Premier League to bail out EFL clubs

[Lrrr]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/11/02/premier-league-agrees-bail-championship-clubs-need/

Anyone able to copy and paste the article? Its hidden behind a paywall.

I'm guessing the PL will just look at us and say Steve's our owner meaning we don't deserve any help.

[Numero Uno]

Translated as:

Derby, Norwich, Sheffield Wednesday, Forest - how much do you need?

The Rest - piss off.

[luke_bristol]

no one getting parachute payments in the last 10 years should be eligible, as they've already received a bail out

[Tipps69]

In theory I agree with it, why should clubs that don’t need ‘help’ receive help?

My underlying feeling of all this, is that if Premier League clubs are the ones to ‘bail out’ Football League clubs, they will want something back for their ‘goodwill’! For instance, if Liverpool hand over £20m, what’s in it for them? As I doubt very much that they (Liverpool) or any other club are going to agree to this without receiving something back beyond the £20m.

My fear is that the ‘fat cats’ will ask for a percentage of the borrowing club or an agreement, something like they get first dibs on any future players they see fit to sign or even to be able to take those players until to debt is covered?

What I can’t see happening is these ‘fat cats’ won’t just do it out the goodness of their own heart, they will want some gain down the line & while many say that that’s expected, where would it leave a borrowing club in the future?

Now I’m just using random clubs here but it could happen with any combination of clubs & where would it leave the ‘borrowing club’ in the future? Many smaller clubs survive by selling their future stars to the ‘big cats’ for profit but if this avenue is taken away then where does it leave a Football League club in say 5 or 10 years time when they are unable to profit from their assets?

Short term gain for long term struggles, a lot of Football League clubs are poorly run & they've been gambling on speculate to accumulate for years & it’s this philosophy that has got a lot of them in the mess they are! So what happens in 5 or 10 years time when these clubs have handed over their assets, who do they turn to them?

I understand that some smaller clubs are in a hole because of the pandemic & a lack of paying customers (as we now are) & they need the help but I can’t help feeling that the likes of Sheffield Wednesday, Derby, Forest, Bolton, Portsmouth, Coventry, Sunderland & Charlton amongst others are in the mess they are or have been because of poor management by their owners so why should they be given a hand out? If I get into £10,000 of debt & someone just gives me the money to cover that debt, what’s the chances that I’m going to learnt from my mistakes & not just do what I did in the hope that someone else will come along & get me out of trouble again? In particular Derby, Sunderland, Portsmouth, Coventry, Bolton & Charlton have a history of being poorly run so why should they be given funds to just throw away? Many of us expected to be in the position that we’re about to come into on Thursday so why were Football League clubs still spending millions on transfers? Why should they be bailed out?

I would much prefer us to carry on as we are & owing SL rather than a club who is only in it for themselves.

[Lrrr]

23 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

In theory I agree with it, why should clubs that don’t need ‘help’ receive help?

The issue I see coming for a club like us is that we've sold a few players, only bought 1 for a fee in the summer otherwise free transfers, loans and using younger players. But the PL will point to Lansdown saying 'you don't need help, you're owned by a billionaire', but they'll go and help another club at our level say a Reading, Blackburn or Middlesbrough. We've been bleeding match day income as hard, should we not be entitled to similar help to whatever other clubs get? Would it not just be easier to ask all clubs to submit their last accounts displaying how much they brought in through ticket sales and allocate if not 100% what they had last time but even 50% - 75%? A very crude allocation for City, say we had 10,000 non season ticket holders at an average of £30 a game over 23 games, that's £6.9m could each be allocated similar? Would average out around £160m which is what the bail out talks were roughly from memory. ST's are a different ball game as clubs could have kept all the money and again given streams/other incentives to not want a refund and only had to pay back a portion like they have done. But that £7m ish per club would help see all clubs through the worst case scenario more than likely. 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Tipps69 said:

In theory I agree with it, why should clubs that don’t need ‘help’ receive help?

My underlying feeling of all this, is that if Premier League clubs are the ones to ‘bail out’ Football League clubs, they will want something back for their ‘goodwill’! For instance, if Liverpool hand over £20m, what’s in it for them? As I doubt very much that they (Liverpool) or any other club are going to agree to this without receiving something back beyond the £20m.

My fear is that the ‘fat cats’ will ask for a percentage of the borrowing club or an agreement, something like they get first dibs on any future players they see fit to sign or even to be able to take those players until to debt is covered?

What I can’t see happening is these ‘fat cats’ won’t just do it out the goodness of their own heart, they will want some gain down the line & while many say that that’s expected, where would it leave a borrowing club in the future?

Now I’m just using random clubs here but it could happen with any combination of clubs & where would it leave the ‘borrowing club’ in the future? Many smaller clubs survive by selling their future stars to the ‘big cats’ for profit but if this avenue is taken away then where does it leave a Football League club in say 5 or 10 years time when they are unable to profit from their assets?

Short term gain for long term struggles, a lot of Football League clubs are poorly run & they've been gambling on speculate to accumulate for years & it’s this philosophy that has got a lot of them in the mess they are! So what happens in 5 or 10 years time when these clubs have handed over their assets, who do they turn to them?

I understand that some smaller clubs are in a hole because of the pandemic & a lack of paying customers (as we now are) & they need the help but I can’t help feeling that the likes of Sheffield Wednesday, Derby, Forest, Bolton, Portsmouth, Coventry, Sunderland & Charlton amongst others are in the mess they are or have been because of poor management by their owners so why should they be given a hand out? If I get into £10,000 of debt & someone just gives me the money to cover that debt, what’s the chances that I’m going to learnt from my mistakes & not just do what I did in the hope that someone else will come along & get me out of trouble again? In particular Derby, Sunderland, Portsmouth, Coventry, Bolton & Charlton have a history of being poorly run so why should they be given funds to just throw away? Many of us expected to be in the position that we’re about to come into on Thursday so why were Football League clubs still spending millions on transfers? Why should they be bailed out?

I would much prefer us to carry on as we are & owing SL rather than a club who is only in it for themselves.

Suspect the “what’s in it for them” is hopefully as simple as future payments being brought to forward. E.g. they’ll get less money in future.  But I can’t read the article.

[Tipps69]

8 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

The issue I see coming for a club like us is that we've sold a few players, only bought 1 for a fee in the summer otherwise free transfers, loans and using younger players. But the PL will point to Lansdown saying 'you don't need help, you're owned by a billionaire', but they'll go and help another club at our level say a Reading, Blackburn or Middlesbrough. We've been bleeding match day income as hard, should we not be entitled to similar help to whatever other clubs get? Would it not just be easier to ask all clubs to submit their last accounts displaying how much they brought in through ticket sales and allocate if not 100% what they had last time but even 50% - 75%? A very crude allocation for City, say we had 10,000 non season ticket holders at an average of £30 a game over 23 games, that's £6.9m could each be allocated similar? Would average out around £160m which is what the bail out talks were roughly from memory. ST's are a different ball game as clubs could have kept all the money and again given streams/other incentives to not want a refund and only had to pay back a portion like they have done. But that £7m ish per club would help see all clubs through the worst case scenario more than likely. 

The problem we (as well as more or less every other Championship club has) is that our wages are astronomical!! Who’s fault is that? There needs to be a wage cap my understanding is that’s the reason why the initial plan fell through.

The last figures I seen was that we were spending 100% of our income on wages!! Reading was even higher!!
There needs to be rules set out as to how this money is used (if it is given to clubs), those clubs wanting / needing help shouldn’t then be entitled to spend millions on transfer fees & adding to wages. The money should be used to clear debts, not increase them further as far as I’m concerned but how many of these clubs will see it as a free gift & blow it away?

If we don’t take the money, then we don’t owe anyone, we don’t have to give any of our assets away on the cheap & stand the chance of being able to survive for years to come, those that take the money risk their future further as far as I’m concerned. If the agreement is in place that the clubs that borrow can’t use it for transfers then it wouldn’t directly affect us as Derby (or whoever) wouldn’t be able to blow £5m (or whatever) on new signings. If they do give these clubs money & allow them to blow it on transfers, then where would that leave these clubs in 6 months time? As far as I’m concerned, they’ll get what they deserve, another football club going out of business with no one to blame but themselves.

I truly hope that we don’t take the money, easy for me to say as it’s SL’s money but this is what he’s been hoping for throughout his tenure, self-sustainability so going cap in hand to someone would take us backwards & while he still has plans for the development of the surrounding areas of Ashton Gate for the arena etc, I assume he’s still in a position to not require money from elsewhere.

This money should be used for clubs to cover debts incurred by the pandemic.

[Tipps69]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Suspect the “what’s in it for them” is hopefully as simple as future payments being brought to forward. E.g. they’ll get less money in future.  But I can’t read the article.

Do you truly believe that? These clubs that are looking to start a European Super League so they can get more money or the ‘Big Picture’ so they get a bigger slice of the pie will only want their investment back? They sadly only seem to be in this for themselves & what they can get out of it!

[Lrrr]

14 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

The last figures I seen was that we were spending 100% of our income on wages!!

And we're one of the better ones from memory, think we spent 101% on wages, by our logic it meant we needed to roughly cover our transfer activity over the 3 year period by selling. Pretty sure we were bottom half for wages to turnover in the division at 101%

[Tipps69]

5 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

And we're one of the better ones from memory, think we spent 101% on wages, by our logic it meant we needed to roughly cover our transfer activity over the 3 year period by selling. Pretty sure we were bottom half for wages to turnover in the division at 101%

Exactly, so any money borrowed from Premier League clubs surely can’t be allowed to be used on further transfers while clubs are pleading poverty?

[tin]

16 hours ago, Lrrr said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/11/02/premier-league-agrees-bail-championship-clubs-need/

Anyone able to copy and paste the article? Its hidden behind a paywall.

I'm guessing the PL will just look at us and say Steve's our owner meaning we don't deserve any help.

There you go, @Lrrr

//

The Premier League has finally agreed to bail out Championship clubs – but only those who can demonstrate genuine need.

Telegraph Sport has been told that the world’s richest league last week submitted a revised coronavirus rescue package to the English Football League to include second-tier sides, two weeks after their first was rejected.

The precise value of the offer is unclear but Telegraph Sport has been told it is designed to help only those clubs who do not have owners wealthy enough to bail them out without help.

That could mean at least half of the Championship being excluded.

Clubs in receipt of parachute payments – there are currently seven in the division – may also face restrictions over their access to any rescue package.

Any Championship bailout would be on top of the £50 million offered last month to League One and Two clubs, which they rejected out of solidarity with their second-tier counterparts.

The EFL board is expected to discuss the latest offer at a meeting this week and could make a recommendation over whether it is accepted ahead of a vote of clubs next week.

A failure to agree a bailout last month heightened fears several clubs could go bust before a package of financial assistance was agreed.

But the Premier League subsequently issued an open invitation to Championship clubs as well as those from Leagues One and League Two to make direct pleas for help if they were facing financial ruin.

The Government has repeatedly made it clear it expects the world’s richest league to bail out the rest of the professional game and would not be stepping in itself.

But in a stark letter last week to Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, EFL chairman Rick Parry wrote “it is clear that top-flight clubs are also feeling the effects of the pandemic... it may not be in a position to provide the level of support that is required”.

He added: “For some reason, football is being regarded as a peculiarly undeserving case and, as a result, many of our clubs have now reached the conclusion that we are at best being ignored by a Government that doesn’t understand our national sport and at worst being victimised by it.

“Ultimately, the football public will judge the performance of this Conservative government on how many football clubs remain in business once the pandemic finally subsides.

“Certainly, those communities that are inextricably linked to their local team will never forgive it if their beloved football clubs are driven into extinction.”

The Premier League and EFL both declined to comment last night on the latest bailout offer.

[Lrrr]

2 minutes ago, tin said:

The precise value of the offer is unclear but Telegraph Sport has been told it is designed to help only those clubs who do not have owners wealthy enough to bail them out without help.

That could mean at least half of the Championship being excluded.

Clubs in receipt of parachute payments – there are currently seven in the division – may also face restrictions over their access to any rescue package.

Says enough in 3 sentences, clubs with owners rich enough to bail out - no, parachute clubs - maybe, this 'bail out' excludes half the division. Just how much is Lansdown expected to pump into the club to save it? Anyone know just how rich the owners of Bournemouth, Huddersfield, Stoke, Cardiff, Watford, Norwich etc are compared to Steve? How wealthy is wealthy enough to bail out? Trevor Hemmings at Preston is worth several hundred million for example. Swansea's owners could be rich but they're massive tight arses who are taking more out of the club atm than helping.

[Lrrr]

To add to the above, if just 1 job is lot at any club where the PL won't help them then they should be shamed, I can see more job losses at clubs because they're not getting assistance and long term its frankly not down to the owner to be financing jobs longer term that were financed under normal financial situations, should be the PL covering that.

[tin]

Us, Stoke, QPR, and Preston are all owned by billionnaires. 

I'd imagine the clubs this sort of arrangement would benefit could include the likes of Boro, Brentford (although they're the best run club in the league, IMO), Birmingham, Blackburn, Coventry, Derby, Reading. Probably more. 

[Tipps69]

13 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Says enough in 3 sentences, clubs with owners rich enough to bail out - no, parachute clubs - maybe, this 'bail out' excludes half the division. Just how much is Lansdown expected to pump into the club to save it? Anyone know just how rich the owners of Bournemouth, Huddersfield, Stoke, Cardiff, Watford, Norwich etc are compared to Steve? How wealthy is wealthy enough to bail out? Trevor Hemmings at Preston is worth several hundred million for example. Swansea's owners could be rich but they're massive tight arses who are taking more out of the club atm than helping.

Just to pick up on one bit there, Swansea’s owners might be tight arses but they are paying loan fees for numerous players from Premier League clubs while also being rumoured to carry on paying Ayew’s £90k p/w wages!! If they can afford to do that, they should be able to keep their club afloat Imo.

[Tipps69]

15 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

To add to the above, if just 1 job is lot at any club where the PL won't help them then they should be shamed, I can see more job losses at clubs because they're not getting assistance and long term its frankly not down to the owner to be financing jobs longer term that were financed under normal financial situations, should be the PL covering that.

And I’ll reiterate the point, clubs shouldn’t now be looking at spending on transfers! This money should be used for basic running costs & to cover debts incurred through the pandemic. Not to allow Mel Morris to think he now has a handout that enables him to buy more players with.

Clubs have been living beyond their means for too long & now is the time it has to stop.

[Lrrr]

2 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

Just to pick up on one bit there, Swansea’s owners might be tight arses but they are paying loan fees for numerous players from Premier League clubs while also being rumoured to carry on paying Ayew’s £90k p/w wages!! If they can afford to do that, they should be able to keep their club afloat Imo.

Wonder if they've just not had anyone come in for Ayew, they've looked to shed practically everything else, his deal is due to expire this summer I believe. The loan fees however is no different to most clubs in the division rightly or wrongly.

[mozo]

31 minutes ago, tin said:

Us, Stoke, QPR, and Preston are all owned by billionnaires. 

I'd imagine the clubs this sort of arrangement would benefit could include the likes of Boro, Brentford (although they're the best run club in the league, IMO), Birmingham, Blackburn, Coventry, Derby, Reading. Probably more. 

Being owned by a billionaire isn't really relevant. All clubs need to ideally break even and all clubs are bound by FFP.

[Guest]

A number of things need to be addressed while CV19 continues.

Players wages.
There can't be this continued view that this is untouchable.
Things like caps need to be considered and there needs to be a review on agents etc.
Some players are undoubtedly top class and probably earn their dosh. Others, I just don't understand the valuations etc.
I'd be looking at transfer windows as being responsible for wage inflation.

With the amount of money sloshing around in football, just how have some clubs got themselves into so much difficulty.
It all points to the FFP rules not being fit for purpose.

Any club 'entitled' to help should allow an auditor to check their books to determine their solvency. There is just too much smoke and mirrors on club finances and I just don't trust some club owners being honest about their finances.

This whole subject leads people down rabbit holes, creates feelings of unfairness from those who have done the 'right thing' in the past etc. The likes of the FA, Uefa and Fifa need to be doing their job rather than riding the gravy train that is football.

[Tipps69]

16 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Wonder if they've just not had anyone come in for Ayew, they've looked to shed practically everything else, his deal is due to expire this summer I believe. The loan fees however is no different to most clubs in the division rightly or wrongly.

I believe they have been looking to get him off their books for a few seasons now & Brighton were rumoured to be very close to signing him this summer but they couldn’t get anywhere near to agreeing to his personal terms (completely understandably). Previous to that, I think there was a link to him possibly going to Crystal Palace to link up with his brother but whether that was just lazy journalism, I don’t know.

For me, he’s definitely not a player worth £90k p/w & if he is out of contract this summer, I’d be interested to see what sort of deal he manages to get himself because I can’t see a bottom half Premier League team paying him anywhere near that & I don’t think he’s a top half division player. Again, that’s just my opinion.

Further on Swansea, they have spent the last couple of seasons preferring to spend on Premier League loan players rather than paying for permanent transfers & while that has allowed them to in theory get in better quality players for less than the transfer fee of such a player, it has no doubt left them short of their own players, so what happens this summer when they lose Woodman, Guehi, Gibbs-White, Palmer & Gyokeres? They have to find the money to find 5 new first team players?

Last season they had Guehi, Woodman, Connor Gallagher, Rhian Brewster, Ben Wilmott & Aldo Kalulu! Once you take into consideration of wages & loan fee’s, these deals are unlikely to be cheap, we know Liverpool & Chelsea don’t allow players to leave on loan for nothing. It seems to me like Swansea’s owners are just trying to buy time, they were supposed to be for Harry Wilson on loan for this season but either couldn’t afford or weren’t willing to pay what Liverpool wanted for him so he went to Cardiff for a rumoured 7 figure loan fee plus his wages!

While clubs relegated from the Premier League do get parachute payments, the majority of them are still going to be paying players & staff wages beyond their means while losing income through tv & sponsorship deals. Norwich took some grief for not spending enough money last season while the were in the Premier League. Now I would call that smart business on their behalf, they were in a financial mess towards the end of their promotion season from the Championship so rather than spending beyond their means, they prepared for their likely failure & to put themselves in a position to survive relegation back to the Championship & again, they haven’t particularly spent this pre-season but have managed to keep a fair amount of their squad together, keeping their continuity.

It is going to take one hell of a lot to get football finances back in check.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Tipps69 said:

The problem we (as well as more or less every other Championship club has) is that our wages are astronomical!! Who’s fault is that? There needs to be a wage cap my understanding is that’s the reason why the initial plan fell through.

The last figures I seen was that we were spending 100% of our income on wages!! Reading was even higher!!
There needs to be rules set out as to how this money is used (if it is given to clubs), those clubs wanting / needing help shouldn’t then be entitled to spend millions on transfer fees & adding to wages. The money should be used to clear debts, not increase them further as far as I’m concerned but how many of these clubs will see it as a free gift & blow it away?

If we don’t take the money, then we don’t owe anyone, we don’t have to give any of our assets away on the cheap & stand the chance of being able to survive for years to come, those that take the money risk their future further as far as I’m concerned. If the agreement is in place that the clubs that borrow can’t use it for transfers then it wouldn’t directly affect us as Derby (or whoever) wouldn’t be able to blow £5m (or whatever) on new signings. If they do give these clubs money & allow them to blow it on transfers, then where would that leave these clubs in 6 months time? As far as I’m concerned, they’ll get what they deserve, another football club going out of business with no one to blame but themselves.

I truly hope that we don’t take the money, easy for me to say as it’s SL’s money but this is what he’s been hoping for throughout his tenure, self-sustainability so going cap in hand to someone would take us backwards & while he still has plans for the development of the surrounding areas of Ashton Gate for the arena etc, I assume he’s still in a position to not require money from elsewhere.

This money should be used for clubs to cover debts incurred by the pandemic.

For me the FFP debt / loss allowances are pretty pointless. Lansdown can commit his £8m of £13m losses each season but it still leaves £5m.  Nothing to stop him buggering off.

I think there needs to be some form of security lodged with the EFL, like you would do with a mortgage, e.g. your house is the security.

That could be in the form of an asset like a stadium or could be a deposit, earning a market rate of interest.  It would put an end to the charlatan owners, and show their commitment by tying up their funds / assets.

Macanthony at P’Bofo suggested some form of bond scheme where each owner puts a sum into a pot to help struggling clubs that when a new owner comes in, they have to buy out the bond.

Banks etc have to hold a percentage of their liabilities in “cash” why shouldn’t football clubs?

[Tipps69]

33 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

For me the FFP debt / loss allowances are pretty pointless. Lansdown can commit his £8m of £13m losses each season but it still leaves £5m.  Nothing to stop him buggering off.

I think there needs to be some form of security lodged with the EFL, like you would do with a mortgage, e.g. your house is the security.

That could be in the form of an asset like a stadium or could be a deposit, earning a market rate of interest.  It would put an end to the charlatan owners, and show their commitment by tying up their funds / assets.

Macanthony at P’Bofo suggested some form of bond scheme where each owner puts a sum into a pot to help struggling clubs that when a new owner comes in, they have to buy out the bond.

Banks etc have to hold a percentage of their liabilities in “cash” why shouldn’t football clubs?

And that’s the issue with so many owners, the foreigners that appear to only be in it for the money & how quickly they can make it.

How would you tie them down to a stadium now? Reading, Derby & Sheffield Wednesday have sold theirs to.......... oh yeah, their own owners but it’s not owned by the club
The fit & proper owners hand guide (or whatever it’s called) isn’t worth the toilet roll it’s written on, they should just use it for what it’s fit for, wiping peoples arses!! If they put too many rules in place, half the clubs wouldn’t have an owner because it would be too much hassle for them to buy a club!

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Tipps69 said:

And that’s the issue with so many owners, the foreigners that appear to only be in it for the money & how quickly they can make it.

not all foreign owners should be tarred when we have the Steve Dale’s of this world around!

How would you tie them down to a stadium now? Reading, Derby & Sheffield Wednesday have sold theirs to.......... oh yeah, their own owners but it’s not owned by the club

the owners put up a security of £x million (covering their losses) into an EFL fund that is kept safe.
The fit & proper owners hand guide (or whatever it’s called) isn’t worth the toilet roll it’s written on, they should just use it for what it’s fit for, wiping peoples arses!! If they put too many rules in place, half the clubs wouldn’t have an owner because it would be too much hassle for them to buy a club!

yep, it’s purely a “have they got the money NOW”.....ignores what happens to it after.

 

[Tipps69]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

They won’t put up the extra millions you are alluding to, they want to make as much money as quickly as possible, not spend even more knowing they are unlikely to ever get it back.

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

They won’t put up the extra millions you are alluding to, they want to make as much money as quickly as possible, not spend even more knowing they are unlikely to ever get it back.

And there lies the problem!

[Lrrr]

43 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

They won’t put up the extra millions you are alluding to, they want to make as much money as quickly as possible, not spend even more knowing they are unlikely to ever get it back.

Thats why it gets made a requirement of when someone buys a club. Make it a % of the amount the club is bought for.

[Tipps69]

3 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Thats why it gets made a requirement of when someone buys a club. Make it a % of the amount the club is bought for.

Trouble is, football is now in such a mess, with so many dodgy owners that those owned by these dodgy owners just want someone new in, thinking they can’t possibly be as bad as the previous ones. Only to be surprised to find out they’ve got an even bigger bunch of idiots in charge (just ask Charlton, Portsmouth, Coventry & Bolton fans amongst others). 
 

If these foreign owners were really in it for the love of the game, then why aren’t they putting their money into the game in their homeland? It’s because it has nothing to do with the live of the game & everything to do with money & that is what has landed us in the mess we are now in! Someone has to break that cycle but who?

[Lrrr]

26 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

Trouble is, football is now in such a mess, with so many dodgy owners that those owned by these dodgy owners just want someone new in, thinking they can’t possibly be as bad as the previous ones. Only to be surprised to find out they’ve got an even bigger bunch of idiots in charge (just ask Charlton, Portsmouth, Coventry & Bolton fans amongst others). 
 

If these foreign owners were really in it for the love of the game, then why aren’t they putting their money into the game in their homeland? It’s because it has nothing to do with the live of the game & everything to do with money & that is what has landed us in the mess we are now in! Someone has to break that cycle but who?

Or their home nations leagues aren't as attractive to be an owner of? Pretty sure Abramovich owns a Russian team as well as Chelsea for example. Americans are limited by the MLS system being an owner. The English league system is the biggest in the world and the most competitive, along with a couple of other countries has the most spots in european competitions too. If they have the money they want to own the best teams, hard for say far Eastern europeans to do that as their leagues don't have big enough clubs, as said American's don't have access to European competitions etc.

[Tipps69]

3 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Or their home nations leagues aren't as attractive to be an owner of? Pretty sure Abramovich owns a Russian team as well as Chelsea for example. Americans are limited by the MLS system being an owner. The English league system is the biggest in the world and the most competitive, along with a couple of other countries has the most spots in european competitions too. If they have the money they want to own the best teams, hard for say far Eastern europeans to do that as their leagues don't have big enough clubs, as said American's don't have access to European competitions etc.

Maybe it’s just my pessimistic side that suggests they want a bit of the action here because the money is here (if they can find any form of success).

It just feels like so many only see the £ signs & think it’s easy, not realising that when they make a move for a English league club (having to include Swansea & Cardiff in there) there are such huge costs involved as well. Make the Premier League, £100m in the bank, happy days! Forget the transfer fee’s, wages, agents fee’s & staff costs! And if they don’t make their club into a Premier League club within a season, those costs soon eat up the finances that they had set aside.

[downendcity]

Derby, Reading and Wednesday have put their cases forward saying that the desperately need funds in order to buy back their stadiums!