Ipswich are owned by a US pension fund and a US private equity outfit. Both entities have massive fluctuations and individual companies can completely collapse. https://www.theguardian.com/busines...on-funds-implosion-wall-street-private-equity US pension funds are on the brink of implosion - 2023 https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/private-equity-is-being-squeezed-all-sides-2023-05-12/ The private equity boom came to an abrupt halt last year - 2023
I think it will always be a struggle as things develop, we have to hope the PL and EFL take a tough stance and follow the PSR rules. It's mental that Leicester can be charged by the PL but potentially dont get a points deduction till they are promoted back to the premier league. How is that fair as it could deny a championship club promotion
I heard a chief exec of a prem club say it was vital we had parachute payments to help clubs come back up to the prem. Completely and utterly anti-competition. More and more fans I talk to dont want to go up. Leeds fans I know are adamant they dont want it. I was really anti the superleague idea last time. I suspect now there would be a majority of fans who wanted them gone and the premier league much weakened. Sad state of affairs really. To me sport is about elite achievement, but football is now a business masquerading as a sport.
It is indeed, the usual excuse from the Super league clubs is tv money would collapse if they left, but I don't agree. It would be reduced but a proper first division with teams like us, Leeds, Forest etc would get people watching and generate money. Especially if more than 3 or 4 clubs could potentially win the league. When the super league takes off I hope the FA grow a set and kick those that want to go (but still stay in the league system) out. Reset the whole thing, with fair money distribution throught all 4 divisions and get football back to not needing state money to compete
They look to me a club on a mission at all costs. Premier league this year or next. Once there they are banking over £250m minimum. The revenue flows are king in the prem. It is a gamble, but I think we see American owners in particular willing to roll the dice time and again. I have a theory about Ipswich on the pitch. In the first game of the season we were so far ahead of them it was outrageous. It was a gamr if we had been 4 up at half time nobody would havr moaned. Had we taken our chances and smashed them, I think they might have taken a more moderate style for a few games. As it was they put their foot down and got momentum. All out fault for not buying a striker really
Basically it means those coming down can keep some of their better players and it becomes unfair. It’s not doing what it’s designed to do
I personally don’t honk there should be more financial regulation. Society has become some kind of sick free for all with the media and football up there in the top 10 of obscene industries.
That may be my memory playing tricks on me, but I'm sure it was dressed up as helping clubs cope with the drop in income and better for the non playing staff. Happy to be corrected on that, but not on the fact it's become where the rich clubs compete on a different playing field to 'normal' clubs
It's a real balancing act imo. The money isn't coming from either of the entities who run them, the money is from investors who want returns and profit. If Ipswich go up, fair enough ... ... if they don't they'll have to keep pumping in money from what I gather, investors money. I really wouldn't want my club to be run like this. No one really has a clue who owns it or where the money's coming from.
My understanding was it was to help clubs as they adjusted from a high to low wage turnover ie struggling to offload players on high wages. In fact they use it to actively keep players as long as possible to be more competitive. To me it’s too much and goes on too long meaning they have less need to adjust.
You may well be right, I just recall it being dressed up as helping clubs cope. Your 100% right though, it's a mechanism to keep better players and bounce back as quick as possible to the gravy train. Trouble is those on it won't vote to change it will they? The FA / Regulator need to get a firm grip and sort this out fairly
I thought parachute payments were the Premier League's concession to critcism of their policy of not sharing income with the Football League. Apparently, when the Premier League was formed, the original 24 clubs, including those that were favourites for relegation that first season, unanimously voted against greater sharing of the league's income with the Football League. This was their gesture to make it look less selfish.
That's probably closer to the truth, but I can't help thinking the media dressed it up as protecting the non playing staff. In my head I have a club being relegated laying staff off as a reason why it was for the "greater good" Turns out it wasn't
In some respects, you have to credit the Premier League with bringing about some improvements to the game. For the most part though, it's not been a good thing.
Fully agree there mate. The worst part is the FA, not looking at the bigger picture and bowing down to the PL to the detriment of the EFL and the whole pyramid
Football doesn't sound a good investment for pension funds....just as likely to see increased profits gambling it on horses!!
I've praised them from the very early stages of the season. Decent team on the pitch with blend of youth and experience and the table speaks for its self. Owners clearly not f**kin about and managed to get more investors in. Time will tell if it works, but clearly have an aggressive plan in mind. And before anyone says anything, this isn't a hidden dig at our set up.
