Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
missing in action?

just a thought

Recommended Posts

how bad is our financial position.bad, but how bad is it compared to others?green=healthy clubred=financially in debtblack=neutral, surviving.barnsley- still recovering from administration, spending about 750k a year. attendences are around 12,000blackpool- owned by a rich russian who doesnt seem to put any money into club, old and rusty ground, spending 300kbristol city- currently facing uncertainty, being taken over? spending very little money atm.burnley- owned by a fan of burnley, no money spent but doing better than ourselves.Cardiff- 30m debt, trying to move grounds, high wages, small ground currently.charlton- recently asked the group that found abramovich to help them find investors, losing 2m a year.colchester united- suprisingly efficient, low wages and a new ground on the way ensuring maintenance and attendences will help them financially.Coventry- 32m in debt, looking at investment, 20,000 crowds and a new ground. no real assets in squad though.Crystal palace- 17,000 crowds, a tyrant chairman and a lack of investment coming in, selhurst becoming increasingly dilapidated.Hull- recently taken over, no real investment as of yet. and quite low attendences, do share a ground with hull kr so some financial pressure lifted.ipswich- taken over by a gun merchant, 12m investment and 32m wiped off debt, ipswich with money buy dumb players though, finidi george and serini spring to mind.Leicester- 25m takeover by milan mandaric, plenty of money, but managers are changed like bed sheets.Norwich- 17/18m debt, own ground. and turners lay in wait.plymouth- 3 sided ground, not huge investment, 750k spent each year, great pasties.Preston- 17,000 crowds and a steady income, losing 1m a season, usually covered by gems like nugent.QPR-20m takeover by flavio briatorre and ecclestone, low crowds and a wasteful manager. how much will they want to spend?Scunthorpe- A reasonably small ground but very efficiently run, colchester-esque although no new ground planned.Sheffield united- recently bought a stake in ferencvaros in hungary and secured a 10m loan for the season as well as parachute payments.Sheffield wednesday- old stadium, good fanbase but struggling financially losing 2m a year.Southampton- sold walcott, bale, jones and set to lose surman and dyer due to financial implications and could still end up in adminstration anyway.Stoke- a team that gambled a lot last season by getting prem players on loan, the gamble didnn''t work so they will struggle financially this year. (having spent chadwick&rusty money on cort.Watford- small ground, looking to move, profitable academy but majority of money covers the overheads and isn''t for transfers. Ashley young, bouazza and parachute money will ensure stability for now.West brom- large stadium, financially profitable, good assets in squad also parachute payments+camara, koumas money makes a huge kitty.Wolves- bought out for a pound by a man called morgan,  promises new investment, a large stadium and a reasonable turn out.overall : watford, wolves, west brom, sheffield united, scunthorpe, QPR, preston, Leicester and colchester are better financially than ourselves, but then that means nothing as investment isn''t guaranteed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
plymouth have no debt, and therefore despite not having the greatest turnovers they are suriviving... i''m pretty sure the ground has four sides as well although three sides are new and one is from the old home park, i''m fairly sure they had to replace their terracing over the summer but pretty sure the seating is all in place now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does this all mean? From my perspective I have and will continue to believe that money is only one aspect of a succeful football team and club. Long term success is more reliable if based on people and passion involved than cash which can soon dissapear. The sheer belief that cash is the main ingrediant for success is founded on little more than greed and the occasional success story a la Blackburn in early 90''s. Of course the bigger clubs spend more money but I for one would much rather support a team of people motivated by personal and team success than financial rewards. Just look at Mr Drogba''s recent comments on being disgusted at himself when signing for Chelsea just for the money. This man clearly has no moral standards and even if he is prolofic in goal scoring he is not a person to whom I would like to be a role model within our community. This is an issue that has long annoyed me for I still retain belief in the romance of football and our short dalliance in the Premier League was enjoyable for so many reasons but it did leave a sour taste in my mouth. The sheer fact that many fans sing songs based on how much money they have or the size of their attendances is wrong to my mind, and smacks of playground bullying. I can say truthfully that at present I would far rather be a Colchester fan than a Chelsea on e at present for their success is built on the philosophies of honesty, determination and belief in people, something which cancerous people such as Kenyon, Mandaric, Drogba, Risdale et al can only aspire to.

 

Thanks for reading and remeber its only an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bristol City paid £1m for Lee Trundle in the summer so not doing too badly.  Have you researched the list or are you just using educated guesswork.  Scunthorpe & Colchester I believe both struggle financially.

West Brom are probably the healthiest club in terms of finance in the division.  They had a trip down to league 1, didnt do them much harm long term did it.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...