Portsmouth

Originally Posted by Sullingtons

I don't understand how football, which essentially is quite a good money making business, manages to attract so many idiots who £#%&! it up.

The same thing hardly happens in other sectors? Bolland doesn't take over at M&S and all of a sudden they're bankrupt. Madness.

because you are not emotional about M&S as a customer it takes a huge amount for you to stop spending money on a sports team. It's like a never ending cash cow if you get a successful team.

You could go somewhere else for your food or nice work shirts and if one day you did not like it you could go else where, hence why so many business men want to step in make the a team world beaters and watch the cash come in.

Or in our case, step in when we're already world beaters and watch the cash roll out

That's the trouble though, they see the €€€€€ but not the vagaries of this insane market. Which is why the wages are totally out of control, as we saw this week only too painfully.

Originally Posted by andyroo

Or in our case, step in when we're already world beaters and watch the cash roll out

That's the trouble though, they see the €€€€€ but not the vagaries of this insane market. Which is why the wages are totally out of control, as we saw this week only too painfully.

i dont blame the wages on the owners its everyone involved. Players have the expectation of 250k per week the owners would love to pay them 20k and make a £#%&!ing boat load more profit.

It's all about winning and making money out of it.

Pretty sad but hardly surprising. The FA should be held account for this. Too many people coming in to the game seeing it as a way to make money, completely £#%&!ing over the fans whose community built clubs over 100 years. It's no surprise that the best run clubs are run by chairman who make very little, if anything from the club.

Originally Posted by Sloane

because its so badly regulated

Originally Posted by plopborsky

because you are not emotional about M&S as a customer it takes a huge amount for you to stop spending money on a sports team. It's like a never ending cash cow if you get a successful team.

You could go somewhere else for your food or nice work shirts and if one day you did not like it you could go else where, hence why so many business men want to step in make the a team world beaters and watch the cash come in.

But that emotional attachment is reason for the business model to succeed surely?

Leeds/Portsmouth/Wednesday/Millwall - they all have decent followings and outside of the City a small amount of brand value. PE and Hedgefunds eat up businesses all the time, I just don't understand how the consortiums that take over football clubs seem to make such a shit job of it.

Originally Posted by Sullingtons

But that emotional attachment is reason for the business model to succeed surely?

Leeds/Portsmouth/Wednesday/Millwall - they all have decent followings and outside of the City a small amount of brand value. PE and Hedgefunds eat up businesses all the time, I just don't understand how the consortiums that take over football clubs seem to make such a shit job of it.

That's the sad part for me. It's just cynical exploitation of whole communities, the supreme distillation of Thatcherism if you will. There should be some sort of protection afford to sports team, in a similar way to charities. Think the horse has bolted on that one though.

There was a brilliant doc on Radio 4 which looked at this recently. All the financial experts sad that footballs in trouble.

I'll try and find it on the website - all is covered.

Originally Posted by Sullingtons

There was a brilliant doc on Radio 4 which looked at this recently. All the financial experts sad that footballs in trouble.

I'll try and find it on the website - all is covered.

After this week with Rooney not sure I could stomach more depressing stuff about football tbh mate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...istrator-claim

Originally Posted by Switching Off

After this week with Rooney not sure I could stomach more depressing stuff about football tbh mate

You're in luck as I can't find it.

It was on R4 about 3 months ago, at the weekend. Just after Portsmouth had announced all those problems with players wages, losses etc.

Originally Posted by Sullingtons

But that emotional attachment is reason for the business model to succeed surely?

Leeds/Portsmouth/Wednesday/Millwall - they all have decent followings and outside of the City a small amount of brand value. PE and Hedgefunds eat up businesses all the time, I just don't understand how the consortiums that take over football clubs seem to make such a shit job of it.

because they base it on buy better players get better results get more money from tv and sponsors. Take a bigger % of the profits then invest as little as possible and walk away.

You dont take over a company and say i am going to get the best staff ever from every other rival company you take your time and see what improvements can be made and spend money where needed.

I actually think footballers wages are pretty low down the scale of problems with the game.

At the top end, the likes of Messi, Rooney or whoever still generate more income for their clubs than they take out in wages. It's lower down the scale where it gets silly, remember Richardson on £40K a week? That's just £#%&!ed up. However, the talent pool of footballers remains fairly constant, while the amount of money in the game keeps going up at an extraordinary rate. In those circumstances, players wages are going to keep on rising. Since the maximum wage was abolished, I think I'm right in saying that average football wages haven't dropped once, season on season?

Sensible rules, enforced Europe wide, governing levels of debt, % turnover spent on wages and ticket pricing would see average wages come down and clubs in a far healthier state. Just getting the first two will be hard enough and I can't ever see clubs allowing in independent regulation of ticket pricing.

What I think it telling is how popular Platini's rules have been with many of the bigger clubs. Even Abramovich was in favour. I think this shows that even the biggest clubs are recognising that the amount of spending is unsustainable.

Originally Posted by The Watcher

I actually think footballers wages are pretty low down the scale of problems with the game.

At the top end, the likes of Messi, Rooney or whoever still generate more income for their clubs than they take out in wages. It's lower down the scale where it gets silly, remember Richardson on £40K a week? That's just £#%&!ed up. However, the talent pool of footballers remains fairly constant, while the amount of money in the game keeps going up at an extraordinary rate. In those circumstances, players wages are going to keep on rising. Since the maximum wage was abolished, I think I'm right in saying that average football wages haven't dropped once, season on season?

Sensible rules, enforced Europe wide, governing levels of debt, % turnover spent on wages and ticket pricing would see average wages come down and clubs in a far healthier state. Just getting the first two will be hard enough and I can't ever see clubs allowing in independent regulation of ticket pricing.

What I think it telling is how popular Platini's rules have been with many of the bigger clubs. Even Abramovich was in favour. I think this shows that even the biggest clubs are recognising that the amount of spending is unsustainable.

only because they are losing money or not making as much. They really don't give a £#%&!.

I think those so-called fair play rules are a red herring.

The reason those rules are so popular with the established clubs is that they stop some arraviste club from smashing up their cosy oligarchy with big spending, which would mean their own spending would need to increase to keep step.

Originally Posted by The Watcher

I actually think footballers wages are pretty low down the scale of problems with the game.

At the top end, the likes of Messi, Rooney or whoever still generate more income for their clubs than they take out in wages. It's lower down the scale where it gets silly, remember Richardson on £40K a week? That's just £#%&!ed up. However, the talent pool of footballers remains fairly constant, while the amount of money in the game keeps going up at an extraordinary rate. In those circumstances, players wages are going to keep on rising. Since the maximum wage was abolished, I think I'm right in saying that average football wages haven't dropped once, season on season?

Sensible rules, enforced Europe wide, governing levels of debt, % turnover spent on wages and ticket pricing would see average wages come down and clubs in a far healthier state. Just getting the first two will be hard enough and I can't ever see clubs allowing in independent regulation of ticket pricing.

What I think it telling is how popular Platini's rules have been with many of the bigger clubs. Even Abramovich was in favour. I think this shows that even the biggest clubs are recognising that the amount of spending is unsustainable.

The problem has been the averaging of lower level footballers. As the top few have rocketed in salary, the likes of Preston, Sheff Utd, Derby etc have had to pay players of low ability 15-20k per week, and on low crowds. It is a survival strategy tho, as without these players the next step down would see them liquidated or admonished with debts of irretrievable levels. Football has become a vicious circe yet even a club of Portsmouth standing going bust won't cause even a ripple amongst the 'big clubs', nor, sadly, amongst the pretenders to the premiership.

Originally Posted by andyroo

I think those so-called fair play rules are a red herring.

The reason those rules are so popular with the established clubs is that they stop some arraviste club from smashing up their cosy oligarchy with big spending, which would mean their own spending would need to increase to keep step.

agree pal

Originally Posted by andyroo

I think those so-called fair play rules are a red herring.

The reason those rules are so popular with the established clubs is that they stop some arraviste club from smashing up their cosy oligarchy with big spending, which would mean their own spending would need to increase to keep step.

Fair argument tbh. But I think any rules which force clubs to live within their means have to be seen as a positive, even if the motives are entirely selfless.

Originally Posted by dwfb

The problem has been the averaging of lower level footballers. As the top few have rocketed in salary, the likes of Preston, Sheff Utd, Derby etc have had to pay players of low ability 15-20k per week, and on low crowds. It is a survival strategy tho, as without these players the next step down would see them liquidated or admonished with debts of irretrievable levels. Football has become a vicious circe yet even a club of Portsmouth standing going bust won't cause even a ripple amongst the 'big clubs', nor, sadly, amongst the pretenders to the premiership.

One problem is that in the lower leagues is that there appears to be a direct correlation between how much you can pay and your success. So if you can stretch a bit and offer more than your rivals you will improve and that sets the whole cycle off.

Looks like that weasel Gaydamak might have backed down.......

Portsmouth won away at Hull today btw - it might just not be their final game after all

Does anyone seriously think the "financial fair play" rules will ever be implimented?

"Hey, Mr. Platini, it's ITV/Mediaset/TV5/Sky here. We're not happy with the line-up.. who the £#%&! are Portogruaro and Almeria, and why aren't Real, Inter, United, Chelsea here.

"Oh really? Check next week's listings. The clubs we want will be playing. Go £#%&! yourself."