Bury FC & Bolton Wanderers
I'm sure there's been comment about this on other threads throughout the summer, but this is a big story that I think deserves it's own thread. The demise of these two clubs is extremely depressing, and a real warning to football.
I decided to take a little look into things, and I found an article that said that the cause of Bury's situation is largely caused by a £4.2m loan debt. Now, I'm not suggesting that it is the responsibility of other clubs to bail out awful owners, and realistically the owners have to face the consequences. But if you you take that £4.2m as a given, that is a pittance in football generally.
Alexis Sanchez reportedly earns around £400,000 per week. That's nearly £21m a season. For a benchwarmer. That's 5 times the loan that is going to put a 130+ year old club out of business.
Premier League TV revenue is, what, a £2.5 billion? How is this being allowed to happen.
I am sure there are hundreds of reasons why this proposal can't be, but here's what I want to happen.
1. For all wages a club spends, they must give an additional 1% of that wage bill to a centralised pool of money.
2. If a club is being wound up, and the owners have proven there is nothing more they can do, the owners are removed.
3. The centralised pool of money clears the debt for that club
4. The owners are removed, and replaced with an FA appointed chairman and a board of directors made up of fans
What do you think? Are there better ideas? Should we just let clubs die because their owners are irresponsible?
I decided to take a little look into things, and I found an article that said that the cause of Bury's situation is largely caused by a £4.2m loan debt. Now, I'm not suggesting that it is the responsibility of other clubs to bail out awful owners, and realistically the owners have to face the consequences. But if you you take that £4.2m as a given, that is a pittance in football generally.
Alexis Sanchez reportedly earns around £400,000 per week. That's nearly £21m a season. For a benchwarmer. That's 5 times the loan that is going to put a 130+ year old club out of business.
Premier League TV revenue is, what, a £2.5 billion? How is this being allowed to happen.
I am sure there are hundreds of reasons why this proposal can't be, but here's what I want to happen.
1. For all wages a club spends, they must give an additional 1% of that wage bill to a centralised pool of money.
2. If a club is being wound up, and the owners have proven there is nothing more they can do, the owners are removed.
3. The centralised pool of money clears the debt for that club
4. The owners are removed, and replaced with an FA appointed chairman and a board of directors made up of fans
What do you think? Are there better ideas? Should we just let clubs die because their owners are irresponsible?
Comments
It would be such a pittance for each Premier League club to pull together and contribute a bit until new owners are in place.
There needs to be a way to make sure that a club can't get into this situation in the first place. Maybe football clubs need to be required to pay/hold a percentage of their transfer payments/wage bill in a trust fund in some way.
Sounds like its been in the mire for a long time.
The saints moved on and became an established premier league side.
Charlton on the other hand paid all creditors back all monies owed.
Clubs can do the right thing, if they want to.
Apparently Dale wants £1m to walk away. Earlier today on Talksport he asked fans, local businesses and celebrities to cough up £2.7m.
Now, we all know what happens when banks don't carry out due diligence and loan a load of people money they will never be able to pay back.
The worlds economy crashes into the toilet.
Who checked that Bury had the capability to pay back a loan, could they meet the monthly payments, was the interest crippling them.... looks like none, no and more than likely.
Should be FA be consulted when a club needs a loan just to meet regular bills and wages payments? I think so, mainly to save clubs for themselves.
What an odious man he is.
He’s delusional.
If they are then they thrive and have a long term future.
If not then they struggle and eventually have to go out of existence.
Anything other than these consequences would distort behaviour inappropriately and seem unfair.
If they've been managed unsustainable, in order to gain an advantage against competing clubs who have 'cut their cloth' (as it were) then they really can't expect to geta free pass, as it is unfair on the other clubs.
A shame for the fans though - they don't make the decisions, but suffer the consequences of bad ones. (Of course, they feel the benefit if the decisions made are good ones.)
Seaside clubs, they all look the same to me...