Risk of debt in the future for honours or nay?

In light of recent events involving alot of clubs over the last few years I wanted to ask alot of you this question as it was discussed over a few pints at the weekend.

So there have been alot of takeovers in the English Premier League & other leagues recently that have resulted in alot of good things for some clubs and some not so good. Some nearly resulting in a disasterous circumstance which would have left the club in it's worst state in it's history but they somehow (:p) got some Billionaire from the East to come in and bail them out while potentially making them the next Chelsea.

I asked my best mate who is a die hard Newcastle fan would he take the risk of getting someone dodgier then their current chairman in if it meant maybe winning some trophies & he swiftly answered yes....this suprised me but then again I could see where he was coming from. Not winning a trophy in so long and getting so close to the golden chalice on one occasion would maybe do that to you. I myself do have a soft spot for Newcastle as I go to alot of their games but I disagreed with my mate.

Now myself, I am a Liverpool fan and ok yeah I'd accept a takeover in open arms at the moment because of the cunts that are currently in charge but if that wasn't the case I wouldn't do it. Not even if it meant our first premiership. I don't know why that is but I think it's because we've still been winning trophies in the current situation. So for fans of clubs like Aston Villa, Spurs, Everton,Newcastle,West Ham etc (with all due respect) would you take the risk of bringing in a dodgey chairman for silverware? I dont mean any disrespect by that, I just want to see which fans would welcome it to get some glory and who would be more sceptical about the risk.

Killme00

There is not one club in the world without any debt on the books.

Obviously.... but I mean would you request the potential of something near disasterous like what nearly happened at City for honours?

_blank_

Hmmmm.

A subject close to my heart.

Shels spent money they hadn't got, and then some, in the hope of making progress on the European front. Then ended up demoted from the Premier Division as Champions, and are now struggling to get back up.

Was it worth it?

Well, I can tell you that the night this happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeCl7TG71hA

And we beat Hajduk Split was one of my very best memories of football, then holding Depor to a 0-0 in the next round, and for sixty minutes in the away leg was brilliant.

But, we didn't win the league that season, banked too much on the european matches, and ultimately it all came undone.

Looking back at that time now, the memories are somewhat tainted, knowing we were doing it all at the risk to the club. I'll never forget standing in Tolka Park after beating Bohs to win the league in November '06, crying, knowing it was all about to come tumbling down.

That was a horrible, horrible winter. Not knowing if the club was going to survive. But we did and we are still playing football.

I just wish the clubs who are up there now would learn from our lessons, but looking at Cork City and Bohs and Drogs it seems they haven't.

Would I do it all again?

No.

In the end, the absolute torture that was the Winter between '06 and '07 was not worth the unbridled elation of those nights in the Summer/Autumn of 2004.

mikemac

The perfect example here is Gretna.
Rose from nowhere in Scottish Divsion 3 and got succusive promotions to the Premiership. Often went on 10 game winning streaks, they were most people's first pick in the pools every week.
In fact they secured promotion to the Premiership in the last minutes of the last game, how's that for drama!

Reached a cup final in Hampden Park and even played UEFA Cup football.
But the plug was pulled by the chairmans family and they resigned from the league and were liquidated.

So I say nay, it's not worth the risk

_blank_

Gretna were spending money they had. They HAD the money, but in the end couldn't honour their contracts because the dude died.

Just like Blackburn Rovers.

Pepe LeFrits

No, but then I'm a Gooner, and we've got Wenger.

Des

Des wrote: »

Gretna were spending money they had. They HAD the money, but in the end couldn't honour their contracts because the dude died.

Just like Blackburn Rovers.

Yea but Jack Walker left Blackburn with a trust fund to ensure their survival.



My answer is no, not once, never.

micmclo

Good post Des, was sad for the Eircom league in a whole too.

micmclo wrote: »

The perfect example here is Gretna.
Rose from nowhere in Scottish Divsion 3 and got succusive promotions to the Premiership. Often went on 10 game winning streaks, they were most people's first pick in the pools every week.
In fact they secured promotion to the Premiership in the last minutes of the last game, how's that for drama!

Reached a cup final in Hampden Park and even played UEFA Cup football.
But the plug was pulled by the chairmans family and they resigned from the league and were liquidated.

So I say nay, it's not worth the risk

These are one of the finest examples. Sorry for being such a wanker and just mentioning the Premier League when it is obviously the wider audience. Let me edit the OP.

Mr Alan

Deleted User wrote: »

Yea but Jack Walker left Blackburn with a trust fund to ensure their survival.



My answer is no, not once, never.

Better hand back all those trophies Neil!!!!

Debt has always been on clubs, its the levels of debt clubs are taking on now that is the concern.

Galvasean

I'd hate for my team to win a few trophies this year only to go bankrupt or disappear entirely a few years later. Not worth that risk IMO.
Better off doing it the proper way.

Could people let us know who they support while they post just so we can see which fans would and who wouldn't? Danke

Mr Alan

Mr Alan wrote: »

Better hand back all those trophies Neil!!!!

Debt has always been on clubs, its the levels of debt clubs are taking on now that is the concern.

Al stop fishing. That commentt is so proposterous it makes me laugh. Why do people always look to drag these threads sown Liverpool - United territory. Im not gonna say anything at all about Liverpool in this post because this thread is not about that.

United spent big with money THEY MADE. Beckham, Scholes, Giggs, both Nevilles, Butt etc all came through from the youth team and we boosted in the other places that we needed to by spending money. We didnt borrow £100 million from the bank of England and buy all the worlds best player, Fergie built a team (3 actually but who's countin! ) United took advantage of football becomming a business when they floated on the stock exchange, leaving the possibility of a Glazer type thing always open to happen, so we made our own bed in a lot of ways, which is why I accept it a bit more than a lot of United fans because it could have been avoided, but the money was theirs to spend in the 90's and earlier this decade.

So no, no need to give back our trophies because we didnt saddle ourselves with debt to get (most of) them. And even know when we're saddled with debt we havent exactly spend monstrous amounts of money (bar last summer when we bought an established midfielder, 2 lads for the future (who were used as such) and a loan deal for Tevez which will be paid at a later date). In fact in the last 3 years bar that summer we've only bought one player for the 1st team.

Up until Glazer came in we were the only debt free club in the Premiership. We were operating on a profit. Im not happy with the current situation and if u read the title it asked the fans what they would like to see.

Mr Alan

Jesus Neil, cool your jets man, it was a joke.

My post was in response to your answer....which was.....

Deleted User wrote: »

My answer is no, not once, never.

simple fact is, previous triumphs mades by Utd,Liverpool and pretty much every other club in the world will have been at a time when their club was in some element of debt (i am refering to the 70's,80's etc as well as nowadays)

There is nothing wrong with this. Its always the way sport and, pretty much, life, has been. If the debt is very affordable and manageable, its a fine model to run a football club on.

Its when people gamble with debt that it becomes an issue, leeds for instance. you can not take on debt under with the objective of meeting a short term goal (CL qualification), the risks involved are ridiculous if you don't make it.

its the equivoent of me taking out a mortgage on the strenght of the number 1 single i have not yet written. Too much of a gamble.

But because of the collateral these people have available, the banks will allow them to do it, whereas they will laugh me out of the office.

so, as i said, dont be so ****ing defensive.

Xavi6

I'd give my left one for a meaningful trophy.

If we had to go down the leagues again the so be it. We've done it before and we'd get back up eventually. Be well worth it.

Mr Alan

I've seen you say that before xavi.

that opinion makes mr alan cry

_blank_

Mr Alan wrote: »

that opinion makes mr alan cry

Des too, especially with Xavi being a Shelsman.

Xavi6

Mr Alan wrote: »

I've seen you say that before xavi.

that opinion makes mr alan cry

It's easy for you to think that way. You know what it's like to win the Champions League, League Cup, FA Cup, UEFA Cup....(but not the league! )

Des wrote: »

Des too, especially with Xavi being a Shelsman.

Sorry Des I see where you're comin from but........

You sound exactly like my mate Xavi. A decent trophy was all he wanted and he didn't care about the risks.

I'd like to see Charlie McHugh's response now out of curiosty when he gets on.

stovelid

Pertinent question for the LOI, given that some clubs just won't wake up and smell the coffee. Winning the League but facing bankruptcy as a result? Fcuk that.

It's even more dangerous for LOI clubs, as you sense that there is a far better chance of an investor Cavalry for big premiership clubs, given their fan-bases and brands. And the fact that they are not administrated by the F.A.I.

Xavi6

Deleted User wrote: »

You sound exactly like my mate Xavi. A decent trophy was all he wanted and he didn't care about the risks.

Look at it this way, and this is where I differentiate between Shels and City, City have a massive loyal fanbase that will never desert the club, even in the worst of times. We were down in the third tier of English football less than 10 years ago and had sold out crowds of over 30,000 at every home game.

I would be gladly do all that again if it was on the back of a Champions League because I know the club would bounce back. The same can't quite be said for Shels and that's why I understand Des' point.

Charlie

Would I be willing to go down to win a cup, in short, no. The 90's were awesoe for us (well the mid 90's anyway), and I would love to be back up there challenging, but I would genuinely fear for the club if they dropped a league that we might pull a Notts Forest.

Whist I know my sanity needs to be questioned, there is part of me that is looking somewhat fondly back on Freddy Shepherd at the moment, a man who had us playing regular champions league football, and UEFA cup football as a given.

TBH, all I really want is for Keegan to have been backed modestly in the market, and given final say on things. I really think had that been done, we would be pushing on for a 7/8th place finish this season, and then maybe UEFA cup place next season. He had got us playing as a team again, and despite his reputation, stopped the defence leaking goals. That would have done me lovely.

Pepe LeFrits

Xavi6 wrote: »

I'd give my left one for a meaningful trophy.

If we had to go down the leagues again the so be it. We've done it before and we'd get back up eventually. Be well worth it.

What if the club went kaput entirely?

Pepe LeFrits

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

What if the club went kaput entirely?

Exactly, nearly happened to Leeds by a gee hair.

I can see what your saying now Xavi. You lads have been through the ****s time and time again with a resilent fight back each time so you'd be confident that you'd bounce back again after winning a few trophies if the worst was ever to happen again.

We'll have to see what happens over the next 5-10 years really before making any full judgements as Leeds were the biggest name for it to happened so badly too (I feel the Notts F situation wasn't as badly run). Like what happened at Leeds like it was pointed out was a wreckless gamble that nearly destroyed a club. I am a football fan as much as a Liverpool fan and I wouldn't want to see it happen to any club [joke](other then United)[/joke]

OPENROAD

As an Arsenal supporter I am delighted with our clubs approach to transfers and how the board are running the club. As a club our philosophy to transfers/wages has been to spend within the clubs footballing income. Yes the club are in debt but that is for the stadium and it is very differnt to being in debt for players.

eagle eye

Its clear the way things are going that we are only a few years from a Super League being formed where you will have the current big four, Spurs, Aston Villa, Man City and at most three other clubs who would be able to survive. Thats how serious things have got now. Kids don't support losing teams, well the majority don't and as time goes by with all the big names, and England Internationals playing at the bigger clubs there will be less supporters of average teams.

With the way things have gone over the last few years I think its only reasonable that any fan of a smaller club would be delighted to see his team being able to compete with those teams financially.

kippy

Right,
I've had this exact discussion with mates in the last couple of years.
Please dont take this as an insult to anyone but it's my take on the whole thing.

We (Irish Fans of English Clubs) pretty much dont care about the long term stability of any club - we see the short term gain, better players possibilities for trophies etc. We generally dont go to every home match and/or away match. Its not such a big deal if owners put up ticket prices or any matchday prices as it is in general a few times a year we get to see matches.
The real grassroots/local fans of clubs in general dont want to see the clubs which are so much a part of their lives to come into the hands of money hungry leeches, which in my opinion is what 90% of those who "invest" in the PL are.
Now, things have changed a bit since Leeds almost went down the swanny but its still the same. Not so much of a big deal.
Sadly thats the way that the PL has gone. Money talks and the club with the most money will generally do the best over time. Fans who sit down in the pub with their mates just wanna see them do well, whatever the circumstances. Those fans that go to the matches however are reliant on the club being handled properly.

Theres a few here saying managed debt is sound. Being in debt to the tune of 500 or so million is not a good thing for a football club or it's fans, despite the relative success of the club.

My opinions, and partly why I dont really give a toss for the PL so much any more.

Obviously, everything I've said has a whole host of generalisations thrown in but its my experience of the majority.
Kippy

_blank_

Good post kippy.

Zaph

As a Leeds fan I have to say that the two European semi-finals, great as they were (well apart from the losing bit, of course), were not worth what's happened the club since. In fact, had we won either trophy, even the Champions League, it still wouldn't have been worth it. The club was literally hours away from folding and has been reduced to playing in a division that no Leeds fan could ever have envisaged seeing them in, all because of a stupid financial gamble that went spectacularly wrong. I'd trade a financially healthy club happy to sit in mid table in the EPL over what happened/is happening anyday.

OPENROAD

kippy wrote: »

We (Irish Fans of English Clubs) pretty much dont care about the long term stability of any club - we see the short term gain, better players possibilities for trophies etc. We generally dont go to every home match and/or away match. Its not such a big deal if owners put up ticket prices or any matchday prices as it is in general a few times a year we get to see matches.

Would be interested to see if others on this board agree with the above, personally I don't agree, I very much care what happen to my club off the field and its long term stability.

eagle eye

kippy wrote: »

Right,
I've had this exact discussion with mates in the last couple of years.
Please dont take this as an insult to anyone but it's my take on the whole thing.

We (Irish Fans of English Clubs) pretty much dont care about the long term stability of any club - we see the short term gain, better players possibilities for trophies etc. We generally dont go to every home match and/or away match. Its not such a big deal if owners put up ticket prices or any matchday prices as it is in general a few times a year we get to see matches.
The real grassroots/local fans of clubs in general dont want to see the clubs which are so much a part of their lives to come into the hands of money hungry leeches, which in my opinion is what 90% of those who "invest" in the PL are.
Now, things have changed a bit since Leeds almost went down the swanny but its still the same. Not so much of a big deal.
Sadly thats the way that the PL has gone. Money talks and the club with the most money will generally do the best over time. Fans who sit down in the pub with their mates just wanna see them do well, whatever the circumstances. Those fans that go to the matches however are reliant on the club being handled properly.

Theres a few here saying managed debt is sound. Being in debt to the tune of 500 or so million is not a good thing for a football club or it's fans, despite the relative success of the club.

My opinions, and partly why I dont really give a toss for the PL so much any more.

Obviously, everything I've said has a whole host of generalisations thrown in but its my experience of the majority.
Kippy

I understand and appreciate a lot of what you say here.
You are only mentioning the bad side of such an investment though. If the club hire the right people and put the proper structures in place there is always the possibility of making it work out and the club becoming a success both on and off the field.
I follow a club who will probably never again be in the Champions League let alone win a premiership, we have had a few decent seasons but we could end up going down any season if we were unlucky enough to lose our three biggest players to long term injuries. While I am happy to see them remain in the premier league, I can also say that its only a matter of time before we do get relegated unless money comes from somewhere.
Even these clubs in the premiership are losing fans from their own towns. I know that at least 1000 Man United fans leave Blackburn every weekend to travel to United games. Most of them are under 30 and its an ever growing problem for smaller clubs. Its the same with Bolton. Now with Man City having big money as well, its going to have an affect in the long term for these clubs as well. It will not happen today or tomorrow but in 6 or 7 years time when these 11 year olds get old enough to travel on their own to games. They are at the age now where they see Robinho or Ronaldo or Wayne Rooney and the local club does not have any big name player like that. This is just the Lancastrian clubs I am talking about. Its the same everywhere though, you have so many London clubs in trouble now with three big clubs taking over. Sheffield has no team in the premier league, and if they get a team up its only going to struggle. Its all gone pear shaped. These billionaire investors are the only hope a club has now of surviving in the premership.
If these teams slip into the Championship then it becomes ever more of a struggle.

Wreck

OPENROAD wrote: »

Would be interested to see if others on this board agree with the above, personally I don't agree, I very much care what happen to my club off the field and its long term stability.

Yeah, I also care about the long term stability of the club. And one of the things that makes me most proud of Arsenal is the way the club is run off the pitch, it's (almost) as important to me as the football the team plays. The two are inextricably linked in the long term anyway.

_blank_

eagle eye wrote: »

I know that at least 1000 Man United fans leave Blackburn every weekend to travel to United games.

Boo hoo tbh

eagle eye

Des wrote: »

Boo hoo tbh

Anything worthwhile to say, you could make a decent post now and again.

_blank_

eagle eye wrote: »

Anything worthwhile to say, you could make a decent post now and again.

Yeah, I just think it's hilarious an Irish supporter of an English team complaining about people travelling away from their hometown to support another football club.

Is the hypocracy lost on you?

eagle eye

Des wrote: »

Yeah, I just think it's hilarious an Irish supporter of an English team complaining about people travelling away from their hometown to support another football club.

Is the hypocracy lost on you?

I didn't complain about it, I just explained the situation.
Why would you think I was complaining?
You think that just because I follow one of those clubs that I am going to moan and complain about the situation. I don't do that, I am a realist, read my posts above.

Now back on track. Have you anything worthwhile to add the discussion?

_blank_

eagle eye wrote: »

Now back on track. Have you anything worthwhile to add the discussion?

Tell me, have you read the whole thread?

eagle eye

Des wrote: »

Tell me, have you read the whole thread?

I certainly have but you made a post and since then just hit with short sharp comments that are worthless.

PHB

If the debt doesn't result in increased ticket prices, increased corporate drives, increased selling of the soul of the club, I may consider it. [i.e. 3 CL's then 10 years in division 2 to pay it all back]

Howevr, since debt always does those things, its never worth it.

Xavi6

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

What if the club went kaput entirely?

I don't think we would. We were up shit creek ten years ago and it didn't happen then. Things couldn't get much worse than having to sell your ground to move into a rented stadium thus giving you pretty much zero assets.

Deleted User wrote: »

I can see what your saying now Xavi. You lads have been through the ****s time and time again with a resilent fight back each time so you'd be confident that you'd bounce back again after winning a few trophies if the worst was ever to happen again.

Exactly

therecklessone

kippy wrote: »

Right,
I've had this exact discussion with mates in the last couple of years.
Please dont take this as an insult to anyone but it's my take on the whole thing.

We (Irish Fans of English Clubs) pretty much dont care about the long term stability of any club - we see the short term gain, better players possibilities for trophies etc. We generally dont go to every home match and/or away match. Its not such a big deal if owners put up ticket prices or any matchday prices as it is in general a few times a year we get to see matches.
The real grassroots/local fans of clubs in general dont want to see the clubs which are so much a part of their lives to come into the hands of money hungry leeches, which in my opinion is what 90% of those who "invest" in the PL are.

In fairness, that applies to a huge number of locals who support PL sides but don't go to games.

There are only 23k season ticket holders at Spurs, and they are the people who bear the brunt of the price increases and official club travel to Euro games stealing our small ticket allocation from fans who've put the leg work in..:mad:

This is a fact across the board at the top table of English football.

In answer to the original question, as a Spurs fan who almost saw my club become THE major casualty of reckless spending (you lot have no idea how close were to going under) I would never sacrifice financial stability for a trophy win or two. That's why I give credit to the current owners of the club for their business acumen, even when they sell some of our best players.

therecklessone

Xavi6 wrote: »

I don't think we would. We were up shit creek ten years ago and it didn't happen then. Things couldn't get much worse than having to sell your ground to move into a rented stadium thus giving you pretty much zero assets.

The difference now is that the gap between the PL and all below it is soooo great that even if you did manage to get back into the big league, you're still fighting a losing battle to stay up.

Unless the finances of football change significantly, or the PL is usurped by La Liga or Serie A again I can't see sides like Leeds or Southampton getting back up then staying up.

You can have all the fans you want, but we all know it's TV money that drives the PL now, followed by gate receipts (full houses at top dollar plus a cup run or Euro footy), sponsorship and shirt deals,and there's not much of any of that in League 1.

I think the consequences of a financial collapse for a big side will be catastrophic, and I'm convinced that English football can't support more than three divisions of professional teams going into the future.

Xavi6

therecklessone wrote: »

The difference now is that the gap between the PL and all below it is soooo great that even if you did manage to get back into the big league, you're still fighting a losing battle to stay up.

Unless the finances of football change significantly, or the PL is usurped by La Liga or Serie A again I can't see sides like Leeds or Southampton getting back up then staying up.

You can have all the fans you want, but we all know it's TV money that drives the PL now, followed by gate receipts (full houses at top dollar plus a cup run or Euro footy), sponsorship and shirt deals,and there's not much of any of that in League 1.

I think the consequences of a financial collapse for a big side will be catastrophic, and I'm convinced that English football can't support more than three divisions of professional teams going into the future.

But we've been hearing about this gap for years now, and while it is generally applicable, there are some big exceptions to the rule.

Three that spring to mind are City and two of the teams we came up against in Division 2 - Fulham and Wigan. Now obviously both have the backing of wealthy owners in Al Fayed and Whelan but they came from the doldrems along with ourselves and have stabilised. I really don't see any difference between what they did and what Leeds or Forest could potentially do with the right ownership.

therecklessone

Xavi6 wrote: »

But we've been hearing about this gap for years now, and while it is generally applicable, there are some big exceptions to the rule.

Three that spring to mind are City and two of the teams we came up against in Division 2 - Fulham and Wigan. Now obviously both have the backing of wealthy owners in Al Fayed and Whelan but they came from the doldrems along with ourselves and have stabilised. I really don't see any difference between what they did and what Leeds or Forest could potentially do with the right ownership.

Both clubs are just about keeping their heads above water Xavi, and if either owner walked away they'd drop like a hot snot.

The gap is widening, wait and see Hull and Stoke sink towards the foot of the PL table when things settle down a bit.

Xavi6

therecklessone wrote: »

Both clubs are just about keeping their heads above water Xavi, and if either owner walked away they'd drop like a hot snot.

Of course but if each owner stays then they can easily make it back up and stay there. It's not set in stone that they won't do it.

The gap is widening, wait and see Hull and Stoke sink towards the foot of the PL table when things settle down a bit.

The same way Swindon finished bottom of the league in 93/94, conceding over 100 goals in the process. The same thing happens pretty much every year - those that go up go back down. It's not some revolutionary thing that has happened recently.

IMO the gap isn't widening, it's just as big or small as its been since the PL started and tv rights came into the equation.

therecklessone

Xavi6 wrote: »

Of course but if each owner stays then they can easily make it back up and stay there. It's not set in stone that they won't do it.

No, but saying "we've done it before we can do it again" is naive in the extreme. It is much harder to now, it requires much more money than the last time you came back up.

I mean, Spurs went down in the late 70s yet we still managed to hold on to Hoddle and leap back up winning a few pots within a few seasons. If we went down now we'd probably need one of your lot to bail us out with his oil money.

It's harder now, not impossible, but much much harder.

Xavi6

therecklessone wrote: »

No, but saying "we've done it before we can do it again" is naive in the extreme. It is much harder to now, it requires much more money than the last time you came back up.

I mean, Spurs went down in the late 70s yet we still managed to hold on to Hoddle and leap back up winning a few pots within a few seasons. If we went down now we'd probably need one of your lot to bail us out with his oil money.

It's harder now, not impossible, but much much harder.

I don't agree that it's 'naive'.

The Champions League didn't exist in the 70s when Spurs came back. It did when we made our return this decade. Can you tell me what has changed so significantly in the past 8 years or so that would make it much harder for us to do what we did again?

Pepe LeFrits

Xavi6 wrote: »

I don't think we would. We were up shit creek ten years ago and it didn't happen then. Things couldn't get much worse than having to sell your ground to move into a rented stadium thus giving you pretty much zero assets.

You could run into the same situation and not have a ground to sell. Football clubs are businesses, and businesses can cease to exist if they aren't run responsibly.

therecklessone

Xavi6 wrote: »

I don't agree that it's 'naive'.

The Champions League didn't exist in the 70s when Spurs came back. It did when we made our return this decade. Can you tell me what has changed so significantly in the past 8 years or so that would make it much harder for us to do what we did again?

On the income side, TV money.

On the expenditure side, wages and transfer fees. Chelsea are where they are because of a £700m interest free loan from Abrahamovic, even if he doesn't call that in they are still prone to serious financial problems if he simply cuts off the money and they have to stand on their own two feet.

They won't be able to recoup the transfer fees they've paid, there'd be a fire sale with players going for much less than they are worth (or were bought for) as most of the squad are on wages that the majority of clubs can't afford to pay.

Leaving side the fact that you'd probably have to sell your entire squad, your stadium and sack most of your staff, even allowing for the parachute payments you'd get after relegation to the Championship it's still a struggle to come up and then stay up.