in fairness the lad had very little experience and hadn't a good manager either in Parker. he did well in the championship and was put in a much better position under this new manager. we can't really judge a man on who he can get for Bournemouth. we will only be able to judge based on what he does. for all we know edwards was impressed by his negotiations.
In principle yes, but: "One of the biggest factors in my decision is the commitment to acquire and oversee an additional club, growing this area of their organization," said Edwards. "I believe that to remain competitive, investment and expansion of the current football portfolio is necessary." That's quite clearly a multi-club model (which I don't like the idea of) including Liverpool, not without us. Though there's no guarantee we'd be the club at the top of the model (although realistically I don't know who else would be).
No chance we wouldn't be the biggest. Who is theoretically bigger? Real Madrid? Not going to buy them. Brightlingsea Regent currently have Derek Asamoah playing for them (42 still going strong) so I guess they're bigger than us... But don't think they could buy another English club. No. Very safe to say we would be top.
Pretty sure you can't own/part own two clubs in the same association. That said, INEOS own clubs in the French league1, Swiss super league and part own a club in Ivory coast league1. Pretty sure close inspection will be made of any transfers from those clubs to us to make sure "fair market value" is paid.
because they have control of football affairs at ManU Ineos are said to be stepping away from direct control at Nice . Still sounds dodgy if both are in same European competition.
I think the rules are preventing clubs that are co-owned being in the same compeittion now so a lot of these dodgy oil types are trying to get to once removed status as owners. Every loop hole thats is slowly closed they jump to another means to cheat. I've no issue having a side like city having a team in the MLS or somewhere in asia but onces its in europe in the same comps one should just be perma banned form qualifiying if the other is in. I'd outright ban all transfers between these clubs or intermediaries. If you play for MLS club you cannot move to the Prem club for 2 seasons after being sold somewhere. If you are a saudi club you should not be able to dop the league with 3 laons of worldies on vast wages and you should not be allowed to buy and sell any players at all between clubs. If you are these clubs you should not get sponsored by yourself or anything afficliated with you, again that pure doping.The emirates plastered all over certain clubs are never making a return on that sponsorship ETC ETC. bras splate companies that don't exist in reality dropping 50mil to be an affiliate sponsor on city's website etcetc all loop holes that cheats are looking to exploit to get a leg up the ladder. The only fair route up the ladder is to grow your club properly, attract real finance from real companies and invest it wisely. Brighton have done so and come to a natural high point. 32k stadium (as big as thier fan base allows really) good team, good owner, decent revenues but to make the next step now they need to grow the reputation and attract more fans, get more revneue in etc. The jump from 1 game a week to 2 games a week is a massive issue for clubs on less than 250mil annual revenue. the squad just doesn't allow it.
Brighton could compete a bit more if it weren't for the unfair advantages the oil and sugar-daddy clubs enjoy. In the same way that Forest or Ipswich (up to a point) could compete with us in the past. Imo, the task is not to make them more like the top clubs, but to bring the top clubs to heel by making their spending legitimate. Of course this would have to apply throughout pro football around the world, so it's never going to happen. Football as a competitive sport for all is badly wounded, and all we have is sticking-plaster solutions.
I agree they probabaly could. I am kind of measuring them agaisnt spurs. No sugar daddy par se but a rich owner who's allowed a billion in debt to build a massive stadium. revenues now 550million (261 commercial). They have huge scope for wages in ther and meet the debt repayment and ffp Brighton have 174mil in revenue. That means they bascially make sweet **** all outside premier league prize money and match day income. their commerical footprint is tiny. 22.7million in commercial revenue comapred to 10X at spurs. This is where all these clubs need to realise. FFP is not there to hold them back. Its to stop them going under spending moeny they don't have under sugar daddies who run up debt then let the club fold. all the other cls them play keep up with the joneses and go bust just standing still. If a forest, brighton or ispwich want to compete the route is there but its tough. Bigger stadium, more revenue off fans, more commerical revenue streams. "build the brand" I agree if all top clubs had liegitimate or actually restricted spending such that they make obsence profits if they like then everyone can compete. thats a salary cap. It has to be global application to keep the health of the sport as the clubs that are spending just to stand still are treading water and you get stories like derby for example.
They paid £19m for him, not the £24m that graphic shows. Fair to say that he's been a slow burner but his part in their promotion back up and numbers so far this season, was well worth £19m for them. You're right, we couldn't have waited for him to come good but Bournemouth had to and it's paying off.
Thought they could own multiple clubs in the same competitions but only one can be above 49.9% ownership? Maybe not in the same league though
Red Bull has interests in 5 football clubs. A court ruled that in the case of Leipzig and Salzburg, "there was no straightforward shared ownership. Red Bull allegedly has various aspects of corporate and commercial influence over both clubs".
Its very dodgy. my understanding of this set up is the girona were going well in spain and supposedly have less than 50% overship via man city. Man city are not allowed to buy a player form girona direct or vice versa but they can both play i nthe CL. The rule is one of these dodgy ill written things that says the same owner cannot have control or influence. which could means 50% or could mean less depending on interpretation. If they do end up in the CL together then someone will probabaly be forced to address this. Red bull salzburg and Leipzig were investigated for this and found to be "separate" despite players flowing and all sorts. they were even in the same ****ing group in the europa league! Its extremely dodgy. the man city owners have Man city New york city Melbourne city Yokohama Monetvideo (why??) Girona in spain Sichuan in china Mumbai in india Lommel in belegium Troyes in france Bolivar in boliva Vanne sin france (lower league) Palermo in italy Bahia in Brazil This is a grenade about to go off in football. They've allowed the same ownership in france more shame on france. At what point do you start callin them feeder clubs, city B or whatever?
but it could be against the rules if uefa decided suddenly to think about it like that. thry are a cozy cartel right now thsts happy with what's going on. they are probably all.making lots of money from it in buying and selling and don't care about the fans or match going fan where a doped club is dominating a league. as long as they harvest money its all good to them.
Not sure they could just change the rules just like that, the horse as already bolted. At the very least, they'd have to give a time span to let the owners resolve the issue before any ruling came in. In reality, they'd just setup dummy companies to maintain ownership through a loophole
It's really common in the US with American sports... But American sports usually has one major league and then a bunch of minor leagues and the two never can cross. Minor league clubs don't last long, they close, open, move constantly and are directly owned by the major league clubs they feed... So it's a very different setup but one FSG is very familiar with and owning feeder clubs probably seems natural to them. I'm sure they own lots of minor league teams through the Red Sox and also Penguins. Farm system I think they call it. They own a team here in South Carolina. Stupidly named "the Greenville Drive". Greenville has gone through half a dozen clubs since I lived there. When I lived there the Atlanta Braves ran a club called "Greenville Braves". They got moved to another city, I think in Louisiana (bribed with city building them new stadium)... The team that replaced them came and went... Then the team that replaced them came and went... Such is the nature of sports in the US outside the major leagues. There is no heritage of supporting the team your dad and granddad supported... The major league club that owns them closes them or moves them on a whim.
Its also very different transfer set up. The Big draft system out of college and the send a player down sort of system all feeds into a set of sports that are heavily regulated with salary caps and transfer caps. Players are traded rathen the sold for vast sums. Its a franchise model as far as i am aware so not one team has to stay anywhere and theres lots of teams that have moved for a better stadium deal or more moeny on offer from another city. Here we have a fan base that would burn their club to the gorund with the owners in it rather than let it move. theres no examples of a really succerssful move. Theres mk dons, theres the merge of brighton and hov that formed a clu bthat sturrgled for years etc. We have a transfer market thats largely unregulated and even less so in other parts of the world. Its trasfer of registration papers os its wide ope nto absue and co-owners and massive fees etc. We have uncapped salaries we have image rights and other payments under the table going on across the board. Its the wild west.
Yes, but it wouldn't surprise me 100% if FSG were wondering if there were ways they could set up a "farm system" over here. I guarantee they've had that discussion around the board room. Obviously wouldn't fly in England but based on how many minor league clubs the Red Sox owns you know they've pondered ways to do it with football too.
