Shrewsbury big loss

[Fuller]

https://www.shrewsburytown.com/news/202 ... 43bbhGfGJ8

https://www.shropshirestar.com/sport/fo ... -accounts/

£3 million loss apparently……

[1985CTFC]

Shrews site saying Lincoln lost over 3million, and Oxford 6.2 million.
Hope Oxford got enough to continue installments for Goodwin!!!

Makes our loss seem like peanuts. Would imagine most Lg1 clubs will make a loss

Also from same source Portsmouth lost 3million. Hope Prem League are watching and try and be a bit more generous.

[ctfc-fan]

Shrews site saying Lincoln lost over 3million, and Oxford 6.2 million.
Hope Oxford got enough to continue installments for Goodwin!!!

Makes our loss seem like peanuts. Would imagine most Lg1 clubs will make a loss

Also from same source Portsmouth lost 3million. Hope Prem League are watching and try and be a bit more generous.

Why should the Prem prop clubs up though?

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Shrews site saying Lincoln lost over 3million, and Oxford 6.2 million.
Hope Oxford got enough to continue installments for Goodwin!!!

Makes our loss seem like peanuts. Would imagine most Lg1 clubs will make a loss

Also from same source Portsmouth lost 3million. Hope Prem League are watching and try and be a bit more generous.

Why should the Prem prop clubs up though?

Depends on your opinion on a) how much the Prem has caused the problem b) how much you support the economic principle of internalising the cost of negative externalities and c) taxation to provide public goods.

Some people might say that the Prem has, whether directly or indirectly, created a lot of the financial issues in football so should take some responsibility and compensate for the damage caused.

Some people might say that the Prem has, whether directly or indirectly, created a lot of the financial issues in football but tough, the struggling clubs are collateral damage.

Some people might say that the Prem has played no part in creating the financial issues in football so it’s not the Prem’s problem.

Some people might say that the Prem has played no part in creating the financial issues in football but would still like them to fund lower leagues for “the good of the game”….those with the broadest shoulders and all that.

[1985CTFC]

Shrews site saying Lincoln lost over 3million, and Oxford 6.2 million.
Hope Oxford got enough to continue installments for Goodwin!!!

Makes our loss seem like peanuts. Would imagine most Lg1 clubs will make a loss

Also from same source Portsmouth lost 3million. Hope Prem League are watching and try and be a bit more generous.

Why should the Prem prop clubs up though?

Are you a football fan, I mean generally an all round football fan? It is not a question of propping up clubs. It is about using some of the vast amounts of money they get to help football in general and not just Prem clubs. The money is not just used to pay Lg1 players it probably helps run and pay staff running academies and improve facilities etc etc.
There you have a few reasons why they should help footy generally. I am sure there are many more.
Guess if you win 150million on the euro you wouldn't consider helping little old Cheltenham then? That is what is called being a supporter and it is basically similar to the Prem helping similar in the family of football.

[ctfc-fan]

Shrews site saying Lincoln lost over 3million, and Oxford 6.2 million.
Hope Oxford got enough to continue installments for Goodwin!!!

Makes our loss seem like peanuts. Would imagine most Lg1 clubs will make a loss

Also from same source Portsmouth lost 3million. Hope Prem League are watching and try and be a bit more generous.

Why should the Prem prop clubs up though?

Are you a football fan, I mean generally an all round football fan? It is not a question of propping up clubs. It is about using some of the vast amounts of money they get to help football in general and not just Prem clubs. The money is not just used to pay Lg1 players it probably helps run and pay staff running academies and improve facilities etc etc.
There you have a few reasons why they should help footy generally. I am sure there are many more.
Guess if you win 150million on the euro you wouldn't consider helping little old Cheltenham then? That is what is called being a supporter and it is basically similar to the Prem helping similar in the family of football.

Yes of course I’m a football fan, but what other business can expect to be propped up by another, unrelated entity?

What I’m saying is clubs are businesses and they should be run as such and within their means, not relying on handouts from others. Ticket sales, merchandise, sponsorship and cup runs. We know this will never happen but clubs shouldn’t moan that they’ve overspent and having financial issues.

I also get that there is an obscene amount of money in the Premiership which inflates wages all down the pyramid but that is never going to change and will only get worse.

[Jerry St Clair]

The problem is that there is no restriction on losses in L1 and 2. Only the Salary Cap Management Protocol applies which only requires clubs to pay wages up to a certain % of turnover. They can rack up as much debt as they like. Seems to me like FFP needs to be extended down the divisions.

[Lord Elpuz]

Just a personal view - it is probably the case that a lot of Championship / League 1 / League 2 Clubs factor in money expected to be cascaded from the Premier League, hence running up some level of debt (not all of the debt, as that would likely constitute serious mismanagement for whatever reason). It is also highly likely that the Premier League needs a symbiotic relationship with the EFL Divisions to enable their young starlets to get good quality competitive League experience to equip them for their first season in the Premier League, and conversely, to put unwanted talent in the shop window for potential transfer. It’s not good for professional football in England if we start to lose EFL Clubs. The longer the Premier League dither about the amount of cash they’re willing to ‘invest’ in keeping EFL Clubs alive, the greater the risk to the standard of English players coming through the professional system.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Just a personal view - it is probably the case that a lot of Championship / League 1 / League 2 Clubs factor in money expected to be cascaded from the Premier League, hence running up some level of debt (not all of the debt, as that would likely constitute serious mismanagement for whatever reason). It is also highly likely that the Premier League needs a symbiotic relationship with the EFL Divisions to enable their young starlets to get good quality competitive League experience to equip them for their first season in the Premier League, and conversely, to put unwanted talent in the shop window for potential transfer. It’s not good for professional football in England if we start to lose EFL Clubs. The longer the Premier League dither about the amount of cash they’re willing to ‘invest’ in keeping EFL Clubs alive, the greater the risk to the standard of English players coming through the professional system.

On the one hand, yes. On the other, more money from the Premier League might not solve anything or even make it worse. IF it just means wages and costs go up in the EFL, then loss making teams will still make losses, but bigger losses.

[Lord Elpuz]

Just a personal view - it is probably the case that a lot of Championship / League 1 / League 2 Clubs factor in money expected to be cascaded from the Premier League, hence running up some level of debt (not all of the debt, as that would likely constitute serious mismanagement for whatever reason). It is also highly likely that the Premier League needs a symbiotic relationship with the EFL Divisions to enable their young starlets to get good quality competitive League experience to equip them for their first season in the Premier League, and conversely, to put unwanted talent in the shop window for potential transfer. It’s not good for professional football in England if we start to lose EFL Clubs. The longer the Premier League dither about the amount of cash they’re willing to ‘invest’ in keeping EFL Clubs alive, the greater the risk to the standard of English players coming through the professional system.

On the one hand, yes. On the other, more money from the Premier League might not solve anything or even make it worse. IF it just means wages and costs go up in the EFL, then loss making teams will still make losses, but bigger losses.

If your second scenario is borne out, football below the Premier League is therefore doomed, looking at the sheer scale of Clubs reporting losses.

[Robin]

https://www.shrewsburytown.com/news/202 ... 43bbhGfGJ8

https://www.shropshirestar.com/sport/fo ... -accounts/

£3 million loss apparently……

This was the reason they sacked Cotts as they were spending well beyond their means under him.

[Robin]

Just a personal view - it is probably the case that a lot of Championship / League 1 / League 2 Clubs factor in money expected to be cascaded from the Premier League, hence running up some level of debt (not all of the debt, as that would likely constitute serious mismanagement for whatever reason). It is also highly likely that the Premier League needs a symbiotic relationship with the EFL Divisions to enable their young starlets to get good quality competitive League experience to equip them for their first season in the Premier League, and conversely, to put unwanted talent in the shop window for potential transfer. It’s not good for professional football in England if we start to lose EFL Clubs. The longer the Premier League dither about the amount of cash they’re willing to ‘invest’ in keeping EFL Clubs alive, the greater the risk to the standard of English players coming through the professional system.

Simple solution is to share the TV money but only allow it to be spent on infrastructure. Parachute payments need to stop and TV money shared more equally but the clubs currently at the top will do everything they can to prevent that.

[Wellwisher]

The problem is that there is no restriction on losses in L1 and 2. Only the Salary Cap Management Protocol applies which only requires clubs to pay wages up to a certain % of turnover. They can rack up as much debt as they like. Seems to me like FFP needs to be extended down the divisions.

The reason why FFP isn't extended beyond the Championship is because the EFL doesn't want to deter wealthy benefactors from putting their own money into lower level clubs. And let's face it, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? Wouldn't you be happy if someone came along and spent a few quid on CTFC, to raise the club a level?

Remember, such clubs are generally very different from Championship clubs, where the danger is that chancers gamble money on gaining a "ticket to the Promised Land". Obviously such behaviour is not nearly so likely further down, since it takes more than one promotion to achieve.

While rash spending in the lower divisions is still deterred by both the Salary Cap and the threat of points deductions etc for teams going into Administration.

While they might not have yet got the formula correct, it makes sense to me to have differing financial regulations for clubs in the PL, vs. clubs in the Championship, vs. clubs in Lges One and Two, since each face very different financial circumstances.

[Wellwisher]

It’s not good for professional football in England if we start to lose EFL Clubs.

Obviously not.

But the threat to professional clubs in the EFL is greatly overstated (imo). There was a real problem in 2002 when ITV Digital went bust and dragged a number of EFL clubs into Administration. But the problem there was that those clubs had spent or borrowed before they'd actually received the money promised and in any case, they've long since sorted themselves out

And how many have actually disappeared completely in the 20-odd years since? When you discount "Phoenix" clubs like Bury, Darlo, Macclesfield etc, I can only think of Rushden & Diamonds, maybe one or two more?

By contrast, when you count the National League, where almost all the clubs are now f-t professional, plus a fair few in the NLN/NLS, there are well over 100 f-t professional clubs in the English game - more than ever. While it's no longer a death sentence when clubs get relegated out of the EFL (see eg Luton Town), where there are new clubs taking their place all the time (eg Harrogate or Stevenage etc).

Frankly, I cannot think of another traditional industry or commercial sector in this country where the number of active participants has stayed the same, never mind expanded, even after 100+ years. I mean, whatever happened to British Leyland, Woolworths, Northern Rock, Wilko, British Steel and the rest?

Of course there will always be clubs like eg Shrewsbury who screw up and get into trouble from time to time. But when you count crowds, revenues, participants, overseas interest, investment, sponsorship and media etc, English professional football has never been healthier overall (imo).

[Lord Elpuz]

It’s not good for professional football in England if we start to lose EFL Clubs.

Obviously not.

But the threat to professional clubs in the EFL is greatly overstated (imo). There was a real problem in 2002 when ITV Digital went bust and dragged a number of EFL clubs into Administration. But the problem there was that those clubs had spent or borrowed before they'd actually received the money promised and in any case, they've long since sorted themselves out

And how many have actually disappeared completely in the 20-odd years since? When you discount "Phoenix" clubs like Bury, Darlo, Macclesfield etc, I can only think of Rushden & Diamonds, maybe one or two more?

By contrast, when you count the National League, where almost all the clubs are now f-t professional, plus a fair few in the NLN/NLS, there are well over 100 f-t professional clubs in the English game - more than ever. While it's no longer a death sentence when clubs get relegated out of the EFL (see eg Luton Town), where there are new clubs taking their place all the time (eg Harrogate or Stevenage etc).

Frankly, I cannot think of another traditional industry or commercial sector in this country where the number of active participants has stayed the same, never mind expanded, even after 100+ years. I mean, whatever happened to British Leyland, Woolworths, Northern Rock, Wilko, British Steel and the rest?

Of course there will always be clubs like eg Shrewsbury who screw up and get into trouble from time to time. But when you count crowds, revenues, participants, overseas interest, investment, sponsorship and media etc, English professional football has never been healthier overall (imo).

Sadly, I disagree with your last viewpoint on the health of the English game. The reason the Premier League has swallowed the greater amount of the financial pot from which the professional game increasingly depends, is all down to the money generated from TV rights, which in turn has driven the earning ambitions of Players’ Agents for themselves and their clients. The EFL divisions are now having to pay exorbitant Player salaries and Agents fees way beyond the financial capabilities of most Clubs. Agents demands are slowly destroying the financial viability of many Clubs below the Premier League, and those who manage a brief spell in the top tier. At current levels I don’t believe it is sustainable. We may get to witness more Clubs joining the “Phoenix” ranks; some may not recover.

[Jerry St Clair]

It’s not good for professional football in England if we start to lose EFL Clubs.

Obviously not.

But the threat to professional clubs in the EFL is greatly overstated (imo). There was a real problem in 2002 when ITV Digital went bust and dragged a number of EFL clubs into Administration. But the problem there was that those clubs had spent or borrowed before they'd actually received the money promised and in any case, they've long since sorted themselves out

And how many have actually disappeared completely in the 20-odd years since? When you discount "Phoenix" clubs like Bury, Darlo, Macclesfield etc, I can only think of Rushden & Diamonds, maybe one or two more?

By contrast, when you count the National League, where almost all the clubs are now f-t professional, plus a fair few in the NLN/NLS, there are well over 100 f-t professional clubs in the English game - more than ever. While it's no longer a death sentence when clubs get relegated out of the EFL (see eg Luton Town), where there are new clubs taking their place all the time (eg Harrogate or Stevenage etc).

Frankly, I cannot think of another traditional industry or commercial sector in this country where the number of active participants has stayed the same, never mind expanded, even after 100+ years. I mean, whatever happened to British Leyland, Woolworths, Northern Rock, Wilko, British Steel and the rest?

Of course there will always be clubs like eg Shrewsbury who screw up and get into trouble from time to time. But when you count crowds, revenues, participants, overseas interest, investment, sponsorship and media etc, English professional football has never been healthier overall (imo).

A really interesting perspective.

I've been saying that the Premier League bubble will burst soon since about 1997. I've been completely wrong, it's just got richer and richer.

I thought the Championship was a closed shop with, essentially, relegated Premier teams dominating the top places fuelled by parachute payments. But Ipswich have busted that party this season.

I guess the thing with English football is that we have strength in depth like no other division on the planet. Crowds can easily get into 4 figures even 6 or 7 steps down the pyramid and that, in itself, is a cushion against going bust.

[Wellwisher]

It’s not good for professional football in England if we start to lose EFL Clubs.

Obviously not.

... [but] the threat to professional clubs in the EFL is greatly overstated (imo).

... when you count crowds, revenues, participants, overseas interest, investment, sponsorship and media etc, English professional football has never been healthier overall (imo).

Sadly, I disagree with your last viewpoint on the health of the English game.... ... Agents demands are slowly destroying the financial viability of many Clubs below the Premier League, and those who manage a brief spell in the top tier.

Sorry but Agents fees are just another cost of doing business, like eg VAT, Electricity or Groundstaff's wages etc, only with one important difference: you have to pay those other expenses, but you don't have to pay Agents.

That is, if you can't afford the transfer fee + the player's wages + the Agent's cut, then you can't afford the player, full stop.

And to take this back to the issue which started this thread, Shrewsbury didn't lose £3m because they spent all that amount on Agents.

[Lord Elpuz]

Obviously not.

... [but] the threat to professional clubs in the EFL is greatly overstated (imo).

... when you count crowds, revenues, participants, overseas interest, investment, sponsorship and media etc, English professional football has never been healthier overall (imo).

Sadly, I disagree with your last viewpoint on the health of the English game.... ... Agents demands are slowly destroying the financial viability of many Clubs below the Premier League, and those who manage a brief spell in the top tier.

Sorry but Agents fees are just another cost of doing business, like eg VAT, Electricity or Groundstaff's wages etc, only with one important difference: you have to pay those other expenses, but you don't have to pay Agents.

That is, if you can't afford the transfer fee + the player's wages + the Agent's cut, then you can't afford the player, full stop.

And to take this back to the issue which started this thread, Shrewsbury didn't lose £3m because they spent all that amount on Agents.

Two things:
1. Some of that loss would have been down to Agents fees; I gather about a third of Shrewsbury’s loss was down to Agents fees. The amounts paid to Agents by each club has recently been released. It’s eye watering.
2. If you hire a professional such as a solicitor, you will pay the fees. I have never understood why the professional footballer does not pay their own Agent’s fees, especially when they often get a signing on fee along with a wage offer. Agents are leeches sucking vast sums of money out of the game and are encouraged to do so.

[Red Duke]

Sadly, I disagree with your last viewpoint on the health of the English game.... ... Agents demands are slowly destroying the financial viability of many Clubs below the Premier League, and those who manage a brief spell in the top tier.

Sorry but Agents fees are just another cost of doing business, like eg VAT, Electricity or Groundstaff's wages etc, only with one important difference: you have to pay those other expenses, but you don't have to pay Agents.

That is, if you can't afford the transfer fee + the player's wages + the Agent's cut, then you can't afford the player, full stop.

And to take this back to the issue which started this thread, Shrewsbury didn't lose £3m because they spent all that amount on Agents.

Two things:
1. Some of that loss would have been down to Agents fees; I gather about a third of Shrewsbury’s loss was down to Agents fees. The amounts paid to Agents by each club has recently been released. It’s eye watering.
2. If you hire a professional such as a solicitor, you will pay the fees. I have never understood why the professional footballer does not pay their own Agent’s fees, especially when they often get a signing on fee along with a wage offer. Agents are leeches sucking vast sums of money out of the game and are encouraged to do so.

I assume that your second point is all about tax avoidance. If the player paid the agent he would have to pay the VAT on the transaction. As the club and the agent are VAT registered, both can claim it back.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

.

[horlickfanclub]

Two things:
1. Some of that loss would have been down to Agents fees; I gather about a third of Shrewsbury’s loss was down to Agents fees. The amounts paid to Agents by each club has recently been released. It’s eye watering.
2. If you hire a professional such as a solicitor, you will pay the fees. I have never understood why the professional footballer does not pay their own Agent’s fees, especially when they often get a signing on fee along with a wage offer. Agents are leeches sucking vast sums of money out of the game and are encouraged to do so.

I assume that your second point is all about tax avoidance. If the player paid the agent he would have to pay the VAT on the transaction. As the club and the agent are VAT registered, both can claim it back.

And if two clubs want the same player one can gazzump the other by offering to pay fees. And so on.

I would say to the player we will pay you the money ,not to the agent. If the player was intelligent he would ditch the agent. Directors need to make a stand.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

.

[Robin]

I assume that your second point is all about tax avoidance. If the player paid the agent he would have to pay the VAT on the transaction. As the club and the agent are VAT registered, both can claim it back.

And if two clubs want the same player one can gazzump the other by offering to pay fees. And so on.

I would say to the player we will pay you the money ,not to the agent. If the player was intelligent he would ditch the agent. Directors need to make a stand.

The thing is you don't get to speak to the player until the deal is agreed with the agent, if you want a player you have to deal with his club and his agent.

[Wellwisher]

1. Some of [Shrewsbury's £3m] loss would have been down to Agents fees; I gather about a third of Shrewsbury’s loss was down to Agents fees. The amounts paid to Agents by each club has recently been released. It’s eye watering.

During Season 2022/23, STFC signed 4 x players on a permanent transfer, 3 x Frees and Jordan Shipley from Coventry. They also had 6 x players in on loan, one until Jan, the others for the season:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022%E2%8 ... .C._season

None of those bar Shipley will have incurred much in the way of Agents' fees, if anything. And while Shipley's fee has not been disclosed, various websites "value" him around £400k.

Nor did STFC have to replace their manager and his coaches during the season either.

Therefore I fail to see how STFC's Agents' bill came to £1m, or anything remotely close.

2. If you hire a professional such as a solicitor, you will pay the fees. I have never understood why the professional footballer does not pay their own Agent’s fees, especially when they often get a signing on fee along with a wage offer. Agents are leeches sucking vast sums of money out of the game and are encouraged to do so.

Like all such trades, some Agents are very good, some are sharks, and some are somewhere in between. (You can argue all you like about the exact proportions, but that's how it is)

And by now, club owners should know who the sharks are, at least, and decline to do business with them.

Beyond that, you appear to feel that Agents should have no part in football?

But consider it this way. Suppose you're a 20 or 21 year old footballer who left school at 16, possibly with little or no qualifications because all you ever thought of was football. You've spent the next 4 or 5 years in the Academy/Reserves until you're ready to sign your first proper, professional contract. This might be at a new club, where you know no-one, or how they do things.

When you go in to negotiate, you find yourself up against a Manager like Steve Evans, or a Chairman like Darragh McAnthony.

Can you really be expected to go in on your own, or maybe with your parents, and extract the best possible deal the club is prepared to offer? Quite honestly, it would be like going unarmed into a gun fight.

All of which is why players need Agents, and clubs are prepared to deal with them.