Generic clubs in financial crisis Thread

[Old Man Andrews]

Just shooting off the hip here but something I've been mulling over.

Obviously it's devastating if your club goes under - but all this talk of "this shouldn't be allowed to happen to clubs with over 100 years of history" rather exacerbates the problem. It's the "banks are too big to fail" situation - they are targets for pilfering, money laundering, asset stripping and probably a whole lot else besides. At the heart of this is the exploitation of fans, some of whom pay money week in week out regardless of what's happening on or off the pitch.

Again, easier to say when it's not your club, but I do think this needs rebalancing. Let the clubs go bust. Let communities build from scratch again with a better ownership model. It's been done plenty of times before - and ask many AFC Wimbledon, Bournemouth, Salford united etc etc fans and they'll probably tell you that with the benefit of hindsight it was a good thing for the club.

There is something quite fun about building up from the lower leagues too. Winning lots of games, travelling to lots of new grounds and like you mentioned supporters actually feeling like they are a part of a project at their football club. Bury will come back next season in some form and the majority of their supporters will stick with them and I imagine due to the name value and publicity they will be well backed by sponsors. Obviously they are losing a whole season this season which is horrendous but long term it might be a blessing in disguise. Bury FC were a yoyo club who were never really going to do anything of note in footballing terms. The phoenix club has a chance to win leagues, build from scratch and dominate at a lower league level if the investment is there. I'd be quite excited about that.

[The Enfield Royal71]

Just shooting off the hip here but something I've been mulling over.

Obviously it's devastating if your club goes under - but all this talk of "this shouldn't be allowed to happen to clubs with over 100 years of history" rather exacerbates the problem. It's the "banks are too big to fail" situation - they are targets for pilfering, money laundering, asset stripping and probably a whole lot else besides. At the heart of this is the exploitation of fans, some of whom pay money week in week out regardless of what's happening on or off the pitch.

Again, easier to say when it's not your club, but I do think this needs rebalancing. Let the clubs go bust. Let communities build from scratch again with a better ownership model. It's been done plenty of times before - and ask many AFC Wimbledon, Bournemouth, Salford united etc etc fans and they'll probably tell you that with the benefit of hindsight it was a good thing for the club.

There is something quite fun about building up from the lower leagues too. Winning lots of games, travelling to lots of new grounds and like you mentioned supporters actually feeling like they are a part of a project at their football club. Bury will come back next season in some form and the majority of their supporters will stick with them and I imagine due to the name value and publicity they will be well backed by sponsors. Obviously they are losing a whole season this season which is horrendous but long term it might be a blessing in disguise. Bury FC were a yoyo club who were never really going to do anything of note in footballing terms. The phoenix club has a chance to win leagues, build from scratch and dominate at a lower league level if the investment is there. I'd be quite excited about that.

If this didn't happen they would have had a terrible season and next season aswell.

It might be for The best. Its a shame but give them a few years they will be back.

[Stranded]

Whilst Bury is a bit of a unique situation - maybe it is time to look at the lower league structure to ease costs and increase income. Simplest way to do that is to merge Leagues 1 & 2 into a Football League South and Football League North - immediately decreases travelling distances and means more games against more local clubs therefore increasing attendances. If needed, clubs could even be allowed to go semi-professional in these divisions.

Not without its flaws as you may need to shift clubs between the divisions depending on the North/South split but worth looking at again - L2 sides would defintely be interested in it as they would essentially all get promoted.

I would suggest the following EFL structure:

Championship 24 Clubs - 4 clubs relegated
Football League North - 24 clubs - Champions promoted - 2nd to 5th in play-offs with final at Old Trafford - 2 teams relegated to National League
Football League South - 24 clubs - Champions promoted - 2nd to 5th in play-offs with final at Wembley - 2 teams relegated to National League

Both play-off finals take place on the same day back to back.

[Deadlock]

So you'd have regional divisions where both promotion and relegation puts a club into a national division?

[Stranded]

So you'd have regional divisions where both promotion and relegation puts a club into a national division?

Referring to National League as an entity - they may want to scrap their national division as well. Really no need for national divisions below the very top levels.

[genome]

It transpires that 11 days after buying Bury, Steve Dale set up two new companies, Bury Heritage Ltd and Bury Leisure Ltd, and started transferring assets over (including the club's trophies)

[Old Man Andrews]

It transpires that 11 days after buying Bury, Steve Dale set up two new companies, Bury Heritage Ltd and Bury Leisure Ltd, and started transferring assets over (including the club's trophies)

He is a top level scumbag. Got a feeling someone will catch up with him eventually be it the police or a Bury supporter. God help him.

[6ft Kerplunk]

Just shooting off the hip here but something I've been mulling over.

Obviously it's devastating if your club goes under - but all this talk of "this shouldn't be allowed to happen to clubs with over 100 years of history" rather exacerbates the problem. It's the "banks are too big to fail" situation - they are targets for pilfering, money laundering, asset stripping and probably a whole lot else besides. At the heart of this is the exploitation of fans, some of whom pay money week in week out regardless of what's happening on or off the pitch.

Again, easier to say when it's not your club, but I do think this needs rebalancing. Let the clubs go bust. Let communities build from scratch again with a better ownership model. It's been done plenty of times before - and ask many AFC Wimbledon, Bournemouth, Salford united etc etc fans and they'll probably tell you that with the benefit of hindsight it was a good thing for the club.

Yeah, I've been thinking something similar. Portsmouth* was the missed opportunity for a big club gambling everything, going bust and being forced to start again as a precedent for clubs to learn from. Bolton is just another one. When you read that the old owner wrote off £175M in loans and still his trust pumped in another £5M last year and still they couldn't make ends meet it does make you wonder where the cut off point is for this country football governing bodies.



* or maybe Leeds.

[Sutekh]

Whilst Bury is a bit of a unique situation - maybe it is time to look at the lower league structure to ease costs and increase income. Simplest way to do that is to merge Leagues 1 & 2 into a Football League South and Football League North - immediately decreases travelling distances and means more games against more local clubs therefore increasing attendances. If needed, clubs could even be allowed to go semi-professional in these divisions.

Not without its flaws as you may need to shift clubs between the divisions depending on the North/South split but worth looking at again - L2 sides would defintely be interested in it as they would essentially all get promoted.

I would suggest the following EFL structure:

Championship 24 Clubs - 4 clubs relegated
Football League North - 24 clubs - Champions promoted - 2nd to 5th in play-offs with final at Old Trafford - 2 teams relegated to National League
Football League South - 24 clubs - Champions promoted - 2nd to 5th in play-offs with final at Wembley - 2 teams relegated to National League

Both play-off finals take place on the same day back to back.

The way I’d do it would be to go to three national divisions. 20 clubs in the PL, 22 in the Championship and 24 in Div 3.

Then you merge with the National League to make 2 regional divisions of 24 (that’ll make 114 clubs in the FL).

The non league set up then reconstitutes accordingly with 2 north/south feeder leagues to the FL each giving 2 promotion places

[Stranded]

Whilst Bury is a bit of a unique situation - maybe it is time to look at the lower league structure to ease costs and increase income. Simplest way to do that is to merge Leagues 1 & 2 into a Football League South and Football League North - immediately decreases travelling distances and means more games against more local clubs therefore increasing attendances. If needed, clubs could even be allowed to go semi-professional in these divisions.

Not without its flaws as you may need to shift clubs between the divisions depending on the North/South split but worth looking at again - L2 sides would defintely be interested in it as they would essentially all get promoted.

I would suggest the following EFL structure:

Championship 24 Clubs - 4 clubs relegated
Football League North - 24 clubs - Champions promoted - 2nd to 5th in play-offs with final at Old Trafford - 2 teams relegated to National League
Football League South - 24 clubs - Champions promoted - 2nd to 5th in play-offs with final at Wembley - 2 teams relegated to National League

Both play-off finals take place on the same day back to back.

The way I’d do it would be to go to three national divisions. 20 clubs in the PL, 22 in the Championship and 24 in Div 3.

Then you merge with the National League to make 2 regional divisions of 24 (that’ll make 114 clubs in the FL).

The non league set up then reconstitutes accordingly with 2 north/south feeder leagues to the FL each giving 2 promotion places

Yeah, that could work as well. Not sure you would get the Championship clubs voting for 2 less home games and one season with 5 relegation spots as you wouldn't be able to stop promotion from L1 as clubs definitely wouldn't vote for that.

[Mr Angry]

Phil Neville was moaning about it but should have put his money where his mouth is and help out

why?

He should have. If it had such strong family connections why not help out?

Why dont the efl or sky or fa have money set aside for this

RIP FOOTBALL

Phil Neville was not allowed to help Bury out; he is the part owner of another EFL team (Salford) and so would have been in breach of regulations.

[From Despair To Where?]

why?

He should have. If it had such strong family connections why not help out?

Why dont the efl or sky or fa have money set aside for this

RIP FOOTBALL

Phil Neville was not allowed to help Bury out; he is the part owner of another EFL team (Salford) and so would have been in breach of regulations.

Likewise any other person with a stake in another league club which rules out all these suggestions that the "big clubs" should help out. They couldn't even if they wanted to.

I suppose United Women could have offered to rent Gigg Lane for £5m a season but why should they.

Bottom line, Bury went tits up because a previous owner mortgaged the ground to buy promotion then gave the club to an asset stripper when his other businesses went tits up. It's down to shit owners, enabled by the EFL not doing due diligence which pisses me off because they fcuking ruled the roost and created hurdles for our last 2 takeovers yet completely take their eye off the ball for Bury.

[Snowflake Royal]

He should have. If it had such strong family connections why not help out?

Why dont the efl or sky or fa have money set aside for this

RIP FOOTBALL

Phil Neville was not allowed to help Bury out; he is the part owner of another EFL team (Salford) and so would have been in breach of regulations.

Likewise any other person with a stake in another league club which rules out all these suggestions that the "big clubs" should help out. They couldn't even if they wanted to.

I suppose United Women could have offered to rent Gigg Lane for £5m a season but why should they.

Bottom line, Bury went tits up because a previous owner mortgaged the ground to buy promotion then gave the club to an asset stripper when his other businesses went tits up. It's down to shit owners, enabled by the EFL not doing due diligence which pisses me off because they fcuking ruled the roost and created hurdles for our last 2 takeovers yet completely take their eye off the ball for Bury.

I think people expect an awful lot from the ownership test, which is basically a case of:
Do you have any unspent criminal convictions?
Do you have evidence of enough money to run the club?

And given the purchase was conducted in such a way the FL literally couldn't carry out that second check... I mean, I doubt the FL can legally prevent the sale of a private asset. All they can do is say the club can no longer compete in it's competition, or has to pay fines to continue to compete.

[From Despair To Where?]

Then maybe the EFL give should threaten suspension of membership in the event of proof of funds not being provided at the time rather than let it drag on for 9 months then put their hands up and say "not our fault, guv". Either there are funds or there aren't.

[Snowflake Royal]

Then maybe the EFL give should threaten suspension of membership in the event of proof of funds not being provided at the time rather than let it drag on for 9 months then put their hands up and say "not our fault, guv". Either there are funds or there aren't.

You think anyone would be happy with the FL immediately kicking Bury out the League when Day took over!?

They'd never win any sort of appeal or legal challenge to that.

[From Despair To Where?]

No, i'm not suggesting that at all which is why I said threatening suspension. If he can't produce proof of funds within 8 weeks, then they should and all that shit should be provided prior to the sale going ahead anyway. If my bank require me to provide proof of funds to buy a house, why is it any different with any other large capital purchase?


If, as you suggest, it'as a 2 step process, it's bonkers to just ignore the second step.

[Snowflake Royal]

No, i'm not suggesting that at all which is why I said threatening suspension. If he can't produce proof of funds within 8 weeks, then they should and all that shit should be provided prior to the sale going ahead anyway. If my bank require me to provide proof of funds to buy a house, why is it any different with any other large capital purchase?


If, as you suggest, it'as a 2 step process, it's bonkers to just ignore the second step.

What part of the sale was carried out before they knew or could do anything was it you missed?

What do you think the FL have been doing all this time? That's right, demanding proof of funds under the threat of expulsion.

The FL can't prevent an owner selling who doesn't care about following their rules. Day had proof of funds to buy, it cost him £1. No one has to provide proof of funds to maintain a house, just to show they can afford to buy it.

[From Despair To Where?]

If I don't continue to have funds to pay for my house, I lose it.

The EFL is basically a private trade organisation. They can stipulate whatever they want as terms of membership. They can say that continued membership is dependant on a review by an auditor in the event of a change of ownership.

It's the remit of the EFL to maintain the integrity of the competition. They have failed to do that.

Plenty of other FAs do it and take hard line.

[The Enfield Royal71]

The EFL is basically a private trade organisation. They can stipulate whatever they want as terms of membership. They can say that continued membership is dependant on a review by an auditor in the event of a change of ownership.

It's the remit of the EFL to maintain the integrity of the competition. They have failed to do that.

Plenty of other FAs do it and take hard line.

Thats what the RFU do.

The EFL ultimately have failed here.

[Stranded]

If I don't continue to have funds to pay for my house, I lose it.

The EFL is basically a private trade organisation. They can stipulate whatever they want as terms of membership. They can say that continued membership is dependant on a review by an auditor in the event of a change of ownership.

It's the remit of the EFL to maintain the integrity of the competition. They have failed to do that.

Plenty of other FAs do it and take hard line.

Agree it is the EFL's sole job to maintain the integrity of the competition and they have failed miserably here with both Bury and Bolton - L1 is a farce now.

WIth the Bury takeover, I think the EFL were between a rock and a hard place, Bury were insolvent in December - if the takeover hadn't have gone through then the mess we see now would have happened during last season. That may have been preferable but what they should have done is set a hard deadline of 30th June for proof of funds to continue, which would have given all other clubs a chance to plan on either a 23 team division or even look to promote clubs to ensure a full membership.