The powers that be in the FA, Football League and Premier League continue to mismanage the game at all levels. What was done to Luton was a disgrace and in viewing their relegation, many fans will fail to see the herculean effort they put in to defy overwhelming odds.
From the time the Liverpool players shamefully refused to waive their match fees, Luton were on the slippery slope to non-league football. At least in their new owners they have ensured that they will continue to exist as a football club.
Rather than simply punishing these clubs the FA must work with them to avoid such problems in the first place. A mandatory set of add on clauses for any player who graduates from a club's academy would be a start. Too many young players are being tempted to the likes of Arsenal, Spurs or Chelski at 16 or 17 and the clubs who worked with them from the age of 10 or 11 are left with nothing.
Any Premiership club drawn against a team for a league lower than the championship should be made to waive their match fees and TV money for away cup ties.
A levy should be placed on all players salaries of 1% to help establish a fund to pay players from clubs who are struggling to stay afloat provided that the club didn't get into trouble through financial irregularities or blatant mismanagement. One of the biggest factors in putting clubs into administration is their inability to meet their wage bill. If a club finds itself in that position, its players should be allowed to leave on loan to any club that will pick up their wage bill regardless of the transfer window until such time as the club can afford to pay their wages again.
These measure should mean we would never see a repeat of what has happened to proud football clubs with loyal fans like Luton Town. I only hope they bounce straight back and begin climbing their way back up the leagues.
Meanwhile the double standards applied when it comes to the Big Boys is laughable.
The FA and Premier League turn a complete blind eye to the fact Man United are closing in on £1Billion pounds of debt - a debt that they will never ever pay off and simply roll over ever 18months and then service the interest.
Liverpool have half a billion pounds of debt which they cannot find a bank to take on. Their bankers refused to take on the debt for another term and merely rolled it over until the end of June to allow them find a new lender, something to date which they have not managed to do. In fact the only way they will get the loan is to sign over Anfield as security.
Arsenal thought their redevelopment of the old Highbury ground would pay for the cost of the new stadium. It hasn't and only some creative book keeping has stopped them racking up 3/4 of a debt close to a billion. Chelski meanwhile owe Ambravoich over a billion quid.
In fact a report by Delloite early in the season said that if Premier League clubs were judged by the standards of ordinary businesses that only WestHam and Hull would be declared solvent. The rest would be put into the hands of liquidators.
So before the authorities vilify Luton or impose draconian punishments, they should try looking at the other end of the league. If those big clubs didn't contribute so much cash to the FA they would surely be called to account over their suicidal business practices.
211 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 211 of 211never... in the field of human conflict... have so many accountants... ganged up on so few non accountants.
It's quite satifying to witness an arrogant, ignorant fool getting torn a new one. It's been hilarious. Still, perhaps Celtic can still turn the tide with his rapier wit and sound financial knowledge.... Muahaha
Hey I kind of agree with the hammersfan but also I disagree. I think that the likes of players on £100,000 a week should give up at least 2% of their salary to non league clubs to try and help the football within the country to prosper and not only have the typical arsenal, liverpool, chelsea, man u ruling the prem with millions of pounds of spending. I would like a fairer budget on these big prem clubs just so that you can see thequality of management the clubs manager has and also I think this could encourage more english players coming through the academies which in turn could help develop the national squad.
Theres food for thought :)
www.football-academy-life.com
Just a quick point but how sad does your life have to be when your on line imagenary persona is Barry Hearn? Couldn't you have at least pretended to be Britney Spears so the spurs fans could finally get to talk to a woman!
CelticHammer - A couple of points on yours (and DazzaLondon's) posts.
Firstly DazzaLondon the THFC scheme will not cost anything like £400 million. As I have pointed out before The Emirates stadium cost was £220 million and that was during the height of the building boom with high oil, steel and construction prices. There were other factors that led to Arsenal's costs rising and this was mainly due to having to move many businesses and a £60 million cost of resiting a refuse centre and also having to build a new bridge for which materials had to be transported across a live railway line.
Tottenham have no such issues. The proposed site is all but purchased and paid for. All that remains to purchase/resite is a small sheet metal works (owned by an Arsenal fan) on which a CPO will be served in the near future.
Also Celtic you talk about the cost of construction being kept high due to the 2012 program. The truth is actually very different. Only a select few companies went for the Olympic projects (largely due to so many being so busy at the time) but this has left many large construction companies with very little, if any, work. Consequently a good number of companies have already thrown their hat into the ring for the privilege of being involved in the new THFC stadium.
You also haven't considered the fact that Spurs will sell off the land with PP for the 70,000 square foot supermarket (Sainsburys already someway down the line in terms of negotiations), the 150 room hotel and the 450 homes (which the local council are very interested in for 'key worker housing'). That will raise a signifcant amount towards the costs, then there will be naming rights, future options on seats and more than likely a further share issue underwritten by ENIC (that will effectively allow them to take complete ownership of the club).
Also Dazza London you underestimate the additional revenue from the new stadium. You have added an average of £40 per ticket but the reality is more like twice this amount due to the ramping up of the corporate availability.
Also Celtic - you state that Arsenal's new stadium has had a negative affect on Arsenal. If you look at their accounts it is quite the opposite. They are now realising an extra £2 million of revenue per game compared to Highbury - that's over £50 million of extra revenue per season. Meanwhile the interest payments on their debt are running at £20 million per season. i.e. the new Arsenal stadium has had nothing but a positive impact on Arsenal's finances. Yes they are now carying a large level of debt but the extra income is servicing that debt and generating funds on top.
Also you talk about having to pay for infrastructure improvements around the ground. The club are convinced they will have to pay for very few. For a start the Victoria Line is already undergoing improvements that will add 20% to it's capacity. And the overground's capacity is also due to be increased. Harringey are desperate to keep Spurs in the borough due to the business rates that Spurs pay, the policing costs they contribute to and the increase in rates they gain from the local businesses due to the extra business brought into the area by THFC. The council are actively encouraging Spurs to build the new ground and not putting up any barriers to delay it or cause Spurs to start considering new sites again.
Now I know you WANT Tottenham to fail Celtic because you are a typical jealous little Hammer but one thing you cannot deny is that Spurs have one of the Chairman in football in terms of controlling costs and running a self sustaining and profitable football club. If the revenue from a new stadium didn't service the cost of building it then Levy would not proceed. THFC already have the fifth highest turnover in the Premier League and generate a profit greater than virtually every other club in the Premier League - why would he risk that unless he was convinced that the new stadium will only have a positive impact?
DavyD just a quick question how long do you think 70,000 people will shell out £80 a game to watch a team struggle into the top half of the table season after season?
As for the extra revenue that Arsenal are generating from the new stadium, its not even covering the debt they took on to build it, thats why they have been selling shares in the club to american and uzbekistani parties.
So if Arsenal can not make it work, given that they are a much bigger club than spurs, who are in the title hunt every season and playing champions league football with all the money it brings how will spurs do better when they best they can hope for recently is to get clear of relegation by Christmas (or Hanukkah).
But Arsenal haven't been selling shares in the club to US & Uzbeki parties. Individuals who own shares in Arsenal have sold them, for personal profit NOT to give to the club to help cover their debts, to parties that are interested in owning Arsenal.
It is another issue completely.
Also it isn't 70K, but 58K capacity. Moreover Spurs have always sold out and had a long waiting list, so why would that change (I found it amusing that you think being in the top half of the season every year is struggling, what terms do use for West Ham that are fighting at the bottom of the table every year)?
Anon 21.09 spurs have been in the premier league for 16 full seasons (I am not counting this season as its not over) and for 11 of those they have finished outside the top 8. 11 out of 16, almost 3 quarters of your league finished have been outside the top 8, that is a mind boggling statistic for a big club who reckon they have need for a 60 to 70 thousand seater stadium.
Personally I doubt you will ever build it, it just makes ye feel like a big club to talk about building a stadium.
Just to dispel another CelticHammer myth, the BBC has claimed that Gudmundsson has to sell West Ham or hand the club over to his debtors on June 9th.
As part of their report on Zola's contract extension they claim that there's a moratorium til then, but that control will switch to Staumur, an Icelandic bank that has been nationalised, when that date arrives if the club hasn't been sold.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/8004664.stm
I see that once again when facts are brought up which show you are wrong (Arsenal not selling shares) you merely revert to form, ie claiming that Spurs fans think they are a big club... something not one Spurs fan has come out with if not to reply to you.
Once again, it is NOT 60-70K (you're not very good with facts are you?), it is 58K & not one Spurs fan has said anything about building it shows that Spurs is a big club.
Also, does it not strike you that considering Spurs haven't done particularly well in the 16 years of the PL (Football didn't start with the PL, stats from the old Division 1 still count...) and still sold out & still had a long waiting list, that it stands to reason now that the club is financially sound, buying better players and performing better in the league (possible 3 Top 7 results in the last 4 years) that it is more than likely that the trend of having a waiting list of 20K on top of the 36K sell-out every game will continue & therefore justifies a bigger stadium?
Or does your bitterness stop you from seeing this?
CelticHammer wrote: "DavyD just a quick question how long do you think 70,000 people will shell out £80 a game to watch a team struggle into the top half of the table season after season?"
Oh dear. You really don't get it do you? For a start the new stadium is to be a 58,000 capacity (an increase of 22,000). Secondly not all of those 22,000 will shell out an additional £80 a game, many will be shelling out a lot less than that at probably an average of £50 a game. However the ramping up of corporate facilities will mean that the average price per ticket is way higher than that. Consider for example the current WHL stadium - 50% of the matchday revenue generated comes from the corporate areas. i.e. around 12% of the stadium generates 50% of the income. Apply the same maths at the new stadium (and this is a lowball estimation because the corporate percentage of tickets will be even higher at the new stadium) and you can see where the £80 average comes from.
Also CelticHammer you state: "As for the extra revenue that Arsenal are generating from the new stadium, its not even covering the debt they took on to build it, thats why they have been selling shares in the club to american and uzbekistani parties."
Oh dear again. On previous posts you try to make out that you are financially savvy and well informed but you are quite clearly anything but. Arsenal restructured their stadium debts a while ago and now pay £20 million per season in interest payments. The new stadium generates £2 million per game MORE than the revenue they generated at Highbury. At 20 games per season that's £40 million of extra revenue (or put another way 2 x the interest payment). With their Champions League and Cup campaigns however Arsenal consistently play more than 25 home games a season covering the £20 million of interest and generating a further £30 million of profit.
Also if you think that people buying shares in Arsenal has absolutely anything to do with Arsenal raising finance for football matters then you are even less well informed than I thought possible. The shares purchased by outside influences came from existing shareholders selling stakes to realise personal profits, absolutely nothing to do with raising finance for Arsenal Football Club and simply to do with the fact that any organisation that is divided into shares can be purchased by anyone that has the means to purchase them. In fact one of the reasons why the two new(ish) shareholders have got on board there (originally against the wishes of the current board) is because they can see what a good business model Arsenal run and how profitable the club is.
You claim that Arsenal have not made their new stadium work when in actual fact they have very much made it work. Their stadium has catipulted them up amongst the highest revenue earners in football. I really do not know where you get this idea that Arsenal haven't made their new stadium work? All of the financial figures say otherwise.
Also CelticHammer - you talk about Tottenham having no need for a 60 to 70 thousand capacity stadium (despite the fact that Spurs have announced that it will be 58,000) because three quarters of Tottenham's premiership league finishes have been outside of the top 8. I would say that having a season ticket waiting list of 22,000 people despite having so many midtable finishes absolutely demonstrates exactly why Spurs DO need a larger capacity stadium. Seems that Spurs could fill that stadium even without any additional success. Now imagine the demand if some success came?
You also talk about doubting that Spurs will ever build the stadium. Again you are very wrong. Firstly why would Spurs pay a significant amount in architects fees to design the stadium? Secondly why on earth would Spurs have (already) purchased 95% of the land required to host the new stadium project (and waiting for CPOs for the remaining couple of properties)? and lastly why is Paul Barber currently out in Dubai, UAE, Qatar, China, India, Korea, etc talking to potential stadium sponsor partners? Now I've seen some pretty elaborate hoaxes before but spending over £25 million in aquiring property and land would have to be the biggest ever don't you think?
The reality is that Spurs will announce a sponsorship partner for the new stadium in the next 6 to 12 months and look to obtain planning permission for the project in that same period. I know you don't like it but the new stadium is very much a reality for Spurs and the project will continue to gather pace over the rest of this year with the actual build starting in 2010 - and you know what I very much doubt whether the new stadium will be anything but a financial success for Spurs, you can level many things against Joe Lewis and Daniel Levy but they are both financially astute men.
Post a Comment