Bury gone (1 Viewer)

Irish Sky Blue said:

If this forum is a representative body of our fan base, there are very few if any posts asking for the speculate to accumulate model.

Click to expand...

But look back to pre-season - we signed 9 players very early but then hadn't made a signing for two weeks and it was "why haven't we signed anyone" "we need a RB, a CF, RW, LW and a CM even though we've got 7 or 8 on the books". But at the same time saying "we can't sell Bayliss, we have to keep him for the long-term".

Irish Sky Blue said:

The German model can’t be impossible to implement or they wouldn’t have been able to do it!
Perhaps it would require a change of league rules whereby the next time a club changes hands, it must be guaranteed that 51% is owned by the fans.

Click to expand...

And how do you value the 51%, who decides who the fans are?

Sbarcher said:

Read somewhere recently (maybe somewhere on here?) that since Sanchez started getting splinters on his arse, he's received £41m, yes, £41,000,000 in wages. I understand the Bury debt was £2.7m. Of course they should have been prudent, but just shows how the PL are sucking the real money from the game.

Click to expand...

Just think - Sanchez's wages since the start of the season would almost cover Bury's debt.....

Irish Sky Blue said:

The German model can’t be impossible to implement or they wouldn’t have been able to do it!
Perhaps it would require a change of league rules whereby the next time a club changes hands, it must be guaranteed that 51% is owned by the fans.

Click to expand...

That would need approval by the current owners. Are they going to sign up for that?

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

6 is still better than the occasional 2. the ability to be bankrolled by a rich benefactor is better than Germany.

The German model and league is geared towards helping the international side. We as a nation don’t have that loyalty to England that we do to our clubs

Also going back to the point about stadiums - how does it help us, we’d be paying 1.2 million a year and heading towards oblivion without SISU - the trust would be too busy patting themselves on the back running the club whilst kissing Duggins’ arse saying we have no option but to pay

Click to expand...

For us as a club, the happenings in the PL are of only passing interest in terms of who can or can’t win the league. For the likes of us, Bury, Bolton Blackpool etc theissue is about surviving and thriving. It is about stopping unsuitable owners being able to use and abuse a club that morally and spiritually belongs to it’s community. Measures need to be taken to stop clubs like ours and the others mentioned being used as pawns by unscrupulous owners. If such measures were in place, Bury would still be a league club and the shenanigans that have gone on here over the past few years would not have taken place.

OffenhamSkyBlue said:

I fully understand that i may not be very popular in saying this, but since being in administration in 2013, the points that OSB states as the principles of good ownership have been adopted by SISU, and we have been relatively stable financially (but poorer achievers as a result), compared to many, and despite a number of challenges. We still have a club!

Click to expand...

We're definitely being run better than we were when SISU first took over, when they bought some decent players, they failed to get promoted so they sold them immediately for a quick profit and we went pretty much into freefall.

But we're still very reliant on the master fund plugging the hole (and that isn't coming free - the loans have an above base interest attached to them and the longer we're not paying it back the more it's accruing). So in many ways we are also relying on the model of not having debts to the owners called in. They could call it in tomorrow and we'd be absolutely fucked.

It's also very reliant on the develop and sell model. The academy hasn't produced many the last two years and the ones we're buying in can be a bit hit and miss. We seem to have picked up a few gems but also a few that have really not worked out, but as an overall cost it's not overly prohibitive.

Liquid Gold said:

That would need approval by the current owners. Are they going to sign up for that?

Click to expand...

If it becomes a rule that to play in the league, a new model of ownership has to come into play when a club changes hands, any new owners would know what they are signing up to.

Liquid Gold said:

That would need approval by the current owners. Are they going to sign up for that?

Click to expand...

As long as they got their asking price they probably wouldn't care who owned it. As it'd only come into effect once they sold the club it wouldn't affect their control of it.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

6 is still better than the occasional 2. the ability to be bankrolled by a rich benefactor is better than Germany.

The German model and league is geared towards helping the international side. We as a nation don’t have that loyalty to England that we do to our clubs

Also going back to the point about stadiums - how does it help us, we’d be paying 1.2 million a year and heading towards oblivion without SISU - the trust would be too busy patting themselves on the back running the club whilst kissing Duggins’ arse saying we have no option but to pay

Click to expand...

Perhaps some of the problems we have in football is clubs being bankrolled by rich benefactors. It distorts the picture and means that well run clubs that live within their means can’t compete. Have the owners of Chelsea and Man City been good for football? I wouldn’t say so. It is quite simply buying success.
A new model of fan ownership would have nothing to do with the Trust in its current form. Any fan representation on the board would have to be done in a completely democratic way with the fan base being the electorate.
The statement that we would be heading towards oblivion without Sisu is an interesting moot point!

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

That would be impossible to implement, further to this - our trust would run the club into the ground.

I don’t get the clamour for the German model. You’d never get a Leicester situation over there.

Bayern are the only team out their with the occasional Dortmund season

Click to expand...

Except for Wolfsburg in 2009 and Kaiserslautern in the '90s but why let that get in the way-it happens about as often if not a bit more than it does here. In practice clubs like Dortmund don't have fan trusts running the club, it simply ensures that there is fan presence at board level and that measures like relocating to Northampton to try and bust ACL would be blocked. It may also help to have fans with intimate knowledge of the club's actual finances to know what is and isn't realistic spending wise and communicate these across.

Bayern have earned their place at the top without an oil baron pulling the strings.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

Except for Wolfsburg in 2009 and Kaiserslautern in the '90s but why let that get in the way-it happens about as often if not a bit more than it does here. In practice clubs like Dortmund don't have fan trusts running the club, it simply ensures that there is fan presence at board level and that measures like relocating to Northampton to try and bust ACL would be blocked. It may also help to have fans with intimate knowledge of the club's actual finances to know what is and isn't realistic spending wise and communicate these across.

Bayern have earned their place at the top without an oil baron pulling the strings.

Click to expand...

Wolfsburg are an exception to the German rule aren’t they - they’re owned by Volkswagen.

And the 50 + 1 rule didn’t exist when Kaiserslautern did it

I don’t get the hatred for the “oil barons” Chelsea and Man City don’t have debt - they’ve also created 2 more challengers.

I hope Wolves get up there too - more teams the better, Bayern also have a grossly inflated sponsorship deal that keeps them above the rest

I hope when some of our fans moan about all the transfer funds are not spent on players; they pause for a moment and think about Bury.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

Wolfsburg are an exception to the German rule aren’t they - they’re owned by Volkswagen.

And the 50 + 1 rule didn’t exist when Kaiserslautern did it

I don’t get the hatred for the “oil barons” Chelsea and Man City don’t have debt - they’ve also created 2 more challengers.

I hope Wolves get up there too - more teams the better, Bayern also have a grossly inflated sponsorship deal that keeps them above the rest

Click to expand...

Debt free on paper. Could either team pay their wage bill if their rich owners suddenly decided to do one? Look what almost happened to Forest when their bank roller pegged it suddenly. Had they not got lucky and found a new owner as fast as they did they would have been the first really big club to honour of business. Said it before but football, all football is a house of cards.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

Wolfsburg are an exception to the German rule aren’t they - they’re owned by Volkswagen.

And the 50 + 1 rule didn’t exist when Kaiserslautern did it

I don’t get the hatred for the “oil barons” Chelsea and Man City don’t have debt - they’ve also created 2 more challengers.

I hope Wolves get up there too - more teams the better, Bayern also have a grossly inflated sponsorship deal that keeps them above the rest

Click to expand...

Wolfsburg started as a workers' club, like Leverkusen. Of course Chelsea have debt they owe well over £1 billion in loans to Abramovich and Man City's owners provide endless money in the shape of 'sponsorship' to bankroll the club. You now also support a Chinese conglomerate taking Wolves to the top.

Is this really what you want for our game-who's got the richest sugar daddy? Ask anyone in Germany if they'd like to swap places-you'll find few takers. 4 World Cup wins, average attendances 5,000 higher than the PL and affordable ticket prices. Nobody getting relocated to random places and as far as one can tell, no clubs on the brink of extinction. There is a reason why German fans fight to keep 50+1 in place.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

I don’t get the hatred for the “oil barons” Chelsea and Man City don’t have debt - they’ve also created 2 more challengers.

Click to expand...

The group that owns Chelsea owes £1.2bn repayable at 18 months notice.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

Wolfsburg started as a workers' club, like Leverkusen. Of course Chelsea have debt they owe well over £1 billion in loans to Abramovich and Man City's owners provide endless money in the shape of 'sponsorship' to bankroll the club. You now also support a Chinese conglomerate taking Wolves to the top.

Is this really what you want for our game-who's got the richest sugar daddy? Ask anyone in Germany if they'd like to swap places-you'll find few takers. 4 World Cup wins, average attendances 5,000 higher than the PL and affordable ticket prices. Nobody getting relocated to random places and as far as one can tell, no clubs on the brink of extinction. There is a reason why German fans fight to keep 50+1 in place.

Click to expand...

Thing is Ambramovic isn’t going to call that in - their turnover is ridiculously high, and when they build their new stadium he won’t have to - he could sell the club for that much.

And that’s why I said we don’t have the nations interests ahead of club... There’s Mo way I’d swap our 2018 play off final win for the World Cup

And yeah - wolves creates more competition - it’s better than Bayern winning it year in year out. The German system keeps the status quo, our system rewards the brave. risk unfortunately is increased.

One team has ever been relocated in this country, it’s not exactly a common occurrence

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

Thing is Ambramovic isn’t going to call that in - their turnover is ridiculously high, and when they build their new stadium he won’t have to - he could sell the club for that much.

And that’s why I said we don’t have the nations interests ahead of club... There’s Mo way I’d swap our 2018 play off final win for the World Cup

And yeah - wolves creates more competition - it’s better than Bayern winning it year in year out. The German system keeps the status quo, our system rewards the brave. risk unfortunately is increased.

One team has ever been relocated in this country, it’s not exactly a common occurrence

Click to expand...

It is debt, not sure why it's excused. It is debt that is nearly 3 times their annual turnover.

fernandopartridge said:

It is debt, not sure why it's excused. It is debt that is nearly 3 times their annual turnover.

Click to expand...

I didn’t excuse it - RA is never going to call that in.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

Thing is Ambramovic isn’t going to call that in - their turnover is ridiculously high, and when they build their new stadium he won’t have to - he could sell the club for that much.

And that’s why I said we don’t have the nations interests ahead of club... There’s Mo way I’d swap our 2018 play off final win for the World Cup

And yeah - wolves creates more competition - it’s better than Bayern winning it year in year out. The German system keeps the status quo, our system rewards the brave. risk unfortunately is increased.

One team has ever been relocated in this country, it’s not exactly a common occurrence

Click to expand...

If he isn't going to call it in he should write it off completely and put the issue beyond doubt. While we're on relocations we have done so twice in 6 years, just not permanently yet. It doesn't reward bravery it encourages people to throw obscene sums of money at the chance of success and it risks a club's future in the process. What you're in favour of is what has just cost us a League club and may well cost another. It also drove Portsmouth to the brink not long ago.

The German system rewards clubs being well run. Ours encourages insanity

Brighton Sky Blue said:

If he isn't going to call it in he should write it off completely and put the issue beyond doubt. While we're on relocations we have done so twice in 6 years, just not permanently yet. It doesn't reward bravery it encourages people to throw obscene sums of money at the chance of success and it risks a club's future in the process. What you're in favour of is what has just cost us a League club and may well cost another. It also drove Portsmouth to the brink not long ago.

The German system rewards clubs being well run. Ours encourages insanity

Click to expand...

How does it reward clubs? The only clubs that have pushed the boundaries in recent years are Red Bull Leipzig and Hoffenheim - both of which have extremely rich benefactors

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

How does it reward clubs? The only clubs that have pushed the boundaries in recent years are Red Bull Leipzig and Hoffenheim - both of which have extremely rich benefactors

Click to expand...

The top dog is the club that has maximised its commercial revenue to a level above that of anyone else alongside maintaining an effective footballing setup. It's what allowed United to hoover up titles for fun. But no you're right let's make it a tycoon slug fest

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

I didn’t excuse it - RA is never going to call that in.

Click to expand...

Why is it sat on the accounts with a note to say it is repayable at 18 months' notice?

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

Thing is Ambramovic isn’t going to call that in - their turnover is ridiculously high, and when they build their new stadium he won’t have to - he could sell the club for that much.

Click to expand...

But he could sell the club for its worth AND also the debt he's owed

Brighton Sky Blue said:

The top dog is the club that has maximised its commercial revenue to a level above that of anyone else alongside maintaining an effective footballing setup. It's what allowed United to hoover up titles for fun. But no you're right let's make it a tycoon slug fest

Click to expand...

How is that good? Like I said it keeps the status Quo - that’s the sort of cavalier thinking that will lead to a European super league.

Basically on that going you might aswell say - anyone out of London or Man Utd might aswell give up - you’re never going to win fuck all.

fernandopartridge said:

Why is it sat on the accounts with a note to say it is repayable at 18 months' notice?

Click to expand...

I’m sure debt owed gets tagged into your assets. Possibly tax implications with it on there?

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

How is that good? Like I said it keeps the status Quo - that’s the sort of cavalier thinking that will lead to a European super league.

Basically on that going you might aswell say - anyone out of London or Man Utd might aswell give up - you’re never going to win fuck all.

Click to expand...

Based on what you're saying a tycoon is necessary to compete in the top flight, or to gamble the club's future on it. It's moronic-we already have fantasy football

Brighton Sky Blue said:

Based on what you're saying a tycoon is necessary to compete in the top flight, or to gamble the club's future on it. It's moronic-we already have fantasy football

Click to expand...

No I’m not saying it’s necessary - I’m saying that the model does give teams that wouldn’t challenge on commercial income the chance to dream.

Man City have spent over a billion but they’ve built a brand new infrastructure. In future they won’t need the investment. The money has been spent creating a commercially viable entity.

Like I said you sound like the ECA when they’re trying to shoehorn teams into the Champions League. That method keeps the big teams big and the small teams small

Seems this guy clearly hasn’t met the good people of Coventry!

The premier league are awash with TV money and able to pay fantasy wages to players. The governing body should look at this and decide that a better share of that money should be trickled down to the league clubs, after all that is where players are developed and often bought at knock down prices by those Premier league teams.
Just a 15% levey would be enormous, distributed to the league clubs. Seems like logic for the good of the game.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

I didn’t excuse it - RA is never going to call that in.

Click to expand...

If he was ever in a position that he needed that money, trust me, he'd call it in. You may say he will never need to but stranger things have happened.

Billionaires eventually get bored of their toys.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

No I’m not saying it’s necessary - I’m saying that the model does give teams that wouldn’t challenge on commercial income the chance to dream.

Man City have spent over a billion but they’ve built a brand new infrastructure. In future they won’t need the investment. The money has been spent creating a commercially viable entity.

Like I said you sound like the ECA when they’re trying to shoehorn teams into the Champions League. That method keeps the big teams big and the small teams small

Click to expand...

How did teams manage this before the Premier League era? Excellent management and organisation, first and foremost. TV revenues now see all PL clubs with minimum turnovers of around £120m with massive windfalls on relegation. What you're suggesting is 'fuck trying to develop a club organically, just get a tycoon'. In your ideal world, you need tycoons in order to succeed or for clubs to gamble their survival. It's ridiculous and not worthy of future debate

Paxman II said:

The premier league are awash with TV money and able to pay fantasy wages to players. The governing body should look at this and decide that a better share of that money should be trickled down to the league clubs, after all that is where players are developed and often bought at knock down prices by those Premier league teams.
Just a 15% levey would be enormous, distributed to the league clubs. Seems like logic for the good of the game.

Click to expand...

Not happening and even if it did it would be money going straight to the players

Brighton Sky Blue said:

How did teams manage this before the Premier League era? Excellent management and organisation, first and foremost. TV revenues now see all PL clubs with minimum turnovers of around £120m with massive windfalls on relegation. What you're suggesting is 'fuck trying to develop a club organically, just get a tycoon'. In your ideal world, you need tycoons in order to succeed or for clubs to gamble their survival. It's ridiculous and not worthy of future debate

Click to expand...

Ccfc to my knowledge never made a profit in the top flight and in the 70’s spent like drunken sailors and piled up debts that almost bought it to its knees

Grendel said:

Ccfc to my knowledge never made a profit in the top flight and in the 70’s spent like drunken sailors and piled up debts that almost bought it to its knees

Click to expand...

How did clubs like Forest, Derby, Villa, Leeds, Everton etc manage to win titles?

As an aside-do you want the top flight to become a tycoon's slug fest?

fernandopartridge said:

The group that owns Chelsea owes £1.2bn repayable at 18 months notice.

Click to expand...

£66666666.6667 a month. Easy.