Number of English football club administrations since 1992 - 53 Number of German football club administrations since 1963 - 0 Suggests that one FA has better rules than the other?
The English FA could not have better initials (FA), what a hopeless outfit they are. Could not organise a booze up at a brewery. All they are good for is issuing fines to managers and players who speak there minds.
As far as I'm aware, all German clubs are 51% owned by members(fans), so no-one can take a controlling interest and the new fair play rules(or something similar) already apply in Germany, so they can only spend a fixed percentage of revenue, so they can't run up debts.
From an article Martin Samuel did in the Mail "It will also surely not be long before we hear another endorsement of the Bundesliga model in Germany. Christian Seifert, the chief executive officer, recently appeared at a Soccerex forum, claiming that foreign owners have a conflict of interest with the national teams from their own countries; as if Malcolm Glazer truly places the future of Major League Soccer or the fate of the United States at a World Cup above what is best for his investment in Manchester United. Yet no system is perfect, no matter what Seifert would have us believe. TSV Munich 1860, currently eighth in Germany’s second division, need to find £3.1m to complete the season and produce another £4m to prove they are stable enough to be granted a licence next year. They have already been deducted two points for licensing irregularities. ‘The situation is serious and I cannot promise that someone will arrive to save us,’ warned chairman Rainer Beeck last week. Money was found to pay the wages for March, but bitter rivals Bayern Munich have been forced to accept lower rates for catering fees and have allowed TSV to defer existing debts on their tenancy at the Allianz Arena. ... Munich’s second club have been doomed since signing over their share in the stadium for just £9.78m in return for a loan from Bayern, and the latest rumours concern a rescue package from investors in the Gulf region. As yet, no word from Seifert on whether this would constitute a conflict of interests. Further down the second division, bottom club Arminia Bielefeld are close to financial collapse with debts of £24m, split between financial institutions, sponsored loans, parties involved in a stadium bond issue and the city of Bielefeld. They cannot afford to honour current contracts, including the March wage bill, and have sacked 10 of 22 administrative staff. Last season, Bielefeld were deducted four points for breaching the terms of their licence after suffering a financial shortfall. If they do go under, it will probably be in the third division, maintaining the Bundesliga’s fine record of never having lost a club to insolvency (although FC Gutersloh were relegated at the end of 1998-99 and were dissolved later that year). And there is the rub. England’s foreign owners are disparaged - and the busybodies of the parliamentary Select Committee seem particularly enthralled by Germany’s domestic arrangements, with an ownership model that gives 51 per cent of the club to its members - but the perfect Bundesliga has also had numerous financial scares in the last decade. Eintracht Frankfurt were docked points for financial misdeeds in 2000 and 2004; Kaiserslautern went to the brink of bankruptcy in 2002, before selling their debt-ridden stadium to a company owned by the federal state and city and mortgaging Miroslav Klose, their star player, to the state lottery; a stadium naming rights deal kept Borussia Dortmund from bankruptcy in 2005; Hamburg pay the first 20 cents in every euro in perpetuity to a company called SportFive for funding their 1998 stadium reconstruction, the name of which has changed three times in 10 years, from the AOL Arena to the HSH Nordbank Arena and currently the Imtech Arena. Despite this, staff salaries are to be cut by one quarter at the end of this season to balance the books. Making a point: Bundesliga CEO Christian Seifert claims foreign owners are creating a conflict of interest with their own countries. Finally, Schalke 04, the golden boys of German football thanks to their exploits in the Champions League this season, were reported to have debts of £220.7m in May, despite the giant Russian energy company Gazprom striking a five-year sponsorship deal worth £89m in 2006, when Schalke were £107m in the red. And all this with an ownership model that values local and grass roots involvement. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...tball-clubs--owners-accent.html#ixzz1g38cg9d8
since 1992? when the premier league arrived and the higher clubs stopped the money trickling down the league? that isnt a coincidence.
That's why that year was chosen by the people making the stats, they could just have easily selected 1963 for ours to include administrations/liquidations before that. You could also compare liquidations in England's professional leagues before 1992 with liquidations after 1992 if you wanted to manipulate the stats to suggest the change in 1992 was actually good.
Do have a few "restructurings" though. They have teams with names like Shalke 04 and Hannover 96 etc. What is all that about?
Hannover 96 are called that because they were formed in 1896, I don't know why FC Schalke 04 have an 04 in their name but they've been called it since 1924, so neither of them have anything to do with the clubs going into admin or being restructured.
I'd tend to agree with you, I was just highlighting that when the stats were put together they were done so by people who wanted to slate the PL, and chose stats to support their view rather than having the stats and then forming their view from it. That's why the timescales have been selected are uneven, and I would bet that 1962 was the last time it happened in Germany. They've also chosen not to highlight the article Chazz has posted stating that there are some clubs on the brink in Germany, that there are far fewer professional teams in Germany, and no doubt several other factors in it. You could also highlight the current global debt crisis to suggest that the reason for the increased administrations in this country since the start of the PL has been down to people's attitudes towards money/debt changing in the last 20-30 years, and that the formation of the PL was another effect of that rather than the cause of the club's having problems.
Ricardo, your argument regarding the timescales would actually make sense if the English one started in 1963 and the German one in 1992.
I know what you're thinking, but you're assuming the stats have been compiled without an ulterior motive. It wouldn't make sense if the years were reversed, because the counter argument defending the English stat would be that obviously we've had more it's taken place over a longer time and they should have extended the German one to the same time because they could be hiding 100 administrations between 1963 and 1992. That would weaken the argument they were trying to make. They were specifically trying to make the formation of the PL look as bad as possible by comparing the situation to a foreign example, whilst passing it off as a general English football club ownership vs foreign football club ownership piece. You do that by taking the longest possible run of 0 administrations in the foreign league to make their figure as impressive as possible. You then select for the English figure to use just the figures since the start of the PL without necessarily stating it, that way people assume the blame for our figure being much worse is down to the formation of the PL. Because you haven't mentioned that's why you've chosen that year it doesn't leap out to most people as you being anti-PL, so the report you're putting the figures out in seems balanced and neutral and people give the assumptions made credibility. As I said in a previous post, I'd be more interested in what the formation of the PL did to the number of clubs going into admin/liquidation in the 20 years before compared to the 20 years after than I am in a comparison to a foreign league with a similar population, supporting far fewer clubs, and who never had a problem in the first place. But they've ignored that because there hasn't been a club in the top 4 divisions liquidated since the PL was formed and there were clubs liquidated before, and that would make it look like the formation of the PL was a good thing. It's the old Ebbe Skovdahl quote again: "Statistics are a lot like miniskirts, they give you good ideas, but hide the most important parts". EDIT: And those Go Ahead adverts. 97% fat free = 3% fat. They got as low as 85% fat free and were still claiming them as a healthy option, which most people fell for until it was on Panorama or something like that about misleading adverts. EDIT 2: And I can't believe I've just typed all that criticising that comparison. I actually agree with the sentiment they're trying to create, I just think they should use fair methods and compare like for like. Either us before and after the formation of the PL, or just give Germany from the same time as you're giving ours.
OLM is aware of my contact with Assam Allam regarding a supporter shareholding. Bizarrely many of my thoughts have been adopted. I knew I should have invoiced him for my work! Administration is a vital tool for businesses in the current climate. The problem is not in the administrations but in the fact that football attracts so many crooks. There needs to be more control.
I think you're reading too much into it Ricardo, the English numbers are from 92 as that's when the Premier League began, the German figures are from 63, as that's when the Bundesliga began.
No surprise that the Germans are doing things in a more structured way, just like the bloody German national football team always does too! In fact German football is run better right from the grass roots down, they have so many good young players at the moment it makes us look like a shambles.
The comparison still isn't like for like. The sheer number of professional clubs in England makes it more likely we'd have problems sustaining them all with our population, and there's still the what was happening before to be considered.
It also means they're all ****. Swings and roundabouts. ...but so do we. They might have a better recent history in major tournaments, but there's no way you can say their young talent is significantly better than ours. You could pick from any of about 40 English players who could play at Euro 2012 at the moment.
Ricardo, the facts speak for themselves: Over 50 clubs in administration in two decades versus 0 in five decades. And ISTPLT, Germany's young players are far superior. We have Daniel Sturridge and not a lot else.
