Well run clubs?

pickarooney

Are there any clubs that one could point to and say - that's a tight ship, well-run business, no fear of them falling apart on a billionaire's whim?

The way most clubs are run just beggar belief, between throwing millions of pounds at players who don't play, buying players they don't need, building stadia they can't fill, hiring managers and firing them months later with massive pay-offs, gambing tens of millions on qualifying for Europe or staying in the Premiership and failing, depending on the goodwill of ruthless tycoons for the club's continued existence...

Then there are clubs who appear to piss good money after bad on loans and debts but who are in some strange sense profitable and those with no legal or financial constraints who play by their own rules...

But it's kind of hard to find a club that's run successfully, with no huge debts, no shady characters and yet makes a profit. Maybe Olympique Lyon and a couple of the German sides at a push, but it begs the question - if football is a business, what kind of screwed-up business is it?

Bounty Hunter

im putting it out there to possibly get ripped apart but personally I think that Aston Villa is being run in a way that will see no chance of them falling apart despite us having a Billionaire at the helm.

DSB

But football isn't a business. Only to the business men. Expenses have to be paid, to pay the players, pay for the stadiums, pay for the groundsmen, and all sorts of other expenses. And that can come from wherever, but in the end those people, while being those who control what gos on in football, are nothing in the hierarchy of what football is really about. Nor are your Rupert Murdochs turning football into more of a TV programme than a sport.

But in a direct answer to your question, no clubs aren't profitable, but as long as things don't go tits up, who cares? As long as clubs aren't in the Shelbourne or Leeds situation, does it really matter if a club isn't turning a profit every year. Most owners have more money than sense and aren't really in it for a profit anyway. There are much more profitable ventures than football clubs for if they are.

The Everlasting

My beloved Leeds United.

The model on how to run a successful, finacially sound football club

Bounty Hunter

Liverpool & United have big debt problems with loans upon loans
Man City's boss is expected to be a jailbird with frozen assets soon.
Chelsea are screwed if Abramovich ever decides he wants out.
Westy Ham fans arent happy at all with their biscuit tycoon and massive wage bill.
Gaydamak (sp) is supposed to be dodgy also at Portsmouth....

Zaph

The Everlasting wrote: »

My beloved Leeds United.

The model on how to run a successful, finacially sound football club into the ground

FYP

Actually I'm a Leeds fan too so that should be a

Fratton Fred

The Everlasting wrote: »

My beloved Leeds United.

The model on how to run a successful, finacially sound football club

it was so close though. a few more points and CL qualification and they would probably still be a premiership side.

there is so much money in the game now, there is only one team in England that can get by without a sugar daddy, despite the fact they have one (or a sugar family I suppose).

Who was it said that football clubs make millionaires out of billionaires?

Zaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who was it said that football clubs make millionaires out of billionaires?

Think it might have been Jack Walker.

CHD

Fulham are one of the better run clubs with a good chairman.

Boro used to be but Gibson placing his faith in Southgate gets a big old FAIL!

DSB

Wexford Youths.

Bubs101

CHD wrote: »

Fulham are one of the better run clubs with a good chairman.

Boro used to be but Gibson placing his faith in Southgate gets a big old FAIL!

Southgate has run the club well. He is a good manager who will probably pay off for Gibson big style this year. Middlesbrough are a well run club.

Fulham on the other hand have a Chairman who just seems bored with the whole thing. Hardly well run

Fratton Fred

Sorry, I don't agree Fulham are well run, they have a maga rich chairman who seems to have lost interest in the club. i think the only reason he doesn't sell up is the fear that they will rename the Dodi Faed stand.

Reading i would say are well run, John madwhateverhisnameis seems to have his head screwed on. I would also say that Palace are. Both run by chairmen that are fans and businessmen.

In the top flgith, i would say Bolton, Blackburn, West Brom and Hull City are well run, we have yet to see about Stoke City (They have an amazingly big and fanatical fanabse though. they will definately bring something to the premiership this year).

Our new chairman has put a lot of money into the club, but we do not spend that big and the new training facility/academy and ground will be funded by the club who will secure the loans based on a good business model I understand, rather than borrowing against future ticket sales which is where a lot of clubs went wrong.

I always thought Southampton were well run though, yet they appear to be on the brink at the moment.

ditpoker

spurs?

CHD

Bubs101 wrote: »

Southgate has run the club well. He is a good manager who will probably pay off for Gibson big style this year. Middlesbrough are a well run club.

Fulham on the other hand have a Chairman who just seems bored with the whole thing. Hardly well run

what a load of crap.

Explain what southgate has done right.I could get a boro poster to post now explaining how hes screwing things up.Dont forget where this club was 2 years ago.

prendy

i remember an aricle in the indo(i think) a few years back where they looked at the clubs in a business sense and Villa were the best run big club.

are aresnal well ran? they seem to be and Wenger's annual P&L must be top of the league?

Peyton Manning

Seeing as Steve Gibson, Middlesborough's Chairman was mentioned, I just have to put in this link.

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~kritip/managers%20job.htm

What a top bloke!

Bubs101

CHD wrote: »

what a load of crap.

Explain what southgate has done right.I could get a boro poster to post now explaining how hes screwing things up.Dont forget where this club was 2 years ago.

They had wasters like Maccarone and Mendieta clogging up space on their wage bill. They jammied there way to a Uefa cup final where they were promptly destroyed. They didn't do much else.

Now, from what I can tell the wage bill has to have gone down drastically. They look like they have spent well in Alves and Tuncay. They have somehow kept Downing. They have nutured Wheater fantastically. All of the players there want to be there. Judging from the transfers, Southgate will let anybody who wants to go go for the right price if their heart isn't in it. This is pretty progressive in my view.

Towards the end of last year they looked very impressive in my view as well and you should know that better than anybody. Do you not remember the second half at the Bridge last year? How did that not impress you?

CHD

Bubs101 wrote: »

They had wasters like Maccarone and Mendieta clogging up space on their wage bill. They jammied there way to a Uefa cup final where they were promptly destroyed. They didn't do much else.

Now, from what I can tell the wage bill has to have gone down drastically. They look like they have spent well in Alves and Tuncay. They have somehow kept Downing. They have nutured Wheater fantastically. All of the players there want to be there. Judging from the transfers, Southgate will let anybody who wants to go go for the right price if their heart isn't in it. This is pretty progressive in my view.

Towards the end of last year they looked very impressive in my view as well and you should know that better than anybody. Do you not remember the second half at the Bridge last year? How did that not impress you?

One performance in a half of football doesnt impress me.Watch steadily as they fall behind the rest AGAIN this year.Your thinking is stupid, they make a couple of signings and keep Downing therefore its a good club.Results make a good club.Have you seen Boro play under Southgate? They are dirt.Even the sh/te he talks to the media.The man hasn't a clue and will be in a relegation battle this year.Guarantee they wont sign a new RB either they will come out and say ''sure we will give the youth a chance''.

eZe^

No billionaires aci.... Soci's vote to decide who the clubs president is in elections, etc. It really is a club run by its fans. No shirt sponsors either... Although, there might be a billionaire who is a Soci, but he still only has to pay the same fee as the other 120,000 lads.

glenjamin

Bubs101 wrote: »

Southgate has run the club well. He is a good manager who will probably pay off for Gibson big style this year. Middlesbrough are a well run club.

LMAO!!!! You are a funny man indeed. Southgate a good manager??? LOL!!!!

Southgate is without doubt the worst manager in the Prem. Even worse than Gary Megson!! Since he took over we have gotten worse and worse every season. He has gotten some good results against the big teams but then goes and loses to Bolton and Reading at home. Selling Yakubu and letting Viduka go and then replacing them with Aliadiere and Mido isn't good management. Yes we did buy Alves in January but did you know that we could have signed him back last August? We offered Heerenveen £6M at the time but they wanted £8M so we pulled the plug, only to sign him in January for £12.5M.

So far this season we've signed a player for £4M who only played half of last season due to a serious injury (Digard) and we spent £3.2M on a player who we don't need (Emnes). And yet we've allowed our first choice GK to leave on a FREE without replacing him, let our best player from last season to leave a week before the start of the new season (Young), sold 3 of our centre midfielders in Boateng, Cattermole and Rochemback and are looking to replace all 3 with the legend that is James Harper. Southgate is ruining this club!

And people that say Steve Gibson is the best chairman in the Premier League are wrong. Gibson could be the best if he would put his foot down now and again and sack one of his underperforming managers. Last season if Southgate had been the manager of any other club in the Prem with the results he had be getting he would have been sacked for sure and would never have been given a Premiership job again. He doesn't know how lucky he is to have such a loyal, foolish, soft boss in Steve Gibson.

Smartly Dressed

Arsenal are well run.

CHD

Well Bubs can you enlighten me to why Boro are going to do well under Southgate!

A Dub in Glasgo

Celtic are a well run club... to an extent. They still waste money in paying top wages to some duds though. Overall, I would say the good business outweighs the bad

OPENROAD

Arsenal have been exceptionally well run.

SuprSi

Spurs are very well run. How many clubs have spent as much as them over the past 4 - 5, years without going into a huge amount of debt or relying on a foreign investor? Spurs always end up with a profit despite always spending big.

It's a shame their success in the books doesn't match that on the pitch!!

themont85

Man Utd are a well run club. They consistantly make operating profits of over £30m a year. Their debt is not from been badly run, its paying for a takeover.

Arsenal are well run too.

Bounty Hunter

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

Westy Ham fans arent happy at all with their biscuit tycoon and massive wage bill.

Is he not gone now?

tetsujin1979

I read a report before that one of the most well run teams in England and Scotland from a financial point of view is Partick Thistle! They nearly went to the wall a few years ago, and since then they've stuck to a strict player wage budget of 60% of turnover. Any extra money from promotions and cup runs is re-invested in the club.

eZe^

eZe^ wrote: »

No billionaires aci.... Soci's vote to decide who the clubs president is in elections, etc. It really is a club run by its fans. No shirt sponsors either... Although, there might be a billionaire who is a Soci, but he still only has to pay the same fee as the other 120,000 lads.

+ 1


Barcelona FTW. I still dont like the way voting for presidency of the club in Spain has disintegrated into "we'll sign X, Y and Z" and they never deliver. the best thing that ever happened to Laporta was his failure to deliver on his promise to get Beckham....he got Ronaldinho instead.


I love the way Barca pay Unicef to have the sponsor on the shirt.

Bounty Hunter

Deleted User wrote: »

Is he not gone now?

ahh yes you are right its his mate Björgólfur Guðmundsson the Icelandic Banker now that the West Ham fans dont like... biscuit boy was always just a front for him anyway as he had 90% ownership of the club while Magnusson (think that was his name) had only 5%.

Eirebear

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Celtic are a well run club... to an extent. They still waste money in paying top wages to some duds though. Overall, I would say the good business outweighs the bad

I have to agree with this, at the moment Celtic are one of the best ran clubs in the business.

Yes they are a PLC so at the fates of the market, but with guys like Lawell on board they are flourishing.

zAbbo

Deleted User wrote: »

I love the way Barca pay Unicef to have the sponsor on the shirt.

Almost certainly to soften the blow when a real sponsor goes on the shirt.

therecklessone

SuprSi wrote: »

Spurs are very well run. How many clubs have spent as much as them over the past 4 - 5, years without going into a huge amount of debt or relying on a foreign investor? Spurs always end up with a profit despite always spending big.

+1

PHB

zAbbo wrote: »

Almost certainly to soften the blow when a real sponsor goes on the shirt.

A cynic like me I'm kinda hopeful its not though

Arsenal are a fantastically run club. They have maintained a top 4 position, even challenging for major trophies on a negative net spend! All this while expanding their stadium! Really impressively run.

United used to be incredibly well run. Aside from the debt, it's pretty much the perfect football business.

SuprSi

SuprSi wrote: »

Spurs are very well run. How many clubs have spent as much as them over the past 4 - 5, years without going into a huge amount of debt or relying on a foreign investor? Spurs always end up with a profit despite always spending big.

It's a shame their success in the books doesn't match that on the pitch!!

They are and they arent. They only are successful financially because they keep selling their best players.

IMO to be a truly well run club you must have it sorted both financially and in terms of putting out a top quality team and keeping that team.

El Weirdo

Bubs101 wrote: »

They have nutured Wheater fantastically.

:eek:

therecklessone

Deleted User wrote: »

They are and they arent. They only are successful financially because they keep selling their best players.

Since the start of last Summer we are approximately -£40m in transfer fees.

Even if Berbatov is sold, he'll pay for Corluka and maybe Arshavin.

We're financially successful because of a very high % of bums on seats (3rd highest in PL IIRC) plus some of the most expensive tickets in the PL, record shirt and sponsorship deals, plus very lucrative domestic and European cup runs (ticket sales and TV money)

What the club does well is extract top $ from buying clubs for our assets (yes, football is a business). What we failed to do (in the case of Carrick) is replace them adequately. I believe the current managerial team is well up to the task of compensating for the loss of Robbie Keane (and I think the price we got was very very good)

Interestingly, your concept of well run club would seem to exclude the likes of Crewe and Ajax, both of whom plan for the sale of players to finance the running of their respective businesses.

therecklessone

therecklessone wrote: »

Interestingly, your concept of well run club would seem to exclude the likes of Crewe and Ajax, both of whom plan for the sale of players to finance the running of their respective businesses.

Yes but Ajax have suffered on the pitch as a result of this policy. MY definition of a well run club is one which is succesfull both financially and ON THE PITCH. For me if u lack B then in all honesty it would become the equivalent of cheering the share prices of Microsoft.......pointless.


I want to see my club A) win and financially stable.

therecklessone

Deleted User wrote: »

MY definition of a well run club is one which is succesfull both financially and ON THE PITCH.

Success is relative Neil, and IMO your definition is excessively restrictive.

Bolton under Sam Allardyce went from the old 1st Division to PL regulars, competing in Europe and all the while playing to a half empty stadium (yet never broke the bank). IMO that is an example of a well run club.

Arsenal have not won a trophy for three years, and have seen Flamini, Hleb, Henry, and Cole leave in recent seasons. Still probably the best run club in England.

Returning to Spurs, we went from mid-table fodder to a side that are European regulars, two 5th place finishes and a pot to our name. Surely that constitutes success?

There's nothing wrong with a club planning their strategy around selling players as long as they identify a credible source of replacements (either a strong youth system, or a decent scouting network, in addition to a good management/coaching structure)

OPENROAD

therecklessone wrote: »

We're financially successful because of a very high % of bums on seats (3rd highest in PL IIRC) plus very lucrative domestic and European cup runs (ticket sales and TV money)

Who is 2nd and 1st.

therecklessone

therecklessone wrote: »

Success is relative Neil, and IMO your definition is excessively restrictive.

Bolton under Sam Allardyce went from the old 1st Division to PL regulars, competing in Europe and all the while playing to a half empty stadium (yet never broke the bank). IMO that is an example of a well run club.

Arsenal have not won a trophy for three years, and have seen Flamini, Hleb, Henry, and Cole leave in recent seasons. Still probably the best run club in England.

Returning to Spurs, we went from mid-table fodder to a side that are European regulars, two 5th place finishes and a pot to our name. Surely that constitutes success?

There's nothing wrong with a club planning their strategy around selling players as long as they identify a credible source of replacements (either a strong youth system, or a decent scouting network, in addition to a good management/coaching structure)

Ok I think u either missed my point or are trying to miscontrue it.

Ajax are a team who once upon a time won 3 European Cups in a row and have produced such greats as Cruyff and van Basten.

They won the European Cup 13 years ago and then sold the whole team effectively. Since then they have continued to do this. In recent years they've sold:

Chivu
de Jong
Snejder
van der Vaart
Babel


and many many more before they got the best out of these players. If they hug onto some of these guys then they'd be regulars in the CL knockout stages. But they dont.

Bolton I agree with what you said.

But Spurs....they go almost and entire season pushing for 4th only to lose it on the last day. A real indication that they're doing the right things on the pitch.....then they sell Carrick who was their main playmaker and what happens? Nowhere near 4th since because there was no stability or continuity. Hold onto the best players, buy some more and voila .... Champions League football should have been imminent. Instead they have fallen back.

therecklessone

OPENROAD wrote: »

Who is 2nd and 1st.

IIRC you lot are 1st and ManYoo are 2nd.

The figures were posted here a couple of months ago.

therecklessone

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok I think u either missed my point or are trying to miscontrue it.

Ajax are a team who once upon a time won 3 European Cups in a row and have produced such greats as Cruyff and van Basten.

I'm certainly not trying to misconstrue your point, and I don't believe I've missed it either.

Football has changed utterly since the days of Cruyff and van Basten. Bosman and now Webster cede significant power to players and their agents, the days of a player staying at one club to win trophies are long gone. The Dutch league cannot compete on wages, and struggles to assert itself as a major player on the European trophy front. Of course, if Dutch clubs held on to their best players they might enhance their chances in the CL, but at what cost? Should they spend beyond their means by breaching wage structures to keep their stars and buying big names in the hope of establishing themselves as regulars in the latter stages of the CL? Even then their take from the CL TV pool will be significantly less than the English, Spanish, Italian and German sides, though they would still have to compete with those sides for players signatures.

Ajax sell when they do because to do otherwise would threaten their financial stability.

Bosman and Webster mean that clubs need to be careful in managing their assets (horrible word, but football is about business these days). Spurs didn't hawk Carrick to all and sundry following that 5th place finish, but his head was turned and he asked for the move once United's interest became known. We could have put our foot down and said no, but if we had we'd have seriously devalued an asset and faced two possible outcomes:

1. He'd refuse to sign a new contract, and with only two years left on his contract at that point, the following summer would see his value plummet.

2. He'd be unhappy, and likely to play at less than 100%, while causing disharmony in the dressing room.

Spurs are a PLC, and the board have a duty to act responsibly in relation to shareholders interests. I'd honestly prefer careful husbandry of our finances to a Shinawatra-style purchase of the club, we spend within our means and would survive if ENIC walked away.

pickarooney

PSV are surely a beter example from the Dutch league. They tend to produce - either through the youth ranks, from South America or from smaller Dutch clubs - one or two big players a year, inevitably sell one, usually for a sizeable fee, and replace them with other players good enough to keep winning the Eredivisie and making the knockout stages of the Champions League. They fill their stadium for every home game, with about 90% season ticket sales, and make good, if not extraordinary, merchandising turnover.

One thing I would say about Spurs is that their merchandising is not up to scratch - it's very rare to see Spurs jerseys anywhere abroad, likewise with all the other tacky logoed paraphernalia that goes along with being a highly visible club. They don't really produce much in the way of youth players to sell on at big profits and have a tendency to overspend on mediocre players (although that might be unfair, Rebrov and Bent spring to mind but that's only two examples over a long period of time).

SantryRed

I always thought since 2003 Watford was a well run club.
How wrong am I?:(

Selling all our best players at the minute.
Let something like 14 go and only brought one in to reduce the wage bill.