Barclay's Premier League discussion '15-'16

[JJ1532]

He'd better get used to that fixture - both those sides are staying up. Bournemouth would be challenging a top-half finish with Watford had half their first XI not missed the majority of the season.

As G.B. pointed out so poetically, there are far too many England old boys in journalism that rely on cliches, football culture circle-jerks, and being asinine towards anything new, or "different".

To be fair, he's just butthurt because his precious Villa are probably going to go down this season and he can't stand watching the so called smaller teams like Watford and Bournemouth doing better than them.

 

[Art Morte]

Has he? We make a healthy profit every season and we owe him £130mil in the form of a loan taken out by Ashley against the club. Prior to this season we were 2nd or 3rd bottom in the net spend table over the years during his reign. The only time we've spent money under him is when we've been close to/narrowly avoided relegation. And that's purely because his fat PL stacks were put at risk. He's made far more money from us than he ever has/will put in, and that's without taking in to account the fact that St. James' is essentially one giant Sports Direct logo nowadays.

Can't think why Man Yoo fans would be upset at a couple of yanks taking over the club with roughly £800mil in loans/debt secured against their club and yearly interest payments reaching close to £60/70mil per year. Fans love paying through the nose to facilitate people with no connection taking over their club. They hadn't been in debt since 1931 btw.

That £130m is an interest-free loan from Ashley, none of it has been paid back so far and neither has Ashley ever taken money out of Newcastle United, not even salary. Ashley has cleared all your external debt to banks, which was at about £76m when he took over, with annual interest payments of £8m. You owe him £130m because that's his own money he's put in the club and it's a standard procedure to mark it down as (usually interest-free) loan. Did you know that Chelsea owe about £1 billion to Abramovich - basically all the money he's ever put in the club - in interest-free loans?

Ashley is running the club just fine, imo. No, he doesn't keep pouring loads and loads of his own cash into the club - but why should an owner do that? Newcastle have a sensible transfer policy and probably try to break-even, hence why there are some player sales as well, not only purchases. The whole Sports Direct thing at St James' and perhaps managerial appointments can be criticized, but as far as the financial running of the club goes, Ashley is doing just fine.


As for Manchester United, it's normal practice that sometimes loans are used to fuel acquisitions and growth in the field of business. Anyone with average financial knowledge could see and understand what the Glazers were doing; Take a big loan to acquire a business with guaranteed annual revenues upwards of £200m and use your business expertise to further develop that brand and therefore increase the revenue - and it made sense. And they've done just that. When the Glazers took over in 2005, Man United's annual revenue was about £250m. Now it's something like £430m.

Now, obviously most of ordinary fans don't have that financial understanding and I suppose for them it's easier to buy a Norwich scar and write slogans like "Love United, Hate Glazers", but what they're doing there is voicing their opinion on something they don't have the necessary knowledge to really talk about. And I don't want to belittle fans who are genuinely worried about what's happening at their club, but just saying that sometimes it's better to just put your hands up and say "I'll wait and see what happens, because I don't know or understand all the facts", rather than tell your owners to go fuck themselves.

 

[JimJams]

When the Glazers took over in 2005, Man United's annual revenue was about £250m. Now it's something like £430m.

That's an incredibly simple and misleading way to look at it. That basically looks as though you can credit the Glazers for almost doubling the revenue for the club, when it doesn't take into account that the whole of the Premier League is making far more revenue than in 2005. The fact that the TV deals have increased so dramatically to the point where next year the bottom club will get as much money as Chelsea did for winning the title last year is just one (although the biggest) example of that. Getting major sponsorship deals is something you can credit them for if their deals are bigger and better than everyone elses. It's be interesting to see every premier league clubs revenue changes since 2005. Then you'd have more perspective.

 

[Mr. Scruff]

Also doesn't take into account the hike in ticket prices they could service their debt repaymets initially. They essentially bought the clubs with the fans money.

They are cancerous leeches, no amount of corportate revenue or future success will ever change that.

 

[Art Morte]

That's an incredibly simple and misleading way to look at it. That basically looks as though you can credit the Glazers for almost doubling the revenue for the club, when it doesn't take into account that the whole of the Premier League is making far more revenue than in 2005. The fact that the TV deals have increased so dramatically to the point where next year the bottom club will get as much money as Chelsea did for winning the title last year is just one (although the biggest) example of that. Getting major sponsorship deals is something you can credit them for if their deals are bigger and better than everyone elses. It's be interesting to see every premier league clubs revenue changes since 2005. Then you'd have more perspective.

Well, in 2005, Man United's revenue, in euros, was €246m. Chelsea €220m (26m difference), Liverpool €181m (65m difference).
In 2014 Man United's revenue was €518m, Chelsea's €388m (130m difference), Liverpool's €306m (212m difference).
So, pretty obviously the Glazers have done a fantastic job as United's owners.

Also doesn't take into account the hike in ticket prices they could service their debt repaymets initially. They essentially bought the clubs with the fans money.

They are cancerous leeches, no amount of corportate revenue or future success will ever change that.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's just business. Old Trafford is regularly sold out. You can either have rules and laws that football clubs must be owned by the city they're based in or a fan's trust and cannot be sold to other parties. Then you won't have the chance of outside investment giving your club a boost, but the local people can decide how the club is run. The other option is to allow trading of the clubs in the marketplace and that's when you have to accept everything that comes with it. Can't have best of both worlds.

In my opinion it's now a win-win situation at United. The Glazers have increased the value of their business and may be able to take a little money out of the club, too, while at the same time there's plenty of money available to be spent on the squad.

 

[Mr. Scruff]

Whilst I wont deny there is a certain element of United reaping what they sew football is no ordinary business. Fans can't simply buy another product when ticket prices are raised to fund purchases. Any other business would feel the strain under the Glazer business plan but those who wanted to continue supporting their club simply needed to suck it up. Working class fans paying for millionaires to make more money. Indefencable.

So whilst its too late for us the FA really need to regulate it so that any owners who cant actually afford to own the club they want to buy don't pass their fit and proper persons test. Fans need to be proteted from these opportunists using football fans loyalty to bleed them of money they already dont have.

 

[smat]

"That's just business."

oh okay

 

[Art Morte]

Whilst I wont deny there is a certain element of United reaping what they sew football is no ordinary business. Fans can't simply buy another product when ticket prices are raised to fund purchases. Any other business would feel the strain under the Glazer business plan but those who wanted to continue supporting their club simply needed to suck it up. Working class fans paying for millionaires to make more money. Indefencable.

So whilst its too late for us the FA really need to regulate it so that any owners who cant actually afford to own the club they want to buy don't pass their fit and proper persons test. Fans need to be proteted from these opportunists using football fans loyalty to bleed them of money they already dont have.

Football isn't an ordinary business, but it's still a business (at this level). As long as football clubs are available for trading, you have to accept that they're run as businesses.

And about ticket prices, like I said, Old Trafford is sold out in every (Premiership) game. Money correlates with success in football and therefore good owners provide their clubs with as much money as possible. The Glazers are doing exactly that. Ticket prices may be high, but the stadium still sells out = maximum money for the club = maximum chance of competing at the very top.

If you were a stand-up comedian and knew you would sell out a venue at £20 a ticket, would you make the tickets £10 a piece?

"That's just business."

oh okay

Yeah. Football is a business and the clubs are run like businesses. How would you have it instead?

 

[smat]

I would have at least one or two things in life not totally dictated by market forces. Football clubs could easily work together to improve the experience for their supporters. The profit motive doesn't have to be the be all, end all.

 

[Art Morte]

I would have at least one or two things in life not totally dictated by market forces. Football clubs could easily work together to improve the experience for their supporters. The profit motive doesn't have to be the be all, end all.

The only way to achieve that would be to have a) the FA impose rules or b) the government impose legislation that would limit the clubs' freedom to make their own decisions. Competition between men will never be ruled by "noble common motives" that we just trust everyone will follow, it's just too vague and not in our nature. We need rules and regulations that can be enforced by a governing body.

For the sake of argument, let's say the FA imposed a rule that tickets can't cost more than £20 to any English league game. Two things would happen:

1. People with money (Abramoviches, Sheiks, Lerners etc.) and business expertise (the Glazers, Fenways, Levys) and all combinations of these would become less interested in owning English football clubs. The more the rules of the free marketplace become restricted, the more these people would look to other leagues to invest in. "Good, we don't need them"? Well, that's fine and a perfectly good argument, if you really mean that. But that would also mean that the Premier League wouldn't be of as good quality as it is now. Money = quality. Maybe the French are perfectly happy with their situation, that they're not a top-4 league in Europe and tend to lose their best players to foreign leagues. Would you be willing to switch places with Ligue 1?

2. Not all fans would still be happy. Some would want the free marketplace rules back, because they'd feel their club is being held back by artificial limits. And not all fans could still attend games. Even with today's high prices, Premier League's stadium capacity is in over 90% use, as far as I know. More people could afford to go to matches more often, but not everyone could still get a ticket.

 

[Cardsfan]

Increased ticket prices have changed matchday experiences for the worse by pricing out those who have gone for years and making the atmosphere far worse. With Man United as the particular example, knocking £10 off each ticket price would cost them about £14 million a season when they earn £94 million from TV, plus the remainder of the gate money and other revenue streams like competition prize money and merchandise etc. Gate receipts haven't been the primary source of income for the "top" clubs for a while now, there's absolutely no need to drain loyal fans pockets for personal gain/stop them from being able to attend altogether. Football really shouldn't be seen as a business nor should clubs implement business-like policies, it's more than just simple entertainment. Sensible ticket prices are implemented in Germany to good effect, and there's no reason why something similar couldn't happen here.

The only way to achieve that would be to have a) the FA impose rules or b) the government impose legislation that would limit the clubs' freedom to make their own decisions. Competition between men will never be ruled by "noble common motives" that we just trust everyone will follow, it's just too vague and not in our nature. We need rules and regulations that can be enforced by a governing body.

For the sake of argument, let's say the FA imposed a rule that tickets can't cost more than £20 to any English league game. Two things would happen:

1. People with money (Abramoviches, Sheiks, Lerners etc.) and business expertise (the Glazers, Fenways, Levys) and all combinations of these would become less interested in owning English football clubs. The more the rules of the free marketplace become restricted, the more these people would look to other leagues to invest in. "Good, we don't need them"? Well, that's fine and a perfectly good argument, if you really mean that. But that would also mean that the Premier League wouldn't be of as good quality as it is now. Money = quality. Maybe the French are perfectly happy with their situation, that they're not a top-4 league in Europe and tend to lose their best players to foreign leagues. Would you be willing to switch places with Ligue 1?

2. Not all fans would still be happy. Some would want the free marketplace rules back, because they'd feel their club is being held back by artificial limits. And not all fans could still attend games. Even with today's high prices, Premier League's stadium capacity is in over 90% use, as far as I know. More people could afford to go to matches more often, but not everyone could still get a ticket.

There's no reason why football clubs can't treat fans properly, Stoke have offered free coach travel to away games for years for example - initiatives to reduce the cost of ticket prices would have very little effect on the club's competitiveness and would help to build fanbases for the future should new stadiums be built/teams get relegated etc.

I don't really think they would, as mentioned above gate receipts aren't really that vital a source of income to most Premier League clubs and so a rule such as you mentioned wouldn't have that great an effect on the ownership situations at the richest clubs in particular.

It makes more sense for people to be unable to go to games due to timing/luck than money, while people would still be unable to attend matches it would be a fairer system.

 

[smat]

The only way to achieve that would be to have a) the FA impose rules or b) the government impose legislation that would limit the clubs' freedom to make their own decisions. Competition between men will never be ruled by "noble common motives" that we just trust everyone will follow, it's just too vague and not in our nature. We need rules and regulations that can be enforced by a governing body.

For the sake of argument, let's say the FA imposed a rule that tickets can't cost more than £20 to any English league game. Two things would happen:

1. People with money (Abramoviches, Sheiks, Lerners etc.) and business expertise (the Glazers, Fenways, Levys) and all combinations of these would become less interested in owning English football clubs. The more the rules of the free marketplace become restricted, the more these people would look to other leagues to invest in. "Good, we don't need them"? Well, that's fine and a perfectly good argument, if you really mean that. But that would also mean that the Premier League wouldn't be of as good quality as it is now. Money = quality. Maybe the French are perfectly happy with their situation, that they're not a top-4 league in Europe and tend to lose their best players to foreign leagues. Would you be willing to switch places with Ligue 1?

2. Not all fans would still be happy. Some would want the free marketplace rules back, because they'd feel their club is being held back by artificial limits. And not all fans could still attend games. Even with today's high prices, Premier League's stadium capacity is in over 90% use, as far as I know. More people could afford to go to matches more often, but not everyone could still get a ticket.

Tbf our teams are abysmal in Europe anyway. What are we actually sacrificing if we lose investment in the Premier League (by trying to combat the profit motive)? Our teams not being quite as good? What are we gaining? Better atmospheres at games, supporters not being exploited for their attachment to their team, more fan involvement in club ownership (someone has to fill the vacuum left by these exiled billionaires), perhaps a better national team (as teams like Chelsea would be forced to let their academy players actually feel the benefit of their world class facilities and competitive football, rather than going on loan to Vitesse Arnhem). Probably a few more things too.

It's a trade off. I would take it. I like Arsenal having players like Ozil and Sanchez, but I also believe that football clubs should be more than just businesses. They should be responsibly run, of course, but at their core they should be community organisations and held to account as such. The words "that's business" get under my skin because economic growth is only a part of life. I would rather working class fans were able to go to games, or not get sent across the country for an 8pm kickoff to accommodate TV coverage, than our 'product' be the Best In The World.

Re people not being able to get tickets if you lowered the prices, you just told me the product would be poorer. Supply and demand dictates this would work out in my favour. That's business!

 

[Art Morte]

All right, so, let me do this: I'll create a new thread with a poll option to ask whether fans of English football would like to swap places with France's Ligue 1 or Germany's Bundesliga. Because that's where it eventually boils down to if you're unhappy with the ultra-commercial way English clubs are run in.

 

[smat]

All right, so, let me do this: I'll create a new thread with a poll option to ask whether fans of English football would like to swap places with France's Ligue 1 or Germany's Bundesliga. Because that's where it eventually boils down to if you're unhappy with the ultra-commercial way English clubs are run in.

Why would other people disagreeing with me prove your point? I'm not saying this is what everyone wants, I'm saying it's what I want. You may well be right, I may well be in the minority. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

 

[Art Morte]

Why would other people disagreeing with me prove your point? I'm not saying this is what everyone wants, I'm saying it's what I want. You may well be right, I may well be in the minority. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

And it's not my intention to prove anyone wrong, I just think it's a subject worth of its own thread. Inspired by this conversation.

And let me be clear, I don't think there's one correct answer. There are appealing sides across the scale. I'm just curious which is preferred in a mostly English forum.

 

[johnnytodd]

All right, so, let me do this: I'll create a new thread with a poll option to ask whether fans of English football would like to swap places with France's Ligue 1 or Germany's Bundesliga. Because that's where it eventually boils down to if you're unhappy with the ultra-commercial way English clubs are run in.

You have missed a major point, the fans watching today are not the fans who watched and created the atmospheres in England which attracted the TV companies to takeover football in the first place.

Football is great if you don't go..........but it is average most week in terms of atmosphere in the stadium. I have said before the only fun you have as a supporter nowadays is away games.

Perfect example is the Kop at Liverpool, created some of the best noise at a football ground in years gone by. Now full of day trippers and oot's it is very rarely bouncing.........most of my scouse red mates have been priced out and i do believe it or not feel for them as they helped build the club to what it is.

 

[smat]

And it's not my intention to prove anyone wrong, I just think it's a subject worth of its own thread. Inspired by this conversation.

And let me be clear, I don't think there's one correct answer. There are appealing sides across the scale. I'm just curious which is preferred in a mostly English forum.

Fair enough! Will be interested to see what the answer is. I don't know anything about how the business side of football is regulated in France or Germany so I'll take you at your word (the German model is often heralded as a better way over here, so I would be surprised if it didn't come out on top).

 

[Art Morte]

You have missed a major point, the fans watching today are not the fans who watched and created the atmospheres in England which attracted the TV companies to takeover football in the first place.

Football is great if you don't go..........but it is average most week in terms of atmosphere in the stadium. I have said before the only fun you have as a supporter nowadays is away games.

Perfect example is the Kop at Liverpool, created some of the best noise at a football ground in years gone by. Now full of day trippers and oot's it is very rarely bouncing.........most of my scouse red mates have been priced out and i do believe it or not feel for them as they helped build the club to what it is.

Well, that's an intriguing topic in itself, are fans with more money worse fans than fans with less money?

 

[Cardsfan]

All right, so, let me do this: I'll create a new thread with a poll option to ask whether fans of English football would like to swap places with France's Ligue 1 or Germany's Bundesliga. Because that's where it eventually boils down to if you're unhappy with the ultra-commercial way English clubs are run in.

I think there are more reasons why French football in particular has less investment than the Prem than purely ticket-prices and the less business-orientated way things are run so the poll might be a little simplistic in that regard...? Good idea though.

 

[Art Morte]

I think there are more reasons why French football in particular has less investment than the Prem than purely ticket-prices and the less business-orientated way things are run so the poll might be a little simplistic in that regard...? Good idea though.

Obviously it's not that simple, the Premier League is a brand that's been built up for some time ("since Sky invented football"), but it's a kinda curious topic whether English football fans feel a tipping point has been reached where they'd rather downsize than keep up the very business-orientated brand.

 

[G.B]

That £130m is an interest-free loan from Ashley, none of it has been paid back so far and neither has Ashley ever taken money out of Newcastle United, not even salary. Ashley has cleared all your external debt to banks, which was at about £76m when he took over, with annual interest payments of £8m. You owe him £130m because that's his own money he's put in the club and it's a standard procedure to mark it down as (usually interest-free) loan. Did you know that Chelsea owe about £1 billion to Abramovich - basically all the money he's ever put in the club - in interest-free loans?

Ashley is running the club just fine, imo. No, he doesn't keep pouring loads and loads of his own cash into the club - but why should an owner do that? Newcastle have a sensible transfer policy and probably try to break-even, hence why there are some player sales as well, not only purchases. The whole Sports Direct thing at St James' and perhaps managerial appointments can be criticized, but as far as the financial running of the club goes, Ashley is doing just fine.

Ah, so denying the club numerous paid advertising deals that'd hugely benefit the club financially in order to promote his 50p Gola socks around the world isn't taking money out of the club to service his own interests? £45mil taken out of the club (after promises to reinvest) in player sales. TV prize money vanishing in to thin air. Look at our revenue growth under him since he took over in '07. It's non existent. Meanwhile, over the same time period, and until his recent hit, shares in Sports Direct have grown to 6 times their value from '07. It's interesting that such a well run Premier League club "can't compete financially with Cardiff, Crystal Palace or Southampton". Paraphrasing there, but those are actual quotes. Three, at the time, recently promoted clubs. We're an advertising tool to him, nothing more. That's not how you (should) run a football club.

http://4c2lgc59e181vuma1n9bmo1c.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/assets/Hawk2.png

(yes, that's us at 14th in world football revenue at the time of his takeover... maizin)

“I was told that the man behind the deal was Mike Ashley and I sat with his representatives over 3 days thrashing out a deal. I was keen to know why they wanted the club and they were quite honest. They wanted to market their sports goods in the Far East and would use the club to help do this.”

http://4c2lgc59e181vuma1n9bmo1c.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/assets/Hawk1.png

I suggest you do some research on Mike Ashley and his ownership of Newcastle United (and Rangers, for the extra lols). I could sit here for hours linking you to articles, interviews, financial records etc. that show why you're naive in the extreme, but I've done that so many times before, I simply don't have the desire to show another ill-informed fan of another club why they're so incredbley wrong about Jabba.

 

[JimJams]

He's the fucking saviour of football you ungrateful bastard.

 

[Christian Slater]

Anthony Martial won the Golden Boy award last night. He's got an exciting future ahead of him if his talent isn't stifled by LVG.

 

[elnino65]

Anthony Martial won the Golden Boy award last night. He's got an exciting future ahead of him if his talent isn't stifled by LVG.

how would you bring the best out of Martial with the current team? watching the bournemouth match, I thought he was trying to get Martial on the ball more.

 

[Christian Slater]

how would you bring the best out of Martial with the current team? watching the bournemouth match, I thought he was trying to get Martial on the ball more.

By giving him adequate support with people making runs for him to use and that being done at a quick tempo. He's proven most deadly when the tempo picks up.

 

[Art Morte]

Are Swansea taking their time appointing a new manager because they're having a hard time finding a suitable guy or because they want to give Alan Curtis (the caretaker) a chance?

 

[ThisTinpotLeague]

I would have at least one or two things in life not totally dictated by market forces. Football clubs could easily work together to improve the experience for their supporters. The profit motive doesn't have to be the be all, end all.

I agree with your views and you articulate them better than I have managed, but sadly I feel that this train of thought is held by the minority. There are plenty of options for people to go and be part of a club at a more affordable level and they'd sooner pay for a Sky subscription and buy in to the glamour.

 

[Art Morte]

Are Swansea taking their time appointing a new manager because they're having a hard time finding a suitable guy or because they want to give Alan Curtis (the caretaker) a chance?

And they've made Curtis the interim one.

I don't like these decisions by clubs. To sack the manager only to replace him with his assistant. I suppose it worked all right with Chelsea and Di Matteo, but I think it more often goes wrong or doesn't change anything. Wolverhampton sacking McCarthy and appointing his assistant (don't remember the name) comes to mind.

 

[Stevencc]

 

[Art Morte]

Yeah, that guy.