The reason we wont build stand/spend on transfers

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

The reason we wont build stand/spend on transfers

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 3 << First < 1 2 3

YT Oxford 28 Jun 23 7.11pm
Originally posted by monkey Some on here though just can’t get their heads around that, they think just because we’ve been in the premier league ten years we should be spending vast amounts of money to get us in the top ten or challenging for Europe. I agree that lots of people haven't got a clue what they are talking about when it comes to finance. However, it can't be completely true to say that transfers can only be funded from football-related revenue streams, otherwise how could Newcastle (for example) suddenly have a massive transfer war-chest 'overnight'? Where has their vastly increased football-related revenue come from? Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 28 Jun 23 7.11pm

Originally posted by monkey

Some on here though just can’t get their heads around that, they think just because we’ve been in the premier league ten years we should be spending vast amounts of money to get us in the top ten or challenging for Europe.

I agree that lots of people haven't got a clue what they are talking about when it comes to finance. However, it can't be completely true to say that transfers can only be funded from football-related revenue streams, otherwise how could Newcastle (for example) suddenly have a massive transfer war-chest 'overnight'? Where has their vastly increased football-related revenue come from?

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

monkey Sittingbourne,but made in Bromley 28 Jun 23 7.54pm
Originally posted by YT I agree that lots of people haven't got a clue what they are talking about when it comes to finance. However, it can't be completely true to say that transfers can only be funded from football-related revenue streams, otherwise how could Newcastle (for example) suddenly have a massive transfer war-chest 'overnight'? Where has their vastly increased football-related revenue come from? Myself included mate, and you’re right, it’s hard to work out how the financial fair play works, especially as Bournemouth who’s income must be half or worse than us, but they still seem to be able to spend £20/25 on one player every now and then. All I do know is that with the size of our ground, support and our lack of serious corporate income, we’re never going to get where some of our fans think we should be i.e challenging the big boys up the top
Alert a moderator to this post

monkey

Sittingbourne,but made in Bromley 28 Jun 23 7.54pm

Originally posted by YT

I agree that lots of people haven't got a clue what they are talking about when it comes to finance. However, it can't be completely true to say that transfers can only be funded from football-related revenue streams, otherwise how could Newcastle (for example) suddenly have a massive transfer war-chest 'overnight'? Where has their vastly increased football-related revenue come from?

Myself included mate, and you’re right, it’s hard to work out how the financial fair play works, especially as Bournemouth who’s income must be half or worse than us, but they still seem to be able to spend £20/25 on one player every now and then.
All I do know is that with the size of our ground, support and our lack of serious corporate income, we’re never going to get where some of our fans think we should be i.e challenging the big boys up the top

Alert a moderator to this post

CT Charlie 29 Jun 23 2.26am
I believe the American businessmen are just that, American businessmen. Their plan, I should think, is to buy into the club, keep it in the Premier League for 10-15 years, and sell their share at a substantial profit. They're investing in the Premier League, not in Palace per se. To them, the difference between 17th place and 9th place is minor relative to the increased value of the League over the next 10 years. They can't compete with the top 6, but the continuing investment of the wealthy teams will ensure that the Premier League is the best in the world. As the fanbase expands in the U.S., China, Middle East, and perhaps Africa and South America, their investment will look better and better. It's sad, but it's the reality.
Alert a moderator to this post

CT Charlie

29 Jun 23 2.26am

I believe the American businessmen are just that, American businessmen. Their plan, I should think, is to buy into the club, keep it in the Premier League for 10-15 years, and sell their share at a substantial profit. They're investing in the Premier League, not in Palace per se.

To them, the difference between 17th place and 9th place is minor relative to the increased value of the League over the next 10 years. They can't compete with the top 6, but the continuing investment of the wealthy teams will ensure that the Premier League is the best in the world. As the fanbase expands in the U.S., China, Middle East, and perhaps Africa and South America, their investment will look better and better.

It's sad, but it's the reality.

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 29 Jun 23 5.58am
Originally posted by CT Charlie I believe the American businessmen are just that, American businessmen. Their plan, I should think, is to buy into the club, keep it in the Premier League for 10-15 years, and sell their share at a substantial profit. They're investing in the Premier League, not in Palace per se. To them, the difference between 17th place and 9th place is minor relative to the increased value of the League over the next 10 years. They can't compete with the top 6, but the continuing investment of the wealthy teams will ensure that the Premier League is the best in the world. As the fanbase expands in the U.S., China, Middle East, and perhaps Africa and South America, their investment will look better and better. It's sad, but it's the reality. Why is it sad? Haven't football teams always been owned by rich people? If that model is 'sad', what's the alternative? Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 29 Jun 23 5.58am

Originally posted by CT Charlie

It's sad, but it's the reality.

Why is it sad? Haven't football teams always been owned by rich people? If that model is 'sad', what's the alternative?

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

Dubai Eagle 29 Jun 23 7.30am
I think the sentiment is that in yester year clubs were owned by rich people (local businessmen) that cared about the club, the game & putting something back into the local community ( in many cases that was the same community that they grew up in) whereas now its mostly rich people that only care about money or image branding - We are actually lucky to have Steve Parish, at least he is from the area, has been a club supporter & in many ways identifies quite a lot with the local fan base & of course the local community. Obviously the Americans considerably less so. Originally posted by YT Why is it sad? Haven't football teams always been owned by rich people? If that model is 'sad', what's the alternative?
Alert a moderator to this post

Dubai Eagle

29 Jun 23 7.30am

I think the sentiment is that in yester year clubs were owned by rich people (local businessmen) that cared about the club, the game & putting something back into the local community ( in many cases that was the same community that they grew up in) whereas now its mostly rich people that only care about money or image branding -

We are actually lucky to have Steve Parish, at least he is from the area, has been a club supporter & in many ways identifies quite a lot with the local fan base & of course the local community.

Obviously the Americans considerably less so.

Originally posted by YT

Why is it sad? Haven't football teams always been owned by rich people? If that model is 'sad', what's the alternative?

Alert a moderator to this post

CT Charlie 29 Jun 23 12.09pm
Originally posted by YT Why is it sad? Haven't football teams always been owned by rich people? If that model is 'sad', what's the alternative? Some owners have a vested competitive interest in their clubs, a desire for them to improve or to beat their rivals, just because of their egos. Most fans feel this way, for a variety of reasons, and I include Parish among them. I suspect the Americans see Palace merely as one property among many in a network of clubs, and we don't have any indication that they share the fans' ambition.
Alert a moderator to this post

CT Charlie

29 Jun 23 12.09pm

Originally posted by YT

Why is it sad? Haven't football teams always been owned by rich people? If that model is 'sad', what's the alternative?

Some owners have a vested competitive interest in their clubs, a desire for them to improve or to beat their rivals, just because of their egos. Most fans feel this way, for a variety of reasons, and I include Parish among them. I suspect the Americans see Palace merely as one property among many in a network of clubs, and we don't have any indication that they share the fans' ambition.

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 29 Jun 23 12.16pm
Originally posted by CT Charlie Some owners have a vested competitive interest in their clubs, a desire for them to improve or to beat their rivals, just because of their egos. Most fans feel this way, for a variety of reasons, and I include Parish among them. I suspect the Americans see Palace merely as one property among many in a network of clubs, and we don't have any indication that they share the fans' ambition. So you'd rather we didn't have the Americans' money then; and that we just relied on Steve Parish? Or do you know of other wealthy Palace fans waiting in the (Eagles') wings? Re. your first sentence, which other current football club owners match your description? Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 29 Jun 23 12.16pm

Originally posted by CT Charlie

So you'd rather we didn't have the Americans' money then; and that we just relied on Steve Parish? Or do you know of other wealthy Palace fans waiting in the (Eagles') wings?

Re. your first sentence, which other current football club owners match your description?

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 29 Jun 23 1.03pm
Originally posted by Dubai Eagle I think the sentiment is that in yester year clubs were owned by rich people (local businessmen) that cared about the club, the game & putting something back into the local community ( in many cases that was the same community that they grew up in) whereas now its mostly rich people that only care about money or image branding - We are actually lucky to have Steve Parish, at least he is from the area, has been a club supporter & in many ways identifies quite a lot with the local fan base & of course the local community. Obviously the Americans considerably less so. Well, we were owned by someone a bit like that on a number of occasions. One sold some of the ground to Sainsbury's which has limited us ever since and then cleared off with the money when we were on the cusp of becoming a big club, and another sent us into administration. Do people really miss the old days?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

29 Jun 23 1.03pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Dubai Eagle

I think the sentiment is that in yester year clubs were owned by rich people (local businessmen) that cared about the club, the game & putting something back into the local community ( in many cases that was the same community that they grew up in) whereas now its mostly rich people that only care about money or image branding -

We are actually lucky to have Steve Parish, at least he is from the area, has been a club supporter & in many ways identifies quite a lot with the local fan base & of course the local community.

Obviously the Americans considerably less so.

Well, we were owned by someone a bit like that on a number of occasions.
One sold some of the ground to Sainsbury's which has limited us ever since and then cleared off with the money when we were on the cusp of becoming a big club, and another sent us into administration.

Do people really miss the old days?

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 3 << First < 1 2 3

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The reason we wont build stand/spend on transfers

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors