But the money they owe is typically owed to (a) people they’ve not paid, (b) the tax man or (c) their dodgy owners. Why should wealthier clubs fund any of that?
Because the rules have been bent so far in the favour of the big clubs it's unreal. We've been on both sides of that, we'll receive more in parachute payments this season than Wycombe Wanderers have in their entire EFL history, yet City still took our best prospect for ages got absolute peanuts...
In principle I agree more should filter down in general. I’m not on board with bailing on individual basket case clubs though. By the time they end up in that state I’m afraid the list of inexcusable or reckless financial decisions is just too long. But the big clubs have a product people want to buy. At least the Premier League is semi-equitable by splitting the proceeds evenly between its 20 clubs. There’s nothing stopping Wycombe getting promoted if they want a slice of the pie.
A lot of the time it's asset-strippers or similar shysters who shouldn't be anywhere near football clubs, but are because these 'fit and proper persons' tests are an absolute joke. Sorting that one way or another would go some way to solving the problem But how would clubs like Wycombe go up, they'd have to massively risk the future of their club. There's so much money in the Premier League, it becomes the be all and end all, and then once you get trapped in the Championship, everyone just spends stupid sums in an attempt to get there, and it's all gonna end in tears for a lot of clubs (hopefully not us of course!)
Tbf I know nothing about Macclesfield's situation. I was commenting on the financial schism that exists within the game. You've got club's funded by oil-rich gulf states just a couple of leagues above those that haven't got a pot to piss in. It's destroyed what was once great about English football in general.
Agreed. Life isn't fair in general and football is no different. There will always be those that justify the status quo, however, because they've known nothing else.
I’d say it’s the law of the land that’s a joke, not the fit and proper persons test. Fact is football clubs are just standard companies on paper and anyone can take a majority shareholding and take them over. That’s something successive governments have allowed to happen. The EFL worked out (perfectly reasonably) ages ago that they’re not forensic accountants and any sort of subjective judgement of a rich person’s suitability to own a club would only lead to protracted legal action the league would probably lose. And when the league pays a big legal bill ultimately all the member clubs have to fund it.
Would be interesting to know if Wycombe’s ground would be passed as being suitable for the P.L., I doubt very much it would pass the tests or be capable of being transformed, would if I am correct that mean they would have to play their home games at someone else’s ground should they be promoted?
I was reading earlier some of the requirements including five separate interview areas between the pitch and dressing rooms, cost Leeds £3.5 million to be passed!
Yup. I think Muff lost about 500 seats to provide media facilities when they went up. The Premier League gives clubs enough money though it’s pretty easy for clubs to fund what’s needed.
