It's all about the Money, Money, Money

[craig 5,199]

I don't altogether buy this one because there are plenty of skint clubs in the EPL. Sky do spend a lot of money on TV rights but it's not the vast amounts people think.

 

If it was, all clubs in England would be much more even. Because all would be getting the equal piece of this very rich pie. The outrageous sums being spent are by City, UTD, Liverpool, and Chelsea. Even Spurs haven't spent that much, ditto Arsenal. Those 4 main clubs have a lot of money swimming around for players. It comes from sources other than TV revenue.

 

That isnt true Danny. You are suggesting that the English clubs would all be getting "equal piece of the very rich pie". Everyone knows, or should know, that the broadcasting rights are havily weighted 1) in favour of the Epl and 2) in favour of the more glamorous clubs. I mean, the OF get more money than anyone else in Scotland on our measly broadcasting deal. Do you honestly think that Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City, Liverpool et all would simply say "sure, no problem, give Norwich as much as we get from that broadcasting deal". Not a chance of it.

 

Danny, the last Sky deal with england was, I believe, a 5 yr deal at 1.7 BILLION. That is an exorbitant amounf of money, especially when loaded to the bigger, more glamorous teams.

 

The money those clubs are spending (Utd, Pool, City, Chelsea) is coming from other means in the case of the latter 2 because of rich benefactors - however, Abramovich has cut the cloth recently and told Chelsea they need to operate within their means. Pool have money, but not as much as you would think, from other sources. Utd are oozing debt and the Glazer's have it all on the Man U balance sheet. Dont be fooled into thinking that the TV money doesnt make a massive difference to these clubs. Relegated teams get parachute payments of 30 million - so you can be sure that the TV monies are in excess of that. I cant remember which team it was but it was a middle-of-the-road EPL team.... who had TV revenues in excess of the annual revenues of RFC - this was before they counted ST's, ticket sales, match day sales, merchandising etc etc.

 

Much of the reason the teams you mention are skint is because they have tried to spend to stay in the EPL, because that is where the riches are. Newcastle for example, Sunderland too.

 

Spurs cant spend that much as they spent a fortune in the last 3 transfer windows. They "front-loaded" when Harry came back and, to be fair, they dont need to spend as they have a sizeable squad. But the reason they havent spent recently is down to previous spending, not that they cant. Arsenal are a completely different scenario too.... there is cash to spend there but Wenger is stubborn and head-strong. He doesnt want to break the bank. There is also a very subtle difference between Arsenal and Utd, City, Pool and Chelsea in that Arsenal are publicly traded with a reasonably significant number of regular shareholders (vs the other 3 where you have very predominant shareholders owning 75%+ of the club). This means that Arsenal are operating more like a business, they also have a brand new stadium to fund. In all honesty, from what I can tell, there is certainly money there for Arsenal to spend but they want to be able to operate within their means whilst servicing the debt for the stadium and build long term stability. That doesnt mean there isnt money available (there is....) but that they want to use it wisely. As a Gooner, I am disappointed Wenger isnt spending to strengthen, but I also see the philosophy of not putting the club in danger.

 

Government/council - the point is authorities stepped in to help them. This would happen for no other club and it spawned this mentality of vile sums of money in the modern game.

 

Dont disagree, was just correcting, as I say, a pedantic error in your previous post. Could you imagine the Glasgow CC doing the same for either half of the OF ?? Wonder how Atletico feel about that arrangement ?

 

Completely unrelated but it's interesting to see both halves of the OF have a promising young left winger they've brought through from their youth systems. James Forest for timmy, and Wylde for us.

 

I actually think that Forrest is more of a prospect than Wylde - but I will readily admit to not spending as much time watching Forrest as I do Wylde. Maybe I expect more from a Ger, but Wylde to me still seems to be a bit of a one-trick-pony (his pace) whilst Forrest seems to be able to get past his man and also has chipped in with the odd goal.

 

Would be very, very happy to be proved wrong though.

[Guest BrickHands]

Nope. I don't mean this patronisingly, and I say it with full respect to you, but you're thinking like a fan and that players should think like fans.

 

They really, really don't. It's a job to them. Even David Healy with his clear love of Rangers would not show up for Monday's training if he was not being paid for it.

 

Quite frankly neither would I.

 

Bills to pay, y'see, as Craig bluntly puts it.

 

It's not taken as patronising either! Happy for feedback when I'm so new to 'blogging'.

 

If we move away from Wylde and his situation, where seemingly in hindsight there isn't such a fair deal on the table (but again that's only speculation I'm responding to). I didn't mean in the OP that there would be wages to earn elsewhere, more a hypothetical world where there is no money. The Rangers would live on, but who would be playing? Just fans like you or I? You think none of the current squad love football enough to carry on playing for us?

 

From comments I'm getting on here and other quarters, (by probably wiser people than myself!) it seems to be more than acceptable that the worlds footballers love money, not football. Maybe I'm being too much of a romantic for the game but I just don't think that's right. Not that I can suggest how to change it either.

[Bluedell 5,356]

It's more due to the Bosman ruling than Real Madrid. Loads of clubs were at it during that period, including ourselves.

 

The Bosman ruling kicked in during 1996 and from 1997 to 1999 our wage bill more than doubled.