Crawley Town....

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Crawley did well today, but in their league, they're about as popular as herpes.

They went into admin, didn't honour the CVA, yet are now paying way more than anyone else for players. They've signed players for £100k-250k and many feel they abused the system and are now buying themselves league football on the cheap. They're the non league equivalent of Pompey.
 
originallambrettaman said:
Crawley did well today, but in their league, they're about as popular as herpes.

They went into admin, didn't honour the CVA, yet are now paying way more than anyone else for players. They've signed players for £100k-250k and many feel they abused the system and are now buying themselves league football on the cheap. They're the non league equivalent of Pompey.
Click to expand...
man city, chelsea, and to a point circa mid to late 80's onward ManUre???? spring to mind?
 
sagegee tiger said:
man city, chelsea, and to a point circa mid to late 80's onward ManUre???? spring to mind?
Click to expand...

Man City and Chelsea have sugar daddies who pay for everything, at least the didn't shag their creditors to fund it.

Man United are too highly geared and are using an enormous turn-over to fund an enormous debt, but they're still not shagging anyone else either.
 
I find the hypocrisy laughable
All supporters would love someone to buy their club and invest millions
They may say not but are talking utter bollocks
Let me see,would I rather be watching city play Macclesfield without a pot to piss in but have a board consisting of fairly wealthy city fans or be challenging for trophies/champions league with a mega rich sheikh as his play thing?
Not a tricky question really
 
sagegee tiger said:
Fair enough but they still bought their success in modern times
Click to expand...

Didn't Man U use the proceeds of their success to maintain it rather than buying the initial success?

Paulpowersleftfoot said:
I find the hypocrisy laughable
All supporters would love someone to buy their club and invest millions
They may say not but are talking utter bollocks
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. When the Allams takeover was confirmed I said I was disappointed they'd put the money in as a gift rather than as a director's loan to be repaid when the club was able to.

From the point when Molby was sacked the club was run as a sound business (PT reducing the cost of the playing staff season on season until we were in the Championship) as well as a football club and that was one of the things that made our promotions most enjoyable, the fact we were doing it cleanly (Chesterfield) and using the funds the club was legitimately generating for itself (Leicester when they were responsible for the 10 point penalties being introduced).
 
sagegee tiger said:
Disagree Ricardo, IMO they bought their success, but, I will give you they then used the proceeds to maintain it
Click to expand...

I'm not old enough to remember the pre-premier league bits which is where my curiosity comes from. I was under the impression it was the introduction of the PL money (to all the clubs) that allowed them to win the first title by spending it better than everybody else did?
 
Unfortunately, even back Ye Goode Old Days before PL times, it was well off Boards, of clubs, that would fund player buying over and above any profits that the club had generated. The better off the board, the better the chances were of that club getting more players than their turnover/profit could afford to purchase
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back