Martin Samuel

[Byways1]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... iness.html

[CreamofSumYungGai]

He's a c***, ain't he.

[Byways1]

He's a c***, ain't he.

Who?
Me or Martin
He’s not wrong though.

[Red_Army]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... iness.html

I despair. Of course their problems are because they were not financially viable any longer- that's obvious. But you have to ask why that was. Samuels even brings up that it was because the owner's property business collapsed and he had to mortgage Gigg Lane. Why is that allowed? Why has football allowed it to be that clubs can be gambled on against businessmen's other interests?

He also draws a false picture that Bury 'bought promotion'. Their squad was developed on budgets and contracts that would have been set and agreed before Day's businesses collapsed. They would have been running a deficit, for sure, but because their income (Day's investment) decreased, not because their expenditure increased. Some of the debate about 'living within their means' really does annoy me. People who talk about this point to the expenditure, without looking at the income side of it. If the football authorities did more to help smaller clubs find income, rather than limit their expenditure, it would be a much healthier situation. This can be done by redressing the balance of TV money or reversing the EPPP which has reduced tribunal fees for young players.

The trend of football for a long time, accelerated in 1992 has been a move from the smaller clubs to an elite cluster at the top. This has made running a football club more expensive as players expect to be paid more, and has reduced income for smaller clubs who find it hard to compete with the elite clubs in attracting support, and have to raise ticket prices to compensate. Samuels even alludes to this 'Manchester United pay the going rate in their market place, and can afford it.' Is that not a sign to him that the market is broken?

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

All very interesting but comparisons between Tesco and the local shop with Man City and Bury are ridiculous.

A decent number of players in the Premiership will have started their careers lower down the pyramid. The Elite gain from the work that goes on up and down the country, finding new talent and with smaller clubs developing that talent before they move up. Often for a pittance due to contract clauses, to the big boys.

So large clubs directly benefit from the smaller ones, unlike the Tesco example where Tesco would happily see their competition disappear. In fact they do all they can to make it happen.

So it is not unreasonable to expect the smaller clubs to get a bigger share of the pie. TV for example where Premier clubs enjoy income of £30 million plus PA yet in league two we get a fraction of that.

I like the term pyramid. Remove the bricks at the bottom and there is naff all left to hold up the top.

[Wally Banter]

That caused me to peruse some DM comments for the first time in ages. Shudder.

[Red_Army]

All very interesting but comparisons between Tesco and the local shop with Man City and Bury are ridiculous.

A decent number of players in the Premiership will have started their careers lower down the pyramid. The Elite gain from the work that goes on up and down the country, finding new talent and with smaller clubs developing that talent before they move up. Often for a pittance due to contract clauses, to the big boys.

So large clubs directly benefit from the smaller ones, unlike the Tesco example where Tesco would happily see their competition disappear. In fact they do all they can to make it happen.

So it is not unreasonable to expect the smaller clubs to get a bigger share of the pie. TV for example where Premier clubs enjoy income of £30 million plus PA yet in league two we get a fraction of that.

I like the term pyramid. Remove the bricks at the bottom and there is naff all left to hold up the top.

Except you are wrong. The elite clubs would benefit from the smaller clubs disappearing as those lads that they would have had to pay money for (even if it is a pittance), would be free for them to train in their academies. What the elite clubs would really love is for the smaller clubs to become feeder clubs for the big clubs, doing this job for them. We've seen the first move towards this type of thing with u21 sides competing in the EFL Trophy.

[Proposition Joe]

For an International Champion of Business, doh us remarkably naive about football finances. As RedArmy says, the likes of Man City couldn't give a flying one about Bury and don't really benefit from their existence at all. If the League was reduced to two divisions of 20 they'd be happy as Larry. They're every bit like Tesco.

[CreamofSumYungGai]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... iness.html

I despair. Of course their problems are because they were not financially viable any longer- that's obvious. But you have to ask why that was. Samuels even brings up that it was because the owner's property business collapsed and he had to mortgage Gigg Lane. Why is that allowed? Why has football allowed it to be that clubs can be gambled on against businessmen's other interests?

He also draws a false picture that Bury 'bought promotion'. Their squad was developed on budgets and contracts that would have been set and agreed before Day's businesses collapsed. They would have been running a deficit, for sure, but because their income (Day's investment) decreased, not because their expenditure increased. Some of the debate about 'living within their means' really does annoy me. People who talk about this point to the expenditure, without looking at the income side of it. If the football authorities did more to help smaller clubs find income, rather than limit their expenditure, it would be a much healthier situation. This can be done by redressing the balance of TV money or reversing the EPPP which has reduced tribunal fees for young players.

The trend of football for a long time, accelerated in 1992 has been a move from the smaller clubs to an elite cluster at the top. This has made running a football club more expensive as players expect to be paid more, and has reduced income for smaller clubs who find it hard to compete with the elite clubs in attracting support, and have to raise ticket prices to compensate. Samuels even alludes to this 'Manchester United pay the going rate in their market place, and can afford it.' Is that not a sign to him that the market is broken?

Pretty much what I said, but in lots more words.

[Byways1]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... iness.html

I despair. Of course their problems are because they were not financially viable any longer- that's obvious. But you have to ask why that was. Samuels even brings up that it was because the owner's property business collapsed and he had to mortgage Gigg Lane. Why is that allowed? Why has football allowed it to be that clubs can be gambled on against businessmen's other interests?

He also draws a false picture that Bury 'bought promotion'. Their squad was developed on budgets and contracts that would have been set and agreed before Day's businesses collapsed. They would have been running a deficit, for sure, but because their income (Day's investment) decreased, not because their expenditure increased. Some of the debate about 'living within their means' really does annoy me. People who talk about this point to the expenditure, without looking at the income side of it. If the football authorities did more to help smaller clubs find income, rather than limit their expenditure, it would be a much healthier situation. This can be done by redressing the balance of TV money or reversing the EPPP which has reduced tribunal fees for young players.

The trend of football for a long time, accelerated in 1992 has been a move from the smaller clubs to an elite cluster at the top. This has made running a football club more expensive as players expect to be paid more, and has reduced income for smaller clubs who find it hard to compete with the elite clubs in attracting support, and have to raise ticket prices to compensate. Samuels even alludes to this 'Manchester United pay the going rate in their market place, and can afford it.' Is that not a sign to him that the market is broken?

They overspent it’s as simple as that.
The owner made unrealistic promises of Championship football in 5 years.
They chased that dream and were losing 2.8 m per year.
Their support was about 5000 and there ground held about 12000.
Surrounded by massive clubs there was no way they were going to get much more than that.
To make that come true you would need very deep pockets like say Dave Whelen or assets and deep pockets like Brentford.

[MrB]

You know,he could easily have written something like that about us

[CreamofSumYungGai]

You know,he could easily have written something like that about us

And pretty much every other club not in the top 4 or whatever it is these days. The model is broken.

It's mind bottling how pricks like him know so little about a subject they chat and write about so much.

[Beradogs]

All very interesting but comparisons between Tesco and the local shop with Man City and Bury are ridiculous.

A decent number of players in the Premiership will have started their careers lower down the pyramid. The Elite gain from the work that goes on up and down the country, finding new talent and with smaller clubs developing that talent before they move up. Often for a pittance due to contract clauses, to the big boys.

So large clubs directly benefit from the smaller ones, unlike the Tesco example where Tesco would happily see their competition disappear. In fact they do all they can to make it happen.

So it is not unreasonable to expect the smaller clubs to get a bigger share of the pie. TV for example where Premier clubs enjoy income of £30 million plus PA yet in league two we get a fraction of that.

I like the term pyramid. Remove the bricks at the bottom and there is naff all left to hold up the top.

Not correct. A friend of mine stacked shelves at the local co-op and Tesco’s came in for him one day and he moved. When, I say came in for him. It was advertised in the job centre but it does happen.

[Red_Army]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... iness.html

I despair. Of course their problems are because they were not financially viable any longer- that's obvious. But you have to ask why that was. Samuels even brings up that it was because the owner's property business collapsed and he had to mortgage Gigg Lane. Why is that allowed? Why has football allowed it to be that clubs can be gambled on against businessmen's other interests?

He also draws a false picture that Bury 'bought promotion'. Their squad was developed on budgets and contracts that would have been set and agreed before Day's businesses collapsed. They would have been running a deficit, for sure, but because their income (Day's investment) decreased, not because their expenditure increased. Some of the debate about 'living within their means' really does annoy me. People who talk about this point to the expenditure, without looking at the income side of it. If the football authorities did more to help smaller clubs find income, rather than limit their expenditure, it would be a much healthier situation. This can be done by redressing the balance of TV money or reversing the EPPP which has reduced tribunal fees for young players.

The trend of football for a long time, accelerated in 1992 has been a move from the smaller clubs to an elite cluster at the top. This has made running a football club more expensive as players expect to be paid more, and has reduced income for smaller clubs who find it hard to compete with the elite clubs in attracting support, and have to raise ticket prices to compensate. Samuels even alludes to this 'Manchester United pay the going rate in their market place, and can afford it.' Is that not a sign to him that the market is broken?

They overspent it’s as simple as that.
The owner made unrealistic promises of Championship football in 5 years.
They chased that dream and were losing 2.8 m per year.
Their support was about 5000 and there ground held about 12000.
Surrounded by massive clubs there was no way they were going to get much more than that.
To make that come true you would need very deep pockets like say Dave Whelen or assets and deep pockets like Brentford.

I've explained why your first point is not a useful way of looking at it.
I've also explained why football can make it sustainable for clubs lower down the leagues to be sustainable.
When you say they 'overspent', think about income rather than expenditure, and you will see the blame lies with the football industry and how footballis financed, not small clubs paying their players.

[Byways1]

What nonsense.
I take you have a household budget?
Do you spend 50% more than what you have got coming in every week?
You cut your cloth accordingly, unless you are one of these idiots who keep remortgaging.
He kept spending by remortgaging the ground and one charge was 138% pa.
It was always going to end in tears.
The most obvious step for lower league clubs is first Regionalist leagues and for players to be payed sensible wages. And for some that will mean going part-time otherwise this will happen time and time again.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

All very interesting but comparisons between Tesco and the local shop with Man City and Bury are ridiculous.

A decent number of players in the Premiership will have started their careers lower down the pyramid. The Elite gain from the work that goes on up and down the country, finding new talent and with smaller clubs developing that talent before they move up. Often for a pittance due to contract clauses, to the big boys.

So large clubs directly benefit from the smaller ones, unlike the Tesco example where Tesco would happily see their competition disappear. In fact they do all they can to make it happen.

So it is not unreasonable to expect the smaller clubs to get a bigger share of the pie. TV for example where Premier clubs enjoy income of £30 million plus PA yet in league two we get a fraction of that.

I like the term pyramid. Remove the bricks at the bottom and there is naff all left to hold up the top.

Except you are wrong. The elite clubs would benefit from the smaller clubs disappearing as those lads that they would have had to pay money for (even if it is a pittance), would be free for them to train in their academies. What the elite clubs would really love is for the smaller clubs to become feeder clubs for the big clubs, doing this job for them. We've seen the first move towards this type of thing with u21 sides competing in the EFL Trophy.

Except that Manchester Utd (amongst others) are now proposing that smaller clubs get a bigger share of the TV money pot, in order to avoid a repeat of the Bury situation. But they need the agreement of 14 PL clubs to make this happen. There is one large club trying, so much for the assumption they want smaller clubs to disappear!

You think big clubs want massive behind the scenes infrastructures with hundreds of scouts recruiting thousands of youngsters going through the process of identifying those few with the ability to make it big. Of course not. So much easier to let the smaller clubs do the work then cherry pick those few who show promise, then develop them in the U23 sides.

[Red_Army]

What nonsense.
I take you have a household budget?
Do you spend 50% more than what you have got coming in every week?
You cut your cloth accordingly, unless you are one of these idiots who keep remortgaging.
He kept spending by remortgaging the ground and one charge was 138% pa.
It was always going to end in tears.
The most obvious step for lower league clubs is first Regionalist leagues and for players to be payed sensible wages. And for some that will mean going part-time otherwise this will happen time and time again.

Firstly, what your describing is reckless financing by one man who's business went down the drain. The problems with football are more systemic than that. Why not have an environment where you don't need, or are not allowed to do such a thing? Why not create an environment where football clubs are sustainable enough to not need to be wholly dependent on the success of one man's business interests in the first place?

Ahh the classic household finance analogy, I was waiting for this one. At one stage of my life I spent an awful lot more than my income in order to achieve a university degree in the belief that in the long run I would be better off for that. Should I not have done that in your austere world?

Regional leagues might temporarily help a few clubs, but it would be a sticking plaster on an ever expanding wound.

You talk about paying sensible wages. Do you think these clubs are choosing to pay average footballers these sums? They have to pay these sums because inflation, led by the boom of the Premier League has meant that they have to. Bury and similar clubs pay relatively modest wages- see the interview with Stephen Dawson talking about selling his house.

[CreamofSumYungGai]

What nonsense.
I take you have a household budget?
Do you spend 50% more than what you have got coming in every week?
You cut your cloth accordingly, unless you are one of these idiots who keep remortgaging.
He kept spending by remortgaging the ground and one charge was 138% pa.
It was always going to end in tears.
The most obvious step for lower league clubs is first Regionalist leagues and for players to be payed sensible wages. And for some that will mean going part-time otherwise this will happen time and time again.

No, that’s not the most obvious step.

It’s not as if all these L1 and L2 clubs are paying their players hundreds of thousands of pounds per annum.

The obvious step is a redistribution of income.

[Red_Army]

All very interesting but comparisons between Tesco and the local shop with Man City and Bury are ridiculous.

A decent number of players in the Premiership will have started their careers lower down the pyramid. The Elite gain from the work that goes on up and down the country, finding new talent and with smaller clubs developing that talent before they move up. Often for a pittance due to contract clauses, to the big boys.

So large clubs directly benefit from the smaller ones, unlike the Tesco example where Tesco would happily see their competition disappear. In fact they do all they can to make it happen.

So it is not unreasonable to expect the smaller clubs to get a bigger share of the pie. TV for example where Premier clubs enjoy income of £30 million plus PA yet in league two we get a fraction of that.

I like the term pyramid. Remove the bricks at the bottom and there is naff all left to hold up the top.

Except you are wrong. The elite clubs would benefit from the smaller clubs disappearing as those lads that they would have had to pay money for (even if it is a pittance), would be free for them to train in their academies. What the elite clubs would really love is for the smaller clubs to become feeder clubs for the big clubs, doing this job for them. We've seen the first move towards this type of thing with u21 sides competing in the EFL Trophy.

Except that Manchester Utd (amongst others) are now proposing that smaller clubs get a bigger share of the TV money pot, in order to avoid a repeat of the Bury situation. But they need the agreement of 14 PL clubs to make this happen. There is one large club trying, so much for the assumption they want smaller clubs to disappear!

You think big clubs want massive behind the scenes infrastructures with hundreds of scouts recruiting thousands of youngsters going through the process of identifying those few with the ability to make it big. Of course not. So much easier to let the smaller clubs do the work then cherry pick those few who show promise, then develop them in the U23 sides.

If you honestly believe that then you have not been following football for the past decade. The top clubs have hundreds of kids on their books in the hope that a few of them might make the grade. They have networks around the world for this purpose. Only the current rules stop this- look at Chelsea and their recent transfer ban. The elite clubs would love nothing more than be able to set up an academy in every country in the world, farming footballers.

[CreamofSumYungGai]

All very interesting but comparisons between Tesco and the local shop with Man City and Bury are ridiculous.

A decent number of players in the Premiership will have started their careers lower down the pyramid. The Elite gain from the work that goes on up and down the country, finding new talent and with smaller clubs developing that talent before they move up. Often for a pittance due to contract clauses, to the big boys.

So large clubs directly benefit from the smaller ones, unlike the Tesco example where Tesco would happily see their competition disappear. In fact they do all they can to make it happen.

So it is not unreasonable to expect the smaller clubs to get a bigger share of the pie. TV for example where Premier clubs enjoy income of £30 million plus PA yet in league two we get a fraction of that.

I like the term pyramid. Remove the bricks at the bottom and there is naff all left to hold up the top.

Except you are wrong. The elite clubs would benefit from the smaller clubs disappearing as those lads that they would have had to pay money for (even if it is a pittance), would be free for them to train in their academies. What the elite clubs would really love is for the smaller clubs to become feeder clubs for the big clubs, doing this job for them. We've seen the first move towards this type of thing with u21 sides competing in the EFL Trophy.

Except that Manchester Utd (amongst others) are now proposing that smaller clubs get a bigger share of the TV money pot, in order to avoid a repeat of the Bury situation. But they need the agreement of 14 PL clubs to make this happen. There is one large club trying, so much for the assumption they want smaller clubs to disappear!

You think big clubs want massive behind the scenes infrastructures with hundreds of scouts recruiting thousands of youngsters going through the process of identifying those few with the ability to make it big. Of course not. So much easier to let the smaller clubs do the work then cherry pick those few who show promise, then develop them in the U23 sides.

Yes, that’s exactly what the big clubs want. It’s why they’re driving their business models this way. It’s how our markets work - bigger is better - I thought your years as a Boardroom Behemoth would have taught you that.

[Byways1]

What nonsense.
I take you have a household budget?
Do you spend 50% more than what you have got coming in every week?
You cut your cloth accordingly, unless you are one of these idiots who keep remortgaging.
He kept spending by remortgaging the ground and one charge was 138% pa.
It was always going to end in tears.
The most obvious step for lower league clubs is first Regionalist leagues and for players to be payed sensible wages. And for some that will mean going part-time otherwise this will happen time and time again.

Firstly, what your describing is reckless financing by one man who's business went down the drain. The problems with football are more systemic than that. Why not have an environment where you don't need, or are not allowed to do such a thing? Why not create an environment where football clubs are sustainable enough to not need to be wholly dependent on the success of one man's business interests in the first place?

Ahh the classic household finance analogy, I was waiting for this one. At one stage of my life I spent an awful lot more than my income in order to achieve a university degree in the belief that in the long run I would be better off for that. Should I not have done that in your austere world?

Regional leagues might temporarily help a few clubs, but it would be a sticking plaster on an ever expanding wound.

You talk about paying sensible wages. Do you think these clubs are choosing to pay average footballers these sums? They have to pay these sums because inflation, led by the boom of the Premier League has meant that they have to. Bury and similar clubs pay relatively modest wages- see the interview with Stephen Dawson talking about selling his house.

Modest wages
Their average wage was £2400 per week on a turnover of 4-5m.
I would hazard a guess that Danns and Beckford were on a lot more.

[Red_Army]

What nonsense.
I take you have a household budget?
Do you spend 50% more than what you have got coming in every week?
You cut your cloth accordingly, unless you are one of these idiots who keep remortgaging.
He kept spending by remortgaging the ground and one charge was 138% pa.
It was always going to end in tears.
The most obvious step for lower league clubs is first Regionalist leagues and for players to be payed sensible wages. And for some that will mean going part-time otherwise this will happen time and time again.

Firstly, what your describing is reckless financing by one man who's business went down the drain. The problems with football are more systemic than that. Why not have an environment where you don't need, or are not allowed to do such a thing? Why not create an environment where football clubs are sustainable enough to not need to be wholly dependent on the success of one man's business interests in the first place?

Ahh the classic household finance analogy, I was waiting for this one. At one stage of my life I spent an awful lot more than my income in order to achieve a university degree in the belief that in the long run I would be better off for that. Should I not have done that in your austere world?

Regional leagues might temporarily help a few clubs, but it would be a sticking plaster on an ever expanding wound.

You talk about paying sensible wages. Do you think these clubs are choosing to pay average footballers these sums? They have to pay these sums because inflation, led by the boom of the Premier League has meant that they have to. Bury and similar clubs pay relatively modest wages- see the interview with Stephen Dawson talking about selling his house.

Modest wages
Their average wage was £2400 per week on a turnover of 4-5m.
I would hazard a guess that Danns and Beckford were on a lot more.

But that is clearly not the only, not even the reason, why what's happened has happened.

[CreamofSumYungGai]

What nonsense.
I take you have a household budget?
Do you spend 50% more than what you have got coming in every week?
You cut your cloth accordingly, unless you are one of these idiots who keep remortgaging.
He kept spending by remortgaging the ground and one charge was 138% pa.
It was always going to end in tears.
The most obvious step for lower league clubs is first Regionalist leagues and for players to be payed sensible wages. And for some that will mean going part-time otherwise this will happen time and time again.

Firstly, what your describing is reckless financing by one man who's business went down the drain. The problems with football are more systemic than that. Why not have an environment where you don't need, or are not allowed to do such a thing? Why not create an environment where football clubs are sustainable enough to not need to be wholly dependent on the success of one man's business interests in the first place?

Ahh the classic household finance analogy, I was waiting for this one. At one stage of my life I spent an awful lot more than my income in order to achieve a university degree in the belief that in the long run I would be better off for that. Should I not have done that in your austere world?

Regional leagues might temporarily help a few clubs, but it would be a sticking plaster on an ever expanding wound.

You talk about paying sensible wages. Do you think these clubs are choosing to pay average footballers these sums? They have to pay these sums because inflation, led by the boom of the Premier League has meant that they have to. Bury and similar clubs pay relatively modest wages- see the interview with Stephen Dawson talking about selling his house.

Modest wages
Their average wage was £2400 per week on a turnover of 4-5m.
I would hazard a guess that Danns and Beckford were on a lot more.

Source, please.

[tuffers#1]

Martin Samuel
Supporter of a Football club who are
Subsidised by the tax payer
Renound Orient Hater .

If he got knocked over by a bus
I wouldnt shed a tear.

[RientO]

Do you spend 50% more than what you have got coming in every week?

I do, thanks to 0% purchase credit cards. That written I pay them off when the money finally comes in.
I have very low income in first 6-7 months of the tax year which increases from around November/December and if things go well, I get a bonus in March. Some years are better than others. Some years I have big profits (like last year) and others I have small losses. I suspect football clubs have similar peaks and troughs that they have to manage.