The main point is John that by being a PL club next August Hull City can become self-sufficient and the Allams get there most welcome investment back. Just think what Steve Bruce can do with a budget of £80m ? The other £70m comes from increased parachute payments. I think this squad is more ready for the PL than the 2008 squad was. We need to do what Stoke City have done from 2008. Build step by step within the PL season upon season. For sure we wont spend stupid money on average to poor players like Dufferman did overall.. I applaud what the Allams are saying but the proof of the pudding is in the eating as always.
If they wanted to they could do from the PL money. But i would hope that they would use the PL money to keep City as a PL club and maybe take some back at the end of each season. Even IF City went up and came straight back down, with prudent spending the club can look after itself for years to come. Like what the last regime should have done but failed to do last time out.
Here's an interesting article from the Telegraph last month: "The league has been considering a range of cost-control measures to make clubs more financially stable, promote competition, and limit wage inflation to players. At the meeting, 16 of the 20 clubs asked the league to press ahead with detailed proposals for a âbreak-even ruleâ, with a view to introducing it next season. Fulham, Aston Villa, West Bromwich Albion and Manchester City opposed the introduction of a break-even rule, though for very different reasons. The league executive will now work on finding a version of FFP, first introduced by Uefa for its competitions, that will be acceptable across the spectrum of Premier League clubs. It will be put to the clubs in February. Swansea chairman Huw Jenkins said: âWe are looking at the financial fair play rules and introducing that for the good of everyone in the Premier League and for the good of the game.â Uefaâs version of FFP requires that clubs break even, spending only what they earn from commercial sources, rather than relying on benefactors such as Roman Abramovich injecting huge sums to underwrite losses. Under the Uefa rules, club owners can underwrite losses of up to â¬45 milliion (£36.3 million) over the first three seasons of FFP. Any Premier League version of the rule will have to allow for greater losses, if it is to gain the support of 14 clubs required for a change in the regulations. While 16 clubs support a break-even rule, their definition of what it should be in detail, and crucially how much clubs should be able to lose, varies widely. At one end of the spectrum are those with most to gain from a strict break-even rule, Arsenal and Manchester United, whose large grounds and well-developed commercial programmes deliver profits, as well as Liverpool. They would like to see the league stick to the Uefa system, with clubs allowed a period of adjustment to the rules before adhering to a strict break-even rule. At the other end are Chelsea, who say they support break-even but want to reserve the right for Abramovich to inject unlimited funds, as long as it is in the form of equity rather than loans. Last week the club declared a profit of £1.4 million, the first of the Abramovich era, but also announced that the owner had converted £166 million of loans into equity. In the middle is a rump of clubs who want the security that FFP might provide, as well as the competitive benefits, but do not want to tie their hands should they be the target of the next super-rich investor who eyes a Premier League club. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ague-steps-closer-to-financial-fair-play.html Cock jockeys
I'm afraid that I disagree with you Tickler. Simply getting the EPL money will not make us self sufficient. If that were true all EPL clubs would be breaking even. That is obviously not the case. In order to stay in the league we will need to keep our best players, who will no doubt want an increased wage. We will also need to recruit more players, who will be on big (ie EPL) wages at their current club. The club will need to increase its income from sponsorship, marketing, ticket sales, merchandising to have any chance of breaking even. As has been stated, our marketing consists of one person. Ticket sales are down, although you would expect them to increase if we make it back to the EPL. I personally cannot see Allamhouse being able to seek repayment of its loans in the foreseeable future.
You are very much entitled to your opinion. Put it this way then, If the club is run properly 150m can make the club self sufficent. If they run it like Dufferman ? well we all know what will happen. AGAIN.
I did read a very similar article in the mirror. Reading between the lines, it looks to be nothing more than a "stop Chelsea and man city" rule rather than a league spread fair play rule. They will still operate at a loss and these rules will still allow for a loss, bringing back my point that it won't be safe to mount a serious premier league campaign in case of failure and relegation, as coming back down to the championship operating at a loss will bring severe punishment and potentially jeopardise the clubs future both short term and long term. I think there could be a pack of 6-9 teams that take it in turns bouncing between the divisions, and the ap from lower championship to higher would become like the championship - premier league gap. I knew cock jockeys was coming up next, however I thought it would come in the form of knob jockeys. I just knew it. **** dodgers
I hope you're right Tickles, but I can't see it. How much debt are Bolton in after being in the EPL for many years? Fulham owe Al Fayed a frightening amount of money. As the article I copied states, only 3 clubs in the EPL would pass the break even test - Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool. The first 2 have huge grounds, and all 3 have worldwide marketing, huge sponsors and plastic supporters in every corner of the country buying their merchandise. All other clubs are making losses year on year, and unless we massively increase our income (in addition to the EPL money) we will be the same
Bolton are now over £136m in debt, Fulham owe Al Fayed £190m. At the end of last season, there were only two Premier League clubs with no debt, one was Wolves(though West Brom's had only a very small debt), the other was Stoke and that was only because Coates wrote off £50m in loans.
Hence why football now has to come back to the real world. If the FFP rules now hinder clubs likwe Chelsea and Man City then so be it. Nobody away from those clubs would shed a tear would they. Far too many clubs incl. us have lived beyond there means or been bankrolled and that HAS TO STOP. So i am all for the FFP rules and only spending what you bring in. The area that i dont like is the % of income spend. Like any business your hands should not be tied but if the business plan fails then the penalties are severe. 1)Administration owing upto £100m and you are relegated. Anything over that and you are relegated to the bottom tier of the english game and have to start again anyway. Only when FIFA, UEFA, FA, FL etc etc bring in proper and much stiffer punishments will the likes of Abramovich and co. wake up. Fiootball has to re-join the real world and FAST. The HDM article says that we are running a wage bill of £18m this season, well we could more than afford to double that for the PL maybe cap it at £50m but with relegation clauses in all contracts. Now that is senseable. I dont have an issue with City say offering James Chester 40k a week in the PL, but he has to know that it will drop to say £10k in the championship (as an example). Biily Sharp Saints contract went up from a freported 22k a week last season to 40k this season in the PL. If the club is run properly and with performance related pay / bonuses then 150m is more than enough. Plus dont forget by staying in the PL a 2nd year that would bring in another £80m for season 2014/15 and still with the 4 year parachite payments to cover. Remember the 7 p's. Precise Proper Planning Prevents Pi.ss Poor Performance. Sadly Dufferman and the last regime failed big time on that. FACT.!!!1
We wouldn't have anything like a £50m wage bill if we got promoted, we ran up £50m in debts in two seasons with a £38m wage bill and we won't exceed that next time, even with increased TV money(and players wages have dropped since our last visit, at least it has outside the biggest clubs). West Brom are the best model, decent football, doing well and a wage bill of £37m, built up slowly over a long period of time(also Wigan with a £40m wage bill).
I never said we would have a wage of 50m. I was using those figures as an example. We are much better equipped squad wise now than in 2008. Whatever the playing budget would be next season in the PL has to have relegation clauses. The last regime did not do that and the rest is history. DQPR have real problems If they come down as i doubt many if any of there contracts will have relegation clauses. But yes £36m as an estimate would be more than enough for a club our size. Maybe we could in time use some of the PL money to extend the KC and increase PL match day revenue. We have to look at how Stoke have done since 2008. WBA to a lesser extent.
They probably do, but there isn't a list out for the financial year that includes last season, so I'm working on the list for the previous year(where Blackpool were the lowest, with £25m).
With Burnley they did have a moderate wage bill, and most of their fans expected when they went down the money made would be invested to get them back up the next season. They expected a West Brom situation, whereby they would be a yoyo club for 2 or 3 seasons. What actually happened from what I have been told is that the owners took the money back that they had loaned the club to get into the EPL in the first place. Hence why they have not managed to get back so far.
I would not mind if they paid themselves back some of the money they have invested. Infact I think it is to be expected. Invest some in new players, pay back themselves, try to set us up for the future. As opposed to what happened last time.
First thing I'd do with that cash is buy a new training ground and severely upgrade the whole youth set up, playing staff and return of investment would be bottom of the list.
They have tossed lots of money into the club. I just think it would be reasonable to recoup some of that.
Youth and training facilities would really enhance our future therefore give them more chance of a full return over time.
