by Franchise FC » 14 Mar 2012 18:04
by Ian Royal » 14 Mar 2012 18:31
by Friday's Legacy » 14 Mar 2012 18:39
Ian Royal The thing is more and more clubs that get relegated are betting the farm on going up. Only three can go up a year and there are genuine contenders amongst the rest of the CHampionship too. THat just means unless the same six clubs yo-yo every season, someone is going to lose out sooner or later and implode.
And we know the three relegated clubs simply won't keep going straight back up, no matter how much money they throw at in a desperate bid to survive.
by Ian Royal » 14 Mar 2012 19:04
Friday's LegacyIan Royal The thing is more and more clubs that get relegated are betting the farm on going up. Only three can go up a year and there are genuine contenders amongst the rest of the CHampionship too. THat just means unless the same six clubs yo-yo every season, someone is going to lose out sooner or later and implode.
And we know the three relegated clubs simply won't keep going straight back up, no matter how much money they throw at in a desperate bid to survive.
west ham will be an even bigger case if they fail to go up. all we heard last season was how relegation could be the end of the club. relegation came and went, and west ham continued to throw large sums of money on new players and pay ridiculously high wages. if they really were in as bad a state as david gold made out, then failure to secure promotion this season has got to have a massive impact on the club.
by Mr Angry » 15 Mar 2012 15:36
by Terminal Boardom » 15 Mar 2012 16:24
Mr Angry West Ham will be alright as they will end up in the Olympic Stadium; ok, they will have to pay rent now, rather than (as the owners were expecting) getting it as a freebie, but that will allow them to sell Upto park to a developer to make a few million.
by Uke » 15 Mar 2012 16:37
Terminal BoardomMr Angry West Ham will be alright as they will end up in the Olympic Stadium; ok, they will have to pay rent now, rather than (as the owners were expecting) getting it as a freebie, but that will allow them to sell Upto park to a developer to make a few million.
And in such a desirable part of London as well
by Barry the bird boggler » 16 Mar 2012 11:11
Mr Angry West Ham will be alright as they will end up in the Olympic Stadium; ok, they will have to pay rent now, rather than (as the owners were expecting) getting it as a freebie, but that will allow them to sell Upto park to a developer to make a few million.
by Dare to Dr£am » 16 Mar 2012 12:15
Barry the bird bogglerMr Angry West Ham will be alright as they will end up in the Olympic Stadium; ok, they will have to pay rent now, rather than (as the owners were expecting) getting it as a freebie, but that will allow them to sell Upto park to a developer to make a few million.
But someone would have to pay to rip out the current seating and transform the design so it can succeed as a football ground, can't see the public purse footing that one....
by Red » 16 Mar 2012 12:19
FiNeRaIn Don't see the problem, both good causes.
by Barry the bird boggler » 16 Mar 2012 12:39
Dare to Dr£amBarry the bird bogglerMr Angry West Ham will be alright as they will end up in the Olympic Stadium; ok, they will have to pay rent now, rather than (as the owners were expecting) getting it as a freebie, but that will allow them to sell Upto park to a developer to make a few million.
But someone would have to pay to rip out the current seating and transform the design so it can succeed as a football ground, can't see the public purse footing that one....
Haven't the people that own/control the stadium told West Ham that the stadium has to stay as it is reading for the commonwealth games?
by Friday's Legacy » 22 Mar 2012 19:46
by Wimb » 25 Mar 2012 08:53
by Barry the bird boggler » 26 Mar 2012 08:46
by Wimb » 26 Mar 2012 09:54
Barry the bird boggler Utterly despicable isn't it? What I'd like to know is how the disgraceful football creditor's rule ever got to be legal in the first place.
by Mr Angry » 26 Mar 2012 10:03
WimbBarry the bird boggler Utterly despicable isn't it? What I'd like to know is how the disgraceful football creditor's rule ever got to be legal in the first place.
Bit of a double edged sword though really. On the one hand you despise the greedy footballers who have been earning 50K a week and yet get preferential treatment over St Johns, local business and the tax man.
On the other hand if the rule gets struck down it could have big implications for lower clubs. For example if Reading were in administation, Eastleigh would be gutted to lose out on the £50k we paid for Brett Williams. Similarly the pro's at clubs in say League 2 rely on their pay packet a lot more than those in the Premier League and so getting money out a dying club can be vital.
Not sure what the solution is really. Maybe appointing an independent panel to judge on a case by case basis who gets what? That or clubs just stop going bust.....
by exileinleeds » 26 Mar 2012 10:54
by John Madejski's Wallet » 26 Mar 2012 11:07
exileinleeds One idea I have heard mooted is that the leagues make it a requirement that clubs file confirmation of monthly payments of NIC PAYE & VAT. Failure to do so would incur an immediate 5pt deduction.
Owners might then accept that paying the taxes that every other business is subject to, is not a free overdraft. Perhaps the taxman would get paid before the interest on loans made to the club...wages- including the tax element- would have to be have to be paid when due, not if/when their gamble pays off.
by Barry the bird boggler » 26 Mar 2012 12:36
by watfordroyal » 26 Mar 2012 13:03
Wimb Christ, didn't realise quite how much tax Pompy/Leeds have got away with![]()
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/201 ... it-250301/
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests