http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/ma...d.premierleague

Makes me sick, how anyone can support this man is beyond belief

At least the teams winning though ey :rolleyes:

Seeing how some of our fans are defending ticket price rises with the whole "it's Chelsea's fault, we're only coming into line with them" arguement I'd like to know that since our owners are so eager to copy Chelsea for their ticket prices how come they aren't so keen on paying off the clubs debts out of their own personal money like Roman did? If Abramovich/Chelsea have done it then so should the Glazers/United. We would just be coming into line with them in terms of having no debt.

Oh that's right our 'billionaire' owners don't really have any money so they can't pay it off with their own money. One of the Glazer sons had to take out a mortgage to buy a £2.5 million house in Florida. Billionaires my arse! Could never imagine Roman needing a loan for anything, he just buys it outright as you'd expect with a supposed billionaire.

So abramovich buys everything using cash up front does he? Doesnt get a mortgage on a house?

Clubs should be run on their own income only, no external financial backers. Football clubs need to learn to be sustainable.

We were

So were we

Exactly. It's why I hate the likes of Wigan and Fulham. Whealan and Fayad cheated they way to the first Division and people say its a great story small teams getting there. My respect goes to clubs like Stoke who have done it with a good manager and players, and Swansea are doing the same thing. We're working hard to get new fans, have a good manager and players and have risen 2 divisions in 4 years.

People who chuck money at football way beyond their means are cheats. I have no respect for the achievements of Chelsea, Fulham and Wigan, their cheats

Won't be long till the Premiership clubs are all run by billionaires as their play toy.

Everything that Abramovich spends on Chelsea is his own money, fact. I'm not getting involved, I realise he's one in a million, just thought i'd point that out.

who cares chelsea are cheats

Yes it is great he doesn't put his debt on Chelsea FC but it would be better and more sustainable with no backer and just run on income from fans.

Yes this would mean players don't get paid as much but they are hardly underpaid.

I was on about other items, such as houses yachts etc.

I agree in principle. However if you look at all the clubs in the system, you will probably find that far more rely on a "Sugar Daddy" for survival than rely solely on their own income. More important is that clubs know what to do to survive if their external financial backer pulls out, and don't punch too far above their weight.

More unfair than having money pumped in from outside, IMO, is the current system of administration. Clubs spend more money than they've got, giving them an unfair advantage over other teams, then take a points deduction, have most of their debt written off, and carry on as normal (or even run up more debt). Sorry, but if a club has debt that is so unmanageable, they should be wound up, not allowed to carry on with the same lack of business sense that got them there in the first place. It happened to Newport County, Aldershot (with a measly debt of £120,000) and Maidstone United, so why should different rules apply to the likes of Leeds United? The system is just a convenient way to disguise the fact that most football clubs outside the top tier are virtually, if not totally, bankrupt, because this would upset the image that English football is the best in the world.

That's my rant for the day!

All i have to say is

DIE DIE GLAZER F*CKING DIE, SINGING DIE DIE GLAZER F*KING DIE, SINGING DIE DIE GLAZER DIE DIE GLAZER DIE DIE GLAZER F*CKINH DIE!!!

Here before here after

LUHG

If all backers pulled out of the game or were forced out somehow, I think in the long-termit would be beneficial, as all aclubs would have less money to speand player wages would come down.

Or would they just increase ticket prices instead?

bring back the days of the glorious amateurs I say!

Wages would probably go down, but ticket prices would probably go up at the same time.

If all the backers pulled out, then I dread to think how many clubs would go bust. Certainly there are many non-League clubs that don't own their own grounds and struggle to pay the rent. Travel costs are also a major expense. Already every season many clubs fold due to lack of support, lack of administrators or their council-owned grounds being sold for housing, while others refuse promotion or take voluntary demotion to cut down on travel.

If we were to get rid of such backers, then it would have to be applied to every club simultaneously, and a restructuring of English league system would be required, I think. No single club is going to conciously make the decision to get rid of their backer, as it would disadvantage them. Also, if clubs are to survive on the lower income, then less clubs will be able to pay full-time players and travel costs. As players would have other jobs, they would be able to travel less, and so regionalisation would have to start higher up the pyramid (which is probably a good idea anyway due to the number of clubs, particularly in the far north and south-west, that struggle with travel costs as it is).

There are many amateur (or even semi-pro) clubs who do live within their means and don't overspend, and have found their natural level. The problem is that such clubs are seen as unambitious and so struggle to attract new support, which means they slip down the pyramid even further. Two good examples are Dulwich Hamlet and Corinthian-Casuals. Both were among the great amateur clubs (although Dulwich are now semi-pro), but both would do well these days to get 300 fans to a game. Most fans these days are attracted by success and media hype, not the modest little community club playing down the road.

If things carry on the way they are, then English football is f*cked. Creditors (particularly the Inland Revenue) aren't going to keep accepting payment of 3 pence in the pound from clubs that have overspent, and nor should they. When the next Football League side fold (as many should have already), perhaps people will take notice.

When Rotherham nearly died a few weeks ago the papers were just full of what Avram said or didnt say and what Fergies sqeuaky bum was doing - no mention of a club dieing just all about the top 4 all the time - ITS SOOOOO BLOODY BORING. Believe it or not some people actually support teams outside the top 4 and Premier ship. If a club dies the big boys wont care it this country its all about Im alright Jack so fcuk the rest of you. At least elsewhere fans stick together but our fan culture has been diluted and polluted with new breeds who know nothing about what footbal should be like.

terrible. and its liverpools turn now

Indeed. I doubt there'll be much media coverage when Halifax Town are liquidated this summer, either.

They have already folded - now they just need to reform as AFC Halifax - they only have af ew weeks . Never been to The Shay but it looks great - huge covered terraces. Gutted they went bust - why couldnt it be plastic Rusdhen or even better MK Thieves.

League AGMs are in June. If they can re-form before then and secure a ground of acceptable standard, then the new club may be able to start two or three levels below. Otherwise, they'll have to start at the bottom of the pyramid in their area (personally I think they should have to anyway), and then not until next year. It's about time the FA published a clear procedure for what to do in the case of mergers/folds/resignations rather than just making it up as they go along.

I agree that the ground looks good and it will be a shame to lose it, but I assume it will be sold for housing to help pay off creditors as I doubt the new club would be able to afford to buy it. Unless of course the football club don't own it. I think I heard something about the rugby club sharing it, although I could be wrong. If so, it could be the saviour of the ground.

It can't be Rushden or MK Dons because they don't owe the Inland Revenue £814,000! If clubs overspend so much, then they gain an unfair advantage and are cheating the clubs that spend sensibly. I don't recall Rushden doing that (could be wrong though), although MK Dons did cheat their way in. How do clubs manage to avoid paying tax for so long anyway?

And why "AFC" Halifax? Can reformed clubs not think of something slightly more original?

I don't think the football club own the ground, can't remember who does but I think they sold it off around the time they first went into admin? Think they've said something about getting into Unibond North.
As for the whole AFC thing, it does seem to be turning into some sort of "traditional" comeback name. Hopefully things will work out for them.

That would be the drop of three levels I was on about. Although I would usually say that they should start at the bottom, in this case I would have no problem with them joining the Unibond Div 1 North as that league is under-strength due to a lack of willing and eligible clubs to fill it.

All this means that Altrincham have finished in the bottom four of the Conference National three years in a row and they still haven't been relegated!

Good to hear that the ground might survive all this. Would be a shame to see it go.

The thing I find strange about "AFC" names is that they seem to include it in tables/fixtures for every "AFC" club except AFC Bournemouth, which is the one they really should include it on due to the existence of Bournemouth FC.

I think with AFC at the front of the new name they carry on singing for the same named club but just drop the AFC at the start. In other words if you asked a Wimbledon fan back in 2002 whether they still wanted Wimbledon in there club name 100% would have said yes to it, rather that South London Dons or something else. It may lack originality but fans still want some of the old identity. Rushden were bankrolled by Max Griggs he pulled out in 2002 and the team plumetted now struggle on gates of 1400 but although they have not had money issues I just think they are a very plastic club with terrible bullying stewards. As for Mk Dons dont get me started.
On another note are Maidstone building a new ground in the town ?

Obviously they want to keep the place name in the club title, but firstly, it annoys me that FC or AFC is included in tables/fixtures all the time when at the beginning of the club name but not at the end as it messes up alphabetical listings and in most cases simply isn't necessary, secondly it can lead to clubs existing simultaneously having names which are, in my opinion, too similar (e.g. AFC Liverpool/Liverpool FC, AFC Wimbledon/Wimbledon FC, AFC Bournemouth/Bournemouth FC) and thirdly you can keep the place name by other means (e.g. Maidstone United and Aldershot reformed under their original names of Maidstone Invicta and Aldershot Town respectively, while Scarborough reformed as Scarborough Athletic).

I have no experience of Rushden & Diamonds but plenty of clubs are bankrolled by individuals. It's not the same as gaining money by dishonest means such as not paying taxes. As for MK Dons, I acknowledged that they did cheat their way into their position in a way far worse. I hate what they stand for.

Maidstone's new ground: We have planning permission, we have a 99 year lease on the land. The only debt we have is a loan of £98,000 from the council which was needed to purchase the lease. We are applying to the Football Foundation for a community facilities grant. Our application should have been sent off at the end of April (although the club haven't actually announced that it has been sent off). If we get the grant, construction should begin in January, and should take 28 weeks (I think). The ground should cost around £1.7M I believe. The board, and in particular the new investor, want us home in the 2009-10 season. It can't come soon enough! The club have recently set up a website for the ground project at http://www.bringingfootballhome.co.uk/index.html.

Rushden and Diamonds and Dagenham and Redbridge are just as bad, look at how many clubs they have swallowed up to create these new clubs. Dagenham is the amalgamation of about 13 different established clubs over the years, Rushden and Diamonds the same.

Its no good simply creating new AFC/FC supporters run teams, as eventually they grow and grow and become the thing you tried to move away from.
One thing we have in this country, is far to many teams and thats the problem as they all fight for the samefunds, supporters etc. Most major European Countries do not have a 4 tier professional system.
Wimbledon have a case as their lub was taken away from them and moved to Milton keynes, but for all these other clubs, the origial team is still there.
Forming the likes of AFC Liverpool is not fair on established clubs such a Marine, Burscough and Bootle who for years have tried to attract along these supporters.
Its the same with FCUM, the same people who founded FCUM, publicly laughed at non-league fans and non-league football in fanzines when Utd played Exter City, yet now think its the only form of football, much to the detriment of the likes of TAltrincham, Trafford FC, Droylsden, Salford City etc.

Fair points. I wish Maidstone all the best in getting football back in town - Im sure it will do for Maidstone as it did for Chelmsford and Dartford when moving back home increses crowds on a huge scale x 2 or x3. Ground looks ok.
As for FCUM 3 promotions in 3 years is not bad - 3 more and they are in the Football League. I can see them finding there level this year though in the Unibond Premier and when they get there own ground in 4 years within Manchester they can then rise up. One other point Tufty many of the fans of FC have been priced out and now £7 to stand for all games isent so bad rather than £35 forced to sit in a sterile bowl for all games bar Champs League and Big 4 games. I know which I would prefer any day of the week

Tufty is right about FC United and AFC Liverpool. I'm glad somebody shares the same opinion as me.

Not too sure I agree with you about Rushden and Daggers. If 2 struggling clubs agree to a merger I don't see why they can't. It worked for Hayes and Yeading last season!

In the non-League world, you'll probably find more people agree with you than disagree! Personally, I have no problem with such clubs as I doubt those disillusioned fans would have ever turned up to the smaller clubs, so they are not depriving those clubs of support. Also, if there was a sudden influx of disillusioned fans to one of the smaller clubs, they would probably be seen as trying to take over that club, and would not be welcomed (there seems to be some suspicion of newcomers at many non-League clubs as well).

Cheers. I reckon that crowds will eventually settle down at around 1,000. Maybe up to 1,500. Depends how successful we are I suppose, but that's around what we got at the old Athletic Ground I think.

We will, however, be better off with our new ground than Dartford and Chelmsford though. IMO anyway. Unlike Dartford, we'll own our ground, not the council, and unlike Chelmsford, we won't be sharing with an Athletics club. Either way, it'll be better than playing at Bourne Park.

I wouldn't say too many teams, but I agree that having 5 nationwide divisions is not a good idea. Starting regionalisation further up the pyramid would solve many problems.