Lord Sugar Tackles Football: Well, Almost

You may also like...

11 Responses

  1. James says:

    All very well saying “Abolish the football creditors rule” but what about the smaller clubs (especially in non-league) who are owed money by bigger teams who are threatened. My club is owed transfer money by Plymouth, while we could get by without it, others can’t, that can’t be allowed to happen!

  2. sit down-shut up. says:

    “Sir Lord Alan” managed to talk to all and sundry.Except for one – The Fan – Oh yeah Platini remember us when it comes to financial fair play you hypocrite.

  3. Tyrone Shoelaces says:

    sugar is a c u n t

  4. A small elk named Cedric says:

    Ultimately we’re all animals, aren’t we Jeff?

  5. John White says:

    A trenchant analysis ruined by the bigoted drivel in the final paragraph. To suggest that Bankers “largely caused” the financial crisis, when they were merely emblematic of an attitude prevalent in the outrageously spendthrift government of the time using borrowed money, and ignoring the fundamental difference between expenditure and investment, and the general population thinking it was clever to “bash the plastic” instead of either the government or the general population living within its means and putting money away for future needs, demonstrates an identical “head-in-the-sand” wilful refusal to act responsibly that Lord Sugar is criticising in the football world. The irony is that Lord Sugar was part of that spendthrift government and never offered the same analysis to his bosses, at least in public.
    Furthermore no one, repeat no one, has “blamed public sector workers and their pensions for the problem”. It has merely been asserted that the country can no longer afford to pay out of the public purse the level of benefits those people have become accustomed to, and which those employed in the private sector have in general long since had to forego. There lies Lord Sugar’s hypocrisy, and indeed, it appears, that of the writer of this article.
    The football world is the country in microcosm and has demonstrated the same failings, which at least the present government is trying to get to grips with, though the football world in the UK shows little sign of attempting to emulate the goverments approach. For the former government, the general population and bankers, read footballers, owners, agents and supporters always pressurising for more expenditure.

  6. Dave says:

    The solution is to not take the money the club would like to be afford to pay, and take the money it can pay. By taking staged payments, clubs are essentially offering the players on credit, and therein lies the problem. Cash up front or no deal.

  7. SJ Maskell says:

    The myth that the majority of fans pressurise for spending on players has been dispelled by a number of studies into fan motivation – none more so than Supporters Direct ‘Social and Community Value of Football’ research. Time we stopped hawking that one around as a reason for football’s cash splashing. In any case, given the amount of attention paid to fans by most owners the allegation is specious in the extreme.

    As David Gill has highlighted – doing away with the football creditors rule might reduce the ‘buying players on tick’ ethos and force selling clubs to check the creit-worthiness of those buying. Such economic regulation might put a break on the transfer market and reduce the outrageous wage claims players feel entitled to make.

    That football is not a business because no proper business would survive if run the way football has been is patently obvious. Time to stop pretending it is the same as any other business and run football clubs as sporting clubs with the interests of their members as the main focus.

  8. Jertzee says:

    James – precisely why the Football Creditors rule MUST be abolished.

    It will stop clubs like yours giving players to other clubs with a promise of a future payment and aforce the other club to PAY for the player with money they actually have!

  9. Allan says:

    Doesn’t Jerome Andreson also “enjoy” close links to Arsenal as well, im sure that there’s a chapter on this in Broken Dreams. In fact anyone who doesn’t exactly believe Redknapp or Anderson’s version of events will find fuel for their fires in that particular book.

  10. neil says:

    so players and agents should not want to earn as much as they can…take the tv money and put half in a pot…why not live in a kibbutz too..this was laughable trash tv…Sugar the communist? no mention of Abramovich, Mansour et all driving up fees etc, no mention that MUFC’s debt comes from paying off the prev shareholders who all made a fortune, no mention of fans being fleeced….only decent bit was about Pompey and guys not getting paid..this IS outrageous and worst of all St John’s ambulance who always get knocked but not even cursory research to mention this either. Awful and just confirmed my opinion to avoid anything this know-all-know-naff-all is involved in.
    For a man who made money all his life to criticise others for the same was the worst form of hypocrisy.

  11. Rob says:

    As well as being anti-fan, Sugar was definitely anti-player, after all, he is management, they are merely employees. It was the players fault for being paid too much, rather than the owners fault for agreeing contracts they knew were out of reach.

    “Sugar correctly suggested that the ‘place where [a potential Football Trust Fund] should not go is the pocket of a player, or an agent.'”

    Surely, if anyone in football truly earns money it’s not the agents, and it’s certainly not owners and entrepreneurs like Sugar, it’s the players. After all, it is they, as opposed to anyone else, that we pay to see.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>