[Football] Bolton Wanderers plight!

[Blue Valkyrie]

Nothing, however as the PL may become a glorified franchise operation similar to the NFL, I suspect the club could lose it's franchise rights if the other clubs voted for it to be kicked out.

Makes sense. Would perhaps drive down footballer wages though as owners sought to pay the minimum whilst still spending just enough to keep the franchise, I suppose.

 

[El Presidente]

Makes sense. Would perhaps drive down footballer wages though as owners sought to pay the minimum whilst still spending just enough to keep the franchise, I suppose.

Not sure about wages. Prize money is linked to performance in the PL. currently 50% is given as a flat fee, 25% linked to final league position and 25% on the number of times live on TV.

It certainly could prevent the type of desperate buys that we may see from clubs close to the bottom in the current window though.

Clubs would also want to succeed in Europe so would be prepared to pay for players.

 

[5mins-from-amex]

The Premier league without relegation would NEVER happen.

 

[Gwylan]

The biggest danger is the Premier League owners decide to cut their losses and stop having promotion and relegation.

Surely, they'd have to do that mid-season, as there'd be rather a large number of clubs who wouldn't be able to guarantee PL football for the next couple of years. There are about eight or nine who could. But would clubs like Sunderland or Norwich, say, really vote for life outside the PL? And don't changes have to be driven by two-thirds? In other words, 13 teams would be confident of staying in the PL - can't see it.

 

[Easy 10]

Without the lurking danger of relegation, most of the PL fixtures would be rendered meaningless for 3/4 of the division for the ENTIRE SEASON. It would become completely stagnant. The big clubs would still have their tourists attending the games of course, and TV audiences may still be attracted to watch the biggest 5 or 6 teams. But as a League, it would be killed stone dead if nothing below 5th ever actually mattered.

The battle against relegation is usually far more entertaining than the race for the title. The race for top 4 is already a bit of a bore anyway. "You've qualified for the Champions League" - woop de do. I don't even bother watching it anyway.

 

[Hamilton]

Agreed, but for every person like yourself there's today a dozen football tourists who think football began in 1992, wear half and half scarves, want a 'matchday experience' in an anodyne sterile environment with other such modern day fans.

Both domestic and, increasingly, more importantly, overseas TV rights dictate what happens in the game.

'Boro have had their home match with Dirty Leeds moved to a Monday night next month with four weeks notice. The Football League, displaying their customary backbone of a jellyfish (what has happened to the QPR FFP fine for 2013/14? They have had a year to reach an agreement, and instead run scared of Fernandes' £1,000 an hour lawyers), and say they 'regret' the late change of kick off time, but cannot comment further for legal reasons.

This is the league that still lets Cellino effectively run Leeds, has a money launderer's cronies in charge of Birmingham City, as for Blackpool.........yet it claims it has a robust Owners and Directors test to prevent undesirables taking control of clubs.

Of course when their 'rights' are threatened (clearly we as fans don't have any rights any more, rugby fans can drink at the Amex but not football fans, can't be trusted you see) the long arm of the stewards is there within five minutes (as you saw at Rotherham) as they are desperate to fellate their paymasters from Sky.

Against Modern Football? Yup, it ain't going to get any better, but enough will be fooled by the constant bombardment from grinning goons and ghouls telling us how great the game is. Remember, every Sunday is a Super Sunday and there are plenty more suckers who will continue to believe the gobshites and pillagers of what was once a game.

So you're sitting on the fence then?

 

[El Presidente]

Without the lurking danger of relegation, most of the PL fixtures would be rendered meaningless for 3/4 of the division for the ENTIRE SEASON. It would become completely stagnant. The big clubs would still have their tourists attending the games of course, and TV audiences may still be attracted to watch the biggest 5 or 6 teams. But as a League, it would be killed stone dead if nothing below 5th ever actually mattered.

The battle against relegation is usually far more entertaining than the race for the title. The race for top 4 is already a bit of a bore anyway. "You've qualified for the Champions League" - woop de do. I don't even bother watching it anyway.

I agree with you to a point, but the PL owners couldn't give a stuff about you (I do of course).

The evidence is that TV audiences are attracted to the big clubs and the big clubs only, especially overseas, so what happens lower down the league is to a large extent an irrelevance to them. No one in Thailand or Malaysia is going to watch Palace v Sunderland, West Brom v Norwich, Stoke v Bournemouth and so on.

 

[El Presidente]

So you're sitting on the fence then?

I just need a little bit of 'me' time before I make my mind up x

 

[El Presidente]

Surely, they'd have to do that mid-season, as there'd be rather a large number of clubs who wouldn't be able to guarantee PL football for the next couple of years. There are about eight or nine who could. But would clubs like Sunderland or Norwich, say, really vote for life outside the PL? And don't changes have to be driven by two-thirds? In other words, 13 teams would be confident of staying in the PL - can't see it.

If they did it mid season, (having of course first of all consulted their lawyers to ensure it was watertight if there was a yes vote) then I think there could easily be a huge vote in favour, especially with the foreign owners who have no feel for the history and culture of the game.

If we have to rely on the dildo brothers, Mike Ashley and Delia to save the soul of the game I think we could be in for bad news.

 

[Gwylan]

I agree with you to a point, but the PL owners couldn't give a stuff about you (I do of course).

The evidence is that TV audiences are attracted to the big clubs and the big clubs only, especially overseas, so what happens lower down the league is to a large extent an irrelevance to them. No one in Thailand or Malaysia is going to watch Palace v Sunderland, West Brom v Norwich, Stoke v Bournemouth and so on.

And I wonder how long it would be before the big teams say give us more of the money or we'll go elsewhere (the ever-present threat of a Euro league). It wouldn't have to be negotiation of TV rights, it would just be a bigger slice of the pie for the top teams.

So, eventually the teams at the bottom will become the footballing equivalents of the Washington Generals, have their arses kicked every week by football's Harlem Globetrotters

 

[El Presidente]

And I wonder how long it would be before the big teams say give us more of the money or we'll go elsewhere (the ever-present threat of a Euro league). It wouldn't have to be negotiation of TV rights, it would just be a bigger slice of the pie for the top teams.

So, eventually the teams at the bottom will become the footballing equivalents of the Washington Generals, have their arses kicked every week by football's Harlem Globetrotters

As they do in Scotland and Spain you mean?

 

[Gwylan]

As they do in Scotland and Spain you mean?

Yes, exactly

But at least they have promotion and relegation

 

[El Presidente]

Yes, exactly

But at least they have promotion and relegation

True, but in Spain clubs negotiate TV money on a per club basis. Therefore there's little difference between the top of the second division and the bottom of the first division.

In the English game there's a £100-120 million gap between Villa and 'Boro.

 

[Phat Baz 68]

It's more to do with them spending enormous amounts of money for players, quite beyond their means and status as a small club.
Also paying astronomical wages to players who really weren't worth half of what they paid them, and for them.
Over the years racking up a £189 million debt !
Should we feel sorry for them ? I don't think so really.

 

[El Presidente]

It's more to do with them spending enormous amounts of money for players, quite beyond their means and status as a small club.
Also paying astronomical wages to players who really weren't worth half of what they paid them, and for them.
Over the years racking up a £189 million debt !
Should we feel sorry for them ? I don't think so really.

I can think of a club in Sussex that effectively has a debt of over £200 million.

 

[Grassman]

It's more to do with them spending enormous amounts of money for players, quite beyond their means and status as a small club.
Also paying astronomical wages to players who really weren't worth half of what they paid them, and for them.
Over the years racking up a £189 million debt !
Should we feel sorry for them ? I don't think so really.

Which is exactly what a lot of people on here want us to do, not that you've ever said it yourself, ahem.

 

[Phat Baz 68]

Which is exactly what a lot of people on here want us to do.

There is no getting away from it though, you do have to spend a good few million pounds to get into the PL that's for sure
and players won't play for Championship wages either.
It's the way the money is and contracts are made out , monitored checked up on etc etc and also the progress of the club.
You go offering a new striker for us say a 4 year contract at £80k a week, that is absolute suicide, which is exactly the sort of thing Bolton were doing.
Pllus giving away houses, cars and massive bonuses too.
Can't see Mr Bloom doing that thank god. But a striker is going to want £40-55k a week plus a few extras but give him a 2 year contract only.
I know it's very very competetive and hard but we just have to deal with it.

 

[Phat Baz 68]

I can think of a club in Sussex that effectively has a debt of over £200 million.

Every single professional club in this country is in debt I believe including Chelski, City, Utd Liverpool, Arsenal by millions and millions they live on credit all of them.

I think I read somewhere West Brom and one other club in the PL were the only clubs who weren't in debt at all, can't remember the other club.

 

[Ernest]

And I wonder how long it would be before the big teams say give us more of the money or we'll go elsewhere (the ever-present threat of a Euro league). It wouldn't have to be negotiation of TV rights, it would just be a bigger slice of the pie for the top teams.

So, eventually the teams at the bottom will become the footballing equivalents of the Washington Generals, have their arses kicked every week by football's Harlem Globetrotters

One DAY the Washington GENERALS will WIN

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Yes I'd like to see Tony Bloom rewarded with the Albion in the PL and for the fans to see how we might compete at the top table. I'm sure it would be fabulous, at least for a season or two while we enjoy the ride, especially if the PL is as open as this season.

I bet the PL and Sky / BT would love to see franchisees like Miami / Beckham FC because of their potential global appeal, to enable Sky and BT to refresh their markets - and at the expense of genuine Clubs like little old B&HA. I suppose the challenge is to stave this off by us consolidating in the PL as soon as possible and turning The Albion into a global brand in it's own right (mixed feelings about that). PL status ought to make us more marketable (a la Leicester City), but somehow not sell our soul into the bargain......

However there is something unsavoury about wallowing in (or aspiring to) the perverse trough of PL money, while the rest of domestic football gradually implodes.