how football is now

B

basilrobbie3

Well-known member
I just read a (fairly amazing) stat., courtesy of Kieran Maguire.

He just pointed out that Brighton's second half comeback against West Ham on Sunday (from 0-1 to 3-1), which lifted them from 13th to 9th, was worth around £244,000 per MINUTE in prize money. Put another way, three halves of football like that pays for our new East Stand and the training ground.

It's tough at the top....
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I just read a (fairly amazing) stat., courtesy of Kieran Maguire.

He just pointed out that Brighton's second half comeback against West Ham on Sunday (from 0-1 to 3-1), which lifted them from 13th to 9th, was worth around £244,000 per MINUTE in prize money. Put another way, three halves of football like that pays for our new East Stand and the training ground.

It's tough at the top....
Click to expand...
The outgoings are equally absurd, obviously.
 
And 14 minutes In Manchester cost Villa 2.2 million quid.

But it won’t even touch the sides.
 
20togo said:
that's why I want us to get there! As an aside the NFL dwarfs the EPL in terms of money. Just an observation.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what the NFL has got to do with anything. Their money is allocated at the national level equally among the 32 teams - their performance doesn't come into it.
 
For a ‘working man’s ‘ sport it’s certainly benefiting many more than your average working man.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I'm not sure what the NFL has got to do with anything. Their money is allocated at the national level equally among the 32 teams - their performance doesn't come into it.
Click to expand...
so the less successful teams are rewarded the same as the most successful teams. Always thought sport was about the greater your success the greater your reward. Clearly the NFL bucks that trend.
 
20togo said:
so the less successful teams are rewarded the same as the most successful teams. Always thought sport was about the greater your success the greater your reward. Clearly the NFL bucks that trend.
Click to expand...
I agree with your second sentence, to an extent. There should be some incentive built in. But that is not the way the American sporting culture works, as you know. It's probably a contributory factor when you consider how tin-eared US based owners of football clubs have been in the recent past. They don't understand the prevailing attitudes here.

To be fair to the NFL, they also have a cap system to regulate expenditure. In fact the whole of the system is designed to establish broad parity and then let coaching, tactics, resilience and motivation make the difference. You couldn't replicate it in the UK for all sorts of reasons.
 
20togo said:
so the less successful teams are rewarded the same as the most successful teams. Always thought sport was about the greater your success the greater your reward. Clearly the NFL bucks that trend.
Click to expand...
Sporting success should be the reward for those who win. When it's all about the money, corruption takes full advantage.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Sporting success should be the reward for those who win. When it's all about the money, corruption takes full advantage.
Click to expand...
you don't have to look very far to find corruption in the NFL. Are we saying the EPL is as corrupt? But yep, when there such vast amounts of money involved in many sports it can lead to corruption. And hey, it even happens in politics on both sides of the house.
 
20togo said:
you don't have to look very far to find corruption in the NFL. Are we saying the EPL is as corrupt? But yep, when there such vast amounts of money involved in many sports it can lead to corruption. And hey, it even happens in politics on both sides of the house.
Click to expand...
Agree with the first bit. However, taking the opportunity to conjoin both forums into one thread!.......slippery slope 20s.
 
2020 Watford & Norwich get relegated
2021 both promoted back to PL
2022 both relegated
2023 both favourites to go back up(because of parachute payments)basically giving us and others near enough no chance of automatic promotion now that's bent.

So forgive me I couldn't give a stuff how much Brighton got paid last season.
 
Isnt Brighton the success story though? From playing at Gillingham , Withdean and having no ground to a 30k stadium that they fill every week and a training ground and academy thats as good as anything in this country. One of the best English coaches managing them and comfortably a premier league club that will now aim for Europe. Oh and all done with a local owner who was always a fan from a family of long standing Brighton fans.
If your going to have a go at money at the top end then Brighton is not a great example because its a fantastic story.
 
poolseasider said:
2020 Watford & Norwich get relegated
2021 both promoted back to PL
2022 both relegated
2023 both favourites to go back up(because of parachute payments)basically giving us and others near enough no chance of automatic promotion now that's bent. (1)

So forgive me I couldn't give a stuff how much Brighton got paid last season. (2)
Click to expand...
Do you not see a link between (1) and (2) ?
 
It's not surprising that despotic regimes see the league as the perfect image enhancing product/money laundering racket.

Surely the EPL should be sponsored by Daz?
 
PNENIL said:
Isnt Brighton the success story though? From playing at Gillingham , Withdean and having no ground to a 30k stadium that they fill every week and a training ground and academy thats as good as anything in this country. One of the best English coaches managing them and comfortably a premier league club that will now aim for Europe. Oh and all done with a local owner who was always a fan from a family of long standing Brighton fans.
If your going to have a go at money at the top end then Brighton is not a great example because its a fantastic story.
Click to expand...
It's a good question, and I suppose it depends upon how you define "success". All the issues you listed are lasting legacies for the city as a whole and not to be sniffed at.

The flip side of it though, is that the owner has put in around £400m to make them a mid-table EPL club that doesn't win trophies. And how the club will survive without him is something of an open question (directly relevant to us to, I'd say). So I would describe it as a qualified success that has come at a very uncertain price.

Brighton are actually a good example of the overall problem. They are not historically a top tier club and the pyramid should not end up being arranged around who has the deepest pockets.
 
20togo said:
so the less successful teams are rewarded the same as the most successful teams. Always thought sport was about the greater your success the greater your reward. Clearly the NFL bucks that trend.
Click to expand...
NFL is all about the league or the game rather than the individual teams.

They realised that "uncertainty of outcome" and levelling up is a much more attractive option to the general punter; hence the draft system.
 
Meanwhile, eye-watering sums are being bandied about in the course of the takeover at Chelsea.

Bruce Buck (chairman) and Marina Granovskaia (director) are due “transaction and retention bonuses” for their part in the process.
For five weeks’ work Granovskaia will receive a whopping £20 million, with Buck and a few others splitting a further £30 million between them.

Oh, and these aren't severance payments.
They're expected to be sticking around on salaries of somewhere between £2 million and £3 million pa.

Nice work if you can get it.....
 
basilrobbie3 said:
It's a good question, and I suppose it depends upon how you define "success". All the issues you listed are lasting legacies for the city as a whole and not to be sniffed at.

The flip side of it though, is that the owner has put in around £400m to make them a mid-table EPL club that doesn't win trophies. And how the club will survive without him is something of an open question (directly relevant to us to, I'd say). So I would describe it as a qualified success that has come at a very uncertain price.

Brighton are actually a good example of the overall problem. They are not historically a top tier club and the pyramid should not end up being arranged around who has the deepest pockets.
Click to expand...
Brighton is in a financial catchment area that Blackpool could only dream of. The extra corporate receipts and sponsorship can also make a huge difference.
 
basilexile said:
Brighton is in a financial catchment area that Blackpool could only dream of. The extra corporate receipts and sponsorship can also make a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but let's be honest, when considering Brighton's progress, their extra corporate revenues are not relevant when compared with broadcasting revenues and Tony Bloom's financial input.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
It's a good question, and I suppose it depends upon how you define "success". All the issues you listed are lasting legacies for the city as a whole and not to be sniffed at.

The flip side of it though, is that the owner has put in around £400m to make them a mid-table EPL club that doesn't win trophies. And how the club will survive without him is something of an open question (directly relevant to us to, I'd say). So I would describe it as a qualified success that has come at a very uncertain price.

Brighton are actually a good example of the overall problem. They are not historically a top tier club and the pyramid should not end up being arranged around who has the deepest pockets.
Click to expand...

We are subsidised by Sadler.

Obviously nowhere near as much as Brighton but we enjoy an advantage over other clubs who don't have a Sadler, is that fair ?

Also when Sadler moves on there is no guarantee that his financial commitments will be matched by the next man, do you think that we should ask Sadler to lower his contributions to the club to avoid any disappointment in the future ?
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
We are subsidised by Sadler.

Obviously nowhere near as much as Brighton but we enjoy an advantage over other clubs who don't have a Sadler, is that fair ? (1)

Also when Sadler moves on there is no guarantee that his financial commitments will be matched by the next man, do you think that we should ask Sadler to lower his contributions to the club to avoid any disappointment in the future ? (2)
Click to expand...
(1) Yes we are subsidised by SS presently. I think up front investment that creates a sustainable model of operating within P&S Rules is the long term plan, as far as he is concerned. If you think the level of investment he has made confers any advantage vis a vis some of our direct competitors, you need to go and do some homework.

(2) I didn't say he shouldn't invest, and as the system works now, it would be very difficult for him not to. My argument is that the system encourages club owners to spend well beyond their realistic long term ability to deliver the revenue to sustain it. It's the system that it flawed here.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
(1) Yes we are subsidised by SS presently. I think up front investment that creates a sustainable model of operating within P&S Rules is the long term plan, as far as he is concerned. If you think the level of investment he has made confers any advantage vis a vis some of our direct competitors, you need to go and do some homework.

(2) I didn't say he shouldn't invest, and as the system works now, it would be very difficult for him not to. My argument is that the system encourages club owners to spend well beyond their realistic long term ability to deliver the revenue to sustain it. It's the system that it flawed here.
Click to expand...


(1) I was just suggesting - perhaps stating ? - that Sadler's level of investment gives us an advantage over similar clubs to our own who have owners who are not willing to contribute as much as Sadler.

I wouldn't have thought anybody would have to do any homework on that ?

(2) I know that you didn't say that Sadler shouldn't invest but you suggested that Brighton could have problems further down the line without Tony Bloom's investment and you have previously referred to potential problems down the line at other clubs should investment be withdrawn/reduced.

I am not disagreeing with what you say, I just think that football supporters are probably more concerned about a lack of investment in their club and would probably be more interested in new investment than what happens when new investment is withdrawn/reduced.

Perhaps - that's perhaps - you are suggesting that they have got their priorities wrong and that they really should be concerned about what happens to their club down the line and I am sure you won't be alone on that but I'm not sure that there is an alternative.

I guess we could make owners put down an agreed amount of money that is ring fenced and used over an agreed period ?

That might sound good and while it might increase certainty for players and supporters and anybody else connected to the clubs, it will certainly reduce the level of investment in the game.


Robbie - I'm sure all your work on football reform is well meaning and that many of the proposals will benefit the game but there will always be haves and have nots and the pyramid will never be exactly as everybody thinks it should be.
 
20togo said:
so the less successful teams are rewarded the same as the most successful teams. Always thought sport was about the greater your success the greater your reward. Clearly the NFL bucks that trend.
Click to expand...
Yet weirdly the rest of the pyramid manages fine without prize or place money???

By your definition everything below the premier league isn't 'sport'
 
td53 said:
Yet weirdly the rest of the pyramid manages fine without prize or place money???

By your definition everything below the premier league isn't 'sport'
Click to expand...
Is s team being promoted being rewarded more than a team being relegated?
 
20togo said:
Is s team being promoted being rewarded more than a team being relegated?
Click to expand...
That's not place money though. That is the topic of the thread. There is no prize money for winning any division in the EFL. The TV money is distributed equally between all teams in any given division. This is not the case in the EPL.

Yes, a team gains/loses TV money by being promoted or relegated but they never earn any more than any other side they are competing against in any division they're in.

Is that sport?
 
td53 said:
That's not place money though. That is the topic of the thread. There is no prize money for winning any division in the EFL. The TV money is distributed equally between all teams in any given division. This is not the case in the EPL.

Yes, a team gains/loses TV money by being promoted or relegated but they never earn any more than any other side they are competing against in any division they're in.

Is that sport?
Click to expand...
You need to read what I said more carefully. A team qualifying for the Champions League has had more success than a team qualifying for the UEFA Cup. A team qualifying for the UEFA Cup has had more success than a team that doesn't. A team that wins the Championship has had a greater success than the rest of the teams. Teams qualifying for the play offs have had greater success than those that don't. And so on.

The EPL has a different financial criteria but that doesn't make the other leagues as not "sport" which is what you are trying to suggest my words say. Even then the financial rewards are greater in the football pyramid the higher a division a team is in. So yep, it's sport, by your terms or mine.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
(1) Yes we are subsidised by SS presently. I think up front investment that creates a sustainable model of operating within P&S Rules is the long term plan, as far as he is concerned. If you think the level of investment he has made confers any advantage vis a vis some of our direct competitors, you need to go and do some homework.

(2) I didn't say he shouldn't invest, and as the system works now, it would be very difficult for him not to. My argument is that the system encourages club owners to spend well beyond their realistic long term ability to deliver the revenue to sustain it. It's the system that it flawed here.
Click to expand...
According to recent reports he's put in circa 16 million so far

I'm sure clubs like Rochdale, Crewe and your second team Accrington can only dream of such wealth

So to suggest his money didn't give us an advantage during our promotion season is just ridiculous

I know you are on some sort of one man crusade to save football but some of your recent ramblings have been bizarre
 
Philbfctrois said:
According to recent reports he's put in circa 16 million so far

I'm sure clubs like Rochdale, Crewe and your second team Accrington can only dream of such wealth

So to suggest his money didn't give us an advantage during our promotion season is just ridiculous

I know you are on some sort of one man crusade to save football but some of your recent ramblings have been bizarre
Click to expand...
Nice to see you are paying careful attention to my Twitter feed Phil. I'm assuming that your £16m includes buying the club in the first place, in which case, the on-field advantages gained are pretty minimal and completely dwarfed by the inequities that the club faces every season in the Championship.

I'm sorry that my ramblings seem bizarre to you. If it gets to a stage where they start setting off alarm bells - make sure you take the credit for it, won't you?
 
I don't see Sadler as subsidising us, more investing in us and the community to improve the on and off aspects of the club.

In the longer term, it may pay dividends that he will get the benefit of. It may not, but investment is a better description than subsidy, imo.
 
Wizaard said:
I don't see Sadler as subsidising us, more investing in us and the community to improve the on and off aspects of the club.

In the longer term, it may pay dividends that he will get the benefit of. It may not, but investment is a better description than subsidy, imo.
Click to expand...

Wiz

There are times when our income is not enough to meet our outgoings and he makes up the shortfall, subsidising is probably a better description in such circumstances but I'm not sure it will make any difference what anybody chooses to call it.

He supports the club financially.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
Nice to see you are paying careful attention to my Twitter feed Phil. I'm assuming that your £16m includes buying the club in the first place, in which case, the on-field advantages gained are pretty minimal and completely dwarfed by the inequities that the club faces every season in the Championship.

I'm sorry that my ramblings seem bizarre to you. If it gets to a stage where they start setting off alarm bells - make sure you take the credit for it, won't you?
Click to expand...
I'm sure there were several league one clubs who wish they could have afforded to bring in players like Kevin Stewart and Ellis Simms in the January transfer window

They certainly helped to fire us to promotion

The truth is that without Simon's money we wouldn't have got anywhere near the playoffs

You can't have it both ways
 
Last edited:
Lytham_fy8 said:
It's not surprising that despotic regimes see the league as the perfect image enhancing product/money laundering racket.

Surely the EPL should be sponsored by Daz?
Click to expand...
It's the UK in general. Football clubs, real estate etc. So little regulation. Until a war breaks out and Chelsea can suddenly be seized, sold, and the proceeds passed to 'charities' in Ukraine! It's remarkable how much intervention is possible when we put our minds to it.
 
Philbfctrois said:
So you think the team that started the season in league 1 would have promoted?
Click to expand...
I don't know, and none of us ever will. The transfer window was still open for everyone, including a number of clubs in L1 who were and are far bigger than we are.

My point was originally about how SS's levels of investment compare with what routinely goes on in the Championship, where we are a small fish in a pond where the odds are stacked against us. His investment might be at levels that are unprecedented for us. But if you have parachute payments to fall back on you can do far, far more.

If you have been paying attention to him he has been suggesting we temper our expectations practically from the moment we were promoted. Eye-catching activity in the transfer market is not going to be a core part of the way we do business, unless we do it on the back of selling players first. Buy low, develop, sell high, re-invest.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I don't know, and none of us ever will. The transfer window was still open for everyone, including a number of clubs in L1 who were and are far bigger than we are.

My point was originally about how SS's levels of investment compare with what routinely goes on in the Championship, where we are a small fish in a pond where the odds are stacked against us. His investment might be at levels that are unprecedented for us. But if you have parachute payments to fall back on you can do far, far more.

If you have been paying attention to him he has been suggesting we temper our expectations practically from the moment we were promoted. Eye-catching activity in the transfer market is not going to be a core part of the way we do business, unless we do it on the back of selling players first. Buy low, develop, sell high, re-invest.
Click to expand...
So because we are a low spender in the Championship you are ignoring the money he spent to get us promoted

Right ok i get it, its ok to spend money when it suits ones argument
 
Last edited:
Baz is so unbalanced he cannot even ride a push bike- he admitted this on the old board- let alone fathom out how to drive a car. He needs to explore life more instead of spouting pompous drivel on here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top