Yet apparently we in debt...

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

No he isn't. The accounts for the Stadium Company, and the club, roll up into B&HA Holdings, which made a loss of £15.2 million for season 2012-13. Far from taking any money out of the club, Tony is funding the sizeable losses every year, on top of the expenditure on the training ground (to go along with the expenditure on the Amex construction).

That was my point. Tony has total control over Bhafc, but The amex stadium, The Training facility and Brighton and Hove Albion football club are totally seperate enterties. So he owns all but in the form of different companies. It is to protect both him and the club should things go tits up in the future.

 

[The Camel]

A lot of what you say there is spot on. I've said for years that generally teams who pay more in transfers and wages averaged over a period, win more games and trophies - simply as they acquire better players and a larger squad of those better players. So when the media praise Mourinho at Chelsea or Real Madrid, or the club PSG, they have got much of their success by spending £100m's on squads to squash the opposition .... NOT through the incredible coaching and management of relatively meagre resources, or great scouting network.

At Championship level, despite having lower crowds than the Albion and no parachute monies, the Leicester squad is relatively star studded, as is Forest's.

It's still great though when a club that haven't got the largest player payroll, gets amongst the biggest payers. Rodgers, Martinez and Dyche have each done that this season, Swansea have for a few years now, demonstrating hope to other clubs at various levels.

But the limit of achievement for teams outside the big 5 has changed from winning the the title to surviving in the Premier League and maybe winning one of the cups.

Southampton have a wonderful team at the moment.

If you took a similar squad in the 1970s they would have a legitimate shot at winning the title the next season.

Now the big clubs will cherry pick the best players with most of Lallana, Shaw, Rodriguez (he will prob stay now he'd done his ACR), Schneiderlin and Lambert playing for different clubs next season.

QPR of the 1975/76 season had players like Givens, Bowles, Thomas, Francis and Gillard. Today we'd have none of them.

The peak of attainment for Brighton and QPR is now is to be an established mid table Premier League club.

And I think that sucks.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

That was my point. Tony has total control over Bhafc, but The amex stadium, The Training facility and Brighton and Hove Albion football club are totally seperate enterties. So he owns all but in the form of different companies. It is to protect both him and the club should things go tits up in the future.

The Community Stadium Company (CSL) will own the Training Ground at Lancing and I assume the football club will pay an annual rent to CSL for this, as it does for the Amex.

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

The Community Stadium Company (CSL) will own the Training Ground at Lancing and I assume the football club will pay an annual rent to CSL for this, as it does for the Amex.

Thanks. That is my ( very limited ) understanding.

 

[The Camel]

The NFL has got it right.

Sharing television revenues equally and a salary cap for each team.

With the draft system and teams unable to stockpile talent (as players excel they demand higher wages and one team can't keep too many high waged players) it means all teams are playing on a level playing field.

Seattle is a relatively small market team. Possibly the equivalent of a Southampton or a Brighton.

Yet the Seahawks are the reigning Superbowl champions and can expect to challenge for the next few seasons while their best players are under contract.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Unless I am being stupid (which is quite possible) aren't our media figures pretty similar to everyone else including Leeds?
In fact if you take out parachute payments we have the biggest revenue apart from Leeds. All meaningless of course without knowing what our costs are as well.

I'm not sure if the attachment is working (is that fixed yet?) but in the picture it shows Birmingham, Blackburn, Blackpool and Bolton earning 14.8m, 17.9m, 14.5m and 19.1m respectively, while we only earn 4.8m (from media). On reflection I have a feeling parachute payments may have been bundled in the 'media' category which is why them clubs have such a higher figure than us.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

The NFL has got it right.

Sharing television revenues equally and a salary cap for each team.

With the draft system and teams unable to stockpile talent (as players excel they demand higher wages and one team can't keep too many high waged players) it means all teams are playing on a level playing field.

Seattle is a relatively small market team. Possibly the equivalent of a Southampton or a Brighton.

Yet the Seahawks are the reigning Superbowl champions and can expect to challenge for the next few seasons while their stars are under contract.

The Premier League is not about equality though, in any sense. It was set up to achieve exactly the opposite and has been very successful at doing so.

 

[8th battalion East Lancs]

Take away the parachute payments and Burnley are 2nd from bottom. Tells you how much Prem money skews the Championship.

It may do, but we spent 8 seasons at this level before we 'earned' them payments.

You had a £20 million plus wage bill last season and we had one just over £15 million.

The parachute payments help and they are unfair to the other clubs but if Burnley can gain promotion (then and now) on modest resources then it surely gives hope to many others.

 

[The Camel]

The Premier League is not about equality though, in any sense. It was set up to achieve exactly the opposite and has been very successful at doing so.

To be honest I'd rather Man U, Chelsea, Citeh, Arsenal and Liverpool joined a Euro elite league or something.

Too many uncompetitive games in the Premier League. Would revive English football at a stroke.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

It may do, but we spent 8 seasons at this level before we 'earned' them payments.

You had a £20 million plus wage bill last season and we had one just over £15 million.

The parachute payments help and they are unfair to the other clubs but if Burnley can gain promotion (then and now) on modest resources then it surely gives hope to many others.

Burnley FC had 360 employees (incl p/t match-day staff) last season, the figure for BHA was 811. Burnley's wage bill also exceeded the club's turnover, the latter (£15.4m) including television money of around £8m paid by the Premier League.

 

[8th battalion East Lancs]

Burnley FC had 360 employees (incl p/t match-day staff) last season, the figure for BHA was 811. Burnley's wage bill also exceeded the club's turnover, the latter (£15.4m) including television money of around £8m paid by the Premier League.

So what are you saying Alex?

Are you saying that you employ too many people on too high wages? The ticket office, stewards, hot dog sellers must be coining it in.

When you come down from the Premier League unfortunately you still have players on contracts that were earned by getting to the Premier League.

They have all gone now, hence our breaking even for this season.

Brighton should do alright with the crowds they get, unfortunately it takes more than that to get promoted.