Bury in bother

[cumbrianmackem]

Report on BBC website that Burys game next weekend against MK Dons will be suspended as the EFL have given them until noon on Monday to secure their financial commitments.
Along with Bolton they start the season on minus 12 points so that's only the other 21 clubs to worry us promotion wise

 

[marcusblackcat]

Stark reality of lower leagues. Caused partly by the explosion of cash in the top leagues with so little filtering down. I put up a calculation a couple of seasons ago which multiplied the cash to lower league clubs by 3 or 4 and only took 2-3 million from each premier league club. And the prem clubs all still came out with 80m plus each at the time. Been said before but the rich will keep getting richer and **** everyone else. The premier league cares only about itself.

 

[Nads]

Stark reality of lower leagues. Caused partly by the explosion of cash in the top leagues with so little filtering down. I put up a calculation a couple of seasons ago which multiplied the cash to lower league clubs by 3 or 4 and only took 2-3 million from each premier league club. And the prem clubs all still came out with 80m plus each at the time. Been said before but the rich will keep getting richer and **** everyone else. The premier league cares only about itself.

It does. But o fail to see the relevance.

The Premier League is a branded product, as are all football clubs. It’s up to whoever owns and runs them to make sure they have the financial capability and the nouse.

You wouldn’t see BMW chucking Nissan a few quid because they are struggling.

 

[marcusblackcat]

It does. But o fail to see the relevance.

The Premier League is a branded product, as are all football clubs. It’s up to whoever owns and runs them to make sure they have the financial capability and the nouse.

You wouldn’t see BMW chucking Nissan a few quid because they are struggling.

Think it’s more the sky thing I meant. Sky’s money is split fir all divisions and the amount of money that goes to those at the top makes everyone want to be there. They could reduce the tv rights money by a relatively minimal amount and up lower league clubs income relatively massively.

 

[Nads]

Think it’s more the sky thing I meant. Sky’s money is split fir all divisions and the amount of money that goes to those at the top makes everyone want to be there. They could reduce the tv rights money by a relatively minimal amount and up lower league clubs income relatively massively.

Yeah they could do that, but the facts are the advertising revenue from the Premier League is what allows Sky to show it and more importantly to develop new technologies.

It’s a form of supply and demand really, Premier League clubs make money for the league, they make money for sponsors, they make money across the board. I’d love to see the idealistic world where it was spread but much as we all hate it, football, like everything else on earth, is a commercial business.

You’ve only to look at Bournemouth and Brighton to see that it can be done if a club is well ran and managed. Bournemouth don’t get nearly enough credit as a glowing beacon of a wonderfully run football club.

 

[RLB's Beautiful Face]

Yeah they could do that, but the facts are the advertising revenue from the Premier League is what allows Sky to show it and more importantly to develop new technologies.

It’s a form of supply and demand really, Premier League clubs make money for the league, they make money for sponsors, they make money across the board. I’d love to see the idealistic world where it was spread but much as we all hate it, football, like everything else on earth, is a commercial business.

You’ve only to look at Bournemouth and Brighton to see that it can be done if a club is well ran and managed. Bournemouth don’t get nearly enough credit as a glowing beacon of a wonderfully run football club.

I hate this "plucky little Bournemouth" myth, they're one of the highest spending clubs in the entire world...

https://www.football365.com/news/eu...nds-since-2015-bournemouth-leapfrog-liverpool

 

[Nads]

I hate this "plucky little Bournemouth" myth, they're one of the highest spending clubs in the entire world...

https://www.football365.com/news/eu...nds-since-2015-bournemouth-leapfrog-liverpool

I’m not referring to their spending, they have spent money they have earned, they spent well within FFP and have an owner who is far from rich on a level of the top sides.

They have small sponsorship, low kit deal and a small stadium.

They recruit superbly, they spend, yeah, but very wisely. They also pick up unheralded players and make them better, and rarely are forced to sell.

Add to that a young English manager and the fact they play attractive football, and I 100% stand by my statement.

I never called them plucky, I called them a magnificently run club. They are exactly that.

As a point of note, £151 million over 4 years for a Premier League club is around £39 million a season, with minimal major sales. That’s supremely impressive and far, far from excessive.

That’s ‘net spend’ and Liverpool’s was halved by Coutinho sale alone.

 

[RLB's Beautiful Face]

I’m not referring to their spending, they have spent money they have earned, they spent well within FFP and have an owner who is far from rich on a level of the top sides.

They have small sponsorship, low kit deal and a small stadium.

They recruit superbly, they spend, yeah, but very wisely. They also pick up unheralded players and make them better, and rarely are forced to sell.

Add to that a young English manager and the fact they play attractive football, and I 100% stand by my statement.

I never called them plucky, I called them a magnificently run club. They are exactly that.

As a point of note, £151 million over 4 years for a Premier League club is around £39 million a season, with minimal major sales. That’s supremely impressive and far, far from excessive.

That’s ‘net spend’ and Liverpool’s was halved by Coutinho sale alone.

Sorry, the "plucky little Bournemouth" bit wasn't aimed at you, but it's a line I've seen trotted out a fair bit, for some reason a lot of people seem to be under the illusion that Bournemouth spend very little and are the "plucky underdogs" of the Prem, but it's far from true.

I agree they're fairly well run, but no moreso than the likes of Watford, Palace, Leicester, etc. imo. £40m net spend per year isn't small change by any means, nobody outside the big 6 + Everton comes close. The fact they have small sponsorship, a low kit deal, and little ticket revenue indicates they should actually be spending far less than other clubs?

I don't think they spend particularly well, either. If you scroll down on the link in my earlier post, there's a table of profit / loss on player sales in the Prem. Bournemouth are rock bottom.

The only thing they do particularly well as far as I can tell, is to keep the wage bill down, but that sort of comes back to their poor spending. You said yourself they make a minimal amount from player sales, it's because they spend big on average players, imo.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/afc-bournemouth/alletransfers/verein/989

£80m spent last year, and of those I would say the only one they could realistically hope to make a profit on if they sold now would be David Brooks. £25m on Lerma, £20m on Solanke, £16m on Ibe are crazy amounts and they've no hope of recuperating it imo.

Their owner basically gambled on buying their way out of the Championship and got lucky, they made a £40m operating loss in the year they got promoted, which isn't a million miles away from what Wolves did. The difference is Wolves had multi-billionaire owners to fall back on if it didn't work, whereas I think Bournemouth would have been in real trouble if they weren't promoted that year.

I can see it all going pear-shaped within a few years if they're not careful, especially if they go back down. Their owner simply can't afford to pump another £50m in to try to buy promotion again.

 

[Nads]

Sorry, the "plucky little Bournemouth" bit wasn't aimed at you, but it's a line I've seen trotted out a fair bit, for some reason a lot of people seem to be under the illusion that Bournemouth spend very little and are the "plucky underdogs" of the Prem, but it's far from true.

I agree they're fairly well run, but no moreso than the likes of Watford, Palace, Leicester, etc. imo. £40m net spend per year isn't small change by any means, nobody outside the big 6 + Everton comes close. The fact they have small sponsorship, a low kit deal, and little ticket revenue indicates they should actually be spending far less than other clubs?

I don't think they spend particularly well, either. If you scroll down on the link in my earlier post, there's a table of profit / loss on player sales in the Prem. Bournemouth are rock bottom.

The only thing they do particularly well as far as I can tell, is to keep the wage bill down, but that sort of comes back to their poor spending. You said yourself they make a minimal amount from player sales, it's because they spend big on average players, imo.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/afc-bournemouth/alletransfers/verein/989

£80m spent last year, and of those I would say the only one they could realistically hope to make a profit on if they sold now would be David Brooks. £25m on Lerma, £20m on Solanke, £16m on Ibe are crazy amounts and they've no hope of recuperating it imo.

Their owner basically gambled on buying their way out of the Championship and got lucky, they made a £40m operating loss in the year they got promoted, which isn't a million miles away from what Wolves did. The difference is Wolves had multi-billionaire owners to fall back on if it didn't work, whereas I think Bournemouth would have been in real trouble if they weren't promoted that year.

I can see it all going pear-shaped within a few years if they're not careful, especially if they go back down. Their owner simply can't afford to pump another £50m in to try to buy promotion again.

But they have bought well, as they have comfortably stayed in the Premier League. It really is that simple.

And £40million net spend on a guaranteed minimum income of £172 million from the TV deal alone, doesn’t look like a recipe for disaster to me.

The Solanke price is madness, I’ll give you that.

 

[RLB's Beautiful Face]

But they have bought well, as they have comfortably stayed in the Premier League. It really is that simple.

And £40million net spend on a guaranteed minimum income of £172 million from the TV deal alone, doesn’t look like a recipe for disaster to me.

The Solanke price is madness, I’ll give you that.

I guess, but then I think they've been carried a bit by Fraser (£400k), Wilson (£3m), and King (free), who all came in before they started spending silly money. That's when they were being run well, and I wish they'd stuck with that model. Since then, they've spent well over £100m, and the only decent players they have to show for it are Ake and Brooks imo. To be fair, I rate both very highly, but they have spunked a lot of money on some dross as well.

 

[Nads]

I guess, but then I think they've been carried a bit by Fraser (£400k), Wilson (£3m), and King (free), who all came in before they started spending silly money. That's when they were being run well, and I wish they'd stuck with that model. Since then, they've spent well over £100m, and the only decent players they have to show for it are Ake and Brooks imo. To be fair, I rate both very highly, but they have spunked a lot of money on some dross as well.

I just don’t see £39million as silly money though.

Newcastle just spent that on a striker who’s scored about 3 goals in his career. They’ve bought a couple of duds no question, but they are now an established Premier League side, so whatever they have done, it’s worked for them.

 

[monty987]

We dare not sign Bale then !

 

[cumbrianmackem]

Well the EFL have cancelled Bury's match at Gigg Lane on Saturday but Boltons game is going ahead.
Bury have failed to assure the EFL about their finances and this is a sorry state of affairs.
Got to feel for the fans of both clubs and as has been said we could very well be writing about our own club in these terms which doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[The Norton Cat]

Well the EFL have cancelled Bury's match at Gigg Lane on Saturday but Boltons game is going ahead.
Bury have failed to assure the EFL about their finances and this is a sorry state of affairs.
Got to feel for the fans of both clubs and as has been said we could very well be writing about our own club in these terms which doesn't bear thinking about.

I'm surprised that the clubs themselves, independent of the league, FA, etc, don't have some kind of system in place to prevent things like this happening to clubs. All clubs, especially all clubs within one division, are mutually reliant on the existence of the others. It's in all of their own best interests to prevent clubs going out of business.

 

[sensiblegreeny]

This is down to the EFL allowing clubs to flout the spending rules. What you are advocating in some ways Norton is a kind of Socialist system where all clubs are equal and prop each others existence up. Why though should one club pay into a pot to support a badly run club that has simply overspent what they should have on wages for higher class players? What you have is supposedly a 55% of income rule to be spent on wages. So, if a club gets a crowd of 5000 at home it should in theory have less to spend than say yourselves who get 29000. But with the right owner they can on occasions outbid even you in league one. The owner who has a few quid to burn pumps in a stadium sponsorship which is way over inflated and then a shirt sponsorship in the same vein. Follow that up with an interest free gift of several more million and that makes a mockery of the live within your means rules. The problem comes when the current owner who has encouraged the overspend and has players in his club on £8k plus a week for the next 3 years gets fed up with his toy and stops propping it up because they didn't get the hoped for promotion to the next level.

The EFL know perfectly well what these clubs are doing but do nothing to enforce their own rules. I would ask one question. Since when has it been acceptable for a club not to fulfill it's fixtures and not be subject to being expelled from the league? They allowed Bolton to not play a game last season and are doing the same with Bury this season right from the outset. By doing this they are already congesting the oppositions fixture list and putting that innocent club in possible jeopardy. If they forfeited the game that would hand 3 points to the other club and that would be unfair on the other 20. I believe that the reason they are being lenient on Bury especially is because they have an idea that there are a few others in the same boat and if they pull the plug on one and set a precedent they are going to have to do it again in the not to distant future and the whole pyramid begins to wobble. It's easier to do as little as possible. A few years back they made sure Luton got put out of the league by deducting 30 points in a season. Had they not bounced back I wonder how they would feel looking at this now.

 

[The Norton Cat]

This is down to the EFL allowing clubs to flout the spending rules. What you are advocating in some ways Norton is a kind of Socialist system where all clubs are equal and prop each others existence up. Why though should one club pay into a pot to support a badly run club that has simply overspent what they should have on wages for higher class players? What you have is supposedly a 55% of income rule to be spent on wages. So, if a club gets a crowd of 5000 at home it should in theory have less to spend than say yourselves who get 29000. But with the right owner they can on occasions outbid even you in league one. The owner who has a few quid to burn pumps in a stadium sponsorship which is way over inflated and then a shirt sponsorship in the same vein. Follow that up with an interest free gift of several more million and that makes a mockery of the live within your means rules. The problem comes when the current owner who has encouraged the overspend and has players in his club on £8k plus a week for the next 3 years gets fed up with his toy and stops propping it up because they didn't get the hoped for promotion to the next level.

The EFL know perfectly well what these clubs are doing but do nothing to enforce their own rules. I would ask one question. Since when has it been acceptable for a club not to fulfill it's fixtures and not be subject to being expelled from the league? They allowed Bolton to not play a game last season and are doing the same with Bury this season right from the outset. By doing this they are already congesting the oppositions fixture list and putting that innocent club in possible jeopardy. If they forfeited the game that would hand 3 points to the other club and that would be unfair on the other 20. I believe that the reason they are being lenient on Bury especially is because they have an idea that there are a few others in the same boat and if they pull the plug on one and set a precedent they are going to have to do it again in the not to distant future and the whole pyramid begins to wobble. It's easier to do as little as possible. A few years back they made sure Luton got put out of the league by deducting 30 points in a season. Had they not bounced back I wonder how they would feel looking at this now.

I see what you're saying and no, it isn't right that clubs should foot the bill for financial mismanagement of another club. Like most of my posts, that last one was the result of me thinking in hypothetical terms. My comment about the symbiotic relationships between clubs was based on something very minor that I witnessed involving a club outside the football league the other day. I stand by what I said about clubs being mutually reliant on one another, to a greater or lesser extent, though. So, as you say, maybe the leniency being shown to Bury is because measures that are too stringent could bring the whole house of cards down.

 

[cumbrianmackem]

Bury have had a High Court winding up order dismissed in their favour this morning so all is not lost...yet.
They live to fight another day.

 

[cumbrianmackem]

Bury's match next week against Accrington has also been postponed.
Bolton travel to Wycombe with three senior players on their books so it's not looking good there either.
We play them back to back in December 21st and 26th so if the EFL doesn't get this sorted we could be having a mid winter break that we don't want.I
Watch this space.

 

[Nads]

Bury's match next week against Accrington has also been postponed.
Bolton travel to Wycombe with three senior players on their books so it's not looking good there either.
We play them back to back in December 21st and 26th so if the EFL doesn't get this sorted we could be having a mid winter break that we don't want.I
Watch this space.

Looks win/win to me.

A winter freshen up (which I would hate but could benefit us), or 2 piss weak teams in the busy period.

I’d not ever want to wish what’s happening at those clubs on anyone, but anything that helps us out of this league I’ll take.

 

[cumbrianmackem]

The plot thickens for Bury.
They've had next week's Carabo cup match against Sheffield Wed cancelled and been given two weeks to provide financial stability or they will be expelled by the EFL.
Got to feel for the fans.