Is Football sustainable at this level

[Jemfy]

Well one our owners just came out & said in 5 years time he hopes will be in the football league

5 years to get promoted twice & spend a fortune getting the ground up to football league standard......sounds like a recipe for disaster

Not to mention all the campaigning to get the FL to change the rules to allow artificial surfaces!

 

[SGW]

If rich businessmen/women want to spend their money investing in a football club they should be free to do so.

No club is forced to overspend trying to compete with them. If you can't match the big spenders, thats tough, don't try to. Accept your place and run your club accordingly.

This isn't the first thread recently where you've come out with that smug (not to mention trite) rubbish. You've either got no idea or you're simply wumming.

Surely the problem here is that the Conf, unlike any other league, contains 3 or possibly even 4 different types of club and ne'er the twain shall meet.

There's the traditional, small non league clubs (meant in a totally non critical manner: I'm originally from a small northern town with such a club) who are sustainable and, seemingly, turning a profit every year going from that table. There's some impressive-looking performances there but these clubs just aren't operating within the same culture of expectation as the next group.

And that group is of course the ex FL clubs (excl the likes of Kiddy who really fall into the 4th category). Do these clubs waste money? Of course they do, bucket loads of it whilst they adapt to the Conf which has its own particular playing standard and whilst they adapt their spending to no longer being one of the 92 chosen (that sort of thing really doesn't happen overnight).

Then you've got the moneybags clubs which we all love to hate and of which Chris supports a particularly egregious example (not that he seems to see it that way). There's really no denying, except for Chris and his views on football as an exemplar of the free market rather than a competition where everybody relies on everybody else for sporting integrity, that these clubs spoil it for everybody else both the financially embarrassed Wrexhams and Lincolns, and also the well-run but tinpot Bromleys.

And finally, you may also have a fourth group of traditional non league clubs without apparent financial support but spending beyond their means in order to try and keep up.

Did the FA foresee this when they invented the non league pyramid? Probably not, in all fairness, but I doubt they're going to do much about it as they're showing no signs of moving away from their preferred position of "benign" neglect to anything remotely more useful or pro-active.

 

[Vanni]

OK, be honest guys. How many of you would turn away someone like Dale Vince if he comes to your club?

 

[Aber gas]

OK, be honest guys. How many of you would turn away someone like Dale Vince if he comes to your club?

Never trust a hippy bearing gifts ( or summat). That is all.

 

[Jemfy]

OK, be honest guys. How many of you would turn away someone like Dale Vince if he comes to your club?

We would now (I think/hope), but only because we've been through the bad end that can come. I think only fan-owned clubs would genuinely turn down a rich benefactor takeover. That said fan owned clubs would (or at least should) try to get the person putting in such an offer to work with them and put money in as donations/sponsorship anyway to try and reap the rewards without entering to the negative side. Most fan owned clubs are only that way because of rich owners in the past that screwed them over.

 

[Raymondo316]

Not to mention all the campaigning to get the FL to change the rules to allow artificial surfaces!

Well that was nearly passed only a year ago, only one vote stopped it from being given the ok http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29919748

I remember reading somewhere that there gonna vote on it again soon....so it might be given the ok sooner then we think

 

[Chris FGR]

This isn't the first thread recently where you've come out with that smug (not to mention trite) rubbish. You've either got no idea or you're simply wumming.

Surely the problem here is that the Conf, unlike any other league, contains 3 or possibly even 4 different types of club and ne'er the twain shall meet.

There's the traditional, small non league clubs (meant in a totally non critical manner: I'm originally from a small northern town with such a club) who are sustainable and, seemingly, turning a profit every year going from that table. There's some impressive-looking performances there but these clubs just aren't operating within the same culture of expectation as the next group.

And that group is of course the ex FL clubs (excl the likes of Kiddy who really fall into the 4th category). Do these clubs waste money? Of course they do, bucket loads of it whilst they adapt to the Conf which has its own particular playing standard and whilst they adapt their spending to no longer being one of the 92 chosen (that sort of thing really doesn't happen overnight).

Then you've got the moneybags clubs which we all love to hate and of which Chris supports a particularly egregious example (not that he seems to see it that way). There's really no denying, except for Chris and his views on football as an exemplar of the free market rather than a competition where everybody relies on everybody else for sporting integrity, that these clubs spoil it for everybody else both the financially embarrassed Wrexhams and Lincolns, and also the well-run but tinpot Bromleys.

And finally, you may also have a fourth group of traditional non league clubs without apparent financial support but spending beyond their means in order to try and keep up.

Did the FA foresee this when they invented the non league pyramid? Probably not, in all fairness, but I doubt they're going to do much about it as they're showing no signs of moving away from their preferred position of "benign" neglect to anything remotely more useful or pro-active.

All of this is irrelevant.

In the early days clubs didn't earn promotion to the league, they were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to be chosen. Fortunately football is now a meritocracy in which clubs are at a level they deserve to be. Now with a fluid system everyone has a chance, and if some can attract more money then others through investment/big catchment areas/large fanbase or showing good business sense, all valid and legal ways of improving, then no complaints.

A lot of these so called established league clubs would have been relegated years ago in a fair system, and the lack of promotion is what kept the status quo and stunted the growth of those not lucky enough to be "chosen". Just as more clubs are now gradually establishing themselves as league clubs, those that don't deserve to there are becoming established in non league and over time their fan bases will start to reflect that.

If you want a completely fair system, for the sporting integrity you mention, then all clubs in the same league should have the same budget. No one complains that clubs with bigger fanbases and therefore much income spend more then those with smaller ones, the small clubs just get on with it and are generally better run.

No one has a right to success, you have to earn it. Part of earning it is being able to attract investment, which clubs like ourselves and Eastleigh have successfully managed to do.

 

[Jemfy]

Well that was nearly passed only a year ago, only one vote stopped it from being given the ok http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29919748

I remember reading somewhere that there gonna vote on it again soon....so it might be given the ok sooner then we think

Close isn't there! You can't assume it will go through sadly. Sounds like the PFA need to be brought around to the newer artificial surfaces. Surprised so many voted for it when the PFA was actively against it.

 

[eightiesrobin]

All of this is irrelevant.

No one has a right to success, you have to earn it. Part of earning it is being lucky enough to catch the eye of a bored multi-millionaire, which clubs like ourselves and Eastleigh have successfully managed to do.

Fixed that for you chief.

 

[Southern Shayman]

OK, be honest guys. How many of you would turn away someone like Dale Vince if he comes to your club?

If that someone is going to rip up the identity of my club as a marketing tool then I'd be 100% against it and pack his bags for him.

 

[Alty Pieman]

OK, be honest guys. How many of you would turn away someone like Dale Vince if he comes to your club?

Alty would, every time. It's rarely successful long term, nearly always ends in tears especially at non league level.

 

[Gibber_McGee]

If course it is sustainable. It took us quite a few years to turn around the mess we were left in by our last "sugar daddy", as evidenced by the figures at the beginning of this thread. It was described a few times as like trying to turn around an oil tanker as we had debts of £500k and were losing £800k a season. The only option was to reduce the amount of money were losing gradually season by season. However, Wrexham are now debt free and profitable, as I believe are Chester, another fan owned club.

It's not easy though. The supporters have had to put in around £800k over the years since the takeover, and also put in countless hours of unpaid work to get to this position.

 

[Monkey Tennis]

OK, be honest guys. How many of you would turn away someone like Dale Vince if he comes to your club?

We kind of had to say yes. Barrow were in the relegation zone of Conference North when ours (Paul Casson) came calling, with ever-increasing debts, crumbling stadium, no infrastructure, youth team, club staff etc. We would have been plummeting right now.
All the promises and plans sound decent, we're financially sound for now with debts paid off, and we're not spending silly money. Of course it could all change, but it's certainly better as a fan to see a team with designs on the play-offs than one that is punching well above its weight to just finish fifth from bottom, guaranteed a hammering against any half-decent side.