Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
Andy Gilder wrote:It does when you only have a limited pot of cash to spend.
You appear to be operating in some sort of "Field of Dreams" scenario, whereby if we pay players more the standard will improve and clubs will suddenly be turning punters and potential commercial partners away at the gate. For many reasons, including some of those stated by vbfg, that simply isn't going to happen quickly enough for clubs to sustain that increased spending.
The overwhelming majority of RL clubs are operating on a very tight budget. The choice will literally be between paying the promising young half-back you have an extra £20k or refurbishing the toilets. If you don't recognise that as a reality, have a think back to places like Watersheddings, Derwent Park or even the old version of Craven Park in Hull. Those stadia weren't cr*pholes because the people running them couldn't be bothered, they were in a state of disrepair because the playing budget took first call on the finances.
if you spend more on players, it absolutely does equal less spending elsewhere - at least in the real world of professional RL.
Like spending less on the CEO and the other directors - I doubt the board of directors have a cap on their collective remunerations?
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: Sep 12 2010 Posts: 11412 Location: Behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas.
SmokeyTA wrote:It's pretty much conclusive proof against your argument that the SC hasn't risen for 15 seasons and has caused a huge fall in wages and continues to do so. If interest was created by the SC then it would translate through increased TV deals increased attendances increased sponsorship merchandise etc to increased salaries for players. But it isn't.
I never said the SC creates interest, just pointing out that if big clubs were allowed to go out and spend whatever they like and it goes wrong then it has a negative knock on effect for the league and the other clubs in the league to lose those teams. Whereas in the world of supermarkets, Morrisons losing a rival or two wouldn't hurt them one bit and this (and other reasons) is why I don't think comparing sports clubs and 'normal' businesses is a really appropriate comparison.
"The Golden Generation finally has its Golden Fleece! They have Wembley Cup Final winners medals to add to their collection."
ThePrinter wrote:I never said the SC creates interest, just pointing out that if big clubs were allowed to go out and spend whatever they like and it goes wrong then it has a negative knock on effect for the league and the other clubs in the league to lose those teams. Whereas in the world of supermarkets, Morrisons losing a rival or two wouldn't hurt them one bit and this (and other reasons) is why I don't think comparing sports clubs and 'normal' businesses is a really appropriate comparison.
I would be very confident that if we were to lose some of the smaller clubs and concentrate the money and talent in our game that those clubs in that concentrated league would see a congruent increase in fans, sponsorship etc.
//www.pngnrlbid.com
bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.
vastman wrote:My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.
Joined: Sep 12 2010 Posts: 11412 Location: Behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas.
SmokeyTA wrote:I would be very confident that if we were to lose some of the smaller clubs and concentrate the money and talent in our game that those clubs in that concentrated league would see a congruent increase in fans, sponsorship etc.
And what if we didn't just lose smaller clubs? What if we lost big clubs because they went reckless given the chance?
"The Golden Generation finally has its Golden Fleece! They have Wembley Cup Final winners medals to add to their collection."
ThePrinter wrote:And what if we didn't just lose smaller clubs? What if we lost big clubs because they went reckless given the chance?
As Bradford have proven. We cannot legislate against idiocy. The SC cannot, and will not stop, prevent, or make less likely one of the bigger clubs going bust.
The obvious question to ask is how McManus, Lenegan, Caddick, Moran, Koukash etc have made their millions if they cannot be trusted to destroy themselves through wasteful profligacy? I think the idea that those largely self made men, with a combined wealth knocking on for half a billion pounds are only prevented from recklessly destroying their club and chance because the SC has removed that opportunity is a pretty crazy position.
//www.pngnrlbid.com
bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.
vastman wrote:My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.
Joined: Sep 12 2010 Posts: 11412 Location: Behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas.
SmokeyTA wrote:As Bradford have proven. We cannot legislate against idiocy. The SC cannot, and will not stop, prevent, or make less likely one of the bigger clubs going bust.
The obvious question to ask is how McManus, Lenegan, Caddick, Moran, Koukash etc have made their millions if they cannot be trusted to destroy themselves through wasteful profligacy? I think the idea that those largely self made men, with a combined wealth knocking on for half a billion pounds are only prevented from recklessly destroying their club and chance because the SC has removed that opportunity is a pretty crazy position.
Yeah because all those football clubs that we've seen over the years get themselves into a massive financial mess were owned by guys who won a raffle to own the club and not because they had the money from being successful in other businesses.
"The Golden Generation finally has its Golden Fleece! They have Wembley Cup Final winners medals to add to their collection."
Joined: Apr 03 2003 Posts: 28186 Location: A world of my own ...
SmokeyTA wrote:The obvious question to ask is how McManus, Lenegan, Caddick, Moran, Koukash etc have made their millions if they cannot be trusted to destroy themselves through wasteful profligacy? I think the idea that those largely self made men, with a combined wealth knocking on for half a billion pounds are only prevented from recklessly destroying their club and chance because the SC has removed that opportunity is a pretty crazy position.
Because, as has been said numerous times in the thread already, sport isn't an exact replica for business.
Koukash may be proficient at running a recruitment business. Caddick might have a real nose for what works in the world of construction. Moran is a world class concert promoter. None of those carry with them the emotional attachment of running a professional sports club though.
Do you think David Hughes put millions into propping up London Broncos because he was some sort of idiot who couldn't run a business? Of course not, otherwise he wouldn't have the money to do so in the first place. People make emotional rather than rational decisions when you put them in charge of a sports club. They put in money where with other businesses they would have walked away. They spend money chasing success that they wouldn't dream of doing in their own business ventures.
The people who were in charge of Wigan when they nearly went bust were successful business people in their own right. Didn't stop them making stupid decisions in pursuit of glory. The idea that the names you've stated wouldn't do anything similar if they could just isn't borne out by experience.
"As you travel through life don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things" - George Carlin
ThePrinter wrote:Yeah because all those football clubs that we've seen over the years get themselves into a massive financial mess were owned by guys who won a raffle to own the club and not because they had the money from being successful in other businesses.
Ahh yes, football, struggling to survive.
//www.pngnrlbid.com
bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.
vastman wrote:My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.
Andy Gilder wrote:Because, as has been said numerous times in the thread already, sport isn't an exact replica for business.
Koukash may be proficient at running a recruitment business. Caddick might have a real nose for what works in the world of construction. Moran is a world class concert promoter. None of those carry with them the emotional attachment of running a professional sports club though.
Do you think David Hughes put millions into propping up London Broncos because he was some sort of idiot who couldn't run a business? Of course not, otherwise he wouldn't have the money to do so in the first place. People make emotional rather than rational decisions when you put them in charge of a sports club. They put in money where with other businesses they would have walked away. They spend money chasing success that they wouldn't dream of doing in their own business ventures.
The people who were in charge of Wigan when they nearly went bust were successful business people in their own right. Didn't stop them making stupid decisions in pursuit of glory. The idea that the names you've stated wouldn't do anything similar if they could just isn't borne out by experience.
Sport isnt a replica, it is business. The idea that these millionaires and billionaires need protecting form their own emotions and the players should suffer for that protection is ridiculous.
//www.pngnrlbid.com
bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.
vastman wrote:My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.
Users browsing this forum: ArthurClues, Bing [Bot], Emagdnim13, Google [Bot] and 131 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
