When you think of all vast sums of money that is sucked in by the Premier league from TV and corporate sources. When you think of what a vast money making machine it is. When you think that what a premiership club would pay for one average player would probably of saved Bury.
It's about time the ENGLISH Premier league thought more about and invested more into the EFL instead of letting all these vast TV payments end up in foreign bank accounts.
There's a lot not to like about where football money goes to, but Bury FC have been expelled from the League because they did not meet their financial commitments. I don't think the answer is for the League or the FA to say to them "hard luck chaps but never mind here's £x000 we've picked up from Liverpool/Man City etc to keep you going until you go bust again". Clubs have to be responsible for managing their own finances. They receive great benefits from their membership of the League. We know that because we've been told by our owners how much better our revenue would be if we got into the League. Any League club can stay financially solvent if they manage their business properly - no excuses. The football pyramid works very well. With world class management on and off the field, even small clubs can reach the heights of the Premier League as Bournemouth have proven. It's true that the riches are to be found at the top of the tree but that is the same in most industries and in most industries there are a lot of well managed smaller operators with smaller balance sheets but who are jogging along nicely and who have the potential to grow if they have the professionalism to achieve good progress. Sadly the Bury situation does stink to high heaven but I don't expect anyone to be able to tell us exactly how that club's money has been lost. We can only guess that their loss might have been someone's gain. The real facts are probably buried behind Non Disclosure Agreements etc. To find the solution the League does need to take responsibility for investigating what was the root cause of the Bury demise. It's only when they can understand the root cause of the problem that they can decide what countermeasures to introduce to prevent a recurrence of the same problem at other clubs. Whether the League has the competence and capability to undertake that kind of analysis is, unfortunately, not a given. We'll just have to wait and see.
No, you should not throw good money after bad . But neither should Bury's rich neighbours do nothing. I remember us helping out a couple of clubs in trouble (Truro for one). Just gestures but they meant something within the football family
But surely swb, not throwing good money after bad includes MU and MC doesn't it? Why would they give money to an organisation that has proved itself incapable of managing its finances? The money would just go down the same drain that the club has been leaking money into for a while surely. It doesn't make sense. I know there was a bucket collection for Truro and Stewart allowed them the benefit of the gate money from our game with them but I think that came into the category of good faith didn't it? It helped towards giving them a breather while they put together the new ownership deal which properly got them out of trouble. Bury has nothing like that on the horizon even after being given enough extended time by the EFL to make suitable takeover arrangements. If you just keep baling out a leaking boat you just waste a lot of energy postponing its eventual sinking.
I just have this dislike, deep dislike, of the Premier league and all it stands for. There is very very little connection with English football. It is just a vast money machine for foreign owners and has spoilt English football, international and club. It's all about money and chess football.
Four clubs in last seasons euro finals and 9 English players between them. It is well overdue for these overly rich clubs to give something back to the game that props them up.
Even southampton's track record of producing home qualified payers is history.
In my youth a club like Bury made life saving money by selling up and coming players to top flight clubs the proceeds of which kept them going. Now Carlos Kickball robs Bury and all the other lesser clubs of valuable income
Post by hantslondoner on Aug 28, 2019 19:24:11 GMT
John, I may not agree with all of your article (personally I think there should be an emergency fund, paid for by the EPL, which can be used by the FL in situations like this (and even in extreme cases like this, maybe even taking them over temporarily, like the state took over a failing bank, RBoS)) but I certainly agree with your last paragraph:
'To find the solution the League does need to take responsibility for investigating what was the root cause of the Bury demise. It's only when they can understand the root cause of the problem that they can decide what countermeasures to introduce to prevent a recurrence of the same problem at other clubs. Whether the League has the competence and capability to undertake that kind of analysis is, unfortunately, not a given. We'll just have to wait and see.'
Bury were let down by the process as well as by themselves. Even more ironic when they'd just won promotion (to the same league as Pompey). It's a terrible thing for the community as well as for football. And naturally the EPL has taken away a lot of their revenue-generating capabilities.
Paul, I can't imagine Premier League clubs being really convinced that they should bail out failing EFL clubs. No other industry that I can think of expects large organisations to rescue smaller businesses other than through partial or total takeover. As football clubs aren't allowed to take each other over then I think that rules out that option. The arguments around the amounts of money being earned and spent in the Premier League represent a big discussion in its own right but I can't see that using PL clubs as a source of "emergency funding" is going to help ensure that Football League clubs are run any better. If anything it has the prospect of breeding dependency and it actually rewards clubs for failing to manage themselves. If I take over a League club for a small amount of money, do a bit of asset stripping for my own benefit and syphon funds off into my other interests, or even just fail to manage the club's finances properly, is it right that I should expect a handout from richer clubs in order to keep my newly acquired Football league club going? I don't think so. The problem needs to be dealt with at source. The EFL chairman is trying to put the blame on the clubs for paying players high wages. That is the inference from her suggestion that a wage cap needs to be introduced. In fact it was the EFL under her chairmanship which approved the take over of Bury by Mr Dale last December. It would be better if she took a cut in her own eye watering salary or, better still, resigned and handed over the reins to someone with the capability to chair the EFL properly. As for Bury, the club will hopefully re establish itself under a new name and on a more manageable scale. That seems to be the way of things and is a natural process followed by many clubs in the past. Bury has a much smaller population than Eastleigh and its footballing expectations might need to be proportionate in the future.
Bury have been over spending for years and years. Last season they had several players earning between £8,000-10,000 per week; in league 2! No-one to blame but themselves. While they were winning promotion last season, was there any Bury fans complaining about how they did it??
Post by hantslondoner on Aug 29, 2019 17:21:34 GMT
I don't expect EPL clubs to be enthusiastic about an 'emergency funding' idea, it's just that since the FA talks about 'grass roots' football a lot, they could at least try and get more financial support from a group that is bleeding the rest dry. Monopolies commission, maybe? I remember Lloyds TSB had to split up for that reason. I don't see it as a lot different from the PFA insurance scheme which helped players who are prevented from earning a living by injury.
As was also said, one top player's yearly salary would probably have gone a long way towards saving Bury.
'The problem needs to be dealt with at source. The EFL chairman is trying to put the blame on the clubs for paying players high wages. That is the inference from her suggestion that a wage cap needs to be introduced. In fact it was the EFL under her chairmanship which approved the take over of Bury by Mr Dale last December. It would be better if she took a cut in her own eye watering salary or, better still, resigned and handed over the reins to someone with the capability to chair the EFL properly'. --Totally agree on this point. They would also be responsible for spending any 'emergency fund' wisely, and be open to scrutiny.
'As for Bury, the club will hopefully re establish itself under a new name and on a more manageable scale. That seems to be the way of things and is a natural process followed by many clubs in the past. Bury has a much smaller population than Eastleigh and its footballing expectations might need to be proportionate in the future'. --Yes, I expect there will be an AFC Bury starting somewhere like the NW Counties League soon. Eastleigh did need a bit of help from a multi-millionaire to climb out of local football.
Most teams of the size of Bury and Eastleigh need to live within their means, and a lot of that will involve developing players for sale at a profit. We need to get better at it too. Some lessons for us to learn from their demise?
I hope you won't mind me pointing out Paul that Lloyds were required by the EU to sell off TSB. It wasn't anything to do with the Monopolies Commission as your post suggests. As usual the EU has always thrown the rule book at British companies at the first opportunity. That's how Santander got its presence in the UK high street when it was able to get all the old Alliance and Leicester branches for a song. In the case of Lloyds, they were given a deadline by the EU to sell off all of their interest in TSB and, surprise surprise, Spanish bank Sabadell were given the in on the deal to pick up the controlling interest for a fraction of the bank's potential value. You wouldn't be surprised if Sabadell got a soft loan from the European Bank to cover the deal just to add insult to injury. Considering the various French and Spanish banks which have floundered and been rescued, I have always wondered why the EU didn't treat them in the same way.
Post by hantslondoner on Aug 30, 2019 10:15:35 GMT
Fair enough, John - yes, it was the EU, not the MC, that forced the split, because of the £20bn pumped in was a result of the 2008 bailouts. Maybe not a good advert for the EU on this occasion (but that's another story).
Bad example, but I was just trying to make the point that institutions that benefit 'unfairly' compared to others have been forced to compensate them in the past.
It would just be a "rogue's charter" to save clubs from the consequences of their own financial mismanagement. In the case of Bury their profligate spending gained them promotion at the expense of Mansfield Town, a well managed and financially responsible club. Why should Mansfield and other well run clubs bother to manage their finances so carefully if they were able to expect an emergency fund rescue if they tried to spend money they didn't have to match the huge sums Bury spent on players? I would recommend anyone interested in this topic to have a read of today's two page comment piece by Martin Samuel, Chief Sports Writer at the Daily Mail. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7408485/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Dont-blame-elite-demise-Bury-fall-business.html