Stadt Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 Football fans aren't organised enough to boycott anything particularly in England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 Agree with the above. People who are 'against modern football' but still go to games and still have a sky subscription are no better than people who complain that McDonalds is making them fat while they sit in McDonalds stuffing their faces with cheeseburgers, chicken nuggets and fries dipped in sweet, luscious barbeque saurce, before finishing it off with a delicate, creamy McFlurry and a chocolate fvcking donut. If so many fans don't like football today, stop funding it. If 80% of people boycotted games and Sky TV for three short months in the middle of the season, I reckon enough damage would be done to get a good reaction. Won't happen though of course, because most of the people moaning have no real conviction in their complaints. That is a rather flawed analogy. McDonalds is not our only source of food, those who grow fat through an unhealthy diet of McDonalds do so through personal choice. Football has been purchased by Sky, if you wish to watch football, outside of actually attending the match, your choice is somewhat limited. Also Sky are not responsible for 'modern football', what clubs choose to do with the obscene amounts of money sky give them is not the responsibility of sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deucalion Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 That is a rather flawed analogy. McDonalds is not our only source of food, those who grow fat through an unhealthy diet of McDonalds do so through personal choice. Football has been purchased by Sky, if you wish to watch football, outside of actually attending the match, your choice is somewhat limited. Also Sky are not responsible for 'modern football', what clubs choose to do with the obscene amounts of money sky give them is not the responsibility of sky I think the move towards worldwide brand rather than the English football divisions came with the advent of the Premier League, which was perpetrated by the FA in partnership with Sky, if I remember correctly. So Sky have to shoulder much of the blame, for me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purpleronnie Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 I think most fans in England are quite happy with Modern football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 Just how many supporter owned clubs are doing well?. It merely keeps the club in existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purpleronnie Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 well there isnt that many,and most take over when the club is in a dire situation and they tend to be smaller lower league clubs anyway. I suppose AFC Wimbledon would be the most successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 I think the move towards worldwide brand rather than the English football divisions came with the advent of the Premier League, which was perpetrated by the FA in partnership with Sky, if I remember correctly. So Sky have to shoulder much of the blame, for me anyway. I would disagree. Sky certainly modernised the game (and not necessarily in a negative way) by allowing us access to more games and clubs were richly rewarded. Piss poor financial management then followed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purpleronnie Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 Fans are to blame just as much as owners, sky TV, all the rest, they don't say a thing when millions are spent on players and moan if their club doesn't spending anything, then they play the blame game when it goes tits up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deucalion Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 I would disagree. Sky certainly modernised the game (and not necessarily in a negative way) by allowing us access to more games and clubs were richly rewarded. Piss poor financial management then followed. Fair enough. Although Sky provide the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, nobody forces clubs, or rather their owners, to gamble huge steaks in an attempt to get their share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theessexfox Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 Fair enough. Although Sky provide the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, nobody forces clubs, or rather their owners, to gamble huge steaks in an attempt to get their share. OzLeicester would disapprove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deucalion Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 I've got no beef with OzLeicester !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oxford blue Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 It's certainly a headline to grab attention, and rather alarmist for clubs like Leicester whose owners have loaned a great deal to the club. However, the same article says "a similar proportion of clubs, 33% and 21% respectively, have been approached by potential new external investors in the past year", which suggests to me there might be more frequent changes of owner of clubs in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 I think the move towards worldwide brand rather than the English football divisions came with the advent of the Premier League, which was perpetrated by the FA in partnership with Sky, if I remember correctly. So Sky have to shoulder much of the blame, for me anyway. The fa were against the creation of the pl as it diluted their influence, the big clubs threatened to go it alone if the fa did not approve its creation. The pl wanted to corner the sky money so needed to seperate itself from the fa who one would like to think would have gone for a more equitable division of the sky cash across all levels of the game. Under threat from the big clubs they caved in probably because they didn't have the money to fight back in the courts. The rest as they say is history with the pl getting richer and more influential by the year and the fa getting poorer and toothless both domestically and internationally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deucalion Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 The fa were against the creation of the pl as it diluted their influence, the big clubs threatened to go it alone if the fa did not approve its creation. The pl wanted to corner the sky money so needed to seperate itself from the fa who one would like to think would have gone for a more equitable division of the sky cash across all levels of the game. Under threat from the big clubs they caved in probably because they didn't have the money to fight back in the courts. The rest as they say is history with the pl getting richer and more influential by the year and the fa getting poorer and toothless both domestically and internationally. Do you mean the Football League, not the FA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 Do you mean the Football League, not the FA? Both, but the fl had total power and influence over all football in england and control of all monies from any type of broadcasting, with the creation and structure of the pl they lost that. You need to remember it was the fa that had delayed our involvement in the world cup and organised European football tournaments, that's how influential they had been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazlcfc27 Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 I think most fans in England are quite happy with Modern football I think your right,most fans are happy with it.Just as happy with drinking cheap beer from the supermarket and then watching pubs close by the hundreds every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grewks Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 I think your right,most fans are happy with it.Just as happy with drinking cheap beer from the supermarket and then watching pubs close by the hundreds every year. FFP will only result in more clubs having problems...not less. As much as we are all enjoying Coventry's recent demise, it is all down to FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 As much as we are all enjoying Coventry's recent demise, it is all down to FFP. No, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grewks Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 No, it's not. Have you not heard any of the reports into why Coventry could not reach an agreement to play at the Ricoh? It was because they could not afford the rental fees due to their low income.....which is a result FFP, and why they are now playing in Northampton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 Have you not heard any of the reports into why Coventry could not reach an agreement to play at the Ricoh? It was because they could not afford the rental fees due to their low income.....which is a result FFP, and why they are now playing in Northampton. SISU crying foul over Financial Fair Play is a red herring that distracts from the real issues at hand. They're complaining about the low income they receive, yet they're moving the club to Sixfields for three seasons, where they're going to earn peanuts. Sure, they're saving money on rent, but their income is about to plummet. Coventry City wasn't earning any revenue on parking, concessions, etc. because that was part of the terms of their lease agreement. IIRC that all has to do with Coventry City selling its stake in the stadium when they were in massive debt under previous ownership. SISU wasn't even interested in paying their rent at the Ricoh well before the events of this summer. SISU bought Coventry City for one reason: to buy the Ricoh Arena. When it comes to fielding a competitive squad, they have no interest in spending any more money than they absolutely have to. SISU want to bleed the ACL dry and buy the stadium for cheap. Stunts like not paying their rent and moving to Sixfields, or threatening to build a new stadium and leaving the ACL and Coventry with a white elephant, are tactics done in extremely poor taste first to get the ACL to drastically lower their demands, and then to lower the value of the stadium. As I see it, SISU's plan is something similar to private equity firms orchestrating leveraged buyouts of struggling companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grewks Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 SISU crying foul over Financial Fair Play is a red herring that distracts from the real issues at hand. They're complaining about the low income they receive, yet they're moving the club to Sixfields for three seasons, where they're going to earn peanuts. Sure, they're saving money on rent, but their income is about to plummet. Coventry City wasn't earning any revenue on parking, concessions, etc. because that was part of the terms of their lease agreement. IIRC that all has to do with Coventry City selling its stake in the stadium when they were in massive debt under previous ownership. SISU wasn't even interested in paying their rent at the Ricoh well before the events of this summer. SISU bought Coventry City for one reason: to buy the Ricoh Arena. When it comes to fielding a competitive squad, they have no interest in spending any more money than they absolutely have to. SISU want to bleed the ACL dry and buy the stadium for cheap. Stunts like not paying their rent and moving to Sixfields, or threatening to build a new stadium and leaving the ACL and Coventry with a white elephant, are tactics done in extremely poor taste first to get the ACL to drastically lower their demands, and then to lower the value of the stadium. As I see it, SISU's plan is something similar to private equity firms orchestrating leveraged buyouts of struggling companies. Cov fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 Have Coventry had any decent income for years? Their crowds have been absolutely turd, and on the decline for years. Financial 'Fair' Play has failed already for me. When I heard it, I could completely see the logic behind it - it's a reactive system (which I'm not a fan of) but I think the portrayed end product, which was clubs not spending outside of their means, was a good one. But, surprise surprise, it's been executed absolutely terribly. All it's done is frozen the market for most of the league, whilst four clubs have the license to take the piss. The fact QPR, Wigan & Reading receive a huge chunk of money each year for the next four years (correct me if I'm wrong) simply for being in the Premier League, is an absolute disgrace. How can you possibly have Financial 'Fair' Play & Parachute Payments both in practice? How can that possibly work fairly? One of them is in to stop clubs spending money they can't afford, whilst one of them is a cushion for over-spending, just who the hell allowed this to happen? The other club is Watford. I don't blame Watford as a club for taking advantage (although I think their fans need to pipe down), but the fact they're allowed to effectively trump the rule where one person can't own more than one club simply because the clubs are owned by a family member each hands them a stupidly unfair advantage over the rest of the league. They can receive a team for a pittance from their owner's families' scouting pool and don't have to worry about FFP as a result. Technically, it isn't unfair, as anyone in the league can do it, but it's a very, very dangerous precedent to set out. I know I need to be careful what I'm saying supporting Leicester, a club who've been involved in enough controversy regarding finances in the last 15 years, but that doesn't render this invalid. The rule has done nothing but strengthen any club who reaches the Premier League and put those who haven't at a dis-advantage, and as much as I thought the initial logic made sense, I back any protest against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deucalion Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 SISU crying foul over Financial Fair Play is a red herring that distracts from the real issues at hand. They're complaining about the low income they receive, yet they're moving the club to Sixfields for three seasons, where they're going to earn peanuts. Sure, they're saving money on rent, but their income is about to plummet. Coventry City wasn't earning any revenue on parking, concessions, etc. because that was part of the terms of their lease agreement. IIRC that all has to do with Coventry City selling its stake in the stadium when they were in massive debt under previous ownership. SISU wasn't even interested in paying their rent at the Ricoh well before the events of this summer. SISU bought Coventry City for one reason: to buy the Ricoh Arena. When it comes to fielding a competitive squad, they have no interest in spending any more money than they absolutely have to. SISU want to bleed the ACL dry and buy the stadium for cheap. Stunts like not paying their rent and moving to Sixfields, or threatening to build a new stadium and leaving the ACL and Coventry with a white elephant, are tactics done in extremely poor taste first to get the ACL to drastically lower their demands, and then to lower the value of the stadium. As I see it, SISU's plan is something similar to private equity firms orchestrating leveraged buyouts of struggling companies. How do you know this? It is a chilling vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 Oh yes..... I would love to be fighting relegation from the football league rather trying to gain promotion to the Premier League. How many top footballing sides are run by the fans? Answer - Only Dortmund. The model isn't successful. A club saved by a Trust, with a well defined plan can achieve Premiership status and stay there, listen to the Chairman of Swansea talking about their approach http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd7l5TzNusY&feature=player_embedded The BBC also recently did a programme about this which was broadcast about a fortnight ago, but doesn't seem to be on I Player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 14 August 2013 Share Posted 14 August 2013 Have you not heard any of the reports into why Coventry could not reach an agreement to play at the Ricoh? It was because they could not afford the rental fees due to their low income.....which is a result FFP, and why they are now playing in Northampton. Complete rubbish spouted by SISU, the fans at Coventry are clearly demonstrating with their feet what they think of their current owners If you want to be informed about the Coventry situation, keep visiting http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/ The Coventry fans were expressing their fears over 18 months ago http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Coventry-fans-fear-club-will-go-bust-under-ownership-of-London-based-hedge-fund-article842913.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.