This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
jeeagles 16 Mar 21 4.56pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Eaglecoops
As some have explained in detail it is irrelevant having wealthy owners. It is to do with your ability to earn income as to whether you can spend money on players. Wealthy owners can buy you a new ground but you are looking at 5-10 years before that is done and the size of the club reaches the critical mass where you can start competing for top players in the transfer window. We are, along with at least another 10-12 teams in the PL just treading water and nothing really will change. The big teams bias created by FFP has sown up the league in terms of a realistic chance of competing at the top level by making it impossible to do another Chelsea or Man City. Leicester is the only exception to the rule and they have semi broken into the big time and credit to them for doing so. If the big teams truly get their way they will not even have to qualify for the CL and their guaranteed £100m for getting there will of course cement their ability to buy the top players. In short, unless the FFP rules are changed we are never going to become a top team. It also just always seems like begging. Throwing money at problems doesn't necessarily work. Just look at Sunderland.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Midlands Eagle 16 Mar 21 5.34pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jeeagles
It's always possible to find a failure if you dig hard enough. Let's not forget that our likely Premier League Champions were in the third division not that long ago and it was only 12 years ago that wealthy owners got involved and bought them a new ground and new players and the rest as they say is history
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
doombear Too far from Selhurst Park 16 Mar 21 6.02pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
It's always possible to find a failure if you dig hard enough. Let's not forget that our likely Premier League Champions were in the third division not that long ago and it was only 12 years ago that wealthy owners got involved and bought them a new ground and new players and the rest as they say is history
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Midlands Eagle 16 Mar 21 7.14pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by doombear
But as Eaglecoops has rightly said, FFP rules will not allow smaller clubs to do a Citeh or a Chelsea. Citeh got going just in time. That's only partly true as it's the relatively small size of the stadium that holds back our income and capital expenditure on stadiums doesn't count for FFP
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Ketteridge Brighton 16 Mar 21 8.32pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
That's only partly true as it's the relatively small size of the stadium that holds back our income and capital expenditure on stadiums doesn't count for FFP Agreed, there is progress as club and a progress as a team. As a club we have cleared some debt and built the academy and that’s pushing us to the next level, redeveloping the old stand is the big one, I think the projections are along the lines of £20m additional income but can't remember where i saw that figure. That is going to take time though for context Haringey council first gave the White Hart Lane development agreement in 2010 and it took till 2019 Spurs to play their first game there, Brentford took 7 years from planning permission to moving in and Plough Lane was similar, Ok not completely comparable as whole grounds but it is not a simple process. Fulham look like they got planning permission in 2017 but were working on the planning the development from 2010.
One supporter of hacking argued that without it "you will do away with the courage and pluck of the game, and I will be bound to bring over a lot of Frenchmen who would beat you with a week's practice -Blackheath secretary at first meeting of the F.A |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Eaglecoops CR3 16 Mar 21 10.15pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
That's only partly true as it's the relatively small size of the stadium that holds back our income and capital expenditure on stadiums doesn't count for FFP It’s a time restricted thing. Building a new stadium and creating a scenario where you can challenge the top is a 10 year investment at best and how many investors would be willing to get involved with no/little return for that sort of period?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jeeagles 17 Mar 21 9.38am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
It's always possible to find a failure if you dig hard enough. Let's not forget that our likely Premier League Champions were in the third division not that long ago and it was only 12 years ago that wealthy owners got involved and bought them a new ground and new players and the rest as they say is history Manchester City were in Division Two 22 years ago. 18 years ago they were fortunate enough to be handed a new stadium by the council. Since they became the richest club in the world 12 years ago they have managed 4 league titles, despite regularly spending far more than anyone else. That means they have failed on 8 out of 12 occasions, missing out to clubs with less resources. Nor have they had any success in Europe. Any wins they do have are immediately tainted by the notion that they just bought success, like how Donald bought Ivanka. That's a pretty inefficient return on the spending. Other clubs have had far greater resources than us as well as Sunderland. Blackburn, Hull, Fulham, Cardiff, QPR, Watford, Wednesday, Forest... all clubs we have outperformed since 2010. Chucking money at a club doesn't work. Others are right, the board are generally getting most things right. I suspect the American's are there to underwrite the training ground and new stand should things go tits up. It's not like a bank would lend money to a football club at a sensible interest rate. Others have pointed out how long it takes to put push through a stadium development, particularly in London and particularly with Croydon Council's record on redevelopment. Billionaire owners tend to be drawn to clubs good infrastructure. Leicester, Wolves, Hull, Cardiff, Sunderland and so on all have recently redeveloped grounds. If you do want a sugar daddy, development of the ground is the way to go, but will still take years.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Davepalace707 Northumberland 17 Mar 21 3.47pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jeeagles
Manchester City were in Division Two 22 years ago. 18 years ago they were fortunate enough to be handed a new stadium by the council. Since they became the richest club in the world 12 years ago they have managed 4 league titles, despite regularly spending far more than anyone else. That means they have failed on 8 out of 12 occasions, missing out to clubs with less resources. Nor have they had any success in Europe. Any wins they do have are immediately tainted by the notion that they just bought success, like how Donald bought Ivanka. That's a pretty inefficient return on the spending. Other clubs have had far greater resources than us as well as Sunderland. Blackburn, Hull, Fulham, Cardiff, QPR, Watford, Wednesday, Forest... all clubs we have outperformed since 2010. Chucking money at a club doesn't work. Others are right, the board are generally getting most things right. I suspect the American's are there to underwrite the training ground and new stand should things go tits up. It's not like a bank would lend money to a football club at a sensible interest rate. Others have pointed out how long it takes to put push through a stadium development, particularly in London and particularly with Croydon Council's record on redevelopment. Billionaire owners tend to be drawn to clubs good infrastructure. Leicester, Wolves, Hull, Cardiff, Sunderland and so on all have recently redeveloped grounds. If you do want a sugar daddy, development of the ground is the way to go, but will still take years. Excellent post
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Therealeaglestilidie 26 Mar 21 9.20am | |
---|---|
I'm so Palace I don't even know it |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
eaglesdare 26 Mar 21 10.49am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by ChicagoPalace
Safety, and obtaining the most points possible, are obviously the primary objectives. I get my enjoyment from Palace winning matches. The "How" doesn't bother me all that much. Will gladly take today's product and result 100 times out of 100 over losing 4-3 at Anfield like we did a few seasons ago. If you support Palace to be entertained, but really don't care if the club wins or not, perhaps you would get more enjoyment spending your Saturdays at the cinema or a gymnastics meet. My thoughts precisely! I never supported palace for the "good football" if i wanted easy on the eye footie i would have followed city, liverpool or it arsenal, united back when i started following football! I would take an ugly 1-0 win any day of the week! i said to myself a few years ago i would just love two or 3 seasons of a no stress season and thats exactly what ive gotten! no fear of relegation no 6 pointer games no nervy last 2 games going to the wire etc...
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 26 Mar 21 12.29pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
My thoughts precisely! I never supported palace for the "good football" if i wanted easy on the eye footie i would have followed city, liverpool or it arsenal, united back when i started following football! I would take an ugly 1-0 win any day of the week! i said to myself a few years ago i would just love two or 3 seasons of a no stress season and thats exactly what ive gotten! no fear of relegation no 6 pointer games no nervy last 2 games going to the wire etc... Ugly isn't really the word for some of our performances. Sh1t would be one. Totally inept would be two words. There were several matches we didn't even try and another several where only one or two players tried.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
kingdowieonthewall Sussex, ex-Cronx. 26 Mar 21 2.03pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
Ugly isn't really the word for some of our performances. Sh1t would be one. Totally inept would be two words. There were several matches we didn't even try and another several where only one or two players tried. pretty much how i feel also.
Kids,tired of being bothered by your pesky parents? |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.