spanish flair
Well-known member
Walton, Ince, Caskey, March, Dunk - to name a couple of our young talented players around the first team
All signed professional forms under Gus I believe?
Walton, Ince, Caskey, March, Dunk - to name a couple of our young talented players around the first team
Why shouldn't the Premier League look after it's best interests, and those of it's 'employees'.
The obvious question is:-
'Why does the Premier League exist?'.
Sadly though that decision can't be undone, so we are stuck in the ludicrous position of have 5 governing bodies (if you include UEFA & FIFA) having a say over English football, all with very separate agendas.
giveall signed professional forms under gus i believe?
What's the point of FFP if you can rack up 13 million in debts a year? How does this achieve the stated aims of FFP? And Bloom and Barber have both stated they support the aims of FFP and sustainability then go and vote for this increase. I feel a bit conned.
I have an idea on how to make FFP a little fairer ( and maybe PB might take it up as he obviously reads these threads ). In the same way that some expenditure is excluded from the FFP accounts why not do the same with income - i.e. when it comes to the FFP accounts parachute payments don't count. If a club makes an 'unacceptable' loss before parachute payments are taken into account then they are punished. If a club is in receipt of parachute payments then the punishment is a fine rather than a transfer embargo.
Just an idea and I await to be shot down in flames because there is a major flaw in it.
I left out wage caps as I just don't see it as viable from the Championship upwards where the market for the better players extends far beyond the reaches of the Football League.
I have an idea on how to make FFP a little fairer ( and maybe PB might take it up as he obviously reads these threads ). In the same way that some expenditure is excluded from the FFP accounts why not do the same with income - i.e. when it comes to the FFP accounts parachute payments don't count. If a club makes an 'unacceptable' loss before parachute payments are taken into account then they are punished. If a club is in receipt of parachute payments then the punishment is a fine rather than a transfer embargo.
Just an idea and I await to be shot down in flames because there is a major flaw in it.
For BHA not a chance of ever making a profit outside of the Prem. Unlikely within it perhaps but hope we give it a go and see what happens!
There's a reason that the PL clubs have a much higher threshold than the one agreed for the Championship yesterday (£105m vs £39m over 3yrs). Its because almost all of the PL clubs lose much bigger sums of money than they did before they were promoted.
There are a handful of PL clubs actually generating an operating profit. Those that do are almost exclusively the internationally recognised "brands" who have commercial revenues coming in from overseas that other clubs can only dream off. This is why both Hull and Cardiff have been thrown into turmoil by their respective owners, because both of them see that the only way to actually make any money from this sport (apart from asset stripping and selling the club down the river) is to work hard to join this elite group. (I disagree with the actions of both men, but I do see what they are trying to do)
The PL is not a way to make a profit in football... its a way to make a bigger loss!
There are other ways to make money... capital appreciation can offset operating costs... so an owner could, say, afford to pump £6-8 million a year into a club if he knew that just holding on to the club long enough and doing "ok" means he can sell it at a profit. This is no different to regularly maintaining your house. You spend money regularly that you aren't going to get back, on maintenance, but you hope that it means that when you do sell, you have made a profit overall.
I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
It depends on what level the caps are set. Because the PL pay more than elsewhere (as a whole) there is some headroom for restraint without losing ALL the decent players. If a few mercenaries want to beggar off to Russia, Monaco, wherever, well you won't find me complaining. A wage cap would also
- give more chances to home-grown talent with longer term benefits for the national team
- remove the ridiculous position of overpaid players sat on the bench or in the DS
One thing in its favour is that the owners would benefit and therefore be inclined to vote for it.
It's worth debating, at least.
PG
Also take your point re capital appreciation, but I'm not sure that pumping gazillions into purchasing and paying players always enhances the value of a club (QPR being a good example)
Tinkering at the edges doesn't work, this one one tiny part of a wholesale reform which is needed to manage a steady deflation of the football bubble as they try to avoid the inevitable burst which will come if nothing is done.
Agree... worth debating but it isn't the solution. For clubs such as Chelsea, the "ridiculous position of overpaid players sat on the bench or in the DS" is a commercial decision. For every 18yo paid £20k a week to stay in their DS squad is a talented youngster than isn't playing AGAINST them in the league. A wage cap alone would not stop this ridiculous, but understandable situation. It fact, it would make it easier for these rich clubs to deny talent to other teams. If there were a £5k wage limit on 18yo's then the same money spent paying for one potential superstar to NOT play can be used to stop 4. If the club is rich enough and the youngsters mercenary enough (and at 18yo I'll bet even the most talented players have a price that they WON'T play football for!) and the rules allow them to do this, then its a good commercial decision which helps them retain their position in the elite club at the very top.
Add a wage cap and you then have to apply limits not just to the first team squad size, but to the club as a whole (otherwise the clubs can use the extra cash freed up to hoard young players!). If you restrict the size of everyone's academy/dev squad/youth team/etc, then you start to squeeze the young talent you were trying to bring through. If Chelsea have, say, 30 places in their whole academy set up, then they won't nuture home-grown talent, they'll use the 30 slots to block their rivals from gaining access to the best talent.
Tinkering at the edges doesn't work, this one one tiny part of a wholesale reform which is needed to manage a steady deflation of the football bubble as they try to avoid the inevitable burst which will come if nothing is done. Trouble is none of the "regulators" have the balls to take on the clubs!
The reason the PL/FL/FA can't act on wages is that they do see the consequences
Why is there going to be inevitable burst? I've been watching football for nearly 50 years and there have periodic warnings of a burst. In the time I've been watching just one league team (Maidstone) has gone bust - although a few more have since leaving the league - that scarcely strikes me as industry teetering on edge. I'd say a failure rate of 1 or 2 percent (at most) in 50 years compares well with most industries.
Why should there be a burst in the future? The PL is marketing way beyond its normal base to brand-new markets. All clubs seem to attract a buyer - even permanent basket-case Leeds was bought this year and already has new buyers sniffing around. Sky is now facing competition from BT so is pumping more money into the game. There are more sponsorship opportunities etc
I'm not saying that it's a great situation (I don't think it is) but I can't see anything to stop more money coming into the game and there's certainly no "inevitable" burst
What if, for some reason completely unrelated to football, Sky stopped pumping obscene amounts of cash into the game for TV rights ...
Nobody is expecting him to write off his investment, especially him but he has always said that option is available if it's needed. It also would not be a write off. Maybe he could look at the administration option for the club which seems to have worked for a number of clubs. Any tips for him on that?
In any case, it's not as if Brighton are unfamiliar with such situations. The crisis in 1997 predated the existence of administration, and creditors were paid a fraction of Brighton's debt. No doubt some relevant knowledge and expertise already exists in the BHAFC community.
As pointed out in previous threads on here over the years the creditors were dealt with on a case by case basis , you imply they got back 1p or 2p in the £ whereas anecdotal evidence suggest businesses were told they could be paid back half or more of what was owed as opposed to nothing if the club went bust in the very short term. We're only talking about a dozen or so businesses owed hundreds of £ not a shedload of creditors owed £30M to £40M who only got back 1p in the £.
I wouldn't know, as I have no experience of running a football club. Perhaps a chat with Mark Goldberg and Simon Jordan will assure him that such a course of action would be a sure-fire way to lose him tens of millions from his personal fortune. After all, SJ was by far the biggest creditor when Agilo pulled the plug.
In any case, it's not as if Brighton are unfamiliar with such situations. The crisis in 1997 predated the existence of administration, and creditors were paid a fraction of Brighton's debt. No doubt some relevant knowledge and expertise already exists in the BHAFC community.