Fan-led Review : update on 9 June

BlackpoolSupportersTrust

Well-known member
Yesterday was Evidence Day for fans of clubs who were in the Championship in 2020/21. Their meeting with Tracey Crouch and the advisory panel was in two parts :

1) individual sessions with selected Trusts throughout the day - Brentford, Birmingham City, Sheffield Wednesday and Derby County were among those giving oral evidence

2) more group based discussions around some key themes in the evening

The FSA have circulated notes of some of the main points :


The session for clubs who played in Leagues 1 and 2 in 2020/21 is next Tuesday (15 June). Blackpool Supporters Trust is one of those selected to give oral evidence and we also take part in the broader discussion session planned for the evening.

We will publish a note of our impressions of the event as soon as possible afterwards (probably on 16 June). We will also hopefully be able to publish :

  • our written evidence to the Panel (including an executive summary)
  • further Q&A on key aspects of the Review

both of which will be on our website.
 
Last edited:

Tangerinemoss

Well-known member
Thanks for that. One contribution leapt out at me, as exampling more the problem than the solution.

"On behalf of RamsTrust I highlighted the difficulties the club has had trying to compete; with previous owners who ran out of money or were jailed for fraud. Then our current owner who has put approaching £200m of his own money into the club but has had to separate the stadium from the club to avoid breaking Financial Fair Play."

Making excuses for your own club's attempt to bypass the rules and sustainability makes the process farcical. I'm certain BST's approach will be more strategic.
 

Chunkylad

Well-known member
Thanks for that. One contribution leapt out at me, as exampling more the problem than the solution.

"On behalf of RamsTrust I highlighted the difficulties the club has had trying to compete; with previous owners who ran out of money or were jailed for fraud. Then our current owner who has put approaching £200m of his own money into the club but has had to separate the stadium from the club to avoid breaking Financial Fair Play."

Making excuses for your own club's attempt to bypass the rules and sustainability makes the process farcical. I'm certain BST's approach will be more strategic.
Zero sympathy at all for them
 

BlackpoolWolf

Well-known member
Thanks for the update - biggest thing for me is that we have to totally roll back all the concessions that help the rich get richer - bigger share of tv money etc - and cascade the money down far more
 

Plumbs

Well-known member
Thanks for that. One contribution leapt out at me, as exampling more the problem than the solution.

"On behalf of RamsTrust I highlighted the difficulties the club has had trying to compete; with previous owners who ran out of money or were jailed for fraud. Then our current owner who has put approaching £200m of his own money into the club but has had to separate the stadium from the club to avoid breaking Financial Fair Play."

Making excuses for your own club's attempt to bypass the rules and sustainability makes the process farcical. I'm certain BST's approach will be more strategic.
Exactly and its one reason why in my view* that the people running the Trusts cant be (npi) trusted.
Derby's I know isnt popular and not very representative and they did very little when the Rams had a 'sliding scale' on admission prices,where essentially they had cut price tickets available early doors but those rose significantly as the fixture approached.

Of course many fans with work commitments had to wait and essentially (no pun intended again) their fans were fleeced.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
Thanks for the update - biggest thing for me is that we have to totally roll back all the concessions that help the rich get richer - bigger share of tv money etc - and cascade the money down far more

Wolf

I would think that a bigger thing would be perhaps for the smaller clubs to live within their means first.

There is no doubt a greater share of TV revenues would help the smaller clubs but if they fail to live within their means then they will always have problems regardless of their TV revenues.

I'm also struggling to see how the bigger clubs will agree to a smaller share of revenues ?

There is no doubt that, it could make things more competitive but why would the clubs who are responsible for generating the large TV revenues agree to contribute more to the lower leagues ?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the biggest clubs are trying to obtain a bigger share of the revenues that they are responsible - or that they certainly believe that they are responsible for - for generating.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Wolf

I would think that a bigger thing would be perhaps for the smaller clubs to live within their means first.

There is no doubt a greater share of TV revenues would help the smaller clubs but if they fail to live within their means then they will always have problems regardless of their TV revenues.

I'm also struggling to see how the bigger clubs will agree to a smaller share of revenues ?

There is no doubt that, it could make things more competitive but why would the clubs who are responsible for generating the large TV revenues agree to contribute more to the lower leagues ?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the biggest clubs are trying to obtain a bigger share of the revenues that they are responsible - or that they certainly believe that they are responsible for - for generating.
By the smaller clubs living within their means, the gap gets larger to those bigger clubs circumventing the rules and overspending because they are a 'big' club
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
By the smaller clubs living within their means, the gap gets larger to those bigger clubs circumventing the rules and overspending because they are a 'big' club

Wiz

That could very well be true but when I said it is should be a priority for the smaller clubs to live within their means, I was not suggesting that the bigger clubs should fail to do so.

I was suggesting that the priority for smaller clubs should be to live within their means ahead of trying to obtain a greater share of TV revenues because if they fail to live within their means they might very well experience financial problems even if the TV revenues were to increase.

I would also suggest that the issue of overspending is a far bigger problem among the smaller clubs than in the bigger clubs ?

The debt - although not for a second am I suggesting that having debt means that there has been overspending - might be higher at the bigger clubs, it will probably be far, far higher but it will probably be serviceable at the bigger clubs and I would imagine that it's more likely that Macclesfield go bust before Man City or that Cheltenham go bust before Chelsea.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
By the smaller clubs living within their means, the gap gets larger to those bigger clubs circumventing the rules and overspending because they are a 'big' club

Wiz

Just reading your post again.

Are you suggesting that smaller clubs living within their means is less important than the "gap" getting bigger ?
 

Plumbs

Well-known member
Don't forget that if anything smaller turnover clubs are simply vulnerable, so something like ITV Digital or a pandemic could push it over the edge. There really could a major change in turnover to profit ratios so the rule is spread across the leagues, rather than salary caps and similar practices.

Funnily enough I recall how Ken Bates was ridiculed for only spending 60-% of income on the playing side, yet the club lost £61 million in the recent promotion season.
In reality all fans care about is the playing side.
 

coppiceman

Well-known member
I would also suggest that the issue of overspending is a far bigger problem among the smaller clubs than in the bigger clubs ?
I think you might want to do some research and think again. The main problem is the clubs in the Championship spending money they haven't got. But Manchester City probably overspend more than the whole of the EFL put together.

Will look out for the new stuff next week, should be interesting.
 

td53

Well-known member
Wolf

I would think that a bigger thing would be perhaps for the smaller clubs to live within their means first.

There is no doubt a greater share of TV revenues would help the smaller clubs but if they fail to live within their means then they will always have problems regardless of their TV revenues.

I'm also struggling to see how the bigger clubs will agree to a smaller share of revenues ?

There is no doubt that, it could make things more competitive but why would the clubs who are responsible for generating the large TV revenues agree to contribute more to the lower leagues ?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the biggest clubs are trying to obtain a bigger share of the revenues that they are responsible - or that they certainly believe that they are responsible for - for generating.
The idea that big clubs generate revenue in isolation from the rest of the clubs is flawed.

Their value comes from their status as successful clubs within the context of the wider competition.

If we doubt that, look at the reaction from with *their own* fanbase from attempting to leave the league structures.

Tiger woods could play the exact same 4 rounds of golf in his own as he does within the open championship. One of those is worth a lot as a spectacle and one is worth much less.

It is in the interests of the whole pyramid, large clubs included to maintain the health of the structure as a whole. The ESL demonstrates how little appetite there really is for a super league concept and how people do, genuinely desire sporting competition, jeapordy and so on.

I agree it's hard to imagine they will see it that way, but hey ho.
 

hampshire_exile

Well-known member
Exactly and its one reason why in my view* that the people running the Trusts cant be (npi) trusted.
Derby's I know isnt popular and not very representative and they did very little when the Rams had a 'sliding scale' on admission prices,where essentially they had cut price tickets available early doors but those rose significantly as the fixture approached.

Of course many fans with work commitments had to wait and essentially (no pun intended again) their fans were fleeced.
I don’t understand why Derby County’s Trust is anywhere near this process on the basis of the evidence quoted above. Their owners have poured money into their clubs, it didn’t work - then they tried to exploit the system, it didn’t work again. All of which inflated player wages in the Division as surely as parachute payments. Now they are moaning that their owner simply had to buy their ground otherwise he wouldn’t have been able to piss yet more money away! They surely can only be giving evidence to illustrate that some fans will never be happy.
 

Plumbs

Well-known member
0
I don’t understand why Derby County’s Trust is anywhere near this process on the basis of the evidence quoted above. Their owners have poured money into their clubs, it didn’t work - then they tried to exploit the system, it didn’t work again. All of which inflated player wages in the Division as surely as parachute payments. Now they are moaning that their owner simply had to buy their ground otherwise he wouldn’t have been able to piss yet more money away! They surely can only be giving evidence to illustrate that some fans will never be happy.
It's been a real smoke and mirrors for a while but Derby have spent loads on players wages, which has prompted their financial shenanigans once their play off aspirations fell apart. At no point did Derbys Trust challenge this nor say Leicester's when they were fined for overspending in their promotion season, and at Leeds we've been ripped off with the acquisition of Elland Road which is back under a rental agreement again.

This is why I think the fans* led review will fail and to be honest I hope it does,because we'll be simply swopping one lot of nonsense for another and I don't want a self appointed fans clique presiding over the rest of us.

*an agenda driven clique imo
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
I think you might want to do some research and think again. The main problem is the clubs in the Championship spending money they haven't got. But Manchester City probably overspend more than the whole of the EFL put together.

Will look out for the new stuff next week, should be interesting.

Coppice

I have no need to think again.

I include the clubs in the Championship as among the smaller clubs and certainly those receiving far less in broadcasting revenues than the clubs in the Premier League.

I am aware that some of the clubs in the Championship are traditionally far bigger than some of the clubs in the Premier League.

While I would imagine there are some clubs in the Championship that are failing to live within their means, I'm sure there are others that have debts that they are able to service.

I do not think that Manchester City have overspent one penny - certainly not in an affordability sense though they may have contravened football rules at some point.

I would imagine that there is far more chance of a smaller club in a lower league failing to live within their means and going under while not breaking any football rules than there is of Manchester City going under.

We can debate the small print forever and then a bit more but small clubs need to live within their means, they can't blame their failure to do so on the bigger clubs.

Well I suppose they can blame whoever they want to but that's not going to satisfy the bailiffs when they come knocking.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm happy enough for more of the broadcasting revenues to drip down to the smaller/lower league clubs but I'm not sure that the big clubs who generate those big revenues will want to reduce their slice of the cake.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
The idea that big clubs generate revenue in isolation from the rest of the clubs is flawed.

Their value comes from their status as successful clubs within the context of the wider competition.

If we doubt that, look at the reaction from with *their own* fanbase from attempting to leave the league structures.

Tiger woods could play the exact same 4 rounds of golf in his own as he does within the open championship. One of those is worth a lot as a spectacle and one is worth much less.

It is in the interests of the whole pyramid, large clubs included to maintain the health of the structure as a whole. The ESL demonstrates how little appetite there really is for a super league concept and how people do, genuinely desire sporting competition, jeapordy and so on.

I agree it's hard to imagine they will see it that way, but hey ho.

td53

No problem with that and could have written it all myself - to be honest I think you overstate the contribution of the FL pyramid and the smaller/lower clubs to the broadcasting revenues but that's not important.

I think the bit to concentrate on is that when the Prem and FL try and agree a deal, the two parties will have differing opinions on the value of what the FL clubs provide.

I have no problem with the smaller clubs getting a bigger share - I'm imagining that you are the same - but I'm not sure what that has got to do with anything.

People may be looking for some change in statute that will guarantee a greater share for the smaller clubs and I'd wish them good luck with that venture.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Wiz

Just reading your post again.

Are you suggesting that smaller clubs living within their means is less important than the "gap" getting bigger ?
No, I'm saying those so called bigger clubs should have stronger sanctions when they go wild with their spending
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
0
It's been a real smoke and mirrors for a while but Derby have spent loads on players wages, which has prompted their financial shenanigans once their play off aspirations fell apart. At no point did Derbys Trust challenge this nor say Leicester's when they were fined for overspending in their promotion season, and at Leeds we've been ripped off with the acquisition of Elland Road which is back under a rental agreement again.

This is why I think the fans* led review will fail and to be honest I hope it does,because we'll be simply swopping one lot of nonsense for another and I don't want a self appointed fans clique presiding over the rest of us.

*an agenda driven clique imo

Plumbs

I know you'd know far far more about these things than I would but it's almost as if the folk involved in these trusts are as hypocritical and inconsistent as those responsible for moderating fans forums like this one.
 
Last edited:

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
No, I'm saying those so called bigger clubs should have stronger sanctions when they go wild with their spending

Wiz

That's fine but that's not really the problem.

The problem is the smaller clubs failing to live within their means.

Many of the bigger clubs are not overspending, they might very well be spending more than several smaller/lower leagues put together but surely the most important thing is whether they can service that debt ?

No, the most important thing for the smaller clubs is that they live within their means.

That is not to say that they shouldn't also try and obtain a greater share of the broadcasting revenues generated by the Premier League but let's go back to what Wolf actually said and what I said in response:

Wolf said

"biggest thing for me is that we have to totally roll back all the concessions that help the rich get richer - bigger share of tv money etc - and cascade the money down far more"

and I said that surely the biggest thing should be for the smaller clubs to live within their means because if they fail to live within their means they will experience problems regardless of the size of the share they receive.

We've gone round the houses and I've been told how the big problem is the Championship clubs overspending and that Man City spend more than so many clubs put together but I am still waiting for Wolf or anybody else to explain to me why the biggest problem for the smaller clubs is the size of the share of the TV money and not that they are failing to live within their means ?
 
Last edited:

td53

Well-known member
td53

No problem with that and could have written it all myself - to be honest I think you overstate the contribution of the FL pyramid and the smaller/lower clubs to the broadcasting revenues but that's not important.

I think the bit to concentrate on is that when the Prem and FL try and agree a deal, the two parties will have differing opinions on the value of what the FL clubs provide.

I have no problem with the smaller clubs getting a bigger share - I'm imagining that you are the same - but I'm not sure what that has got to do with anything.

People may be looking for some change in statute that will guarantee a greater share for the smaller clubs and I'd wish them good luck with that venture.

The point is that the shallow view is "who do people watch on sky?" - that'll be the point of the bigger clubs.

It's man u etc. Of course it is. No one gives a shit about Blackpool vs Oxford or whatever. On the surface it's of 'limited value'

The answer is deeper than that though. The EPL and the elite group of clubs within it is the visible tip of the iceberg. The tip of an iceberg without the rest of it is just a little bit of ice that will melt away much more quickly.

If they try to claim otherwise then why didn't they go ahead with the breakaway? If they don't need the rest of football in order to continue to prosper, why haven't they carried through with the ESL?

Rest of football should call their bluff.

If they don't get what they want (i.e. a fairer revenue share) set up their own league and leave the EPL and particularly the top 6 high and dry.

Then we'll see if there's a value to the rest of football beyond the immediate viewing figures won't we...

I agree with what you say elsewhere. Of course Derby are to blame for spunkimg their cash. But then in the long term, Abramovich etc have made the whole business far more expensive as well. That's also true.
 

td53

Well-known member
Wiz

That's fine but that's not really the problem.

The problem is the smaller clubs failing to live within their means.

Many of the bigger clubs are not overspending, they might very well be spending more than several smaller/lower leagues put together but surely the most important thing is whether they can service that debt ?

No, the most important thing for the smaller clubs is that they live within their means.

That is not to say that they shouldn't also try and obtain a greater share of the broadcasting revenues generated by the Premier League but let's go back to what Wolf actually said and what I said in response:

Wolf said

"biggest thing for me is that we have to totally roll back all the concessions that help the rich get richer - bigger share of tv money etc - and cascade the money down far more"

and I said that surely the biggest thing should be for the smaller clubs to live within their means because if they fail to live within their means they will experience problems regardless of the size of the share they receive.

We've gone round the houses and I've been told how the big problem is the Championship clubs overspending and that Man City spend more than so many clubs put together but I am still waiting for Wolf or anybody else to explain to me why the biggest problem that the smaller clubs have is their failure to live within their means.
The clubs can't service their debts. Their owners can. There are a finite amount of multibillionaires with a desire to buy football clubs and inflation is a thing.

Indirectly, the wages throughout football have risen far in excess of inflation. Far, far, far in excess. That's because of these larger clubs spending wildly.

That is a factor in the financial problems. I agree it's not *the only factor* but it's definitely a contributing factor. It's basic economics. Markets can be distorted by wild spending.

Club A is run as a tight ship by a local business person and balances books. All is fine. Club B comes along and spends like mad

Club A finds the costs of players rises exponentially. Club A needs to either sell to new owner, raise income (prices) or owner risk assets (loans, sell stadium etc)

All of the above things aren't great and the rising costs are totally out of control of Club A

That's a big simplification yes, but it's got a ring of truth to it in terms of the impact on game at large of a small group of clubs.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
The point is that the shallow view is "who do people watch on sky?" - that'll be the point of the bigger clubs.

It's man u etc. Of course it is. No one gives a shit about Blackpool vs Oxford or whatever. On the surface it's of 'limited value'

The answer is deeper than that though. The EPL and the elite group of clubs within it is the visible tip of the iceberg. The tip of an iceberg without the rest of it is just a little bit of ice that will melt away much more quickly.

If they try to claim otherwise then why didn't they go ahead with the breakaway? If they don't need the rest of football in order to continue to prosper, why haven't they carried through with the ESL?

Rest of football should call their bluff.

If they don't get what they want (i.e. a fairer revenue share) set up their own league and leave the EPL and particularly the top 6 high and dry.

Then we'll see if there's a value to the rest of football beyond the immediate viewing figures won't we...

I agree with what you say elsewhere. Of course Derby are to blame for spunkimg their cash. But then in the long term, Abramovich etc have made the whole business far more expensive as well. That's also true.

td53

Again I have no problem with anything that you suggest there, I don't agree with you but plenty will.

I think that you overstate the value of the contribution of the lower clubs and I've certainly got doubts about your "call their bluff" strategy.

I couldn't give a chite about Derby to be honest, I have no problem with them increasing their spending to try and get to the Prem and enjoy the benefits that brings but when if the increased investment strategy fails then I'm not sure you can blame the bigger clubs.

Abramovich etc may have made the business far more expensive as you say but the massive investment of him and others has also ensured that the Premier League is very successful and able to command huge broadcasting revenues at home and abroad - the very revenues that we are being told that the smaller/lower clubs must get a bigger share of, in fact it has been suggested that obtaining a bigger share of these revenues is more important than those clubs living within their means.
 

Plumbs

Well-known member
The answer is deeper than that though. The EPL and the elite group of clubs within it is the visible tip of the iceberg. The tip of an iceberg without the rest of it is just a little bit of ice that will melt away much more quickly.

If they try to claim otherwise then why didn't they go ahead with the breakaway? If they don't need the rest of football in order to continue to prosper, why haven't they carried through with the ESL?

I agree with what you say elsewhere. Of course Derby are to blame for spunkimg their cash. But then in the long term, Abramovich etc have made the whole business far more expensive as well. That's also true.
The breakaway will happen-just a matter of when - and up until it was announced the financial nonsense that exists continued unabated. Folk still subscribing and the Yanks looking to bring their 'business model' to the PL, backed by TV and (apparently) some of the world's leading brokers.

It still goes back to the fundamental issue of the fan paying for subscription football, in a modern age that doesnt really have the time or interest in the established pyramid.Even the national fans group take a slice of it with their PL grant that funds the offices and Trust expenses.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
The clubs can't service their debts. Their owners can. There are a finite amount of multibillionaires with a desire to buy football clubs and inflation is a thing.

Indirectly, the wages throughout football have risen far in excess of inflation. Far, far, far in excess. That's because of these larger clubs spending wildly.

That is a factor in the financial problems. I agree it's not *the only factor* but it's definitely a contributing factor. It's basic economics. Markets can be distorted by wild spending.

Club A is run as a tight ship by a local business person and balances books. All is fine. Club B comes along and spends like mad

Club A finds the costs of players rises exponentially. Club A needs to either sell to new owner, raise income (prices) or owner risk assets (loans, sell stadium etc)

All of the above things aren't great and the rising costs are totally out of control of Club A

That's a big simplification yes, but it's got a ring of truth to it in terms of the impact on game at large of a small group of clubs.

td53

Yet again, no problem with the majority of what you say.

The big spenders at the top clubs may very well be indirectly responsible for problems at the smaller/lower clubs but that doesn't mean that:

1. the bigger clubs are going to give a greater share of the broadcasting revenues that they generate to the smaller/lower clubs

2. that smaller/lower clubs should live within their means*




* All clubs should live within their means but we are discussing the issues around smaller/lower clubs living within their means and the share of PL broadcasting revenues that they receive.
 

td53

Well-known member
td53

Again I have no problem with anything that you suggest there, I don't agree with you but plenty will.

I think that you overstate the value of the contribution of the lower clubs and I've certainly got doubts about your "call their bluff" strategy.

I couldn't give a chite about Derby to be honest, I have no problem with them increasing their spending to try and get to the Prem and enjoy the benefits that brings but when if the increased investment strategy fails then I'm not sure you can blame the bigger clubs.

Abramovich etc may have made the business far more expensive as you say but the massive investment of him and others has also ensured that the Premier League is very successful and able to command huge broadcasting revenues at home and abroad - the very revenues that we are being told that the smaller/lower clubs must get a bigger share of, in fact it has been suggested that obtaining a bigger share of these revenues is more important than those clubs living within their means.
It is as important. Costs drip down not just revenue.

The last 30, years of wage inflation at all levels (yes, higher in the premier league but still way above inflation at all levels) tells that story.

Money may have 'trickled down' but so have costs.

The lower league clubs (lest you forget) did actually agree to a salary cap. It got busted by the PFA. They know full well they need to live within their means by and large but doing so is not simple when wage demands are high and their own income is effected by success on the pitch and thus they need to offer competitive wages to achieve that.

Derby is an illustrative example. I also have no feeling at all towards Derby. I can't think of a club I feel more ambivalent about.
 

td53

Well-known member
The breakaway will happen-just a matter of when - and up until it was announced the financial nonsense that exists continued unabated. Folk still subscribing and the Yanks looking to bring their 'business model' to the PL, backed by TV and (apparently) some of the world's leading brokers.

It still goes back to the fundamental issue of the fan paying for subscription football, in a modern age that doesnt really have the time or interest in the established pyramid.Even the national fans group take a slice of it with their PL grant that funds the offices and Trust expenses.

Agreed.

I just think it would be mad good craic if the other 86 clubs beat them to it.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
It is as important. Costs drip down not just revenue.

The last 30, years of wage inflation at all levels (yes, higher in the premier league but still way above inflation at all levels) tells that story.

Money may have 'trickled down' but so have costs.

The lower league clubs (lest you forget) did actually agree to a salary cap. It got busted by the PFA. They know full well they need to live within their means by and large but doing so is not simple when wage demands are high and their own income is effected by success on the pitch and thus they need to offer competitive wages to achieve that.

Derby is an illustrative example. I also have no feeling at all towards Derby. I can't think of a club I feel more ambivalent about.

td53

I agree with you on almost everything although much what you say is very obvious.

Nothing you say above has changed anything, the smaller/lower clubs have to live within their means.

I don't know if people see the recent failure of the ESL as some sort of breakthrough moment for the smaller/lower clubs and see it leading the way to increased competition through redistribution of the PL broadcasting monies ?

It might well very do but to be honest, I would not be getting too excited about Gary Neville, a multi millionaire from the PL and shareholder in Salford FC, the community sustained football club owned by a billionaire, preaching on Sky TV - the broadcasting company who financed the PL breakaway and were not scheduled to be involved in the broadcasting of the ESL - about the need for football to be more fair/competitive etc etc.

Again, I have no problem with the smaller/lower clubs getting a bigger slice of the cake, it's just that I don't believe that it's going to happen anytime soon.
 

td53

Well-known member
td53

I agree with you on almost everything although much what you say is very obvious.

Nothing you say above has changed anything, the smaller/lower clubs have to live within their means.

I don't know if people see the recent failure of the ESL as some sort of breakthrough moment for the smaller/lower clubs and see it leading the way to increased competition through redistribution of the PL broadcasting monies ?

It might well very do but to be honest, I would not be getting too excited about Gary Neville, a multi millionaire from the PL and shareholder in Salford FC, the community sustained football club owned by a billionaire, preaching on Sky TV - the broadcasting company who financed the PL breakaway and were not scheduled to be involved in the broadcasting of the ESL - about the need for football to be more fair/competitive etc etc.

Again, I have no problem with the smaller/lower clubs getting a bigger slice of the cake, it's just that I don't believe that it's going to happen anytime soon.

'living within means' as I said in the previous post was the goal of the salary cap. Rightly or wrongly, it was an effort to achieve what you want and what you say these clubs are not trying to do.

if the costs can't be controlled that way, what option do smaller clubs have but to try for a bigger share of income. You either reduce outgoings or increase income. Their attempt. to reduce outgoings was harpooned.

It's ok saying 'well don't pay big wages' but if you don't compete, your fanbase will dwindle and your income fall. You may get relegated etc.

I know it's obvious stuff but I'm not sure HOW in that context these clubs do 'live within their means' as a whole. I'm not talking about any one club, I'm talking in general. There are well run clubs, but in general, they face a glass ceiling and that, in itself is problematic.

I don't doubt that clubs being badly run is s problem. It's s big problem but if you are looking at that being endemic, you look at the system.

What's your suggestions at a systemic level? I understand what you think or don't think will happen in terms of money being distributed but what do you think should happen to fix the issues. How should regulation or governance be applied to ensure that clubs live within their means?

With respect, if my points are obvious - so is that as a solution! How do we get there?

I'm not remotely excited about Gary Neville. Why would you think I was!?

Anyway. Bed.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
'living within means' as I said in the previous post was the goal of the salary cap. Rightly or wrongly, it was an effort to achieve what you want and what you say these clubs are not trying to do.

if the costs can't be controlled that way, what option do smaller clubs have but to try for a bigger share of income. You either reduce outgoings or increase income. Their attempt. to reduce outgoings was harpooned.

It's ok saying 'well don't pay big wages' but if you don't compete, your fanbase will dwindle and your income fall. You may get relegated etc.

I know it's obvious stuff but I'm not sure HOW in that context these clubs do 'live within their means' as a whole. I'm not talking about any one club, I'm talking in general. There are well run clubs, but in general, they face a glass ceiling and that, in itself is problematic.

I don't doubt that clubs being badly run is s problem. It's s big problem but if you are looking at that being endemic, you look at the system.

What's your suggestions at a systemic level? I understand what you think or don't think will happen in terms of money being distributed but what do you think should happen to fix the issues. How should regulation or governance be applied to ensure that clubs live within their means?

With respect, if my points are obvious - so is that as a solution! How do we get there?

I'm not remotely excited about Gary Neville. Why would you think I was!?

Anyway. Bed.

td53

Yes, the salary cap is an example of trying to live within their means.

It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be living within their means now.

I have not suggested that clubs are not living within their means.

Wolf suggested that the biggest thing for the smaller was obtaining a better share of Prem TV monies and I suggested that the biggest thing was living their means as failing to do so would result in problems regardless of their share of TV monies.

I did not suggest that clubs were not trying to live within their means although I do believe that some won't be and some of those will look to blame the bigger clubs for their own failure to live within their means.

I do not believe in a salary cap but I can see why some clubs would look to have one imposed and why players and their representatives would be opposed to their introduction.

It's not for me to suggest a way of how clubs should live within their means, I just suggested that ensuring they do so was more important that gaining a greater share of TV monies.

Once again, I don't have a problem with the smaller/lower clubs obtaining a bigger share of TV monies, I just don't think that it will happen anytime soon.

They are perfectly entitled to breakaway themselves but I am not sure they are the ones with the power.

You make fair points td53 but again you are not telling me anything that I don't already know.

Goodnight and I'm not coming back on this thread until somebody tells me why clubs should not live within their means, I thought I was stating the obvious to be honest and I'm doubting that anybody is going to tell me that they shouldn't live within their means.

I'm thinking plenty will tell me about how much the bigger clubs spend etc etc.
 

coppiceman

Well-known member
The salary cap was a good thing. It meant that everyone had to compete on merit. Why anyone would say otherwise I don't know.

I'm amazed that someone seriously thinks that the the real financial problem in the game is being caused by clubs like Swindon and Stevenage. And if they are struggling, why wouldn't they "blame" the clubs at the top who take the vast majority of what money is available?
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
Is BFC “living within its means”?

I might be wrong but I think i read it lost circa £2m in the last season.

But I think I also read that it had achieved promotion to the next level of the footballing pyramid.

So should we have sacrificed promotion? And risked relegation? Just to ensure we broke even and “lived within our means”?
 

Camberwell1

Well-known member
I think this whole project highlights the diverse views of fans even within relatively stable Clubs like Blackpool (Now) who are actually moving in the right directuion because of it.

There's ;oads of issues and tbh we as fans could do with a meeting forum to decide how we see how the game generally should be going - there's lots wrong and unfair within the game we love and at times not a lot right. ! But days of joy are immense for fans and we have had more than our fair share in the lasy 20 years which has been a joy. Most of those I hasten to add were with owners who were not liked and subsequently ousted (more by Mr Belekon , Marcus Smith than ourselves though we played our part.)

I feel we need to study the aims of this review in more detail and just as a single Club like our own, formulatye a set of values that represent our Club today and going forward.

Lastly, money helps - look at Blackpool season 2020-21 !
 

clappers

Well-known member
The club needs investment on and off the field. Sensible investment for a return in the medium long term. I have a feeling this might be well within Sadlers skillset. Short term losses to be expected.
 

td53

Well-known member
The club needs investment on and off the field. Sensible investment for a return in the medium long term. I have a feeling this might be well within Sadlers skillset. Short term losses to be expected.
I think the point Mex is making (could be wrong, I'm not him) is it is difficult to establish what 'within means' actually looks like exactly. Is it not losing money, is it losing enough money that an owner can make up for it, is it being debt free, is it having serviceable debts.

Wigan looked as if they were living perfectly within means until it turned into an absolute basket case. Wigan were absolutely not on the 'crisis firesale panic club list' until suddenly they were...
 

clappers

Well-known member
I think the point Mex is making (could be wrong, I'm not him) is it is difficult to establish what 'within means' actually looks like exactly. Is it not losing money, is it losing enough money that an owner can make up for it, is it being debt free, is it having serviceable debts.

Wigan looked as if they were living perfectly within means until it turned into an absolute basket case. Wigan were absolutely not on the 'crisis firesale panic club list' until suddenly they were...
If you’ve got an owner who cares it’s all fine...like Wigan were. If the owner goes rogue then it can go tits up quick sticks. You just have to trust a good owner and hope they stick it out....you can’t progress under a good owner by lobbying to run it in a shoestring, and when you’ve got a bad owner also see it run on a shoestring.

There’s no guarantees and you never know. You just have to trust. I think we can trust Sadler and pump priming the investment now will hopefully allow us to progress in the future without worry it’s all a total house of cards.

we just need to keep an eye on companies house for Sadlers Promenade Stadium Ltd; House of Hong Kong; and SS Zebeebaxeee Consulting Ltd
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
I think the point Mex is making (could be wrong, I'm not him) is it is difficult to establish what 'within means' actually looks like exactly. Is it not losing money, is it losing enough money that an owner can make up for it, is it being debt free, is it having serviceable debts.

Wigan looked as if they were living perfectly within means until it turned into an absolute basket case. Wigan were absolutely not on the 'crisis firesale panic club list' until suddenly they were...
Yes. And Clappers seems to be making the same point.

The debate about clubs “living within their means” is a red herring.

That’s a symptom of the illness.

The illness is maverick owners.

Cure the problem of maverick owners and you cure a lot of the problems.

A fair sharing of “football generated money” is a different question. As is the question “who generates that money?”
 

td53

Well-known member
Yes. And Clappers seems to be making the same point.

The debate about clubs “living within their means” is a red herring.

That’s a symptom of the illness.

The illness is maverick owners.

Cure the problem of maverick owners and you cure a lot of the problems.

A fair sharing of “football generated money” is a different question. As is the question “who generates that money?”
The question of ownership is linked to finances though.

Because football has become such an insane business to get into, the old model of boards who were 'custodians' is long dead.

To own a football club and progress it, it's now expected you will sink in millions (or even billions) of pounds which you will very possibly never get back.

To imagine this will attract lots of good, sensible responsible people is a bit of a stretch.

At the top, hardly anyone can afford clubs, at our level, they're horrifically unattractive prospects.

There are too many issues with too many clubs for it not to be systemic. The FA/EFL get criticism (and rightly) but it's also true to say that when clubs end up in the hands of poor owners it is sometimes because there aren't obvious better owners lining up to buy them.

That's a tangential link between ownership and finance but it's a link none the less. Look at Wigan, desperately casting round for *someone, anyone* to take them on. What rational business person would think 'i know, I'll buy a debt ridden football club that has sold almost all of its assets!'
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
The question of ownership is linked to finances though.

Because football has become such an insane business to get into, the old model of boards who were 'custodians' is long dead.

To own a football club and progress it, it's now expected you will sink in millions (or even billions) of pounds which you will very possibly never get back.

To imagine this will attract lots of good, sensible responsible people is a bit of a stretch.

At the top, hardly anyone can afford clubs, at our level, they're horrifically unattractive prospects.

There are too many issues with too many clubs for it not to be systemic. The FA/EFL get criticism (and rightly) but it's also true to say that when clubs end up in the hands of poor owners it is sometimes because there aren't obvious better owners lining up to buy them.

That's a tangential link between ownership and finance but it's a link none the less. Look at Wigan, desperately casting round for *someone, anyone* to take them on. What rational business person would think 'i know, I'll buy a debt ridden football club that has sold almost all of its assets!'
Well yes ownership and finances are intermingled that’s undoubtedly true. I saw letters (or extracts in the witness statements I think) from OO to VB, when VB was considering investing, where the profits that could be earned from promotion to the PL were openly discussed.

But at its heart is the question “why do people invest in football clubs”?

It’s to make a profit undoubtedly.

But, “a fair return” aside, what’s the point behind making a profit? Where does the profit go? 11 million in directors remuneration or retained for reinvestment in the club and team?

We don’t need to over complicate it.

Crack the problem of maverick owners AND Stipulate that “footballing money” stays within football then you’re a long way there.

Edit to add - dividing the “footballing money” amongst the pyramid is another question again.
 

Plumbs

Well-known member
The question of ownership is linked to finances though.

Because football has become such an insane business to get into, the old model of boards who were 'custodians' is long dead.

To own a football club and progress it, it's now expected you will sink in millions (or even billions) of pounds which you will very possibly never get back.

There are too many issues with too many clubs for it not to be systemic. The FA/EFL get criticism (and rightly) but it's also true to say that when clubs end up in the hands of poor owners it is sometimes because there aren't obvious better owners lining up to buy them.

That's a tangential link between ownership and finance but it's a link none the less. Look at Wigan, desperately casting round for *someone, anyone* to take them on. What rational business person would think 'i know, I'll buy a debt ridden football club that has sold almost all of its assets!'
You're right but -like the O's-theres an opportunity to get lucky* and make a few quid from the PL even on a short stay.

Dirty had some Arabs who ticked all the boxes including a credit reference from an oil sheik, but extracted around £30 million from the club.They proved their wealth,made the FFP cut but did exactly the opposite,before getting bailed out by Cellino who ended up getting banned by the EFL.
In the meantime KO was stuck on the EFL board to preside on the rules and regulations relating to finance and we all know how that turned out.

*from a business point of view the O's plan was masterly and cunning,but obviously they didnt take the threat from VB seriously.Not praising them but for a long time they played the game and got away with it.
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
You're right but -like the O's-theres an opportunity to get lucky* and make a few quid from the PL even on a short stay.

Dirty had some Arabs who ticked all the boxes including a credit reference from an oil sheik, but extracted around £30 million from the club.They proved their wealth,made the FFP cut but did exactly the opposite,before getting bailed out by Cellino who ended up getting banned by the EFL.
In the meantime KO was stuck on the EFL board to preside on the rules and regulations relating to finance and we all know how that turned out.

*from a business point of view the O's plan was masterly and cunning,but obviously they didnt take the threat from VB seriously.Not praising them but for a long time they played the game and got away with it.
Yes. Very bad. But the debate now is how we stop it happening again. How we have a better system
 

td53

Well-known member
Well yes ownership and finances are intermingled that’s undoubtedly true. I saw letters (or extracts in the witness statements I think) from OO to VB, when VB was considering investing, where the profits that could be earned from promotion to the PL were openly discussed.

But at its heart is the question “why do people invest in football clubs”?

It’s to make a profit undoubtedly.

But, “a fair return” aside, what’s the point behind making a profit? Where does the profit go? 11 million in directors remuneration or retained for reinvestment in the club and team?

We don’t need to over complicate it.

Crack the problem of maverick owners AND Stipulate that “footballing money” stays within football then you’re a long way there.

I think people don't always expect a profit. What they sometimes expect in return is an ego trip, a brand washing exercise or perhaps a toy to play with. Maybe a living demonstration of their largesse. The aim may eventually be to recoup their investment or to make the club sustainable in its own right but profit isn't always the motive.

You're right but -like the O's-theres an opportunity to get lucky* and make a few quid from the PL even on a short stay.

Dirty had some Arabs who ticked all the boxes including a credit reference from an oil sheik, but extracted around £30 million from the club.They proved their wealth,made the FFP cut but did exactly the opposite,before getting bailed out by Cellino who ended up getting banned by the EFL.
In the meantime KO was stuck on the EFL board to preside on the rules and regulations relating to finance and we all know how that turned out.

*from a business point of view the O's plan was masterly and cunning,but obviously they didnt take the threat from VB seriously.Not praising them but for a long time they played the game and got away with it.
That's sort of the point I think I'm making I think. The way the finances are arranged puts off 'sensible' money as it's not easy to break into the prier league *but* it's none the less realistic enough for chancers to think *might have a gamble*

Whilst investment had always been part of football, the costs involved now mean that gamble can have crippling impacts if it fails and said owner walks away?

How do you tell a bad gamble from a good investment? As you say, how can you predict future behaviour against statements of intent.

Mex is right in that if you simply ensured all money earned from football stayed in football it would help a lot.

I do think there's some worth in attempting to somehow constitute a proportion of clubs as community assets or something. I'm not 100% convinced by 50+1 but I'm equally convinced that somehow, you've got to protect clubs against the way that one bad owner can destroy them for decades.

There's something too flimsy about the model now. As clubs can be owned, lock stock and barrell, it's them very hard to intervene or oversee and even with an independent regulator, it's easy to imagine a situation where the money is gone by the time the regulator actually finds out.
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
I think people don't always expect a profit. What they sometimes expect in return is an ego trip, a brand washing exercise or perhaps a toy to play with. Maybe a living demonstration of their largesse. The aim may eventually be to recoup their investment or to make the club sustainable in its own right but profit isn't always the motive.


That's sort of the point I think I'm making I think. The way the finances are arranged puts off 'sensible' money as it's not easy to break into the prier league *but* it's none the less realistic enough for chancers to think *might have a gamble*

Whilst investment had always been part of football, the costs involved now mean that gamble can have crippling impacts if it fails and said owner walks away?

How do you tell a bad gamble from a good investment? As you say, how can you predict future behaviour against statements of intent.

Mex is right in that if you simply ensured all money earned from football stayed in football it would help a lot.

I do think there's some worth in attempting to somehow constitute a proportion of clubs as community assets or something. I'm not 100% convinced by 50+1 but I'm equally convinced that somehow, you've got to protect clubs against the way that one bad owner can destroy them for decades.

There's something too flimsy about the model now. As clubs can be owned, lock stock and barrell, it's them very hard to intervene or oversee and even with an independent regulator, it's easy to imagine a situation where the money is gone by the time the regulator actually finds out.
I think you could be right that an independent regulator isn’t necessarily a panacea as they may always be reacting only after a problem has arisen

I think the answer is to have a second signatory on every cheque. And I’m happy to volunteer for the very modest fee of 0.5% of the face value of every cash transfer by every footballing club - kerchinggggg!!!
 
Top
X