Something about football smells funny

[woolley]

16 hours ago, Neil Down said:

I'd prefer it if football was run as football and not a moneymaking toy for foreign multi billionaires...

I suppose it is away from the top level. At the top end it's more like showbusiness. 

[Uhtred]

15 hours ago, the stinking enigma said:

Who are they?

Exactly.

[manxman1980]

1.  Lower league clubs already receive financial support from the premier league in the form of "solidarity payments" which are a share of the TV money.

2.  EFL rules ban third party interference.  That would mean cash injections from a premier league club to a lower league club would be banned.  The same rule would ban the Nevilles from putting money in as they already own Salford City.

3.  Manchester City had previously allowed Bury to use their old Carrington training ground free of charge.  Bury just needed to pay for the upkeep and utility bills.  The agreement was terminated as Bury were not paying the bills nor maintaining the facility.

4.  The EFL is in a much healthier state than most other European leagues and consistently has a higher average attendance than comparable leagues.

5.  As already stated this is a very rare event in English football.  Bolton have been saved but it appears that Bury is a basket case thanks to the mortgage on the stadium (taken out by the previous owner) combined with financial mismanagement in trying to get promoted quickly.  The current owner is not blameless but really failed in his own due diligence when buying the club.

[woolley]

On 9/2/2019 at 7:53 AM, manxman1980 said:

1.  Lower league clubs already receive financial support from the premier league in the form of "solidarity payments" which are a share of the TV money.

2.  EFL rules ban third party interference.  That would mean cash injections from a premier league club to a lower league club would be banned.  The same rule would ban the Nevilles from putting money in as they already own Salford City.

3.  Manchester City had previously allowed Bury to use their old Carrington training ground free of charge.  Bury just needed to pay for the upkeep and utility bills.  The agreement was terminated as Bury were not paying the bills nor maintaining the facility.

4.  The EFL is in a much healthier state than most other European leagues and consistently has a higher average attendance than comparable leagues.

5.  As already stated this is a very rare event in English football.  Bolton have been saved but it appears that Bury is a basket case thanks to the mortgage on the stadium (taken out by the previous owner) combined with financial mismanagement in trying to get promoted quickly.  The current owner is not blameless but really failed in his own due diligence when buying the club.

All of what you say there is fine and fair, but it should not exclude the provision of some sort of soft landing and temporary support for a club and its supporters who have been mishandled and abused in this way. Goodness knows that there is enough money in the game to provide for this. The authors of the misfortune would not benefit and could still be held to account for their maladministration or worse. I note that the police are making enquiries into the affairs of Bury. Quite right too.

[manxman1980]

3 hours ago, woolley said:

All of what you say there is fine and fair, but it should not exclude the provision of some sort of soft landing and temporary support for a club and its supporters who have been mishandled and abused in this way. Goodness knows that there is enough money in the game to provide for this. The authors of the misfortune would not benefit and could still be held to account for their maladministration or worse. I note that the police are making enquiries into the affairs of Bury. Quite right too.

They have the same protection as any other business. 

If a local butchers was struggling would you expect a some sort of protection for the butchers paid for by Tesco or other large supermarkets? 

[woolley]

2 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

They have the same protection as any other business. 

If a local butchers was struggling would you expect a some sort of protection for the butchers paid for by Tesco or other large supermarkets? 

Well, if you can't see the difference I won't bother explaining it.

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, woolley said:

Well, if you can't see the difference I won't bother explaining it.

Don't forget that this is not the first time Bury faced financial ruin.  In the late 90's /early 2000's they asked fans and the general public for donations to save the club.

They were saved that time but you can hardly expect fans and others to constantly bail them out.

And given that the top league gives millions to each of the league clubs why should they pay more?  

If there was a rescue fund how would you prevent that money from ending up under the control of the owners?  Who would say how or where that money should be spent? 

 

[woolley]

9 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

Don't forget that this is not the first time Bury faced financial ruin.  In the late 90's /early 2000's they asked fans and the general public for donations to save the club. They were saved that time but you can hardly expect fans and others to constantly bail them out.

They aren't the same owners. It's a different issue entirely.

And given that the top league gives millions to each of the league clubs why should they pay more?  

Because the riches in football are beyond the dreams of avarice, and the top clubs depend of the lower leagues to keep the game healthy, develop and employ players.

If there was a rescue fund how would you prevent that money from ending up under the control of the owners?  Who would say how or where that money should be spent? 

It would only be triggered in extremis like the Bury situation. Initially seeded by a levy on the premier league and championship clubs according to means and kept in trust by the FA and EFL jointly. Topped up if and when necessary. Called in by administrators when an owning company goes bust to keep a club afloat for long enough to find a new buyer. EFL auditors to scrutinise the books. Any debts to the former owners or their associates forfeited. There is no way that it would end up in the hands of the owners.

It is for the benefit of the game, the supporters and the local communities that have the clubs at their heart. You seem to ignore the fact that these were local clubs long before they were businesses and their raison d'etre was nothing to do with money. That is why your analogy with grocers and Tesco just doesn't work. The duty of care is far stronger. As for the money, if clubs can pay £2million a month to a player, they are hardly going to miss the peanuts this would cost.

 

 

[manxman1980]

Never had you down as a socialist woolley...

What you are suggesting is that the wealthy premier league should share more of its wealth with the poorer lower divisions.  All to be overseen by a Governing body?   That's correct isn't it? 

You are missing the point that the premier league already pay "solidarity payments" to the lower leagues.  Why should they pay more?  I have excluded the parachute payments which are made to clubs relegated from the premier league over a number of years thereby indirectly injecting money into the Championship.  

2 hours ago, woolley said:

It is for the benefit of the game, the supporters and the local communities that have the clubs at their heart. You seem to ignore the fact that these were local clubs long before they were businesses and their raison d'etre was nothing to do with money. That is why your analogy with grocers and Tesco just doesn't work. The duty of care is far stronger. As for the money, if clubs can pay £2million a month to a player, they are hardly going to miss the peanuts this would cost.

You are also missing the fact that this is the first time a club has been ejected from the league since the Premier League was formed.  There were a number of clubs who suffered this fate years before the Premier League was formed such as Accrington Stanley.  Did you care for those clubs, their supporters and the communities then?  

 

[woolley]

16 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

 You are missing the point that the premier league already pay "solidarity payments" to the lower leagues.  Why should they pay more?  I have excluded the parachute payments which are made to clubs relegated from the premier league over a number of years thereby indirectly injecting money into the Championship.  

You are also missing the fact that this is the first time a club has been ejected from the league since the Premier League was formed.  There were a number of clubs who suffered this fate years before the Premier League was formed such as Accrington Stanley.  Did you care for those clubs, their supporters and the communities then?  

 

No I'm not missing that point. I appreciate that clubs do make payments. What I am proposing is a catch all safety net, much like a depositors compensation scheme funded by banks. I don't see it as controversial. It would be healthy for the game in general and, as I said, we are talking peanuts.

I would have had exactly the same take on Accrington Stanley, but it was a little before my time.

I'm not an anything-ist, by the way.