Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: old man villa fan on July 31, 2010, 03:48:19 PM
-
Is the current inactivity in the transfer market due to clubs not having any money to spend.
Is the Sky money and income through the gates just enough to pay the clubs wages, leaving nothing else to spend on players.
Are we now seeing the effect of too much of the money that was swashing around football a few seasons ago being spent outside of English football and lost forever.
Is the fact that many transfers were paid in installments now coming home to hurt the clubs as payments have caught up with no additional income.
Are clubs being left with too many players on high wages (like us) and thus tying up income from Sky/gates/sponsorship.
The only money that seems to be available is when clubs are bought out with new investment. Even this seems to be drying up. A year or two ago there were many buyers out there but now even traditionally top clubs with good potential for income from high gates have no buyers.
There seems to be no liquidity in English football and usually, no liquidity in business means eventual bankruptcy.
My opinion is that we are going to see a very flat market for the next couple of years as players contracts are allowed to run down for all but the top players, with clubs taking a hit on lost income from transfers by letting players go on free transfers. Even Chelsea have done this with Joe Cole.
There will always be some wheeling and dealing but are we going too see more clubs relying on young players coming through or clubs going to places like central America for cheap imports.
It will be interesting to see how Portsmouth go over the next 2 or 3 seasons. Will they steady the ship or will they sink out of sight.
I think football is in for some hard times and we have to hope that PL football still interests the rest of the world as it does now because income form Sky is the only thing keeping football afloat at the moment.
Randy Lerner is a shrewd businessman and I think he senses the storm clouds gathering and is battening down the hatches for the time being. Not being a traditional English owner, he will not throw more and more money in through loyalty/home town club/vanity or whatever. I do not see Mr Lerner being one to throw the towel in but I do see him as one that will ride out the storm.
How patient will Villa supporters be if money is not being spent on new players.
-
The most positive thing about Citeh is that they are injecting money into the game.
I think the game is almost bust in many ways - Villa's P&L account is atrocious, so God help many other clubs.
Wages are the biggest problem though and Bosman didn't half help put football where it is financially giving more power to the player than is healthy.
-
You made some valid point's there old man villa fan i can agree with them.
-
football has plenty of cash, latest TV deals are massive
wages and agents sucking it all out
-
i think that the amount of money in the game has probably peaked.
Hardly any clubs make a profit and that is fine for those with limitless resources but not the majority.
Many of the PL teams have unsustainable wage structures and too many players which will take some time to unravel.
-
Time for a salary cap or something similar - I am currently seeking employment - the thought of subsidising a player who rarely makes the bench but collects in excess of £40k per week is galling to say the least.
(before anyone claims that I am being subsidised to do likewise by the state - I am not entitled to any benefits under the current system ).
-
How unfortunate that the measures put in place to supposedly stop the likes of Manchester City buying titles will only begin to take effect when they will be an established top four side.
What I object to is not that City have money, which is just the luck of the draw, but the inertia displayed by the Premier League and UEFA when it comes to regulating its use. It was obvious that owners like Abramovich and the chaps that hold the purse strings at City would skew the transfer market massively and it's ruined the league and will do for years to come.
-
Very good OP.
I would imagine we will see a regression to the mean in the coming years.
There will be a few exceptions (Man City) but overall clubs now realise they must get their house in order
-
I cant help thinking that if football really did run out of money, went through a cataclysmic meltdown, what emerged at the other end of it might be better than what we have now.
-
I don't think the game has run out of money, but the major clubs aren't being as lavish due to the huge amounts of debt that now exists and is known. UEFA wants to reign that in so their watching more intently now. This is easily the best run Man City will have at things because of the inability of their competition to meet what they are willing to pay.
-
I cant help thinking that if football really did run out of money, went through a cataclysmic meltdown, what emerged at the other end of it might be better than what we have now.
I agree. I want to see the game on the other side of the black hole. If football crashes one would hope to see far more responsibility in its next incarnation.
-
In the case of us
Where has the new sponsorship money gone? Surely that should be used for transfers?
-
How patient will Villa supporters be if money is not being spent on new players.
Not very if certain sections of this site are anything to go by.
-
How patient will Villa supporters be if money is not being spent on new players.
Not very if certain sections of this site are anything to go by.
Serios question, How do you feel? Do you think we will buy some new blood if Milner does not go?
-
How patient will Villa supporters be if money is not being spent on new players.
Not very if certain sections of this site are anything to go by.
Serios question, How do you feel? Do you think we will buy some new blood if Milner does not go?
Yes, but clearly things change both in terms of who we need to buy and how much we have to spend if he does go.
-
So do you think there is money or is he being slow as usual?
-
So do you think there is money or is he being slow as usual?
There is money, Randy has said as much. However the wage bill has to be addressed, we can't keep adding to it so players have to go to allow others to come in.
There are stil 30 days of the window to go so I'm relaxed about it.
-
So do you think there is money or is he being slow as usual?
There is money, Randy has said as much. However the wage bill has to be addressed, we can't keep adding to it so players have to go to allow others to come in.
There are stil 30 days of the window to go so I'm relaxed about it.
What if no-one leaves?
-
So do you think there is money or is he being slow as usual?
There is money, Randy has said as much. However the wage bill has to be addressed, we can't keep adding to it so players have to go to allow others to come in.
There are stil 30 days of the window to go so I'm relaxed about it.
What if no-one leaves?
then we have what we have got, or do you advocate that we push the wages even further. Of course we have saved some money already but the big three that have to go are Heskey, Young and Sidwell
-
So do you think there is money or is he being slow as usual?
There is money, Randy has said as much. However the wage bill has to be addressed, we can't keep adding to it so players have to go to allow others to come in.
There are stil 30 days of the window to go so I'm relaxed about it.
What if no-one leaves?
then we have what we have got, or do you advocate that we push the wages even further. Of course we have saved some money already but the big three that have to go are Heskey, Young and Sidwell
Yeah because we need some new players, Especially a new striker
-
So do you think there is money or is he being slow as usual?
There is money, Randy has said as much. However the wage bill has to be addressed, we can't keep adding to it so players have to go to allow others to come in.
There are stil 30 days of the window to go so I'm relaxed about it.
What if no-one leaves?
I don't think that is going to happen, it's just that the market hasn't really got going yet for most clubs not just us.
-
Yeah because we need some new players, Especially a new striker
If we start to use 4-3-3 or any of it's variants do we need another one ?
stick with 4-4-2 then yes we do and the money has to be worked out, Luke Young should not be too long in going to start with
-
I would imagine my question was raised an answered in the 25 mna squad topic
But if you are a player and are not named in the 25 man squad - where does that leave you
Sit on your arse for the season on your full pay?
No wonder there is no clamour to buy players - i would imagine clubs like City, United, Chelsea, Polp et al will have some big earners sitting around doing nothing but drain the club of money
maybe that is the reason no one outside of City are splashing the cash
-
Very intersting question
And the answer is yes, football is fucked.
I understand that some people, myself included, hate management consultsnts but AT Kearney reckon that the English, Italian and Spanish premier leagues are 2 years from bankruptcy. If you can stand the business jargon and corporate language, it's an interesting read. This was published in the last couple of weeks.
Sorry about the long link
http://www.atkearney.at/content/misc/wrapper.php/id/50310/name/pdf_100624_at_kearney_eu_football_sustainability_study_1277886823c88a.pdf
-
Its no surprise that a whole host of transfers so far have been freebies and loans.
-
I think some big club decide their team will be good enough to cope with the changes as it will mean weaker opposition apart from Man City.
-
When you look at the money going into the game, you wonder how on you could suggest that football is running out of money. Then you see the wages and fees that go out of the game and it's no surprise. I actually do hope its screwed as I agree with paulie, the end result would be better than what we currently have.
Even the owners at City have come in looking to eventually make money out of them, but I just don't think it will happen. At some point, a club like Chelsea will lose the financial backing , Roman will walk away and will have the choice of being about £300 million lighter in the pocket or destroying the football club. Wonder what he'd choose?
-
Very intersting question
And the answer is yes, football is fucked.
I understand that some people, myself included, hate management consultsnts but AT Kearney reckon that the English, Italian and Spanish premier leagues are 2 years from bankruptcy. If you can stand the business jargon and corporate language, it's an interesting read. This was published in the last couple of weeks.
Sorry about the long link
http://www.atkearney.at/content/misc/wrapper.php/id/50310/name/pdf_100624_at_kearney_eu_football_sustainability_study_1277886823c88a.pdf
As you say, an interesting read.
It is something that I have suspected for some time. Things have been too quiet in the transfer market for everything to be rosy.
The business model in the PL is unsustainable. It has been on a downward spiral for some time but the sporadic slugs of money have slowed it, the rising Sky money, new owners investment etc.
Can the Sky money continue to increase and are there new owners out there and, if so, are they good for the game. Risk to the Sky money will come from authorities wanting to reduce the monopoly they hold on prime-time TV matches. I think there is still a way to go on selling the game worldwide however. Football controlled by a few rich owners cannot be good for the game as inevitably things will be changed to suit them. Worse still, the outcome of games could be influenced to suit gambling.
Has the Champions League ruined football in England with qualification being the be-all and end-all and even PL champions seeming to take second place in the eyes of Sky/media. At least some of our clubs and their managers still see the PL championship as being important but do the players. Is the answer to have a European super league, with the clubs that go into it withdrawing from their domestic leagues. If, say, Man Utd, Chelsea or Man City were to play in a European league would they be missed financially or from a football point of view.
I think most looked at Germany in the world cup and thought how refreshing they looked compared with the stale look of other major European nations (Spain apart). Looking at the report, it seems as though Germany have realised sooner than most that developing your own footballers is a way to balance other expenditure.
I thought that when Randy and MON came in that they were going to use this model of youth, albeit buying in young talent until we could develop our own. This seems to have gone by the board as we started to see success and people have wanted quicker and quicker end results and we have thus bought older players from a dwindling pool, some of whom have proved to be just journeymen. Show people success and they want more, turning a blind eye to what is needed to achieve it.
-
Can the Sky money continue to increase and are there new owners out there and, if so, are they good for the game. Risk to the Sky money will come from authorities wanting to reduce the monopoly they hold on prime-time TV matches.
The money from Sky will continue until their customers stop paying for the sports/other shows they broadcast. While viewers, including myself, carry on paying our subscriptions to watch the footie, Sky will be quite happy to keep funding (in part) the players' huge salaries.
-
Every season its the same. Buying players at times is a lot like buying a house in that tehre are many parties in the chain. Milner going to Man City will mean Player A comes to us, and Team B then sign Player B, and so on. If we, or man City pull-out then the chain breaks but there is enough will on both side sto get it done. Its probably the minor details that are being finalised as we speak.
-
Every season its the same. Buying players at times is a lot like buying a house in that tehre are many parties in the chain. Milner going to Man City will mean Player A comes to us, and Team B then sign Player B, and so on. If we, or man City pull-out then the chain breaks but there is enough will on both side sto get it done. Its probably the minor details that are being finalised as we speak.
However, it appears as though it is just Man City with money this time around.
Spurs have just made Champions League, why are they not spending.
Liverpool have a new manager but seem to be scratching around at the lower end of the market.
Man Utd have (supposedly!) the bulk of the Renaldo money burning a hole in their pocket.
Chelsea have an ageing side in need of surgery and even the Russian gasoline crook is not splashing the cash.
Arsenal are just being Arsenal, so no change there.
With the exception of Arsenal, all of the above teams have reason to buy and buy big but they are not. Why?
-
There are people so wealthy on this planet, that they can buy a football club and instantly wipe out their debts. Chelsea, Man City and now possibly Liverpool. Not many queuing up to save Southend United.
Great for them, but shit for everyone else. I'm talking about the lower half of the PL and the football league. If anyone's going to crash and burn, it won't be the top clubs.
Because these 'bond villain' type owners have a vision and see a future of franchising, super leagues, European super duper leagues, online gambling, and mega money TV deals. Only the super rich clubs need apply and only the affluent supporters are welcome.
-
Don't get me wrong there is less money around but its worth noting that our clubs have spent the last few years giving vast sums of money to overseas clubs so that theyhave money themselves.
In saying that Real and Barca will always have money. Italy has had a resurgence though even though not many people would still put Inter as being in the top 5 in Europe.
-
So my question was
If you name your squad of 25 what happens to the players not picked?
Do they have a year off on full pay?
-
So my question was
If you name your squad of 25 what happens to the players not picked?
Do they have a year off on full pay?
Yep.
Pretty much was Harewood and Salifou have had for the past 2 years.
-
So my question was
If you name your squad of 25 what happens to the players not picked?
Do they have a year off on full pay?
The 25-man squad only counts for the league, so they could still play cup and European games.
-
So my question was
If you name your squad of 25 what happens to the players not picked?
Do they have a year off on full pay?
The 25-man squad only counts for the league, so they could still play cup and European games.
My God no wonder clubs are not throwing the cash around - even the smallest Prem squad will have more than 25 high earning pro's on their books
I bet Chelsea and Liverpool even the coaches dont know half of the players that are on the books
-
I wouldn't say football has run out of money, if anything there has never been as much money in football ever, the problem is that there are far to many ordinary players on ridiculous wages.
-
Every season its the same. Buying players at times is a lot like buying a house in that tehre are many parties in the chain. Milner going to Man City will mean Player A comes to us, and Team B then sign Player B, and so on. If we, or man City pull-out then the chain breaks but there is enough will on both side sto get it done. Its probably the minor details that are being finalised as we speak.
However, it appears as though it is just Man City with money this time around.
Spurs have just made Champions League, why are they not spending.
Maybe they don't want to do a Leeds?
Liverpool have a new manager but seem to be scratching around at the lower end of the market.
Hicks and Gillette are about to sell the club
Man Utd have (supposedly!) the bulk of the Renaldo money burning a hole in their pocket.
They also have £800m woth of debt they are only just servicing
Chelsea have an ageing side in need of surgery and even the Russian gasoline crook is not splashing the cash.
Abramovich has said several times that Chelsea will need to be self financing as he won't continue to bank roll them.
Arsenal are just being Arsenal, so no change there.
With the exception of Arsenal, all of the above teams have reason to buy and buy big but they are not. Why?
Plus it is a World Cup year which are always slow moving summers for early transfers and the worst recession for 80 odd years.
[/b]
-
From the thread title I've got this mental image of football trying to sell us his 'last copy' of the Big Issue then using the proceeds to give John Terry another pay rise.
-
I wouldn't say football has run out of money, if anything there has never been as much money in football ever, the problem is that there are far to many ordinary players on ridiculous wages.
You're right in saying that there has never been as much money in football as now but there is no liquidity to fund transfers of players. That is why I asked the question "has football run out of money".
Again, you are right in that too much money is being paid to players. Also, significant money is being spent by the top clubs on players from outside England. Both of these are draining money out of football. Football only seems to be surviving on Sky money and new owners coming in.
The news of HMRC losing their case against Portsmouth and their comment that they are going to look at PL clubs more closely is bound to have a negative effect on the money in the game (although probably a positive effect on the game itself).
-
Often you hear about the huge wages and then I was hearing Big Sam moaning about tax in this country so I went and used a salary calcualtor on this site
http://www.i-resign.com/uk/financialcentre/tax_calculator.asp
Using Luke Young as an example ,he reportedly turned down £37k a week at Liverpool.Puting it in to the salary calculator that equals £19k ish a week take home which whilst obviously still good is quite shocking to see how much the tax man gets !
Unless I'm being totally naive and players/clubs have some ways of paying players in other ways to avoid tax.
-
Going completely off on a tangent is anyone worried about the fact that Liverpool seem to be getting bought out by the Investment Arm of the Chinese government (according to The Times)?
They will go from being a difficult competitor to do better than to a downright impossible one.
Far from running out of money the Man Cities and Liverpools are heating their houses with bonfires of £100 notes.
-
I wouldn't say football has run out of money, if anything there has never been as much money in football ever, the problem is that there are far to many ordinary players on ridiculous wages.
You're right in saying that there has never been as much money in football as now but there is no liquidity to fund transfers of players. That is why I asked the question "has football run out of money".
Again, you are right in that too much money is being paid to players. Also, significant money is being spent by the top clubs on players from outside England. Both of these are draining money out of football. Football only seems to be surviving on Sky money and new owners coming in.
The news of HMRC losing their case against Portsmouth and their comment that they are going to look at PL clubs more closely is bound to have a negative effect on the money in the game (although probably a positive effect on the game itself).
That's the main point; however, the reason for this is the amount of ordinary players being paid vast amounts of money for just being ordinary.
Back in the day players on the big bucks were the ones you paid to see nowadays everyone of them are on over inflated wages.
I don't know the exact figures so I'm not going to put a random percentage on it but I would say that players wages are a massive spend and surpass any other payments significantly.
Add to that the unbelievable transfers fees, still at least we get to watch great football and never get bored :-)))