But now you're widening the scope to ticket prices, players and Warnock's task, Sooperhoop, subjects which are a little 'off piste' here, surely? If a company (such as a football club) finds itself in a position in which it believes it unlikely that it will be in a position to remain as a going concern and pay its creditors, then it can - as I understand it, tell me if I'm wrong here, please - either go into administration or enter insolvency. If the former, then the day-to-day running of the club passes to the administrator, who then attempts to keep it operational whilst seeking a long-term solution, ideally a buyer. If the latter, then all hope is lost, and an insolvency practitioner seeks to sell the company, its assets and trade for the best possible price - it may be years before creditors see any of their money back (if at all). The board cannot legally trade on if the financial position of the company is that precarious. Certainly, taking on further debt is a big 'no-no' in such circumstances. Again, I'm no lover of Bates. But I cannot see how the creditors were stitched up specifically by Bates in this respect. Yeah, nobody's going to be happy having to write-off their debt, but much of this debt was in situ when Bates bought into the club, I believe? If blame for the loss of creditors' debt lay at his feet, then he would have been successfully prosecuted and struck off as a director by now. I have been very close to a similar situation quite recently and have heard all the advice about being seen and being able to evidence that you're acting in the best interests of all the stakeholders of the company. Of course, if you're on the receiving end of this sort of legal process it can be very painful. You can have the last word.
I think the point here is Leeds were in deep financial trouble when Bates took over, he carried on to the point where the club went into administration 10 minutes before the end of their final match to take the 10 point penalty when it made no difference. The administrators sold the club to a consortium (perfectly legally) which then installed Bates as Chairman and the creditors, who could have got a lot more of their money from other possible buyers, were given an ultimatum of take 1% of the debt or the club would be liquidated. The taxman lost £7 million through this deal, the total being £35 million. Last season Bates bought Leeds from the consortium, most people believe Bates owned the consortium through a web of offshore companies, and is now clear to take them into the Premier League as sole owner. The points I make about prices etc is that Bates is doing what Ecclestone did to QPR, and I am sure that once they do reach the Premier League he will do as Bernie did and spend as little as possible before selling a major name club at a massive price making a financial killing off the back of a very dubious set of events. Technically he has appeared to do everything legally but the lack of information about this mysterious consortium is what has clouded the real issue and you can guarantee the club will be sold for far more than the £35 million that was effectively written off.
Reading all of this it's looks like a very clever bit of business by Bates Focus on the word business and ponder . Business is a cloaking word for many others like robbery fraud I got charged £1 in Wimbledon village for a packet of McCoys in a pub Good business We then spent 400 quid on a meal in Cafe Rouge the fake French bistro chain then got a few off for bad service Good business **** me chew the fat and wise up It's all ****ing business and so football is now a business and those who can't do business at this level won't survive in the world of business
I'm still waiting for the inevitable day when the fully fledged European super league is formed. This will cream off the big 'names' who really are closer to business operations than football clubs. For these outfits, as with most USA sports franchises, a player wage cap is simply not workable and would run into litigation very quickly. That would continue to make the 'product' at the highest level more and more standardised (also as with US sports) but TBH if you already support Man U or Barcelona that is exactly the certainty you are looking for. However, it would make much more sense for the remaining clubs to agree to a system of financial regulation that restored the more restrained aspirations of true football supporters. I doubt the likes of Fernadez would hang around very long if there was a more high profile league elsewhere but remember that QPR enjoyed an earlier golden era not by being a big club but simply by being well stewarded and by focusing on attractive football (often in preference to trophies). You never know, the League and FA cups might even become interesting again. I suspect that the Mittal's would be much more comfortable with this model where they could be benefactors to the club with reasonable financial support but without the wasteful excesses of Abromovitch style leadership.
Agree can only be a matter of time ... A Euro Super League of 16-18 ... well it would become the World League in effect as UAE and Russian teams would also get involved as long as they had variable sustained leagues that you get promoted to this from or relegated to.
Why is a wage cap unworkable when they already have it in rugby? Sure there would be a bit of work in the top league but theres zero reason to have it below the top leagues where 99% of Admins happen. Also, Id love for the top 5 to bugger off to a Euro super league. The English game can then have wage and ticket price cap everywhere and the game would be so much better for it.
I don't think football is any different from the real world at the moment. Currently, society favours the individual and hopes that society benefits from this. The premise (dictated by human rights) appears contrary to my personal opinion that people should fit into the morals of an existing society. I'm not convinced that my view is extreme but it is easier for the government (this one and previous ones) to accept this as being out of their control that to deal with the greater issue of root causes and taking full responsibility for the run-away situation. Football operates in the same way - the individuals have most power and the clubs have to deal with this. Likewise, the clubs (especially big ones) dictate to the governing bodies - TV rights would be obliterated without the major clubs always touted for European super leagues. The ruling entities set a framework to deal with the current, run away situation but have no real ability to claw anything back to a level that they're in full control of. I'm sure FIFA, UEFA and the FA would have wage structures and laws on fair practice if they could start from scratch but the entertainment and revenues of the game are reliant on Man U and Liverpool for example and so they can call the shots. Token gestures like profitability (or not making too much loss in a 3 year period) have simply been exposed by generous "naming rights" deals and the like. Football isn't run with common sense - ambition is always the reason for clubs overstretching but it seems administration is the only means for clawing it back (not many downsizing projects in footy to my knowledge). The ambition is always there (hence you find so many teams in the Prem that struggle even with the massive 50million extra that they have over their Championship counterparts). A german system as mentioned above seems perfect (profitable only) but the introduction would be frought (especially with long term player contracts). As a final thought, does anyone else think that Harry should shoulder some blame for Portsmouth's plight and does the FA recognising his good work within the game by offering him the plum job send out the right message? Sorry, long and rambling (and not as well informed as a lot of some of you clearly are) but I do like to stick my tuppence worth in.
The manager's job is to develop and/or recruit the best team the available budget will allow. Redknapp has been superb at youth development wherever he has gone and has also been able to attract quality players to mediocre clubs so he has more than fulfilled the requirement. Other than the publically quoted numbers I doubt he would even have been allowed to see the books at Portsmouth or elsewhere so, no, I do not think he carries responsibility for what goes on at Board level.
I do take your point but I do also think that whereas Risdale and O'Leary had kind of father-son relationship, Mandaric and Harry had more of a partnership. I realise he's not too worldly and do believe him to be naively innocent of his recent charges but surely you'd have some idea that Crouch, Defoe, Kanu, Muntari, Utaka et al might be costing a bit more than the Fratton Park faithful are bringing in. That said, I believe that the board were negligent to the point of being criminal (after Harry left) when they let Kranjaar go to Spurs for 2M when Chelsea had been sniffing around and rumoured to be willing to part with 10M. Might be a rumour but 2M is seriously underselling your assets.
That's what it would take : A Super League ...new marketeers and another strand developed I am afraid business is right up the arse of football and developing all the time it's not about to turn the other way ... Why? It's the worldwide game and has the highest profile of all sports ... Many have tried to haul up other sports with a small amount of success It's only gonna get worse if you share that opinion rich people like making more money hence the bigger clubs grow and grow ... We only have to look at us and what has happened and we are only where we are because we are a London club in the spotlight of world football. I firmly believe QPR is but a profile and marketing vehicle to some of our business partners it has to be otherwise it would a totally stupid thing to do . Our club will grow without any doubt and we will be here this time next year pushing for Europe on the pitch and pushing for a world presence off it
Interesting to hear the views of a Super League. I think it's a certainty within five years and outside the remit of FIFA/UEFA. I believe the top Champions League teams will form their own league with the players being solely contracted to their clubs and not available for internationals. Effectively they will be picking up their ball and going to play their game. I also believe within another 2-3 years franchises will be offered to create a worldwide 2nd Division which would integrate through to the top division by promotion and the World Super League would effectively replace the World Cup at club level. Think of it, New York, LA, all the Asian countries, Africa, South America, you'd easily get a second division going with huge interest. It really is inevitable and perhaps only three or four English teams will be certain to be in it...
A super league wouldnt last, fans wont turn up to see the likes of PSG, Leverkusen, Twente etc. They will get very bored very quickly. Sure half of Asia would love it but all of the grounds will be like a Fulham away game after the home fans have been banned!
Teams like those would never get a sniff of a Super League, it'll be the G14 clubs and it will be a closed shop once it starts, the franchises would be sold by the G14 clubs so they'd get bigger and richer, the rest would be stuck in their domestic leagues for good. It would be self-perpetuating and all the big TV money would be theirs...
People would stop watching, Euro games are rarely sold out now, you can just imagine what it would be like if there were nothing but Euro games. When people stop watching partly because most of the games will mean nothing with no relegation, TV contracts will get lower, then the league will implode and they will be asking to come back into domestic leagues.
He wasn't quite that cynical. They went into admin 2 days before the final game while they were 3 points behind us, but they would have been relying on a 9 goal turnaround. I think it was Boston that did the 10 minute thing because the results weren't going their way. I'd go for a point for every percent of debt that's written off, but I wouldn't insist on it being all in one go (ie Luton). A minimum of 10 points a season, but at the start of the season the club can opt to take more if they want to. The other condition is you can't be promoted/take part in the playoffs until you've used up all your points. Insisting the club is profitable straight after admin needs to see a change in the way player's contracts are guaranteed first. The reason Pompey are still paying PL wages is because they still have players on contracts they signed in the PL. While the club isn't allowed to break those contracts without paying them up in full you can't then punish them for running at a loss as a result of those wages. The transfer fees for Huseklepp and Varney are a different matter, those moves shouldn't have been allowed until the debts agreed in the CVA had been paid off. That £1.8M could have been used to help settle the old debts more quickly. But for normal running costs Pompey have cut a lot of the costs, they've got one of the smallest squads in the division, and on Saturday only had 14 players, including 2 keepers available.
Long time no see Ricardo, didnt a team go into admin at half time one season? I they were losing and needed to win to stay up. So the 10 points would have meant nothing anyway. I think the punishment should be relegation(s). 1 division for going in and another division for no CVA. 2 divisions the next time it happens, 3 the time after that etc. Pompey had 3 keepers including 2 on the bench on Saturday but they are paying that small squad 20k a week with one on 30k which works out more expensive than most squads.
As a tax payer I am concerned that a football club can duck out of paying HMRC what they owe. I agree that in the end it is the fans who will suffer most but until a big club is allowed to be shut down this will keep on going and they will get away with not paying their way.
That would actually be perfect for the domestic game - lose the big teams with the political clout (ie the ability to threaten the FA with withdrawal from competitions if they don't get their own way) and restructure the league with wage caps and profitability conditions (probably each club would need to propose plans for when they can meet the criteria based on expensive contract lengths). Also, new wage contracts would have to meet certain standards (ie players would have to have the lower league's wage cap but could still have a buy out clause for example). Meanwhile, the super league realises that fans will end up losing the novelty of european away games (and possibly start hankering for the more provincial derbies) and TV viewers will lose interest in any games not involving the title contenders and the big clubs would come crawling back and end up having to fit into the new structure rather than calling the shots. Furthermore, to tie it into another thread about media coverage (and Sky's dominance of it) the likes of Sky would undoubtedly go chasing the more appealing super league market thus leaving potential for more dedicated domestic league coverage at less of a premium. Basically, it is a downsizing of football (which is much needed to avoid the risk to clubs' longevity. Lovely if it would work out that way....
Isn't this thread slightly hypocritical at times? And by slightly, I mean very. Don't get me wrong, I'm just as much of a ranger as the rest of you, but I hardly think we're in a position to throw insults casually at Pompey. Not only have we been in Administration ourselves in recent history, but we currently spend far more than we could possibly hope to gain through advertisement, gate receipts and any other revenue streams we may have. If we hold a grudge against them for spending more than they make, we are being hypocrites. Really, what we're having a go at them for is not being as lucky as us, and not having wealthy benefactors. I feel sorry for them, wouldn't wish it on anyone.
