Clubs in trouble

[pauliewalnuts]

dave but it happened before that, doug floating the company and retaining majority control did not change the status quo, we are lucky i guess because it appears that Randy sees himself as a custodian, we as supporters have never had a say in how the club has been run,

I know all that (although we did have a say from 1968-79) but it still shows we're willing to forego our principles when necessary.

depends on what principles they are, Notts County, support trust sold out to Munto upon great promises of riches and look at them now, barely 6 months on

at Villa we sold out to Randy with actually few solid promises except from reports  we thought he would be good and pump money in, he has done and at the same renforced the princiles on which the club was founded, relative to the modern age.

He's been very good.

He could still fuck us up very badly if he decided he'd had enough, though.

I don't think he will, not for a moment, but that's the flipside of having one owner and owing them lots of money.

[pdiddybaby]

I don't think he will, not for a moment, but that's the flipside of having one owner and owing them lots of money.

the unfortuate thing is in the modern game, there is no other way to compete, a supporter trust led club could never compete in the PL and of course I mean at the top 6 level

[pauliewalnuts]

I don't think he will, not for a moment, but that's the flipside of having one owner and owing them lots of money.

the unfortuate thing is in the modern game, there is no other way to compete, a supporter trust led club could never compete in the PL and of course I mean at the top 6 level

I agree entirely.

[peter w]

Every 20 Prem clubs at the start of each season donate £500,000 into the fund straight from the TV money. Or they get Sky to put it straight into fund.

At the Stockport are not insolvent so they and other clubs could get the grant before they'd get into that position.

yeh right that would sort it out, virtually every club would be in a position to demand the money and there would not be enough to go round, so a director who is lending the club £10 mil withdraws it, the club would get the money right? there are so many wholes in your idea, also i think you need at least an understanding of finance, company law and insolvency law before you can be taken seriously

That wouldn't be allowed to happen because as I said, the club would have to open their books to scrutiny. It wouldn't be hard to spot a Bonser at Brighton trying to shaft the club.

No, I don't understand company/insolvency laws but there are enough people better placed than me who do who could make this work. The money could be paid directly to the inland revenue from the fund I guess, but there arse ways to make it work.

Are you seriously saying we should just shrug our shoulders and leave them to it? When you see a club looking seriously close to death, or like Kings Lynn and recently Scarborough, fold completely, you don't care. And don't regret that we, Aston Villa, and other clubs in the top flight don't seem to feel we have contributed in some way.

Or even if you think we haven't, do not we, the richest clubs have a duty to care for the smaller ones? However possible? Football is not just any other business so cannot be looked at as such. If it is then businessmen should take over the running of the whole game.

[martin_riat]

Clubs in trouble are mostly in trouble becasue of the way the big clubs act. Football is still a sport and everyone involved owes it to the sport to look after those least able. Ultimately, if there's only one club left who do they play against?

The Premier League would never allow such a thing to happen.
They'd ensure that at least 4 clubs survive. Of course, I have have no clue which four they'd be? [itchy chinny emoticon].

Football is different to regular business as they have many many more stakeholders yet they are obliged (as it should be) to operate under the same rules as a regular business. So, what's the solution?

For me, there simply has to be new laws created that recognise sport as a different entity. I'm not suggesting for a moment that things like tax obligations be any different but I am suggesting that options such as salary caps be beyond any sort of EU legal challenge as it falls under the umbrella of 'sport'. Someone (PeterW?) mentioned ealry on in the piece that there's no way that salary caps would be allowed under the law but if they're commonplace in the most letigious society on the planet, then I'm damned sure they'd be an option in Europe.

The need for any new structure would, of course, have to be (a) recognised and (b) acted upon by the people in charge. Sadly - most sadly - these people that run our game do not have the long-term future of the game as their number one goal. At least not as the vast majority of local fans see it.

Therein lies the problem. The major stakeholders are at odds with the major shareholders. How do we align the two? Robbing Peter to pay Paul when Paul's issues are largely created by Peter's environment is utterly  pointless.  

A massive restucturing of English football is required. From top to bottom.
I suspect it will take quite a few more clubs going under before disgrunteld fans start banding together to make a stand. However, we all know that local-based fan-power is nothing compared to the power of money. Which is why I think that it will take a massive club - like Liverpool - to be brought to it's knees before the PL take a good hard look at the situation.

[AV1874]

Salary caps are prevalent in the A-League and also the NRL here in Aus.

Needless to say, that's why they don't hold onto decent players and any with an ounce of talent go overseas chasing the money.

I do like the idea of a fund, but on the flips side I also don't think that my club should really have to fork others out of problems? There would have to be some damn strict guidelines and criteria if it were a plausible thing to do.

[martin_riat]

Salary caps are prevalent in the A-League and also the NRL here in Aus.

Needless to say, that's why they don't hold onto decent players and any with an ounce of talent go overseas chasing the money.

Even more of a reason to bring it into the European game.
Although I'm sure the caps would be larger in Europe than in Australia, it would hopefully ensure that many players would stay and play in their 'home' market thus improving the game there.

[OzVilla]

dave but it happened before that, doug floating the company and retaining majority control did not change the status quo, we are lucky i guess because it appears that Randy sees himself as a custodian, we as supporters have never had a say in how the club has been run,

I know all that (although we did have a say from 1968-79) but it still shows we're willing to forego our principles when necessary.

depends on what principles they are, Notts County, support trust sold out to Munto upon great promises of riches and look at them now, barely 6 months on

at Villa we sold out to Randy with actually few solid promises except from reports  we thought he would be good and pump money in, he has done and at the same renforced the princiles on which the club was founded, relative to the modern age.

He's been very good.

He could still fuck us up very badly if he decided he'd had enough, though.

I don't think he will, not for a moment, but that's the flipside of having one owner and owing them lots of money.

And this is where we have alot to thank HDE for.

He always said he'd only sell if it were in the interests of the Villa to someone who had the Club at heart - and I admit i'd be the first one to roll my eyes and see that as a smoikescreen to cling to his little empire - I just wanted the old boy out of the club.

But in all fairness to Doug, he was extremely dilligent on his due dilligence of our new owner and didn't sell to the obvious 'chancers' that were hawking the club at the time.

So thanks Doug.

[OzVilla]

Salary caps are prevalent in the A-League and also the NRL here in Aus.

Needless to say, that's why they don't hold onto decent players and any with an ounce of talent go overseas chasing the money.

Even more of a reason to bring it into the European game.
Although I'm sure the caps would be larger in Europe than in Australia, it would hopefully ensure that many players would stay and play in their 'home' market thus improving the game there.

IMO Salary caps are one of the best things about Australian sport - sure you get dynasties from great coaches but that's beause they are great coaches and tacticians.

Also you find that players really want to win things and don't chase the money so much - high profile players at both the Melbourne Storm (NRL Finalists in each of the last 4 years) and Geelong (AFL Winners in 2 out of the last 3 years) have turned down more lucrative contracts offered by other clubs because they want to be part of Premiership winning teams - it's wonderfully refreshing.

[pestria]

Every 20 Prem clubs at the start of each season donate £500,000 into the fund straight from the TV money. Or they get Sky to put it straight into fund.

At the Stockport are not insolvent so they and other clubs could get the grant before they'd get into that position.

This sort of scheme never works.  They'd just spend more knowing they were going to get bailed out.

The problem in football is that NOT ENOUGH teams have gone to the wall in the past - too many have survived by deferring debts, restructuring and the like.   We don't need hundreds of professional clubs, with everyone being paid for playing football.  

So let 'em go to the wall, whatever league they're in - premiership, championship, East Anglian Div. 7 Sunday Morning League  - does it really make that much difference if Kings Lynn or whovever die and are replaced by a team, maybe with a similar name even, playing in the lowest division of the lowest league?

[Concrete John]

I don't think he will, not for a moment, but that's the flipside of having one owner and owing them lots of money.

the unfortuate thing is in the modern game, there is no other way to compete, a supporter trust led club could never compete in the PL and of course I mean at the top 6 level

Isn't that basically how Barcelona are run?

[LeeB]

Every 20 Prem clubs at the start of each season donate £500,000 into the fund straight from the TV money. Or they get Sky to put it straight into fund.

At the Stockport are not insolvent so they and other clubs could get the grant before they'd get into that position.

This sort of scheme never works.  They'd just spend more knowing they were going to get bailed out.

The problem in football is that NOT ENOUGH teams have gone to the wall in the past - too many have survived by deferring debts, restructuring and the like.   We don't need hundreds of professional clubs, with everyone being paid for playing football.  

So let 'em go to the wall, whatever league they're in - premiership, championship, East Anglian Div. 7 Sunday Morning League  - does it really make that much difference if Kings Lynn or whovever die and are replaced by a team, maybe with a similar name even, playing in the lowest division of the lowest league?

I'm alright Jack, pull the ladder up.

[pdiddybaby]

I don't think he will, not for a moment, but that's the flipside of having one owner and owing them lots of money.

the unfortuate thing is in the modern game, there is no other way to compete, a supporter trust led club could never compete in the PL and of course I mean at the top 6 level

Isn't that basically how Barcelona are run?

and Real Madrid, but both have the banks giving them large loans with little chance of them calling in the debt. The reason Madrid despite being in huge debt, spent £250m in the summer was that Perez is very well connected to the Madrid banks.

It is a state of regional pride over there.

[pestria]

Every 20 Prem clubs at the start of each season donate £500,000 into the fund straight from the TV money. Or they get Sky to put it straight into fund.

At the Stockport are not insolvent so they and other clubs could get the grant before they'd get into that position.

This sort of scheme never works.  They'd just spend more knowing they were going to get bailed out.

The problem in football is that NOT ENOUGH teams have gone to the wall in the past - too many have survived by deferring debts, restructuring and the like.   We don't need hundreds of professional clubs, with everyone being paid for playing football.  

So let 'em go to the wall, whatever league they're in - premiership, championship, East Anglian Div. 7 Sunday Morning League  - does it really make that much difference if Kings Lynn or whovever die and are replaced by a team, maybe with a similar name even, playing in the lowest division of the lowest league?

I'm alright Jack, pull the ladder up.

Not at all.  

1. I think letting more have gone to the wall in the past would have lead to better financial decisions now and ultimately more clubs surviving.

2. The reason why there's 'no money in football' is that there are too many professional players receiving more salary than their clubs generate in income.  So why not cut off the supply a little?

2. And of those that went to the wall - does it really make that much difference - do Accrington supporters really bemoan the fact that they ended up playing in a lower league? Same for Bradford Park Avenue or whoever.

[Dave Cooper please]

So let 'em go to the wall, whatever league they're in - premiership, championship, East Anglian Div. 7 Sunday Morning League  - does it really make that much difference if Kings Lynn or whovever die and are replaced by a team, maybe with a similar name even, playing in the lowest division of the lowest league?

It does to a diehard fan of Kings Lynn, or do they not matter because there isn't that many of them and it's only Kings Lynn after all.

Would you be happy to support FC Villa of Aston in the Midland Combination?

(I would, it would be great!).