A monstrous divide [Archive]

SCB

25-07-2006, 07:11

In today's digital Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2006/07/25/sfncha25.xml) ITFC chairman David Sheepshanks lets us in on his views on Championship economics vs. Premiership.

And its not nice things, he has on the agenda.

Read this..:
(Sheepshanks)"This season the top club in the Championship will earn about £1.25 million in broadcasting revenue from the Football League while the bottom club in the Premiership will receive about £20 million. When the Premiership's new TV deal kicks in 2007-08, it is estimated that their bottom club will earn in excess of £30 million from TV and yet our revenue will remain virtually unchanged: £30 million set against £1.25 million is a monstrous divide."

I must agrre, that is one hell of a difference, which (except the Watford freak example) can really only be bridged by the aid of some rich "sugardaddy" (so go get Mandaric asap:cool: ).

Sheepshanks recons that the situation is close to breaking point due to the growing wealth divide between Premiership and The Championship as players in the CC wont accept wages about one 30th of Premiership wages, and therefore CC-clubs trying for promotion must bankroll bigtime.

Unfortunately Sheepshanks dont offer any scenarios as to what happends if/when the whole thing breaks down.

The most obvious answer I can come up with, will be that Premier League leaves the system all together.

If the system is to be revolutionized, Sheepshanks has no idea how to do that, apart from the harebrained suggestion from Sepp Blatter to reduce the PL - and thus force even more clubs down into the CC - where money does not necessarily gets significantly better, than they are today.

A real tricky situation for the CC-clubs, of whom Sheepshanks recon most are former PL-clubs, recently relegated. Someone on MM used to have a signature, which IMO is most telling of the situation "I could live with being poor, if I had'nt seen such riches".
:cool:

toomb

25-07-2006, 08:27

If the Premiership gets reduced to 18 clubs, the divide would be even better. Instead of Premiership clubs getting £x amount divided by 20, they'd be getting £x amount divided by 18

jrpb-3

25-07-2006, 08:53

This problem is nothing new it's the main reason why so many clubs get into financial difficulty, even some of the smaller premisrship clubs. As well as the divide between the premiership and the championship the gap between top and bottom of the premiership is also growing.

The article is correct that market forces will decide on what money TV rights are sold for, but it's up to the FA/football league to sort out how that money is divided. Also at the end of the day the market force that decides the price is the fans. If fans keep the price to watch televised football then nothing will change. If fans say enough is enough and stop paying then things can change (can't see it happening though). The only other option I see is for a separate TV deal for championship matches to the Prem, but still most of the money would go to the Prem.

Oldgold Wolfcub

25-07-2006, 09:33

It only reflects the difference in Society. The difference between the haves and the have nots has grown immensely.
At the end of the day though it is down to us. We choose to support the so called big matches and pay the prices charged at the expense of the lower league matches. So we have players earning obscene money while others cannot even earn a living in the game. Unfortunately the game will suffer in the long run.

toomb

25-07-2006, 09:40

Another problem is that the smaller clubs aren't getting the attendances needed to survive with so many youngsters supporting the big clubs. This will really hit home in 20-30 years when the current batch of supporters of small clubs are too old to go. We will end up with one, maybe two, professional Leagues and the rest will be semi-pro

fenella

25-07-2006, 10:02

When Championship clubs, with no realistic chance of promotion, go around spending 7 figure fees on ageing foreign strikers, they really don't do themselves any favours. Championship chairmen seem to moan endlessly about the 'monstrous divide' yet every season shell out very large transfer fees for pretty crap players. I think instead of moaning about how much money the Premiership clubs get, they should start looking at themselves and ask themselves why they are offering such big contracts to players who clearly don't deserve it. Generally, Championship clubs are badly run & badly managed and what money is available, is too often wasted. How does the money Championship clubs make compare with top-level clubs in say Sweden, or Portugal. Yet these foreign clubs seem to produce better teams and charge their fans less money to go and seem them.

I have very little sympathy with the likes of Sheepshanks or Moxey.

EasternWolf

25-07-2006, 10:20

goldeneyed

25-07-2006, 11:05

The top Premier clubs are greedy as hell and couldn't care less about the future of football in this country. The top four will no doubt soon be pushing for a Super European league so they can cut off the rest of the Prem in the same way they have Championship clubs.

Having said that there are three opportunities every season to get into the Greed League and Wolves, for a start, have no excuses for repeated failure , appalling signings and general ineptitude. 32 year old Franko a good signing Eastern - the heat really has got to you.

The Greed merchants are ruining football imv and I get fed up when 80% of TV/newspaper coverage seems to involve the top four or five clubs. It would be so much more interesting if there were a more level playing field and teams like Man U actually had a chance of being relegated (as they have in the past).

Wolves have just got to dig in and claw their way back. Hopefully McCarthy is the right man for the job over the next two or three years.

wolf of sedgley

25-07-2006, 11:13

The Greed merchants are ruining football imv and I get fed up when 80% of TV/newspaper coverage seems to involve the top four or five clubs. It would be so much more interesting if there were a more level playing field and teams like Man U actually had a chance of being relegated (as they have in the past).

It's gotten to the stage where i don't read the sports section of the major newspapers anymore (excpt the E&S of course!). It's just boring. Every week the same bull$$$$ about the same $$$$ing clubs. Something does need to be done to reduce the massive gulf.

Stuart Smith

25-07-2006, 11:30

What grips me, is the way Sky, and The Premiership fudge their figures to show they ARE helping the 3 lower leagues financially, honest guv.

The monies paid out to relegated clubs gets lumped in with the paltry ammount distributed amongst Championship, Div 1 and Div 2 clubs (they also include the parachute payments paid to relegated clubs).

They regularly state that £x millions are filtered down for "the good of the game" when the reality is quite the opposite.

It's the same twisted logic that led Mags Thatch to re invent herself as a kind hearted generous old sort for giving the nations highest earners the biggest tax breaks at the expense of the masses.

liddlebiddapolitiks

Rant over

fenella

25-07-2006, 11:56

I don't think any blame can be given to Sky. They're in a difficult business but have managed to provide a good quality service and are fairly innovative. What's more damaging is the example at Wolves, where around half our parachute money went abroad, signing expensive foreign flops. Had we bought lower league players, that money would probably have stayed in this country and helped lower league clubs survive. Maybe the league chairmen need to think of a way of keeping money within the English game, for the long-term good of the English game? Its not Championship clubs we need to worry about, its League One and Two clubs we need to protect - these will be the clubs that go to the wall, never to return. David Sheepshanks talks about the Premiership-Championship divide, but does he give a $$$$ what's happening at places like Rotherham, Darlington, Grimsby and Notts County? Maybe, but I suspect he looks down on them just as much as Chelsea look down on Ipswich.

The Bear

25-07-2006, 12:10

What makes it almost impossible to rectify is that the Premier League and the Football League are completely different organising bodies who'll each look after their own interests. Until the leagues are re-united I can't see it changing.

I can't see Sky changing their TV money policy either, so as to keep the Premier League and the big clubs on side.

welshwolf

25-07-2006, 12:11

wasn't there something being mooted a couple of seasons ago about a premier league 2 ? what happened to that

bradmore

25-07-2006, 12:28

The only solution is for the top 5 or 6 premier league clubs to bugger off and form a proper European league with the other 'giants', This would leave a more competitive English league and maybe get back to the original Football league of divisions 1,2,3,4 instead of silly titles. Or am I living in the past?

the_wanderer

25-07-2006, 12:32

I recommend reading "The Beautiful Game - Searching for the soul of Football" which tackles this very issue in great great depth.

The reasons behind the divide, from what I recall of the book (though don't quote me word for word) is that the FA and the Football League, since their inceptions have been rivals. The Football League post-Hillsborough submitted a plan of "Football for All" which was offering to enhance further how the monies earned was spread through the football pyramid - at the time it was 50% to Div 1, 25% to Div 2, and 12.5% to Div 3 and 4, which amongst other things saw the two authorities sitting together on a joint board, with equal numbers of members.

The FA at the time saw this as the Football League trying to monopolise and take over, and this is when the approach was made to the "top clubs" chairmen, to form a breakaway "super league". The thinking behind this being that whatever the clubs earn, would then never have to be split amongst themselves, nevermind the 74 (as it would then have been - Prem was initially mooted as 18 clubs) other lower league clubs.

And this is where it has all come from. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and the gulf grows year on year. Rupert Murdoch was simply in the right place at the right time and saw the new league as a way of saving his ailing BSkyB, and as the highest bidder got the exclusive rights for I think it was 5 years.

Although they don't help matters because of the money Sky pay the Premiership for TV rights, it is the FA's fault as they were the ones who originally instigated this whole Premiership concept, simply to get one over their "rivals", and have succeded, as more and more Football League teams disappear or become insolvent in their desperate attempts to keep up with the ridiculous running costs at the top of the Pyramid.

Out of 72 league clubs, 36 have been in administration. Thats exactly half. I think that is a damning statistic, and one that shows how ridiculous the divide is.

EasternWolf

25-07-2006, 12:47

[QUOTE=goldeneyed]

Having said that there are three opportunities every season to get into the Greed League and Wolves, for a start, have no excuses for repeated failure , appalling signings and general ineptitude. 32 year old Franko a good signing Eastern - the heat really has got to you.
QUOTE]

Class is permanent and he is undoubtedly a class player. I think he will do the business for us and clearly you don't. Well the season will prove one of us wrong!!

Stuart Smith

25-07-2006, 12:55

My problem isnt with Sky, but the way that their money is distributed. What are the percentages? 80/90% of the money going to 20% of the clubs? Probably a fine arrangement if youre a right wing reactionary capable of arguing that kind distribution encourages competition and aspiration, but here at very much socialist Olofin Towers, we tend to view it quite differently.

The mandarins that control the game in this country are the ones who decide who gets what and how much and they are looking after the cash machines at the top and ignoring the smaller struggling clubs plight at the bottom.

. I'm not saying that the 90th placed club should get monies on a par with Premiership champions, but surely they should be getting a larger slice of Murdoch's pie than currently?

EasternWolf

25-07-2006, 12:58

In terms of the wider discussion ...

Somehow all of us who support teams not in the Premiership have to make Championship football more attractive. At Wolves we have large crowds every week which is a massive positive for a start. I also think we have to try to attract some decent quality foreign players in and support them well, as well as our own young starlets and players like Ince, Irwin and so on stepping down. We seem to be doing that as well at Wolves. I think we made a serious mistake trying to get someone like Hoddle who sees himself as a thoroughbred trying to play that kind of football when only the very best of players can make it either successful or attractive. My hope is that McCarthy is the kind of manager who will drag it out of lesser players and make them overachieve. He seems like that.

When it works the physical game played in our league is very entertaining and the only way to attract sponsorship is to make it loud from the terraces and fast and aggressive on the field. We should not be afraid to lose games - nobody should in this league - the aim must be hard attacking and hard defending.

The problem arises when teams play in the Championship the way they want to play in the Premiership if they get there.... and usually playing that way means they dont get there...

the_wanderer

25-07-2006, 13:05

My problem isnt with Sky, but the way that their money is distributed. What are the percentages? 80/90% of the money going to 20% of the clubs?... ... I'm not saying that the 90th placed club should get monies on a par with Premiership champions, but surely they should be getting a larger slice of Murdoch's pie than currently?

Absolutely right! Which is the point I make - It used to be that 50% was split amongst the old Div 1, 25% split amongst Div 2, and 12.% to be split equally between each Div 3 and Div 4 clubs.

Now its completely ridiculous... £30 million per club in the Prem and 1.2 million per club in the Championship? (Goodness only knows what League One and Two clubs now get!)

I have to praise the Football League for their decision to limit L1 and L2 clubs spending to 60% of their income (which cannot take into account investment, it has to be money they have made) on players wages, in order to prevent so many teams falling into administration. I think this should be the case in the Championship, Premiership and also across Europe. This way big clubs still get big players, and doesnt solve the money issue, but it does stop things getting out of hand in a ridiculous manner (Shevchenko being paid £130k per week anyone?)

stuj4z

25-07-2006, 14:17

i think the only way for it to change would be to limit the amount of foreign players in a squad. this would make the 'super clubs' look further down the leagues and the money would then stay in this country.

also premiership 2 could be a way to go but if that happened then league 1 and 2 clubs would be the only teams under 'the football league' banner and would suffer.

Florida Wolfey

25-07-2006, 14:36

Another thing to consider is just how much money leaves our domestic leagues to go to other countries and agents. All of this money is effectively lost for good.

The Prem league (and for that read Arsenal, Liverpool, MUFC and now Chelsea) have a vested interest in keeping things as they are. Another excellent read is "Broken Dreams" by Tom Bower. It's sub title "Vanity, Greed and the Souring of British football" hits at the very heart of what has happened to our national game ever since the Football League and the Premier League parted ways.

I'm sorry I don't see Sheepshanks getting anywhere as much as I'd love him to succeed.

Stuart Smith

25-07-2006, 15:46

[QUOTE=stuj4z]i think the only way for it to change would be to limit the amount of foreign players in a squad. this would make the 'super clubs' look further down the leagues and the money would then stay in this country.

QUOTE]

Didnt work previously in Europe. Scots, Irish and Welsh players are counted as foreigners, so even with our current squad, Rob Edwards, Jackie Mac Mark Clyde and Gary Breen would give us 4 before you start countiing Franek, Olofin the Magyar's and Gee

Japan Wulf

25-07-2006, 16:13

A great percentage of all the Sky money goes abroad; for the simple reason that a great percentage of PL players come from abroad and they take the cash with them when they go. The cash isn't helping our game - it is destroying it little by little just as a drugs do a human body. The PL has become a playground for get rich quick foreign players who are supported by English fans whose clubs are slowly losing their identity. If Chelsea, Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool left to join a Super league what would be the result? We would be denied watching half the England team in domestic competition but you could also argue that as far as our national game is concerned those clubs would simply have stopped trading. One model suggests that a Super league might be closed with no relegation, as for example in Major league baseball. If Sky had to divert much of it's financial recources to the coverage of a new league, revenues to the remaining PL teams would suffer accordingly. We might well find ourselves back where we were before the PL was formed with a much more level playing field.
I'm still trying to decide if it would be a good thing.

AmericanWolf

25-07-2006, 16:51

I don't think the super league will ever happen for a couple of reasons. First of all, I don't think any big European side would want to risk being consistently last place in a super league. These clubs' supporters are used to winning most of their games, and having a losing season would make maintaining stadium attendance levels very difficult. Ticket money is still a very important source of revenue, even with tv money. I think that's a big reason why a super league hasn't happened already.

The current champions league set up gives them the best of both worlds, they get to compete against the bigs in Europe, bringing in money and fame and all that, but also get to compete in a domestic league that's stacked in their favor. Assuming that any super league could not work in conjuction with the Champions League and UEFA Cup, then the teams commiting to the super league would be trading the best of both worlds, for a gamble at the best of a better world perhaps, but it would still be a big gamble.

Also, the comparison to Major League Baseball doesn't really work. American sports are set up in an entirely different way. The lower leagues in the American baseball systems are the equivalent of football reserve leagues, not lower leagues. Single, double, and triple A teams are subsidiaries of major league teams, and serve as an academy and reserve system all in one. Relegation is thus impossible, because there's nowhere to be relegated to. Football is just different. You don't get minor league baseball teams with 25,000 people coming to games. A tenth of that would be a good attendance level.

fenella

25-07-2006, 17:05

Agreed, AmericanWolf. The problem with the super league is that whereas there will always been interest in say Man Utd against Bolton, fans won't have the same level of interest in a mid-table, meaningless match between Man Utd and Lyon.

TheDarkside

25-07-2006, 19:21

This is where a Chief Executive comes into his own. If you skim off the chelseas, MUs, Arsenals and Liverpools, then there are about 30 clubs who could be in the Prem.

The reason that Charlton, Bolton, West Ham, Reading and Wigan are now premiership clubs is because these clubs are managed (in the wider sense) by people who have got it right.

The reason that Wolves, Derby, Leicester, and Leeds are in this division is because they are managed by people who haven't done as well as their counterparts at those other clubs.

Wolves, Derby, Leicester and Leeds have all been on the other side of that massive divide and DESPITE the massive divide have managed to fail. That may because of paying too high wages, appointing the wrong manager, etc.

The differentiating factor has been the ability of the chief executives. It shows that if you are poorly managed the divide is enormous, but if you are well manged then it's not insurmountable.

Deutsch Wolf

25-07-2006, 19:24

TheDarkside

25-07-2006, 20:22

Would that be the same West Ham who got relegated with a squad full of internationals three years ago and had to sell all their players? The club that would have been in complete financial meltdown if they hadn't scraped promotion in 2004/5?

Ah the old DW tactic of ignoring the main part of the argument, and homing in on what you perceive as a weakness in one minor part, then trying to deflect the discussion in that direction - rather than commenting on the issue at hand.

To answer your comment:

The very same.

Since when did scraping promotion count for less than any other sort of promotion?

Can you provide:

a) the definition of complete financial meltdown?
b) evidence that West Ham would have endured this had they failed to scrape promotion?

I suspect you are going to happy-clap yourself into feeling relieved that we are not in West Ham's current position. I wouldn't bother if I were you. It'll never work.

Berkswolf

25-07-2006, 20:34

In today's digital Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2006/07/25/sfncha25.xml)
Someone on MM used to have a signature, which IMO is most telling of the situation "I could live with being poor, if I had'nt seen such riches".
:cool:

That would be me, only the quote is not quite right. It should read " If I hadn't seen such riches I could live with being poor" It is a line from the track " Oh sit down" by James. But yes, it is very telling and just seems so appropriate not only to your thread here, but also to Wolves in general ( Which is the reason I used it in the first place.

Sadly sigs are disabled on this board now. :(

Deutsch Wolf

25-07-2006, 20:53

Complete financial meltdown means administration in footballing terms, which is what would almost certainly have happened to West Ham if they'd have stayed down. I could provide the club's official accounts, but as most people don't think that Wolves' accounts "prove" anything, I don't think I'll bother. Join a West Ham messageboard and ask them what the financial implications of a third straight Championship season would have been.

And as for avoiding the issue: I find it a particularly pointless one, the biggest and most successful clubs will always dwarf those below them, nothing's going to change that and it's not a problem unique to England.

TheDarkside

25-07-2006, 21:04

Join a West Ham messageboard and ask them what the financial implications of a third straight Championship season would have been.

Now that would be conclusive proof wouldn't it. Similar to asking this board whether Moxey is good or bad for the club....

No, I think we should take the accounts route. I'm not great at reading accounts, so might need to help me through it...

The chairmans statement for the year in question starts like this:

Despite the financial effects of relegation the group reduced its net bank borrowings by a further £4.4m in the year, bringing the balance at 31 May 2005 down to £29.4m....

Deutsch Wolf

25-07-2006, 21:12

nimrod

25-07-2006, 22:10

I've thought for a while that the Sky money has been bad for football as a whole. Whilst inevitably people will point to there being better players in the premiership as a result, I think that generally it has tended to stifle talent in the UK. Clubs think short term in their attempts to stay in the Prem and this means cheaper foreign players than risking and playing younger players. On top of this we see more and more teams stoop to dubious tactics in order to get to the safety zone. Big Sam condoned that Diouf dive on the basis that everyone else is doing it. Not exactly standing up for fair play was he? The FA have little clue what to do about the cheating or the development of the game, and I'm sick of listening to Gordon Taylor drone on about players being hard done by, the fans are getting ripped off and the World Cup was sh$te. Emperor's new clothes the whole caboodle.

It's money money money and it's about time I read one of those books a few of you mentioned so I can at least take comfort that there are others out there who see it the same as me.

TheDarkside

25-07-2006, 22:11

So, debts of nearly £30m, a massive wage bill and a low income from TV revenue wouldn't have hurt West Ham? It's widely acknowledged that they'd have been absolutely ruined if they'd stayed down, I don't know why you're trying to score points off the issue.

I'm not saying it wouldn't have hurt them. It would. The PLC itself however does not agree with your assessment of their financial position.

There has been much media speculation about the scale of group borrowings in the last two years. In reality the bulk of this figure is the £26.3m long term loan which is repayable in twelve annual instalments of £2.2m.

Interest is currently approximately £1.6m per annum. With turnover likely to be in the region of £50m in the forthcoming year the cost of servicing this debt is not onerous.

Had the club failed to achieve promotion, the group had obtained agreement in principle from the syndicate of banks who advanced the loan to reduce annual repayments to £1m while the club remained in the Championship; evidence of the excellent level of support which the group has enjoyed from its lenders.

...edited by TDS...

This review has sought to demonstrate that, had the club failed to achieve promotion via the play offs, the group would nevertheless have been on a sound financial footing for the forthcoming season.

Eliminating the costs (including income foregone and contingent transfer fees payable) associated with promotion would have improved the results presented in these accounts by some £2.8m. Material wage savings would have accrued from player contracts which expired in June 2005 while transfer fee debtors would have generated a net cash
inflow of £2.8m.

These factors, together with the commitment from the group’s bankers, in principle, to sanction a reduction in annual loan repayments while the club remained in the Championship, gave the club every chance of challenging strongly in a league in which, in the recent close season, the majority of clubs have been net sellers in the transfer market.

So it seems that the very accounts you quoted to me, approved by the auditors, and submitted to the city, seem to feel that WHU were not actually approaching Total Financial Meltdown.

Now, why am I trying to score points off the issue?

The answer is simple. I made a post in good faith contending that one of the reasons that we are on the wrong side of the 'Massive Divide' is poor management by our chief executive.

You (a member of the Wolves Parliament - and therefore with some degree of responsibility to take things seriously?) then decided to pick up on one of the examples I used and try to discredit it, rather than discussing the spirit of my post.

Worse, however, you try to pull the 'Pleb Trick' by mentioning accounts. This is usually guarenteed to make the casual poster give-up for fear of moving out of their comfort zone.

TheDarkside

25-07-2006, 22:59

Oh yes, and when we talk about WHU having debts of £30million - remember their ground alone is valued at £70million.

TheDarkside

25-07-2006, 23:43

Look Deutch Wolf is now pretending the whole sorry saga is beneath him.

He's faintly embarrassed by his words, and he's now hoping that the thread will quietly drop off page one and be forgotten...

...lest it undermines his credibility as an MWP.:D

Deutsch Wolf

25-07-2006, 23:53

Because I didn't reply to you? Diddums.

TheDarkside

26-07-2006, 00:01

:p told you so...

i think you need to get in touch with the London Stock Exhange and the FSA to put forward a case for misrepresentation in the accounts of West Ham United?

We can't let them get away with pulling the wool over Deutch wolfs knee jerk reaction can we?

wolf of sedgley

26-07-2006, 00:02

http://thestudentroom.co.uk/images/smilies3/catfight.gif

Deutsch Wolf

26-07-2006, 00:06

Not that it's really worth arguing with you, but.....

You acknowledge that a third successive Championship season would seriously hurt West Ham financially, if not bankrupt them. How then, does that point to superb leadership at CEO level? The fact that their whole short-term financial future was dependent on one game doesn't smack of particularly good planning. And who is West Ham's CEO while we're at it, and what footballing knowledge and experience does he have?

TheDarkside

26-07-2006, 00:08

http://thestudentroom.co.uk/images/smilies3/catfight.gif

In the words of Mrs Merton - a heated debate.

Why don't you give us the benefit of your infinite wisdom WoS?

TheDarkside

26-07-2006, 00:17

nah nah na nah na :p

Not that it's really worth arguing with you, but.....

You acknowledge that a third successive Championship season would seriously hurt West Ham financially, if not bankrupt them.

No I don't. Please don't make me look back through the thread an post that again.

How then, does that point to superb leadership at CEO level? The fact that their whole short-term financial future was dependent on one game doesn't smack of particularly good planning.

I have told you. WHU were not on the point of total financial meltdown. I have provided adequate evidence of this elsewhere on this thread.

And who is West Ham's CEO while we're at it, and what footballing knowledge and experience does he have?

Their chairman - Terry Brown - is an executive chairman. wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Brown_(soccer)) they don't have a ceo as such.

Deutsch Wolf

26-07-2006, 00:20

But what exactly is your point? What have West Ham (for example) done that we should have done in the past five years?

Adrian_Monk

26-07-2006, 00:23

On the other hand .. we should admire the stand made by Moxey to keep the lid on wages and transfers. Unlike fenella, I dont regard £1.4M (which is what is being referred to) for Frankowski as a waste of money. The manager at the time made a very strong recommendation for this player and I, like many, can see that he will be worth it once the team play to his abilities. His history did (and still does) more than suggest that he can do the one thing that will get us up - score goals.

We should applaud the way our club is facing this situation and get behind it. As children, we all looked at the toys we wanted, but very few of us got the expensive ones. As adults we must learn to accept reality and be part of the development that is going on. Enjoy the ride.

£1.4m is a waste of money if you don't play to his strengths. He probably had 4 seasons left in him at the most and we've wasted one of them by bringing him into a team that did not suit his style. Teams in this situation need to be 'feeder clubs' to try and keep up, such is the divide. West Ham have been a feeder club for Chelsea and Spurs in recent years, and have benefitted from rebuilding by splashing out larger transfer fees on players with greater potential for sell-on value, like Carlton Cole, Dean Ashton, James Collins, Daniel Gabbidon, Paul Konchesky, Matthew Etherington, Marlon Harewood, etc. Spurs are even doing it, with big name foreigners now taking a back step for the likes of Wayne Routledge, Aaron Lennon, Tom Huddlestone, Michael Carrick, Michael Dawson, etc.

The way our club approaches life where we are is exactly as it should given the situation we have put ourselves in by gross mismanagement: Take few if any major risks, put emphasis on youth but continue to sign experienced pros on short term contracts, rolling contracts with get out clauses for staff, etc. Its sad we are in that position but reality hurts sometimes and I for one applaud Jez Moxey for not being afraid to take this approach. Its unimaginative and medium termism at best but it will perhaps just about safeguard the future for the club.

On the subject of Moxey, I think he is learning the ropes as we go along and is improving as a CEO of a football club, almost justifying his many errors and ludicrous salary.

TheDarkside

26-07-2006, 00:51

But what exactly is your point? What have West Ham (for example) done that we should have done in the past five years?

If you remember I included West Ham in a list of clubs whose results have been superior to ours in the past 5 years - and put it down to the better performance in running of the club.

If you remember it was you who decided to attack West Ham as my example.

TBH I didn't think too hard about the examples I chose, but you conciously or otherwise chose to deflect from the poor performance of Wolves owener and senior management by making some sarcy and ill-researched remarks about west ham.

What do you think of my original assertion that WWFC are in their current position despite having a series of advantages of other clubs in a similar position?

Do you think this is down to poor performance on the part of Messrs Haywood, Haywood and Moxey or not?

TheDarkside

26-07-2006, 00:52

£1.4m is a waste of money if you don't play to his strengths.

Or equally, if he was just plain old crap?

Deutsch Wolf

26-07-2006, 00:57

It's primarily down to poor managers. How much blame you choose to put upon Hayward/Moxey for choosing them is entirely up to you.

TheDarkside

26-07-2006, 01:06

It's primarily down to poor managers. How much blame you choose to put upon Hayward/Moxey for choosing them is entirely up to you.

Rubbish.

I knew that Hoddle was a disasterous appointment before he was appointed. I posted a thread on the old MM on the day DJ was sacked entitled 'Please God NOT Hoddle'. It attracted very little attention at the time, and after GH was appointed I got a deluge of PMs threatening violence.

Jez moxey and Jack H should be measured on the profitability of the club, and success on the pitch. It is unnecessary to measure both, since they are in direct proportion.

What is the net progress in this area since either of them became involved with the club? - the answer is a niceish stadium.

I thank Jack for that.

A manager is a transient part of the club compared woth the ownership - more akin to a player than an owner or CEO.

Our ownership and management has done OK, but they have wasted the last opportunity that this club will ever have to compete on equal terms with the likes of Charlton and Bolton - and that is a crime - because whatever $$$$'n'bull story you dream up wimabiggerclubthanthemand'aveadevinerighttobebette rthan'em.

Florida Wolfey

26-07-2006, 01:12

Just thought I'd pop on here and see what's happened today.....and as usual Darkside is talking a load of utter $$$$$$$$.

So Hoddle is the anti Christ and must be blamed for all evil...namely the failure to gain promotion last season. :rolleyes:

And now the ownership and management have wasted the last opportunity to compete on equal terms with Charlton and Bolton. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Thanks for the entertainment. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/huepfen/jumping-smiley-024.gif

TheDarkside

26-07-2006, 01:18

Evening Florida.

I suppose you're here to say that:

a) Hoddle was a good coach and unfortunately his teams failed to put Crewe to the sword?
b) Wolves are a pathetic little club who should consider themselves lucky if the mighty Charlton or Bolton ever see their way to grant us a pre-season friendly?

You might aswell, you usually do.

Incidentally. Glenn Hoddle took my football team away from me. And he charged me £500 pounds. Not only that he pulled the same trick on 25% of the southbank.

Of course, the ex-pat happy clapper called Florida was not one of those, and he has formed his own opinion based on the completely unbiased coverage available (for a small charge) on Wolves World.

Florida Wolfey

26-07-2006, 01:21

TheDarkside

26-07-2006, 01:25

Ah.....good evening Mr. Darkside,

Actually, yes I think Hoddle is a good coach....not necessarily a good manager.

As for Bolton and Charlton....we all know times change in football. Don't suppose you remember us being 4-0 up before half time v Bolton in the 4th Division?

I was there when be beat Chelsea 7-1, and also when we scored 5 goals in the second half against Arsenal.

Now we cannot even dream of competing with Bolton. This sea-change in fortunes has happened exclusively during the reign of SJH and Jez.

Why do you think Hoddle is a good coach - did they tell you so on Wolves World?

Florida Wolfey

26-07-2006, 01:29

An ex England coach who did well in the job knows a thing or two about football. Unfortunately, at Wolves, I don't think he could cope with a player skill level that was considerably less than his own.

Further, I saw Hoddle in action. I saw how he tried to get players to move and I saw what he wanted. The players, however, had no idea!! :)

Chelsea and Arsenal games....remember them well. Remember Waggy nut megging McNab......running round him as he turned like the Titanic and then .....10 years later we signed him. :rolleyes:

TheDarkside

26-07-2006, 01:38

Further, I saw Hoddle in action. I saw how he tried to get players to move and I saw what he wanted. The players, however, had no idea!! :)

You must be a gifted one like He is, because I saw the worst season of football since I started in '73.

He simply didn't have a clue. At no time did anything that he did rise above abject incompetence.

YouTube must not give you a true representation of a teams dire struggles to play against the might of crewe and millwall.

Did you see Millwall taking it to the corner flag at 1-1 after 80 minutes?

We lost to them.

It was the most embarrassing performance I have ever seen by a Wolves team.

I have seen some bad ones.

SOA Wolf

26-07-2006, 01:59

Just a question Darkside, wasn't the (5-1) Arsenal win in 1971....november, in the snow?

Florida Wolfey

26-07-2006, 02:01

You must be a gifted one like He is, because I saw the worst season of football since I started in '73.

He simply didn't have a clue. At no time did anything that he did rise above abject incompetence.

YouTube must not give you a true representation of a teams dire struggles to play against the might of crewe and millwall.

Did you see Millwall taking it to the corner flag at 1-1 after 80 minutes?

We lost to them.

It was the most embarrassing performance I have ever seen by a Wolves team.

I have seen some bad ones.

You weren't there when we lost to Barnsley were you?
How about our demise down the leagues?

If you think Hoddle's football was bad then the football under Docherty really couldn't be described. I'll give you the fact that Hoddle's team was boring but it will take an awful lot to surpass the total dross served up in the mid 80's.

You carry on blaming Hoddle for our 20 plus years of failure....whatever helps you sleep at night.

Florida Wolfey

26-07-2006, 02:03

Just a question Darkside, wasn't the (5-1) Arsenal win in 1971....november, in the snow?

Don't remember it snowing to be honest but I do remember that the Doog got two, Waggy, Kenny and McCalliog got the others. It was the 71-72 season....the year we lost the UEFA Cup Final. :(

Florida Wolfey

26-07-2006, 02:05

I think Waggy got goal of the month as well.......but I remember us being 1-0 down at half time and then battering them second half.

TheDarkside

26-07-2006, 09:00

Just a question Darkside, wasn't the (5-1) Arsenal win in 1971....november, in the snow?

Quite possibly - perhaps I should have said 'since I started going regularly in '73...

TheDarkside

26-07-2006, 09:04

You weren't there when we lost to Barnsley were you?
How about our demise down the leagues?

If you think Hoddle's football was bad then the football under Docherty really couldn't be described. I'll give you the fact that Hoddle's team was boring but it will take an awful lot to surpass the total dross served up in the mid 80's.

You carry on blaming Hoddle for our 20 plus years of failure....whatever helps you sleep at night.

As for our demise down the leagues....

I was there for some of the games (e.g. Preston away in the League Cup the season we went down from this division, Oldham away the season after, and Aldershot after that).

Unfortunately, the football was so terrible I stopped going regularly. Exactly like I would have done had Mr Hoddle been retained.

OldWolvesfart

26-07-2006, 20:20

I go along with Bear and Old Golds comments the financial divide is the same as seen within our society and the FA, Premiership and Championship have to become a involved as single entity or in a single agreement in order to bring some sanity to income and wages. But I disagree with other comments that make the usual fixed statement of thats the way it is and nothing will ever change. Why should a premiership distorted by Chelsea F.C. ( Report losses for 2004 88m, for 2005 140m, wage bill fro 2005 £108.9m ) be kept free of involvement with the rest of U.K. football unless they are cherry picking players, managers or other club staff. This is not just about Premiership or Championship but UK football and the survival of some clubs who have to rely on supporters donations to buy players and pay their wages because of the unfair balance of income within the system not just their failure to manage their finances or obtain the right sponsorship.
Football is big business but if we loose more of the smaller clubs and the many supporters of those clubs then the heart will go out of the leagues and we will lose the magic of competitions like the FA cup.

AmericanWolf

26-07-2006, 22:03

I'm probably the last person to be weighing in on this, given that I'm also an American.

I'm not convinced that Hoddle's system was bad. I know it didn't make for thrilling football, but I think that fundamentally, Hoddle was right.

To break a packed midfield, you have to go over the midfield. If you run at five with four, even if your players are marginally better the odds are against you. To break down a packed midfield, you play it long over down to the wings. That forces the opposing midfield to play farther back in their side, which allows your midfield to play farther up as well, eventually, you get a good ball in, you collapse on the box, and you score goals. It does work, and that's basically what Hoddle's wonky sort of 4-3-3 was trying to accomplish.

Principal problem: We couldn't convert our shots. We would put 20, 30 shots on goal a game, and get no return on it. I'd say that that's not a manager's fault, that's a coach's fault. That means you need more time spent practicing your set pieces, that means more time on defended shooting drills.

I think that Hoddle definitely bears a big burden for our failure, but tactically I can't find any fault in what he was trying to do. I think we had underperforming forwards, bad injury problems, and an incompetent coaching staff (including Hoddle I suppose, I don't know how much ground level coaching he was really doing).

I'm left wondering if he would have done better this year with a younger and more eager team, but it's a moot point.

Cosmo Kramer

26-07-2006, 22:08

what are the dimensions of a monstrous divide and when does a divide become monstrous, as to just really big ( and a bit scary)

Florida Wolfey

26-07-2006, 22:08

American,
I agree with you to a large extent. The failure of our forwards in the opening two to three months of the season led to a loss of confidence by our players in the system.

On several occassions before Christmas we battered teams but came away with nothing more than a draw.....and the infamous Watford game where we could have been 5 or 6 up before half time was probably the straw that broke the camels back now that we have the benefit of looking back on it.

Hoddle's team then became static and incapable of delivering a high tempo game. The rest is history.

TheDarkside

26-07-2006, 22:13

I think that Hoddle definitely bears a big burden for our failure, but tactically I can't find any fault in what he was trying to do.

Absolutely right American.

Prior to my seeing the light I thought that playing Kenny Miller at right-back and Carl Cort on the right wing was a strange thing to do, but now I realise that my brain was not big enough to understand Glenn's complex tactics.

I was one of those fools who used to believe that football was a simple game - but now understand that is just a well worn cliche.

The more complicated you make it the better. I wonder if we could persuade Glenn to come back in a coaching capacity?

derbyrameater

26-07-2006, 22:20

Has Big Vera got a Monstrous Divide?

AmericanWolf

27-07-2006, 17:16

Prior to my seeing the light I thought that playing Kenny Miller at right-back and Carl Cort on the right wing was a strange thing to do, but now I realise that my brain was not big enough to understand Glenn's complex tactics.

You're mocking me, so I probably shouldn't respond, but you do have a point that merits consideration, so I will.

First of all, we were forced into a lot of weird player placements by injuries, and the fact that Hoddle was working with a squad he hadn't put together. We didn't have forwards who easily fit into winger roles, so Cort was dumped out of place. We were down a right back after Jackie Mac got injured, so with the surging back formations Hoddle liked to use, Kenny got dumped back for a game or two, where he performed pretty well, it must be said.

I think that even if some decisions looked odd, and were odd frankly, at the end of the day we were still putting enough shots in to win each game twice over IF we'd been able to convert our shots. I'm talking 5 yard headers being nodded over, one-on-ones going straigth to the keeper time and time again.

To be honest, we were having a fairly good season until Cort got injured. Not great, but we were looking at a probable play-off place finish, which isn't what we were aiming for, but would have been decent nonetheless. With Cort out, we just kind of fell apart up front. We needed to bring in another striker in the summer, and didn't, so we paid for it.

Frankowski was a desperation move. It was a case of looking at statistics and figuring, "well, he's got to put in some goals, look at how he's doing now" without really thinking about the time it would take for him to adjust to English football, or his size relative to defenders, or anything else. I still think Franek might come good, but I'd have rather seen us dump that money plus some more to MK Dons.

OldWolvesfart

27-07-2006, 19:56

[QUOTE=AmericanWolf]You're mocking me, so I probably shouldn't respond, but you do have a point that merits consideration, so I will.

First of all, we were forced into a lot of weird player placements by injuries --- etc.

American I can appreciate you are trying to make a point about players and tactics but this thread was a genuine thread about club incomes and the divide between premiership and championship which is about to become wider.
You are making some points but why not start another thread regarding players, positions and tactics?

TheDarkside

27-07-2006, 20:41

OldWolvesfart

27-07-2006, 21:09

American - I'm not mocking you personally - it's just that I used to be a sceptic but out of that Darkness has cometh Light.

As for your statement about 'putting enough shots in to win each game twice over ', I disagree. For the last half of last season we barely had an attack - let alone a shot.

OWF - I find it strange you should criticise American for discussing wolves on the wrong thread - but are happy to turn a blind-eye to DerbyRameaters less than constructive contribution to the debate?
Dark as you could tell from my comments there was no criticism only a gentle suggestion that his points and one or two others were not relating at all to the topic of income etc. I just get tired of seeing a thread get side tracked, but it happens and should be endured, but more often just turns into two way family favourites between a few regular posters who should just text each other instead of clagging up these threads. This last comment does not include you or American.

derbyrameater

27-07-2006, 22:35

Just to let you know Darkside I have been itching to do a piece on the economics of football and have had a few ideas floating around the old brainbox which I would love to hear what the accountants suchlike on this board thought.
Its quite a complicated thought process so I will more than likely $$$$ this up.Hear goes..
IMO Football staff are grossly overpaid in a free market.
TV rights put hundreds of millions into football.
When a transfer takes place a chain comes into being concerning the price being paid in instalments. A bit like buying a house.
Footbal clubs moan about the wages they pay but if they decide not to pay these wages the players will not sign for them. If they see out their contract and that club then decide not to offer a new contract at the same or higer salary, the player has enough in the bank to retire.The club has lost an asset, a domino effect could then take place because the club might then not have enough money to pay the instalment on a player they bought before this took place, the next club in the chain is down on several million and so on. Do they increase Ticket charges even more? ask the TV companies for more?
Therefore the clubs seem to have a vested interest in ever increasing wages and transfer fees while the supporter/fan keeps being asked to pay more ( a bit like British Gas ).
Even when the TV companies put more into the coffers the admission fees continue to rise.
I`m sure this can be shot full of holes but its like the house market prices have to continue rising with an occasional burst of the bubble.
It is this that causes the Great Divide and it will continue to widen, The rich will get richer unless you have controls, this means taking on the giants, small clubs refusing to sell players to the giants can slow it down but player greed will then kick in.
Welcome to the world of Capitalism.
Business loves it when they are top dog but when they slide down the pecking order they cry for help and controls. Capitilism eventually creates a monopoly. Man Utd v Man Utd Reserves 20 times a season. Then play Chelsea C team for a place in the Charity shield..
Is that good enough for you Darkside?

TheDarkside

27-07-2006, 23:01

Not bad DRE. Certainly more constructive than VERA...

I think you are basically right - although I dont follow your chain teory completely.

Building on your principles however, I think you might have missed a stage - and that is franchising.

We are about to see the second major US investment in the premier league (if you discount Mandaric), at Aston Villa.

Owners will flit from club to club - trying to squeeze 'value' out of undervalued clubs, and dropping them like a stone when they have done this.

Imagine if abramovic left Chelsea today. Could they survive. Not a hope in hell.

The franchising stage will turn 'soccer' into those budweiser adverts at half time in the world cup.

The american invasion has already killed West Indian Cricket stone dead - and it has no hope of ever recovering.

We are less than 10 years from the EuroPermier League, where Newcastle qualify and are immediately relocated to Dublin. This will give the american owners of the franchise the maximum value gap to work with.

Hopefully they will all bugger off to premium rate pay per goal HDTV and we'll never hear from them again.

At which point we will truly be able to say WIMABIGCLUB again.

derbyrameater

27-07-2006, 23:19

When you say you don`t follow my "chain theory" do you mean I have not explained it very well, or I`m talking crap, if so I`m not offended, or you do not agree with my "Chain Theory".
HDTV as you bring it up is all part of this, What they don`t tell you is the DRM (Digital Rights Management) which is the real reason for this. If you do not have HDTV a a mate records last nights Wolves match for you to watch at a later date coz you haven`t paid for it, the HDTV will not let you watch it. It checks all the equipment in your household connection to your TV, anything out of place and you are buggered..
I agree Franchising is just waiting in the wings (I`m sure I wrote something about this on the old MM) for someone to challenge the football authorities, they might try and fight it but in a court of law the clubs will win.
Football is now a game for the rich, untill/if the bubble bursts, see "Chain Theory"
Of to bed now, early start..
"Big Vera" by the way is a character I think in either a Who single or Small Faces. "There is nothing in my Life Bigger than Vera".

TheDarkside

31-08-2006, 18:47

Would that be the same West Ham who got relegated with a squad full of internationals three years ago and had to sell all their players? The club that would have been in complete financial meltdown if they hadn't scraped promotion in 2004/5?

You were right of course DW.

We should thank our lucky stars that we aren't in the mess that they are in now!

basher

31-08-2006, 19:51

Having said that there are three opportunities every season to get into the Greed League and Wolves, for a start, have no excuses for repeated failure , appalling signings and general ineptitude. 32 year old Franko a good signing Eastern - the heat really has got to you.

Class is permanent and he is undoubtedly a class player. I think he will do the business for us and clearly you don't. Well the season will prove one of us wrong!!

You been smoking crack!!!?????

Frankowski is finished at Wolves!! No-one on this messageboard can say with any degree of honesty that what Frankowski has shown in a Wolves is anything other than garbage!!

Posters can bang on as much as they want about his record before he came to Wolves but that counts for nothing. So what if he won a player of the season award!? That was over two seasons ago!!! Did anyone on this board see the games he played in that season?? I doubt it very much.

He offers nothing to the team and Wolves are well shot of him.

OldWolvesfart

31-08-2006, 21:54

derbyrameater

01-09-2006, 22:19

Very profound Oldwolvesfart..

OldWolvesfart

01-09-2006, 23:01

Very profound Oldwolvesfart..

I try. By the way Big Vera also turned up in Fools & Horses, she gets around.

derbyrameater

02-09-2006, 16:08

I try. By the way Big Vera also turned up in Fools & Horses, she gets around.
That`s why she`s so BIGGGG, OHHH the delights of Big Vera..

Grizzled Wolf

02-09-2006, 23:57

We have had lots of discussion over the years about this subject going back to the old MM days on the E&S. The fact still remains that the whole of the leagues are stagnating under the pall of half a dozen Prem teams aided and abetted by fools like Sep Blatter and his cohorts.

Until someone with a modicum of common sense takes over from the present ruling fat cats nothing is going to change. In the meantime most clubs lower then 10th in the Coky are spending more time trying to keep afloat.. than they spend on coaching their teams.

What I havn't seen mentioned so far is the dire effect this is having on up and coming young players! Clubs with severe money problems can no longer indulge in the bringing through of top youngsters..thousands of players in junior clubs will never come within a million miles of playing top class football. Even Wolves have stopped playing reserve teams to all effect..players who used to get a run out every week to show their stuff.. can often not play for weeks.

We merrily sign dubious players from abroad to take the place of our homegrown youngsters.. at the same time we let famous old clubs die in the dust. Eventually this will come back to haunt football in England.

When the root teams have all but been wiped out.. and the tap of up and coming youngsters is turned to a trickle..I hope clubs like Man U., Arsenal and Chelsea will remember the part they played in killing our national sport. However, I would suggest that by the time this happens they will have gone on their merry way to a Super League in Europe...which I for one will never watch!