Glumford Park is no more. | Vital Football

Glumford Park is no more.

Funnily enough this exciting new venture in Blackpool is owned by Coolsilk property and investment Ltd and the principal directors are Peter and Karin Swann. Hmmm how odd!!

Do you think there is any connection there?

You see this is where a club is relying so heavily on an individual whereas we actually go out and seek new investment and sponsorship from lots of different sources.

I reckon commercial manager at Scunny must be the easiest job in the world. Just speak to Peter Swann and tell him the next thing he is going to spend his money on :lol:
 
Last edited:
Casperimp said:
Funnily enough this exciting new venture in Blackpool is owned by Coolsilk property and investment Ltd and the principal directors are Peter and Karin Swann. Hmmm how odd!!

Do you think there is any connection there?

You see this is where a club is relying so heavily on an individual whereas we actually go out and seek new investment and sponsorship from lots of different sources.

I reckon commercial manager at Scunny must be the easiest job in the world. Just speak to Peter Swann and tell him the next thing he is going to spend his money on :lol:
Click to expand...

Still, I'm sure the locals will be thrilled to know that it will improve Blackpool's local economy.
 
Is it just a way to get round the fair play rules if any really exist. Swann gives the club an extra £1million to boost the playing budget but its allocated in the accounts as stadium sponsorship.
 
IN theory there is a check to stop this. Wasn't this what Man City were accused of on a much larger scale
 
Another way to get round the rules set by the FA ,, just a thought is Jim Rodwell still high up within the FA and scunny
 
Dazimp120 said:
Another way to get round the rules set by the FA ,, just a thought is Jim Rodwell still high up within the FA and scunny
Click to expand...
Yes, Jim Rodwell is CEO and a director of Scunthorpe and according to the FA website he is on the FA board and the Professional Game Board which oversees the referees.
 
johnolbe said:
Is it just a way to get round the fair play rules if any really exist. Swann gives the club an extra £1million to boost the playing budget but its allocated in the accounts as stadium sponsorship.
Click to expand...
Not quite as simple as that because I *think* an independent body will check the value of the sponsorship against what the going rate is.

That's how Man City and PSG got caught out.

I suspect you could get away with it easier if the sponsor had no ties with the club and you go slightly more than the going rate, unlike in the Swann and Sands case.
 
Luke Imp said:
Not quite as simple as that because I *think* an independent body will check the value of the sponsorship against what the going rate is.

That's how Man City and PSG got caught out.

I suspect you could get away with it easier if the sponsor had no ties with the club and you go slightly more than the going rate, unlike in the Swann and Sands case.
Click to expand...


Which is why all this is Bull from FIFA because will not stand up in a court of law! How can you dictate to an organisation what the going rate is. They are a private company and can do whatever deals they want. That's why financial fair play won't and doesn't work. As soon as they try to implement it PSG and Man city will just go to court end of! That's why they backed down with PSG and they will do the same with City.

The only way to enforce clubs not circumventing the rules is to put in a wage cap but the big clubs will never vote for that do end of with that as well
 
Casperimp said:
Which is why all this is Bull from FIFA because will not stand up in a court of law! How can you dictate to an organisation what the going rate is. They are a private company and can do whatever deals they want. That's why financial fair play won't and doesn't work. As soon as they try to implement it PSG and Man city will just go to court end of! That's why they backed down with PSG and they will do the same with City.

The only way to enforce clubs not circumventing the rules is to put in a wage cap but the big clubs will never vote for that do end of with that as well
Click to expand...
why would you impose a wage cap on any employee, in any industry?
 
nlondonimp said:
why would you impose a wage cap on any employee, in any industry?
Click to expand...


I meant a team wage cap. Like they have in Rugby, NFL, AFL MLB. Then teams wouldn't keep spending beyond what they have and having to have money pumped in by creative means from rich owners.

It won't happen in football because the richest clubs want to stay permanently at the top.
 
Can just imagine Gladys Pew doing the announcements......' Dong ding dong......helloe supporters......hi de hi.......'
' at centre forward today is Geoffrey Fairbrother......lovely look you!!'
 
Casperimp said:
I meant a team wage cap. Like they have in Rugby, NFL, AFL MLB. Then teams wouldn't keep spending beyond what they have and having to have money pumped in by creative means from rich owners.

It won't happen in football because the richest clubs want to stay permanently at the top.
Click to expand...
Understood. Must admit, it is difficult to fathom the viability of a club spending around 100% of turnover on players' salaries. The efl must see these figures too. But do little or nothing. Their *rule* is 60% for L1 clubs.
 
nlondonimp said:
Understood. Must admit, it is difficult to fathom the viability of a club spending around 100% of turnover on players' salaries. The efl must see these figures too. But do little or nothing. Their *rule* is 60% for L1 clubs.
Click to expand...


And if you have a 60% limit (and something like that sbould be imposed) its then all about 60% of what ?

You have to be able to come up with tight definitions of playing budget (total employer costs of all players ever listed on a teamsheet that season maybe?) and does that include transfer fees for any of those players and if so can those fees be amortised over the duration of that player's contract ?
And then how do you value the club's turnover? Does it include these sponsorships from owners? Or any loans from owners?
And what period do you use to get the two key figures? The last audited accounts?
Accounts for say June to June and related to current season?
And of current season then what happens when a club is found to have overspent?
Fines would seem pointless as the club has just proved it wants to overspend anyway.
So points off for season just completed?
Unless that prevents a promotion or causes a relegation, then utterly pointless (as just seen with Birmingham).

So if proper methods of counting playing budgets and turnover can be established, then is demotion the only feasible punishment? Or does scale of overspend matter? 10% over might be seen as a slight offence. 100% over - downright cheating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.