The truth is VC that it goes beyond infrastructure and type of ownership. The fundamental financial structure outside of the championship is flawed. I am afraid much of what goes on is unsustainable, including at Sixfields. Our current owners are 5 million in apparently and have achieved nothing. Everything you need to know is right there. Bolton with the Reebok nearly went to the wall, whilst people will put up the all too predictable excuses for this, the evidence is damning. For every success story there is a failure and anybody with real money will proceed with caution. Even then they could do a Max Griggs and walk with all too predictable results. I am afraid the dispassionate answer is semi professional for division 1 & 2. As a supporter there is nothing I would hate more, the financial reality tells another story. Bury is the start and more will follow, as you say. Dreams are fine but it comes with a risk attached. If every club was semi professional and spending was capped at say 70% of turnover it would be a level playing field and clubs would be no longer at risk from some of the incompetence that goes on. I am fully aware that this is going to go down like a bag of sick and I hate the idea myself, I am just calling it as I see it. Perhaps when a few more clubs with a proud history implode the powers that be will act? Let’s just hope we are still around when and if it happens.
Melbourne - I agree that the fundamental financial structure is flawed and whilst your suggestion of part time professionals makes good sense the trend is in the opposite direction. I don’t think there is a side in the National League (Conference in old money) that has not got a squad of full time players and this has extended itself to small clubs in National Leagues North & South. Having a squad of full time players impacts significantly not only the wage bills for the players but all the attendant managerial and support staff that need to go full time. You might say that economic madness prevails in the game and I wouldn’t disagree. At the top end of the game whilst Bury disappears Premier League clubs spend millions on squad players who spend a season or two warming the bench before disappearing to other leagues.
The EFL have commissioned an independent report on Bury to be followed by one on the EFL regulations financial fair play rules , fit and proper person test etc. But when the report appears and is digested it will be the owners of 71 EFL clubs who vote on any changes and self-interest is more likely than not going to prevail. Supporters of the clubs will not have any direct say.
I was not exactly advocating the untried and untested in putting forward the 50+1 model. It has worked well in Germany where it has long been recognised that supporters are not customers in the conventional sense , that football clubs are an intrinsic part of the local community and that supporters should have a say in matters affecting them like ticket prices and the scheduling of matches. But it runs deeper than that. It is a cultural thing and part of the post WW2 settlement in which the consensus of the people is sought.
I know from your postings that you are a successful businessman and that you approach matters NTFC wearing your businessman’s hat. That is fine. I also work very much in the private sector and I can see your direction of travel. My point is that football clubs are different animals than the conventional private ltd liability company although that is what the structure of English football is based on. I think it needs to and may have to change at least at Leagues 1 & 2 levels to something along the German lines. I am making this comment about English football generally and not NTFC specifically. There are different ownership models in existence already at Exeter, Newport and Wycombe and they appear to be working. North of the border Motherwell is supporter owned and Hearts have an interesting model involving the Foundation of Hearts supporters’ trust.
We both agree that EFL football at NTFC’s level is unsustainable in the medium to long term under the present financial structure. I extend this to the legal ownership structure (composition). We agree that more clubs will follow Bury into oblivion before anything is done. We have our own historic problems at NTFC. You can see from the reaction to what I posted yesterday that some, even many, are content with the present situation and impliedly think our present owners are doing a good or reasonable job. I beg to differ.
Like in politics, events will dictate what happens at NTFC. Once our owners have their way with the Council on the land they will be gone as soon as they can find a buyer probably at a “give away” price since the killing will have been made on selling on the land with planning permission to another bigger developer approved by NBC. May I be wrong. I don't want to be a prophet of doom but I see problems ahead for the club on top of those that already exist. The 50+1 model (essentially a joint venture) may be the best way forward when the time comes.