Lord Sugar tackles Football

[CJ]

But Marsh, the Prem Grounds I can get to in an hour are zero.

I have near me from Lower League

Colchester Utd
Southend
Ipswich

I wouldn't say it was over saturation, just that certain parts of the country have alot of teams. The North-West and London mainly.

its not my fault you live somewhere crap

being serious if you look at the size of country and the number of clubs its more than in the rest of europe i believe.

[kris90210]

[/B]

I disagree with this. Being unscrupulous is fair enough in business, but I think at least in most private sector business you accept that everyone is governed by the same rules. I think the point Sugar was making is that it seems unacceptable that the premier league, and the clubs within it seem to be able to operate under different rules to normal businesses. A club as badly run as Portsmouth should by rights have been closed down. Football clubs seem to be able to strike deals with HMRC over PAYE that simply do not exist to business owners in the private sector and if the rules were similarly ignored in the private sector the HMRC would begin proceedings to close these businesses down.

Surely the most telling point from the documentary was that (under Premier League rules) having gone into Administration Portsmouth firstly paid their players, however a local small business went without payment of £50k and has subsequently entered administration itself. Under normal rules a deal should be struck that satisfies all creditors. On top of this Portsmouth continue to be operating as a business, where as if they had been liquidated their assets would have to be sold off in order to pay back their creditors.

What Alan Sugar was pointing out was that Football needs to get its house in order, clubs cannot be allowed to be run unsustainably making no profit and spending beyond their means. Football clubs are businesses and should have to be run and play by the same rules as other businesses. Clubs with meagre means to income should not be allowed to trade if they are proven to be insolvent, and clubs that go into administration should not be allowed to pheonix or bring themselves out of administration without finding a way of satisfying their existing creditors.

Of all the people interviewed I don't think Alan Shearer or Harry Redknapp provided any insight whatsoever. Harry even went as far as to say he doesn't know how much his players earn (Bull****). I would suggest that Harry is thinking of Portsmouth when he answers this question, where it is convenient for him to have not known that the players he was signing were on wages they could not be sustained by the business. This is not actually his fault as at the end of the day he doesn't have to balance the books. But I would suggest he knew full well the basic details of the contracts players he was signing were on. Scudamore spoke reasonably well, but as he is representing the premier league and its member clubs was hardly giving an unbiased opinion... his stuttering answer when asked whether clubs should br run under stricter financial controls would attest to that.

If you're saying that being unscrupulous is fair enough in business, and Sugar's point is that football should be more of a business... well then surely he's still being a hypocrit by sneering his way through that interview with the agent.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with some of the points he made. The way the local businesses around Portsmouth got completely screwed over is disgraceful. Football clubs should not get preferential treatment in that way.

However, I really don't think Alan Sugar's action plan really added up. Scudamore gave an extremely reasonable explanation why the Premier League could not impose a salary cap. And Sugar just completely ignored that and presented it as step 1 of his recovery plan

I remember the question where Scudamore stuttered, but he was being asked some pretty heavy questions in a fairly hostile way. I thought he recovered very well to deliver a good answer. He had very little margin for error.

In my opinion the buck stops with the owners of the clubs. The league is responsible for dispersing tv revenue. It's up to the clubs themselves to manage that. If they don't do that sensibly then they only have themselves to blame.

[Buzzo]

If you're saying that being unscrupulous is fair enough in business, and Sugar's point is that football should be more of a business... well then surely he's still being a hypocrit by sneering his way through that interview with the agent.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with some of the points he made. The way the local businesses around Portsmouth got completely screwed over is disgraceful. Football clubs should not get preferential treatment in that way.

However, I really don't think Alan Sugar's action plan really added up. Scudamore gave an extremely reasonable explanation why the Premier League could not impose a salary cap. And Sugar just completely ignored that and presented it as step 1 of his recovery plan

I remember the question where Scudamore stuttered, but he was being asked some pretty heavy questions in a fairly hostile way. I thought he recovered very well to deliver a good answer. He had very little margin for error.

In my opinion the buck stops with the owners of the clubs. The league is responsible for dispersing tv revenue. It's up to the clubs themselves to manage that. If they don't do that sensibly then they only have themselves to blame.

I agree with pretty much all of what you say. I think there were elements of what Sugar said which added up, and elements which were idealistic in the extreme. I felt Scudamore also handled the questions fairly well, mainly as he was essentially being asked to defend clubs and situations that he was in no way responsible for. In some ways his task is now to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. My main gripe is that football being such a cash cow is governed under a different set of rules than the rest of us are.

I also thought the Agent handled himself pretty well, with Sugar quite clearly sensing blood and quite blatantly going in for the kill. And basically failing to get the answer he wanted.

[CJ]

If you're saying that being unscrupulous is fair enough in business, and Sugar's point is that football should be more of a business... well then surely he's still being a hypocrit by sneering his way through that interview with the agent.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with some of the points he made. The way the local businesses around Portsmouth got completely screwed over is disgraceful. Football clubs should not get preferential treatment in that way.

However, I really don't think Alan Sugar's action plan really added up. Scudamore gave an extremely reasonable explanation why the Premier League could not impose a salary cap. And Sugar just completely ignored that and presented it as step 1 of his recovery plan

I remember the question where Scudamore stuttered, but he was being asked some pretty heavy questions in a fairly hostile way. I thought he recovered very well to deliver a good answer. He had very little margin for error.

In my opinion the buck stops with the owners of the clubs. The league is responsible for dispersing tv revenue. It's up to the clubs themselves to manage that. If they don't do that sensibly then they only have themselves to blame.

whilst i agree with that to a point the problem is that there is no ownership of the problem. the players say its not up to me what the club want to pay, the managers say the board decide pay the board and the prem league say well if we dont pay it someone else will.

we can just sit back and go ok lets keep going and see where this takes us.

or they can start to think how to stop it.

uefa are starting to do something about it with financial fair play so not sure why the prem league could not have some rules for membership. Also they let anyone buy clubs with their fit and proper test.

[kris90210]

whilst i agree with that to a point the problem is that there is no ownership of the problem. the players say its not up to me what the club want to pay, the managers say the board decide pay the board and the prem league say well if we dont pay it someone else will.

we can just sit back and go ok lets keep going and see where this takes us.

or they can start to think how to stop it.

uefa are starting to do something about it with financial fair play so not sure why the prem league could not have some rules for membership. Also they let anyone buy clubs with their fit and proper test.

The buck has to stop with the owners / board of the club. If their argument is 'if we don't pay it, someone else will,' well that's still no excuse for spending more money than you've got coming in! Every other party has a reasonable argument for why they are not responsible. That isn't true of the owners / board.

I think it's admirable that UEFA have started the ball rolling on this. But if it wasn't for irresponsible owners, there really would be no need for it. And there should be no need for it. As you say, moves have been made to ensure that owners meet 'fit and proper' criteria. We know better than anyone what bad owners can do.

Personally, I think the Premier League is doing a good job. And once again, it's the owners at fault.

[CJ]

Isnt one of the roles of the premier league to act as regulator to its members

[kris90210]

Isnt one of the roles of the premier league to act as regulator to its members

A regulator is one thing - surely dictating expendature doesn't fall under their remit. Imagine they had to do that for every club. All the micro managment involved. It just isn't feasible in my opinion.

You know, the owners / board's most important role is to act as that club's regulator. That's how I see it anyway

[lfcred]

I agree with pretty much all of what you say. I think there were elements of what Sugar said which added up, and elements which were idealistic in the extreme. I felt Scudamore also handled the questions fairly well, mainly as he was essentially being asked to defend clubs and situations that he was in no way responsible for. In some ways his task is now to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. My main gripe is that football being such a cash cow is governed under a different set of rules than the rest of us are.

I also thought the Agent handled himself pretty well, with Sugar quite clearly sensing blood and quite blatantly going in for the kill. And basically failing to get the answer he wanted.

I agree with this too! In fairness it did point out the problems in football but ultimately the program was inconclusive as each argument that he had was knocked back as impractical and unrealistic! It is for sure that there should be more control over who owns the clubs, as what is happening with leverage buy-outs is simply ridiculous and shouldn't be allowed to happen! Trying to fix any other issues would open the biggest can of worms ever and would affect alot of people, and businesses and could potentially destroy our game!!

[CJ]

A regulator is one thing - surely dictating expendature doesn't fall under their remit. Imagine they had to do that for every club. All the micro managment involved. It just isn't feasible in my opinion.

You know, the owners / board's most important role is to act as that club's regulator. That's how I see it anyway

yes i agree but other leagues have rules around wages and turnover.

the current issue is if you do it of your own accord and then get relegated what happens to your income?

i think that all parties abdicate responsibility however perhaps the real answer is for all the groups the league the clubs the players the agents and managers all are involved in the solution rather than just signalling one or two out.

hopefully FFP will force clubs to be better run.