Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney | Wrexham AFC Watch

Looks like them wonky houses in Amsterdam

Dancing-Houses-Amsterdam-1200-1.jpg
 
tomaldinho1 said:
But haven't they abided by the rules they signed in to? That's the main difference.

I'm very against self sponsoring, though it is genuinely impossible to actually stop, but if you get someone who is willing to furrow their own money into a team it is ok if they abide by the rules in my opinion. The reality is we need new money to enter the leagues, the PL is basically getting a to a point where the 3 teams who come up will all go down, then likely come up again due to parachutes, unless people can spend the top of the tree will change very little.
Click to expand...

It may be OK for you, but let's be honest, loads of people were anti-City even before it was known they did anything illegal.
 
Amir said:
It may be OK for you, but let's be honest, loads of people were anti-City even before it was known they did anything illegal.
Click to expand...
I say ok in that I would rather it did not happen in general, but it is the realistic outcome given you can't stop self sponsoring in general.

I was and remain against state ownership because it was so obvious it would end up this way - where it gets political and everything is opaque - if City's owners were not politically entwined this whole case would have been done and dusted in no time and, likely, we'd have seen their CFO charged with something or whoever was in charge forced to sell (the fact there are publicly available emails available showing them discussing circumventing the rules is bonkers).

I am all for a more competitive league and new teams rising to the top - that is good for the PL long term - but just avoid state ownership and no more LBOs.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
But haven't they abided by the rules they signed in to? That's the main difference.

I'm very against self sponsoring, though it is genuinely impossible to actually stop, but if you get someone who is willing to furrow their own money into a team it is ok if they abide by the rules in my opinion. The reality is we need new money to enter the leagues, the PL is basically getting a to a point where the 3 teams who come up will all go down, then likely come up again due to parachutes, unless people can spend the top of the tree will change very little.
Click to expand...
Whether they've abided by rules or not is not the issue, other teams could also do similar, just look at Birmingham, but it's killing the competition and is essentially doing what City have been openly chastised for.
Money rules and people seem to be openly celebrating this, despite being against it at the highest level, the level of hypocrisy is hilarious to see at times.
 
Monmouthshire Red said:
Well, they could certainly make a documentary on the demise of the former Chester City FC. Dodgy owners aplenty, including an American fantacist, Terry Smith, who claimed to have been an NFL coach (he wasn't). Smith at one point sacked the manager and decided he would coach/manage the team himself. Didn't go well. He then sacked a popular manager and installed Gordon Hill (yes the ex United player). Hill had only ever coached college kids in the USA and he also had his own son in the team, who at best was an average Sunday league player.
Smith then 'sold' the club (he was never paid) to a scouse gangster. We're talking about a prominent player in the Liverpool Mafia. Scouse gangster's mate was laundering drug money through the club (all transactions were strictly cash only). Any supporters who ever vocally complained about the running of the club were threatened with violence and on occasion received a twatting from Scouse gangster's henchmen. The money laundering guy was eventually executed in a Liverpool gym by a Colombian cartel as a reprisal for one of their bag men getting whacked in Amsterdam. With the money laundering guy now dead, the 'cash flow' dried up and Scouse gangster put the club into administration. He appointed his own administrator (football league rules used to allow this), a bent solicitor from the wirral, and was able to buy the club back for next to nothing. Debts piled up again and he put the club through, so the supporters had to reform it as a phoenix club, Chester FC, in tier 8.
So yeah, there's a documentary in there.
Click to expand...
Has Guy Ritchie written all over it
 
Champ said:
Whether they've abided by rules or not is not the issue, other teams could also do similar, just look at Birmingham, but it's killing the competition and is essentially doing what City have been openly chastised for.
Money rules and people seem to be openly celebrating this, despite being against it at the highest level, the level of hypocrisy is hilarious to see at times.
Click to expand...
I can understand the frustration. I just feel them getting promoted kind of solves the problem. Theres space in the football pyramid for them.
I think it was similar with City for a while. I dont think the Pellegrini and Mancini teams were that much of a problem or annoyed people to the same extent.
 
Champ said:
Whether they've abided by rules or not is not the issue, other teams could also do similar, just look at Birmingham, but it's killing the competition and is essentially doing what City have been openly chastised for.
Money rules and people seem to be openly celebrating this, despite being against it at the highest level, the level of hypocrisy is hilarious to see at times.
Click to expand...
How in any way is it hypocritical? I think owners should be able to plough as much money as they want into their clubs, we want more money entering the clubs surely?

The issue comes if you sign up to rules and break them or, as aforementioned, I think there are certain types of owners who should not be able to control clubs. Quite easy to distinguish.
 
Monmouthshire Red said:
Well, they could certainly make a documentary on the demise of the former Chester City FC. Dodgy owners aplenty, including an American fantacist, Terry Smith, who claimed to have been an NFL coach (he wasn't). Smith at one point sacked the manager and decided he would coach/manage the team himself. Didn't go well. He then sacked a popular manager and installed Gordon Hill (yes the ex United player). Hill had only ever coached college kids in the USA and he also had his own son in the team, who at best was an average Sunday league player.
Smith then 'sold' the club (he was never paid) to a scouse gangster. We're talking about a prominent player in the Liverpool Mafia. Scouse gangster's mate was laundering drug money through the club (all transactions were strictly cash only). Any supporters who ever vocally complained about the running of the club were threatened with violence and on occasion received a twatting from Scouse gangster's henchmen. The money laundering guy was eventually executed in a Liverpool gym by a Colombian cartel as a reprisal for one of their bag men getting whacked in Amsterdam. With the money laundering guy now dead, the 'cash flow' dried up and Scouse gangster put the club into administration. He appointed his own administrator (football league rules used to allow this), a bent solicitor from the wirral, and was able to buy the club back for next to nothing. Debts piled up again and he put the club through, so the supporters had to reform it as a phoenix club, Chester FC, in tier 8.
So yeah, there's a documentary in there.
Click to expand...
Didn't the same guy from Liverpool screw Barrow over as well?
 
tomaldinho1 said:
How in any way is it hypocritical? I think owners should be able to plough as much money as they want into their clubs, we want more money entering the clubs surely?

The issue comes if you sign up to rules and break them or, as aforementioned, I think there are certain types of owners who should not be able to control clubs. Quite easy to distinguish.
Click to expand...
Money yes, but not money that skews the competition, which is what it's doing.
There's one reason why Wrexham and Birmingham were favourites to be promoted from League One this season.
Wrexham have been running at a loss despite the heavy internal sponsorship they have given themselves, that's not right.
 
Champ said:
Money yes, but not money that skews the competition, which is what it's doing.
There's one reason why Wrexham and Birmingham were favourites to be promoted from League One this season.
Wrexham have been running at a loss despite the heavy internal sponsorship they have given themselves, that's not right.
Click to expand...
I think the championship has more rules around finances that will kick in and start punishing them for that. I wouldn't argue that the rules in any division are working as intended or getting the job done though. Feels like a work in progress.
 
Champ said:
Money yes, but not money that skews the competition, which is what it's doing.
There's one reason why Wrexham and Birmingham were favourites to be promoted from League One this season.
Wrexham have been running at a loss despite the heavy internal sponsorship they have given themselves, that's not right.
Click to expand...
But why is it an issue if owners invest it in the correct way? (and I still don't see the City comparison as they broke the rules to overspend)

From what I understand Wrexham are operating within the FFP guidelines - some clubs will always have more or less money - it's not really their fault clubs like Charlton, Reading, Bolton, Wigan etc. (clubs who have been in the top flight in recent memory) have been poorly run or their owners have not put money in. I'm struggling to understand what your exact issue is?
 
tomaldinho1 said:
But why is it an issue if owners invest it in the correct way? (and I still don't see the City comparison as they broke the rules to overspend)

From what I understand Wrexham are operating within the FFP guidelines - some clubs will always have more or less money - it's not really their fault clubs like Charlton, Reading, Bolton, Wigan etc. (clubs who have been in the top flight in recent memory) have been poorly run or their owners have not put money in. I'm struggling to understand what your exact issue is?
Click to expand...
The idea of the rules is to have teams live within their means. So if the owners get bored and take off they can still pay their bills. Or at least that should be part of the rules.
 
Champ said:
Whether they've abided by rules or not is not the issue, other teams could also do similar, just look at Birmingham, but it's killing the competition and is essentially doing what City have been openly chastised for.
Money rules and people seem to be openly celebrating this, despite being against it at the highest level, the level of hypocrisy is hilarious to see at times.
Click to expand...

It's nothing like City at all, Man City are run by a country's royal family where the subjects don't have a say in how their sovereign money is being used, whereas Wrexham are run by 2 individuals who are wealthy and are actually using their own funds to pay for everything these 2 things are very very different
 
caid said:
The idea of the rules is to have teams live within their means. So if the owners get bored and take off they can still pay their bills. Or at least that should be part of the rules.
Click to expand...
Define 'means'? Surely what they are doing is all within their means, their owners are leveraging their connections no doubt but it's all adding to their turnover. Let's say Reynolds wakes up tomorrow and can't be arsed, they put the club up for sale and people will do their diligence on how much they think the club is worth without the angle that the current owners bring. They are within FFP, the rules that revolve around safeguarding clubs from going bust, I don't really get your issue?
 
Champ said:
The underdog tag should have gone as soon as they self sponsored and became the richest club in the lower leagues, yet it persists, as if having Championship level players on Championship wages in league two and now League one is fighting against the odds.
Click to expand...
They've definitely bought their way up and my boys Wycombe are just about staying above them.

But whilst their American celeb owners are rich, we're taking a few hundred million aren't we? Rather than billionaires?

Wycombe actually have a guy worth 4.5billion as owner right now. However it's only this January we've started properly recruiting. £1.5m spent, and 12 players brought in!! And a lot of the signings seem to be kitting us out for next season, as they've not played very regularly the last few months.

Very big change though from our last decade MO of "little" Wycombe, at the lowest point not being able to field a full bench, having a 45 year old goalie coach on the bench etc
 
Sandikan said:
They've definitely bought their way up and my boys Wycombe are just about staying above them.

But whilst their American celeb owners are rich, we're taking a few hundred million aren't we? Rather than billionaires?

Wycombe actually have a guy worth 4.5billion as owner right now. However it's only this January we've started properly recruiting. £1.5m spent, and 12 players brought in!! And a lot of the signings seem to be kitting us out for next season, as they've not played very regularly the last few months.

Very big change though from our last decade MO of "little" Wycombe, at the lowest point not being able to field a full bench, having a 45 year old goalie coach on the bench etc
Click to expand...
Half Canadian!
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Define 'means'? Surely what they are doing is all within their means, their owners are leveraging their connections no doubt but it's all adding to their turnover. Let's say Reynolds wakes up tomorrow and can't be arsed, they put the club up for sale and people will do their diligence on how much they think the club is worth without the angle that the current owners bring. They are within FFP, the rules that revolve around safeguarding clubs from going bust, I don't really get your issue?
Click to expand...
The thing I'm not sure people realise is that league 1 has massively different rules to the championship.
League 1 has a "football fortune" rule, basically where owners can donate money in and whack it on transfers.

In the championship it's more linked to means.

This is how Birmingham can fund a 15m striker in league 1! A deal even madder when you consider it has 5m in adds on AND a sell on clause too. So could easily end up well north of £20
 
tomaldinho1 said:
How in any way is it hypocritical? I think owners should be able to plough as much money as they want into their clubs, we want more money entering the clubs surely?

The issue comes if you sign up to rules and break them or, as aforementioned, I think there are certain types of owners who should not be able to control clubs. Quite easy to distinguish.
Click to expand...
More money in football? Is that really something that's missing from football, a sufficient amount of money?
 
Sandikan said:
The thing I'm not sure people realise is that league 1 has massively different rules to the championship.
League 1 has a "football fortune" rule, basically where owners can donate money in and whack it on transfers.

In the championship it's more linked to means.

This is how Birmingham can fund a 15m striker in league 1! A deal even madder when you consider it has 5m in adds on AND a sell on clause too. So could easily end up well north of £20
Click to expand...
Yeah I think League one is basically 60% of turnover on wages, no limit on transfer fees. I think it makes sense, you want to make it easier for 'smaller' teams to grow (with some kind of sustainability) and make it more enticing for investors to come in at a lower league level and put money into those clubs/infra/communities than simply take a slice of a Championship/PL club.
Cheimoon said:
More money in football? Is that really something that's missing from football, a sufficient amount of money?
Click to expand...
For League One and down, 100%.
 
Monmouthshire Red said:
Well, they could certainly make a documentary on the demise of the former Chester City FC. Dodgy owners aplenty, including an American fantacist, Terry Smith, who claimed to have been an NFL coach (he wasn't). Smith at one point sacked the manager and decided he would coach/manage the team himself. Didn't go well. He then sacked a popular manager and installed Gordon Hill (yes the ex United player). Hill had only ever coached college kids in the USA and he also had his own son in the team, who at best was an average Sunday league player.
Smith then 'sold' the club (he was never paid) to a scouse gangster. We're talking about a prominent player in the Liverpool Mafia. Scouse gangster's mate was laundering drug money through the club (all transactions were strictly cash only). Any supporters who ever vocally complained about the running of the club were threatened with violence and on occasion received a twatting from Scouse gangster's henchmen. The money laundering guy was eventually executed in a Liverpool gym by a Colombian cartel as a reprisal for one of their bag men getting whacked in Amsterdam. With the money laundering guy now dead, the 'cash flow' dried up and Scouse gangster put the club into administration. He appointed his own administrator (football league rules used to allow this), a bent solicitor from the wirral, and was able to buy the club back for next to nothing. Debts piled up again and he put the club through, so the supporters had to reform it as a phoenix club, Chester FC, in tier 8.
So yeah, there's a documentary in there.
Click to expand...
That's insane!
 
Gavinb33 said:
It's nothing like City at all, Man City are run by a country's royal family where the subjects don't have a say in how their sovereign money is being used, whereas Wrexham are run by 2 individuals who are wealthy and are actually using their own funds to pay for everything these 2 things are very very different
Click to expand...
It's really not very different at all.
Both owners are pumping in their own money through means of sponsorship to inflate the amount they can spend on players/wages to get ahead of the competition.
I'd say it's pretty similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.