Jump to content

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Icecream Snow said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53261368

Rumour that a bet around relegation might have been placed

Rick Parry recorded saying “There’s rumours that there’s a bet on them in the Philliipines on them being relegated. The previous owner has got gambling interests on the Philipines.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/12019453/rick-parry-wigan-administration-video-bet-relegated-efl/

Wow. Just wow. That is pretty explosive stuff about Rick Parry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm not necessarily saying it's a good thing. But I don't think that it's reasonable to accuse the EPL of being "old school incompetents" when they have created a hugely profitable league. Those that don't like it can always cancel their Sky subscription and season ticket and travel 40 miles south for 'proper' football. 

So tell me the names of the EPL executives who are so good at what they do? Take a look at the FA website and tell me which of the Board you've ever heard of in any field and which ones are under 50? They mostly come from County FAs and know the square root of naff all about running a global organisation. The EPL just got lucky with Sky and have ridden the wave ever since - their product hasn't changed for well over 100 years. Look at how other sports have evolved (Cricket, Rugby, even Tennis) and tell me that football is dynamically led. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the EPL also arose out of the European football ban. The top clubs were missing out on that money and wanted it replacing. They sold their souls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sgncfc said:

So tell me the names of the EPL executives who are so good at what they do? Take a look at the FA website and tell me which of the Board you've ever heard of in any field and which ones are under 50? They mostly come from County FAs and know the square root of naff all about running a global organisation. The EPL just got lucky with Sky and have ridden the wave ever since - their product hasn't changed for well over 100 years. Look at how other sports have evolved (Cricket, Rugby, even Tennis) and tell me that football is dynamically led. 

My argument was purely based on your comment about the Premier League. It brings in more money than any League in the world. It was started because the FA is led by a bunch of old fools who just couldn't see the potential. I agree with you about everything else but leave out the EPL. People may not like it but you can't argue that it's not a huge financial success 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

My argument was purely based on your comment about the Premier League. It brings in more money than any League in the world. It was started because the FA is led by a bunch of old fools who just couldn't see the potential. I agree with you about everything else but leave out the EPL. People may not like it but you can't argue that it's not a huge financial success 

It has kept us going as a club for years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

It has kept us going as a club for years

No, Sky and BT have. The EPL came about because those who ran the biggest football clubs were going to break away from the FA and negotiate directly with the TV companies - the FA had almost nothing to do with it as leaders even then.

Edited by sgncfc
error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

My argument was purely based on your comment about the Premier League. It brings in more money than any League in the world. It was started because the FA is led by a bunch of old fools who just couldn't see the potential. I agree with you about everything else but leave out the EPL. People may not like it but you can't argue that it's not a huge financial success 

If you take enjoyment out of other people's money then it's far better than the football league ever was.

But what do you get out of it being successful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sgncfc said:

No, Sky and BT have. The EPL came about because those who ran the biggest football clubs were going to break away from the FA and negotiate directly with the TV companies - the FA had almost nothing to do with it as leaders even then.

Which organisation is it that sky and BT have the television rights for? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/05/2018 at 11:43, lake district canary said:

Get a bit cross at all the "nepotism" stuff  - it''s an offensive word to use for people passing on the assets of their life to relatives.   If you don''t pass on your wealth to your relatives, what else are you going to do, just give it away to a complete stranger?  

Yes LDC. Normally the govt take their share. Best to hand over those assets!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By my guesstimate, an amazing 49 clubs have had at least a season in the Prem. In terms of seasons spent at the top level, City currently rank 22nd equal (I think) with Coventry. Only 8 have never been relegated (including Brighton & Bournemouth).  Amongst the clubs with more seasons are Blackburn, Sunderland, Stoke, Middlesborough, Fulham, Bolton, Leeds & West Brom Apart from the last two I don't think anyone would swap places.

Considering the mess that Chase left the club in that doesn't look too shady a record for a mid-size provincial club.

Edited by BigFish
Guesstimate wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Always interesting to hear what Kieran Maguire has to say....

 

Most interesting point being "Wigan are losing nine million pounds a year".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Icecream Snow said:

Most interesting point being "Wigan are losing nine million pounds a year"

Yet they've yoyod between league one and the champs for a few years now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigFish said:

By my guesstimate, an amazing 49 clubs have had at least a season in the Prem. In terms of seasons spent at the top level, City currently rank 22nd equal (I think) with Coventry. Only 8 have never been relegated (including Brighton & Bournemouth).  Amongst the clubs with more seasons are Blackburn, Sunderland, Stoke, Middlesborough, Fulham, Bolton, Leeds & West Brom Apart from the last two I don't think anyone would swap places.

Considering the mess that Chase left the club in that doesn't look too shady a record for a mid-size provincial club.

The 28 seasons of the PL show:

Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Man Utd and Tottenham............................      28

Aston Villa, Newcastle......................25

West Ham .........................................24

Manchester City ...............................23

Southampton ................................,.. 21

Blackburn Rovers .............................18

Sunderland .......................................16

Middlesbrough .................................15

Fulham, Leicester City ......................14

Bolton Wanderers .............................13

West Bromwich .................................12

Crystal Palace ....................................11

Stoke City ...........................................10

Coventry, Norwich City .........................9

Charlton, Sheffield Wed, Wigan and Wimbledon ................................................................8

Birmingham, Derby, Portsmouth, QPR, Swansea and Watford.....................,...,,,,,,..............7

Burnley, Nottm Forest, Wolves .............6

Bournemouth, Hull, Ipswich ...............   5

Sheffield United .....................................4

There are some 1 and 2 season wonders. Palace and ourselves have had the most (5) separate spells in the PL
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's 38 clubs there? Plus Wimbledon.

Who are the ones who should be established in the PL and which ones should be just top 26?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

There's 38 clubs there? Plus Wimbledon.

Who are the ones who should be established in the PL and which ones should be just top 26?

I’ll leave that to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sgncfc said:

No, Sky and BT have. The EPL came about because those who ran the biggest football clubs were going to break away from the FA and negotiate directly with the TV companies - the FA had almost nothing to do with it as leaders even then.

Eh? The EPL clubs were members of the Football League - you know that organization that broke away from the FA in the 1890's 

So what's the FA got to do with the EPL again? Shouldn't you be comparing the EPL and EFL management teams instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why these lists are limited to the Premier League. In the first more than 50 years of the club’s existence it was never once In the top flight. In the just under 50 years  since then it has been in the top flight more  seasons than it has been outside it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

There's 38 clubs there? Plus Wimbledon.

Who are the ones who should be established in the PL and which ones should be just top 26?

I think Brighton & Reading have 3; Cardif, Huddersfield, Oldham 2; Barnsley Blackpool & Swindon only 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crafty Canary said:

The 28 seasons of the PL show:

Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Man Utd and Tottenham............................      28

Aston Villa, Newcastle......................25

West Ham .........................................24

Manchester City ...............................23

Southampton ................................,.. 21

Blackburn Rovers .............................18

Sunderland .......................................16

Middlesbrough .................................15

Fulham, Leicester City ......................14

Bolton Wanderers .............................13

West Bromwich .................................12

Crystal Palace ....................................11

Stoke City ...........................................10

Coventry, Norwich City .........................9

Charlton, Sheffield Wed, Wigan and Wimbledon ................................................................8

Birmingham, Derby, Portsmouth, QPR, Swansea and Watford.....................,...,,,,,,..............7

Burnley, Nottm Forest, Wolves .............6

Bournemouth, Hull, Ipswich ...............   5

Sheffield United .....................................4

There are some 1 and 2 season wonders. Palace and ourselves have had the most (5) separate spells in the PL
 

 

 

Did you miss out Leeds 12 seasons on purpose CC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The damning evidence/comment there is how these supposed 'hinvestors' are merely using clubs as vehicles for dodgy financial activity, and I have no doubt there are others facing the same threats.

At the end. the chap talked about the impending job losses, which will undoubtedly affect football club's income - more so those in the lower leagues where a greater per cent is from 'gate revenue'

I think rather than Wigan being a one off, it could well simply be the first of many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Did you miss out Leeds 12 seasons on purpose CC?

Leeds have only been relegated once   

Poor old crafty. It was a poor effort.

Maybe 3/10 (must try harder)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Did you miss out Leeds 12 seasons on purpose CC?

No 🙂

 

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Leeds have only been relegated once   

Poor old crafty. It was a poor effort.

Maybe 3/10 (must try harder)

 

It’s my list of clubs who have played in the PL for at least 4 seasons although it omitted Leeds’  11 seasons there. I don’t give a toss who are established and who you think should be the top 26. That is a meaningless distinction. You might think it a poor effort but again I don’t give a toss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 03/07/2020 at 22:23, king canary said:

How have their changes been transformative? 

They were taken from a team in League One in administration to a Premier League regular in great financial health.

The idea it hasn't been transformative because of where they finished in 70's and 80's is ridiculous, unless you think it was just inevitable they would end up back where they are now as if they would have just naturally returned to their place in the 60's. They were a division two team all through the 50's, why is that less important than the 70's in your calculation?

Sensible financial management has restored a club to its long establish status as a lower top league club. It was not just the 70s and 80s, but half the sixties, the nineties and part of the first half of the first decade in the 21st century. In short, it has been their established position in the hierarchy for about 50 years. This position was temporarily lost as a result of financial indiscipline and been recovered by the restoration of financial discipline. A club being restored to its normal position over the previous 50 years is not transformative - it is a return to the norm. (I don't know your statistical background but deviation from the mean etc - if you were to plot this on a graph the variation (abnormality) would be clear.)

For something to be "transformative" it has to move them away from their long term norm. This simply is not the case for Southampton. I'm sure that you understand the concept of statistical significance, how many of the capital injection scenarios do you think have seen a sustained statistically significant improvement (sustained defined as performance over 10 years) over normal position (normal defined as performance over the previous 50 years). It's something I could have done a few years ago but change of role has weakened my excel skills 😩. My guess is that the main transformative change would be in a downwards direction, rather than upwards. Make an interesting post grad thesis?

I notice you mention Portsmouth but by your reasoning they ownership wasn't transformatively bad for them- afterall they oscillated between the 2nd and 3rd divisions in 70's.

I'm a bit confused by your point about profit also- a Premier League team staying up while making a profit is a good think- but how did they get there? By, in part, having ownership that allowed them spend when they went up, take calculated risks and invest in players as part of a long term strategy to sell for a profit. 

I mentioned the profit that they have regularly attained as an indication of sensible financial management. Southampton are not really an example of "**** or bust investment" that some (not you) advocate. They have operated within a sensible medium term financial strategy which hopefully we will replicate without the mad gambles of the last McNasty year.

* Sorry if the stats section sounded a bit patronising - it really wasn't intended to be. You are obviously intelligent - I just don't know your statistical knowledge. Now that sounds  condescending as well 😩 Please don't take it that way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Badger said:

 

 

12 hours ago, Badger said:

 

Southampton have made an absolute fortune as a selling club over recent years. Not really an example of transformative leadership, rather more basic football management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BigFish said:

 

Southampton have made an absolute fortune as a selling club over recent years. Not really an example of transformative leadership, rather more basic football management.

Yeah, even if you ignore Walcott and Bale, they must have made £100m-£200m profit on certain players over the last ten or so years. Clyne, Lovren, Van Dijk, Lallana, Sadio Mane, Ricky Lambert (Liverpool) Luke Shaw and Schneiderlin (Man Utd) Wanyama (Spurs) and Oxlade-Chamberlain and Callum Chambers (Arsenal).

I'm sure they've bought a couple of duds as well, but it's an impressive list.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Icecream Snow said:

Yeah, even if you ignore Walcott and Bale, they must have made £100m-£200m profit on certain players over the last ten or so years. Clyne, Lovren, Van Dijk, Lallana, Sadio Mane, Ricky Lambert (Liverpool) Luke Shaw and Schneiderlin (Man Utd) Wanyama (Spurs) and Oxlade-Chamberlain and Callum Chambers (Arsenal).

I'm sure they've bought a couple of duds as well, but it's an impressive list.

that shows a complete lack of 'hambition'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Badger said:

 

Not patronising at all, don't worry. I got a B at GCSE maths and nothing more!

However I do wonder if your focus on statistics is maybe what leaves such a gap between our views. For me a football club is far more than a statistic or a point to plot on a graph vs historical positions.

I think if you asked any Southampton fans of my age (32) or similar 'did the Liebherr ownership transform the club?' I think you'd find most would say it did. 

You're correct of course that they are an excellent example of sensible management- they are also an excellent example of how to make the model we want to work to a success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BigFish said:

 

Southampton have made an absolute fortune as a selling club over recent years. Not really an example of transformative leadership, rather more basic football management.

If doing what they've done is just basic football management then why doesn't everyone do it?

It does seem simple on paper...

1) Develop from the academy to sell for profit

2) Sign younger players to develop and sell for profit

3) Remain in the Premier League

These are the three core points of our current model too- just we've only really nailed point 1. Point 2 we've shown we can do at Championship level but not in the top division. Point 3 we've failed miserably. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...