Mike Ashely and Delia Smith...

[Mister Chops 7]

There are parallels.  Reading Ashley''s statement, in which a few pieces jump out at me... excuse the block quoting but I think this is important:- - - - -I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20

million per year but no more. That was my bargain. I would make the

club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20

million a year into the club and not expect anything back. It has to be

realised that if I put £100 million into the club year in year out then

it would not be too long before I was cleaned out and a debt ridden

Newcastle United would find itself in the position that faced Leeds

United.

That is the nightmare for every fan. To love a club that overextends itself, that tries to spend what it can''t afford.

That will never happen to Newcastle when I am in charge. The

truth is that Newcastle could not sustain buying the Shevchenko''s,

Robinho''s or the Berbatov''s. These are recognised European footballers.

They have played in the European leagues and everyone knows about them.

They can be brilliant signings. But everybody knows that they are

brilliant and so they, and players like them, cost more than £30

million to buy before you even take into account agent commissions and

the multi-million pound wage deals.

My plan and my strategy for Newcastle is different. It has to

be. Arsenal is the shining example in England of a sustainable business

model. It takes time. It can''t be done overnight. Newcastle has

therefore set up an extensive scouting system. We look for young

players, for players in foreign leagues who everyone does not know

about. We try and stay ahead of the competition. We search high and low

looking for value, for potential that we can bring on and for players

who will allow Newcastle to compete at the very highest level but who

don''t cost the earth.

I have put Newcastle on a sound financial footing. It is reducing its

debt. It is spending within itself. It is recruiting exciting new

players and bringing in players for the future.

The fans want this process to happen more quickly and they want

huge amounts spent in the transfer market so that the club can compete

at the top table of European football now. I am not stupid and have

listened to the fans. I have really loved taking my kids to the games,

being next to them and all the fans. But I am now a dad who can''t take

his kids to a football game on a Saturday because I am advised that we

would be assaulted. Therefore, I am no longer prepared to subsidise

Newcastle United.

- - - - -

I have the interests of Newcastle United at heart. I have listened

to you. You want me out. That is what I am now trying to do but it

won''t happen overnight and it may not happen at all if a buyer does not

come in.

You don''t need to demonstrate against me again because I have

got the message. Any further action will only have an adverse effect on

the team. As fans of Newcastle United you need to spend your energy

getting behind, not me, but the players who need your support.

I am determined that Newcastle United is not only here today,

but that it is also there tomorrow for your children who stand beside

you at St James'' Park.

- - - - -I can''t help thinking that here is a man who is not only misunderstood, but who stumbled into football ownership without realising just what the fans expect in terms of an owner.  Clearly now he knows.  After ten years at the helm, do you think Delia has also realised some people demand her to chase an impossible dream on their behalf?

[Mister Chops 7]

*Ashley.Look at me, I can''t spell.

[macdougalls perm 0]

Yes, very similar. Makes the pace of change in the ''industry'' quite starkly apparent doesn''t it. When she took over, her level of wealth was about what was required to support a credible promotion push from this division. Now, it seems you have to be at the next level to even compete and, some would argue, stay in this league. I would imagine she has recognised these parallels herself.  

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]*Ashley.

Look at me, I can''t spell.

[/quote]

Have you sent your application off to Archant?

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="macdougalls perm"]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]*Ashley.Look at me, I can''t spell.[/quote]

Have you sent your application off to Archant?

[/quote]Yes, I hoep 2 get n interveew.

[Badger 0]

To be fair to Delia, it has changed quite recently. On 5 live they were talking about how Jack Walker bought the title (in 95?) with 30 million - today it will get you a player! The old style of Chairs were richish local businessmen (e.g. Sir Arthur South) increasingly now it is the domain of the mega rich.

Somebody made an interesting point on here the other day about the "Charlton model" being dead. I don''t know if that is true. what is more likely is that there will be a top strata of clubs that are toys for the mega rich + a group of others that struggle behind trying to compete.

There''s part of me that wants to enjoy the glory of having tens of millions to spend on the team. Equally, there''s part of me that thinks that it can''t be sustainable. What happens when it is no longer fashionable?

I think I would prefer it if the top 6 to 10 franchise disappeared off into some form of European/ Global SuperLeague for the world TV market, leaving the rest of football to be a truly competitive, local, fan-based game.

[Camuldonum 0]

I fear very much for football unless the top teams do go off and form a Super League.  Otherwise the financial imbalance will just get worse and worse and dripfeed, as it is already doing, right down to League Two.

If it carries on as it is even well established clubs with a big fan base like Norwich City will suffer and the smaller clubs in League One/Two will be very, very lucky just to stay in business.  Things are bad enough as they are - Bury v Lincoln Saturday, Bury unbeaten with a great start to the season: attendance 2663 (358 of those from Lincoln) - clearly not much fun being "another club" in Greater Manchester at the moment.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]- - - - -

After ten years at the helm, do you think Delia has also realised some people demand her to chase an impossible dream on their behalf?


[/quote]

Which begs the question: what is an "impossible dream" for Norwich City?

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

I fear very much for football unless the top teams do go off and form a Super League.  Otherwise the financial imbalance will just get worse and worse and dripfeed, as it is already doing, right down to League Two.

If it carries on as it is even well established clubs with a big fan base like Norwich City will suffer and the smaller clubs in League One/Two will be very, very lucky just to stay in business.  Things are bad enough as they are - Bury v Lincoln Saturday, Bury unbeaten with a great start to the season: attendance 2663 (358 of those from Lincoln) - clearly not much fun being "another club" in Greater Manchester at the moment.

[/quote]

I agree with this Cam. I don''t believe the problem is the financial imbalance as such, to me the problem is the connection between the Premiership and the Football League. That''s what causes the knock on effect down through the divisions and puts so many clubs in danger.

Norwich sell out their ground virtually every game but I believe our gate receipts are around 8m. There are 6 clubs in our league this season with 12m in parachute money. Clubs need outside investment to compete and some get it. It''s dangerous because those clubs are living way beyond their means. It''s crazy because only 3 clubs will be promoted. The rest have to find that money all over again next season. It can''t carry on, in the end football has to sustain itself.

Who do I blame? If anyone, the FA. League football was always under one governing body but then in the early 90''s clubs got greedy and didn''t want to share the TV revenue with the rest of the football league. So they broke away and formed their own league. Yes clubs like us, Coventry and Southampton were to blame too because we went with them. But the FA were quite happy to put their name on this new venture. And the links remained with promotion and relegation back into the League. But then came the parachute payments and how is it fair that clubs are allowed back into the Football League being financed to such a big extent by another league?

The only cure I can see is to have a league with clubs owned by the richest people in the world as a stand alone league. They can go play their games in Dubai or Timbuktoo. They can afford the best players in the world and the games can be on their own TV channel for those who want it. Then the rest of us can have our football league back.

 

[LinkNR9 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

I fear very much for football unless the top teams do go off and form a Super League.  Otherwise the financial imbalance will just get worse and worse and dripfeed, as it is already doing, right down to League Two.

If it carries on as it is even well established clubs with a big fan base like Norwich City will suffer and the smaller clubs in League One/Two will be very, very lucky just to stay in business.  Things are bad enough as they are - Bury v Lincoln Saturday, Bury unbeaten with a great start to the season: attendance 2663 (358 of those from Lincoln) - clearly not much fun being "another club" in Greater Manchester at the moment.

[/quote]

I fear that you are right, Camul - football is dying on its ar*e and the ''real'' football club and supporter is being leeched out of the game by mega-rich individuals who treat a club as a play-thing. As a journalist, what is your opinion in Sky''s part in all of this? 

[jetstream 0]

Hmm, you''re asking a former Sun journalist for his opinion on Sky TV?!

Remind who owns both organisations again?

It''s all very well Camul complaining about the knock-on effect to League Two but this whole process began with Sky pumping millions (and billions) into the Premiership and encouraging that ''breakaway'' league in the first place.

I think Camul was probably working for Mr Murdoch at the time.

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="jetstream"]Hmm, you''re asking a former Sun journalist for his opinion on Sky TV?!

Remind who owns both organisations again?

It''s all very well Camul complaining about the knock-on effect to League Two but this whole process began with Sky pumping millions (and billions) into the Premiership and encouraging that ''breakaway'' league in the first place.

I think Camul was probably working for Mr Murdoch at the time.[/quote]

I don''t think you can blame Sky TV for football''s problems. They are merely providing a service for which viewers can decide whether or not they want to subscribe for it. If you''re looking for blame rom that angle then surely it is more logical to blame the subscribers to the Sky service. And even then I wouldn''t agree with you that is where football''s problems lie.

What we''re seeing is football inflation taking place. There is a limited number of players available and a seemingly unlimited supply of money chasing the same pool of players.

Limiting the number of foreigners in the English game is not the answer either, because you end up restricting the supply of players and the same money will go chasing the smaller pool and football inflation will actually worsen and will kill off smaller clubs like Bury and Lincoln.

I think the money in the game will not decrease in the forseeable future. In fact, EPL is moving from fan-financed clubs (the past) through TV-money-financed clubs (the present) to Global-Brand-financed clubs. Man City is the first in a trend that will take over the EPL in the next five-ten years.

If you want to save small-time football then the key is to allocate this football wealth to the smaller clubs, down to grass roots amateur level. But it will take the merger of all the football authorities (FA, League, Premeriship etc.) into a single organsiation responsible for football from top to bottom.

Such an orgainsation could oversee the spending of footie money more equitably and ensure not only the survival of clbs such as Bury and Lincoln and the rest of us, but also the survival of institutions such as the FA Cup competition.

Of course the Top 4 will be against such an idea because we''re talking about diverting revenue that currently comes to them into smaller teams. And they might slink off to a European super league taking all this new wealth with them. One way to keep them in line might be to ban them from signing players registered with the new FA, effectively forcing them to sign foreign players only which might prove to be hugely expensive.

Problem as I see it, football will never heal itself while their are so many vested interests feeding at the trough while small clubs starve to death. It will take the government to step in and clean up the administration of football. What it will take to get them involved, I just don''t know.

[jetstream 0]

I wouldn''t disagree with any of that YH.

What I was saying was that part of the reason we are where we are now is Sky''s need to create a ''product'' to attract subscribers back in the early 90s. This meant they offered a huge sum of money to the First Division clubs (including - ironically - ourselves) to form a breakaway league.

We can ''blame'' Sky (hypocritical of me as a subscriber) and we can also blame the weakness of the FA who did not stop the Premier League establishing itself.

A fairer distribution of the EPL billions down the leagues would make the whole thing more palatable but the EPL is not going to do that voluntarily. As you say, legislation is probably required. However, as the FA is not a government body it is tricky to see on what basis any legislation could be made.

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

I fear very much for football unless the top teams do go off and form a Super League.  Otherwise the financial imbalance will just get worse and worse and dripfeed, as it is already doing, right down to League Two.

If it carries on as it is even well established clubs with a big fan base like Norwich City will suffer and the smaller clubs in League One/Two will be very, very lucky just to stay in business.  Things are bad enough as they are - Bury v Lincoln Saturday, Bury unbeaten with a great start to the season: attendance 2663 (358 of those from Lincoln) - clearly not much fun being "another club" in Greater Manchester at the moment.

[/quote]

I agree with this Cam. I don''t believe the problem is the financial imbalance as such, to me the problem is the connection between the Premiership and the Football League. That''s what causes the knock on effect down through the divisions and puts so many clubs in danger.

Norwich sell out their ground virtually every game but I believe our gate receipts are around 8m. There are 6 clubs in our league this season with 12m in parachute money. Clubs need outside investment to compete and some get it. It''s dangerous because those clubs are living way beyond their means. It''s crazy because only 3 clubs will be promoted. The rest have to find that money all over again next season. It can''t carry on, in the end football has to sustain itself.

Who do I blame? If anyone, the FA. League football was always under one governing body but then in the early 90''s clubs got greedy and didn''t want to share the TV revenue with the rest of the football league. So they broke away and formed their own league. Yes clubs like us, Coventry and Southampton were to blame too because we went with them. But the FA were quite happy to put their name on this new venture. And the links remained with promotion and relegation back into the League. But then came the parachute payments and how is it fair that clubs are allowed back into the Football League being financed to such a big extent by another league?

The only cure I can see is to have a league with clubs owned by the richest people in the world as a stand alone league. They can go play their games in Dubai or Timbuktoo. They can afford the best players in the world and the games can be on their own TV channel for those who want it. Then the rest of us can have our football league back.

 

[/quote]

This has been the aim from the start Nigel. I''m just surprised that it hasn''t happened already.

We will either get the top four or five clubs clearing off to a European Super League or a closed Premier League with about 16 clubs.

Teams of our size have no chance of figuring in either. Unless of course we find a Canary fancing billionaire.

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

I fear very much for football unless the top teams do go off and form a Super League.  Otherwise the financial imbalance will just get worse and worse and dripfeed, as it is already doing, right down to League Two.

If it carries on as it is even well established clubs with a big fan base like Norwich City will suffer and the smaller clubs in League One/Two will be very, very lucky just to stay in business.  Things are bad enough as they are - Bury v Lincoln Saturday, Bury unbeaten with a great start to the season: attendance 2663 (358 of those from Lincoln) - clearly not much fun being "another club" in Greater Manchester at the moment.

[/quote]Sorry Cam but I just don''t see how the

top sides forming a "Superleague" is going to redress the

financial imbalance because the money will simply go with them. 

We almost have a superleague now anyway. For me, the answer is far

more simple that.  "We" as a nation of football

watchers need to wrest back the days of being a football supporter

and not a football consumer.

Back in 2006 (shortly after Sky

obtained the rights to test Cricket and Prem Plus was around) I was

flicking through my Sky channels and decided to watch the Sunday

Match on SS1. It was a real turgid game between Bolton and (I think)

Charlton and after watching 90 minutes or pure rubbish it just dawned

on me that I had paid to watch it.  What really hurt was that I

had absolutely no affinity for either team on display and yet I had

paid to see them serve up the football equivalent of watching paint

dry.  It would not have been worth watching had it been on the

BBC for free.  The next day I rang up Sky and cancelled my

Sports pack and have never regretted it.  I realised that I

might see two of City''s away games in a season at most yet I was

paying for 12 months of football I had no interest in.  In stead

I decided to start going to away matches and I think I have missed

about 7 away league games in that time.Anyway my point about

waffling on about cancelling the Sky subscription is this.  If

everybody said no to Sky sports, if everybody said no to Setanta and

Canaries World and text updates and all the other toss that you do

not actually need to spend money to support "your team"

then finances in football would redress pretty swiftly because the

money would simply not be there.  Let''s be fair the only reason

football "needs" so much money is because of ridiculous

wages and abhorrent transfer fees. 

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]There are parallels.  Reading Ashley''s statement, in which a few pieces jump out at me... excuse the block quoting but I think this is important:

- - - - -
I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year but no more. That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back. It has to be realised that if I put £100 million into the club year in year out then it would not be too long before I was cleaned out and a debt ridden Newcastle United would find itself in the position that faced Leeds United.

That is the nightmare for every fan. To love a club that overextends itself, that tries to spend what it can''t afford.

That will never happen to Newcastle when I am in charge. The truth is that Newcastle could not sustain buying the Shevchenko''s, Robinho''s or the Berbatov''s. These are recognised European footballers. They have played in the European leagues and everyone knows about them. They can be brilliant signings. But everybody knows that they are brilliant and so they, and players like them, cost more than £30 million to buy before you even take into account agent commissions and the multi-million pound wage deals.

My plan and my strategy for Newcastle is different. It has to be. Arsenal is the shining example in England of a sustainable business model. It takes time. It can''t be done overnight. Newcastle has therefore set up an extensive scouting system. We look for young players, for players in foreign leagues who everyone does not know about. We try and stay ahead of the competition. We search high and low looking for value, for potential that we can bring on and for players who will allow Newcastle to compete at the very highest level but who don''t cost the earth.

I have put Newcastle on a sound financial footing. It is reducing its debt. It is spending within itself. It is recruiting exciting new players and bringing in players for the future.

The fans want this process to happen more quickly and they want huge amounts spent in the transfer market so that the club can compete at the top table of European football now. I am not stupid and have listened to the fans. I have really loved taking my kids to the games, being next to them and all the fans. But I am now a dad who can''t take his kids to a football game on a Saturday because I am advised that we would be assaulted. Therefore, I am no longer prepared to subsidise Newcastle United.

- - - - -

I have the interests of Newcastle United at heart. I have listened to you. You want me out. That is what I am now trying to do but it won''t happen overnight and it may not happen at all if a buyer does not come in.

You don''t need to demonstrate against me again because I have got the message. Any further action will only have an adverse effect on the team. As fans of Newcastle United you need to spend your energy getting behind, not me, but the players who need your support.

I am determined that Newcastle United is not only here today, but that it is also there tomorrow for your children who stand beside you at St James'' Park.

- - - - -

I can''t help thinking that here is a man who is not only misunderstood, but who stumbled into football ownership without realising just what the fans expect in terms of an owner.  Clearly now he knows.  After ten years at the helm, do you think Delia has also realised some people demand her to chase an impossible dream on their behalf?


[/quote]

Oh bugger! I almost agree with Mr Chops now!

I have been thinking on the same lines now since the whole Geordie fiasco started. Here is a club, like City, who have sell out crowds, and Ashley is saying, things must be ok because the ground is full every game.

All this does sound familiar, remember Skipper''s quote during the ''Worthy Out'' days that protestors are like the people who beat up nurses?....thats akin to Ashley saying Toon fans would attack his kids!

The sooner the woman  is gone the better.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Badger"]

To be fair to Delia, it has changed quite recently. On 5 live they were talking about how Jack Walker bought the title (in 95?) with 30 million - today it will get you a player! The old style of Chairs were richish local businessmen (e.g. Sir Arthur South) increasingly now it is the domain of the mega rich.

[/quote]

What annoys me when people say Blackburn brought the title, Chelsea brought the title ete etc, it tends to come from man utd quarters especially Fergie who has actually been buying or trying to buy the title since he was there. Look up how many times he broke the clubs transfer record or even the british one. From the Wallaces to the Berbatovs its been going on years, man utd have always spent the most in my years and nobody batters an eyelid but as soon as someone else does it fergie throws his toys out of the pram. You should have seen the redness in his face when he was asked what he thought of man Citys new spending power.

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="jetstream"]Hmm, you''re asking a former Sun journalist for his opinion on Sky TV?! Remind who owns both organisations again? It''s all very well Camul complaining about the knock-on effect to League Two but this whole process began with Sky pumping millions (and billions) into the Premiership and encouraging that ''breakaway'' league in the first place. I think Camul was probably working for Mr Murdoch at the time.[/quote]

The fault, for me, lies in two areas and it''s moot who is most to blame I think.  Murdoch/Sky for dreaming up the idea or the FA for agreeing to it?  My understanding is that originally, at least, it was based on the American TV model.

Once clubs agreed to it - and Norwich were but one, I think - it became a fait accompli.  It was sold as a crock of gold and for some fortunate clubs it has probably proved to be so but in recent years there have been enough warnings for the FA to look at the structure again but their committment these days appears to be solely to the Premier League - hence the recent "bright idea" of having a 39th game played abroad to rope in even more money.

Talking of crocks of gold it looks like a bad day to be in either the insurance or mortgage business whether that be Norwich Union/Aviva, Mr and Mrs Turner or Mr Cullum:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7615931.stm

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="jetstream"]I wouldn''t disagree with any of that YH.

What I was saying was that part of the reason we are where we are now is Sky''s need to create a ''product'' to attract subscribers back in the early 90s. This meant they offered a huge sum of money to the First Division clubs (including - ironically - ourselves) to form a breakaway league.

We can ''blame'' Sky (hypocritical of me as a subscriber) and we can also blame the weakness of the FA who did not stop the Premier League establishing itself.

A fairer distribution of the EPL billions down the leagues would make the whole thing more palatable but the EPL is not going to do that voluntarily. As you say, legislation is probably required. However, as the FA is not a government body it is tricky to see on what basis any legislation could be made.[/quote]

You are right Jetstream that the government is unlikely to get involved, it''s just that I can''t see where an independent body will come in and setup a fairer system that will benefit all levels of football.

The financial imbalance between the Top 4 and the rest is that clubs such as Newcastle and Everton are feeling the strain - two sides who you''d expect to be breaking into the top level. So if the Geordies are unable to compete, despite their large crowds then what chance do clubs such as Norwich or Colchester have?

I guess its a question of what kind of club you want to support. One that is a global brand with the best players in the world featuring where supporters are just a colourful backdrop for the cameras, or one that exists on a shoestring budget with part-time local players but whose supporters are an integral part of the club?

Yankee Canary described the traditional type of supporter as the ''dinosaurs'', but he was right enough because football is changing out of all recognition to even just a few years ago, and a different brand of football is emerging.

Where do we want NCFC to be in that?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="ricardo"]

This has been the aim from the start Nigel. I''m just surprised that it hasn''t happened already.

We will either get the top four or five clubs clearing off to a European Super League or a closed Premier League with about 16 clubs.

Teams of our size have no chance of figuring in either. Unless of course we find a Canary fancing billionaire.

[/quote]

Even if we find that billionaire we have no chance of competing in that league Ricky. The only chance we would have would be if we were owned by a billionaire, became another franchise FC and moved to Dubai or wherever. And this statement is not as ridiculous as it may appear. Premier League football is now on a world stage. They are already considering playing extra games all over the world.

If the stand alone league happened would there be two clubs from Manchester in it? Of course not. Manchester United would be the first team in it whether it was restricted to this country, Europe or World wide. So what would the new owners of Manchester City have to do to get entry? Could Man. City be the next Franchise FC? The FA wouldn''t stop it. The Football League tried twice to stop Wimbledon moving to Milton Keynes but the in the end FA''s decision was binding.

I don''t blame Sky for the state of our football now, I don''t blame the subscribers and I don''t blame the big clubs. I blame the FA, the most powerful governing body in the game but too lily-livered to do anything about it.

 

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="macdougalls perm"]Yes, very similar. Makes the pace of change in the ''industry'' quite starkly apparent doesn''t it. When she took over, her level of wealth was about what was required to support a credible promotion push from this division. Now, it seems you have to be at the next level to even compete and, some would argue, stay in this league. I would imagine she has recognised these parallels herself.  [/quote]exactly - we went from a local builder, to a local millionaire and now we need a billionaire!!!but the prem brings in £60m to clubs each year, and looks likely to deliver £80-100m per year in 2011...maybe £120m, else why is every super rich geezer beating a path to the prem???in the last 5 years the prem has mushroomed into the best and richest league in the world...such is our dominence, it could be we see the champs league final between one of the prem top four each season???mad eh???

[Syteanric 1]

The bubble has finally burst for Newcastle.... within 5 years they will be a championship club.... they arent as big as the fans think they are...

A mid table-bottom half side at best who havent got within a whiff of any kind of success in years..... Even Spurs have enjoyed more regularly.

jas :)

[Nuff Said 5,089]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="Badger"]

To be fair to Delia, it has changed quite recently. On 5 live they were talking about how Jack Walker bought the title (in 95?) with 30 million - today it will get you a player! The old style of Chairs were richish local businessmen (e.g. Sir Arthur South) increasingly now it is the domain of the mega rich.

[/quote]

What annoys me when people say Blackburn brought the title, Chelsea brought the title ete etc, it tends to come from man utd quarters especially Fergie who has actually been buying or trying to buy the title since he was there. Look up how many times he broke the clubs transfer record or even the british one. From the Wallaces to the Berbatovs its been going on years, man utd have always spent the most in my years and nobody batters an eyelid but as soon as someone else does it fergie throws his toys out of the pram. You should have seen the redness in his face when he was asked what he thought of man Citys new spending power.

[/quote]"Nobody batters an eyelid" ??!!?? Remind me never to accept fish and chips from you [+o(]

[Koreacanary 0]

I don''t think Mike Ashley is naive , I don''t think you achieve the amount of business success the man has by being wet behind the ears , obviously football is a different entity compared to selling sports wear but I think most people who know a smidge about modern football know that owning a football club is an investment made out of love rather than business nous. He bemoans the amount of money that he''s forked out and will continue to fork out as if buying Newcastle was somehow forced upon him. One can draw parallels there with Delia Smith who in the past has made similar comments "if you can find anyone stupid enough to invest millions without seeing anything back... etc".My problem with Delia Smith is based around half truths and misleading statements that she has given to Norwich fans particularly in the last few months of being at the helm of Norwich City and the same can be said for many Newcastle fans , their problem hasn''t been based on a lack of huge sums for players but based more directly on Kevin Keegan being undermined by a director of football and a boardroom that clearly never trusted or rated him.Its a really good point you make , Mr.Chops, but I would argue that in many quarters at both Norwich and Newcastle fans become disillusioned and frustrated when they feel their club is being run poorly or for the ends of back slappers and glad handers.

[yellow hammer 0]

The EPL is well on its way to being the world''s most dominant sporting event (outside the World Cup and Olympics). It''s no where near yet a bubble about to burst, but will continue to grow into something far richer than it is now.

I live outside the UK and travel extensively in Asia, Middle East and Africa. And you can be in the remotest and poorest parts of the world but everyone knows about English Premier League.

In Asia millions of pounds are gambled each week on EPL games, the back pages of the newspaper cover the English game before even the local leagues, TV sport channels feature EPL as their main programmes. Because so many people gamble they are incredibly well-informed about the minutiate of the game in England, and I''m often caught out by some local knowing more about latest transfers than I do. Even though it is three years since we were in the Premiership there are very few people who don''t know about NCFC, our colours, and our nickname. In China the Canaries are know as the little communist bird. It always gets a laugh from the locals. Note to Neil: this could be a marketing opportunity.

It''s not just Sky TV that finances football but other TV companies buy the rights for other countries. On a Saturday evening in Asia I can watch half a dozen live EPL games on different channels and the kickoff times mean that football provides a continous stream of Saturday night entertainment for blokes all the way from Saudi Arabia to Shanghai.

For this reason, I don''t think the Top 4 will join a European super league. Outside the hardcore football fan, few people are interested in European style football. They enjoy the high tempo, physical but generally fair nature of English football.

But I do think that games will eventually be played outside the country, perhaps in some new EPL cup competition, which will see the Premiership teams withdrawing from the League Cup and possibly the FA Cup.

[whoareyou? 0]

I think some of the Premier League bubble is about to burst. XL go bust taking the West Ham owners bank for a huge amount, so much so he has to underwrite the debt personally. West Ham have lost £5 million in shirt sponsorship. In their match at the weekend v West Brom, neither they nor West Brom had shirt sponsors! When did you last see that?

AIG ManUre''s sponsors are now in deep do-do too and may follow Lehamn Bros into administration. AIG , i think, may also have provided a lot of funding to the Glaziers to buy out the club!!

Liverpool have had to put their new stadium on hold as they cannot raise the finance!

Do you see a trend starting here? Maybe the credit crunch does have a benefit after all!

 

Did anyone else notice that some of the sponsorship hoardings at the Liverpoll-Man U game at the weekend were in arabic? How long before the english supporter is alienated for good?

[Sparkos 0]

In response to your question about the West Brom V West Ham game at the weekend, this was actually a record as it was the first game to be played in the history of the premiership without either team having shirt sponsors!

[A Load of Squit 5,130]

[quote] user="whoareyou?"]

Did anyone else notice that some of the sponsorship hoardings at the Liverpoll-Man U game at the weekend were in arabic? How long before the english supporter is alienated for good?

[/quote]

Nothing new on this one, years ago when games were broadcast live to Scandanavia the advertising was full of wierd names, my favourite was Hagesund Stagblad.

 

[Carrow89 0]

"  Let''s be fair the only reason

football "needs" so much money is because of ridiculous

wages and abhorrent transfer fees. "Afraid not, that''s the tail wagging the dog. High wages are there because the money is coming in. It is the simpletons who will happily pay for all the nonsense that is offered that subsequently allows for the high wages.Thankfully the bubble has burst. Sponsors and backers may withdraw but the main problem will come from those areas that have seen clubs acquired through debt based on supposed guaranteed returns. A whisper been heard that sky has suffered over the failure of not providing the England game live. Crowd figures may appear high but far far more are low priced kids tickets. Fine if you believe that they will convert to adult season tickets later, but they don''t. When the club''s incomes drop cuts will come somewhere. Expect the sh*t to hit the fan* around mid spring 2009.A look round at Carrow Road and you''ll see far less fans who have actually played the game. So many of those I knew were regulars have stopped going and get their fix at local football. How long will the fair weather fans stay with the club. A City fan for live but not necessarily for routinely handing over your dosh.We''re doomed (football that is)

* not mad jig up too his usual antics 

[yellow+green 0]

Totally agree chops

mind you if Ashely gets the price he asks he will double his money in a year