http://www.teamtalk.com/news/premier-league-clubs-are-heading-towards-financial-ruinThis is a really interesting read. With players like Pickford and Keane costing £60 million... You have got to think that surely there are going to be financial issues in the EPL soon.
Comments
(1st) Crystal Palace | (2nd) Chelsea... Couldn't care less about the rest
Check the football league table from 1913. Most clubs are still FL clubs. Half are EPL. They have survived WW1 & 2. Post war austerity, Thatcherism, hooliganism and all changes im society.
They will survive brexit and sky.
As much as I would like a rebalance of power, if it happens they will take many down with them only they will catch a cold the rest of us will get pneumonia.
It's madness and I look forward to the day the pile of cards comes crashing down.
If you look at other sports, there is a overseas desire to 'own' sports that have previously been owned by UK enterprises or individuals, F1 being an example- and I can see a situation where the US giants such as Netflix will purchase PL TV rights (or even maybe a Chinese TV giant) and it will continue to grow financially as it has grown over the past 20 years under Sky - and consequently the gap between leagues will just get bigger and bigger year-on-year.
I'm very close to just giving up on football altogether - I cancelled Sky this year, and that is the first step that a lot of people are clearly taking what with the incentives Sky are offering recently to remain/return.
I have no intention of returning, especially as The Ashes is on BT this winter,
The only issue I see is if streaming games removes the money gravy train from Sky etc. As I am still stuck in the 90's when it comes to IT I have no idea whether streaming can be as well monetised and hence whether it would be a positive or negative for EPL turnover..
The world has changed hugely in the past 20 years and with the rise of Internet, craving for speed and instant success will drive young fans further towards the top teams IMO.
Also "the report claims Premier League clubs lost £2billion in eight years", how much of that was down to Chelsea and City, whose owners literally do not care about money.
They're already operating at a level that sees them barely getting any TV money so have to adapt everything to that... the Premier League and Championship though are splashing so much cash on wages etc. are the ones that'll really suffer - The likes of Diego Costa etc. will still want to be paid stupid amounts of money and with the big clubs unable to pay it they'll be at risk of going out of business as the banks come hunting.
Of course they've got the big stars to sell to foreign teams and so stay afloat but if the implosion happens worldwide then everyone will be struggling in the same vein (i.e. trying to sell players on five year deals) - The likes of Accrington (picked at random) etc. will be fine in the long run I believe because the majority of Lower League sides offer Contracts on a shorter basis for the very concern that if something long-term is offered then the great financial risk.
For example the transfer market has a multiplier effect, not unlike that of macro economics. Much of the money in the total on Sky of transfer deadline day is the same sum moving from club to club. It's not all new spending. Only the Agents fees and the wages are going out of football. The rest is just moving from one club to another one, and another one, and another one. The billion pound transfer window could be the same £50m moving twenty times.
http://vysyble.com/downloads/were-so-rich-its-unbelievable-the-illusion-of-wealth-within-football-2nd-edition
I still believe that those at the most financial risk are not the Manchester Citys and Chelseas and Uniteds of the world, but rather the clubs spending a lot to stay in the Premier League, or worse yet, those spending a lot just to try to get there. Forest immediately spring to mind, a club with an owner who pumped money in only to become disinterested, who were nearly relegated last season.
Seriously, WTF.
Transfer Fees over the years have always risen at a slow and steady pace yet with the Pogba transfer last year its turned into a free for all where figures are being plucked from the sky!!
So I have not worked with Economic Profit, but I'm curious to know how the report classifies "implicit costs." One thing they point out, which I think they are smart to do, is that television deals cannot keep rising in value. I suspect that's true domestically, and that at some point the foreign deals will peak due to market saturation. And that's not counting what would happen if we were to have another economic downturn.
Part of the problem is, and we are very much a part of this, that these money-losing businesses are bought for tens of millions of pounds, oftentimes with the seller making a profit. And I firmly believe that until that changes, or until a governing body gets serious about FFP, the economic model of the game will not change.
I'm not saying this is a sustainable business model, quite the opposite. But then there's another part of me that's like "if it KEEPS working against all logic, then maybe it's a sustainable business model." Capitalism FTW.
Teams that have been used to being in the top handful of teams for decades will, suddenly, be bottom half of their division. The TV audiences will fall away as there will be many, many fewer big, important games. Imagine the Manchester derby between the 8th and 11th placed teams - who out of Manchester will be interested in that? The gates at these clubs would start to fall when they end up losing most weeks because the competition is tougher than the domestic sides. I can see issues with marketing the league to the TV audiences too. I don't think the Champions League is anywhere near as 'in demand' in the UK (or around the world) and the Premier League is.
It is just conceivable that the European Super League could end up paying its teams less than the Premier League teams receive. Imaging Stoke outbidding Arsenal for a player!
Ultimately I think the goal of these big clubs will be to just increase the differential between the top placed team and those below it. I believe that this season Chelsea received c. £150m finishing top and Sunderland received c. £97m finishing bottom. Make that bigger, I.e. Chelsea get £200m or £225m and Sunderland get £50m or £25m and that will ensure that the top sides stay in the Premier League, and those at the bottom will just have to be grateful for the £25m or they can drop down into the Championship and get £6m.
It also doesn't matter to the established Premier League sides if those at the bottom go bust (or Administration) as they will fall down the leagues like Portsmouth and be replaced by a Bournemouth or a Huddersfield who will be super grateful for their new TV windfall and who's fans will be happy 'Just to be there' until they also overspend and fall out of the league to be replace by someone else.
There will never be a shortage of greedy Chairman that think that having their club in the Premier League is worth seeing dozens of other clubs face extinction - and they will never realise that it will be their club 'next'!
It will all end in tears. It's just a question of what comes first: English football's bubble bursting; Russia invading Ukraine; North Korea sending us all to hell in a handcart; food running out; or, according to Stephen Hawking, Donald Trump turning the Earth's atmosphere into a replica of that of Venus.
* And pre-used recycled polyester at that; not even new stuff!