Wrexham AFC - Ryan Reynolds/Rob McElhenney

[bobzy]

17 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

They are mostly unhappy cos they wish it was them.

I’m sure Man City fans would say the same of Premier League clubs.

”But the owners!”

I know, I know. 

[HKP90]

6 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I’m sure Man City fans would say the same of Premier League clubs.

”But the owners!”

I know, I know. 

Yeah, but.they did it illegally. 115 times that we know of. It wasn't just the money. 

'Let's not spend our transfer budget because it may financially destabilise our competitors' said no manager or chairman in the 140 year history of football.

[bobzy]

7 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Yeah, but.they did it illegally. 115 times that we know of. It wasn't just the money. 

'Let's not spend our transfer budget because it may financially destabilise our competitors' said no manager or chairman in the 140 year history of football.

The illegality is a new thing (for fans). Man City’s financial power came about and immediately people weren’t happy about it.

Take a look at the start of the Man City thread and it’ll be comments entirely about their money, players coming for money etc.

I don’t think you’ll find much support for it. Did we want to be them?

[HKP90]

2 minutes ago, bobzy said:

The illegality is a new thing (for fans). Man City’s financial power came about and immediately people weren’t happy about it.

Take a look at the start of the Man City thread and it’ll be comments entirely about their money, players coming for money etc.

I don’t think you’ll find much support for it. Did we want to be them?

In the Championship we WERE them. Minus the fraud.

Well maybe a bit of fraud under Xia, but none of it actually benefitted us.

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

Yes… but you can see why other clubs would be unhappy with the gulf in spending power. Ipswich an example of good management (currently 2nd in the Championship), but the other 3 sides around them are the relegated clubs. Will Ipswich hold out for automatic promotion? Would they win the playoffs? Not impossible, but unlikely.

So you just end up with a relatively uncompetitive pyramid outside the top flight. If there’s a trickle down impact (parachute payments from Championship to League One etc) then clubs like Wrexham do start to impact the lower leagues.

Not at the moment, though. They’re just a bit disliked for their wealth. 

Is there actual evidence that we have 'ended up with a relatively uncompetitive pyramid outside the top flight'? It just feels like something people say really often but that may not be true. 

[bobzy]

19 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Is there actual evidence that we have 'ended up with a relatively uncompetitive pyramid outside the top flight'? It just feels like something people say really often but that may not be true. 

Yeah, I think so.  If you look year on year, it probably doesn't seem too bad (i.e: we got relegated and finished, what, 13th or something?) but the number of "new clubs" getting into the Premier League is dwindling.

If you take the league in 5 year blocks from inception, 8 new teams to 1997, 6 new teams to 2002, 4 new teams to 2007, 5 new teams to 2012, 4 new teams to 2017, 2 new teams to now.

And this will only be exacerbated as the financial power of relegated clubs is stronger than those left behind.  With the exception of Preston (never been PL - currently 5th) and Ipswich (last PL 2002 - currently 2nd), the clubs making up the top 10 of the Championship at the moment are the recently relegated teams (all in the top 4) and clubs you could describe as "yo-yo" teams - Sunderland (PL in 2017), West Brom (PL in 2021), Hull (PL in 2017), Cardiff (PL in 2019) and Middlesbrough (PL in 2017).  Obviously within these, you've had varying fortunes - Sunderland in particular - but they're all still in that bracket of being competitive in the Championship.  It seems that for an ex-Premier League team to be relegated from the Championship, you have to be in financial distress rather than just "a bad side".  The exception to this is possibly Wolves (don't know enough) but I think they bounced back from League One smashing all sorts of records.

I'd be surprised if we see many more new sides hit the top flight.  Part of this is simply that only <x> teams exist, so of course you can't have continual new teams but part of it is that <x> number of teams have the power to be up there whereas others simply don't.

Luton's promotion was fantastic, but it feels like a complete outlier - they had a tiny budget and were the least fancied team in the playoffs to come up.  Either them or Coventry coming up would've been miraculous really.  You could say this points to "hey, it's obviously still competitive" but it feels more like a fluke.  The other two most recently "new" sides have had their successes around recruitment models which are hard to replicate - Brighton (2017) and Brentford (2019) - but maybe we'll see another version happen somewhere.

But yeah, who else is going to make it?  Preston are best placed at the moment, but their GD of -1 suggests they may not stay the course.  Elsewhere... Bristol City?  Millwall?  Plymouth?  I think we'll see the relegated sides back up and maybe a "surprise" like West Brom... which wouldn't really be a surprise at all.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

Yeah, I think so.  If you look year on year, it probably doesn't seem too bad (i.e: we got relegated and finished, what, 13th or something?) but the number of "new clubs" getting into the Premier League is dwindling.

If you take the league in 5 year blocks from inception, 8 new teams to 1997, 6 new teams to 2002, 4 new teams to 2007, 5 new teams to 2012, 4 new teams to 2017, 2 new teams to now.

And this will only be exacerbated as the financial power of relegated clubs is stronger than those left behind.  With the exception of Preston (never been PL - currently 5th) and Ipswich (last PL 2002 - currently 2nd), the clubs making up the top 10 of the Championship at the moment are the recently relegated teams (all in the top 4) and clubs you could describe as "yo-yo" teams - Sunderland (PL in 2017), West Brom (PL in 2021), Hull (PL in 2017), Cardiff (PL in 2019) and Middlesbrough (PL in 2017).  Obviously within these, you've had varying fortunes - Sunderland in particular - but they're all still in that bracket of being competitive in the Championship.  It seems that for an ex-Premier League team to be relegated from the Championship, you have to be in financial distress rather than just "a bad side".  The exception to this is possibly Wolves (don't know enough) but I think they bounced back from League One smashing all sorts of records.

I'd be surprised if we see many more new sides hit the top flight.  Part of this is simply that only <x> teams exist, so of course you can't have continual new teams but part of it is that <x> number of teams have the power to be up there whereas others simply don't.

Luton's promotion was fantastic, but it feels like a complete outlier - they had a tiny budget and were the least fancied team in the playoffs to come up.  Either them or Coventry coming up would've been miraculous really.  You could say this points to "hey, it's obviously still competitive" but it feels more like a fluke.  The other two most recently "new" sides have had their successes around recruitment models which are hard to replicate - Brighton (2017) and Brentford (2019) - but maybe we'll see another version happen somewhere.

But yeah, who else is going to make it?  Preston are best placed at the moment, but their GD of -1 suggests they may not stay the course.  Elsewhere... Bristol City?  Millwall?  Plymouth?  I think we'll see the relegated sides back up and maybe a "surprise" like West Brom... which wouldn't really be a surprise at all.

Thanks for that, which is a very comprehensive survey and I agree with a lot of the points you're making  . . . but I took 'outside the top flight' in your original to mean 'movements between leagues not including the Premier League', which was what I was querying. 

[bobzy]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Thanks for that, which is a very comprehensive survey and I agree with a lot of the points you're making  . . . but I took 'outside the top flight' in your original to mean 'movements between leagues not including the Premier League', which was what I was querying. 

Ah right.  That was more a "if the finances started to move down" as per bold:

3 hours ago, bobzy said:

Yes… but you can see why other clubs would be unhappy with the gulf in spending power. Ipswich an example of good management (currently 2nd in the Championship), but the other 3 sides around them are the relegated clubs. Will Ipswich hold out for automatic promotion? Would they win the playoffs? Not impossible, but unlikely.

So you just end up with a relatively uncompetitive pyramid outside the top flight. If there’s a trickle down impact (parachute payments from Championship to League One etc) then clubs like Wrexham do start to impact the lower leagues.

Not at the moment, though. They’re just a bit disliked for their wealth. 

If that grows, the imbalance grows.  As I've said before, League One and League Two clubs are largely just loss making clubs which exist for fans.  They don't do transfers really; it's more getting better players on free transfer by offering higher wages than other clubs.  Teams that are backed well (I think Portsmouth still get large attendances at that level) are at a big advantage in this regard.

It would only take more money in the Championship to then result in larger "parachute payments" to relegated clubs for the cycle to move down the pyramid and, if it hit League Two, the gulf would suddenly be huge.

[Demitri_C]

On 20/11/2023 at 19:44, bobzy said:

There are other relative “money teams” in League Two - Wrexham are just much more dominant in that regard.

For example, Wrexham have spent £290k on transfers this season. The rest of League Two has spent £35k. That’s 1 team vs 23. It’s just not the same ballpark.

I don’t understand the repeated “what about Notts County” stuff. Why don’t you ask about Stockport too?

Ok stockport too! You just proven my point.

Wrexham just have a lot more exposure due to their owners.

But if you have watched their documentary you will know that they have been very smart in how they are making the club money and promptings them. 

Eg having celebs like will ferrell come to the game, helping a players wife who was diagnosed with a brain tumour, offering support to the team and interacting with them. Building sponserships etc.

These guys prob go to more games than our owners and they dont even live here!

[HKP90]

I feel like Sky has destabilised the football pyramid more completely than any one team could hope to do in a hundred years. 

[bobzy]

24 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Ok stockport too! You just proven my point.

Wrexham just have a lot more exposure due to their owners.

But if you have watched their documentary you will know that they have been very smart in how they are making the club money and promptings them. 

Eg having celebs like will ferrell come to the game, helping a players wife who was diagnosed with a brain tumour, offering support to the team and interacting with them. Building sponserships etc.

These guys prob go to more games than our owners and they dont even live here!

Yeah, their owners are great guys...

 

...but they still have more money than anyone else in that league .  I don't get why you're so defensive over it.

[Demitri_C]

22 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Yeah, their owners are great guys...

 

...but they still have more money than anyone else in that league .  I don't get why you're so defensive over it.

I dont get why you are so negative about it either

I didnt hear you objecting when we did it in the championship 

When they get up to championship (if they manage it will be more level playing ground)

[bobzy]

Just now, Demitri_C said:

I dont get why you are so negative about it either

I didnt hear you objecting when we did it in the championship 

When they get up to championship (if they manage it will be more level playing ground)

I'm not massively negative about it, I just hope they fail as I don't like money running football (even though it's inevitable and does).  Wrexham struggling would be fairly hilarious given the advantage they have.  Again, it won't happen... but fingers crossed.

 

I object to quite a few things about Villa FWIW, and wasn't a fan of just throwing money at it in the Championship (not that you'll have gone back and looked at posts before making that remark ).  It's not what I enjoy about football.  Each to their own. 

[Demitri_C]

3 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I'm not massively negative about it, I just hope they fail as I don't like money running football (even though it's inevitable and does).  Wrexham struggling would be fairly hilarious given the advantage they have.  Again, it won't happen... but fingers crossed.

 

I object to quite a few things about Villa FWIW, and wasn't a fan of just throwing money at it in the Championship (not that you'll have gone back and looked at posts before making that remark ).  It's not what I enjoy about football.  Each to their own. 

Maybe you can look backa nd show me these posts then

But i agree to a extent about the money but its not like its just happened. Its been like this for years. Its just getting worse and worse. 

Wrexham took the opportunity and ran with it. These guys had zero experience running a football club yet have managed to build a successful brand

Well done to them

[bobzy]

13 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Maybe you can look backa nd show me these posts then

But i agree to a extent about the money but its not like its just happened. Its been like this for years. Its just getting worse and worse. 

Wrexham took the opportunity and ran with it. These guys had zero experience running a football club yet have managed to build a successful brand

Well done to them

Yeah, I'm not looking back over 5 years to see me mention that I don't like big spending .  I'm pretty consistent on this across the board, though.  You can look at anything we've done which is wrong IMO such as associating ourselves with a wank gambling company as sponsor, increasing ticket prices during a cost of living crisis etc. etc.  - I'm not in favour of it.  Many people will just say "well to compete we have to raise income" because football just isn't about the fans anymore.  It completely should be.

Wrexham's owners have done loads for the club and the community - that's fantastic.  I still don't want to see another "rich" club do well.  They can have all the benefits of community feel etc whilst sitting 20th in League Two for a few seasons.

[Mark Albrighton]

Not an avid reader of this thread as I can only drum up so much passion and interest in clubs outside of Villa and outside of Villa’s orbit.

Not watched the show.

So apologies if it’s already been suggested, discussed and dismissed.

But I wonder how much of the resentment is down to the somewhat forced fairytale of it all which I can imagine is a bit grating if you’re paying attention. 

I wonder if McElhenney and Reynolds weren’t Hollywood actors but owned a (very) successful Wrexham based brewery and had existing ties to the community, would their ownership be as objectionable. You wouldn’t get quite as much of the fairytale aspect of it, naturally, probably wouldn’t have a tv show (although **** it, lots of clubs seem to have a show these days, so I can’t dismiss it completely).

And I suppose at the heart of what I’m thinking is - they’re far, far wealthier than other clubs at that level and people point out the disparity in that. Fair enough. How wealthy would they have to be in order to deemed acceptable for competitive purposes. What’s the optimal amount where they’re rich enough to effectively compete and do good for the community but not blow everyone else out of the water. 

For the record I don’t really have a horse in this race. I think there’s validity on both sides.

[bobzy]

11 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Not an avid reader of this thread as I can only drum up so much passion and interest in clubs outside of Villa and outside of Villa’s orbit.

Not watched the show.

So apologies if it’s already been suggested, discussed and dismissed.

But I wonder how much of the resentment is down to the somewhat forced fairytale of it all which I can imagine is a bit grating if you’re paying attention. 

I wonder if McElhenney and Reynolds weren’t Hollywood actors but owned a (very) successful Wrexham based brewery and had existing ties to the community, would their ownership be as objectionable. You wouldn’t get quite as much of the fairytale aspect of it, naturally, probably wouldn’t have a tv show (although **** it, lots of clubs seem to have a show these days, so I can’t dismiss it completely).

And I suppose at the heart of what I’m thinking is - they’re far, far wealthier than other clubs at that level and people point out the disparity in that. Fair enough. How wealthy would they have to be in order to deemed acceptable for competitive purposes. What’s the optimal amount where they’re rich enough to effectively compete and do good for the community but not blow everyone else out of the water. 

For the record I don’t really have a horse in this race. I think there’s validity on both sides.

I think if Wrexham weren't owned by McElhenney/Reynolds, they'd be generally disliked by the clubs in the same league and no-one else would really care.  Like Salford City.  No-one likes Salford City.  @Demitri_C doesn't give a shit about the fairytale of Salford City coming up through the non league system because it's not been made into a PR success the way that Wrexham have been.

They also have ridiculous sponsorship deals that no other club can compete with which, again, elsewhere is seen as a bad thing - so, personally, I find the hypocrisy over it a little bit grating.  Man City being sponsored by Etihad?  Boooo, unfair.  It's just their owners.  Wrexham being sponsored by TikTok and United Airlines?  Oh, fair play Hollywood actors.

Ultimately, any team with a level of money that is vastly higher than those around them will be disliked by those clubs around them.  They're a stumbling block to success for the others.

Wrexham just have a PR machine along with the money.

[Demitri_C]

19 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I think if Wrexham weren't owned by McElhenney/Reynolds, they'd be generally disliked by the clubs in the same league and no-one else would really care.  Like Salford City.  No-one likes Salford City.  @Demitri_C doesn't give a shit about the fairytale of Salford City coming up through the non league system because it's not been made into a PR success the way that Wrexham have been.

They also have ridiculous sponsorship deals that no other club can compete with which, again, elsewhere is seen as a bad thing - so, personally, I find the hypocrisy over it a little bit grating.  Man City being sponsored by Etihad?  Boooo, unfair.  It's just their owners.  Wrexham being sponsored by TikTok and United Airlines?  Oh, fair play Hollywood actors.

Ultimately, any team with a level of money that is vastly higher than those around them will be disliked by those clubs around them.  They're a stumbling block to success for the others.

Wrexham just have a PR machine along with the money.

I literally dont know nothinv aboyt salford fc. Thats abit random comparison

[Zatman]

25 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I literally dont know nothinv aboyt salford fc. Thats abit random comparison

because they didnt do a glitzy fancy documentary showing the good they are doing  

Salford have had a bigger rise than Wrexham and have more detestable owners but havent spent as much in recent seasons

[Stevo985]

52 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I think if Wrexham weren't owned by McElhenney/Reynolds, they'd be generally disliked by the clubs in the same league and no-one else would really care.  Like Salford City.  No-one likes Salford City.  @Demitri_C doesn't give a shit about the fairytale of Salford City coming up through the non league system because it's not been made into a PR success the way that Wrexham have been.

They also have ridiculous sponsorship deals that no other club can compete with which, again, elsewhere is seen as a bad thing - so, personally, I find the hypocrisy over it a little bit grating.  Man City being sponsored by Etihad?  Boooo, unfair.  It's just their owners.  Wrexham being sponsored by TikTok and United Airlines?  Oh, fair play Hollywood actors.

Ultimately, any team with a level of money that is vastly higher than those around them will be disliked by those clubs around them.  They're a stumbling block to success for the others.

Wrexham just have a PR machine along with the money.

I largely agree... but just to point out the slight difference that Man City have (allegedly) cheated. So it's not a totally fair comparison

But I'm nit picking