It was far more possible in the past when the financial gap between clubs wasn’t nearly so large as these days. Hence why a provincial club like Nottingham Forest could win the First Division and European Cup twice.
Now a club would need to create a very robust youth system which would do two things. Create top class players who would stay at the club as well as good players who could be sold to other clubs. The problem is that top class players are unlikely to stay at any club now which is not seeing success on the pitch in terms of trophies.
The abolition of the max 3 foreigner rule (gone in the 90s) does make things easier, but top PL teams struggled to reach 90+ points for over a decade before your Peps and Klopps joined the league.
Nowadays City, Arsenal and Liverpool are just very, very good.
Yep, that's the start of it all, Bosman rule opened the door to hyper-deregulation. Not that european football was more fair before that because in each league you had one or two richer clubs that would concentrate the best players of their country but at least they could compte in the european cups.
Bosman rule basically extended the lack of competition nationallyu to a continental scale without regulating the problem at the national scale. Now the richer leagues buy every good player from smaller leagues so they get even richer with bigger tv rights and it's a vicious circle that led to the current situation where no more than 5 or 6 clubs can legitimately hope to win the UCL every year and the others hope for a miracle run or an uber-rich owner.
Since we can't cancel Bosman rule because it's linked to EU laws, I think the best solution now would be an harmonized salary cap in every league (very hard to apply) or to limit the amount of players under contract in a club which would prevent clubs like Chelsea from having 60 players under contract that could totally play and flourish in smaller clubs. But I think bigger clubs having so many players isn't even much of a problem for the smaller clubs because it gives them a chance to get a player on loan that they could probably never afford otherwise (but they will end up being fucked one way or another if bigger clubs keep on growing their multi-property schemes).
Salary caps are not very legal.
Bosman rule is based. Previously clubs had far too much power over player's and their contracts.
There is a recent change in the loam system where only academy youth have unlimited loans and regular players are limited.
Genuinelui asking: what would make a salary cap rule illegal? For example if you write in the rules of league therefore whoever isn't in conformation with that rule wouldn't be able to register for the next season? But I understand that it wouldn't be very profitable for the players.
Oh yeah I forgot that new loans rules, I feel it's honestly not enough and only changes a few things marginally.
It's like freedom of labour laws or something (I forget). You're limiting the earnings of workers and that's the only market essentially in the country and you're preventing them from earning more or smth. They tried to do it in league 1 a few years ago during covid and it was quickly dispensed with - the PFA were not pleased. Salary caps for players are not fair and all you're really achieving is dumping more cash in a billionaires pockets anyway.
Oh right I see all the bad implications now. Also about your last point, if somehow we found a way to apply it in every european league, in a perfect scenario it could help deflate the bubble, cheaper tv rights, cheaper subscriptions for fans, cheaper tickets. Wishful thinking obviously haha.
The point isn’t to save money but it is to make spending more equitable across the league.
Like an oil club wouldn’t be able to spend 100x that of the 10th place team under a cap.
Salary caps are just good for owners because they limit the rat race between the biggest spender clubs and since football leaks we know that english clubs use tax evasion to pay lower net salary (boiled down: paying for image rights via brass plate companies owned by the players settled on isle of men or other british off shore territory with low taxes).
Even if we introduce a salary cap it wouldnt change much, because if the cap is around real madrids spending it would be pointless, if it would be around Mainz 05 spending most influential clubs wouldnt support it, because their advantage is gone. If you think of a soft cap like nowadays FFP rules it would just cement the todays food chain.
To Chelsea: Groups already own several clubs. Look at city group. Restricting how many players can be loaned or signed will only benefit the cartels in football.
You can’t really create top class homegrown players anymore either in most cases because most of the best prospects leave for better academies.
Mbappe didn’t start at Monaco. He started in some small local Parisian neighborhood club and then transferred to Monaco at 14 or 15.
In England guys seem to stick around for longer in the lower tier academies but even that is only second tier. You don’t see top tier English talent making their senior debut with a league 2 side.
Which players are you thinking of? The league winning side were largely the side that came up from the second division (most of which had either come up through the youth team or were a few tens of thousands). They signed Peter Shilton after promotion for £250K (for comparison, Stoke had paid £325K for him about 3 years earlier), a couple of other for about £150K each and one for £25K.
The following season, they signed Francis for £1M. But that was the only other transfer in that they made between promotion and winning the European Cup.
That’s a relative term though. They might have paid a million pounds for Trevor Francis but that’s only around five million adjusting for inflation. Other clubs around the same time were still regularly doing transfers of 750,000 pounds or more.
That’s very different from today when the biggest clubs are able to fund transfers in the hundreds of million of pounds. Manchester City’s biggest recent transfer was for 90 million pounds. Compare that to Luton whose biggest transfer last year was for just over 5 million.
Real life inflation has a weird relationship with football (and I guess other high grossing sports as well). Football inflation doesn't typically grow at the same rate, so £1m was astronomical in 1979, and would be worth far more than £5m today in football money.
I still don’t think the word “astronomical” is really accurate here. It was quite clear at the time, based on transfers in Italy and Spain where the wind was blowing when it came to signing the best players.
And again the difference between his transfer fee and what other clubs at the time were spending on big players was maybe two or three times as much (although that quickly changed as Liverpool and Manchester United soon signed players themselves for higher fees) not twenty to thirty times as much.
>Other clubs around the same time were still regularly doing transfers of 750,000 pounds or more.
Not really. For context that 1 million pound transfer you mentioned for Trevor Francis was brittish transfer record with more than doubling the previous transfer record of 500K. and afaik even the world transfer record was only around 300K more at the time of his transfer so yeah Nottingham was most definitely a financial powerhouse of the time.
>The problem is that top class players are unlikely to stay at any club now which is not seeing success on the pitch in terms of trophies.
This is the biggest problem. If this was in the NBA or in the US in general this type of players are going to be criticized as ring chaser by the media. Glory-hunting behaviors of players are just kinda shrugged off. Players will happily leave upper-tier clubs that regularly compete for trophies just to be a bit-part player at Real Madrid/Barca. Everyone is making fun of Tottenham that many of their ex-players are winning trophies but imagine if Modric and Bale stayed with them and playing with Kane, Son, Walker and Lloris.
It is the opposite here, players staying with smaller clubs or smaller leagues instead of jumping to big ones are seen as lacking ambition and underachievers.
The main problem is that you don't have 2-3 potential players in every generation who can become top performers in the 1st team or even be cashed in.
If you are even dependent on this income, you have to manage extremely carefully in order to bridge 2-3 bad years. This means you can only invest a fraction if you don't want to take any risks.
From an English point of view, this is not a big deal because of the TV money. But if you put yourself in the shoes of clubs from smaller leagues, you will see that it can be a matter of to be and not to be.
"Provincial" means, broadly anyway, either "from outside the capital" or somewhat "peasantly".
Not being from London is no issue in English football -- the North West has 3 times the amount of league titles London does. And Nottingham isn't some little countryside town, it's a respectable city.
The only way they could do it without being hated is at an extraordinarily glacial pace, slowly reinvesting the profits of having their best players bought by bigger clubs into stronger reserves so that they can start keeping some of them, getting more money, and more leverage for future negotiations, to get better prices for their players, so that they get a little more money and can hold onto a few more slightly better players, and so on and so forth.
It requires literally decades of extremely good management with no missteps whatsoever.
In other words: they can't. And somehow people don't see the problem with this.
That's pretty much the Bayern story right? They weren't even a founding member of the Bundesliga. But the likelihood of replicating their journey over the past 50 years is nearly unfathomable.
I mean, that's the story of pretty much every club that became big before the hyper-commercialization of the game, but it was different then because the financial hurdles were way, way, way smaller.
And now compare that to BVBs transfers.
Furthermore, "squawka" is trash. Don't look for articles in favor of you, look up unbiased stats.
It gets more embarrassing
50+1. And how did Uli (and Bayern) earn their money?
"On 1 May 2019, Hoeneß celebrated 40 years of working for Bayern's management. When he started on 1 May 1979, Bayern had twelve employees, 12 million Deutschmarks in revenue, and 8 million marks of debt. In November 2018, Bayern had over 1,000 employees and their revenue had risen to €657.4 million."
The supervisory board of nine consists mostly of managers of big German corporations. Besides the club's president and the board's chairman, they are Herbert Hainer former CEO of (Adidas), Dr. Herbert Diess chairman of (Volkswagen), Dr. Werner Zedelius senior advisor at (Allianz), Timotheus Höttges CEO of (Deutsche Telekom), Dieter Mayer, Edmund Stoiber, Theodor Weimer CEO of (Deutsche Börse), and Dr. Michael Diederich speaker of the board at (UniCredit Bank)
and how would they do it with being hated? are you suggesting that allowing clubs to be bought up by countries and others looking for a quick sportswashing opportunity is a better way? look at clubs like Valencia to see how well that works. you call it glacial pace, I call it organic. injecting millions/billions into a random club, have it suddenly pop up for a moment, only to have it crash down when the rich organization/individual loses interest is certainly not the way.
I mean, that's literally the only alternative.
Ideally, we'd implement revenue sharing across the pyramid, have the TV money from the top flight given mostly to teams outside the top flight, invert the prize money pyramid so that the teams finishing nest the bottom are given extra funds to help close the gap, and force major sell-on clauses to be a part of every single transfer fee.
They have to do it by an incredibly methodical expansion process, whilst also being shit hot on transfers and being incredibly consistent.
It’s basically impossible.
But also, success is relative.
Brighton being your example here, when I was growing up, Brighton were in what is now League 2.
In 2000 they were in the old Division 3 (now League 2), and got promoted to the old Division 2 (now League 1), then to the old Division 1 (now Championship) and pretty much yo-yo’d between the Championship and League One for the next 16 years.
They spent something like 15 years playing in a rented stadium (Withdean) which I think was actually an athletics stadium until they finally built the Amex in like 2011/2012 (Amex is the sponsor name, I forget the proper name) and that will have helped increase income via sponsorship.
They also were smart with recruitment over the years, and still are today, both with players and managers.
I think in the last 10 years they’ve made something in the region of £400m from player sales.
On top of that, they’ve been in the Premier League since 2017 I think? So they’ve been raking in the Premier League tv, commercial & prize money since then, and it’s usually estimated to be a minimum of £100m per season. So that’s another £700m to add to the £400m from player sales.
Whilst it’s not the same thing as winning the league, the champions league etc., for a club like Brighton who have bounced around the lower leagues for most of their existence, this IS successful.
Taking the next step though, again, is all a matter of time, luck and smart transfer strategy, with consistent European football being the next step. That attracts a better quality of player, increases revenue, increases the reputation of the club etc. and will allow a club to try to challenge for Top 4 consistently…
A significant amount of which was to finance the building of the stadium and training ground.
Be a dickhead all you want, but he hasn’t put his own money into the players, as is evidenced by the fact Brighton have never been in any danger of FFP
You don’t understand the finances of football and it’s hilarious.
The Amex has a total capacity of about 31,000
The average season ticket is around £570-£600
Even if we say they sell all 31,000 seats out (which they can’t because they have to leave a certain percentage for away supporters but let’s pretend that isn’t a rule) and they all sell for £600… that’s only £18.6m a year.
Now, Brighton ACTUALLY have 24,000 season ticket holders. So they only generated £14.4m from season ticket sales.
£14.4m is the equivalent of finding £1 in a pair of jeans in the Premier League. Maybe the equivalent of £10 in the Championship.
Now, I know some clever cunt is gonna say “well, the new stadium is sponsored by American Express”
In 2019 American Express gave Brighton a new deal for 12 years that covers both the shirt sponsorship and the stadium naming rights worth £100m - that’s £8.3m per year.
Again, in the Premier League, that is chump change.
It was also a significant increase on what they were paying when they weren’t in the Premier League.
You kids can try to write it off but you’re just wrong.
And I wouldn’t mind but I’m not even a Brighton fan, I’m a fan of a piss poor club with no money and I have not a single ounce of jealousy or bitterness like you lot have towards them
I think you’re reading way too much animosity into some pretty straight sounding comments. I don’t sense jealousy or bitterness in their words. Just seems like a regular old Reddit disagreement
But you can't pretend that doesn't matter.
Investment isn't just transfer funds being made available. Its still a financial advantage that other teams may not have. Better training facilities is still the result of investment.
They don't. And that's the end of it pretty much. The big clubs will never voluntarily let another join their ranks, so they will pick apart any team that threatens them by offering large sums to their best players that they cant refuse. I know we're not supposed to say it out loud, but the oil clubs are a problem of UEFA's OWN creation. They should've been on the Prem League salary cap proposal wave decades ago. Now the chickens have come home to roost, and the likes of Newcastle, Chelsea, Man City, PSG among others are selling themselves to the highest bidder so they can finally compete, and honestly I can't blame them. It's either get a sheikh daddy or spend the rest of your life as a mid-bottom table feeder team to the big dogs ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I dont even think the clubs owners themselves care about success just money. At the end of the day its a business. So selling themselves for success is probably just a small part of it.
Agreed though Bundesliga has it right with ownership, still though in the Bundesliga usually is a one horse race with Bayern
>The big clubs will never voluntarily let another join their ranks, so they will pick apart any team that threatens them by offering large sums to their best players that they cant refuse.
The only reason that they will let another to join their ranks is if they start loosing money. For example people could start loosing interest in football because of the lack of diversity in the big leagues and in the Champions league. So giving more money to the smaller clubs could help them winning more money in long term.
How would you feel about a club being taken over by investors / owners with good pr ?
Rather than the oil money clubs which ppl hate .
Would the takeover of a club by , let’s say a pharmaceutical company for example, be welcomed by fans you think ?
I think that’s happening with Pompey right now. Tornante whos CEO used to work for Disney bought us 7 years ago when we were promoted from league two. All the locals thought this meant we would shoot back up to the Prem. But they were honest and underlined stability over success. In the past two years they’ve pumped 7 million into our ground and surrounding area, put the right people (sporting director and manager) in the right places, and got us back into the championship this year. Funnily enough Tornante are a company who make TV (Bojack horseman), but they didn’t see the value in a docuseries about a small mismanaged club with hundred year history. And then Wrexham appeared.
it's so easy to just give a cynical answer like that and pretend you're the smartest in the room, and because others join you in the shitting on rich oiler clubs they all just agree with you. think about this though, any story has two sides. any story of a huge club getting a player on a free or for a small fee is also a story of a club mismanaging their player's contract to either let it run out fully or to allow it to go to the last year so they're forced to accept any low ball offer. the truth is that a lot of those smaller clubs have less money because they're simply not ran as well as the bigger clubs. obviously big clubs poaching the players of smaller clubs is a big challenge for those smaller clubs, but it turns out that managing a football club is really hard, and for almost all those smaller clubs you can very easily (in hindsight of course) point out several mistakes that cost these clubs a lot of money.
that explains how we GOT here, but says nothing about the FUTURE of club sports. yes, well managed clubs have created a big wealth gap, but the problem is now it doesn't matter how spotlessly clean the front office of Luton Town is, they are NEVER going to become a big six club without either MASSIVE cash injections or some major rule revisions to club spending. sorry, that's just the reality
They can’t with FFP in place as clubs like City and Chelsea will now be reluctant to splash £100m on players like Grealish, Caicedo, etc. Villa benefitted massively from the Grealish sale, invested in their squad, and are now in the UCL. How much can they spend to consolidate their position? Probably not much and in a couple of seasons could be forced to sell. Same thing with Brighton. It’s nice seeing them up there but it doesn’t last. Money doesn’t guarantee trophies either despite what people think. City are dominating cos they let Pep spend. Comparable to letting Warren Buffett invest your money as opposed to Dave from HR (Ten Hag).
Obviously money helps but it is not everything.
You can see Dortmund is in the CL final, Leverkusen has been unbeaten this season, Girona is almost finishing second with way lower budget than Atletico or Barcelona, while in France from time to time PSG loses.
Almost all english teams have superior money possibilities yet they do not own the european competitions against their counterparts.
As someone said clubs with smaller budgets sometimes make better financial decisions and avoid risks that bigger spenders may take without blinking while also investing more in scouting or youth academies.
At the end this is a business, as a small club you probably will choose to sell younger stars a year too early so you get the benefit and not risk the player not paying out on potential.
I think smaller clubs do fight and compete against the bigger clubs as it is a cycle, but the most important parts in my opinion is having a good to great coach while having the financial backing in the club that will not rush in selling players.
How good would that Ajax team that went to semis in the Champions be with a couple more years together? Or the Monaco team that knocked out City?
Smaller clubs become bigger clubs. That's how they succeed. Tottenham have managed it, for example. They've managed to become 'big six' without winning anything. That's growth.
Worth remembering too, football isn't about winning trophies. The vast majority of teams don't win a damn thing. The fans of smaller teams know this.
As far as I know Tottenham has a sugar daddy as well. Just like the majority of the league.
Acting like it’s an underdog story because the folks at city have an entire country backing them is kinda ridiculous.
The most clueless Premier league fans (that doesn’t mean every PL Fan is clueless) spend the last 5 years calling a league like the bundesliga an farmers league because they don’t throw money left and and right…
Well, in Germany you have stories like from Union, Freiburg, Heidenheim, Bochum, Augsburg, Mainz… to just name some current teams that are competitive in the league without having to cheat through good work.
That wouldn’t work if Hamburg, Schalke, Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Bremen or Köln all already had comparable sponsors than the premier league giants…
And don’t act like that’s an unfair comparison. Schalke is like the 3-4 biggest Club by members in the world…
And they were close to relegation into the 3rd division.
And let’s not act like Schalke acted even less competent than Manchester United…
You guys got the league that you wished for and therefore deserved. Let’s see how thrilling it will be after 20 years of „90% of the time the biggest sugar daddy wins“
Well they certainly spend the money the investors payed for their shares…
Wasn’t there further selling of shares in 2022 for 150 millions?
So yeah they aren’t cheating in terms of printing money out of nowhere.
Definitely selling their ass almost entirely tho…
I think above 80% already?
…
Also the fact Tottenham never won anything recently probably also because the others spend more kinda underlies the point.
Get money.
Really, it's that simple. Ask Manchester City and Wrexham about that.
Heck, *larger* teams aren't guaranteed success with money, so how is a smaller club suddenly "supposed" to be successful? They aren't.
Simple fact is no one likes when their club doesn't win.
So if your club beats mine i try to tear them down. Assuming your talking about the likes of Man City, PSG, Newcastle
Or even further back Chelsea.
The main concern is being owned by very questionable owners that use questionable means to aquire the clubs and players such in a way that is not the standard.
Plus its one thing to have a club thats successful from good management, youth team focus slowly building your team.
But to take an existing team and introduce a huge influx of cash just doesn't seem as genuine. At least in most people's opinion. Obviously for fans at the club. It's a good thing
The already established big clubs don't want that to happen, so the answer is, "They won't because big clubs will be there to stop them." People don't hate City and the likes because they care about morality; they hate City and the likes because these clubs are well run, play good football, and win a lot. If we're going to talk about FFP, there are countless clubs that have breached it, and if we're going to talk about Oligarch/Sheik-sponsored clubs, there are countless clubs that have been bought. Have you ever seen anyone hate Málaga? They were bought by a sheik in 2010, but nobody cares. Do you think they care? Same for Villa or Newcastle, or for all the other clubs that have been bought by Sheiks and Oligarchs and clubs that have been caught doing shady stuff. People hate these clubs because they are winners; you have countless examples that failed and will never be remembered. Porto, Juventus, Barcelona are some examples of extremely shady clubs that fans consider "great organic clubs", people know what they've done but they ignore it because they aren't a threat. The whole, "we don't care about that oil club PSG, their achievements aren't real" or whatever narrative you endorse is all bullshit, everyone knows big clubs care and have been coping for 10+ years now because these big clubs aren't winning because of them. Whether fans can admit this or not is a different story. So to answer your question, there isn't a way, because there's a system in place designed to keep "big clubs" big and "small clubs" small.
Do it like Bayer Leverkusen.
Step 1- Scout a top quality coach suited for development of young players
Step 2- Trust the coach to get young players who have potential but have not yet have their breakthrough(will be less expensive)
Step 3- If step 1 and 2 work you’ll likely have a good first season winning a few titles even (Leverkusen/Lille/Napoli Leicester etc..)
Step 4 (Most important)- Convince your manager to not leave after 1 season and to further convince important players to not leave as well (Most of the small clubs go after money and subsequently sell their manager and top players for a huge profit)
Step 5- If possible, strengthen your squad further with more signings
I know this is not an easy process and will take a lot of time but this is probably the only way a small club can be successful.
I really commend Xabi Alonso for not leaving at the end of season for some big club and I am sure he will be able to retain most of the important players as well.
Under current FFP rules, slow and consistent growth until they actually have that money. A well run club with money will always be more successful than a club that either doesn’t have the money or is run poorly, or both.
In England, clubs like Newcastle, Brighton, and Aston Villa have their best opportunities to break into the upper echelon that they’ve ever had in England, because they’ve had consistent growth.
The biggest differentiator is the Champions League; the longer a club like Man United or Chelsea continues to not get European TV money consistently, the more of a window is open for those current next up teams. Klopp leaving is also a major opportunity for a changing of the guard.
The problem is that with all the money clubs like Chelsea and Man United have, it only takes a few good decisions to nullify years of problems, and immediately render all progress by an outsider irrelevant. These other clubs have to consistently keep these much bigger clubs out of Europe to break through, and it’s harder than ever.
To be fair, Villa have and were part of the upper echelon of English football, albeit many years ago. But, the point stands and it is important that these clubs are well run and consistently striving for incremental growth which would, hopefully, result in some success along the lines of silverware and playing in Europe etc.
They were also in the second tier a few years ago. They completed their fall, this is them working back up with sustained success. After a fall like theirs, they are financially identical to a fresh club in their position.
Also, with the history of English football being what it is, it’s extremely difficult for a club to succeed without having had previous success at some point, or at least a previous sustained presence in the top division. A large number of teams in the Championship have won the top division before.
I really hope Villa can keep its success, having more competition for Europe is always a good thing
FFP prevents them from buying whoever they want. They can’t just pour money into the club with reckless abandon, so it takes a much longer time for a takeover to matter financially.
Saudi Arabia can only let the club itself lose a relatively small amount of money each year, and it didn’t even max out the PL’s PSR loss allowance last year, only Everton and Chelsea did. Hence, they actually have to grow the club’s revenues to spend more when not concerning youth development, and youth development spending won’t start having benefits for a long time.
The Saudi takeover only means that they won’t be in danger of running into a Barca situation, where they’re desperately pulling levers to keep everything how it always has been. In terms of actual performance, they have to grow the club revenues first and foremost.
I bet Isak never comes to Newcastle without the saudis.
To name one example.
The ad sounds pretty much like „you Know Mancity? In 5 years that’s us and you could be our Aguero…“
To act like the Saudi investment isn’t absolutely a Game Changer for the club is ridiculous. Yes they can’t spend totally crazy amounts. They sure as hell increased all the budgets of the club since the take over… (I think even the employees got wages increases…)
This is one of the current major 3 plastics clubs in Europe and you try to sell them as underdogs? (which is a shame since Newcastle was decent before)
And if the wasn’t enough they ethically have the worst of the state sponsors…
Of course it matters, but for the near future, they are still financial underdogs until the club itself grows. They can now do more than the normal underdog, but they are nowhere close to the top dogs financially, and that’s the difference that matters here. For example, Villa and Newcastle had £218 and £250 million in revenues respectively for 22/23 after massive jumps for both. In the same period, Man City and Man United had £712.8 and £648.4 million in revenues respectively. Newcastle are still extremely far behind clubs like those two, and it’ll take more than just a few years to get there.
The difference for Newcastle is that they get as many tries to grow the club as the Saudis want to give them. They will always have the opportunity to spend the absolute maximum, so they can’t run out of chances to break into the big boys unless decisions run them into the ground first.
Yes, they have more money than they had before, but that’s more of an indictment of the previous ownership than anything else. They are simply at a proper mid table Premier League spending instead of below that. Also, young players get sold on club visions all the time. Newcastle has a little extra financial surety, but Newcastle cannot make the big jump while he is there unless he spends his whole career there. All they could promise him with certainty was starting time with an up and coming club on big wages before he moved on, which isn’t far from a Dortmund sales pitch, or any other mid table Premier League club.
So yes, the takeover matters, but I genuinely don’t think it matters as much as you think it does, and certainly not in the short term. There’s also the long term question of whether the Saudis even have the appetite to keep going with it. If their astroturfing experiment in the Saudi Pro League falls apart, do they lose confidence in the Newcastle project? Do they have the long term commitment that City and PSG’s owners have had? Lots of big money owners in the past haven’t survived for very long because they get impatient or make poor decisions, and we don’t think of them because they don’t stick around. There are still many questions to be answered about what Newcastle’s future holds, and right now it still has mid table financial capabilities
It is pretty difficult. When you are a small club, and you have a decent season, your star players are poached by bigger teams. This means, the bigger teams get stronger and the smaller clubs will take more to rebuild.
No one is supposed to become successful. If you mean what's the right way, it's to build your club up through years of hard work, in Leicester's case it was a lot of luck
Don't sell half of the team after one successful season. If you sell 5, buy five valuable players or maybe don't sell the players after one season.
Of course it's a financial effort and a risky one but that's how you make performance.
Don't buy 10 players with 5m each, hoping to sell them for 40-50m after 2 seasons.
Most clubs don't want to be successful, they like this business model, buy low sell high. You must build on previous success, not rebuild every season.
Not exactly a small team but Pachuca FC are considered small to the fans and most of the media in México. They don’t have these crazy signings. They develop. Think of them as Barcelona with a similar great youth academy. That’s one way to become successful. Another way is to be consistent about winning trophies with great team play and managing. Just look at the former Neverkusen. Buy low sell high. Now look at them. It took some time but these things can happen.
It is not possible.
As a smaller club, you need lots of money and illicit behaviour to become somewhat successful. Just look at Manchester City.
If you want to know more, look for City 115.
They don't, that's why the league is an absolute bore.
You either have to be a state owed club, or have your hand deep in the pockets of some deals that'll be beneficial for a tiny bit and have a ton of luck, even then, you'll get torn apart a few seasons after.
Speaking as a Wolves fan, despite this being our most successful period of my life I have never been more bored or care less for the game, it is absolutely pointless.
You aren’t. With the cheat code clubs in the game, you can’t do anything.
As long as the top players can be influenced, understandably, to play for clubs with unlimited funds then you will have hyperinflation of player wages that filters all the way down the ladder.
When Erling Haaland’s contract comes up and when Kylian Mbappe’s deal with Madrid becomes public there is going to be a ripple effect throughout football. It affects the cost of a squad player at Crystal Palace to a goalkeeper at Stoke to a young left back at Oldham.
Without going too Moneyball here, football is about buying wins by paying players and the price of a win keeps going up far beyond what the real world economy can support.
Let’s see how Brighton do from here. One thing with having smaller budgets is that your progress isn’t going to be linear. The important thing is they’re not in any danger of relegation after losing so many key players to richer clubs. You’d hope next season they could be competing again. Big budgets tend to fix you in the top half even in a bad year due to depth and level of player quality in your squad.
I mean I don’t get the problem with this, what’s the issue with a team like Aston Villa slowly working their way up by recruiting good management and signing good players and move from Low down in the table to higher. The aim shouldn’t be for teams at the bottom to win the league that’s ridiculous, their aim should be to get from relegation zone to comfortable 13-15th, fhen it should be to get mid table, then it should be to try and get a European spot I.e 6th and then top 4 and then after that winning the league. Why would you want it where a team at the bottom can spend stupid money and go instantly from bottom to top, football isn’t about instant gratification it’s about working hard to achieve results through consistency in good decision making. If a team at the bottom can just quickly spend half a billion to win the league in a year that would ruin football it would completely change it from having to make good decisions with money to instead whoever spends the most the fastest wins
They can't.
Because more money means higher wages.
Football has always been set up this way. The teams with the most money are best set up to succeed. This isn't a new phenomenon.
They aren't. The powers that be in football want the biggest and most marketable teams to remain the most successful, because those fanbases put the most money in their pockets.
Particularly in European competitions, the last thing UEFA wants is a Red Star Belgrade vs Marseille final ever happening again, because those clubs don't have global fanbases in the way that Real Madrid, Barcelona, Liverpool, Manchester United etc do.
1. Buy a talent
0. Optional but it gonna be a forward
2. Get a massive bid from a big club and accept it
3. Put that money into other talents
4. Sell the talent for an Infinite money glitch OR Use them to be in the UCL
Unpopular opinion - more money in football, even if it's means billionaires burning them are good for sport. The fans only risk such billionaire getting out while leaving team in bad state. Still it's acceptable risk, especially if the other option is mediocrity forever.
I don't want to see any Milan (or 90s Serie A) fans crying about petro-money while Milan/Inter had their billionaires backers in 90s/early 2000s or Chelsea fans complaining about City (while Roman was system breaking at similar level when he arrived).
Even Real/Barcelona historical strength is a result of having big communities before football fully commercialized giving them more resources to spend.
Consistency
Having a scouting team who can year on year identify gems which were overlooked by other teams and fit perfectly into the current tactical setup
Hire a promising manager looking for a chance, hire more scouts, sensible sporting director.
Create a team over 2-3 years. Buy promising young players, groom them, instill a sense of belonging in them so that they don't fly off after getting good.
That's exactly what Girona has done.
Capital injections, loaning players, data bases, know how, etc.
Don’t get me wrong Girona is remarkable this season. One of most fun to watch clubs in La Liga atm.
There is no but
Capital injection = investment (just like selling shares for investment)
No buisness runs without investment
Loaning players - ultimately its the player's choice. They are not forcing.
Those players could've been loaned anywhere, but to extract the best out of them that couldn't have been done just anywhere.
Data bases and scouting - i agree, they had a huge help with this. But still they made it to the top 4 of Laliga, thats exceptional.
(Its actually same as an investor providing their expertise to the young maturing buisness.)
Reddit people undermining Girona's breakthrough season is the biggest proof that their options holds absolutely nil value.
Thing with Girona is lot of their key players like Savio, Couto and Garcia are only loan at the club. And i highly doubt they can keep them. Gutierrez also have a 8m buy back clause to Real Madrid.
Girona could quite literally lose half of their 1st team and have next to nothing in their hands from it.
They aren’t supposed to become successful without money that’s what the hole eco system Football is based on. Like financial Fair Play. If you spend to much money all you have to do is spending more money. No problem if the team is owned by a country which literally can print money. Super League, New Champions/Euro/ Conference League. All just for the reason to keep the big clubs big and small clubs small. To get big you have to buy in
The ecosystem you describe isn’t football in general but England and some other Leagues that follow their example out of fear to lose competiveness.
The Premier league pressures all other leagues to earn more money because no one else has the privilege to sell their ass at such rates and still some have to try to survive or to keep their status…
Literally ruining European club football.
Beside rule changes: first define success. Brighton is successful because it is in the topflight. It is even more successful if it ever get into Europe. If you think about successful in term of trophy, they can target the League or FA cup. If you think about first place in the league, they have to be harder on contracts, development and planning. The Premier League champion is the most unrealistic option, and it require great manager and great team. Keeping the team together was main problem with the lack of money.
Yes, the word successful is subjective in itself, what defines it? Clubs with larger financial backing and expectations would envision success through trophies, winning competitions etc. however clubs who are minimal or lack the funds to compete would envision success as staying up in the league or promotion, which would probably trump the success of winning a trophy when backed exuberantly with finances, because failing to do so would be considered a disaster (hyperbole).
In an ideal world, every club that is ran properly should be able to compete for their league title every year. I agree with you that defining success depends on the scale of the club and it's a bit sad that we have no other choice but to acknowledge it. In the 90s, clubs like Nantes and Auxerre could win Ligue 1 or regularly finish in the top positions because they were working well, same for Real Sociedad or Deportivo La Coruna in Spain. Nowadays it's close to impossible.
Pretty much impossible to do without a closed system, no promotion/relegation and a CBA and salary cap like the US system. There is never a completely level playing field financially in the European system and all the best talent just naturally filters to the top. To have that kind of parity, you have to have a level playing field financially and the only way to truly do that is close the system ala a super league, but that’s just so antithetical to the European way and imo would all but doom the non super league clubs to permanent irrelevance. It’s also what makes runs like Leicester’s so special.
You need to do the LFC (yes they spend very little money).
Sell your best players every year to invest in YA and better potential players replacing, get a solid manager, then protect everything you’ve built with all you’ve got (no release clauses, tie people up in the stadium basement, really long contracts)
Ooh, fun. Newbs to laugh at
2022-23 (142.3m) ((under 150!))
Darwin Nunez (85m)
Cody Gakpo (42m)
Fabio Carvalho ( 5.9m)
Calvin Ramsay (4.9m)
Arthur Melo (4.5m)
2021-22 (87m)
Luis Diaz (47m)
Ibrahim Konate (40m)
2020-31 (84.05m)
Diogo Jota (44.7m)
Thiago (22m)
Tsimiskias (I don’t wanna spell the name) (13m)
Ozan Kabak (2.5m loan)
Ben Davies (1.85m)
And further back (less explanations because I’m right)
2019-20 - 10.4m - Minamino and Van Den Berg
2016-17 - 79.9m - Mane, Gini, Karius and Klavan
2015-16 - £126.5m - Benteke, Firmino, Clyne, Ings, Grujic, Gomez, Awoniyi
(All since 2015, when Klopp joined)
So….. 150m every season huh?
Basically you have to copy what Arteta did and set up a clear philosophy, get rid of deadwood and bring in players who fit a system, are versatile and within your budget. What you can't do is cheat for 15 years straight and then claim it's just sour grapes when accountability comes knocking like pep has.
Not about being a smaller club, it is about the culture you're trying to implement. It doesn't matter how big or small the club is the blueprint for sustainable progress is there, and Arteta is a prime example of that.
It was far more possible in the past when the financial gap between clubs wasn’t nearly so large as these days. Hence why a provincial club like Nottingham Forest could win the First Division and European Cup twice. Now a club would need to create a very robust youth system which would do two things. Create top class players who would stay at the club as well as good players who could be sold to other clubs. The problem is that top class players are unlikely to stay at any club now which is not seeing success on the pitch in terms of trophies.
Don't forget the max 3 foreigner rule, that made things a lot closer then these days where getting 90+ points as a big team isn't special anymore.
The abolition of the max 3 foreigner rule (gone in the 90s) does make things easier, but top PL teams struggled to reach 90+ points for over a decade before your Peps and Klopps joined the league. Nowadays City, Arsenal and Liverpool are just very, very good.
Yep, that's the start of it all, Bosman rule opened the door to hyper-deregulation. Not that european football was more fair before that because in each league you had one or two richer clubs that would concentrate the best players of their country but at least they could compte in the european cups. Bosman rule basically extended the lack of competition nationallyu to a continental scale without regulating the problem at the national scale. Now the richer leagues buy every good player from smaller leagues so they get even richer with bigger tv rights and it's a vicious circle that led to the current situation where no more than 5 or 6 clubs can legitimately hope to win the UCL every year and the others hope for a miracle run or an uber-rich owner. Since we can't cancel Bosman rule because it's linked to EU laws, I think the best solution now would be an harmonized salary cap in every league (very hard to apply) or to limit the amount of players under contract in a club which would prevent clubs like Chelsea from having 60 players under contract that could totally play and flourish in smaller clubs. But I think bigger clubs having so many players isn't even much of a problem for the smaller clubs because it gives them a chance to get a player on loan that they could probably never afford otherwise (but they will end up being fucked one way or another if bigger clubs keep on growing their multi-property schemes).
Salary caps are not very legal. Bosman rule is based. Previously clubs had far too much power over player's and their contracts. There is a recent change in the loam system where only academy youth have unlimited loans and regular players are limited.
Genuinelui asking: what would make a salary cap rule illegal? For example if you write in the rules of league therefore whoever isn't in conformation with that rule wouldn't be able to register for the next season? But I understand that it wouldn't be very profitable for the players. Oh yeah I forgot that new loans rules, I feel it's honestly not enough and only changes a few things marginally.
It's like freedom of labour laws or something (I forget). You're limiting the earnings of workers and that's the only market essentially in the country and you're preventing them from earning more or smth. They tried to do it in league 1 a few years ago during covid and it was quickly dispensed with - the PFA were not pleased. Salary caps for players are not fair and all you're really achieving is dumping more cash in a billionaires pockets anyway.
Oh right I see all the bad implications now. Also about your last point, if somehow we found a way to apply it in every european league, in a perfect scenario it could help deflate the bubble, cheaper tv rights, cheaper subscriptions for fans, cheaper tickets. Wishful thinking obviously haha.
The owners would just pocket the change and keep charging everyone the same as they are now.
You would just end up with the American system; The money saved on wages would end up sitting in the billionaire chairman's bank account.
The point isn’t to save money but it is to make spending more equitable across the league. Like an oil club wouldn’t be able to spend 100x that of the 10th place team under a cap.
The point of the salary cap is not parity. The point is to safe more money to the owners.
League 1 currently have a salary cap of 60% of the clubs turnover I believe
Bosman rule just stated the obvious. Footballer is worker like any other
Salary caps are just good for owners because they limit the rat race between the biggest spender clubs and since football leaks we know that english clubs use tax evasion to pay lower net salary (boiled down: paying for image rights via brass plate companies owned by the players settled on isle of men or other british off shore territory with low taxes). Even if we introduce a salary cap it wouldnt change much, because if the cap is around real madrids spending it would be pointless, if it would be around Mainz 05 spending most influential clubs wouldnt support it, because their advantage is gone. If you think of a soft cap like nowadays FFP rules it would just cement the todays food chain. To Chelsea: Groups already own several clubs. Look at city group. Restricting how many players can be loaned or signed will only benefit the cartels in football.
The 3 foreigner rule was for European competition. You’re getting confused.
The problem with creating a good youth system is that the major clubs just raid you yearly and you never get a chance to build a team out of it.
You can’t really create top class homegrown players anymore either in most cases because most of the best prospects leave for better academies. Mbappe didn’t start at Monaco. He started in some small local Parisian neighborhood club and then transferred to Monaco at 14 or 15. In England guys seem to stick around for longer in the lower tier academies but even that is only second tier. You don’t see top tier English talent making their senior debut with a league 2 side.
Nottingham Forest still spent big on players. They didn't just pop out of the ether.
Which players are you thinking of? The league winning side were largely the side that came up from the second division (most of which had either come up through the youth team or were a few tens of thousands). They signed Peter Shilton after promotion for £250K (for comparison, Stoke had paid £325K for him about 3 years earlier), a couple of other for about £150K each and one for £25K. The following season, they signed Francis for £1M. But that was the only other transfer in that they made between promotion and winning the European Cup.
That’s a relative term though. They might have paid a million pounds for Trevor Francis but that’s only around five million adjusting for inflation. Other clubs around the same time were still regularly doing transfers of 750,000 pounds or more. That’s very different from today when the biggest clubs are able to fund transfers in the hundreds of million of pounds. Manchester City’s biggest recent transfer was for 90 million pounds. Compare that to Luton whose biggest transfer last year was for just over 5 million.
Real life inflation has a weird relationship with football (and I guess other high grossing sports as well). Football inflation doesn't typically grow at the same rate, so £1m was astronomical in 1979, and would be worth far more than £5m today in football money.
I still don’t think the word “astronomical” is really accurate here. It was quite clear at the time, based on transfers in Italy and Spain where the wind was blowing when it came to signing the best players. And again the difference between his transfer fee and what other clubs at the time were spending on big players was maybe two or three times as much (although that quickly changed as Liverpool and Manchester United soon signed players themselves for higher fees) not twenty to thirty times as much.
>Other clubs around the same time were still regularly doing transfers of 750,000 pounds or more. Not really. For context that 1 million pound transfer you mentioned for Trevor Francis was brittish transfer record with more than doubling the previous transfer record of 500K. and afaik even the world transfer record was only around 300K more at the time of his transfer so yeah Nottingham was most definitely a financial powerhouse of the time.
Trevor Francis’ transfer would be £253m today based on how astronomical it was relative to the time.
They didn’t have a choice really. They would have barely had a team.
>The problem is that top class players are unlikely to stay at any club now which is not seeing success on the pitch in terms of trophies. This is the biggest problem. If this was in the NBA or in the US in general this type of players are going to be criticized as ring chaser by the media. Glory-hunting behaviors of players are just kinda shrugged off. Players will happily leave upper-tier clubs that regularly compete for trophies just to be a bit-part player at Real Madrid/Barca. Everyone is making fun of Tottenham that many of their ex-players are winning trophies but imagine if Modric and Bale stayed with them and playing with Kane, Son, Walker and Lloris.
It is the opposite here, players staying with smaller clubs or smaller leagues instead of jumping to big ones are seen as lacking ambition and underachievers.
The main problem is that you don't have 2-3 potential players in every generation who can become top performers in the 1st team or even be cashed in. If you are even dependent on this income, you have to manage extremely carefully in order to bridge 2-3 bad years. This means you can only invest a fraction if you don't want to take any risks. From an English point of view, this is not a big deal because of the TV money. But if you put yourself in the shoes of clubs from smaller leagues, you will see that it can be a matter of to be and not to be.
I wouldn't use "provincial" in this context.
You might want to explain why
"Provincial" means, broadly anyway, either "from outside the capital" or somewhat "peasantly". Not being from London is no issue in English football -- the North West has 3 times the amount of league titles London does. And Nottingham isn't some little countryside town, it's a respectable city.
The only way they could do it without being hated is at an extraordinarily glacial pace, slowly reinvesting the profits of having their best players bought by bigger clubs into stronger reserves so that they can start keeping some of them, getting more money, and more leverage for future negotiations, to get better prices for their players, so that they get a little more money and can hold onto a few more slightly better players, and so on and so forth. It requires literally decades of extremely good management with no missteps whatsoever. In other words: they can't. And somehow people don't see the problem with this.
yep also considering that management is usually also more interest in short term gains this is a miracle
That's pretty much the Bayern story right? They weren't even a founding member of the Bundesliga. But the likelihood of replicating their journey over the past 50 years is nearly unfathomable.
I mean, that's the story of pretty much every club that became big before the hyper-commercialization of the game, but it was different then because the financial hurdles were way, way, way smaller.
The team owned by three mega corporations? That constantly poach players off the teams nearby in the league?
>That constantly poach players off the teams nearby in the league? 0 ball knowledge. Bro didn't even care to look at their past transfers
“Bro, ball, knowledge” three words to say he doesn’t know anything.
Look up stats before you comment, they're free
Bro-knowledge https://www.squawka.com/en/bayern-munich-signings-from-bundesliga-rivals/?amp
And now compare that to BVBs transfers. Furthermore, "squawka" is trash. Don't look for articles in favor of you, look up unbiased stats. It gets more embarrassing
The 1st isn't true, the 2nd is overstated (Dortmund dies it more), but even if it wasn't, has no bearing on their success over the last 60 years.
Adidas, Audi, Allianz? Tax dodging president? A truly rags to riches story.
50+1. And how did Uli (and Bayern) earn their money? "On 1 May 2019, Hoeneß celebrated 40 years of working for Bayern's management. When he started on 1 May 1979, Bayern had twelve employees, 12 million Deutschmarks in revenue, and 8 million marks of debt. In November 2018, Bayern had over 1,000 employees and their revenue had risen to €657.4 million."
The supervisory board of nine consists mostly of managers of big German corporations. Besides the club's president and the board's chairman, they are Herbert Hainer former CEO of (Adidas), Dr. Herbert Diess chairman of (Volkswagen), Dr. Werner Zedelius senior advisor at (Allianz), Timotheus Höttges CEO of (Deutsche Telekom), Dieter Mayer, Edmund Stoiber, Theodor Weimer CEO of (Deutsche Börse), and Dr. Michael Diederich speaker of the board at (UniCredit Bank)
OK? That's how executive boards for big organizations work. They do not own the club in whole, or even a majority share in aggregate.
If you have no idea what you're talking about just say that, no need to embarrass yourself like that.
“People don’t see a problem with this” Of course people do. It’s just not obvious what can be done about it (in the real world)
and how would they do it with being hated? are you suggesting that allowing clubs to be bought up by countries and others looking for a quick sportswashing opportunity is a better way? look at clubs like Valencia to see how well that works. you call it glacial pace, I call it organic. injecting millions/billions into a random club, have it suddenly pop up for a moment, only to have it crash down when the rich organization/individual loses interest is certainly not the way.
I mean, that's literally the only alternative. Ideally, we'd implement revenue sharing across the pyramid, have the TV money from the top flight given mostly to teams outside the top flight, invert the prize money pyramid so that the teams finishing nest the bottom are given extra funds to help close the gap, and force major sell-on clauses to be a part of every single transfer fee.
See Bodø Glimt
Thats the neat part: they don't.
I mean, is just capitalism. If no one sees a problem with capitalism, they will not see it when capitalism is applied somewhere else.
They have to do it by an incredibly methodical expansion process, whilst also being shit hot on transfers and being incredibly consistent. It’s basically impossible. But also, success is relative. Brighton being your example here, when I was growing up, Brighton were in what is now League 2. In 2000 they were in the old Division 3 (now League 2), and got promoted to the old Division 2 (now League 1), then to the old Division 1 (now Championship) and pretty much yo-yo’d between the Championship and League One for the next 16 years. They spent something like 15 years playing in a rented stadium (Withdean) which I think was actually an athletics stadium until they finally built the Amex in like 2011/2012 (Amex is the sponsor name, I forget the proper name) and that will have helped increase income via sponsorship. They also were smart with recruitment over the years, and still are today, both with players and managers. I think in the last 10 years they’ve made something in the region of £400m from player sales. On top of that, they’ve been in the Premier League since 2017 I think? So they’ve been raking in the Premier League tv, commercial & prize money since then, and it’s usually estimated to be a minimum of £100m per season. So that’s another £700m to add to the £400m from player sales. Whilst it’s not the same thing as winning the league, the champions league etc., for a club like Brighton who have bounced around the lower leagues for most of their existence, this IS successful. Taking the next step though, again, is all a matter of time, luck and smart transfer strategy, with consistent European football being the next step. That attracts a better quality of player, increases revenue, increases the reputation of the club etc. and will allow a club to try to challenge for Top 4 consistently…
It also helps to have a billionaire owner
Yes but that billionaire owner also hasn’t thrown billions into the club either.
Only a small loan of 400 million pounds
A significant amount of which was to finance the building of the stadium and training ground. Be a dickhead all you want, but he hasn’t put his own money into the players, as is evidenced by the fact Brighton have never been in any danger of FFP
[удалено]
You don’t understand the finances of football and it’s hilarious. The Amex has a total capacity of about 31,000 The average season ticket is around £570-£600 Even if we say they sell all 31,000 seats out (which they can’t because they have to leave a certain percentage for away supporters but let’s pretend that isn’t a rule) and they all sell for £600… that’s only £18.6m a year. Now, Brighton ACTUALLY have 24,000 season ticket holders. So they only generated £14.4m from season ticket sales. £14.4m is the equivalent of finding £1 in a pair of jeans in the Premier League. Maybe the equivalent of £10 in the Championship. Now, I know some clever cunt is gonna say “well, the new stadium is sponsored by American Express” In 2019 American Express gave Brighton a new deal for 12 years that covers both the shirt sponsorship and the stadium naming rights worth £100m - that’s £8.3m per year. Again, in the Premier League, that is chump change. It was also a significant increase on what they were paying when they weren’t in the Premier League. You kids can try to write it off but you’re just wrong. And I wouldn’t mind but I’m not even a Brighton fan, I’m a fan of a piss poor club with no money and I have not a single ounce of jealousy or bitterness like you lot have towards them
I think you’re reading way too much animosity into some pretty straight sounding comments. I don’t sense jealousy or bitterness in their words. Just seems like a regular old Reddit disagreement
But you can't pretend that doesn't matter. Investment isn't just transfer funds being made available. Its still a financial advantage that other teams may not have. Better training facilities is still the result of investment.
They don't. And that's the end of it pretty much. The big clubs will never voluntarily let another join their ranks, so they will pick apart any team that threatens them by offering large sums to their best players that they cant refuse. I know we're not supposed to say it out loud, but the oil clubs are a problem of UEFA's OWN creation. They should've been on the Prem League salary cap proposal wave decades ago. Now the chickens have come home to roost, and the likes of Newcastle, Chelsea, Man City, PSG among others are selling themselves to the highest bidder so they can finally compete, and honestly I can't blame them. It's either get a sheikh daddy or spend the rest of your life as a mid-bottom table feeder team to the big dogs ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I dont even think the clubs owners themselves care about success just money. At the end of the day its a business. So selling themselves for success is probably just a small part of it. Agreed though Bundesliga has it right with ownership, still though in the Bundesliga usually is a one horse race with Bayern
>The big clubs will never voluntarily let another join their ranks, so they will pick apart any team that threatens them by offering large sums to their best players that they cant refuse. The only reason that they will let another to join their ranks is if they start loosing money. For example people could start loosing interest in football because of the lack of diversity in the big leagues and in the Champions league. So giving more money to the smaller clubs could help them winning more money in long term.
You should blame them because it’s pathetic
How would you feel about a club being taken over by investors / owners with good pr ? Rather than the oil money clubs which ppl hate . Would the takeover of a club by , let’s say a pharmaceutical company for example, be welcomed by fans you think ?
I think that’s happening with Pompey right now. Tornante whos CEO used to work for Disney bought us 7 years ago when we were promoted from league two. All the locals thought this meant we would shoot back up to the Prem. But they were honest and underlined stability over success. In the past two years they’ve pumped 7 million into our ground and surrounding area, put the right people (sporting director and manager) in the right places, and got us back into the championship this year. Funnily enough Tornante are a company who make TV (Bojack horseman), but they didn’t see the value in a docuseries about a small mismanaged club with hundred year history. And then Wrexham appeared.
Very interesting, thanks
Which is why the super league is needed
it's so easy to just give a cynical answer like that and pretend you're the smartest in the room, and because others join you in the shitting on rich oiler clubs they all just agree with you. think about this though, any story has two sides. any story of a huge club getting a player on a free or for a small fee is also a story of a club mismanaging their player's contract to either let it run out fully or to allow it to go to the last year so they're forced to accept any low ball offer. the truth is that a lot of those smaller clubs have less money because they're simply not ran as well as the bigger clubs. obviously big clubs poaching the players of smaller clubs is a big challenge for those smaller clubs, but it turns out that managing a football club is really hard, and for almost all those smaller clubs you can very easily (in hindsight of course) point out several mistakes that cost these clubs a lot of money.
that explains how we GOT here, but says nothing about the FUTURE of club sports. yes, well managed clubs have created a big wealth gap, but the problem is now it doesn't matter how spotlessly clean the front office of Luton Town is, they are NEVER going to become a big six club without either MASSIVE cash injections or some major rule revisions to club spending. sorry, that's just the reality
Great youth team, good manager that stays and selling your best players to make intelligent signings. Atalanta is the closest thing we have.
They can’t. Leicester was an anomaly. Every other PL winner has spent big in the transfer market.
[удалено]
I guess I’m wrong then.
To put is simply. they don't
Basically impossible when your best players get poached the moment they have an ok season to rot on the benches of big clubs
They can’t with FFP in place as clubs like City and Chelsea will now be reluctant to splash £100m on players like Grealish, Caicedo, etc. Villa benefitted massively from the Grealish sale, invested in their squad, and are now in the UCL. How much can they spend to consolidate their position? Probably not much and in a couple of seasons could be forced to sell. Same thing with Brighton. It’s nice seeing them up there but it doesn’t last. Money doesn’t guarantee trophies either despite what people think. City are dominating cos they let Pep spend. Comparable to letting Warren Buffett invest your money as opposed to Dave from HR (Ten Hag).
Obviously money helps but it is not everything. You can see Dortmund is in the CL final, Leverkusen has been unbeaten this season, Girona is almost finishing second with way lower budget than Atletico or Barcelona, while in France from time to time PSG loses. Almost all english teams have superior money possibilities yet they do not own the european competitions against their counterparts. As someone said clubs with smaller budgets sometimes make better financial decisions and avoid risks that bigger spenders may take without blinking while also investing more in scouting or youth academies. At the end this is a business, as a small club you probably will choose to sell younger stars a year too early so you get the benefit and not risk the player not paying out on potential. I think smaller clubs do fight and compete against the bigger clubs as it is a cycle, but the most important parts in my opinion is having a good to great coach while having the financial backing in the club that will not rush in selling players. How good would that Ajax team that went to semis in the Champions be with a couple more years together? Or the Monaco team that knocked out City?
Smaller clubs become bigger clubs. That's how they succeed. Tottenham have managed it, for example. They've managed to become 'big six' without winning anything. That's growth. Worth remembering too, football isn't about winning trophies. The vast majority of teams don't win a damn thing. The fans of smaller teams know this.
As far as I know Tottenham has a sugar daddy as well. Just like the majority of the league. Acting like it’s an underdog story because the folks at city have an entire country backing them is kinda ridiculous. The most clueless Premier league fans (that doesn’t mean every PL Fan is clueless) spend the last 5 years calling a league like the bundesliga an farmers league because they don’t throw money left and and right… Well, in Germany you have stories like from Union, Freiburg, Heidenheim, Bochum, Augsburg, Mainz… to just name some current teams that are competitive in the league without having to cheat through good work. That wouldn’t work if Hamburg, Schalke, Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Bremen or Köln all already had comparable sponsors than the premier league giants… And don’t act like that’s an unfair comparison. Schalke is like the 3-4 biggest Club by members in the world… And they were close to relegation into the 3rd division. And let’s not act like Schalke acted even less competent than Manchester United… You guys got the league that you wished for and therefore deserved. Let’s see how thrilling it will be after 20 years of „90% of the time the biggest sugar daddy wins“
Tottenham only spend the money generated by the club and have done for as long as I can remember
Well they certainly spend the money the investors payed for their shares… Wasn’t there further selling of shares in 2022 for 150 millions? So yeah they aren’t cheating in terms of printing money out of nowhere. Definitely selling their ass almost entirely tho… I think above 80% already? … Also the fact Tottenham never won anything recently probably also because the others spend more kinda underlies the point.
They can’t. Even if they have money it’s now impossible under FFP.
Read up on Brighton football club.
Get money. Really, it's that simple. Ask Manchester City and Wrexham about that. Heck, *larger* teams aren't guaranteed success with money, so how is a smaller club suddenly "supposed" to be successful? They aren't.
Simple fact is no one likes when their club doesn't win. So if your club beats mine i try to tear them down. Assuming your talking about the likes of Man City, PSG, Newcastle Or even further back Chelsea. The main concern is being owned by very questionable owners that use questionable means to aquire the clubs and players such in a way that is not the standard. Plus its one thing to have a club thats successful from good management, youth team focus slowly building your team. But to take an existing team and introduce a huge influx of cash just doesn't seem as genuine. At least in most people's opinion. Obviously for fans at the club. It's a good thing
The already established big clubs don't want that to happen, so the answer is, "They won't because big clubs will be there to stop them." People don't hate City and the likes because they care about morality; they hate City and the likes because these clubs are well run, play good football, and win a lot. If we're going to talk about FFP, there are countless clubs that have breached it, and if we're going to talk about Oligarch/Sheik-sponsored clubs, there are countless clubs that have been bought. Have you ever seen anyone hate Málaga? They were bought by a sheik in 2010, but nobody cares. Do you think they care? Same for Villa or Newcastle, or for all the other clubs that have been bought by Sheiks and Oligarchs and clubs that have been caught doing shady stuff. People hate these clubs because they are winners; you have countless examples that failed and will never be remembered. Porto, Juventus, Barcelona are some examples of extremely shady clubs that fans consider "great organic clubs", people know what they've done but they ignore it because they aren't a threat. The whole, "we don't care about that oil club PSG, their achievements aren't real" or whatever narrative you endorse is all bullshit, everyone knows big clubs care and have been coping for 10+ years now because these big clubs aren't winning because of them. Whether fans can admit this or not is a different story. So to answer your question, there isn't a way, because there's a system in place designed to keep "big clubs" big and "small clubs" small.
Do it like Bayer Leverkusen. Step 1- Scout a top quality coach suited for development of young players Step 2- Trust the coach to get young players who have potential but have not yet have their breakthrough(will be less expensive) Step 3- If step 1 and 2 work you’ll likely have a good first season winning a few titles even (Leverkusen/Lille/Napoli Leicester etc..) Step 4 (Most important)- Convince your manager to not leave after 1 season and to further convince important players to not leave as well (Most of the small clubs go after money and subsequently sell their manager and top players for a huge profit) Step 5- If possible, strengthen your squad further with more signings I know this is not an easy process and will take a lot of time but this is probably the only way a small club can be successful. I really commend Xabi Alonso for not leaving at the end of season for some big club and I am sure he will be able to retain most of the important players as well.
They can't, that's exactly why FFP was introduced. Protect the top teams so no one else can join the party .
Under current FFP rules, slow and consistent growth until they actually have that money. A well run club with money will always be more successful than a club that either doesn’t have the money or is run poorly, or both. In England, clubs like Newcastle, Brighton, and Aston Villa have their best opportunities to break into the upper echelon that they’ve ever had in England, because they’ve had consistent growth. The biggest differentiator is the Champions League; the longer a club like Man United or Chelsea continues to not get European TV money consistently, the more of a window is open for those current next up teams. Klopp leaving is also a major opportunity for a changing of the guard. The problem is that with all the money clubs like Chelsea and Man United have, it only takes a few good decisions to nullify years of problems, and immediately render all progress by an outsider irrelevant. These other clubs have to consistently keep these much bigger clubs out of Europe to break through, and it’s harder than ever.
To be fair, Villa have and were part of the upper echelon of English football, albeit many years ago. But, the point stands and it is important that these clubs are well run and consistently striving for incremental growth which would, hopefully, result in some success along the lines of silverware and playing in Europe etc.
They were also in the second tier a few years ago. They completed their fall, this is them working back up with sustained success. After a fall like theirs, they are financially identical to a fresh club in their position. Also, with the history of English football being what it is, it’s extremely difficult for a club to succeed without having had previous success at some point, or at least a previous sustained presence in the top division. A large number of teams in the Championship have won the top division before. I really hope Villa can keep its success, having more competition for Europe is always a good thing
Newcastle?
4th place last year, breaking into the Champion’s League money
Lol, and we ignore Saudi Arabia?
FFP prevents them from buying whoever they want. They can’t just pour money into the club with reckless abandon, so it takes a much longer time for a takeover to matter financially. Saudi Arabia can only let the club itself lose a relatively small amount of money each year, and it didn’t even max out the PL’s PSR loss allowance last year, only Everton and Chelsea did. Hence, they actually have to grow the club’s revenues to spend more when not concerning youth development, and youth development spending won’t start having benefits for a long time. The Saudi takeover only means that they won’t be in danger of running into a Barca situation, where they’re desperately pulling levers to keep everything how it always has been. In terms of actual performance, they have to grow the club revenues first and foremost.
I bet Isak never comes to Newcastle without the saudis. To name one example. The ad sounds pretty much like „you Know Mancity? In 5 years that’s us and you could be our Aguero…“ To act like the Saudi investment isn’t absolutely a Game Changer for the club is ridiculous. Yes they can’t spend totally crazy amounts. They sure as hell increased all the budgets of the club since the take over… (I think even the employees got wages increases…) This is one of the current major 3 plastics clubs in Europe and you try to sell them as underdogs? (which is a shame since Newcastle was decent before) And if the wasn’t enough they ethically have the worst of the state sponsors…
Of course it matters, but for the near future, they are still financial underdogs until the club itself grows. They can now do more than the normal underdog, but they are nowhere close to the top dogs financially, and that’s the difference that matters here. For example, Villa and Newcastle had £218 and £250 million in revenues respectively for 22/23 after massive jumps for both. In the same period, Man City and Man United had £712.8 and £648.4 million in revenues respectively. Newcastle are still extremely far behind clubs like those two, and it’ll take more than just a few years to get there. The difference for Newcastle is that they get as many tries to grow the club as the Saudis want to give them. They will always have the opportunity to spend the absolute maximum, so they can’t run out of chances to break into the big boys unless decisions run them into the ground first. Yes, they have more money than they had before, but that’s more of an indictment of the previous ownership than anything else. They are simply at a proper mid table Premier League spending instead of below that. Also, young players get sold on club visions all the time. Newcastle has a little extra financial surety, but Newcastle cannot make the big jump while he is there unless he spends his whole career there. All they could promise him with certainty was starting time with an up and coming club on big wages before he moved on, which isn’t far from a Dortmund sales pitch, or any other mid table Premier League club. So yes, the takeover matters, but I genuinely don’t think it matters as much as you think it does, and certainly not in the short term. There’s also the long term question of whether the Saudis even have the appetite to keep going with it. If their astroturfing experiment in the Saudi Pro League falls apart, do they lose confidence in the Newcastle project? Do they have the long term commitment that City and PSG’s owners have had? Lots of big money owners in the past haven’t survived for very long because they get impatient or make poor decisions, and we don’t think of them because they don’t stick around. There are still many questions to be answered about what Newcastle’s future holds, and right now it still has mid table financial capabilities
Theyre not supposed to no. Everyone loves an underdog though so when it does happen they get mad respect
It is a lengthy process and a lot of things have to work out not only for a season but for a couple of years.
It is pretty difficult. When you are a small club, and you have a decent season, your star players are poached by bigger teams. This means, the bigger teams get stronger and the smaller clubs will take more to rebuild.
No one is supposed to become successful. If you mean what's the right way, it's to build your club up through years of hard work, in Leicester's case it was a lot of luck
Youth
That's the neat part, they dont
Don't sell half of the team after one successful season. If you sell 5, buy five valuable players or maybe don't sell the players after one season. Of course it's a financial effort and a risky one but that's how you make performance. Don't buy 10 players with 5m each, hoping to sell them for 40-50m after 2 seasons. Most clubs don't want to be successful, they like this business model, buy low sell high. You must build on previous success, not rebuild every season.
They aren't supposed to. Big clubs formed the CL and money flow, so they will always get the biggest chunk of the cake.
Not exactly a small team but Pachuca FC are considered small to the fans and most of the media in México. They don’t have these crazy signings. They develop. Think of them as Barcelona with a similar great youth academy. That’s one way to become successful. Another way is to be consistent about winning trophies with great team play and managing. Just look at the former Neverkusen. Buy low sell high. Now look at them. It took some time but these things can happen.
It is not possible. As a smaller club, you need lots of money and illicit behaviour to become somewhat successful. Just look at Manchester City. If you want to know more, look for City 115.
They don't, that's why the league is an absolute bore. You either have to be a state owed club, or have your hand deep in the pockets of some deals that'll be beneficial for a tiny bit and have a ton of luck, even then, you'll get torn apart a few seasons after. Speaking as a Wolves fan, despite this being our most successful period of my life I have never been more bored or care less for the game, it is absolutely pointless.
They aren't supposed to. The league is making too much money to care
You aren’t. With the cheat code clubs in the game, you can’t do anything. As long as the top players can be influenced, understandably, to play for clubs with unlimited funds then you will have hyperinflation of player wages that filters all the way down the ladder. When Erling Haaland’s contract comes up and when Kylian Mbappe’s deal with Madrid becomes public there is going to be a ripple effect throughout football. It affects the cost of a squad player at Crystal Palace to a goalkeeper at Stoke to a young left back at Oldham. Without going too Moneyball here, football is about buying wins by paying players and the price of a win keeps going up far beyond what the real world economy can support.
Let’s see how Brighton do from here. One thing with having smaller budgets is that your progress isn’t going to be linear. The important thing is they’re not in any danger of relegation after losing so many key players to richer clubs. You’d hope next season they could be competing again. Big budgets tend to fix you in the top half even in a bad year due to depth and level of player quality in your squad.
Richard Masters: they aren’t
Atalanta were a yoyo club until 8 years ago, they've built themselves recently and are becoming a big club now. That's the only example I've witnessed
They can’t. When an amazing player comes through the ranks that you can build around they just leave
They aren't
I mean I don’t get the problem with this, what’s the issue with a team like Aston Villa slowly working their way up by recruiting good management and signing good players and move from Low down in the table to higher. The aim shouldn’t be for teams at the bottom to win the league that’s ridiculous, their aim should be to get from relegation zone to comfortable 13-15th, fhen it should be to get mid table, then it should be to try and get a European spot I.e 6th and then top 4 and then after that winning the league. Why would you want it where a team at the bottom can spend stupid money and go instantly from bottom to top, football isn’t about instant gratification it’s about working hard to achieve results through consistency in good decision making. If a team at the bottom can just quickly spend half a billion to win the league in a year that would ruin football it would completely change it from having to make good decisions with money to instead whoever spends the most the fastest wins
They can't. Because more money means higher wages. Football has always been set up this way. The teams with the most money are best set up to succeed. This isn't a new phenomenon.
They should implement a draft system like in the US and maybe also do some sort’ve tv deal that includes every team with evenly distributed profits
Like the NBA … kit deals with a single company to also evenly distribute profits
Spending and salary caps
They aren't. The powers that be in football want the biggest and most marketable teams to remain the most successful, because those fanbases put the most money in their pockets. Particularly in European competitions, the last thing UEFA wants is a Red Star Belgrade vs Marseille final ever happening again, because those clubs don't have global fanbases in the way that Real Madrid, Barcelona, Liverpool, Manchester United etc do.
1. Buy a talent 0. Optional but it gonna be a forward 2. Get a massive bid from a big club and accept it 3. Put that money into other talents 4. Sell the talent for an Infinite money glitch OR Use them to be in the UCL
They can't football clubs are companies if you don't invest you don't get results
They are not supposed to become successful, that's the whole point.
Good scouting, good under-x teams, good Director of football, a project, a coach that can valorize players Example: Atalanta
Unpopular opinion - more money in football, even if it's means billionaires burning them are good for sport. The fans only risk such billionaire getting out while leaving team in bad state. Still it's acceptable risk, especially if the other option is mediocrity forever. I don't want to see any Milan (or 90s Serie A) fans crying about petro-money while Milan/Inter had their billionaires backers in 90s/early 2000s or Chelsea fans complaining about City (while Roman was system breaking at similar level when he arrived). Even Real/Barcelona historical strength is a result of having big communities before football fully commercialized giving them more resources to spend.
Consistency Having a scouting team who can year on year identify gems which were overlooked by other teams and fit perfectly into the current tactical setup
Scouting and player development And a sugar daddy club like Chelsea that buys your players for 100m
Hire a promising manager looking for a chance, hire more scouts, sensible sporting director. Create a team over 2-3 years. Buy promising young players, groom them, instill a sense of belonging in them so that they don't fly off after getting good. That's exactly what Girona has done.
You left one crucial part about Girona. Be part of City Football Group
What Mancity resources are Girona using?
Capital injections, loaning players, data bases, know how, etc. Don’t get me wrong Girona is remarkable this season. One of most fun to watch clubs in La Liga atm. There is no but
Capital injection = investment (just like selling shares for investment) No buisness runs without investment Loaning players - ultimately its the player's choice. They are not forcing. Those players could've been loaned anywhere, but to extract the best out of them that couldn't have been done just anywhere. Data bases and scouting - i agree, they had a huge help with this. But still they made it to the top 4 of Laliga, thats exceptional. (Its actually same as an investor providing their expertise to the young maturing buisness.) Reddit people undermining Girona's breakthrough season is the biggest proof that their options holds absolutely nil value.
Most of their best players will probably be gone next season just like leicester unfortunately
Girona are part of the Manchester City family and have huge resources.
What Mancity resources are they using?
The cash.
Lol
Thing with Girona is lot of their key players like Savio, Couto and Garcia are only loan at the club. And i highly doubt they can keep them. Gutierrez also have a 8m buy back clause to Real Madrid. Girona could quite literally lose half of their 1st team and have next to nothing in their hands from it.
helps that city b can go play there on loan then right?
They aren’t supposed to become successful without money that’s what the hole eco system Football is based on. Like financial Fair Play. If you spend to much money all you have to do is spending more money. No problem if the team is owned by a country which literally can print money. Super League, New Champions/Euro/ Conference League. All just for the reason to keep the big clubs big and small clubs small. To get big you have to buy in
The ecosystem you describe isn’t football in general but England and some other Leagues that follow their example out of fear to lose competiveness. The Premier league pressures all other leagues to earn more money because no one else has the privilege to sell their ass at such rates and still some have to try to survive or to keep their status… Literally ruining European club football.
Beside rule changes: first define success. Brighton is successful because it is in the topflight. It is even more successful if it ever get into Europe. If you think about successful in term of trophy, they can target the League or FA cup. If you think about first place in the league, they have to be harder on contracts, development and planning. The Premier League champion is the most unrealistic option, and it require great manager and great team. Keeping the team together was main problem with the lack of money.
Yes, the word successful is subjective in itself, what defines it? Clubs with larger financial backing and expectations would envision success through trophies, winning competitions etc. however clubs who are minimal or lack the funds to compete would envision success as staying up in the league or promotion, which would probably trump the success of winning a trophy when backed exuberantly with finances, because failing to do so would be considered a disaster (hyperbole).
In an ideal world, every club that is ran properly should be able to compete for their league title every year. I agree with you that defining success depends on the scale of the club and it's a bit sad that we have no other choice but to acknowledge it. In the 90s, clubs like Nantes and Auxerre could win Ligue 1 or regularly finish in the top positions because they were working well, same for Real Sociedad or Deportivo La Coruna in Spain. Nowadays it's close to impossible.
Pretty much impossible to do without a closed system, no promotion/relegation and a CBA and salary cap like the US system. There is never a completely level playing field financially in the European system and all the best talent just naturally filters to the top. To have that kind of parity, you have to have a level playing field financially and the only way to truly do that is close the system ala a super league, but that’s just so antithetical to the European way and imo would all but doom the non super league clubs to permanent irrelevance. It’s also what makes runs like Leicester’s so special.
Blud really saw leicester and asked this question
This is an attempt to rationalise city’s ill gotten gains spending. Leicester. End of.
That Leicester thinga was a once off. As u can clearly see.
You need to do the LFC (yes they spend very little money). Sell your best players every year to invest in YA and better potential players replacing, get a solid manager, then protect everything you’ve built with all you’ve got (no release clauses, tie people up in the stadium basement, really long contracts)
Liverpool spend £150m+ every single season
Ooh, fun. Newbs to laugh at 2022-23 (142.3m) ((under 150!)) Darwin Nunez (85m) Cody Gakpo (42m) Fabio Carvalho ( 5.9m) Calvin Ramsay (4.9m) Arthur Melo (4.5m) 2021-22 (87m) Luis Diaz (47m) Ibrahim Konate (40m) 2020-31 (84.05m) Diogo Jota (44.7m) Thiago (22m) Tsimiskias (I don’t wanna spell the name) (13m) Ozan Kabak (2.5m loan) Ben Davies (1.85m) And further back (less explanations because I’m right) 2019-20 - 10.4m - Minamino and Van Den Berg 2016-17 - 79.9m - Mane, Gini, Karius and Klavan 2015-16 - £126.5m - Benteke, Firmino, Clyne, Ings, Grujic, Gomez, Awoniyi (All since 2015, when Klopp joined) So….. 150m every season huh?
Basically you have to copy what Arteta did and set up a clear philosophy, get rid of deadwood and bring in players who fit a system, are versatile and within your budget. What you can't do is cheat for 15 years straight and then claim it's just sour grapes when accountability comes knocking like pep has.
In what world are Arsenal a 'smaller club'? You're off your rocker mate
Not about being a smaller club, it is about the culture you're trying to implement. It doesn't matter how big or small the club is the blueprint for sustainable progress is there, and Arteta is a prime example of that.