Latest news:

Oldham Athletic
Discussion started by martyd12 (IP Logged), 28 February, 2020 20:25
martyd12
martyd12
28 February, 2020 20:25
I see the Latics are in financial difficulties again. They cannot pay the players' wages on time. they are likely to apply to go into administration meaning a 12 point deduction. In addition there is a winding up petition pending. Not quite ready to go the way of Bury but the day of reckoning is coming!

gary anderson
gary anderson
28 February, 2020 23:11
A real shame if another north west club goes under .it makes you wonder how Teflon wanderers keep getting g away with it .but let's hope Oldham get out of trouble

coltran
coltran
29 February, 2020 17:53
It does make you wonder about Oldham's financial management. How is it that they bought Danny Rowe only a month ago and now they are facing administration?

paulbyron
paulbyron
29 February, 2020 18:30
didn't Bolton pull the same stunt when buying the striker from FGR?

Bored rover
Bored rover
29 February, 2020 19:54
They’ve flirted with it for years even when in the PL, could be the biggest loss of face ever if they end up in the NL

Borough Roaderd
Tranmere69
29 February, 2020 23:52
Quote:
paulbyron
didn't Bolton pull the same stunt when buying the striker from FGR?

Yes.They were supposed to pay FOR £1,000000 for Doidge but he lasted half a season before returning to Gloucs.Now doing ok in Scotland.

DevonExile
DevonExile
01 March, 2020 07:44
It is why I have less sympathy with some of the clubs that get into trouble. Oldham is a prime example of a situation. Where a combination of living beyond. their means and financial mismanagement in setting priorities creates the problem.
Small clubs are vulnerable and not enough money flows down the pyramid but Boards know that and sadly for supporters that. will only changes if. there. Is proper regulation by the EFL with cumulative sanctions for persistent. failure
It could also help if the financial implications of promotion and relegation were reduced. This would leave money more equably distributed to all clubs . It would mean that the distinguishing finial distinction between teams would be more dependent upon gates and their own income generation. To me that seems a healthier business model for the EFL



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2020 07:51 by DevonExile.

Zint
Zint
01 March, 2020 08:06
I’ve little sympathy for clubs that live beyond their means. At the same time it infuriates me that Premier League clubs no longer shop further down the pyramid. It’s killing our game because in the past we could rely on a decent transfer wedge in to give our finances a fillip. It also meant that younger players could retain ambition and dream of playing at a higher level.

I think the last time we made any decent money was when Cresswell went. That must be 6 seasons ago?

mogsy73
mogsy73
01 March, 2020 09:00
We got at least a millon for Dale Jennings - the only mild criticism I have of the club at the moment is the dearth of youth coming through

Jack of all Trades
Jack of all Trades
01 March, 2020 09:12
Unfortunately, we only received 600K upfront from Bayern for Dale I understand, the balance was in add on's which, didn't materialise not sure if it would have totalled 1million.

Bored rover
Bored rover
01 March, 2020 10:55
Supporters demand success, players demand high wages, agents demand a high percentage. Can’t have success without the players, can’t have the players without spending the money, look at us this season.

DevonExile
DevonExile
01 March, 2020 13:34
But that is why better regulation by the EFL is required so that prudent clubs are not pressurised to follow those clubs that ignore due risk evaluation.
There is nothing inevitable about the existing culture. As for supporters there may be many that are happy for a club to overspend to chase elusive and by definition success that can only be achieved by a few. Many of the same supporters then expect the whole football community to bail them out.

Borough Roaderd
Tranmere69
01 March, 2020 16:21
Quote:
DevonExile
But that is why better regulation by the EFL is required so that prudent clubs are not pressurised to follow those clubs that ignore due risk evaluation.
There is nothing inevitable about the existing culture. As for supporters there may be many that are happy for a club to overspend to chase elusive and by definition success that can only be achieved by a few. Many of the same supporters then expect the whole football community to bail them out.

+1

Bored rover
Bored rover
01 March, 2020 18:04
Quote:
DevonExile
But that is why better regulation by the EFL is required so that prudent clubs are not pressurised to follow those clubs that ignore due risk evaluation.
There is nothing inevitable about the existing culture. As for supporters there may be many that are happy for a club to overspend to chase elusive and by definition success that can only be achieved by a few. Many of the same supporters then expect the whole football community to bail them out.

How do you regulate it any better, they are limited companies they can spend how the board see fit, we already have financial FairPlay. Transfers aside, If the money isn’t coming in it doesn’t matter how much regulation there is. At what point do you draw the line, Rovers are spending more than they are making are we saying we should have fielded a team of kids because we are in debt so shouldn’t sign players?

DevonExile
DevonExile
01 March, 2020 19:13
Quote:
Bored rover
Quote:
DevonExile
But that is why better regulation by the EFL is required so that prudent clubs are not pressurised to follow those clubs that ignore due risk evaluation.
There is nothing inevitable about the existing culture. As for supporters there may be many that are happy for a club to overspend to chase elusive and by definition success that can only be achieved by a few. Many of the same supporters then expect the whole football community to bail them out.

How do you regulate it any better, they are limited companies they can spend how the board see fit, we already have financial FairPlay. Transfers aside, If the money isn’t coming in it doesn’t matter how much regulation there is. At what point do you draw the line, Rovers are spending more than they are making are we saying we should have fielded a team of kids because we are in debt so shouldn’t sign players?

As suggested earlier in this thread by the EFL reducing the perversely large financial share out that comes from promotion. This would result in a more equitable distribution across the EFL clubs.
As limited Companies the benefit from success would then be more through raised gates and greater scope for income generation.
When clubs recklessly gamble on success they are not motivated by pleasing supporters but by their raised share in the EFL distribution.
Football is not a free market for much of the income structure is determined by the regulations of the EFL. Fair play is merely one part of the regulation and is aimed exclusively at controlling expenditure against income

Bored rover
Bored rover
01 March, 2020 20:28
Quote:
DevonExile
Quote:
Bored rover
Quote:
DevonExile
But that is why better regulation by the EFL is required so that prudent clubs are not pressurised to follow those clubs that ignore due risk evaluation.
There is nothing inevitable about the existing culture. As for supporters there may be many that are happy for a club to overspend to chase elusive and by definition success that can only be achieved by a few. Many of the same supporters then expect the whole football community to bail them out.

How do you regulate it any better, they are limited companies they can spend how the board see fit, we already have financial FairPlay. Transfers aside, If the money isn’t coming in it doesn’t matter how much regulation there is. At what point do you draw the line, Rovers are spending more than they are making are we saying we should have fielded a team of kids because we are in debt so shouldn’t sign players?

As suggested earlier in this thread by the EFL reducing the perversely large financial share out that comes from promotion. This would result in a more equitable distribution across the EFL clubs.
As limited Companies the benefit from success would then be more through raised gates and greater scope for income generation.
When clubs recklessly gamble on success they are not motivated by pleasing supporters but by their raised share in the EFL distribution.
Football is not a free market for much of the income structure is determined by the regulations of the EFL. Fair play is merely one part of the regulation and is aimed exclusively at controlling expenditure against income

Arguments such as equitable distribution of funds are only destined to create a breakaway league it argued at the top. The top clubs will rightly argue they deserve the larger share because its them that attract the sponsorship and TV rights money, which they do, No one wants to watch Tranmere v MK Dons. Even if you equally distributed funds clubs will still crave success and want to sign the best players which cost the most money. The only way to manage it is to introduce a wage cap but then that still does not provide equal status because some cubs would still struggle at the wage cap. It’s an expensive game and clubs have to either gamble or forgo success. In our current model of sustainability we will bounce around the divisions and I wouldn’t be surprised to see us back in the NL at some point.


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net