I've just been watching the programme about the state of football finances. Harry Redknapp said that he doesn't even know what his players earn and that's the same for all managers. I can understand that he doesn't do the negotiations given certain manager's behaviour in the past but surely they need to know what players are costing the club if there is a budget? I can't imagine Nigel Pearson not knowing what the club is willing to pay out on players given that he has to ensure he gets value for money. Is Harry Redknapp just being Harry Redknapp or is it true?
Very good programme which shed some light on some interesting points. As for whether managers know wages, I can believe they maybe don't know exact details but to not know what so ever I very much doubt. Harry redknapp also seemed in insinuate that he wasn't involved with a decision to renew a players contract that seems abit odd too.
I assume he means Redknapp and if so I agree - one the dodgiest men in football - 'wheeler dealer 'arry' is full of ****.
Sugar is just a media whore. Also, it said that the total Premier League debt was 3.3billion, and the La Liga debt was 750million (or something like). I assume this didn't include Barcelona, Real Madrid or Valencia, as the debt of those 3 clubs alone is more than a billion.
The Spanish clubs fiddle their figures, so it's hard to know exactly how much they owe(being hand in glove with local banks and councils). The local council in Madrid bought the training ground for over 400 million quid and now rent it back to them, writing off much of their debt and Barca just signed a 150 million quid shirt sponsorship deal. Most sites seem to acknowledge that well over 50% of all football debt in Europe is at English clubs. I thought the programme wasn't bad, it didn't really state much we didn't know already, though I thought it was quite interesting that Scudamore said the new PL rules had already dissuaded some potential bidders from bidding for clubs and they'd actually turned down some as unsuitable owners.
It was a programme of what might have been. I guess they could have delved a little deeper but would have been worried about saying too much
Where do they get the ã3.3 bn from and what does it mean? Didn't Abramovich convert the money he "lent" to Chelsea into shares? Immediately, that would stop being debt. Whelan acted like he'd give Wigan away to the right person so that would stop being debt - but I suppose there would be conditions. Clubs like Liverpool and Manchester United have had the debt to banks foisted on them but how different is it to Aston Villa where Lerner is owed money but he could charge interest on his loans (I don't think he does). The fundamental problem was that the TV money went straight to players. Owners don't try to make money from operating at a profit they try to make it by selling at the right time when a mug comes along. Bartlett could have done that if he'd sold in the close season before the Premier League but I suppose when any potential buyer saw the books they'd be scared away.
I haven't seen the 2011 list, but the 2010 list by David Conn(who was a contributor on the show last night) is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt Things have changed since this list was done, as you mention Chelsea have switched the Abramovich loans to shares and for promoted clubs they're working from old accounts(we're on the list as having debts of just ã1m).
Redknapp is as shady as they come, I actually like Sugar though as a businessman he is a bit of a joke, apparently he kissed Murdochs ass to get some kind of deal for Skyboxes and thats why he can claim to be a success, a bit like Karren Brady building a career from benefactors in the porno trade. Still enjoy the TV shows taking the piss out of business wannabes.
