Thing is though - the majority of clubs are trading at a loss now.
The new rules limit outside "investment" to wipe this out for player purchases and the like to £40 million every 3 years
Therefore the likes of Chelsea and Man City currently trading at a loss of £50 million A SEASON are going to be pinched heavily by it.
Do we really think Man City are going to be able to fill a 80000 seater stadium weak in weak out either? To cover their expenditure ? I don't.
I'll reiterate. These rules - encourage private investors to come in for the likes of Stadium development and commercial revenue generation which is what we need. They do this because clubs like ourselves with lower debts, tight control of wage budgets and transfer spending are in the best position for investors to come in and make a profit - due to rapid increase in club value after a stadium is developed.
Those clubs paying out £150k a week wages , operating on £40-£60 million losses a season (Chelsea / Man City) will need to fill their stadium to the limit to cover their current business models...... and do so quickly to have any chance of being ready for these regulations.
Whereas the adjustment for us - is merely a continuation with the current business model, get private equity in, get the stadium built and then have some additional private equity (below the £40million/3 year rule) and the increased turnover to further compete.
These rules therefore put a premium on MANAGERIAL (corporate and the football team management) ABILITY rather than the size of someone's chequebook (chelsea/man city).
I agree to an extent mate and hopefully you are right. It doesnt change the fact that we have very little capital to invest without selling a crown jewel every so often to fund tranfers. I know other clubs will find it challenging with their capital needs as well but some are more nicely poised then others. The stadium issue is key and we have been remiss during the period of relative succes under
Moyes that we havnt had a stadium that hasnt been a milstone around our neck. We have had clubs equal and even with less stature then ourselves cream in and develop revenue streams that we havnt due to investing in infrastruture: Villa, City, Newcastle, Arsenal, Chelsea etc. I do think City will eventialy fill an 80.000 thousand seat stadium - theyve gone all meltish, but they do have quite a large and loyal fanase. St James Park is a fantastic facility which carries Newcastle or would have if their owners hadnt of fecked up.
Im all pro the current board they have done a terific job from the worst stating point imaginable over the last 10 years. But the stadium issue is a massive failure that has gone on far to long and i beleive we will see the effects with the new rules coming into place. Simply put we can only afford to pay what we have and not bring in new talent. There are ways around this of course focussing on the academy and developing our own players like we have done in the past. That is the challenge on the pitch but the need to grow revenue is apparent and from that point of view there is much we have tried to do and failed. The Kings Dock was a big oppurtunity missed, Kirkby was similarly. Meaning we are far to dependent on
David Moyes and his ability to create success. Meaning much of our income is subjective and based on success and cant be gaurenteed from one year to another apart from TV rights - believe it or not that is prohibitive when it come to making a buisness plans.
Collectively i wasnt surprised Utd, etc supported this idea beacuse it does claw them back into a spending threshold, when you actually break down the figures though the amount the likes of Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal make on merchandiseing, sponsorship etc makes their relience on Tv Money less then us,. Granted they have high levels of debt, but this meant they would have to break even in terms of trading anyway, this way the ire from their fans over investment goes toward Uefa rather then the club. But the rules are annual so whatever level of debt they carry now wont be taken into account, they just have to break even by the time the rules come in - which with their spiraling levels of debt they would have to do anyway.
Heres the rub though, say Chelsea have a bad season or to be really suspicious have a burning need to overhaul their squad and dont qualify for Europe. Say they decide to drop 100 mill on thier team and subsequently dont get a Uefa licence to play in the Europa or CL. Next season they break even and win the title.
Or
Say Sunderland for example decide to borrow 30 million a season between now and 2012 - they assemble world class palyers in every position and challenge for the top four come 2012 knowing for the following five seasons they can service that debt by breaking even - of course done in such a way that they can maintain the wages. Not impossible.
In a way im suspicious, i can see this potentially as an end to the collective bargaining in the PL, which is why i think the big clubs support it. If the focus needs to be on self generated revenue how long are the likes of Utd etc going to be sharing around the pot of gold. Additionaly with the internt becoming a huge market, i think individual clubs are goignt o start reclaiming their share of their own broadcasting rights.
Anyhow i think we are moderatley placed but the stadium issue is a milestone around our neck, we need a 60,000 seater stadium and we needed it ten years ago - its the one issue the present board has massively failed with - i understand the reasons and am sympatethic to an extent around the circumstances - but it is something that is keeping us in poverty in reaitive and comparitive terms to clubs similar in stature and below.
