Emcee Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 With the number of championship players Bury have signed I am presuming they have a high wage bill. Can anyone tell me how they do it on the gates they get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emcee Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share Posted October 20, 2015 Thanks for posting that link. I still don't get how they generate enough to meet the criteria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetramfixer Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Thanks for posting that link. I still don't get how they generate enough to meet the criteria As much as they rent the facilities at Carrington off City, I believe they then charge all visiting European teams to train there for Champions & Europa League matches? Not sure how many use it but could be a nice little earner for them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Read the article, all will be become clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevesidg Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 One of the key pieces of information from that article relating to Bury appears to be: However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 As above, the owner can give the money to the club as long as no terms for repayment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midsblue Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 ...so we just need a rich sugar daddy then?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 The problem for Bury will be if they fail to go up... Chris Moore syndrome. The owner gets sick of putting cash in and pulls out of the club leaving a league 1 side with low crowds & a top of the Championship wage bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 ...so we just need a rich sugar daddy then?! Technically we do (ish).... TTA's £6m or so that they have given the club don't have payment terms attached and so they have done similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emcee Posted October 21, 2015 Author Share Posted October 21, 2015 Since I've posted the original question I've been told that the main way that Bury get around things is to agree terms with a player and them pay some of it as a signing on fee and then pay a reduced wage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 The problem for Bury will be if they fail to go up... Chris Moore syndrome. The owner gets sick of putting cash in and pulls out of the club leaving a league 1 side with low crowds & a top of the Championship wage bill. This scenario is so easily solved but the authorities domn't seem able to grasp it. If an indiviudal wants to fund a club beyond its natural means they should be required to put up a bond which would enable the club to wind down its expanded salary bill in an orderly fashion if they lose interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wozzer Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 This scenario is so easily solved but the authorities domn't seem able to grasp it. If an indiviudal wants to fund a club beyond its natural means they should be required to put up a bond which would enable the club to wind down its expanded salary bill in an orderly fashion if they lose interest. A sensible and pragmatic solution. The authorities that run football (collectively). I think I can see the problem here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Since I've posted the original question I've been told that the main way that Bury get around things is to agree terms with a player and them pay some of it as a signing on fee and then pay a reduced wage. It would change when the expenditure would hit but it would still be 'salary' or renumeration for the player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) This scenario is so easily solved but the authorities domn't seem able to grasp it. If an indiviudal wants to fund a club beyond its natural means they should be required to put up a bond which would enable the club to wind down its expanded salary bill in an orderly fashion if they lose interest. I think they should be required to give a long term forecast to show that their investment is not short termist and that they have a plan b. A bond is a barrier to invesent and might be illegal. With any investment their is a degree of risk after all (as is not investing and I'm not sure why owners who don't do that are somehow responsible). Edited October 22, 2015 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I think they should be required to give a long term forecast to show that their investment is not short termist and that they have a plan b. A bond is a barrier to invesent and might be illegal. With any investment their is a degree of risk after all (as is not investing and I'm not sure why owners who don't do that are somehow responsible).It might be a barrier to investment, but it might stop precisely the investments that are the riskiest. It could be done during the investment period ie ongoing, with a proportion of the fee and wages, with a higher (not excessively so) starting point. The less risky investors will be less afdected, as they are not investing beyond their means. It would be to prevent a far too common problem, so it is less of a worry to stifling investment. Surely some sort of surety or guarantor money is not illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I think they should be required to give a long term forecast to show that their investment is not short termist and that they have a plan b. A bond is a barrier to invesent and might be illegal. With any investment their is a degree of risk after all (as is not investing and I'm not sure why owners who don't do that are somehow responsible). Illegal? How so? Travel agents manage it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I think they should be required to give a long term forecast to show that their investment is not short termist and that they have a plan b. A bond is a barrier to invesent and might be illegal. With any investment their is a degree of risk after all (as is not investing and I'm not sure why owners who don't do that are somehow responsible). Unfortunately I don't think long term forecasts or plans are any solution. You'd just make one up. Premier League in five years! A bond would seem a reasonable requirement to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Unfortunately I don't think long term forecasts or plans are any solution. You'd just make one up. Premier League in five years! A bond would seem a reasonable requirement to me. The long term plan would be like what you had to do with the student advisor at the bank when you wanted to extend your overdraft so that you could blow it all on cheap white cider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Do they still sell Diamond White? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Do they still sell Diamond White? I always thought of Leeslover as more of a Diamond Blush kind of chap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Thatcher's White Magic, obviously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
we hate man,u and city to Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Keith hill was going on about budgets again after their game against bury. Started saying that bury have now gotten a lot of sponsorship deals done, which is obviously helping fund their squad. Maybe they aren't in as much trouble as people make out, all though I can't imagine they have got sponsorship deals as good as ours (e.g. sportsdirect). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjk2008 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 These make for interesting reading: http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/members/rochdale/forum/156010/page:3 http://www.gigglane.com/showthread.php/28115-Stewies-Financial-companies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.