I like Andy Holt a lot, and I agree with many of his points with regards to the Bury games being called off, and how that impacts his club, but I also feel as though he is being a bit self righteous. It seems like an opportunity to highlight how amazing he is, rather than a true assessment of how the clubs in question should be treated.
Look at the Bolton fans from yesterday - do they really deserve to have no club, or a club in non-league, because of an owner they did not choose? I feel every bit as much sympathy for the local vendors who get screwed over also, but in both cases, the best solution is more stringent 'fit and proper' tests, more logical and preventative financial rules, and better distribution of money in the game.
Those fans yesterday deserve to have a club to support.
Thanks @Uncle_T measured response from Rob which seems to be their MO. Whilst I was on Twitter I came across the interview with GA explaining amongst other things his thoughts behind the team selection.
Had a quick look at Pattison's stats on Wiki after watching that clip.
He didn't score 1 in 34 games last season for Yeovil. That amazed me.
He got into positions to score a hattrick on Saturday. Surely he didn't have that sort of opportunity for Yeovil? Maybe he played deeper or something?!
ps not surprised Holt is cheesed off with Bury's scenario! 3 points could be a gamechanger in their season.
However, he must recognise there's a good chance they drop out completely which will be a disaster - so missing a couple of games is the lesser of the evils.
Interesting and outspoken by Holt as usual. Got to have some sympathy, and don't take it as a slight against us. Our game could easily have gone the same way that theirs did and all the hard work behind the scenes and a great day and some £ would have been lost.
Equally bad owners need to take more credit for their results and jog on quicker without making things worse and pursuing dead returns.
Too easy to say EFL should have shut both clubs down though or thrown them out. Can you imagine the pasting they'd get if they didn't appear at least to be giving clubs a chance. In Bolton's case it has always seemed to be a matter of time until a takeover and then they will be a very big team again, Bury less so.
The deterrent for going into Admin and not paying debts needs to be larger. Clubs can run up huge debts, right a huge percentage of them off and return to football for a 12 point deduction. It's ludicrous. They get a huge competitive advantage over clubs who are trying to be more prudent and then wipe off debts. Leicester are the best example of this in recent years.
I'm glad to see the EFL taking a stronger line in the case of Bolton and Bury but I'd like to see them do this up front and not in the aftermath by introducing stronger penalties and imposing more financial rules. Yes, it is unfortunate for Bury/Bolton fans and I would be gutted to see us go bust and have to start again but less than 20% of EFL clubs made a pre-tax profit from 2014 to 2017!
There is one route cause of these issues - players wage demands and transfer fees - if the deterrent was bigger, then the power would go back to the clubs and away from the players and agents. When do 3rd or 4th rate workers get paid upwards of 75K per annum in other jobs? The national average for full time employee is £28k per annum. The 3rd and 4th best sparky/plumber in the village doesn't get paid this much so why do footballers believe they have a devine right to these wage demands? Retirement age is 67 not 35. Get another job after football...perhaps a hybrid of full time and part time players could be tested?
I'd be quite happy to see the deterrent increased to an automatic two division relegation for those going into Admin and no points deduction. I'm sure this would see some more prudent running of clubs. I realise this could have happened to Wycombe a number of times over the last 10 years but would we have taken quite so many funding risks with such a large deterrent?
I'd also like us to explore moving to the German model where the community/fans own 51% of the club...thus ensuring clubs are run on an even keel with the community/fans in mind.
I know there are lots of arguments against or different to the above...this is just my opinion, which of course will differ to lots of others!
why do footballers believe they have a devine right to these wage demands?
On the first issue not sure they think they have a divine right but they are in a market place and surely you try and get the best deal that you can...even if you are fourth or fifth best plumber in the village? I'm not sure you can put players 'demands' over poor ownership, recruitment and stewardship of a club.
Retirement age is 67 not 35.
Which sort of defeats your argument...when footballers pack it in it is often because of injury and even if not if they've had any sort of career from a youth they will not necessarily be in the best of physical condition...especially if most of their career has been 3rd or 4th rate!
Without the safety net of Premier League wages or going straight into being a talking head most footballers would struggle in a job market that is shrinking for all of us.
Happily as we see from our players (Bloomfield/JJ ) a lot more of them are bright and are already thinking ahead but future could be bleak for some.
Also I suspect most of them do go into other employment.
On reflection, I suspect most 3rd/4th division players do get another job after they retire at 35. We do get a lot of press coverage about footballers needing to earn their money for life before they retire...premier league wages would seem to cover that off.
I do think overinflated wages then give 3rd/4th division players issues in the job market after football. The type of job that pays them the money they are used to earning as a footballer, is not then generally available to them due to their skillset. They then have mortgages to pay taken out on a footballers salary. Perhaps this is where the club/EFL can help with their education during downtime or the semi-pro route becomes a better fit for those players in the lower leagues, in the long term. A point Dave Tarpey made for many years before going to Barnet.
Given so many clubs are overspending, very few make a profit, a significant number are teetering on the brink then I would argue the salary the player/club agrees on are unrealistic versus what clubs can afford. Is it the folly of Chairman who agree to these demands or the perceived "devine right" of the player to demand higher payment when a club clearly cannot afford it. I suspect both parties need to be more realistic and meet in the middle. After all if Bury and Bolton players had been paid less then they wouldn't be in this mess!
There are a couple of articles on price of football which make an interesting read and would very much support your points on poor ownership and stewardship but also show that there is no logic to player wage requests in football.
I've never agreed with the football creditor rule, as I think it promotes the wrong behaviour from players and owners alike, as above. An overview of that can be found here from 2015. I don't think the rules have changed.
Both sides need to be more realistic, the EFL/FA need to get some governance in place to allow clubs to survive within a sustainable model. For twenty years we've heard lots about the bubble bursting - I feel like we are fast reaching that point now.
While I agree that players wages are excessively high, I don’t think calling a lower league player third or fourth rate is helpful or fair. They are exceptionally talented in their field - and if they were plumbers they would almost certainly be the best one in their village.
@Malone said:
Asking what sort of industry has 3rd or 4th raters on 75k a year...one that has the best on 500k a week!!
Plumbers! Have you ever tried to even get one, then turn up when they say they will? Usually end up with a bill that equates to £50+ ph when they eventually do the work!
The EFL set a deadline of 23rd August for Bury to prove their financial viability, but there was a deadline of 9am today for them to show how they can pay their creditors so the Gillingham game can go ahead. Apparently they've given Steve Dale a little longer, though.
We play them on 7th December - reckon we're good to assume a decision will have been made either way by then?
This surely is heading towards them being kicked out?
Even if they get the right backing, the league accept it, and then they schedule the missing 5-6 games in, surely there would be a points deduction for missing so many games?!
Otherwise, although it's harsh to say it, surely another club, when in whatever peril, could pull out of a fixture with impunity?
In theory, they should be chucked out in 10 days if they've not sorted it out. In practice? With the EFL, who the heck knows. Obviously I don't want that to happen - you'd hope no one does, although there are always a few idiots - but how long can this situation be allowed to continue to detrimentally affect other teams?
Obviously should have all been sorted before the season starts but the league is giving clubs the opportunity to find new owners to solve issues. Theres some problems with this beyond the effect on other fixtures and any advantages or disadvantages caused by rearrangement.
Shaun Harvey (I don't feel its unfair to label him a useless tw@t, but thats another thing) stated his approach on leaving the job; owners can save clubs, we must kiss their behinds, be very grateful and make it easier for them.
The league do nothing to encourage sense or punish reckless management.
Not sure points deductions are overly important now @Malone. Only really important thing for Bury is kicking off next season - preferably as a league club. Whether it’s lg1 or 2 is largely irrelevant.
League is right in my view to give them every possible chance. One extra Tuesday fixture for a few other clubs a small price surely for the hopes and dreams of 4000 decent Bury fans.
At best 50-50 whether they can make it. If the new offer is real maybe but seems the current owner will make it as hard and as expensive for them.
Meanwhile Bolton are still shedding players and with the injunction now lifted, we will see if the takeover completes or not. If not done by Friday, look pretty grim for them. And Macclesfield and Sol Campbell have parted company - allegedly because Campbell has not been paid. Not happy times. had our Board not found the Couhigs very possible we would have been on that list too.
Like all of us I work for free...shame on Sol and any other footballer (and any other staff below Chairman to be honest) wanting money when they should thank the Lord that they are allowed to play the football in front of adoring fans.
Comments
An extended thread from the owner of Accrington Stanley with whose sentiments I largely agree:
Good response from Pete Couhig further down the thread.
Response now deleted?
@NorsQuarters
I like Andy Holt a lot, and I agree with many of his points with regards to the Bury games being called off, and how that impacts his club, but I also feel as though he is being a bit self righteous. It seems like an opportunity to highlight how amazing he is, rather than a true assessment of how the clubs in question should be treated.
Look at the Bolton fans from yesterday - do they really deserve to have no club, or a club in non-league, because of an owner they did not choose? I feel every bit as much sympathy for the local vendors who get screwed over also, but in both cases, the best solution is more stringent 'fit and proper' tests, more logical and preventative financial rules, and better distribution of money in the game.
Those fans yesterday deserve to have a club to support.
Thanks @Uncle_T measured response from Rob which seems to be their MO. Whilst I was on Twitter I came across the interview with GA explaining amongst other things his thoughts behind the team selection.
Had a quick look at Pattison's stats on Wiki after watching that clip.
He didn't score 1 in 34 games last season for Yeovil. That amazed me.
He got into positions to score a hattrick on Saturday. Surely he didn't have that sort of opportunity for Yeovil? Maybe he played deeper or something?!
ps not surprised Holt is cheesed off with Bury's scenario! 3 points could be a gamechanger in their season.
However, he must recognise there's a good chance they drop out completely which will be a disaster - so missing a couple of games is the lesser of the evils.
Will they get more points deductions though?!
Interesting and outspoken by Holt as usual. Got to have some sympathy, and don't take it as a slight against us. Our game could easily have gone the same way that theirs did and all the hard work behind the scenes and a great day and some £ would have been lost.
Equally bad owners need to take more credit for their results and jog on quicker without making things worse and pursuing dead returns.
Too easy to say EFL should have shut both clubs down though or thrown them out. Can you imagine the pasting they'd get if they didn't appear at least to be giving clubs a chance. In Bolton's case it has always seemed to be a matter of time until a takeover and then they will be a very big team again, Bury less so.
The deterrent for going into Admin and not paying debts needs to be larger. Clubs can run up huge debts, right a huge percentage of them off and return to football for a 12 point deduction. It's ludicrous. They get a huge competitive advantage over clubs who are trying to be more prudent and then wipe off debts. Leicester are the best example of this in recent years.
I'm glad to see the EFL taking a stronger line in the case of Bolton and Bury but I'd like to see them do this up front and not in the aftermath by introducing stronger penalties and imposing more financial rules. Yes, it is unfortunate for Bury/Bolton fans and I would be gutted to see us go bust and have to start again but less than 20% of EFL clubs made a pre-tax profit from 2014 to 2017!
There is one route cause of these issues - players wage demands and transfer fees - if the deterrent was bigger, then the power would go back to the clubs and away from the players and agents. When do 3rd or 4th rate workers get paid upwards of 75K per annum in other jobs? The national average for full time employee is £28k per annum. The 3rd and 4th best sparky/plumber in the village doesn't get paid this much so why do footballers believe they have a devine right to these wage demands? Retirement age is 67 not 35. Get another job after football...perhaps a hybrid of full time and part time players could be tested?
I'd be quite happy to see the deterrent increased to an automatic two division relegation for those going into Admin and no points deduction. I'm sure this would see some more prudent running of clubs. I realise this could have happened to Wycombe a number of times over the last 10 years but would we have taken quite so many funding risks with such a large deterrent?
I'd also like us to explore moving to the German model where the community/fans own 51% of the club...thus ensuring clubs are run on an even keel with the community/fans in mind.
I know there are lots of arguments against or different to the above...this is just my opinion, which of course will differ to lots of others!
why do footballers believe they have a devine right to these wage demands?
On the first issue not sure they think they have a divine right but they are in a market place and surely you try and get the best deal that you can...even if you are fourth or fifth best plumber in the village? I'm not sure you can put players 'demands' over poor ownership, recruitment and stewardship of a club.
Retirement age is 67 not 35.
Which sort of defeats your argument...when footballers pack it in it is often because of injury and even if not if they've had any sort of career from a youth they will not necessarily be in the best of physical condition...especially if most of their career has been 3rd or 4th rate!
Without the safety net of Premier League wages or going straight into being a talking head most footballers would struggle in a job market that is shrinking for all of us.
Happily as we see from our players (Bloomfield/JJ ) a lot more of them are bright and are already thinking ahead but future could be bleak for some.
Also I suspect most of them do go into other employment.
As you say though....it's all opinion.
On reflection, I suspect most 3rd/4th division players do get another job after they retire at 35. We do get a lot of press coverage about footballers needing to earn their money for life before they retire...premier league wages would seem to cover that off.
I do think overinflated wages then give 3rd/4th division players issues in the job market after football. The type of job that pays them the money they are used to earning as a footballer, is not then generally available to them due to their skillset. They then have mortgages to pay taken out on a footballers salary. Perhaps this is where the club/EFL can help with their education during downtime or the semi-pro route becomes a better fit for those players in the lower leagues, in the long term. A point Dave Tarpey made for many years before going to Barnet.
Given so many clubs are overspending, very few make a profit, a significant number are teetering on the brink then I would argue the salary the player/club agrees on are unrealistic versus what clubs can afford. Is it the folly of Chairman who agree to these demands or the perceived "devine right" of the player to demand higher payment when a club clearly cannot afford it. I suspect both parties need to be more realistic and meet in the middle. After all if Bury and Bolton players had been paid less then they wouldn't be in this mess!
There are a couple of articles on price of football which make an interesting read and would very much support your points on poor ownership and stewardship but also show that there is no logic to player wage requests in football.
http://priceoffootball.com/category/financial-results/
http://priceoffootball.com/category/otherfinancialissues/
I've never agreed with the football creditor rule, as I think it promotes the wrong behaviour from players and owners alike, as above. An overview of that can be found here from 2015. I don't think the rules have changed.
https://www.realbusinessrescue.co.uk/articles/uk-company-law/the-football-creditors-rule-what-is-it-and-what-does-it-mean-for-all-creditors
Both sides need to be more realistic, the EFL/FA need to get some governance in place to allow clubs to survive within a sustainable model. For twenty years we've heard lots about the bubble bursting - I feel like we are fast reaching that point now.
While I agree that players wages are excessively high, I don’t think calling a lower league player third or fourth rate is helpful or fair. They are exceptionally talented in their field - and if they were plumbers they would almost certainly be the best one in their village.
More to the point, a third rate plumber can make a very good living these days.
Asking what sort of industry has 3rd or 4th raters on 75k a year...one that has the best on 500k a week!!
Plumbers! Have you ever tried to even get one, then turn up when they say they will? Usually end up with a bill that equates to £50+ ph when they eventually do the work!
Wonder if the owner will listen: https://www.buryfc.co.uk/news/2019/august/statement-from-bury-fc-staff/
Let’s hope so.
Gillingham chairman thinks it might be another 72 hours before their game at Bury on Saturday is called off. https://www.gillinghamfootballclub.com/news/2019/august/message-from-the-chairman/
What a carry on. Is the absolute deadline the end of this month?
Missing 3 league games can be rectified with some midweekers asap, but if it starts getting 4-5 league games, then it's painful.
The EFL set a deadline of 23rd August for Bury to prove their financial viability, but there was a deadline of 9am today for them to show how they can pay their creditors so the Gillingham game can go ahead. Apparently they've given Steve Dale a little longer, though.
We play them on 7th December - reckon we're good to assume a decision will have been made either way by then?
Gillingham game confirmed as suspended. Hard to see their Tuesday night one going at Rotherham going ahead...
https://www.gillinghamfootballclub.com/news/2019/august/efl-bury/
This surely is heading towards them being kicked out?
Even if they get the right backing, the league accept it, and then they schedule the missing 5-6 games in, surely there would be a points deduction for missing so many games?!
Otherwise, although it's harsh to say it, surely another club, when in whatever peril, could pull out of a fixture with impunity?
In theory, they should be chucked out in 10 days if they've not sorted it out. In practice? With the EFL, who the heck knows. Obviously I don't want that to happen - you'd hope no one does, although there are always a few idiots - but how long can this situation be allowed to continue to detrimentally affect other teams?
Obviously should have all been sorted before the season starts but the league is giving clubs the opportunity to find new owners to solve issues. Theres some problems with this beyond the effect on other fixtures and any advantages or disadvantages caused by rearrangement.
Shaun Harvey (I don't feel its unfair to label him a useless tw@t, but thats another thing) stated his approach on leaving the job; owners can save clubs, we must kiss their behinds, be very grateful and make it easier for them.
The league do nothing to encourage sense or punish reckless management.
Not sure points deductions are overly important now @Malone. Only really important thing for Bury is kicking off next season - preferably as a league club. Whether it’s lg1 or 2 is largely irrelevant.
League is right in my view to give them every possible chance. One extra Tuesday fixture for a few other clubs a small price surely for the hopes and dreams of 4000 decent Bury fans.
At best 50-50 whether they can make it. If the new offer is real maybe but seems the current owner will make it as hard and as expensive for them.
Another match suspended: https://www.efl.com/news/2019/august/efl-statement-rotherham-united-v-bury-fc/
Meanwhile Bolton are still shedding players and with the injunction now lifted, we will see if the takeover completes or not. If not done by Friday, look pretty grim for them. And Macclesfield and Sol Campbell have parted company - allegedly because Campbell has not been paid. Not happy times. had our Board not found the Couhigs very possible we would have been on that list too.
As Notts County said....They had Sol, but he's not a soldier.
Like all of us I work for free...shame on Sol and any other footballer (and any other staff below Chairman to be honest) wanting money when they should thank the Lord that they are allowed to play the football in front of adoring fans.