The 2019-2020 season.

We started the season with a slim chance of survival and then had the worst season of injuries that I have seen in the 48 years I've supported City. The key to the restart was that Klose hadn't played all season and simply wasn't up to speed, which showed big time against Southampton. Too many other players didn't seem up to a fight for survival. The question now is are they up to a 50 match slog this season?

 

I cannot disagree with any of this . Although I am sure one or two posters will try their damnedest.

 

And yet some are not willing accept that this was a major contributing factor in our demise.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-agree-to-delay-cuts-to-prize-money-vkg3h7qf9

Pretty sure this should be a financial benefit to us? There's still prize money for finishing 20th.

 

Six years ago Wolves were in League 1. Now they are in the PL and play Seville in the Europa Cup this evening. What’s their secret? Answers to DF and SW co Carrow Road, Norwich, NR1 1JE.

 

Is this maybe the sort of answer you are looking for Slicker?

"On 21 July 2016, it was confirmed that the Chinese investment group Fosun International had bought the club's parent company, W.W. (1990) Ltd, from Steve Morgan and his own company Bridgemere Group, for an undisclosed amount......."

 

Exactly the answer RobbieBB. Are there any teams in the PL that do not have mega investment behind them?

 

Mega rich owners is not necessarily the answer. With fair play rules the situation at Chelsea when the Russian moved in are a thing of the past and whilst the big boys can hide income under the mask of sponsorship they have to be careful as Man City have just found out, Smaller Clubs can't. Nice were bought by mega money owners last year but as soon as there was talk of Viera going on a spending spree UEFA were soon sniffing around and it never happened.

 

Burnley are (I believe) in an equivalent/worse position than Norwich. Self funded, smaller stadium, smaller catchment, etc. Obviously the longer they're in the Prem, the easier it gets.

 

Agree DH. It is the likes of Burnley we should be comparing ourselves with rather than clubs like Wolves who are of greater interest to investors due to their greater tradition, ground size, fanbase and catchment area.

 

Burnley population, 73,000. 25 miles North of Manchester.

 

"Self-funded" in our case, means that the directors do not inject their own money to bolster what the club generates from its own activities. Burnley's owners, though far from mega-rich, have a combined worth roughly three times the combined worth of ours. Do they utilise their greater wealth to the advantage of Burnley FC?

 

What a short memory some people have. How much have our owners put into this Club over the years? They have now got the Club financially stable and are trying to get it run in accordance with fair play rules - what is wrong with that? Burnley have proudly claimed for years that they are self funded and have always sold their best players to achieve that - are you saying that their owners are liars? Perhaps you object to the fact that they always stand by their Manager even when they go through a series of bad results. Replacing ' family run ' with ' mega rich run ' can have the opposite effect to what the fans were hoping for - ask Ipswich and Coventry fans.

 

Just a further afterthought. The owners of Clubs like ours do it out of love for the Club and standby it through thick and thin. The mega rich owners of Man Utd and others buy it as an investment - the Man Utd owners have now taken far more out of the Club than they have ever put in. The Nice owner bought the Club because he now lives in the area during the winter and likes to watch a football match!! The Spurs owner apparently turns up about once a season and bought it so that his mate could run it. The wealth of these people runs into hundreds of billions of pounds and would have no interest in the likes of NCFC.

 

Calm down and stop attributing false views to me please. I was simply asking a question: "Are Burnley self-funding in the same sense as we are now?" I've supported City for over half a century, so I'm perfectly well aware of previous financial ups and downs. And where have I said anything critical of Burnley and their owners/directors?
"Self-funded" is ambiguous depending on how "self" is interpreted; does it, for example, just mean the club has no external debt, or does it exclude funds provided by owners or directors as well? Ipswich fans will tell you that they are "self-funded" because Evans covers their losses.

 

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said but I think that if you read again the final sentence of your post you will agree that your inference is open to interpretation. The question of responsibility for losses in a Limited Company is a complicated subject but there is nothing legally to prevent funds being voluntarily put into a Company to cover losses usually by way of a share issue which the funder takes in exchange for his funds. Under the fair play rules this can only be done to cover reasonable operating losses and not losses arising from excessive transfer policy. The owner of the Club is the majority shareholder and legally there is nothing to commit shareholders to cover losses - all they have at risk is the value of their shareholding. If Evans was faced with a major loss but wanted to continue his involvement with the Club he could voluntarily cover the loss either by his own funds or, with the authorisation of the Board, external debt. If he decided that enough was enough he could do a Philip Green and sell his shares for £1 to, usually, an asset stripper or, more likely with a football club, go the route of Administration. There is no legal justification for saying that Evans would cover their losses. If you look at the history of Coventry City you will see how a Club can legally end up in the mire this way.l

 

But with respect, I can't see any reason to interpret "Do they utilise their greater wealth to the advantage of Burnley FC?" as implicitly critical of Burnley's owners/directors. There are perfectly reasonable and beneficial uses for such funds if a club's owners/directors care to make them available; my question simply asked whether Burnley was a case in point.

 

Don't really want to continue this but the idea of self funding means that Owners/Directors are not making funds available on a day to day basis. This is what NCFC are committed to do and is what Burnley have always maintained they do. If there is a shortfall between income and outgoing it is made up by profits on transfers and not by funds from individuals. To my mind if you query whether they really have been doing that then you are, by implication, querying whether they have been telling the truth. Doesn't really matter that much.

 

But I didn't query whether Burnley are "really" self-funding, only whether they are self-funding. I simply didn't know what funding model Burnley operate with. And it does matter, because it may give rise to the impression that I am against our owners and the self-funding model, which is the reverse of the truth.

 

Interesting, in depth analysis of some the stats for the three relegated teams last season.

https://eflanalysis.com/analysis/wh...l-succeed-in-the-efl-data-analysis-statistics