saintscottofthenortham Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 BBC 2 now. Bound to hear a little from the DFCSB's are we not. Looks worth a watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 Yep - just seen the Android saying how he had no choice but to shaft the local businesses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintscottofthenortham Posted 8 May, 2011 Author Share Posted 8 May, 2011 I see they didn't give it the 'Shítmouth Sob Story' like usual. I like Sugar. He says it how it is. Hopefully he comes face to face with Steve Cockareel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Who? Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 Nice bit on Shearer and the YTS scheme he was on at Southampton. Also a nice clip of him in the danish pinstripe kit!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MongoNeil Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 Good old twitchy face, bet he's not as clueless as he says about all financial matters ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Boy Saint Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 Scudamore was very uncomfortable at the questions he was being asked. I wish Dave Whelan had raised the point again that in Rugby League the end of season divvy up of the money is equal top to bottom of the Super League as opposed to the Premiership where the higher you are the larger share so the top 4 just get richer and richer. In the Super League with an equal share the lower teams can mount a realistic challenge the following season instead of an ever widening gulf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 I see they didn't give it the 'Shítmouth Sob Story' like usual. I like Sugar. He says it how it is. Hopefully he comes face to face with Steve Cockareel. Fantastic Alan Sugar - Told Scudamorein not so many words that he should have let the Skates go to the wall! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 Only thing they missed out was how the taxpayer got shafted by the dirty, cheating..... However, sad to see that the guy who backed the admin (Terry the Builder) - now has his company in administration. Sometimes loyalty costs I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 I loved the irony of Sugar relating how he rushed out to phone Sky to tell them that ITV had beat their offer and Sky duly came back and raised the bar by some distance. And then he has the temerity effectively to blame everybody else for the parlous state of the game's financial plight, overlooking the part he paid in it all. Otherwise though, a great programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bognor regis pete Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 Yea you're right Amstrad were making dishes for sky at the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 At around 19 minutes in, there's a clip of Matty's goal against Newcastle with a voice-over "As the money rolled in, foreign players flocked to the Premier League". He may have a French surname, but come on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 Only thing they missed out was how the taxpayer got shafted by the dirty, cheating..... However, sad to see that the guy who backed the admin (Terry the Builder) - now has his company in administration. Sometimes loyalty costs I guess. I have no sympathy for him. he was backed the CVA and had a big say in it. Some peole may have learned how to rid yourself of debts by going into admin and then coming out clean the other side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stug76 Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 I have no sympathy for him. he was backed the CVA and had a big say in it. Some peole may have learned how to rid yourself of debts by going into admin and then coming out clean the other side I can assure you that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 I can assure you that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Was he not on the committee regarding agreeing the CVA? At the time i recall him being interviewed and was very upbeat. To me he was instrumental in getting the support to agree it, totally against what the Revenue wished for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stug76 Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 I have no sympathy for him. he was backed the CVA and had a big say in it. Some peole may have learned how to rid yourself of debts by going into admin and then coming out clean the other side Sorry, I was referring to the second part of your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 Sorry, I was referring to the second part of your statement. He's got a point though. Pompey have already had close to £100 million worth of debt wiped out because the creditors agreed to the CVA, and through not doing due diligence basically voted to get nothing. Due to some creative accounting in a poorly regulated industry all they've had for doing this is a 9 point penalty, a penalty that may well had been irrelevant because they may well have been relegated from the PL anyway. It's a worrying blueprint that has been created. The reason why this thread is still going is because since coming out of admin they've been doing exactly the same as what got them into admin in the first place. It's like Storrie never left. As for racking up debt, why do you think Barry Hearn recently proposed clubs that go into admin get dropped two divisions? Because clubs that are being run in a financially sustainable way are losing out and UK football is proving at the moment that cheats do indeed prosper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stug76 Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 i read it as a comment directed at Terry the builder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 i read it as a comment directed at Terry the builder it was not directed at the builder, but some people will have learn t that by going into administration you can come out of admin with the debts wiped. I have been enlightened during this saga how it is so easy to have a pre-pack deal that seems a licence to lose your debt but not hurting your own position. It is with dismay that I have watched and no doubt many throughout the region may have read and perhaps thought 'sod it, let's do what they have got away with' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 I watched the programme on iPlayer this morning, very well researched and put-together programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 All this pony from dave Whelan about wages as a % of turnover got on my nerves. He took a 4th division club to the Premiership on the back of his £100 million investment, but now wants to kick the ladder over for other clubs. Now he's in the Premiership he wants to stop the Rochdale's, Walsall's and Boscombe's of this world from doing the same thing.Wigan couldn't afford to pay the wages they do, on the back of their pathetic gates,but it's ok because they've got the Sky money. Had someone followed this "Whelan wage cap" 20 years ago Wigan would still be in the 4th Division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 Good to see arry's conscience as clear as ever...**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 Football appears to consist of a group of people standing in a circle pointing at the one to the left of them saying "It's there fault" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Jonny Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 All this pony from dave Whelan about wages as a % of turnover got on my nerves. He took a 4th division club to the Premiership on the back of his £100 million investment, but now wants to kick the ladder over for other clubs. Now he's in the Premiership he wants to stop the Rochdale's, Walsall's and Boscombe's of this world from doing the same thing.Wigan couldn't afford to pay the wages they do, on the back of their pathetic gates,but it's ok because they've got the Sky money. Had someone followed this "Whelan wage cap" 20 years ago Wigan would still be in the 4th Division. Top post, hadn't thought about it like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 All this pony from dave Whelan about wages as a % of turnover got on my nerves. He took a 4th division club to the Premiership on the back of his £100 million investment, but now wants to kick the ladder over for other clubs. Now he's in the Premiership he wants to stop the Rochdale's, Walsall's and Boscombe's of this world from doing the same thing.Wigan couldn't afford to pay the wages they do, on the back of their pathetic gates,but it's ok because they've got the Sky money. Had someone followed this "Whelan wage cap" 20 years ago Wigan would still be in the 4th Division.he also a few months ago was going on about foreign managers and players,then forgot he had one himself and a team full of foreign players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 Arry's interview was priceless...no mention in his role at Pompey at all. Strange that....still it'll be fun to revisit after his court case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 Arry's interview was priceless...no mention in his role at Pompey at all. Strange that....still it'll be fun to revisit after his court case. He does play his "I'm just a loveable old cockney and don't know nothin about any of the money business" role quite well. Will have to see if he continues in the same vein come his court case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 Arry's interview was priceless...no mention in his role at Pompey at all. Strange that....still it'll be fun to revisit after his court case. Add Bournemouth, West Ham and Southampton to that list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 All this pony from dave Whelan about wages as a % of turnover got on my nerves. He took a 4th division club to the Premiership on the back of his £100 million investment, but now wants to kick the ladder over for other clubs. Now he's in the Premiership he wants to stop the Rochdale's, Walsall's and Boscombe's of this world from doing the same thing.Wigan couldn't afford to pay the wages they do, on the back of their pathetic gates,but it's ok because they've got the Sky money. Had someone followed this "Whelan wage cap" 20 years ago Wigan would still be in the 4th Division. They still can't afford their wage bill, Whelan is still dipping into his own finances to cover the shortfall. Wigan will be in for a nasty shock when they go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 he'll do well to bankrupt Spurs but I think he's giving it a good go. They now have a Champions League wagebill with Carling Cup income to look forward to. I would imagine their business plan involves some big borrowing for the new stadium and a reliance on increased gates to finance it. A dip in form and attendances could be disastrous. Then again West Ham have that scenario tied up already - they have the look of the classic Prem team that has gambled on big wages and is heading for a big wakeup call - firesale, wage restructuring, sacked manager, fighting for their lives in the championship. That is a business on a knife edge and needing six points from two games - as is Wigan. Blackpool and Wolves look to have more sensible planning behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 He does play his "I'm just a loveable old cockney and don't know nothin about any of the money business" role quite well. Will have to see if he continues in the same vein come his court case. He says he knows nothing about wages...how does he know who he can and can't afford then? Does he go to the chairman every transfer window and requests Messi, Villa, Rooney etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 He says he knows nothing about wages...how does he know who he can and can't afford then? Does he go to the chairman every transfer window and requests Messi, Villa, Rooney etc? Did you hear him on Breakfast TV sports bulletin this morning, whingeing on about how 'of course Man City will be in the Champions League sooner rather than later 'cos they can buy their way in'? Like he'd never do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 Scudamore was very uncomfortable at the questions he was being asked. I wish Dave Whelan had raised the point again that in Rugby League the end of season divvy up of the money is equal top to bottom of the Super League as opposed to the Premiership where the higher you are the larger share so the top 4 just get richer and richer. In the Super League with an equal share the lower teams can mount a realistic challenge the following season instead of an ever widening gulf. For those who don't have an historical perspective, the entire Football League used to be like this prior to the FA Premier League, which was their way of preventing the top teams going off and starting a Super League outside their control back in the late 80s/early 90s. Frankly I'd have let them go, what we've ended up with instead is an horrendously imbalanced top division with the proper, equal, competitive football starting at Championship level - and even that's being impacted by huge parachute payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mmm Donuts Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 In a free market economy can you really cap wages? Wouldn't they just find a way round that as with bonuses etc... I saw Steve Perryman in a stage show with Jimmy Greaves a couple of years ago and they absolutely panned Sugar's business approach to Spurs. However, there have been many cases of financial trouble at clubs, but seemingly a supply of people willing to lend money to clubs, so is the madness just in football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 In a free market economy can you really cap wages? Exactly. Sugar makes me laugh, he goes on about football being treated as a normal business but then wants to cap wages. If someone told him how much he was allowed to pay Nick Hewar, he'd tell them to **** off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 Arguably there's a market failure, so yes you can cap wages without surrendering your free-market credentials. Worth noting that most professional sports in the US (as well as rugby over here) employ wage caps. I have no problem with the principle - think it would be an excellent idea; but would have to be applied across Europe to work - of course, UEFA acts as a gatekeeper and can decide who can and cannot participate in major competitions; so while implementation is always tricky, there, at least, is a stick to ensure collective action and effective compliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 Yes but you can't have a free Market economy in conjunction with the football creditors rule. Also the free Market economy is not working properly when people are blowing their life's business assets trying to make their club succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 Absolutely - the football creditors rule and the lack of bottle shown by the leagues to let clubs fail are the biggest offences to a free-market economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 A wage cap is unfair on the teams in the lower leagues. There was no wage cap when Fulham were going up through the leagues and no wage cap when Wigan were. To have an arbitrary point where you bring a wage cap in means that they have had the advantages of a rich owner spending extra wages for promotion, but not letting other clubs do the same. How can it be fair that QPR gain promotion this season spending what they like on wages, but then saying that Reading cant do the same the following year? The football creditors rule also got some unfair one eyed bias from Sugar. It was put in place to ensure that Clubs received the transfer fees all the time. It protects other clubs, particulary ones further down the food chain. Without it a club entering admin could mean a domineo effect with other Clubs following suit. Lower league clubs rely on the revenue that comes in from transfers and if there's a chance they'll only get 5p in the £ the whole system will collapse.Clubs pay transfer fees in installments and the selling club need to rely on the fact that they will get 100% of this in future years. Lower down the leagues clubs cant afford to pay all monies up front, and clubs can't afford not to receive 100% of it. The rule was put in places to ensure that they do. There is a case for just having the Football Creditors rule for other clubs,and not players, but if that was the case agents would steer players away from clubs that were struggling and as that is about 60% of the clubs there would be chaos. Abolishing it would also lead to more clubs taking the Skates approach and gambling with higher wages, if it goes wrong they could only pay 1p in the £ My view is that any change should be to reinstate HMRC as a preferred creditor who gets paid in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 Personally I think there should be a wage cap based on percent of turnover with the exception that something would have to be done about the elephant in the room which is Man U because they earn so much more because of being Man U. What I think they should do (which is probably infeasible for a large number of reasons) is: Take the top 10 clubs by turnover, average their current turnovers, set a limit for salaries based on a percentage of that figure, say 50%. That way the top clubs have a realistic level to work with and the lesser clubs can risk something on competing but that they can not go completely over the top. Also I think the slope of the money from the PL needs leveling out a bit and I would be in favour of reducing some payments to the top 4 clubs to counter the money they will be getting from the champions league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 A wage cap is unfair on the teams in the lower leagues. There was no wage cap when Fulham were going up through the leagues and no wage cap when Wigan were. To have an arbitrary point where you bring a wage cap in means that they have had the advantages of a rich owner spending extra wages for promotion, but not letting other clubs do the same. How can it be fair that QPR gain promotion this season spending what they like on wages, but then saying that Reading cant do the same the following year? The football creditors rule also got some unfair one eyed bias from Sugar. It was put in place to ensure that Clubs received the transfer fees all the time. It protects other clubs, particulary ones further down the food chain. Without it a club entering admin could mean a domineo effect with other Clubs following suit. Lower league clubs rely on the revenue that comes in from transfers and if there's a chance they'll only get 5p in the £ the whole system will collapse.Clubs pay transfer fees in installments and the selling club need to rely on the fact that they will get 100% of this in future years. Lower down the leagues clubs cant afford to pay all monies up front, and clubs can't afford not to receive 100% of it. The rule was put in places to ensure that they do. There is a case for just having the Football Creditors rule for other clubs,and not players, but if that was the case agents would steer players away from clubs that were struggling and as that is about 60% of the clubs there would be chaos. Abolishing it would also lead to more clubs taking the Skates approach and gambling with higher wages, if it goes wrong they could only pay 1p in the £ My view is that any change should be to reinstate HMRC as a preferred creditor who gets paid in full. While the football creditors rule has its merits, unfortunately all it's done is put clubs in a safety zone knowing that no matter what happens to the club they deal with, they'll get their money in full. It's completely at odds with the idea of the "free market", where businesses worth their salt do due diligence on businesses they seek to trade with before selling their prized assets on hire purchase. If you or I defaulted on a payment on our mortgage, there's a possibility we'd find our house being repossessed. The FA should automatically trigger a ban on any player whose transfer fee payments are overdue - that would then ensure that both purchasing teams and the players themselves take a degree of responsibility in transfer dealings. If a player decides to chase the cash and sign for Pompey who they know might default on the transfer payment, and he ends up not being able to play (domestically or internationally) then that's his own fault for ignoring the problems. It's all well and good saying that the FA, Premier League and Football League have to take responsibility for the position the national game finds itself in, but the players, agents and clubs themselves also have a significant burden to bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 A wage cap is unfair on the teams in the lower leagues. There was no wage cap when Fulham were going up through the leagues and no wage cap when Wigan were. To have an arbitrary point where you bring a wage cap in means that they have had the advantages of a rich owner spending extra wages for promotion, but not letting other clubs do the same. How can it be fair that QPR gain promotion this season spending what they like on wages, but then saying that Reading cant do the same the following year? The football creditors rule also got some unfair one eyed bias from Sugar. It was put in place to ensure that Clubs received the transfer fees all the time. It protects other clubs, particulary ones further down the food chain. Without it a club entering admin could mean a domineo effect with other Clubs following suit. Lower league clubs rely on the revenue that comes in from transfers and if there's a chance they'll only get 5p in the £ the whole system will collapse.Clubs pay transfer fees in installments and the selling club need to rely on the fact that they will get 100% of this in future years. Lower down the leagues clubs cant afford to pay all monies up front, and clubs can't afford not to receive 100% of it. The rule was put in places to ensure that they do. There is a case for just having the Football Creditors rule for other clubs,and not players, but if that was the case agents would steer players away from clubs that were struggling and as that is about 60% of the clubs there would be chaos. Abolishing it would also lead to more clubs taking the Skates approach and gambling with higher wages, if it goes wrong they could only pay 1p in the £ My view is that any change should be to reinstate HMRC as a preferred creditor who gets paid in full. Why would it hurt teams from lower leagues? Ambitious teams with rich owners will still have an advantage - the implication is that a return to the days of Jimmy Hill is on the cards! Any salary cap would only be set at in order to control the extremes and the worst inflationary pressures (attributable to parts of the premiership). In reality, it would be irrelevant to most clubs - and even if it did set a bound on what an ambitious club outside the prem could dom that club would invariably find other ways to flex its financial muscle - it could ensure it had a deeper squad, a more sophisticated and attractive infrastructure than competitors and, of course, transfer fees would still allow differentiation (albeit limited by Bosman). The fact is that if anything has kicked away the ladder from clubs, its the status quo of unchecked wages - unless you have the finances of Man City or Chelsea, breaking into the top 4 has become more and more remote. I would rather a little more equality throughout the leagues, even if it means limiting clubs from doing a Wigan or Fulham (though as I say above, the salary cap would not get rid of this) in return for the possibility that the sport is more competitive and clubs can challenge for the highest honours (this is quite apart from the other advantages asssociated with salary caps e.g. long-term sustainability of clubs etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 The sad thing is that most fans don't actually give a **** about the finance. I went on Twitter after the program and less than a quarter of the posts backed Sugar whilst most claimed he was talking ********. Then Martin Samuel was knocking the programme in his column claiming that Sugar wasn't bringing anything new to the table and he'd pinched other peoples ideas. The truth of it is that football from the administrators of the game to the clubs and even the media is such an old boys network nobody is willing to risk being ostracized by the game, look what happened to the BBC after the agents programme. Everyone is riding the fans gravy train and is too scared to tell a few home truths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 10 May, 2011 Share Posted 10 May, 2011 (edited) Personally I think there should be a wage cap based on percent of turnover with the exception that something would have to be done about the elephant in the room which is Man U because they earn so much more because of being Man U. What I think they should do (which is probably infeasible for a large number of reasons) is: Take the top 10 clubs by turnover, average their current turnovers, set a limit for salaries based on a percentage of that figure, say 50%. That way the top clubs have a realistic level to work with and the lesser clubs can risk something on competing but that they can not go completely over the top. Also I think the slope of the money from the PL needs leveling out a bit and I would be in favour of reducing some payments to the top 4 clubs to counter the money they will be getting from the champions league. There's no reason why you can't have two caps to address different problems: a cap based on per cent on turnover to ensure sustainability and clubs spend within their means and an absolute cap on wages to ensure greater competition and clubs with the highest turnover don't pull further and further ahead. At the moment, lack of competition is what causes clubs to take dangerous, unsustainable gambles; but, competition and sustainability are different problems and should be dealt with as such. Edited 10 May, 2011 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now