Gateshead | Page 3 | Vital Football

Gateshead

Brendan Bradley said:
There is little or no chance of a club of LCFC size making it to the PL without huge overspending by its owner.

In the case, say, of Bournemouth, the season they were promoted their total turnover was £13m and they spent £52m. Of that gigantic spend £7m was an FFP penalty and around £10m would be the self-financing promotion bonuses, but even deducting those meant that for every £1 they brought in they spent almost £3.

Even in the previous season, when they finished 10th, Bournemouth's wage bill (and this is five years ago) was over £17m.

At the point at which Huddersfield were promoted - another massive achievement given their basic wage cost was only around £13m (not to mention their negative goal difference), the total owing to the club's owner was over £50m.
Click to expand...


If FPP penalties were not a fine but relegation the ultimate penalty would that stop clubs cheating the FPP rules?
 
Impartiality said:
If FPP penalties were not a fine but relegation the ultimate penalty would that stop clubs cheating the FPP rules?
Click to expand...

Well it hardly makes sense for a fine to be the penalty as the offending club has already proved that it doesn't care about how much money it spends.
Relegation has to be the penalty and possibly by two divisions.
 
Impartiality said:
If FPP penalties were not a fine but relegation the ultimate penalty would that stop clubs cheating the FPP rules?
Click to expand...

The way FFP works is far too woolly, worked out over too long a period, and it allows for enormous losses regardless of the club's size.

A better system (I've mentioned before) is the Spanish League's setting of an individual ceiling, by each club's circumstances, for player contracts during the close season.

Of course, being Spain, it's done with zero transparency and almost certain corruption, but as a way of getting clubs to spend within their means it works.

When a 2nd Division club didn't pay its players for three months this season the League didn't mess about, it just expelled them.
 
nlondonimp said:
That is why I said could we learn from them... not ‘could we become them’. ))
Click to expand...

We are attempting to improve our youth set up, but you can't really learn from Ajax unless you pour millions of pounds into a continental scout network.
 
graemetheexile said:
We are attempting to improve our youth set up, but you can't really learn from Ajax unless you pour millions of pounds into a continental scout network.
Click to expand...

You don’t need millions of pounds, the Dutch coach the right way from a young age ! The Dutch way.
 
German Imp said:
You don’t need millions of pounds, the Dutch coach the right way from a young age ! The Dutch way.
Click to expand...

I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse here but... Ajax have the pick of the Dutch footballing world, millions of pounds invested in an international scouting system and millions of pounds invested in their coaching staff. They have 50 scouts in Holland and spend £10m a year on international scouting and coaching.

We do not have the pick of the English footballing world, we do not have millions to spend on coaches, and we do not have millions to spend on scouting. It's a false aspiration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brendan Bradley said:
The way FFP works is far too woolly, worked out over too long a period, and it allows for enormous losses regardless of the club's size.

A better system (I've mentioned before) is the Spanish League's setting of an individual ceiling, by each club's circumstances, for player contracts during the close season.

Of course, being Spain, it's done with zero transparency and almost certain corruption, but as a way of getting clubs to spend within their means it works.

When a 2nd Division club didn't pay its players for three months this season the League didn't mess about, it just expelled them.
Click to expand...


Not sure what rules the Welsh FA have on finances but i do know they enforce them pretty strictly and regularly demote offending clubs.
It really does just need a league that is willing to have proper rules and enforce them each and every time, and with meaningful punishments.
All we have seen to date is a basically non-existent punishment on Birmingham City...a pointless 9 point deduction for several years worth of breaking the rules, a deduction that makes absolutely no difference to them whatsoever.

Bolton wrote off how much debt a while ago? £170 million??? And now piled up the debts again...yet still no action at all by the League, even being allowed to not fulfil fixtures and still no penalty or sanction imposed on them.
Both them and Birmingham should be demoted by at least a division (so down to Lge2 for Bolton). That would be the minimum punishment needed in my opinion.
And if Bolton are unable to prove any financial stability going ahead, they should actually then be kicked out altogether.
 
One of the problems this presents is the question of ownership and subsequent culpability. Look at Bury: they are trying to claim it was the actions of the previous owner that got them into this mess, as if that somehow absolves their club from responsibility. Does that mean that paying wages way beyond your station and cheating the public purse through non-payment of taxes in order to gain an unfair advantage no longer matters because that owner has done a bunk? That cannot happen.

Bury have won three promotions in the last nine years, and two of those are highly questionable. Yet they seem to expect the sympathy of the football world and beg for handouts to help them heal their self-inflicted wounds. They now have another promotion that would probably have gone to another club had they played by the rules, and perhaps other clubs have suffered relegations that should have gone to Bury. That is not acceptable and they must be held responsible.

There has to be culpability, and the ownership must be indivisible from the club to enable that to function. If not, it gives carte blanche to every club to cheat in the knowledge that responsibility can be avoided simply by changing ownership. Clubs like Rangers, Portsmouth, Bournemouth, Bolton and Bury have repeatedly cheated you and me as taxpayers and as football supporters; no sympathy whatsoever would be afforded to any other type of business for trading that way, so why should football clubs be any different?
 
Scotimp said:
One of the problems this presents is the question of ownership and subsequent culpability. Look at Bury: they are trying to claim it was the actions of the previous owner that got them into this mess, as if that somehow absolves their club from responsibility. Does that mean that paying wages way beyond your station and cheating the public purse through non-payment of taxes in order to gain an unfair advantage no longer matters because that owner has done a bunk? That cannot happen.

Bury have won three promotions in the last nine years, and two of those are highly questionable. Yet they seem to expect the sympathy of the football world and beg for handouts to help them heal their self-inflicted wounds. They now have another promotion that would probably have gone to another club had they played by the rules, and perhaps other clubs have suffered relegations that should have gone to Bury. That is not acceptable and they must be held responsible.

There has to be culpability, and the ownership must be indivisible from the club to enable that to function. If not, it gives carte blanche to every club to cheat in the knowledge that responsibility can be avoided simply by changing ownership. Clubs like Rangers, Portsmouth, Bournemouth, Bolton and Bury have repeatedly cheated you and me as taxpayers and as football supporters; no sympathy whatsoever would be afforded to any other type of business for trading that way, so why should football clubs be any different?
Click to expand...
Posh Chairman suggested that former owners are held personally accountable for any further underlying issues. I can't remember the scenario and/or example he used, but I think it was something along the lines of a personal bond of some description that was held until 'x' amount of times had passed.

I'll try and dig out the tweets.

EDIT - Didn't take long! Not quite as I remembered the tweets but it's probably a valid point r.e. covering wages and not taking one out of Clubs to then not pay others when needed.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1113822345754443776

https://twitter.com/x/status/1113822346396278789
 
Looking likely that Aldershot will get a reprieve.

The (local, I think) couple interested in buying them have deemed it too expensive so they have until Wednesday to confirm budgets and a ground apparently.
 
Luke Imp said:
Looking likely that Aldershot will get a reprieve.

The (local, I think) couple interested in buying them have deemed it too expensive so they have until Wednesday to confirm budgets and a ground apparently.
Click to expand...

I remember an Aldershot fan at SB with a big blue box on his head at that infamous game - you know, Blue Square, as it was then.

Quite funny, actually, but I bet he's not laughing now.
 
They've got to raise £95k by tomorrow evening.

-----------------------------------------------

"Gateshead FC Soul Statement on 20th May 2019

After the understandable withdrawal of Chris Dunphys’ offer to purchase the club on Friday, the Gateshead Soul wish to make the following Statement:

The ‘Club’ as we see it are in a perilous position and are on a life support machine. Yet, our objective of maintaining football in Gateshead has not wavered. This is in spite of the many obstacles that have been placed in front of us from varying authorities. But, despite our best efforts the unrealistic time frames forced upon us cannot be met.

This relates to servicing the current creditors to the tune of £95k by Wednesday 22nd May, a deadline which was set by the National League. The obvious solution, would be for the National League to waive this requirement up until the purchase was completed, and then to release the remaining bond (£100k) to allow the new owners to operate with a blank canvas. However, the National League did not see this as an option.

That ‘Club’ in our eyes, unless a buyer is sought by Wednesday will cease to exist within a matter of weeks if not days. No ground, staff, directors, players and more importantly, no fans.

So what have we done?

For the past few weeks we've been putting the foundations in place for a potential phoenix club should the worst happen. However, we've suddenly been presented with an urgent opportunity to get our club back. This is something we hadn't anticipated but since the end of last week, Gateshead Soul, in conjunction with other Stakeholders and generous fans have managed to raise £45k towards the payment of those creditors

All payments have been pledged as gifts or loans and will be repaid on the return of the Bond, which cannot be accessed by the previous regime.

This is our last throw of the dice before we face the prospect of the worst case scenario of starting again at Step 7. So, if there are any fans, business persons or potential contributors that wish to come onboard to help in any way you can to help raise the shortfall, then please answer this SOS by getting in touch ASAP via email at gfcsoul@gmail.com or via any of our social media platforms."
 
NottyImp said:
I remember an Aldershot fan at SB with a big blue box on his head at that infamous game - you know, Blue Square, as it was then.

Quite funny, actually, but I bet he's not laughing now.
Click to expand...

'shots have just appointed a new manager , Danny Searle from Braintree , perhaps they know something ……………...
 
Feel sorry for Gateshead and their supporters , but on the other hand maybe another couple of Bromley v Aldershot close encounters of a southern kind
 
You must log in or register to reply here.