Clubs in trouble

[peter w]

Yes they do. Would you be so flippant if randy puleed the plug and we had to slip to the 4th division next season to start again?

its easy to have a sod you jack mentality regarding other clubs but we are part of the footballing fraternity and should care what happens to our game and other people's clubs.

The reason events such as Hillsborough affect us all so deeply is that it could have been anyone of us. Football fans going off to watch their team and dying.

The same in this case. We should feel it when other clubs die because of reasons out of their control. Instead of looking for problems in proposals, instead of picking holes, instead of not caring because its not likely to happen to us, shuldn't we want to make sure the uniqueness of our football is there forever?

[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?

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.

Yes, but as an ownership structure Barcelona is 'owned' by their season ticket holders, who then elect the president/chairman.  Might not work without the backing they have granted, but just shows a stakeholder model can be successful!

[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.

Yes, but as an ownership structure Barcelona is 'owned' by their season ticket holders, who then elect the president/chairman.  Might not work without the backing they have granted, but just shows a stakeholder model can be successful!

financially in particular Madrid are a basket case, rumours that Perez is looking to rip up the model and bring in outside investment.

Barca are a success in many ways, look at how many players have come up through their fantastic youth system (thus negating the need for Madrid style spending), but that is because they are representitives of Catalonia and it's people, something that would never happen in the UK.

[UK Redsox]

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?

Is that correct ?

My understanding is that clubs in financial trouble are allowed to pay "footballing creditors" in preference to other creditors.

Am I right in thinking this ? If so, the general public (in the form of unpaid taxes to the government) would appear to fund payments to "footballing" creditors; which doesn't seem right to me.

[pestria]

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!).

Yes.

Would it really make that much difference?  Is watching non league football not enjoyable?

[pestria]

Yes they do. Would you be so flippant if randy puleed the plug and we had to slip to the 4th division next season to start again?

I wouldn't mind at all.  Why should I expect someone to subsidise my watching of football anyway?

Are you saying the game is more enjoyable because Sky, Abramovich, the Man City Arabs, Lerner et al have spent their money on inflated player salaries?

[peter w]

No I'm nopt saying that, quite clearly.

And are you saying that your enjoyment has wained because of Sky, Abramovich, masn City, Arabs, inflated player salaries?

[pestria]

No I'm nopt saying that, quite clearly.

And are you saying that your enjoyment has wained because of Sky, Abramovich, masn City, Arabs, inflated player salaries?

No - I'm saying it doesn't really make that much difference, which supports my argument that it doesn't make that much difference if Portmouth play in the premier league or the Sourtherm Prem (or whatever it's called) or Kings Lynn go back to playing Sunday parks football.

[pauliewalnuts]

The same in this case. We should feel it when other clubs die because of reasons out of their control. Instead of looking for problems in proposals, instead of picking holes, instead of not caring because its not likely to happen to us, shuldn't we want to make sure the uniqueness of our football is there forever?

What about when they die because of reasons within their control?

You could say the PL killed Kings Lynn, which possibly has some truth in it - indirectly - but it is still a sujective assessment. Who makes that call?

What if Portsmouth go under? Who do you blame? The former owners for unsustainable spending? The current owners? It certainly isn't the fault of the fans, but do their owners get a bail out because of that?

If KL were bailed out by some philanthropic football organisation, what happens next time they run out of money?

I understand the thinking behind your ideas, but football clubs are companies - like it or not, emotional ties of customers or not - and subject to company law. It is up to the owners of the clubs to ensure they stay afloat.

[peter w]

It doesn't to you, no. But it does to their supporters. The same way that I'm sure thousands of Villa supporters wouldn't like to see the club play in the Midland Comb because the club wouldn't be Villa anymore.

That's the point whatever phoenix rises from the Ashes it won't be the same club and their is no guarantee your club will ever rise above local level again.

The pride in the club goes, as does the name, the footballing tradition, and the ghosts of past glories. All gone. Because the greedy money men in the top flight decided to stop redistributing a little bit of wealth.

just because the big clubs decide to accrue huge amounts of debt and continue to trade is no reason why we shouldn't help the smaller clubs are finding themselves increasingly squeezed.

The English league is unique in having 4 good professional leagues and a good non-league scene compared to the rest of the world.

Yes, some go by the wayside because they have been stupid with their own finances - but in the most its not the fans fault.

But we should do everything and anything that we possibly can to preserve that and not just be happy to see an increase in local Sunday league teams and having only 2 professional leagues and a myriad of AFCs playing on Hackney marshes against premiership reserve teams in the new division 3 because if we're not careful that's where we're going.

Regarding salary caps - its easy to impose in Australia and US where the sports are insular and the players don't have a big overseas pool to move around.

To agree it here is very difficult because of EU regulations. It would only work if all clubs agreed to do it - and that means Europe wide and not in England alone.

[Chico Hamilton III]

Is it just a coincidence that 3 clubs in serious financial issues have been managed by the same man? (twice in Portsmouths case)

Pompey
Southampton*
West Ham

and Bournemouth

[pestria]

It doesn't to you, no. But it does to their supporters. The same way that I'm sure thousands of Villa supporters wouldn't like to see the club play in the Midland Comb because the club wouldn't be Villa anymore.

That's the point whatever phoenix rises from the Ashes it won't be the same club and their is no guarantee your club will ever rise above local level again.

The pride in the club goes, as does the name, the footballing tradition, and the ghosts of past glories. All gone. Because the greedy money men in the top flight decided to stop redistributing a little bit of wealth.

just because the big clubs decide to accrue huge amounts of debt and continue to trade is no reason why we shouldn't help the smaller clubs are finding themselves increasingly squeezed.

The English league is unique in having 4 good professional leagues and a good non-league scene compared to the rest of the world.

Yes, some go by the wayside because they have been stupid with their own finances - but in the most its not the fans fault.

But we should do everything and anything that we possibly can to preserve that and not just be happy to see an increase in local Sunday league teams and having only 2 professional leagues and a myriad of AFCs playing on Hackney marshes against premiership reserve teams in the new division 3 because if we're not careful that's where we're going.

Regarding salary caps - its easy to impose in Australia and US where the sports are insular and the players don't have a big overseas pool to move around.

To agree it here is very difficult because of EU regulations. It would only work if all clubs agreed to do it - and that means Europe wide and not in England alone.

I think you're missing a key point.  All clubs change - all the time .... nothing stays the same forever.

Clubs have new mangers, new players, get promoted and relegated, move grounds even - yet to their supporters they're the same club.

The current pyramid structure of leagues is very new too - there is no great historical precedent for 4 professional leagues.  So, I'm not sure why you don't like the idea of "only 2 professional leagues and a myriad of AFCs playing on Hackney marshes " - what's wrong with it?

As for Villa - there are many supporters who look back to the clubs lowest league status as a golden era.   You talk of pride and memories of past glories and how are these diminished by playing at a lower level.  Yet in Villa's case these were clearly enhanced.

[peter w]

We've had 4 professional leagues for just shy of 100 years. What more of a historical precedent exactly are you after?

To be so flippant about our footballing history is a pity and really undermines anything else that you may wish to argue about the vitality and future of the game.

[pestria]

We've had 4 professional leagues for just shy of 100 years. What more of a historical precedent exactly are you after?

To be so flippant about our footballing history is a pity and really undermines anything else that you may wish to argue about the vitality and future of the game.

What I meant was there's no hard and fast rule or precedent for a league comprising 4 professional divisions.

For many years the bottom 2 divisions had varying degrees of full time players.  I think it's a relatively recent development for them to be 100% professional.  Recently this has been expanded further to include the previous 'non-league' leagues which are now mroe or less professional.

Maybe it's all a bit overblown...

[Brend'Watkins]

We should feel it when other clubs die because of reasons out of their control. Instead of looking for problems in proposals, instead of picking holes, instead of not caring because its not likely to happen to us, shuldn't we want to make sure the uniqueness of our football is there forever?

We should feel it when other clubs die, you're right.  I don't agree that it's out of their control though.

The nature of the beast is that football is about winning.  All clubs want to win else there's no point to it is there?  So we have degrees of ambition at every club, as there should be, then we have the oft quoted on here 'speculate to accumulate' 'nothing ventured, nothing gained' etc.  The trouble is, if all clubs at whatever level all take this route as they do then it is inevitable that some will come unstuck, not everyone can be the winner.  So when a club over stretches itself instead of 'cutting it's cloth to suit' and fails they are paying for the consequences of their ambition or in a lot of cases over ambition without understanding the full implication of their actions should it all go wrong.  

Taking the football socialist Utopia that you've outlined can not work.  For one, there will be the "we'll be bailed out if it all goes wrong mentality" and two, what's to stop the same clubs who have been bailed out getting into further trouble years down the line, even more chance of happening  with some benevolent fund in place?