth and Sunderland have both won an FA Cup since Newcastle last did. It kind of trumps the Intertoto and Texaco Cup. I have no idea what on earth you think Wimbledon have got to do with the price of fish.

Going back to us, the figure was actually £31.27 million, of which £4.5 million was money VB had already put in and the rest was an estimate of the prejudice he had suffered due to the behaviour of the O's. That was recompense for a loss, not a dividend, and again these are two completely different things.

Intellectually, what you are posting is absolute tripe. It's not helped by the fact that you are as careless with detail as you sometimes are with the truth.

You've unilaterally opted to define success as winning trophies which has hijacked the point, but demonstrates the same traits you employed on the other site.

Regarding VBs position- his original investment was designed to yield a dividend which he never received,along with recompense for going about getting back his dues.

The issue remains the same-your own intellect doesn't stretch to acknowledging one mans investment,yet at the same time you laud it when it comes to your own club irrespective of how you dress it up.

 

[Tangerine1887]

Wiz - reduce relevance in what way? Not being funny I just don't understand.

I can only see positives. Bigger away crowds. Bigger home crowds as well. Less cost on fans. More opportunities to do all games, against a crappy rail system we have. No costs for overnight stays. Better atmosphere at games. More relevant games, Fleetwood last season was a dead rubber for both sides but the place was jumping - would that have been the same against say MK Dons? Don't forget Fleetwood are irrelevant and not a Derby game

Again, it won't happen because of 'tradition'.

Tradition wouldn't be a problem because lower divisions used to be regionalised.
I personally would miss the staying over at other cities /towns like Lincoln And Bristol for example.
Also away fans stay over in theory when travelling distance which is Goodworth the town.

 

[Plumbs]

Just to clarify, Fleetwood have nothing invested in Poolfoot, it's all privately owned by Pilley and rented to the club.

Much like BR under the O's then or even ER under Ken Bates?
In the bigger picture it doesnt really matter although as a fan its annoying having to pay a rent on something the club should own.

I can only guess on how Villa and Derby fans feel with this issue.

 

[Archibald Knox]

Mid week trips to Pompey, Ipswich, Southend etc especially in winter times are ludicrous and anyone who came up with such an idea nowadays would be assigned to the asylum.
Under no circumstances could anyone suggest that the same home support turns out never mind travelling support. It’s ok for those who are retired, self employed etc that can take additional time off work to travel horrible distances for a mid week game, doff my cap to you Uber fans.

It’s not just the TV companies who strongly influence the EFL when the fixture list is drawn up though, is it? The police have strong opinions about when the big clubs play in Blackpool. They would prefer clubs like Pompey, Sunderland etc to come mid-week since there will be less fans travelling and less demand on police resources.

The worst case for the police is a large club coming over a bank holiday weekend. That would be great for the town’s businesses but the police are rather self-centred and short-sighted. Mind you, it doesn’t help that there are less coppers currently in the force than there has been for decades due to the cuts.

 

[Plumbs]

"Dont forget his input is restricted by financial fair play and FT are getting over a million a year from TV money etc,so if he keeps them in the league for the longer term he'll more than make his money."

Is that true. I don't think so. And how will Pilley take a dividend down the line? Pilley is a benefactor to Fleetwood. I don't see him as an investor who wants a return. Any time he wants a return will pretty much be the end of the club as a going concern and they would have to downsize immediately. Pilley taking a return would mean most of the players wouldn't be drawing a wage anything like the amount I'd imagine they are currently on.
There is only Fleetwood with Pilley as a benefactor. Pilley as an investor is not a going concern either now or at any time in the future.

Yup absolutely but he is restricted in how much of a benefactor he can be. Maybe he doesn't want a return,maybe Poolfoot is a pension pot,maybe he's using FT as a tax write off?

The crux of the issue will come when he feels he's gone as far as he can on the field and tries to offload, because I'd agree he'd be hard pressed to find a buyer. Not sure when that would be though and simply more naval gazing on our behalf

 

[poolseasider]

He won't find a buyer ever the clubs worth fuck all not a single penny.
As to a grant for doing the ground up that would have been up to Wyre Council not AP seeing as they own the gaff.

 

[Wizaard]

Much like BR under the O's then or even ER under Ken Bates?
In the bigger picture it doesnt really matter although as a fan its annoying having to pay a rent on something the club should own.

I can only guess on how Villa and Derby fans feel with this issue.

Exactly that, and as I recall, Oyston was excoriated for removing 'club' assets into his ownership, not least the Tangerine Nite Spot and subsequent Travelodge. Pilley on the other hand, is seen as a white knight for doing the same.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I'd seriously look at limiting playing budgets and transfer fees and ensuring that buying sporting success was far more difficult. I'd allow clubs to invest in infrastructure and training and community facilities (as to be fair Fleetwood have done) but I'd make it much harder for the Fleetwoods. Salford's and plucky little Wigans as effectively, their spending raises the bar for everyone else who may be living within their means. To some extent FFP does this, but it's full of loopholes and seems to be retrospectively activated...

I'd apply that to the top clubs as well as the 'minnows'

Pilley was talking about normalising Club budgets to such an extent that the size of gates or the Clubs ability to generate revenue through other means is totally negated. I can understand that this might appeal to some sporting purist, who longs for a return to the good old days of the Late 1800's, when men were real men and football was not about money etc...but, it's not really what Football is about.

The ability to be better than your rivals by virtue of your ability to generate revenue from bigger attendances is precisely what cements the relationship between Club and Supporters. The quest to get more fans and the ability to brag about your attendances is as much a part of football as anything else...The fact that fans can potentially impact on success by the strength of theiur support is a hugely important factor and something that drives us all.

Of course, Pilley wants to also deny other C;lubs the dream and aspiration that Fleetwoood have enjoyed.....Let's face it, the prospect of being taken over by a local hero / benefactor is also a big part of the Football Dream and why should that end when Andy Pilley and Fleetwood decide, just because they've got to the point where they can't afford to keep it up...?

I get it that things have spiralled out of control and I get the need for some measures to be put in place to offer a certain amount of protection for the Football Clubs, but I don't think that should be at the expense of allowing all Clubs the opportunity to invest for success or benefot from the input of their fans or benefactors.

Of course, there are already rules in place for such a purpose, so perhaps more careful monitoring and proper enforcement of the existing rules would be a start.

 

[Kettlebelly]

There's no hatred at all, I'm simply offering my perspective....There are plenty of local Provincial Clubs who would welcome the support of fans who prefer that kind of league format. There are also plenty of Provincial Leagues to accomodate Clubs who feel they cannot cope with the prssures of Professional Football.

Once again you go on about clubs when I’m talking supporters. Players n staff don’t need half days or more off to attend midweek matches at the other end of the country and certainly don’t need to pay overnight accommodation and associated costs. You delude upon quality but have nothing to back that up.
This thread is another Pilley/Fleetwood bashing exercise.

 

[basilrobbie]

This thread is another Pilley/Fleetwood bashing exercise.

It's a discussion of a proposal advanced by the chairman of....... Fleetwood Town. Who else would you have us talk about?

 

[poolseasider]

Once again you go on about clubs when I’m talking supporters. Players n staff don’t need half days or more off to attend midweek matches at the other end of the country and certainly don’t need to pay overnight accommodation and associated costs. You delude upon quality but have nothing to back that up.
This thread is another Pilley/Fleetwood bashing exercise.

Did you not read above the clubs voted on this already and much preferred the bigger gate money on Saturdays that local teams bring.
That's just one aspect of the interview your picking up on, this ain't just bashing the Cods but when any owner comes out with that shite he has just done so be it.

Your basically with regalising the lower tiers making us all non league.

 

[Plumbs]

Exactly that, and as I recall, Oyston was excoriated for removing 'club' assets into his ownership, not least the Tangerine Nite Spot and subsequent Travelodge. Pilley on the other hand, is seen as a white knight for doing the same.

Not analogous really as AP is trying to build a club from almost scratch using of course resources that previously weren't available.To that end of course it does show the 'Man City'* wedge isnt anything like that-pro rata or otherwise-but a long term investment from which he will benefit;as indeed any decent owner is entitled to do.

*as suggested by brr.

**the Tangerine Club land was a separate entity when the O's bought the club but that doesn't detract from the issue.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Once again you go on about clubs when I’m talking supporters. Players n staff don’t need half days or more off to attend midweek matches at the other end of the country and certainly don’t need to pay overnight accommodation and associated costs. You delude upon quality but have nothing to back that up.
This thread is another Pilley/Fleetwood bashing exercise.

No, I "went on" about both Clubs and supporters!!

Also, you seem to assume that a) All Supporters are based 'locally' and b) Significantly more supporters would attend away games if professional Football was regionalised. Personally I'm not convinced and would imagine that fan attendance might have an initial surge, but would largely taper off and possibly even get worse than at present for many local games.

I'm not sure what your point is about Fleetwood and Pilley bashing really... The thread title is "Andy Pilley piece on BBC Sport"...Did you expect people to be offering their opinion on the price of Margarine?

 

[Wizaard]

Did you not read above the clubs voted on this already and much preferred the bigger gate money on Saturdays that local teams bring.
That's just one aspect of the interview your picking up on, this ain't just bashing the Cods but when any owner comes out with that shite he has just done so be it.

Your basically with regalising the lower tiers making us all non league.

Pilley said it so it must be significant and marvellous is just as prevalent as bashing.

 

[Athers]

Guess it’s a case of where do you draw the line?

Maybe in league 2 where a lot of clubs have small crowds and finances you could regionalise but I’m sorry, league 1 has some big clubs with big attendances, if you overspend and live beyond your means that’s tough shit.

Regionalising in league one wouldn’t work anyway. There’s only Blackpool, Accrington, Tranmere, Bolton, Rochdale and Doncaster who I can think of as northern in this this league. Where would your Coventry City’s and Burton’s go?

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it

 

[Wizaard]

Guess it’s a case of where do you draw the line?

Maybe in league 2 where a lot of clubs have small crowds and finances you could regionalise but I’m sorry, league 1 has some big clubs with big attendances, if you overspend and live beyond your means that’s tough shit.

Regionalising in league one wouldn’t work anyway. There’s only Blackpool, Accrington, Tranmere, Bolton, Rochdale and Doncaster who I can think of as northern in this this league. Where would your Coventry City’s and Burton’s go?

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it

And four of them are Shiite, although you did forget Fleetwood