Jump to content

How not to finance a football club


offix
 Share

Recommended Posts

i've never understood this argument, certainly it's correct when talking about teams such as pompey, who's players they bought are not fantastic. but if you are man city in three years, and the owners have left... all you need to do is sell the players! you would have an incredible wealth of players sitting there, transfer fees alone to other clubs would cover any costs.

 

Not necessarily. Say the money Sky put in goes down due to lack of competition/financial crisis meaning less advertising, fewer subscribers etc and the whole Ponzi scheme collapses. Players on excessive contracts so don't want to move, the club can't sell, the owner loses interest in a club on to which he has loaded debt (al a MU and Liverpool). There are a number of possible scenarios (including yours) but I don't think anything can be assumed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. Say the money Sky put in goes down due to lack of competition/financial crisis meaning less advertising, fewer subscribers etc and the whole Ponzi scheme collapses. Players on excessive contracts so don't want to move, the club can't sell, the owner loses interest in a club on to which he has loaded debt (al a MU and Liverpool). There are a number of possible scenarios (including yours) but I don't think anything can be assumed.

 

Yes, that's all true. Also factor in that the super wealthy clubs probably pay inflated prices to begin with because everybody knows they're rich. When they come to sell through necessity because they are desperate for the money to reduce debt, then the price is forced down because everybody knows that they have to sell. Look at us; when we had to sell Surman, Dyer, McGoldrick, etc, we got low offers which were taking the p*ss, but had to accept them. Wolves offer a stupid price for Lallana and we all of a sudden are in a position to tell them to come back with a realistic price, or sod off. But when we are now needing to replenish our team with new players, everybody will believe that they can value the players we want at a higher price because our owner is minted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's all true. Also factor in that the super wealthy clubs probably pay inflated prices to begin with because everybody knows they're rich. When they come to sell through necessity because they are desperate for the money to reduce debt, then the price is forced down because everybody knows that they have to sell. Look at us; when we had to sell Surman, Dyer, McGoldrick, etc, we got low offers which were taking the p*ss, but had to accept them. Wolves offer a stupid price for Lallana and we all of a sudden are in a position to tell them to come back with a realistic price, or sod off. But when we are now needing to replenish our team with new players, everybody will believe that they can value the players we want at a higher price because our owner is minted.

 

But the word will go round that ML has a reputation for not throwing money away, so I don't think it will be like when Burley arrived and we spent silly money (Glad he bought Kelvin though)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope we do it the right way - debt free we are a wealthy team for this division and the CCC. I don't want us to buy success with silly money (even relative to our rivals). I'm not saying we shouldn't spend to improve the squad, but what we can afford. Buying success is a) hollow and b) fragile.

Ask our little chums down the road. I have spoken to a few of them over the years and winning the cup for them seems to mean almost less to them than getting to the final did for us. That was because our team was OUR team - we had lads in that team who had either come up through the ranks (ie Bridge, Oakley, Baird) or made their name with us (ie Beattie, Marsden) - put together over a few seasons. Poopey's team was almost entirely bought for that season at a ludicrous cost in wages and fees and there wasn't the same emotional investment.

And now, of course, the day of settling up is upon them and it doesn't look pretty. Mr Gaydalek has had his fun and wants out.

I want our new owners to back us for the long-haul, but also for the club to be self-sustaining, with good youngsters getting a go and success being achieved by prudent management and a club that is united. If we do that we can be back in the Prem, punching above our weight and enjoying every moment of success because of it

 

There is no reason why you cannot combine spending silly money with a long term plan, in City's case they are aiming for Champions League football so the quicker they get there the better.

 

If they are prudent and live within their means it could takes decades, if at all. If they reach the Champions League next year they will get a shed load of cash, they will instantly raise the clubs profile worldwide meaning they can attact top players for their first team but also compete with Man U and Liverpool for young players for the future.

 

The other obvious benefit is that securing one of the CL spots they will stitch up one of the big 4. It would be fantastic to see Arsenal or Man U get hit in the pocket.

 

With Saints I think it makes sense to plan long term but it may be worth throwing the cheque book at it as well, especially if we are in with a sniff come January.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit sooner, methinks.

 

Agreed. Alan Pardew ought to be able to assess what he needs in terms of new players in a couple of weeks. Even as I write, I'm sure that he's on the blower assessing availability of some new blood. I'm pretty certain that ML would be happy to get us out of this division as soon as possible and we quickly need to get through the -10 points and pressing upwards. If we spend now, we can hit the ground running and there is still a chance of either automatic promotion, or the playoffs. Even if we don't get promoted this season, there is still something to be said for having a team together for as long as possible so that they get used to playing together as a unit. This has been a problem for us these past few seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be gutted if that happened at Southampton! I'd like us to be back in the Prem but I'd like us to work our way up there, not buy our way there. I guess its the club you get used to.

 

I guarantee we will never return to the premiership without spending money!;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its been the way for ages - fans enjoy success, money buys success -

Blackburn, Chelsea, Man U all buy titles are their fans love it

 

chelsea and blackburn yes.

 

man united no.

 

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/

 

interesting reading.

 

 

since 2004-net spend per season

1 Manchester City £35,141,667

2 Chelsea £24,691,667

3 Liverpool £20,951,667

4 Aston Villa £12,324,167

5 Tottenham £9,075,000

6 Sunderland £7,738,333

9 Newcastle £6,225,000

7 Manchester United £4,600,000

8 Everton £3,983,333

10 Middlesborough £2,950,000

12 West Ham £2,303,333

 

for a club that makes £60m profit a season, it shows how the debt heaped on the club by the glazers is crippling the club in the transfer market, and how well fergie has done!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chelsea and blackburn yes.

 

man united no.

 

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/

 

interesting reading.

 

 

since 2004-net spend per season

1 Manchester City £35,141,667

2 Chelsea £24,691,667

3 Liverpool £20,951,667

4 Aston Villa £12,324,167

5 Tottenham £9,075,000

6 Sunderland £7,738,333

9 Newcastle £6,225,000

7 Manchester United £4,600,000

8 Everton £3,983,333

10 Middlesborough £2,950,000

12 West Ham £2,303,333

 

for a club that makes £60m profit a season, it shows how the debt heaped on the club by the glazers is crippling the club in the transfer market, and how well fergie has done!!!

 

 

behave

 

man utd run at a profit and one of the clubs that do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

behave

 

man utd run at a profit and one of the clubs that do...

 

yes, the club run at a profit but with interest payments (just interest, not even reducing the loans) of near on £70m a year, the clubs parent company, Red Football operate at a loss every year!!

 

disgusting what the glazers have done...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, the club run at a profit but with interest payments (just interest, not even reducing the loans) of near on £70m a year, the clubs parent company, Red Football operate at a loss every year!!

 

disgusting what the glazers have done...

yes

 

disgusting winning the champions league, premiership, having the world player of the year, spending 30 million on strikers, an god knows how much of foreign teenagers..

 

what ****s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...