finance Yo-yo clubs like Norwich & Fulham left in football purgatory

[Badger 2,405]

Seems like the Independent is a "Delia apologist" newspaper too suggesting that it's a structural issue in football finance when all the real experts on this board know it's all Delia's fault. 😉

Interesting quotation:

 

“There’s a growing sense that we lost our way a bit as a club. It’s taken a lot of fun out of it. This season in particular everyone is fed up. There’s a real sense we don’t have a strong connection as fans with this team.

[The owners] have sucked the life out of the squad, the spirit, unity, general sense of backbone all destroyed. We’re in a situation now where you feel they’re 11 blokes chucked out and let’s see what happens and inevitably they end up losing and everyone goes home miserable."

Sound familiar?  It's from a Watford fan.

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/norwich-fulham-football-purgatory-premier-league-finances-1615476

[Hughie Curran's fruitcake 22]

Interesting article. Pundits etc. are always keen to focus on the superficial issues to divert attention away from the deep structural problems and keep the illusion going that it's all a matter of tactics and transfer policy.

And the average fan just looking to let out emotion doesn't want to be bothered with the deeper issues. Unfortunately, they are increasingly difficult to ignore. So, maybe there is still a chance to bring football back home.

Personally, I don't know why we still refer to the top 6+ as clubs. They've become franchises. Etihad franchise Vs Fenway franchise doesn't have quite the same romance, but it is no more than a historical anomaly that these franchises are located in Manchester and Liverpool, London and Newcastle. One day, when the time is right, they will simply up sticks and relocate where the money is.

And Norwich just isn't a sexy place for a franchise, no matter how high the cathedral is. Something I'm quite happy about.

[king canary 7,578]

It isn't great but the new rules are just going to lock this in even more.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

WBA used to be lumped in with this group of clubs in 'purgatory' but have managed to break out of it by finishing mid table championship this season

  ...we could just as easily follow suit, lets hope we are at the least still being discussed within that circle of clubs

[Surfer 1,547]

• Meanwhile Fulham demonstrating that next year's outcome is very likely going to be the same as last year's. Getting thumped 4-0 by an aggressive Sheff Utd team... it's all very EPL Norwich-like.  

[The Bristol Nest 513]

Just read this in the i. 73% of ticket and 78% of commercial revenue goes to the top six who "earn" 400 million quid more per year than the bottom eight.

[Myra Hawtree 124]

I’ve read this too as “i” is my regular newspaper (great crosswords).  The quoted Fulham losses are insane.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

First time I’ve seen it acknowledged just how isolated the bottom 8 are from the next 6 as well. That’s a big part of the yo-yo reason. Likes of Villa, West Ham etc. can more or less buy their way away from relegation worries. Everton obviously the strange anomaly. If they go down, more money will get thrown at them a la Villa and they’ll be back to mid table prem before you know it anyway.

[The Bristol Nest 513]

Funny isn't it. This is clearly the most interesting topic today imo yet the visceral moaning stuff gets far more posts.

[Badger 2,405]

4 hours ago, king canary said:

It isn't great but the new rules are just going to lock this in even more.

I wouldn't be surprised to Newcastle and West Ham join the bigger clubs with the new rules. West ham could be massive with plans to increase the seating to 62,500.

Everton also planning to expand their ground (unless their spending spree has ruined this). Sunderland and Villa also have a chance, but things not looking so good for Chelsea.

We've had this discussion many times before KC, so we both know that neither of us will change our mind, but I still prefer a teams fanbase being the determining factor rather than the wealth of their owner. It is how it has usually been.

[BurwellCanary 215]

6 minutes ago, Badger said:

I wouldn't be surprised to Newcastle and West Ham join the bigger clubs with the new rules. West ham could be massive with plans to increase the seating to 62,500.

Everton also planning to expand their ground (unless their spending spree has ruined this). Sunderland and Villa also have a chance, but things not looking so good for Chelsea.

We've had this discussion many times before KC, so we both know that neither of us will change our mind, but I still prefer a teams fanbase being the determining factor rather than the wealth of their owner. It is how it has usually been.

Yes Badger and thats got to be essence of a club like ours. No bright lights or the chance of being a big club like West Ham or Newcastle. Lets keep it realistic 

[horsefly 4,287]

Looking forward to Luton winning the play-off final. As much as anything because it will give Richard Keys a heart attack.

[Mr Angry 1,545]

17 minutes ago, Badger said:

I wouldn't be surprised to Newcastle and West Ham join the bigger clubs with the new rules. West ham could be massive with plans to increase the seating to 62,500.

Everton also planning to expand their ground (unless their spending spree has ruined this). Sunderland and Villa also have a chance, but things not looking so good for Chelsea.

We've had this discussion many times before KC, so we both know that neither of us will change our mind, but I still prefer a teams fanbase being the determining factor rather than the wealth of their owner. It is how it has usually been.

Everton aren’t expanding, they’re moving.

 

[Badger 2,405]

5 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Everton aren’t expanding, they’re moving. 

 

Sorry - Yes I knew. Apparently, Liverpool lost World Heritage Site status because of the permission granted to build in an historically sensitive area (near the dock, I think).

[Badger 2,405]

18 minutes ago, BurwellCanary said:

Yes Badger and thats got to be essence of a club like ours. No bright lights or the chance of being a big club like West Ham or Newcastle. Lets keep it realistic 

Depends what you mean by "bright lights." I don't think that we have the population to fill a 50+ thousand seater stadium regularly, so don't see us in the Champions League, but this was never really an option.  However, I think that we could fill one of say 35,000 and be regulars in the Premier League + challenge for cups. I think that this is realistic and achievable within years - but the same could be said of other teams too. We could have an advantage over some however, with no debt and a well established academy.

And who knows what will happen in the future with population shift etc - but not, I fear, in my lifetime. Don't let your realism make you pessimistic! 😄

[king canary 7,578]

41 minutes ago, Badger said:

I wouldn't be surprised to Newcastle and West Ham join the bigger clubs with the new rules. West ham could be massive with plans to increase the seating to 62,500.

Everton also planning to expand their ground (unless their spending spree has ruined this). Sunderland and Villa also have a chance, but things not looking so good for Chelsea.

We've had this discussion many times before KC, so we both know that neither of us will change our mind, but I still prefer a teams fanbase being the determining factor rather than the wealth of their owner. It is how it has usually been.

Yes we've had the discussion before so it's a touch frustrating to see you've still never actually understood my point.

I don't think it should be the wealth of the owner that determines position OR the size of the fanbase. At the moment at least a smaller club can dream of an owner coming in and changing their position. With the new rules it is essentially 'know your place peasants.' Personally I think clubs should all operate under the same financial restrictions and you shouldn't be entitled to a head start because you've got an 'official tire partner' or can sell 1m shirts in South East Asia.

Edited May 7, 2022 by king canary

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Yes we've had the discussion before so it's a touch frustrating to see you've still never actually understood my point.

I don't think it should be the wealth of the owner that determines position OR the size of the fanbase. At the moment at least a smaller club can dream of an owner coming in and changing their position. With the new rules it is essentially 'know your place peasants.' Personally I think clubs should all operate under the same financial restrictions and you shouldn't be entitled to a head start because you've got an 'official tire partner' or can sell 1m shirts in South East Asia.

I don't want to argue with you KC but I don't see the difference between what I said? In essence you are saying that the fan of a smaller club can hold on to the dream of a multi-billionaire investor as this would be more important than the size of the fan base in determining the success of the club.

You don't have to "know your place peasants", you have to develop the club over time in the way that Burnley did until the owners sold out to investor owners and Palace are still doing. With the one off exception of Leicester, multi-billionaire owners have not been able to impact modern football with "smaller" clubs at the very top level. 

The price of dream of being able to buy your way to the top is the administration that has hit tens of thousands of small companies because clubs have owed them money before going into administration. It's not a price worth paying imo.

[Icecream Snow 761]

Posted something similar before. I can't find the Swiss Ramble/Kieran Maguire version, but the numbers look feasible.

Without trying to put words into King Canary's mouth, I think his point is that Manchester United's revenue contains large amounts of commercial sales based on previous success. I thought the UEFA rulings were trying to set wages/transfers at 70% of revenue, so even if Newcastle or Aston Villa want to lose £100m a year trying to bridge the gap they can't.

Effectively the changes create a cartel and cement the 'big 6'. Largely because of the commercial partnerships that the big 6 currently have, a glass ceiling gets created that other clubs can't break through. 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

1 hour ago, Icecream Snow said:

Posted something similar before. I can't find the Swiss Ramble/Kieran Maguire version, but the numbers look feasible.

Without trying to put words into King Canary's mouth, I think his point is that Manchester United's revenue contains large amounts of commercial sales based on previous success. I thought the UEFA rulings were trying to set wages/transfers at 70% of revenue, so even if Newcastle or Aston Villa want to lose £100m a year trying to bridge the gap they can't.

Effectively the changes create a cartel and cement the 'big 6'. Largely because of the commercial partnerships that the big 6 currently have, a glass ceiling gets created that other clubs can't break through. 

 

It's still a step in the right direction; ultimately, if the sport is seen to become less competitive and it decreases interest, then there will have to be reform to make it more competitive, as has happened in F1 with spending caps within the means of all teams. 

Edited May 7, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

13 hours ago, king canary said:

Yes we've had the discussion before so it's a touch frustrating to see you've still never actually understood my point.

I don't think it should be the wealth of the owner that determines position OR the size of the fanbase. At the moment at least a smaller club can dream of an owner coming in and changing their position. With the new rules it is essentially 'know your place peasants.' Personally I think clubs should all operate under the same financial restrictions and you shouldn't be entitled to a head start because you've got an 'official tire partner' or can sell 1m shirts in South East Asia.

As with the previous regulations, the new ones will simply embed the 'big' clubs position in each of the top divisions across Europe (in our case the top six). The impact will be felt most of all by those 'middly' clubs such as Leicester, West Ham etc. who will now find it more difficult than ever to break through and challenge those 6. But then that was the whole point - as it was with the previous regulations. The biggest clubs in Europe aren't going to agree to anything that is going to lead to their power being diminished.

If you really want to make the game fairer and more financially stable, you'd have to look at Champions League monies and much beyond, but it won't ever happen. I'm hopeful the Crouch report will help across the whole of our own league structure in terms of distribution of wealth, fan input and proper 'tests' for ownership of clubs. I'd also like to see outlawed this strange practice of buying a club by borrowing against it before you even own it, instantly landing the club with debt (which I believe is what happened to the Manchester Reds and Burnley). I can't get my head around how that is even allowed.

10 hours ago, Icecream Snow said:

Posted something similar before. I can't find the Swiss Ramble/Kieran Maguire version, but the numbers look feasible.

Without trying to put words into King Canary's mouth, I think his point is that Manchester United's revenue contains large amounts of commercial sales based on previous success. I thought the UEFA rulings were trying to set wages/transfers at 70% of revenue, so even if Newcastle or Aston Villa want to lose £100m a year trying to bridge the gap they can't.

Effectively the changes create a cartel and cement the 'big 6'. Largely because of the commercial partnerships that the big 6 currently have, a glass ceiling gets created that other clubs can't break through. 

 

Only just seen your post - pretty much the same as mine...although you've got a lovely graph! 👍

OTBC

[hertfordyellow 460]

14 hours ago, king canary said:

Yes we've had the discussion before so it's a touch frustrating to see you've still never actually understood my point.

I don't think it should be the wealth of the owner that determines position OR the size of the fanbase. At the moment at least a smaller club can dream of an owner coming in and changing their position. With the new rules it is essentially 'know your place peasants.' Personally I think clubs should all operate under the same financial restrictions and you shouldn't be entitled to a head start because you've got an 'official tire partner' or can sell 1m shirts in South East Asia.

You keep saying new rules coming in, which rules are these sorry? Are you referring to the likely new regulator changes or the premiership proposals?

[hertfordyellow 460]

To be honest, I’m not really concentrating on the top six, I’m more concerned with the bottom 10. The 70% wage cap is important to us because there are plenty of rivals that will have to downsize their overspending making us closer to their level. Brighton, Everton are obvious examples. 90%+ for both at the moment.

[essex canary 491]

The beauty of football was that David could beat Goliath. The tragedy is it can't happen anymore.

Perhaps though the lesser clubs in the Premier League should come up with some solutions of their own. How about

1. Campaign for TV subscriptions to be distributed according to the home region of the subscriber rather than by league.

2. Create a European competition for the remaining top league clubs in the big leagues. This will get more fixtures for the lesser clubs in the top divisions, create more tourism, a new broadcasting and promotional opportunity and maybe deflect away from Sky or BT sport subscriptions.

 

[cornish sam 944]

17 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The beauty of football was that David could beat Goliath. The tragedy is it can't happen anymore.

Perhaps though the lesser clubs in the Premier League should come up with some solutions of their own. How about

1. Campaign for TV subscriptions to be distributed according to the home region of the subscriber rather than by league.

2. Create a European competition for the remaining top league clubs in the big leagues. This will get more fixtures for the lesser clubs in the top divisions, create more tourism, a new broadcasting and promotional opportunity and maybe deflect away from Sky or BT sport subscriptions.

 

Admirable, but:

1. How would TV money for international rights be split and that would also concentrate the monies in the metropolitan areas. Yes it would be good for us but it would be bad for a club like Burnley who have so many other clubs nearby.

2. There is already little money to be made from being in the Europa League unless you get to the final stages, it would add an unnecessary expense on the smaller teams who also don't have the depth in squads to be able to sustain the additional travel and matches. At least if only the big clubs are in European competition then it puts extra strain on squads and resources to give a slight advantage to underdogs...

[Badger 2,405]

12 hours ago, Icecream Snow said:

Without trying to put words into King Canary's mouth, I think his point is that Manchester United's revenue contains large amounts of commercial sales based on previous success. I thought the UEFA rulings were trying to set wages/transfers at 70% of revenue, so even if Newcastle or Aston Villa want to lose £100m a year trying to bridge the gap they can't.

Effectively the changes create a cartel and cement the 'big 6'. Largely because of the commercial partnerships that the big 6 currently have, a glass ceiling gets created that other clubs can't break through. 

The simple fact is that Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham will be part of the big four, five, six, seven or whatever whether they change the rules or not or even if they don't have rules at all. Their strength is underpinned by very large stadiums and huge brand names that make them attractive to sponsors around the world and enables them to generate huge revenues regardless of the rules. These revenues generally allows them to perform well and therefore attain Champions League places to gain extra revenue.

Those at most risk of not being in the the Big whatever are those clubs whose owners bought their success - Chelsea and Manchester City, who previous to their ownership changes were more mid-ranking teams. Chelsea in particular will find it hard to compete without their £900,000 a week subsidy as they don't generate enough income through the gate. They also face a big challenge to player trading revenues (which has been highly profitable to them) due to the changes coming in over loaning players.

I think that it is perfectly possible that West Ham and Newcastle could break into a Big whatever with the 70% rule because their grounds allow huge crowds which will generate huge revenues which over time, can eat away at the advantages that Chelsea and Man City currently. The biggest threat to this is not the 70% rule, but the coefficient rule that has been introduced to make it easier for clubs that have done well in Europe previously to qualify if their league position doesn't merit it. The coefficient rule has been slipped in quietly and I suspect that over time it will be expanded to ensure that the likes of Manchester United qualify for the Champions League every year even if not in the top 4. In effect they are moving to the Super league in stages.

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, hertfordyellow said:

To be honest, I’m not really concentrating on the top six, I’m more concerned with the bottom 10. The 70% wage cap is important to us because there are plenty of rivals that will have to downsize their overspending making us closer to their level. Brighton, Everton are obvious examples. 90%+ for both at the moment.

I looked at pontificated on this in another thread - I think that the 70% rule will make us a yo yo club 😀 (Size of ground; average gate etc).

[hertfordyellow 460]

22 minutes ago, Badger said:

I looked at pontificated on this in another thread - I think that the 70% rule will make us a yo yo club 😀 (Size of ground; average gate etc).

I personally think it brings clubs closer to us giving us a better chance of staying up. While at the same time making others further above us.

[Badger 2,405]

18 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

I personally think it brings clubs closer to us giving us a better chance of staying up. While at the same time making others further above us.

A few clubs above become closer (although contrary to widespread belief, they are not all highly subsidised). On the other hand, some of those below us become closer too - Forest, Sunderland, Wednesday, Derby. Some of these clubs are only outside the top tier for so long because they are paying the price of having owners who "went for it." We will over time so of the advantages we have gained through prudent financial management, particularly if, as seems likely, parachute payments are limited.

[king canary 7,578]

12 hours ago, Icecream Snow said:

Posted something similar before. I can't find the Swiss Ramble/Kieran Maguire version, but the numbers look feasible.

Without trying to put words into King Canary's mouth, I think his point is that Manchester United's revenue contains large amounts of commercial sales based on previous success. I thought the UEFA rulings were trying to set wages/transfers at 70% of revenue, so even if Newcastle or Aston Villa want to lose £100m a year trying to bridge the gap they can't.

Effectively the changes create a cartel and cement the 'big 6'. Largely because of the commercial partnerships that the big 6 currently have, a glass ceiling gets created that other clubs can't break through. 

 

Yes exactly but it isn't just at the top level.

In the Premier League it's quite extreme as the prize money and the Champions League money create a loop that is tough to break- higher revenue leads to higher finishes which leads to more revenue so more spending power so higher finishes and on and on we go.

In the Championship right now the top teams have revenue approaching £60m (Fulham, Bournemouth, West Brom etc) while the smallest teams are nearer £12-15m (Preston, Luton etc). So these new rules enshrine that a top team gets to have a budget of 4 or 5 times the lower teams. Even if parachute payments get renegotiated you've still got teams with revenue north of £30m who can spend double those at the bottom.

It gets even worse in League One, where Sunderland have a reported revenue of around £30m and Sheffield Wednesday around £21m while the teams towards the bottom have revenue in the £4-5m mark, so again you've got clubs with 4 or 5 times the budget and that is enshrined in the rules.

My view is the single biggest issue in modern football is the lack of competitiveness caused by massive financial inequality. These rules at best don't address the issue and at worst actually increase the problem, with financial advantages locked in for clubs, often based on quirks of location and history, rather than anything the club has actually done.

It's highly unrealistic to expect a Preston or an Oxford to be able to expand their revenue to compete with teams with a locked in head start. I honestly dont get how anyone who cares about football as a competition can think these rules are good.

*posting this on a mobile so can't provide links for all my figures but they were generally found via Swiss ramble or similar.

[king canary 7,578]

41 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

I personally think it brings clubs closer to us giving us a better chance of staying up. While at the same time making others further above us.

The problem is parachute payments will likely be renegotiated and lessened as part of these rules, meaning staying up becomes even harder.