Martin Samuel

[EH16]

Daily Mail = Lies. The end.

[Disoriented]

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

He is and having met the fella, factually so.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

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.

Do the maths. The numbers of scouts and players in the lower leagues. You think they can cope with thousands of youngsters and once they have then where are they going to play them to prove themselves in real competition. Why do you think they are happy to loan out kids to teams like Orient, to get competitive experience. to kill off lower league clubs? Lower league clubs are doing much of their work for them at no extra cost.

And why are Man Utd and others in the PL suggesting more TV money to the lower league clubs to avoid another Bury? sort of shoots the theory they are trying to kill off lower league football stone dead don't you think.

[Byways1]

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.

Do the maths. The numbers of scouts and players in the lower leagues. You think they can cope with thousands of youngsters and once they have then where are they going to play them to prove themselves in real competition. Why do you think they are happy to loan out kids to teams like Orient, to get competitive experience. to kill off lower league clubs? Lower league clubs are doing much of their work for them at no extra cost.

And why are Man Utd and others in the PL suggesting more TV money to the lower league clubs to avoid another Bury? sort of shoots the theory they are trying to kill off lower league football stone dead don't you think.

The extra money will be a drop in the ocean and it wouldn’t stop clubs being run by idiots going bust.
Accrington and Burton seem to be doing alright with sensible owners.
Burton in fact did make the Championship but could never expect to stay there long term.

[Max B Gold]

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.

Do the maths. The numbers of scouts and players in the lower leagues. You think they can cope with thousands of youngsters and once they have then where are they going to play them to prove themselves in real competition. Why do you think they are happy to loan out kids to teams like Orient, to get competitive experience. to kill off lower league clubs? Lower league clubs are doing much of their work for them at no extra cost.

And why are Man Utd and others in the PL suggesting more TV money to the lower league clubs to avoid another Bury? sort of shoots the theory they are trying to kill off lower league football stone dead don't you think.

I see Leeds have enticed another Motherwell youth prospect to join them. Dirty, dirty Leeds.

[Red_Army]

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.

Do the maths. The numbers of scouts and players in the lower leagues. You think they can cope with thousands of youngsters and once they have then where are they going to play them to prove themselves in real competition. Why do you think they are happy to loan out kids to teams like Orient, to get competitive experience. to kill off lower league clubs? Lower league clubs are doing much of their work for them at no extra cost.

And why are Man Utd and others in the PL suggesting more TV money to the lower league clubs to avoid another Bury? sort of shoots the theory they are trying to kill off lower league football stone dead don't you think.

They would absolutely love to turn those clubs into feeder clubs though. They have done it already with overseas teams. Look at Melbourne City or New York City for example. The only thing stopping them ks the rules.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

Feeder clubs is a different argument than wanting them to disappear. And I can see how this may be attractive, us foe example having a number of Spurs second string players, giving them game time, the club finances to continue and us fans watching some better players. Though I assume promotion is a non starter and outsiders having a large say on who and how we play.

Not for me, but I. An see the attraction for the big boys. And why the loan market is bouyant

[Disoriented]

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.

Is that the same bus that Miles Judd got thrown under last week?

If so, I would strongly suggest to Transport for London that it is taken out of service immediately.

[The Orient Hour]

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?

100% on the button. A very well written post that highlights the problems we face in the game today.

[EliotNes]

Elements of truth in the article, but it's also wind-up journalism - but that's what the guys paid for

[Byways1]

Elements of truth in the article, but it's also wind-up journalism - but that's what the guys paid for

People believe what they want to believe.
The fact is going with a begging bowl to Premier division clubs is not the answer.
You should only spend what you can afford and in my opinion that should be based on your average gate takings for league games for the past 3 seasons.
The current system is not working with loans etc, clubs find a way to inflate their income.
This system falls apart when the benefactor disappears and the club ends up with a huge wage bill it can’t afford.
Obviously wages will fall under this system but that is not a bad thing.
Paying players 3 grand a week on gates of under 5000 is just daft.

[slacker]

Samuel just trying to be interestingly controversial. He’s not a bad sports hack. Was at my school (Ilford CHS, Barkingside) same time as me, but a couple years lower so obviously I never noticed him.

Benefactors subsidising lower league clubs don’t help matters overall in the long run (as, indeed, to charlatans and asset strippers) - just push up the wages/costs for everyone. But if we want to retain our pro pyramid (pretty much 5 divisions now) the PL needs to think about sharing out a bit more of its wealth for the health of the game, so fair play to Man U for thinking about it.

[Byways1]

Samuel just trying to be interestingly controversial. He’s not a bad sports hack. Was at my school (Ilford CHS, Barkingside) same time as me, but a couple years lower so obviously I never noticed him.

Benefactors subsidising lower league clubs don’t help matters overall in the long run (as, indeed, to charlatans and asset strippers) - just push up the wages/costs for everyone. But if we want to retain our pro pyramid (pretty much 5 divisions now) the PL needs to think about sharing out a bit more of its wealth for the health of the game, so fair play to Man U for thinking about it.

James, it won’t stop the idiots overspending.
The bloke at Bury as a classic example,(Stewart Day) a rich fan in charge of a club.
The fact is you get very successful businessmen who are normally very shewed and sharp but as soon as they get into football many lose their marbles and the club suffers or in Burys case disappear altogether.

[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.

Is that the same bus that Miles Judd got thrown under last week?

If so, I would strongly suggest to Transport for London that it is taken out of service immediately.

No yours was a metaphorical use of language .

Mine is a prayer for the future

[O my gawd]

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

& a fat greasy one at that

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

Elements of truth in the article, but it's also wind-up journalism - but that's what the guys paid for

People believe what they want to believe.
The fact is going with a begging bowl to Premier division clubs is not the answer.
You should only spend what you can afford and in my opinion that should be based on your average gate takings for league games for the past 3 seasons.
The current system is not working with loans etc, clubs find a way to inflate their income.
This system falls apart when the benefactor disappears and the club ends up with a huge wage bill it can’t afford.
Obviously wages will fall under this system but that is not a bad thing.
Paying players 3 grand a week on gates of under 5000 is just daft.

So you reckon Steve Dawson was on 3 grand a week at Bury. I doubt many in L2/1 are on that money.

If the principle that players can only earn based on income, we will enter a time when L1/2 will become semi pro. Many teams get such small gates, Salford today, what 3000 and that was with a big Orient contingent that won’t happen every home game. The game would change beyond recognition and lose much of its appeal, gates will drop even further.

Saying wages fall is no bad thing, unless you are a player with a family and mortgage and a short career. Then you may feel differently.

I see absolutely no problem with more TV money filtering down and smart clubs embracing sponsorship deals And who the feck are we to say a billionaire shouldn’t waste his money as they see fit. Private money has been keeping clubs going for 100 years. Overall the system has worked reasonably well, although with the obvious issues.

If Orient went semi pro I would bother spending lots of money to see the local plumber having a kick about with his mates. I can watch my local club play, which I do, cheaply. We need to find creative ways of maintaining professional football, semi pro ain’t the answer.

[Byways1]

Elements of truth in the article, but it's also wind-up journalism - but that's what the guys paid for

People believe what they want to believe.
The fact is going with a begging bowl to Premier division clubs is not the answer.
You should only spend what you can afford and in my opinion that should be based on your average gate takings for league games for the past 3 seasons.
The current system is not working with loans etc, clubs find a way to inflate their income.
This system falls apart when the benefactor disappears and the club ends up with a huge wage bill it can’t afford.
Obviously wages will fall under this system but that is not a bad thing.
Paying players 3 grand a week on gates of under 5000 is just daft.

So you reckon Steve Dawson was on 3 grand a week at Bury. I doubt many in L2/1 are on that money.

If the principle that players can only earn based on income, we will enter a time when L1/2 will become semi pro. Many teams get such small gates, Salford today, what 3000 and that was with a big Orient contingent that won’t happen every home game. The game would change beyond recognition and lose much of its appeal, gates will drop even further.

Saying wages fall is no bad thing, unless you are a player with a family and mortgage and a short career. Then you may feel differently.

I see absolutely no problem with more TV money filtering down and smart clubs embracing sponsorship deals And who the feck are we to say a billionaire shouldn’t waste his money as they see fit. Private money has been keeping clubs going for 100 years. Overall the system has worked reasonably well, although with the obvious issues.

If Orient went semi pro I would bother spending lots of money to see the local plumber having a kick about with his mates. I can watch my local club play, which I do, cheaply. We need to find creative ways of maintaining professional football, semi pro ain’t the answer.

https://sillyseason.com/salary/bury-fc- ... es-128023/
Average wage £2400 so yes there was players on 3 grand a week plus.
If you think as a captain of industry that is sustainable then I am shocked.
Burton manage to run a club in a sensible manner, so why defend clubs that don’t.

[CreamofSumYungGai]

That’s a reliable source

[Byways1]

Elements of truth in the article, but it's also wind-up journalism - but that's what the guys paid for

People believe what they want to believe.
The fact is going with a begging bowl to Premier division clubs is not the answer.
You should only spend what you can afford and in my opinion that should be based on your average gate takings for league games for the past 3 seasons.
The current system is not working with loans etc, clubs find a way to inflate their income.
This system falls apart when the benefactor disappears and the club ends up with a huge wage bill it can’t afford.
Obviously wages will fall under this system but that is not a bad thing.
Paying players 3 grand a week on gates of under 5000 is just daft.

So you reckon Steve Dawson was on 3 grand a week at Bury. I doubt many in L2/1 are on that money.

If the principle that players can only earn based on income, we will enter a time when L1/2 will become semi pro. Many teams get such small gates, Salford today, what 3000 and that was with a big Orient contingent that won’t happen every home game. The game would change beyond recognition and lose much of its appeal, gates will drop even further.

Saying wages fall is no bad thing, unless you are a player with a family and mortgage and a short career. Then you may feel differently.

I see absolutely no problem with more TV money filtering down and smart clubs embracing sponsorship deals And who the feck are we to say a billionaire shouldn’t waste his money as they see fit. Private money has been keeping clubs going for 100 years. Overall the system has worked reasonably well, although with the obvious issues.

If Orient went semi pro I would bother spending lots of money to see the local plumber having a kick about with his mates. I can watch my local club play, which I do, cheaply. We need to find creative ways of maintaining professional football, semi pro ain’t the answer.

It must also be said that if you are earning 2 k plus a week that is well above the average salary what most people have to get by on.
If you have any sense you should have a tidy sum put away once you are in your thirties when you enter the real world and have to get a proper job.

[CreamofSumYungGai]

They won’t be earning your made up figure of £2k per week every year of their career. Their salary will peak between the ages of say 27 - 30.

[Byways1]

They won’t be earning your made up figure of £2k per week every year of their career. Their salary will peak between the ages of say 27 - 30.

Not true.
Beckford was on 5 k a week.
Why do you think they went bust.

[Byways1]

They won’t be earning your made up figure of £2k per week every year of their career. Their salary will peak between the ages of say 27 - 30.

Not true.
Beckford was on 5 k a week.
Why do you think they went bust.

At the age of 35.

[Story of O]

If more money came into the lower leagues, players and agents would be after bigger wages. Problem continues.

[CreamofSumYungGai]

We’re Beckfords wages also published on that website?