hsv > hsg
Printable View
hsv > hsg
Surprised at hearts total.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
A few of those clubs should be embarrassed though.
Roar :blush: Smurfs :blush: Adelaide :blush:
All 3 for Major Cities should be doing a lot better
At least Perth can lay claim to years of ineptness and Wellington well they are Kiwis after all
I hope we get rebranded like melb city. Happy days ahead
Wrong Hamburg #FCSPQuote:
Originally Posted by q-money
Secretly I hope a Cypriot buys us.
or a CypocritQuote:
Originally Posted by GazFish35
Bring back gold
I hope the Cro's buy us and re-name us the Newcastle Knights.
Decided to do a quick google for some of the current multi club ownership groups that are out there at the moment here's a brief list.
Quote:
Multiple club owners
Sheikh Mansour Manchester City, New York City FC, Al Jazira (Abu Dhabi), Melbourne Heart.
Pozzo family Watford, Udinese (Italy), Granada (Spain).
Duchâtelet family Charlton Athletic, Standard Liège, Sint-Truiden (both Belgium), Carl Zeiss Jena (Germany), Alcorcon (Spain), Ujpest (Hungary).
Vincent Tan Cardiff City, FK Sarajevo (Bosnia).
Dietrich Mateschitz Red Bull Salzburg (Austria), Red Bull New York, Red Bull Brasil, RB Leipzig
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...d-9116168.html
What's the fascination with the foreign club ownership angle??
Can see few of you either were around in the NSL days or have forgotten how much of a debacle the Northern Spirit Glasgow Rangers thing became.
It's all good and well when the parent club seem interested like they currently do at Heart but what happens in a few years time when the initial enthusiasm wanes from the owner and all he sees is money being pissed into a black hole???
I will say it again. The only way forward is to diversify ownership to a group of 4-5 OWNERS where the debts incurred running football clubs are spread about between 4-5 parties and not lumped on one rich bloke who will eventually ask WTF as he continues to piss money into a black hole of debt.
Exact same predicament with Con Tinks etc. The rest of it is just window dressing.
One Rich Bloke owning the club is ALWAYS doomed to inevitable failure
Financial fair play is the difference between now and the northern spirit/rangers debacle.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Please provide us with some current working models of multiple owners.
VictreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Jetmaster
4 blokes 25%
Victory, currently looking for more investors because 4 blokes sick of losing so much money?Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
I guess the counter to that would be SFC. Place has multiple owners and run like a bucket of shit innit?Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Victree are one of the few clubs in this country who have turned a profit go close to breaking even so losing money isn't exactly their issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimario
As for the Smurfs Plague they ain't run any worse than we are!!!. They are at least financially stable even if onfield they are a joke
The thing with one bloke wanting out of Victree (I read one wanted out unsure if that is the only one) is that the future ain't clouded cause one wants out.
Everytime Tinks/Con or whoever has any issue we are staring down the barrel. DejaVu
Might well be the factor that has encouraged the likes of Man City to buy Heart etc but considering what UEFA are trying to do with the whole idea whats to not see them change/tighten rules so that any advantage City are gaining from their New York Melburn activity are negated??Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommyjet
The Financial Fair Play angle is still a restrictive thing which keeps the elite clubs dining at the head table and and in future will prevent new clubs like Chelsea Man City etc buying success at the expense of the established powers. Would not surprise me at all if the whole thing was a charade from Euros big clubs to keep the likes of Chelsea Man City getting away from them
I actually agree with the Member in that as long as there are stable owners, who cares where they are from etc etc.
Just so happens our local Richie Rich's aren't exactly football lovers and either have the cash but not the passion, or the passion but not the cash.
The bright spot about foreign clubs pissing thier cash up against a wall by investing down here is that no matter how bad our game is going, big clubs will lose more just by screwing up a big signing ('sup Andy Carroll) so we'll probably never show up on thier P&L's.
Oh and the Northern Spirit was the greatest thing that ever happened to the NSL because shitkhunce like Robbie Slayer and Gypo Arnie got screwed over and lost a tonne of cash.
#neverforget
Anyone know if Eddie Obeid likes soccer?
I think we should get that ICAC company to buy us. They're in the news heaps, seem to have loads of cash to throw around. We could play in emerald green and paper bag brown.
And for man of the match awards we can hand out shitty $300 paintings that are then on-sold for $10k to get around the salary cap.Quote:
Originally Posted by GazFish35
How many lads can we for in the back of a Bentley for away days?
I think we should rig the 500 club and buy the club ourselves
You make some good points Plague.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
The current costs of running a HAL club are such that it limits ownership to the top echelon of wealth in this country. Unfortunately most in this bracket have little interest in the game and are not passionate enough about it or you find one like Sage who is passionate but clueless.
Splitting the ownership up amongst a few parties may at least find us the people who have a passion for the game and can afford to piss 200k up against a wall a season having a 20% stake in the 1 million debt as opposed to not wanting 100% the 1 million debt.
End result is we are getting the better quality candidate in the picture ie people who care for the game
Foreign Clubs have had plenty of opportunity in the past to invest in foreign clubs. Reality with it is it ain't there interest. Even Wenger was blabbering some shit the other week about Arsenal being all about Arsenal and not interested in the club buying another club even if it could be used as a source to blood players.
Most of these arrangements are so heavily geared in favour of the big club anyway who just poach any notable talent that comes from the feeder club for less than market value anyway and they are prone to abandoning the feeder club without a care in the world when it serves them no purpose.
Forgot about the Gypo pair Arnie and Slater at Northern Spirit getting burnt :rof:
So... how is that different to any HAL club NOT owned by a foreign entity? They all get screwed over, the all lose best players for less than market value. The only example I can think of where that hasn't happened is Milligan at MV and his form was pretty shit after that fell through, so MV might be regretting not buckling under pressure back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
We are a league made up entirely of feeder clubs. Anyone who thinks we aren't at present is deluded. And that really SHOULD be the financial sustainability model for clubs here until the sport starts dominating media market share or foreign investment takes over.
Salary cap needs to be locked in.
Clubs should be encouraged to invest in academies and start producing talent.
Then let the "home grown" players not count fully to the salary cap.
Clubs become financially stable by selling players they produce.
Isn't the salary cap locked in for the next 2-3 years post CBA? And doesn't the TV money cover the entire cap? Unless I've misunderstood all of the stuff about that in the past...?
agreedQuote:
Originally Posted by GazFish35
Clubs shouldn't have to be encouraged to do that. It should be a given.Quote:
Originally Posted by GazFish35
Problem is clubs can't do that at present without creating an additional expense on top of the existing 1-2 million a year they are blowing. Unfortunately the salary cap is far too high and out of whack with the income the clubs are making
Clubs getting ripped off is mainly down to their own inability to negotiate. Look at our CEO He gives Ryan Griff away and then sells a promising striker who has just been to the WC and bagged the golden boot award last season for 400k tops as that was the most HE agreed when signing this blokes contract. Middleby is not alone here as the rest of the clubs ain't much betterQuote:
Originally Posted by Grimario
The issue with a foreign club owning the club is the complete lack of long term loyalty to the Aussie club. Very easy for them to **** the club up enough and send them extinct by walking out the door cause after all there number one priority is to their own interest.
Nothing wrong with foreign ownership ie some Foreign Rich Bloke as such.
Have big issues with clubs doing what Man City are doing with Heart.
Its all good in the honeymoon period with leads to problems eventually when the flow of money is reduced.
Good news is Heart were already a basket case. A couple of years of City running the show may be enough to kick start enough interest in the club to be able to survive with Man City walking out which is in this situation a better scenario than what would have occurred with the direction Heart were going on there own
Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Big rich Club walking away and leaving the club high and dry could be negated by FFA making big rich club have an insurance bucket that the FFA/club can use when the big guys leave town.
If get bought by Leicester, I only hope the FFA make Leicester sit 10million aside in a trust so that if they bail/go bankrupt, the club has operating monies. Leicester could keep the trust if they sell to another owner who then pays the same trust etc.
Is that what the Tinkler/knights/members group shirt fight was about?
Glad I still got my old away shirt from 2012/2013 then! :facepalm:
Newcastle United.... I could probably deal if we had to use that name :gent:
Away strip, whoo. Their third strip has green in it as well, methinks.
Nope, GK kit is green.
Surely Newcastle United's owner is a stable bloke and understands the importance of history to a club :gent:
The knights had to have a bank guarantee, so not quite like a trust with cash sitting in it, but the purpose was the same as you're getting at.Quote:
Originally Posted by GazFish35
I personally like the sound of a german club if it was one that was not wholly privately held, as they might be open to allowing the fans taking a share of the club Blackmac style.
You do realise that clause was included in the new 1 year extended contract the club got taggart to sign in November 2013, he originally signed a 2 year deal in march 2012, meaning if they had not signed the bloke to the extension he would have been out the door on a free transfer. Taggz was always going to be looking to move at the first chance he got, by getting an extension with that ceiling guaranteed that we'd make money and retain a good player, hardly the worst deal going around.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
:roflz:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeterpool
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pico
You do realise that as Taggz was under the age of 23 the Jets are according to FIFA rules entitled to a training compensation fee anyway regardless of whether Taggz was under contract or not????? So it ain't like he would have walked out for nothing anyway
Bet you our club had NFI on that
Why exactly is everyone happy we sold the bloke and only got 400k or so for it?? The club negotiated this deal at a time he had just scored a few goals last season. No one at the time was predicting golden boot and World Cup for the kid. It was only the fact that these things happened the interest to leave would have been spiked.
To me it is a pretty poor decision to agree a stipulation in a deal like that at all particularly for a bloke who plays a position that goes for big $$ in transfer fees anyway and even more so when everyone could see the kid had talent and it would be a matter of time before it was fulfilled.
Hope there will be a spare sit for him in bay 60 :whistling:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeterpool
It's absolute impossible to speculate on the negotiation of players contracts, what's to say Taggart would have accepted the contract if the $400k ceiling was not in the contract. You don't know what negotiated behind close doors so speculating about it is pointless.
Oh FYI Melbourne City are not own buy Manchester City. Both clubs are owned by Sheik Mansour.
I'd bet they had a better understanding and realised that $400k Australian is still better than at best $40,000 US per year of training as per FIFA's regulations, so basically what you would rather have had Middleby do was actually wait and let him leave on a free transfer missing out on a $400k transfer fee plus any additional training compensation so that the club could scoop up that awesome life changing $80k USD.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe...ionperiods.pdf
Which is precisely why they moved to extend his contract, it wasn't the worst deal going about but generally if as you say it was just a matter of time, why would it be smarter to refuse any transfer caps and have the bloke walk away in a couple of months time.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Melbourne city is owned 80% by man City, 20% by consortium that owns Melbourne storm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Premy