examples of self sustained success at english prem and league clubs.

[BIRCHES HEAD WHITES]

come on folks so far only yeovil can be used as an example but unfortunately they only count as a bad example according to norman . unfortunately out of 92 pro clubs we have no obvious examples of a successful club when it comes to existing without additional funds.

[bayernoatcake]

walsall may be making a profit due to their markets and motorwayside advertising opportunities , however as a club they merely tread water and i believe their crowds are steadily dwindling yr on yr.

 

After a quick google they've made a profit 8 years on the trot. And in the past two years they've been playing some excellent football and done really well. Their crowds aren't great for how they're doing, I agree.

[tobert1985]

I would not be surprised if 99% of lads dropped out, the clubs are only after the few gems, then as they grow older only a few of the gems make it, but what other way is there? Import players from abroad?

 

small clubs would feed off the players not good enough or in reality not ready for the upper leagues no small team will afford the inflated wages of foreign players but in retrospect they wont afford the wages of every prospect, my belief is teams like ours with small gates and catchment areas will struglle in the future, minimum wage is not ebough for a 21 y o like Hugill so i doubt hes very poorly paid having said that the deals should be incentive based from the off. Maybe start a trials system funded by the F.A where players attend a training day and those deemed good enough are offered F.A contracts and given X amount of time to win a deal at a club after all they take enough money for the game, those who are not on trail can be based in Burton. Im not saving every released player but say the top 200 of these maybe 25-50 will get deals and the F.A take a non profit development fee. Coachs like Hodgson and Southgate and Blake could work with them and it would save the clubs money this way the outlay for the small club would be on scouting. Its pie in the sky i know but for me the current system is wrong Hoddle had the right idea. if anything id give the development squad one year but try to run it on sposorship.

[vale addict]

well folks the question above is as it reads . based on normans comments last night re living within our means and the obvious upcoming reduction in wage bill for next season , how many clubs can you think of, that have attained any success without any kind of sustained additional investment ? also how many clubs have managed to grow their support by not having , sustained success and additional sustained investment ?

 

how many clubs out there in the last 10 years have lived within their means and won or achieved anything ?

NONE! not a single one, especially within the last 10 years.

 

Any team that has had success has a rich man pumping money into the club, even if it doesn't look like it from the outside. I've studied this for many years and every team i've looked at they've turned out to have had lots of money spent.

 

If we reduce our budget we will start to fall down the leagues again, as Valiant 2001 proved with their yearly budget cuts.

[Shropshire_Valiant]

There are a few clubs that have sustained league football for about 6 or 7 years now on pretty paltry gates(and also been up to or knocked on the door of League One by making the League Two playoffs once or twice).

If League positions were decided on avg. fanbase Accrington, Morecambe & Dagenham I'd imagine would all be in non-league and your Luton's, Cambridge's and Wrexham's and perhaps others would be in the league.

 

I'm not sure what the former 3 sides' accounts are like and whether someone is investing heavily just to keep them in the league/going? Dagenham for one have sold on a number of players to bigger and better clubs which has probably helped to keep them going and competitive in the league, Morecambe have a new ground which in the long run should help them with commercial revenue but I can never quite see how Accrington keep it going, certainly for as long as they have anyway? I suppose good management of the team on the pitch helps and there always seems to be sides in a worse state financially who will do worse.

 

I wouldn't include Fleetwood and Crawley as I think they've been invested in heavily to get them where they are. Not sure about Stevenage and plus I think they might be on a bit of a downer now after a few good years.

[Heatwave]

If League positions were decided on avg. fanbase Accrington, Morecambe & Dagenham I'd imagine would all be in non-league and your Luton's, Cambridge's and Wrexham's and perhaps others would be in the league.

 

And there it is. The first three were non league and have always been non league (with the honourable exception of Accrington but they were out of the league for forty odd years before they came back). The other three were League sides for many years and have not been out of the League for that long.

 

The big difference is the relative sizes of their fanbase. The latter three built fanbases well in excess of the first three because of their relative success over the years. Although badly supported for a while relative success at Conference level is bringing their fans back.

 

Where does that leave us? If the building (or rebuilding) of our fanbase is proportionate to our success then it's not likely to happen by cutting budgets and consolidating. We have to do well either in League or Cup(s) to get people through the turnstiles - look at the end of last season.

 

It doesn't help that we have a Prem side on the doorstep and one that has traditionally attracted the majority of the football supporters in this city, but relative success will bring support in. If we had the run of seasons in the Championship that Stoke had in the old First Division we might well be doing what Norman is looking for. The sad thing is we won't do it by reducing budgets - that is more likely to get us relegated.

 

If Norman wants us to prosper then he needs help to achieve the kind of financial outlay to get us there. Once we're there - then that's the time to consolidate.

[Yukon]

Burton Albion.

 

Exactly. "Success" is very much down to interpretation but I doubt anyone could argue that their gaining league status and consolidating it is anything but a success. Their (Burton's) approach is the way I think Norman is looking at things- slowly but surely. I think it's the way to go as it's sustainable

[paulvaliant]

Bournemouth? Their last 5 years sound similar to ours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.F.C._Bournemouth

[onestepatatime]

A club that is losing money left right and centre is Bristol City. They've just announced that the millionaire owner has written off £35 million of their debt, leaving them still £23 million in debt!

Last financial year they lost £13 million and the year before lost £14.4 million.

 

How can the likes of Vale seriously even want to think about figures like that?

 

Even keel for consolidation is required by us, even if it means losing some of our so called stars for bigger wages elsewhere. More reason for digging out younger players that are keen and able and eager to better themselves, who will not cost us a packet.

 

Reality is now hitting home!

 

True, passionate fans of Vale will understand if we have to carefully scrutinise ALL financial matters at our great Club. Steady, sensible management and understanding by us mere fans will assist Vale in realistically improving.

[BIRCHES HEAD WHITES]

And there it is. The first three were non league and have always been non league (with the honourable exception of Accrington but they were out of the league for forty odd years before they came back). The other three were League sides for many years and have not been out of the League for that long.

 

The big difference is the relative sizes of their fanbase. The latter three built fanbases well in excess of the first three because of their relative success over the years. Although badly supported for a while relative success at Conference level is bringing their fans back.

 

Where does that leave us? If the building (or rebuilding) of our fanbase is proportionate to our success then it's not likely to happen by cutting budgets and consolidating. We have to do well either in League or Cup(s) to get people through the turnstiles - look at the end of last season.

 

It doesn't help that we have a Prem side on the doorstep and one that has traditionally attracted the majority of the football supporters in this city, but relative success will bring support in. If we had the run of seasons in the Championship that Stoke had in the old First Division we might well be doing what Norman is looking for. The sad thing is we won't do it by reducing budgets - that is more likely to get us relegated.

 

If Norman wants us to prosper then he needs help to achieve the kind of financial outlay to get us there. Once we're there - then that's the time to consolidate.

 

well said that man . all we need is a millionaire owner now , oh hang on a minute :)

[BIRCHES HEAD WHITES]

Bournemouth? Their last 5 years sound similar to ours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.F.C._Bournemouth

 

bournemouth are another club who have been bank rolled since being bought by rich foreign owners .

[BIRCHES HEAD WHITES]

A club that is losing money left right and centre is Bristol City. They've just announced that the millionaire owner has written off £35 million of their debt, leaving them still £23 million in debt!

Last financial year they lost £13 million and the year before lost £14.4 million.

 

How can the likes of Vale seriously even want to think about figures like that?

 

Even keel for consolidation is required by us, even if it means losing some of our so called stars for bigger wages elsewhere. More reason for digging out younger players that are keen and able and eager to better themselves, who will not cost us a packet.

 

Reality is now hitting home!

 

True, passionate fans of Vale will understand if we have to carefully scrutinise ALL financial matters at our great Club. Steady, sensible management and understanding by us mere fans will assist Vale in realistically improving.

 

no business can grow without regular investment FACT . the way in which the investment is applied is key to the success and the business needs the correct team (all over) to make it work . once the business is established you can then start to reign in by making slight adjustments, RISK AND REWARD.

[stupers]

Not quite sure what the point being made here is? That in order to have a successful club you need to a chairman/owner who is basically willing to throw his money away until success is reached? I would say absolutely not. Here's my example of the blueprint most clubs should use

 

We were playing Swansea 6 years ago in League 1. I remember it well. I went down with a hangover, we got played off the park, had Slater and Perry in the team and an awful Paul Edwards a couple of days after his infamous interview with the Sentinel. Since then, look at the difference in fortunes. The chairman and board there have pushed on from building a new stadium and invested in the infrastructure of the club in order to push the club forward (training ground, youth facilities). From there the success came, which meant bigger crowds, more corporate income which allowed them to invest more in the squad. Are Swansea are bigger club than us now? Of course they are but I don't think we would have said the same thing 10-15 years ago. We've gone backwards and they've gone massively forward.

 

If you want a chairman who is just going to plough money in for transfers and wages, then I'll see you outside the ground with the fund-raising buckets in 12 months after we go into Administration again. I want a chairman who is interested in investing sustainably in the club so the club grows organically. I can't argue with Smurf on the promotion to the Championship point. We aren't ready at all. We'd be better off having a few seasons challenging around the top half of League one getting people excited again in watching us, than getting promoted and having a one-season rise in attendances, getting thrashed by teams with budgets ten times the size of ours and getting relegated with 20 points. Would I have said in public? Absolutely not, but that's the way Smurf is. He is as blunt as it gets sometimes, along with some other rather disappointing comments he made last night.

 

The far more concerning point that was made and seemed to get glossed over in all this, was the fact that the ground and club are now two separate companies. Having taken an avid interest in the finances of football over the last 10-12 years, that is normally the start of something very bad indeed (Stockport to name one example).

[stupers]

no business can grow without regular investment FACT . the way in which the investment is applied is key to the success and the business needs the correct team (all over) to make it work . once the business is established you can then start to reign in by making slight adjustments, RISK AND REWARD.

 

Most companies however, don't have regular investment externally (ie Shareholders or owners ploughing money in, or endlessly borrowing money from banks). They re-invest their profits rather than taking them out of the business. We aren't at the point as we don't make any money. We need to find our breakeven point and work from there. It's madness to expect the chairman to keep plugging losses when he doesn't know what the club needs to do to make a profit. That's why clubs like Bristol City, Bolton are in the mess they are in now. They are so far past the point of breaking even that they feel they have to spend to get back up the leagues.

[Guppy 4 England]

Not quite sure what the point being made here is? That in order to have a successful club you need to a chairman/owner who is basically willing to throw his money away until success is reached? I would say absolutely not. Here's my example of the blueprint most clubs should use

 

We were playing Swansea 6 years ago in League 1. I remember it well. I went down with a hangover, we got played off the park, had Slater and Perry in the team and an awful Paul Edwards a couple of days after his infamous interview with the Sentinel. Since then, look at the difference in fortunes. The chairman and board there have pushed on from building a new stadium and invested in the infrastructure of the club in order to push the club forward (training ground, youth facilities). From there the success came, which meant bigger crowds, more corporate income which allowed them to invest more in the squad. Are Swansea are bigger club than us now? Of course they are but I don't think we would have said the same thing 10-15 years ago. We've gone backwards and they've gone massively forward.

 

If you want a chairman who is just going to plough money in for transfers and wages, then I'll see you outside the ground with the fund-raising buckets in 12 months after we go into Administration again. I want a chairman who is interested in investing sustainably in the club so the club grows organically. I can't argue with Smurf on the promotion to the Championship point. We aren't ready at all. We'd be better off having a few seasons challenging around the top half of League one getting people excited again in watching us, than getting promoted and having a one-season rise in attendances, getting thrashed by teams with budgets ten times the size of ours and getting relegated with 20 points. Would I have said in public? Absolutely not, but that's the way Smurf is. He is as blunt as it gets sometimes, along with some other rather disappointing comments he made last night.

 

The far more concerning point that was made and seemed to get glossed over in all this, was the fact that the ground and club are now two separate companies. Having taken an avid interest in the finances of football over the last 10-12 years, that is normally the start of something very bad indeed (Stockport to name one example).

 

I kind of disagree stu, putting the assets of the club in a separate company protects them from a winding up petition surely ? Plus doesn't the club own the golden share ?