https://twitter.com/AndyhHolt Chairman and major shareholder of Accrington Stanely .... just follow the man on Twitter. He tells things as they are from right in the shit of lower league football in the "deepest and richest" pyramid in the world. Most of it just makes you sick but what it is, is a good look at the reality of football today. Yes, SOME things have to do with being married to the pro/rel system
I used to think that the pay to play model would collapse once enough good players needed to be carried by the wealthy parents of the lesser teams. My faith is restored knowing that if it's packaged right the wealthy parents will gladly pay for other people's kids from better soccer cultures to play for their club
There's so much there ... he unpacks quite a bit and doesn't pull punches regardless of what the subject is. He speaks directly to the reality of what's happening over there.
I think it’s a joke @premierleague clubs claiming their kids don’t get proper games, whilst at the same time charging big wages and fees to clubs down the pyramid. We discussed this at length with @DMAC102 making good suggestions.It’s a waste of time. Not all prem clubs same* https://t.co/xh9nxxCfFU— Andyh (@AndyhHolt) February 1, 2020 Truths like this ^
https://www.firsttouchonline.com/bury-fc-collapse-bolton-on-the-brink-dark-days-ahead-for-efl-clubs/ We must surely be at a point where spending caps, salary caps and a requirement to live within your means must come into force .... https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-english-soccer-clubs-disappear-11567008752 Between 1986 and 2008, at least 56 professional clubs in English soccer became insolvent, at a rate of 2.5 per year, according to a Coventry University study. In 2017-18, the 20 Premier League clubs used their global appeal and lucrative television rights deals to post combined revenues of $5.9 billion, according to Deloitte. The clubs in the division just below it, known as the Championship, combined for just 15% of that, with just two teams out of 24 posting operating and pre-tax profits. The situation in tiers three and four, known as League One and League Two, is even starker. With most clubs still supported by owner contributions, rather than sponsors or television contracts, they combined for losses of $111 million. But hey, pro/rel amirite~!
Probably the relegated clubs from the first division loosing fan support, sponsors and not turning a profit anymore since they'll lose out on that precious TV money - rinse and repeat.
I think it is the view that pro rel will open up investments in the lower divisions due to the profits to be made.
Pro: teams going into debt by repeatedly overspending based upon over-optimistic estimations of their chances of promotion. Rel: not just relegation, which reduces TV income, sponsorship and attendances, but the repeated threat of relegation, which slowly drains the life out a club. Fortunately for English fans their clubs are escape artists. Look at Leeds, Forest and Sheffield Wednesday, clubs that have been >$100 million in debt only to be repeatedly rescued and have debts wiped off or turned into financial vehicles.
Why are clubs overspending? Even ones not necessarily actively trying to promote are caught up in it because of those chasing promotion and/or the up and coming clubs that are in a new tier trying to establish footing and maintain their new level (Accrington's chief that I've quoted in this thread has mentioned this not that long ago). The jarring differences in income/revenues between the top flight and the rest of the pyramid. The simple fact that they're linked and clubs move between them creates the issue clubs face when removed from or promoted to a new tier. Many clubs its all they can do to merely tread water, let alone try to improve. Then there's the popular myth bandied about by pro/rel lovers in regards to investment and all that jazz in lower divisions and such because of "opportunity" and other rainbow thoughts. Simply isn't true. But I'm going to stop here because you know how pro/rel links to the issues ...
There seems to be plenty of investment in the lower divisions in Europe. It's true that you don't see clubs mired in debt from bad gambles being invested in, just like you you wouldn't see that in any other business.
This feels like it's using England as the only example of pro/rel. It also seems like a lot of problems in the system could be solved by better revenue sharing between the PL and FL, as well as some stronger financial regulation, a la what @feyenoordsoccerfan describes in the Netherlands.
It's not that our system prevents financial breakdown, but they keep a close look on it and demand a sound budget to begin with. However the world often doesnot comply to plans, prudent as these may have been drafted.
I'm not convinced that helped demoted PL clubs like Blackburn Rovers, Blackpool, Sunderland, Bolton Wanderers, Coventry City, et al. With Brexit and rumblings of a Super League (with optional pro/rel) things could get difficult in the future ahead for lower league clubs. Don't get me started on demoted Serie A clubs... Pro/rel is survival of the fittest
It isn't that they do or don't, it's WHY they do or don't. Different circumstances AND the 'ol recurring thought process/line being served by most of the pro/rel crowd about what pro/rel provides and what WOULDN'T be seen here if there was pro/rel (these realities from the English pyramid directly shoot that down). Burnley has done a pretty damn good job of managing/using them in their build from '10 to today. The literal red tape that European football is drowning in laughs at this statement. Though the Dutch in particular, it wasn't THAT long ago that Twente was docked points for finances no? How much has this changed in a year? Few clubs in the Eredivisie make big profits. In 2017/18 largest was Feyenoord €16m, thanks to Champions League money. Even though #Ajax reported only €2m profit, this was still the 5th highest in the league. Six clubs are under special supervision by KNVB due to poor finances. pic.twitter.com/2DbgBMA0tZ— Swiss Ramble (@SwissRamble) November 22, 2018
That's got feck all to do with pro/rel!! It's just bad management! Unlike in the US football isn't about making money! If 5,10,15 or 100 clubs go bust there are 5,10,25 or 100 better run clubs to replace them! If a club in the Kent League can operate there is NO reason why ANY club in League One can't! Your argument has NOTHING to do with pro/rel, three teams are promoted not on their ability to make money but on their sporting merit, if Leeds Utd fail despite 34,000 fans every home game (34,000 fans they wouldnt get if they were destined to always be a lower league club by the way) then really they are simply 'failing" with the club management.
And this is where you show your detachment with the reality of the game today. Yes it DOES have feck all to do with the system of pro/rel. And yes, football is increasingly more about making money (quite literally why the Premier League was formed, why Barca/Real had their own tv deals separate from the rest of La Liga, why PSG was bought and pushed as the next CL squad). To make the statement that it isn't about money is down right ignorant of reality and out of touch. But see, that's the thing ... "better run clubs" are sparse and its being found that clubs are being run for shit, period: https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2020/02/05/spanish-club-malaga-facing-potential-administration/ ^ running clubs like that doesn't happen in pro/rel OR pro/rel deters that kind of thing (is that not something that you or another has bandied about in this thread). West Ham being relegated just might be a disaster: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbym...uld-be-devastating-for-west-ham/#5fa7fbd639a8 ... and this breaks it down nicely. They aren't "run for shit" and have spent in accordance with the "investment spending" needed to try and compete/stay in the EPL. Yeah, that has to do with pro/rel.