Life below the top flight...the harsh reality

[Mr Popodopolous]

 Sawfish a not bad article on this.

Now we know this for the most part anyway but anyway, below the PL despite record attendances things are bad.

This began in 1992 with the formation of the PL and seeds were sown late 1980s when the 'Big 5' wanted a bigger slice of TV pie.

Now lower League sides have often had financial issues. I remember lots went into administration in 1990s and early 2000s. Varied clubs as well- Accrington, Newport, Maidstone I think- went bust at varying times. Many others had issues in 1980s- not least us!

https://www.football365.com/news/unfit-and-improper-the-calamity-of-football-league-owners

Because mad though it sounds after losses of £25m in 17/18, we are one of the lucky ones. So long as SL is happy to fund whatever shortfall. At a time when football as an industry hasn't been richer, this article is an interesting footnote in the glory glory Premier League times.

[foghornred]

Not only the forming of the premier league but the decision to let the home team keep their gate money instead of being shared between the two clubs meaning that Manchester United got bigger and smaller clubs couldn't compete. 

[downendcity]

5 minutes ago, foghornred said:

Not only the forming of the premier league but the decision to let the home team keep their gate money instead of being shared between the two clubs meaning that Manchester United got bigger and smaller clubs couldn't compete. 

While that will have had an effect, far bigger I think is that since it's formation, Sky's coverage of the prem has projected English topflight football to a worldwide audience.

This has enabled the "big brand name" clubs, Man U being principle due to their historic name and premier league success, to cash in and in particular in the Far East. 

[MigratedRobin]

It's the same in any area of modern capitalism. The money doesn't 'TrickleDown', it's a torrent that flows uphill.

[Natchfever]

38 minutes ago, foghornred said:

Not only the forming of the premier league but the decision to let the home team keep their gate money instead of being shared between the two clubs meaning that Manchester United got bigger and smaller clubs couldn't compete. 

Ironically compounded by FFP which saves most clubs from unsustainable debt (in theory) but holds clubs back with mega rich ambitious owners (in theory)

[Major Isewater]

11 hours ago, Lucan said:

Not a factor really.  

 

Could you explain how a club with home gates of 60,000 plus doesn’t have a financial advantage over a club who has gates of 25,000 please ? 

So Burnley , for example, take the gate receipts of 30,000 for their visit to Old Trafford and 14,500 from their home match = 44,500 ticket revenue.

With the current system they have ticket receipts of 25,000. 

Nearly 20,000 difference at , let’s say average £30 a ticket means they £600,000 down for this one match , not pocket money is it ? 

 

[Bristol Rob]

Don't forget ITV Digital 

[WarksRobin]

18 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Don't forget ITV Digital 

I’m still trying to

[Olé]

28 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Don't forget ITV Digital 

Still reckon posting on OTIB via your TV is the future.

 

[Natchfever]

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

Could you explain how a club with home gates of 60,000 plus doesn’t have a financial advantage over a club who has gates of 25,000 please ? 

So Burnley , for example, take the gate receipts of 30,000 for their visit to Old Trafford and 14,500 from their home match = 44,500 ticket revenue.

With the current system they have ticket receipts of 25,000. 

Nearly 20,000 difference at , let’s say average £30 a ticket means they £600,000 down for this one match , not pocket money is it ? 

 

Personally I think the club that has spent tens of millions on making their ground big enough to accommodate their tens of thousands of fans should keep the home revenue.

I agree that the difference in gate receipts isn't insubstantial but i'm pretty sure I have seen reference to attendances being almost immaterial now due to TV money.

[Judda]

39 minutes ago, Lucan said:

It's minor in comparison to sponsorship, prize money and TV money.  Plus large clubs don't sell that many tickets, thousands are given away in the form of comps.  And finally the 600,000 is far from pure profit, the stadium costs themselves are very significant.

TV money, champions League prize money and sponsorship are the big factors.  Everyone knows this. It's not 1972 any more.

Take your GCSE maths calculation somewhere else eh?

I think you need to say o level to Major

[handsofclay]

16 hours ago, downendcity said:

While that will have had an effect, far bigger I think is that since it's formation, Sky's coverage of the prem has projected English topflight football to a worldwide audience.

This has enabled the "big brand name" clubs, Man U being principle due to their historic name and premier league success, to cash in and in particular in the Far East. 

I cannot help but feel that Manchester United's popularity in the Far East will take a nosedive now Norwich have been promoted!

[Major Isewater]

5 hours ago, Lucan said:

It's minor in comparison to sponsorship, prize money and TV money.  Plus large clubs don't sell that many tickets, thousands are given away in the form of comps.  And finally the 600,000 is far from pure profit, the stadium costs themselves are very significant.

TV money, champions League prize money and sponsorship are the big factors.  Everyone knows this. It's not 1972 any more.

Take your GCSE maths calculation somewhere else eh?

As we were talking about gate money your interjection, like your life , is without meaning .

 

[Pezo]

21 hours ago, downendcity said:

While that will have had an effect, far bigger I think is that since it's formation, Sky's coverage of the prem has projected English topflight football to a worldwide audience.

This has enabled the "big brand name" clubs, Man U being principle due to their historic name and premier league success, to cash in and in particular in the Far East. 

That decision to allow the big clubs to keep home money was to make sure the small clubs wanted more money from TV and wouldn't go against the TV companies. It basically forced the smaller clubs to always back additional TV money and to give up any other moral positions they may have had.