The murky world of football finances

[vos 176]

Hearing the result of the Harry affair prompted me to look at recent history of Portsmouth FC as they are constantly running out of money. The wheeling and dealing which has been going on there looks like a guide on how to commit fraud. Numerous strange owners. They run in to trouble and then the same lot under another name buy it back again. Local creditors usually pick up the bills and the Club has not paid tax from time to time. Then it all repeats itself again.

This is of course typical of other Clubs and with it  now highlighted that some Managers receive a cut of the profit on transfer sales. I think this is plainly ridiculous. Firstly the player belonged to the Club, and they are usually desperate for money, but presumably when a fortune is lost the Club picks up the bill. All seems legitimate, but nice easy money if you can get it. A massive clean up of football finances is necessary, otherwise many Clubs will go bust.

Thank goodness we have had the likes of Delia, Robert Chase and Geoffrey Watling. On reflection they are/were too honest to be involved with football.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Fair points, all, vos.

 

But until such time as someone can prove to the powers that be that this sort of practice is ILLEGAL, as opposed to undesirable, or immoral, then I''m afraid it''s going to be pretty difficult to effect the sort of "clean up" that you want.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

The FFP rulings that UEFA have imposed should start to help clear things up a little - football clubs will start to be asked to produce much clearer and open accounts of their finacial actions.

 

As Eric''s pie man says, most of these things aren''t actually illegal. Some are very close to the edge, where as some are now normal practice but just sound a little shocking to those outside the game. For example, Harry''s deal about getting a % of the profit made on player sales is pretty common - many clubs have introduced this to promote managers bringing in young players and improving them (which will result in a profit from transfer fees). It''s well known that most managers last about 18 months, so without these little extras in their contracts they will go out and bring in players who will do well for 18 months, rather than trying to create a long term plan. Also bonuses in contracts rather than large wages means when a club needs to sack a manager, they contract is worth less and the club spends less on the severance money.

[The Fish Seller 0]

If the manager of  football club A had a player transfer profit clause in his contract and then purchased a player (John) but subsequently left the club before john was sold to take the position of manager at another club (club B) and then purchased John for club B paying more than club A had paid for him hence realising club A a profit:a)Is it normal that the profit clause would still be met?b)Is it or has it ever been the case that it is  met but in such a way that it is disguised from the non cogniscienti eg by making payment through inflated agents fees or heaven forbid offshore accounts.c)Is it the case that b is believed to occur, possibly frequently and particularly with certain managers, agents and "advisors" but has yet to be proven?

[NWC 315]

Would I be right in saying its not just football finance that is murky, but most big business and/or institutions in general - unfortunately :(

[vos 176]

Yes NWC I would agree. You can easily add politicians, members of the House of Lords etc.

What gets me is this business of the manager on a very high salary and loads of perks obtaining a share of the profit on transfer sales. However if he makes a loss, and there are plenty of them, then the Club i.e. the supporters in effect pick up the bill. Someone suggested that as the managers had on occasions via their expertise considerably improved certain player''s skills they had earned a bonus. So far as I can see that is just part of their basic job. I know, I am getting old.