My solution is more radical, it involves government intervention. There should be legislation brought in which brings closer ties between local authorities and football clubs. Local authority invests in the football club which helps pay for stadia and facilities, in return clubs have to develop closer ties with local schools and youth programs. This way local councils have much more of a vested interest in their football clubs rather than turn a blind eye to it's problems. Also, bring in legislation which forces clubs to sell a minimum of 10% of the shareholding to a fan consortium, so fans get a say on how the club is run, takeovers would need approval from the board, of which fans would have representation. This would mirror the German system.
I don't think government wants to start running what essentially are private businesses. They have enough on their hands than to have a new fan complaining about transfer budgets at their offices everyday. Also, since most clubs lose money, any kind of partnership means that every year the taxpayer must come up with money to cover the losses, as the public, through the government, is part owner. I don't see any support for such a scheme once all the consequences become known.
No, local authorities will only be invested in Stadia and facilities and grow partnerships with clubs. They will have no involvement in the club itself. Most clubs don't own their grounds and there are lots of examples of clubs being ripped off by rogue landlords like Coventry, Oxford. It's been successful with Swansea and Hull so it should be encouraged with grants with a view to bringing stadia into community ownership
My solution is more radical, it involves government intervention. There should be legislation brought in which brings closer ties between local authorities and football clubs. Local authority invests in the football club which helps pay for stadia and facilities, in return clubs have to develop closer ties with local schools and youth programs. This way local councils have much more of a vested interest in their football clubs rather than turn a blind eye to it's problems. Also, bring in legislation which forces clubs to sell a minimum of 10% of the shareholding to a fan consortium, so fans get a say on how the club is run, takeovers would need approval from the board, of which fans would have representation. This would mirror the German system.
I don't think government wants to start running what essentially are private businesses. They have enough on their hands than to have a new fan complaining about transfer budgets at their offices everyday. Also, since most clubs lose money, any kind of partnership means that every year the taxpayer must come up with money to cover the losses, as the public, through the government, is part owner. I don't see any support for such a scheme once all the consequences become known.
No, local authorities will only be invested in Stadia and facilities and grow partnerships with clubs. They will have no involvement in the club itself. Most clubs don't own their grounds and there are lots of examples of clubs being ripped off by rogue landlords like Coventry, Oxford. It's been successful with Swansea and Hull so it should be encouraged with grants with a view to bringing stadia into community ownership
If we could have a bury Olympic Games then we could use tax money to fund the club.
might seem a bit random but we’re funding PL West Ham when the club is caked as fuck and all they have to do is give the council some tickets yet we have threads like this.
My solution is more radical, it involves government intervention. There should be legislation brought in which brings closer ties between local authorities and football clubs. Local authority invests in the football club which helps pay for stadia and facilities, in return clubs have to develop closer ties with local schools and youth programs. This way local councils have much more of a vested interest in their football clubs rather than turn a blind eye to it's problems. Also, bring in legislation which forces clubs to sell a minimum of 10% of the shareholding to a fan consortium, so fans get a say on how the club is run, takeovers would need approval from the board, of which fans would have representation. This would mirror the German system.
But if you own 10% of the benifits should you also be liable for 10% of the liability? Also 10% of Bury probably isn't much money, 10% of United or City is, how will you compensate their owners, for 100s of millions of pounds?
If they can make it work in the Bundesliga I don't see why it can't work in the FL, over there they don't allow clubs to be more than 49% owned for exactly this reason. Something's got to give because it's so commonplace in our game now.
Government does have a vested interest anyway, if a club goes to the wall it's a loss to the taxpayer mostly and many people lose jobs and local businesses lose trade.
I think it's reflective of British society, lack of regulation and rampant free market economy only for the interests of the rich rather than the people it serves
Germany had no national professional football until the 1960s, add in the way that the big business in diffrent German cities have close ties to the cities sports teams and its a very diffrent back ground to how the professional game in this country developed.
Taking what ever % from private individuals with out proper compensation isn't something I am comfortable with, regardless of how unsavoury they maybe, if no law has been broken.
Fan ownership doesn't necessarily mean 'forcing' sale of an existing shareholding with "compensation" being paid, does it? Our trust, CAST, is empowered to seek influence through ownership in its constititution as a non-profit organisation. I'd be interested to know how shares could be assigned that doesn't involve loss of value to existing owners.
I really think football is ready for change.
We shouldn't be constrained by existing ideas and practices of how private businesses work. The CAST trust, and others, including Barcelona and Wimbledon, and Swansea and others, are examples of member based organisations which have or aspire to have influence over their clubs. To paraphrase Katrien Meire, we fans think we own the club, and i for one think we should. So the question is how do we/ Bury/ Bolton, and/ or whoever is next to experience the stress of termination, transition from the current status to a more secure, sustainable existence?
NFL teams are privately owned businesses apart from Green Bay Packers who are owned by 361,060 individuals
And I am one of them.
The PACKERS are a perfect template for running a successful club in a smaller town that more football clubs could learn from. Green Bay has 100,000 population and sells out 80,000+ per game (1/2 the fans travel 120 miles per game to attend, from Milwaukee.) Sold out every home game since 1960. Routinely get 10,000+ away fans when on the road. I attended an away game in Arizona once where we had 40,000+ fans who bought up every ticket available and bid to get tix from the season ticket holders of the opposing team. 100,000+ on the season ticket waiting list that has an average 30-year wait time.
How?
1. A percentage of the team is owned by the fans, the only NFL team with such a structure. The NFL owners have banned any other club from following suit. Once every decade or so, the team releases a new batch of shares. All money from the sale usually goes to stadium expansion.
2. Build from within, with the draft and a commitment to youth. Half the team has never played anywhere else.
3. Low turnover of management. Only fifteen head coaches in 98 years.
4. Fans perfectly fine with a few years in the poor results as long as they see effort. Never impatient. (not having relegation sure helps, admittedly.)
5. Rich fans (in boxes) get the worst seats (see pic), at the top. GB never forgets who the most important fans are.
This is a pic of the last shareholders meeting.... 18,000 in the stands to hear management plans for the coming season. The PACK are the closest thing in American sports to an English Football Club.
Nobody can learn anything about running a football team in a small town fron Green Bay.
They are a franchise, in a league with no relegation. In 2017, before they sold a single ticket, t-shirt or beer, they received $255m as their share of national revenues (TV money). There is also a salary cap, the maximum they could pay players was $167m. So before a game is played, they are up $88m.
Of course, they have to pay all the other staff and expenses of putting on games, but they also have more money coming in from tickets, etc.
The historical quirk of them being is such a small town, and their unique own ship structure is meaningless. They have far more in common with Man Utd than any small town football team.
Nobody can learn anything about running a football team in a small town fron Green Bay.
They are a franchise, in a league with no relegation. In 2017, before they sold a single ticket, t-shirt or beer, they received $255m as their share of national revenues (TV money). There is also a salary cap, the maximum they could pay players was $167m. So before a game is played, they are up $88m.
Of course, they have to pay all the other staff and expenses of putting on games, but they also have more money coming in from tickets, etc.
The historical quirk of them being is such a small town, and their unique own ship structure is meaningless. They have far more in common with Man Utd than any small town football team.
Well, I think you do not see my main point, because the things that tend to work well over the long term in American football also seem to work well in Euro football.... Focus on the fans, try to create loyalty, low management turnover, youth development, some form of fan ownership, etc. Also, as someone actually born down the road from Green Bay 50+ years ago and having been a fan for 40 years, their current position of excellence was not always the case. Between 1968-1988 they had a win rate >50% just once in 20 years. Their revenues compared to other teams was miserable and we were starting to wonder if someday they might not even survive. Once management changed and they started looking at their fan base as an asset, once they started really emphasizing a good draft and also tried to improve the stadium and practice facilities, they started to turn the corner in 1989.
Within the NFL, the same competitive dis-advantages exist relative to the big clubs, although not to the same degree; their fan base population is 39th in the USA, and that is counting a city 120 miles away! The fan base area is working class, not rich in any way. They were in the dumps for decades. Twice. Even now their revenue ranks 12th. In the 1980s it ranked in the bottom 7. It took doing things right over the long-term to turn the corner and reap the rewards. Indeed, I think clubs can learn from this. Maybe not super small clubs like Macclesfield Town, but clubs like CAFC? Yeah.
Not quite sure i understand the Bury situation. They obviously have players and can play the fixture, as they've been playing pre-season friendlies. They won at Port Vale at the weekend.
But the EFL call the game off.
Meanwhile owner Steve Dale has still not satisfied the League, according to its rules, that he has the money to run the club, which he bought for £1 in December.
So from that we can safely assume that the EFL didn't do any proper checks.
Now the EFL announce that Bury will face a disciplinary committee for failing to fulfil a fixture.
Another job well done by the EFL.
It's alright though because MK Dons will have their full name in the programme at Wimbledon this year. Shambles.
Whats the point you're trying to make here? making a club respect the name of an opponent is a shambles?
The point is instead of focussing on important matters like poor ownership, they EFL are more bothered by trivial matters
They are aren't they? looks like they are trying everything they can to help these 2 clubs. What is it they aren't doing you think they should do?
Paulie has answered perfectly, but you knew that was the point I was trying to make anyway.
They allowed this chancer to buy Bury in the first place, letting him bypass the Fit and Proper person test in the process. They're now punishing the club for their oversight, it's a disgrace.
Aren't Bolton's problems due to Premiership legacy?
Bit harsh to lay all their problems on the FL's doorstep
Nobody can learn anything about running a football team in a small town fron Green Bay.
They are a franchise, in a league with no relegation. In 2017, before they sold a single ticket, t-shirt or beer, they received $255m as their share of national revenues (TV money). There is also a salary cap, the maximum they could pay players was $167m. So before a game is played, they are up $88m.
Of course, they have to pay all the other staff and expenses of putting on games, but they also have more money coming in from tickets, etc.
The historical quirk of them being is such a small town, and their unique own ship structure is meaningless. They have far more in common with Man Utd than any small town football team.
Well, I think you do not see my main point, because the things that tend to work well over the long term in American football also seem to work well in Euro football.... Focus on the fans, try to create loyalty, low management turnover, youth development, some form of fan ownership, etc. Also, as someone actually born down the road from Green Bay 50+ years ago and having been a fan for 40 years, their current position of excellence was not always the case. Between 1968-1988 they had a win rate >50% just once in 20 years. Their revenues compared to other teams was miserable and we were starting to wonder if someday they might not even survive. Once management changed and they started looking at their fan base as an asset, once they started really emphasizing a good draft and also tried to improve the stadium and practice facilities, they started to turn the corner in 1989.
Within the NFL, the same competitive dis-advantages exist relative to the big clubs, although not to the same degree; their fan base population is 39th in the USA, and that is counting a city 120 miles away! The fan base area is working class, not rich in any way. They were in the dumps for decades. Twice. Even now their revenue ranks 12th. In the 1980s it ranked in the bottom 7. It took doing things right over the long-term to turn the corner and reap the rewards. Indeed, I think clubs can learn from this. Maybe not super small clubs like Macclesfield Town, but clubs like CAFC? Yeah.
With the best will in the world, focusing on the fans and creating loyalty is a hell of a lot easier to do when you start the season 88 million dollars in profit... 🙄
Nobody can learn anything about running a football team in a small town fron Green Bay.
They are a franchise, in a league with no relegation. In 2017, before they sold a single ticket, t-shirt or beer, they received $255m as their share of national revenues (TV money). There is also a salary cap, the maximum they could pay players was $167m. So before a game is played, they are up $88m.
Of course, they have to pay all the other staff and expenses of putting on games, but they also have more money coming in from tickets, etc.
The historical quirk of them being is such a small town, and their unique own ship structure is meaningless. They have far more in common with Man Utd than any small town football team.
Well, I think you do not see my main point, because the things that tend to work well over the long term in American football also seem to work well in Euro football.... Focus on the fans, try to create loyalty, low management turnover, youth development, some form of fan ownership, etc. Also, as someone actually born down the road from Green Bay 50+ years ago and having been a fan for 40 years, their current position of excellence was not always the case. Between 1968-1988 they had a win rate >50% just once in 20 years. Their revenues compared to other teams was miserable and we were starting to wonder if someday they might not even survive. Once management changed and they started looking at their fan base as an asset, once they started really emphasizing a good draft and also tried to improve the stadium and practice facilities, they started to turn the corner in 1989.
Within the NFL, the same competitive dis-advantages exist relative to the big clubs, although not to the same degree; their fan base population is 39th in the USA, and that is counting a city 120 miles away! The fan base area is working class, not rich in any way. They were in the dumps for decades. Twice. Even now their revenue ranks 12th. In the 1980s it ranked in the bottom 7. It took doing things right over the long-term to turn the corner and reap the rewards. Indeed, I think clubs can learn from this. Maybe not super small clubs like Macclesfield Town, but clubs like CAFC? Yeah.
With the best will in the world, focusing on the fans and creating loyalty is a hell of a lot easier to do when you start the season 88 million dollars in profit... 🙄
With zero chance of relegation and a poor league position resulting in the best draft picks.
Nobody can learn anything about running a football team in a small town fron Green Bay.
They are a franchise, in a league with no relegation. In 2017, before they sold a single ticket, t-shirt or beer, they received $255m as their share of national revenues (TV money). There is also a salary cap, the maximum they could pay players was $167m. So before a game is played, they are up $88m.
Of course, they have to pay all the other staff and expenses of putting on games, but they also have more money coming in from tickets, etc.
The historical quirk of them being is such a small town, and their unique own ship structure is meaningless. They have far more in common with Man Utd than any small town football team.
Well, I think you do not see my main point, because the things that tend to work well over the long term in American football also seem to work well in Euro football.... Focus on the fans, try to create loyalty, low management turnover, youth development, some form of fan ownership, etc. Also, as someone actually born down the road from Green Bay 50+ years ago and having been a fan for 40 years, their current position of excellence was not always the case. Between 1968-1988 they had a win rate >50% just once in 20 years. Their revenues compared to other teams was miserable and we were starting to wonder if someday they might not even survive. Once management changed and they started looking at their fan base as an asset, once they started really emphasizing a good draft and also tried to improve the stadium and practice facilities, they started to turn the corner in 1989.
Within the NFL, the same competitive dis-advantages exist relative to the big clubs, although not to the same degree; their fan base population is 39th in the USA, and that is counting a city 120 miles away! The fan base area is working class, not rich in any way. They were in the dumps for decades. Twice. Even now their revenue ranks 12th. In the 1980s it ranked in the bottom 7. It took doing things right over the long-term to turn the corner and reap the rewards. Indeed, I think clubs can learn from this. Maybe not super small clubs like Macclesfield Town, but clubs like CAFC? Yeah.
Napa, just out of interest, how did you become a Charlton fan?
Nobody can learn anything about running a football team in a small town fron Green Bay.
They are a franchise, in a league with no relegation. In 2017, before they sold a single ticket, t-shirt or beer, they received $255m as their share of national revenues (TV money). There is also a salary cap, the maximum they could pay players was $167m. So before a game is played, they are up $88m.
Of course, they have to pay all the other staff and expenses of putting on games, but they also have more money coming in from tickets, etc.
The historical quirk of them being is such a small town, and their unique own ship structure is meaningless. They have far more in common with Man Utd than any small town football team.
Well, I think you do not see my main point, because the things that tend to work well over the long term in American football also seem to work well in Euro football.... Focus on the fans, try to create loyalty, low management turnover, youth development, some form of fan ownership, etc. Also, as someone actually born down the road from Green Bay 50+ years ago and having been a fan for 40 years, their current position of excellence was not always the case. Between 1968-1988 they had a win rate >50% just once in 20 years. Their revenues compared to other teams was miserable and we were starting to wonder if someday they might not even survive. Once management changed and they started looking at their fan base as an asset, once they started really emphasizing a good draft and also tried to improve the stadium and practice facilities, they started to turn the corner in 1989.
Within the NFL, the same competitive dis-advantages exist relative to the big clubs, although not to the same degree; their fan base population is 39th in the USA, and that is counting a city 120 miles away! The fan base area is working class, not rich in any way. They were in the dumps for decades. Twice. Even now their revenue ranks 12th. In the 1980s it ranked in the bottom 7. It took doing things right over the long-term to turn the corner and reap the rewards. Indeed, I think clubs can learn from this. Maybe not super small clubs like Macclesfield Town, but clubs like CAFC? Yeah.
Wouldn't every team in the NFL try and have a good draft?
My solution is more radical, it involves government intervention. There should be legislation brought in which brings closer ties between local authorities and football clubs. Local authority invests in the football club which helps pay for stadia and facilities, in return clubs have to develop closer ties with local schools and youth programs. This way local councils have much more of a vested interest in their football clubs rather than turn a blind eye to it's problems. Also, bring in legislation which forces clubs to sell a minimum of 10% of the shareholding to a fan consortium, so fans get a say on how the club is run, takeovers would need approval from the board, of which fans would have representation. This would mirror the German system.
But if you own 10% of the benifits should you also be liable for 10% of the liability? Also 10% of Bury probably isn't much money, 10% of United or City is, how will you compensate their owners, for 100s of millions of pounds?
If they can make it work in the Bundesliga I don't see why it can't work in the FL, over there they don't allow clubs to be more than 49% owned for exactly this reason. Something's got to give because it's so commonplace in our game now.
Government does have a vested interest anyway, if a club goes to the wall it's a loss to the taxpayer mostly and many people lose jobs and local businesses lose trade.
I think it's reflective of British society, lack of regulation and rampant free market economy only for the interests of the rich rather than the people it serves
Germany had no national professional football until the 1960s, add in the way that the big business in diffrent German cities have close ties to the cities sports teams and its a very diffrent back ground to how the professional game in this country developed.
Taking what ever % from private individuals with out proper compensation isn't something I am comfortable with, regardless of how unsavoury they maybe, if no law has been broken.
Fan ownership doesn't necessarily mean 'forcing' sale of an existing shareholding with "compensation" being paid, does it? Our trust, CAST, is empowered to seek influence through ownership in its constititution as a non-profit organisation. I'd be interested to know how shares could be assigned that doesn't involve loss of value to existing owners.
I really think football is ready for change.
We shouldn't be constrained by existing ideas and practices of how private businesses work. The CAST trust, and others, including Barcelona and Wimbledon, and Swansea and others, are examples of member based organisations which have or aspire to have influence over their clubs. To paraphrase Katrien Meire, we fans think we own the club, and i for one think we should. So the question is how do we/ Bury/ Bolton, and/ or whoever is next to experience the stress of termination, transition from the current status to a more secure, sustainable existence?
Fan ownership is disirable, using the Barca example is about as useful as comparing Bury to the GBP to be honest so use the other 2 you mentioned.
Wimbledon didn't exist, was formed by the fans, it has been a very successful project so far but has an obvious cticital mass. It will be intresting how long the fans will be happy to have a club, then a league club, then a league club in Wimbledon. Will enough people be happy with regular league 1/2 football? Or will they eventually seek outside investment, like Swansea did?
Swansea were on the verg of going out of not only the football league, but business all together, the fans saved them worked with local authorities and rebuilt the club. A great footballing fairytale but in the end it was unsustainable and they sold out to external investment.
The biggest problem is money, the riches at the top table are so big someone will always try and gamble on "winning them". On the other side of the coin the wages of lower league players is actually criminal. Last season there were players in the national league earning more than doctors, lawyers and the prime minister! All the time that is the case, someone has to pay the bills. Its bonkers and something has to change but as we know, all the time the clubs actually run the game, it won't change.
My solution is more radical, it involves government intervention. There should be legislation brought in which brings closer ties between local authorities and football clubs. Local authority invests in the football club which helps pay for stadia and facilities, in return clubs have to develop closer ties with local schools and youth programs. This way local councils have much more of a vested interest in their football clubs rather than turn a blind eye to it's problems. Also, bring in legislation which forces clubs to sell a minimum of 10% of the shareholding to a fan consortium, so fans get a say on how the club is run, takeovers would need approval from the board, of which fans would have representation. This would mirror the German system.
But if you own 10% of the benifits should you also be liable for 10% of the liability? Also 10% of Bury probably isn't much money, 10% of United or City is, how will you compensate their owners, for 100s of millions of pounds?
If they can make it work in the Bundesliga I don't see why it can't work in the FL, over there they don't allow clubs to be more than 49% owned for exactly this reason. Something's got to give because it's so commonplace in our game now.
Government does have a vested interest anyway, if a club goes to the wall it's a loss to the taxpayer mostly and many people lose jobs and local businesses lose trade.
I think it's reflective of British society, lack of regulation and rampant free market economy only for the interests of the rich rather than the people it serves
Germany had no national professional football until the 1960s, add in the way that the big business in diffrent German cities have close ties to the cities sports teams and its a very diffrent back ground to how the professional game in this country developed.
Taking what ever % from private individuals with out proper compensation isn't something I am comfortable with, regardless of how unsavoury they maybe, if no law has been broken.
Fan ownership doesn't necessarily mean 'forcing' sale of an existing shareholding with "compensation" being paid, does it? Our trust, CAST, is empowered to seek influence through ownership in its constititution as a non-profit organisation. I'd be interested to know how shares could be assigned that doesn't involve loss of value to existing owners.
I really think football is ready for change.
We shouldn't be constrained by existing ideas and practices of how private businesses work. The CAST trust, and others, including Barcelona and Wimbledon, and Swansea and others, are examples of member based organisations which have or aspire to have influence over their clubs. To paraphrase Katrien Meire, we fans think we own the club, and i for one think we should. So the question is how do we/ Bury/ Bolton, and/ or whoever is next to experience the stress of termination, transition from the current status to a more secure, sustainable existence?
Fan ownership is disirable, using the Barca example is about as useful as comparing Bury to the GBP to be honest so use the other 2 you mentioned.
Wimbledon didn't exist, was formed by the fans, it has been a very successful project so far but has an obvious cticital mass. It will be intresting how long the fans will be happy to have a club, then a league club, then a league club in Wimbledon. Will enough people be happy with regular league 1/2 football? Or will they eventually seek outside investment, like Swansea did?
Swansea were on the verg of going out of not only the football league, but business all together, the fans saved them worked with local authorities and rebuilt the club. A great footballing fairytale but in the end it was unsustainable and they sold out to external investment.
The biggest problem is money, the riches at the top table are so big someone will always try and gamble on "winning them". On the other side of the coin the wages of lower league players is actually criminal. Last season there were players in the national league earning more than doctors, lawyers and the prime minister! All the time that is the case, someone has to pay the bills. Its bonkers and something has to change but as we know, all the time the clubs actually run the game, it won't change.
But isn't that kind of how football is? You have to always progress or reach the next level and be ambitious, otherwise your crowds will dwindle, you won't attract the best players and you slowly decline
My solution is more radical, it involves government intervention. There should be legislation brought in which brings closer ties between local authorities and football clubs. Local authority invests in the football club which helps pay for stadia and facilities, in return clubs have to develop closer ties with local schools and youth programs. This way local councils have much more of a vested interest in their football clubs rather than turn a blind eye to it's problems. Also, bring in legislation which forces clubs to sell a minimum of 10% of the shareholding to a fan consortium, so fans get a say on how the club is run, takeovers would need approval from the board, of which fans would have representation. This would mirror the German system.
But if you own 10% of the benifits should you also be liable for 10% of the liability? Also 10% of Bury probably isn't much money, 10% of United or City is, how will you compensate their owners, for 100s of millions of pounds?
If they can make it work in the Bundesliga I don't see why it can't work in the FL, over there they don't allow clubs to be more than 49% owned for exactly this reason. Something's got to give because it's so commonplace in our game now.
Government does have a vested interest anyway, if a club goes to the wall it's a loss to the taxpayer mostly and many people lose jobs and local businesses lose trade.
I think it's reflective of British society, lack of regulation and rampant free market economy only for the interests of the rich rather than the people it serves
Germany had no national professional football until the 1960s, add in the way that the big business in diffrent German cities have close ties to the cities sports teams and its a very diffrent back ground to how the professional game in this country developed.
Taking what ever % from private individuals with out proper compensation isn't something I am comfortable with, regardless of how unsavoury they maybe, if no law has been broken.
Fan ownership doesn't necessarily mean 'forcing' sale of an existing shareholding with "compensation" being paid, does it? Our trust, CAST, is empowered to seek influence through ownership in its constititution as a non-profit organisation. I'd be interested to know how shares could be assigned that doesn't involve loss of value to existing owners.
I really think football is ready for change.
We shouldn't be constrained by existing ideas and practices of how private businesses work. The CAST trust, and others, including Barcelona and Wimbledon, and Swansea and others, are examples of member based organisations which have or aspire to have influence over their clubs. To paraphrase Katrien Meire, we fans think we own the club, and i for one think we should. So the question is how do we/ Bury/ Bolton, and/ or whoever is next to experience the stress of termination, transition from the current status to a more secure, sustainable existence?
Fan ownership is disirable, using the Barca example is about as useful as comparing Bury to the GBP to be honest so use the other 2 you mentioned.
Wimbledon didn't exist, was formed by the fans, it has been a very successful project so far but has an obvious cticital mass. It will be intresting how long the fans will be happy to have a club, then a league club, then a league club in Wimbledon. Will enough people be happy with regular league 1/2 football? Or will they eventually seek outside investment, like Swansea did?
Swansea were on the verg of going out of not only the football league, but business all together, the fans saved them worked with local authorities and rebuilt the club. A great footballing fairytale but in the end it was unsustainable and they sold out to external investment.
The biggest problem is money, the riches at the top table are so big someone will always try and gamble on "winning them". On the other side of the coin the wages of lower league players is actually criminal. Last season there were players in the national league earning more than doctors, lawyers and the prime minister! All the time that is the case, someone has to pay the bills. Its bonkers and something has to change but as we know, all the time the clubs actually run the game, it won't change.
But isn't that kind of how football is? You have to always progress or reach the next level and be ambitious, otherwise your crowds will dwindle, you won't attract the best players and you slowly decline
Well, yeah, that's kind of my point, you can't do that under fan ownership, unless like Barca, or GBP, you have 100s of thousands of members.
Bury average about 4-5k attendance, if we believe the average league 1 player earns about 1-2k a week, someone has to pay the difference.
An intresting extract from a match report on the guardian Web site, I didn't realise Wycombe were fan owned
Their destination was ironic: the Wanderers of Wycombe have a far slighter heritage and more modest ambition, but, being largely fan-owned, are free from an individual’s vanity, misjudgment and worse. Wycombe have recognised that being owned by the fans has its limitations and are in the process of bringing in a majority owner, but he has been carefully selected and Wycombe Wanderers Trust will retain Adams Park. So while Bolton did not even have a kit until a hastily arranged one-match deal with Hummel, Wycombe’s fan-first model resulted in a beer tent on site and Cajun-style burgers.
Sad to hear some Bury fans have stepped up discussions on a phoenix club.
Yes, they spent beyond their means to secure promotion last season (part blame there for both the ownership and the EFL) but the biggest victims are the only people without blame. The fans.
Earl is already injured and out for up to 3 months (their striker, Hall, is also out for the same lengths of time). They have suspended ticket sales for this weekends game too
Sad to hear some Bury fans have stepped up discussions on a phoenix club.
Yes, they spent beyond their means to secure promotion last season (part blame there for both the ownership and the EFL) but the biggest victims are the only people without blame. The fans.
Do you not think they were tickled pick when the owner"spent beyond their means" to aim for promotion? Fans moan all the time about not enough spending. I feel bad for them but don't think they are "without blame."
Comments
Bolton will have only 3 senior players tomorrow. No idea if Oztumer is one of them. Magennis won't be playing though, he's handed in his 14 day notice
https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/17813000.bolton-striker-josh-magennis-refuses-travel-wycombe/
might seem a bit random but we’re funding PL West Ham when the club is caked as fuck and all they have to do is give the council some tickets yet we have threads like this.
I really think football is ready for change.
We shouldn't be constrained by existing ideas and practices of how private businesses work. The CAST trust, and others, including Barcelona and Wimbledon, and Swansea and others, are examples of member based organisations which have or aspire to have influence over their clubs. To paraphrase Katrien Meire, we fans think we own the club, and i for one think we should. So the question is how do we/ Bury/ Bolton, and/ or whoever is next to experience the stress of termination, transition from the current status to a more secure, sustainable existence?
They are a franchise, in a league with no relegation. In 2017, before they sold a single ticket, t-shirt or beer, they received $255m as their share of national revenues (TV money). There is also a salary cap, the maximum they could pay players was $167m. So before a game is played, they are up $88m.
Of course, they have to pay all the other staff and expenses of putting on games, but they also have more money coming in from tickets, etc.
The historical quirk of them being is such a small town, and their unique own ship structure is meaningless. They have far more in common with Man Utd than any small town football team.
Suspect that L1 will be a club short this season.
It's like comparing apples and pork chops!
Wimbledon didn't exist, was formed by the fans, it has been a very successful project so far but has an obvious cticital mass. It will be intresting how long the fans will be happy to have a club, then a league club, then a league club in Wimbledon. Will enough people be happy with regular league 1/2 football? Or will they eventually seek outside investment, like Swansea did?
Swansea were on the verg of going out of not only the football league, but business all together, the fans saved them worked with local authorities and rebuilt the club. A great footballing fairytale but in the end it was unsustainable and they sold out to external investment.
The biggest problem is money, the riches at the top table are so big someone will always try and gamble on "winning them". On the other side of the coin the wages of lower league players is actually criminal. Last season there were players in the national league earning more than doctors, lawyers and the prime minister! All the time that is the case, someone has to pay the bills. Its bonkers and something has to change but as we know, all the time the clubs actually run the game, it won't change.
“Salford have been dealt a blow before their Football League debut”
Click on the article to see what it is, thinking that they have a ton of injuries or the league questioning them over FFP.
Article: None of the Class of 92 will be attending their first ever league game.
Really puts Bury's problems into perspective doesn't it?!
Bury average about 4-5k attendance, if we believe the average league 1 player earns about 1-2k a week, someone has to pay the difference.
Their destination was ironic: the Wanderers of Wycombe have a far slighter heritage and more modest ambition, but, being largely fan-owned, are free from an individual’s vanity, misjudgment and worse. Wycombe have recognised that being owned by the fans has its limitations and are in the process of bringing in a majority owner, but he has been carefully selected and Wycombe Wanderers Trust will retain Adams Park. So while Bolton did not even have a kit until a hastily arranged one-match deal with Hummel, Wycombe’s fan-first model resulted in a beer tent on site and Cajun-style burgers.
Yes, they spent beyond their means to secure promotion last season (part blame there for both the ownership and the EFL) but the biggest victims are the only people without blame. The fans.