Wigan Athletic

[Uncle Fred 526]

You have to do your due diligence before a sale and make sure that your stinking rich Chinese owner is in fact stinking rich 

it would appear in this case he owned a take away restaurant in Hong Kong harbour 

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

I wonder whether the pandemic will mean the 10 point deduction will be overlooked? I just don't think it's fair to impose a penalty designed to punish clubs for overspending when this is hardly anyone's fault. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I wonder whether the pandemic will mean the 10 point deduction will be overlooked? I just don't think it's fair to impose a penalty designed to punish clubs for overspending when this is hardly anyone's fault. 

The pandemic is not an excuse Wigan can use. The administrator said that contrary to belief, Wigan actually lost less money during the crisis than they would have if they had been playing. They get the thick end of 9K home support. But they have furloughed all the non playing staff and have very little expenditure (he didn't mention player wages).

I think many clubs will be in a similar situation. That was the main reason there was very little objection to the way that L1 and L2 were finished. The clubs were losing less money by not playing.

So if many clubs in financial difficulty will now go into administration, and remember they are probably going to offer local business 10p in the £1 on their debt, then I think they will all have to take a deduction. But of course there would be a lot of clubs starting next season with points deductions.

 

[sgncfc 1,221]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

I think they've kept their wage budget reasonably low (by Premier League standards) and think they've got a few players who they may be able to shift for decent fees.

I live near Watford and know many of their fans. None of them have anything like the affinity or community Norwich City has with its fans. None of the players are much liked or rated apart from Troy Deeney. They don't like the Italian tie up and that their club is used as a second or third option by their owners. They've not spent hugely given this is their 5th season though, so it is pretty well run and in no danger even if relegated.

However, they will murder us next week!

[shefcanary 2,385]

Come on, where are the "How come Wigan have 12 buyers after them, when no-one wants Norwich"  comments.  Perhaps some would want us to go into administration?  

[nutty nigel 7,509]

It had to happen for the integrity of the game.

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

5 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

I wonder whether the pandemic will mean the 10 point deduction will be overlooked? I just don't think it's fair to impose a penalty designed to punish clubs for overspending when this is hardly anyone's fault. 

The pandemic is not an excuse Wigan can use. The administrator said that contrary to belief, Wigan actually lost less money during the crisis than they would have if they had been playing. They get the thick end of 9K home support. But they have furloughed all the non playing staff and have very little expenditure (he didn't mention player wages).

I think many clubs will be in a similar situation. That was the main reason there was very little objection to the way that L1 and L2 were finished. The clubs were losing less money by not playing.

So if many clubs in financial difficulty will now go into administration, and remember they are probably going to offer local business 10p in the £1 on their debt, then I think they will all have to take a deduction. But of course there would be a lot of clubs starting next season with points deductions.

 

Interesting. So maybe headed this way already? Got to say that leaves many questions over how this group were considered fit and proper to take over a club who only recently won one of this country's leading competitions?

[The Walking Man 13]

7 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53262876

The administrators state that they have had 10 expressions of interest in Wigan.

Before this post is jumped on i do realise that it depends on a whole array of circumstances not least proof of funds ( whatever the price may in fact be ) but for a club about to play in a Division on its uppers it does make you wonder what would happen to Norwich City if it came to a similar situation of being available to purchase.

Tin hat at the ready.

Don't take this as jumping on your post but in the article Krasner does explain that he expects around 30 expressions of interests but only in reality about 2 that have close to the money required to buy Wigan, because in his words "you get some very peculiar people wanting to buy football clubs who have no money" 

[The Walking Man 13]

On 01/07/2020 at 14:12, Dr Greenthumb said:

For every Wigan, there’s a Wolves! 

But is there though? I'm pretty sure everyone can rattle off alot more bad or mediocre owners than good ones. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

There must come a time when all this nonsense has to stop.

The effect that the EPL has had on the rest of football makes so much of what has been said and done recently mere platitudes and sugar coating.

Bond Street in London does not prevent Poundland from making a profit. But the EPL is making it impossible for other leagues to function within their means.

That the smaller clubs think that that is all they are, smaller than the big clubs, is driving them into administration.

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

As usual you hit the nail on the head Pops. The Championship restarting, supposedly "for the integrity of the game", meant games had to take place with no gate incomes for smaller clubs with less funds to fall back on. This is why leagues one and two curtailed.

This"integrity of the game" is really "to service the PL". The very least the PL could have done was pay for it.

[Dr Greenthumb 746]

1 hour ago, The Walking Man said:

But is there though? I'm pretty sure everyone can rattle off alot more bad or mediocre owners than good ones. 

I don’t know about that. There will always be a few clubs in bad positions , not everyone is a winner. You will probably give an example of clubs in league one, who used to be in the prem. there used to be clubs in league one, who are now in the prem! 

[Badger 2,405]

On 01/07/2020 at 14:12, Dr Greenthumb said:

For every Wigan, there’s a Wolves! 

Do you really believe this?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

On 01/07/2020 at 17:09, PurpleCanary said:

It is all a bit unclear, and it may be the ownership was not to blame here, but there is sometimes a lack of transparency with Chinese owners and even those operating in Hong Kong, as here.

Whelan sold to this HK (actually Cayman Islands) company called IEC and then in June IEC sold the club to this New Leader Fund. Except that the owner of IEC had been the owner of the New Leader Fund, with the now owner of the NFL only a minority stakeholder.

What would have raised an eyebrow with me is that around the time IEC bought Wigan,  IEC's annual turnover (2019) was only about £45m, and the company had made a loss for the last three years. Which in terms of financially supporting a Championship club does not sound ideal. Of course the IEC owner may have other sources of wealth. But there seems to be no public information on the finances of the now owner of the NLF.

If the now owner of the NFL was until recently only the minority shareholder, with the then majority shareholder not obviously rolling in money to spend on football,  it does raise the question as to whether this was a viable long-term proposition as far as either was concerned. Yes, the pandemic is a serious financial blow, but owners should be able to cope with the unexpected.

This does seem potentially to be a strange business,  especially if this has come about because these two consecutive owners (linked as they seem to be) never really had the money to bankroll a Championship club. David Conn of The Guardian has been delving usefully:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/02/story-of-how-wigan-collapsed-into-administration-au-yeung-investigation

'So, the facts as set out are that in the middle of the coronavirus crisis, while football was still shut down and many clubs fear going out of business, Au Yeung decided to buy Wigan Athletic, a club which even in normal times loses millions of pounds. At first in partnership with Choi, he paid £17.5m, giving IEC more than they paid for the club, and also ensured their £24m loan was repaid. But then, on the day he took ownership after this £41m purchase, he decided not to fund it and to put the club into administration, so losing control, the £17.5m, and probably the £24m too.'

Edited July 2, 2020 by PurpleCanary

[Dr Greenthumb 746]

8 minutes ago, Badger said:

Do you really believe this?

So you’re telling me there are no rich owners of football clubs who have success? 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Dr Greenthumb

[Badger 2,405]

 

23 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

So you’re telling me there are no rich owners of football clubs who have success? 

I didn't say anything - you did! You said,

On 01/07/2020 at 14:12, Dr Greenthumb said:

For every Wigan, there’s a Wolves! 

I asked you if you really believe this?

 

 

 

[Dr Greenthumb 746]

16 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

I didn't say anything - you did! You said,

I asked you if you really believe this?

 

 

 

Yes I do, good talk...

[Badger 2,405]

12 hours ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

Yes I do, good talk...

If you and others believe this (see below), I understand why you so frequently call for ownership changes. Unfortunately, your belief is completely wrong and totally misinformed.

1. The vast majority of changes of ownership designed to "take the club to the next level" are failures and the club normally suffers as a consequence.

2. There are very few changes of ownership by "investor owners" that are successful in the long term. They may have a few good years (but many don't) followed by a much longer period of suffering.

These points are simply matters of fact.

 

(In fact, Wigan enjoyed rather more success than most during their "glory years").

 

 

[Midlands Yellow 3,934]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

If you and others believe this (see below), I understand why you so frequently call for ownership changes. Unfortunately, your belief is completely wrong and totally misinformed.

1. The vast majority of changes of ownership designed to "take the club to the next level" are failures and the club normally suffers as a consequence.

2. There are very few changes of ownership by "investor owners" that are successful in the long term. They may have a few good years (but many don't) followed by a much longer period of suffering.

These points are simply matters of fact.

 

(In fact, Wigan enjoyed rather more success than most during their "glory years").

 

 

Excellent post and the blue writing only accentuates the valid points made. 

[Badger 2,405]

45 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Excellent post and the blue writing only accentuates the valid points made. 

Thank you 👍

Unfortunately too many people seem to get seduced by the simplistic reasoning of posters like Dr Greenthumb 😩

[king canary 7,578]

53 minutes ago, Badger said:

If you and others believe this (see below), I understand why you so frequently call for ownership changes. Unfortunately, your belief is completely wrong and totally misinformed.

1. The vast majority of changes of ownership designed to "take the club to the next level" are failures and the club normally suffers as a consequence.

2. There are very few changes of ownership by "investor owners" that are successful in the long term. They may have a few good years (but many don't) followed by a much longer period of suffering.

These points are simply matters of fact.

 

(In fact, Wigan enjoyed rather more success than most during their "glory years").

 

 

If these are facts you need to back them up with something.

You also need to define what you mean by successful in the long term. For instance I remember you claiming the owners at Southampton hadn't had a transformative  affect on the club which is clearly nonsense.

[Nuff Said 5,089]

33 minutes ago, king canary said:

If these are facts you need to back them up with something.

You also need to define what you mean by successful in the long term. For instance I remember you claiming the owners at Southampton hadn't had a transformative  affect on the club which is clearly nonsense.

Given that there are 20 clubs in the Premier League and 72 in the three divisions below, extremely basic maths would suggest that there will always be many more Wigans than Wolves.

 

Being slightly less simplistic, there are probably 7 clubs who genuinely are "established", and you could debate whether Everton deserve this, they have had a couple of wobbles in recent history.

 

So assume there are 13 available places in the PL for "Wolves"-type clubs. The current 13 are obvious candidates for these places, but on top you *conservatively* have: Leeds, West Brom, Forest, Fulham, Cardiff, Derby, Swansea, Preston, Blackburn, Bristol City, Sheffield Wednesday, QPR, Birmingham, Hull, Middlesbrough,  Stoke, Portsmouth, Sunderland and Ipswich who have either been in the PL in recent memory or who could claim to have a historical precedent as a top tier club. Then you have contenders like Brentford and Huddersfield too, well do a Huddersfield and reach the PM with a combination of luck or investment.

 

So "For every Wigan, there’s a Wolves! " is just impossible.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Nuff Said

[Dr Greenthumb 746]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

If you and others believe this (see below), I understand why you so frequently call for ownership changes. Unfortunately, your belief is completely wrong and totally misinformed.

1. The vast majority of changes of ownership designed to "take the club to the next level" are failures and the club normally suffers as a consequence.

2. There are very few changes of ownership by "investor owners" that are successful in the long term. They may have a few good years (but many don't) followed by a much longer period of suffering.

These points are simply matters of fact.

 

(In fact, Wigan enjoyed rather more success than most during their "glory years").

 

 

Thanks for telling me I’m wrong. I’m glad Man City and Chelsea have owners on the same level as us. Makes me feel better

[Badger 2,405]

11 minutes ago, king canary said:

If these are facts you need to back them up with something.

You also need to define what you mean by successful in the long term. For instance I remember you claiming the owners at Southampton hadn't had a transformative  affect on the club which is clearly nonsense.

The list of owners coming in and spending loads of money to take their club to the next level is myriad - literally hundreds. The number achieving and retaining "the next level" for more than a few seasons is very few - Chelsea, Man City being obvious examples. Wolves are looking promising at the moment, but so did Portsmouth a few years ago.

Most of the others go up, have a bit of success, some then say "oooh we want to be like them" and then shut up when the inevitable decline comes and move on to the current "flavour of the month."

As for Southampton, how have their changes been transformative?

After getting promoted in 1966, Southampton spent 35 out of the next 39 years as a top division team. They were established in a way that regrettably we never have been. This included a consistent 27 year period in the top division, something that we have never got close to.

Unfortunately, they then "went for it," got relegated and then went into administration. Since then, more sensible management has seen them restored to what was their natural position before they became financially incontinent. The club has made a profit in 5 out of the last 6 years!  If anything they sit slightly below their long term average position with finishes of 1th and 16th in the last 2 seasons. In summary, financial incontinence saw them relegated twice and into administration - this was transformative - but not in a good way! Sensible management has restored them to the long term position, but no higher.

If you disagree with this, I'd be happy to go into further details if you provide facts to support your case.

[sonyc 5,491]

16 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

There must come a time when all this nonsense has to stop.

The effect that the EPL has had on the rest of football makes so much of what has been said and done recently mere platitudes and sugar coating.

Bond Street in London does not prevent Poundland from making a profit. But the EPL is making it impossible for other leagues to function within their means.

That the smaller clubs think that that is all they are, smaller than the big clubs, is driving them into administration.

 

It's the market system (aka capitalism) isn't it Keelansgrandad? Simple as that. It's the surplus value argument where money doesn't adequately flow down the system enough. It all works (just about) in normal times because a small club sells its star player if it's lucky. Yet the true value is realised later by the buying club. It's the same in buying abroad (you buy from a system with cheaper labour, or you sell up / focus away from your domestic setting...like the Watford example quoted above). We've been buying abroad because we cannot afford the £20m fees here (think of the Maupay's or Che Adams type purchases, or Bowen...all cost up to £20m). It leads to a heavily skewed system that just compounds. Football as we know it becomes less community-oriented. I love our club because of what we are and our attempt (futile ultimately?) to live by our values.

It needs a reset. The pandemic may force that. Otherwise I can't see us abandoning market forces. Like the planet, and I'm not making a left / right point here, but capitalism unfettered is completely unsustainable. We need much more of a mixed economy. Football needs the same.

[Badger 2,405]

13 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

Thanks for telling me I’m wrong. My pleasure - I'm surprised that you believed it in the first place, but glad that you now understand better.

 

I’m glad Man City and Chelsea have owners on the same level as us. ? I'm not sure what you mean by "level." If you mean financially, they are not on the same level at all. Their owners have hundreds of times the wealth that our owners do.

 

Makes me feel better - sorry to make you feel worse again but as I said above Man City and Chelsea's owners are much much wealthier than ours - I'm not really sure where you got the impression that it was otherwise?

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

57 minutes ago, king canary said:

If these are facts you need to back them up with something.

You also need to define what you mean by successful in the long term. For instance I remember you claiming the owners at Southampton hadn't had a transformative  affect on the club which is clearly nonsense.

When I think about this successful in the long-term would mean more successful than us. After all if their vast riches can't  achieve what our owners do then they couldn't possibly be more successful. Could they?

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

This conversation has been going on in various forms for years now, especially when the club is threatened by relegation, or just going through bad times generally.

It's the same old stuff over and over again with successful rich owners pitted against examples of the failures. They appear to exist in equal proportions.

Like them or not, and I sway with the wind, it is glaringly obvious that if City ever aspire to be a more permanent Premier League resident then Delia and her other half are not financially qualified to achieve this. We might eventually get lucky for a few seasons, but the historical fact is that since the turn of the Millenium we have had four excursions  into the top league and have been straight down three times and the other stay was brief.

The proposed use of the club as an heirloom by Delia Smith would only, it seems, perpetuate this  existence at best, and may well worsen it.

It could be argued that no club has a right to be in the Premier League, in fact more than argued for the likes of NCFC, but four promotions from the Championship in twenty years speak for themselves.

To draw upon Oscar: To lose one opportunity may be seen as unfortunate.

                                      To lose two opportunities may be seen as carelessness.

                                      To lose three opportunities may be seen as lacking in ambition.

                                      To lose four opportunities may be seen as farcical.

There are some on here who would prefer City to be permanent residents of the second league, but don't count me among them.

Clearly some fairly seismic change needs to be made in the way our club is handled so we'll just have to see what Tom Smith comes up with once he has control of the reigns. 

The uncertainty/nefariousness of selling out to a 'stinking' rich owner doesn't particularly appeal to me, but it is clear that more investment into the club, in some way shape or form, will be needed if we are to avoid being permanently cast among the second class citizens of the Chumps (with increasing debt, falling gates and dreams of stadium expansion permanently shelved; along with our Academy 1 status being eventually/likely threatened.)

Up to you Nephew Tom!

New blood, new approach?

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by BroadstairsR

[Dr Greenthumb 746]

9 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

I bet you sat there chuckling to yourself typing that. Keep living in the past, I hope I am wrong, but the fact she has had this club near administration twice is a worry.

[Badger 2,405]

11 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

I bet you sat there chuckling to yourself typing that. Keep living in the past, I hope I am wrong, but the fact she has had this club near administration twice is a worry.

I don't live in the past - I live in the real world, where facts exist and matter, not in some online fantasy where the wishes of the ill-informed can change the facts.