There are no “model clubs” for long. There’s only really a financial model that eventually finishes you

[Chester Perry]

posted this on the MMT thread but probably deserves a thread of it's own - as it relates to recent "Investor" and "The Chairman" threads I believe - it follows a line of argument I have consistently used myself in many such discussions on this board

Remember those state of the game articles from @MiguelDelaney that were so well received in January - well he has returned to the theme today, looking at clubs who appeared settled in the Premier League but do not have the finances or the means to grow revenues to keep them there - though I think he has made a poor choice (in Bournemouth) as to what a Model Club could be - from the Independent

The Premier League’s financial ceiling has distorted the meaning of a ‘model club’ – as Bournemouth are realising
Clubs are now openly preparing for relegation rather than attempting to break financial barriers, and that throws up far greater questions for English football, writes Miguel Delaney

It’s a statement that illustrates the frustration, and also the confusion. “We all put a lot of work in. For it to unravel in 12 months…”

The sentiment sums up the feeling around Bournemouth, as they’re on the brink of going down – but wasn’t actually said by anyone at the club. They were the words of West Brom chief executive Mark Jenkins, as he faced up to a similar situation in 2018.

It illustrates how, as Eddie Howe strives to figure out all manner of problems in his team, they might be suffering from a wider issue.

Bournemouth may well be the latest in a long line of Premier League sides – and especially promoted sides – who looked a model club as regards to how you operate, only to hit a ceiling that very quickly sent them back through the trapdoor. Years of stability abruptly followed by a quick and chaotic relegation.

It happened to West Brom, to Stoke City, to Swansea City, to Fulham, to Bolton Wanderers and to Charlton Athletic. It may well happen to Burnley in the future, too, given some of Sean Dyche’s recent comments. It certainly feels like it’s happening to Bournemouth now.

This isn’t to either absolve Howe, or overlook the many injuries his squad have suffered, but there are broader issues that have been common to all of these clubs.

It is as if years of exemplary work at a certain status gradually lead to a stagnation, that brings some strident decisions, that are far too removed from what they’ve done at their best.

Charlton were perhaps the first to suffer from this, and remain the ultimate example. After years when Alan Curbishley had the club ticking along so nicely, there were constant questions about the “next level”. They instead went down a level to the Championship in the very first season after Curbishley left.

Matt Holland was there throughout some of the club’s best Premier League seasons and that 2006-07 relegation and feels that ceiling was an issue.

“I think it’s one of the reasons he did go in the end,” Holland tells The Independent. “I think Alan probably looked at it thinking ‘I can’t do much more with what I’ve got. I’ve got a pretty stable side, mid-table Premier League, but I don’t know whether I can go to the next step.’

“But the fans see that for three or four years and start thinking ‘we want to go eighth’, ‘we want to get into Europe’, and that’s really difficult to sustain year in year out.”

That does raise the question of whether Howe should have left earlier, to prevent this eventuality, but there are similar stories at many of the other clubs.

“Boredom” was said to take hold at Stoke, and was a word used a lot, even of manager Mark Hughes.

Huw Jenkins, after years of prudent decisions at Swansea City, suddenly started to make many that seemed out of kilter with everything the club was about. The worst, and a genuine turning point, was the appointment of Francesco Guidolin over Brendan Rodgers.

“They seem to run into issues when they stop seeing themselves as what they are and think they are bigger,” says one source, who has been involved in the decision-making at three of these clubs. “They get higher opinions of themselves and suddenly think they have an elevated status. That leads to sweeping changes or decisions, that purely seem to be made because they think that’s what ‘big clubs’ do… when, in fact, stopping doing what got you to where you are is the biggest mistake you can make.”

That is the common link with all of these. It’s usually most visible, and most consequential, in signings. “That’s where the problem starts and finishes,” one figure who has worked with such clubs says. “Recruitment.”

It’s been a big issue at Bournemouth, and exacerbated Howe’s injury problems. The alternatives haven’t stepped up. The recent signings just haven’t fit what was there.

Again, that was the same at West Brom and Swansea. Players were brought in that represented a clear deviation from the successful approach. And they weren’t so much as attempts at evolution as abrupt switches.

Other clubs illustrated the same problem in a different way. They signed too many players, as if trying to force a cultural change en masse. This was what happened at Fulham, and at Charlton in 2006.

The latter made 11 signings in the summer that Curbishley left, with many of them well-paid “names” such as Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink, Djimi Traore and Souleymaine Diawara. While there were few problems with any of them individually, it proved too difficult to integrate at a time when the club was struggling to adjust.

“It was such a big cultural change,” Holland says. “There was too much change in one hit. We were given money to spend, but it takes a while to get used to.”

All of this touches on a philosophical issue, but one the goes way beyond style of play. Football, like life, requires a sense of hope; that you can keep growing and progressing. This is something that the Premier League denies. There is a hard financial ceiling at seventh place, that is very difficult to smash through without mountains of cash.

“That’s what Sean Dyche is seeing now at Burnley,” Holland says. “Without real investment, where are you realistically going to take Burnley? Where is Alan Curbishley realistically going to take Charlton? Ultimately, the feeling is, if you said at the start of the season to 12 clubs that they’re going to finish 10th, they’d snap your hand off.

It’s the point when just surviving gives way to just existing, and cuts to the core of what the Premier League is: a highly tiered competition, with limited internal mobility.

Consider this perspective. A total of 49 clubs have competed in the Premier League, across 101 different spells. Only 20 of those – naturally – have not yet ended in relegation, with eight of those clubs never having been relegated at all. One of those clubs is Bournemouth.

The brutal reality of the Premier League is that you can’t come up without generally going down. It has happened in over 86 per cent of cases, a proportion that will inevitably increase as time goes on. The average length of those cases is a mere 3.84 seasons.

At 18 seasons, Manchester City are currently on the longest ever Premier League run of any club promoted into the competition, but that was only after a takeover that changed football itself. That isn’t available to the vast majority. It isn’t available to Bournemouth.

They’re now on their fifth season, a spell in which it had seemed like they were a new fixture in the division. They’re learning there are very few fixtures in the competition, and that you can never think you are one.

There are no “model clubs” for long. There’s only really a financial model that eventually finishes you. Howe is battling that as much as the problems in his team.

The true model club is maybe one that has prepared for going down, as Burnley and Norwich City have done. That, however, throws up far bigger questions than how quickly a Premier League spell went wrong.

[summitclaret]

Excellent op. This is why the Club must continue with it's policy of being prudent. However, we must have enough adequate players for every position. That means we must somehow as a minimum bring in:-

A new 1st reserve cb and move Gibson on. A swap for Dawson would do.

Another for cm - preferably a left footer

A new right side winger

A third choice keeper, unless it is thought that our young keepers are ready.

[bf2k]

I think the article shows being prudent is not always the best way to go either. A bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't.

I think people need to face it, we're now at a level above where a club the size of Burnley can successfully operate for long periods in time without massive investment.

[SonofPog]

Indeed and excellent read. and certainly a warning from those that have been where we are now.

The "boredom", the lack of a goal, its a real thing. its why, as relegation is almost a certainty at some point, that I wish we took the cups more seriously. I know that its unlikely we would win one, but its more likely than the league.

Its also why i'm not against a European Super League,

Slightly off topic but I also thought that if the FA insisted that all Premier League contracts have a non negotiable 50% wage reduction on relegation as a matter of registration that would go some way to helping out clubs that do get relegated.

[Chester Perry]

I think people need to face it, we're now at a level above where a club the size of Burnley can successfully operate for long periods in time without massive investment.

I think you are deeply mistaken only today, and since I posted this article on the MMT thread, I have posted two other articles that will have significant bearing on our ability to invest:

- it looks like the 5 substitutes rule will prevail throughout the entire 2020/21 season
- how grounds (stadiums will need to adapt for the post viral world

[NottsClaret]

You don't hear about 'established' Prem clubs much now, not since Stoke and West Brom went down. Everyone outside the Big 6 is a couple of injuries and a poor managerial appointment away from a three-decade tour of football league outposts. Enjoy it all while you can.

[Chester Perry]

Slightly off topic but I also thought that if the FA insisted that all Premier League contracts have a non negotiable 50% wage reduction on relegation as a matter of registration that would go some way to helping out clubs that do get relegated.

They might recommend it, but it has definitely not been made a rule - that would require EFL and Premier League agreement (it is their competitions that are directly impacted - while the EFL would likely be in favour the Premier League are notoriously keen to leave such decisions open to their members

[Conroysleftfoot]

Great piece, sums up where we are at the moment.

[TVC15]

Great post CP

The reality is that since the Premier League started 30 years ago all but a handful of clubs have been relegated which is why personally I have always felt this inevitable for Burnley.

During this period there has of course been a massive change in the amount of revenue - but in actual fact it has always been more about relativity...ie relativity to the lower leagues. As Sky monies have gone up all that has happened is that wages and transfer fees have followed.

Different clubs have tried different financial models during this period and the last decade or so has seen the significant rise in foreign investment / owners partly because access to lending from banks to football clubs was pretty much withdrawn.

The differentials between the top few clubs and the rest has never been bigger.

Whatever model you choose if you are not in the top echelons of clubs is not going to guarantee you staying up - history shows they will all be relegated at some point.

The difference with a model like ours I suppose is that we do not live with the threat hanging over our heads of the owners pulling their investment or deciding relegation is not for them. Many clubs build up a financial model that is just impossible to sustain and if relegated they maybe given one season to go back up - but as we have seen with the likes of Hull, Swansea, Stoke going back up at first attempt is not easy.

A lot of the reasons clubs go down are still the good old fashioned reasons where whatever model you have it’s hard to turn the tide - injuries, changing managers, bad luck and players you have spent a lot of money on not being as good as you thought.

[Dyched]

I don’t get this “we’ll go down at some point” view. I really, really don’t. It’s also not about having to have massive investment either. It’s having the right people at the right time. That is a HUGE task.

Look at teams that have been in the PL who fell out and spent years now in the lower leagues. Who replaced them in the PL, teams like Burnley. Charlton were never replaced by a huge club who’s spent huge amounts to stay up. But with clubs similar size in terms of money spent, squad ability have replaced them like for like.

There’s always been and always will be smaller clubs in the PL. So why can’t a club like Burnley spend 30/40 years there?

[Colburn_Claret]

A great summary.
I think we can tick along, as long as SD is at the helm.

It doesn't mention the academy, but our best hope for the future is finding some talent of our own, that can make the step up.That and making a sum of money from players who don't quite make the Premier League grade, is the only way we can compete long term.

I hope that the difference between us, and others who eventually hit the skids, is the reality the vast majority of the fans at Burnley, understand we are up against, even after 5 years at the top.

[KateR]

I don't prescribe to the punching above your weight philosophy.

You get where you are by decision making and being realistic, BFC & the board in particular have had a plan and stuck to it, it has worked, fans employees will always want more even as you get more successful. Executives sometimes see a chance to make a "killer" move that will enable them to make a leap, not a step and past successes make them think they are immune from failure, however as they make the changes the risk increases and the failure multiples.

We have all seen so many promoted teams spending for the PL only to fall straight back, it's not individual players at this level it is team ethos that matters, BFC have been a good example of this. Of course Bournemouth were but even following the good example path problems occur beyond your wildest nightmares, injuries, new players failing to be of the team. Arsenal have also fallen foul of this and lost the status they had for decades and it has hurt them, obviously not to the degree of relegation does but it has been the same issue. Even Man U suffered from a form of it but from a different part of the club but that change can make a huge difference.

I have long said the recruitment team at any club is the heartbeat of all clubs and the major part of the Yearly Business Plan, when that fails, the club fails, when you make a wholesale change to a successful strategy of a particular Business Plan, such as providing funds to jump to the next level you are more likely to fail than gain your objective in a season/year. Of course the Man City's of this world get where they want to be, as did Chelsea but it was not an instant success.

Of course the strategy should be for clubs like ours to make incremental improvements, not just at the playing level but across the business, BFC have managed this very well, training pitches, Cat 1 now, facilities, it's a never ending circle and being prudent, knowing what failure means and planning for that as well as success is must, not something nice to do. While I would, like most, love to see some big money spent, see a change to how we play occasionally, I know it's not our model and the only way that changes is for a very wealthy investor who wants a plaything!

We are and have been in balance for quite sometime in regards to strategy and Manager, the balance has had a nudge and hopefully will right itself during the break but if it is a new manager then that balance is all over the place and can lead to a fundamental strategy shift which causes the new model to fail and down you go. I like the steady as you go but can also see for someone like SD, that boredom can set in and they want to prove themselves elsewhere and move up the food chain.

Does anyone know of any manager that went down with a club who afterwards reached those heady heights of the top 6 -8 clubs, Plymouth, Fulham, Leeds, Charlton or any of the numerous others who suffered the same fate, even Moyes who was meandering around the mid table for years failed when given his chance. It's a risky game and while we are in the PL, we should all be realistic enough to know we are in a small league within a league and enjoy the football, the teams we play, the slim chance to make a European place if we get to the top of our mini league.

You all know the tortoise beats the hare every time, in this race we have been constantly winning every season and not just in the PL but for decades.

[SonofPog]

They might recommend it, but it has definitely not been made a rule - that would require EFL and Premier League agreement (it is their competitions that are directly impacted - while the EFL would likely be in favour the Premier League are notoriously keen to leave such decisions open to their members

Thanks for the clarification, Of course it would be the PL that have the final say in that.

[Chester Perry]

I don’t get this “we’ll go down at some point” view. I really, really don’t. It’s also not about having to have massive investment either. It’s having the right people at the right time. That is a HUGE task.

There’s always been and always will be smaller clubs in the PL. So why can’t a club like Burnley spend 30/40 years there?

and that is the problem to have the right people there (and for not too much to go wrong within a single season), to keep them wanting to be there to have them appropriately motivated is difficult. Succession planning both on field and off just compounds the issue - we are in the transition to what is distinctly Dyche's 3rd team with us, he has performed miracles, he is starting to show frustration regularly, it is so easy for what was/is working to slip away and we (like many before us) do not have the means to afford many slip ups.

Do that for 30/40 years has so far proved impossible for a smaller club at any time in the history of the game - let alone in the modern hyper monied self interested era that we are now in.

[Chester Perry]

That is a great post KateR - expresses many of my thoughts far more elegantly than I could

[Spijed]

Wasn't the problem for some clubs that they got rid of perfectly good managers, rather than any financial issues (Managers such as Pulis, Big Sam etc.)

[Chester Perry]

Wasn't the problem for some clubs that they got rid of perfectly good managers, rather than any financial issues (Managers such as Pulis, Big Sam etc.)

succession issues and moving away from the strategy that got them there and kept them there - these some are the key points in the article and have been repeatedly raised in such discussions by a number of us

[dsr]

If you try and compare Bournemouth and Burnley as "model football clubs", the difference in how they are run is vast. They are contrasts, not similarities.

Income is similar. TV money is similar, and although their ground capacity is 40% smaller, their ticket prices are 50% higher which makes up for it. More or less. (Don't know what they charge for Twix!)

Expenses? In the 2019 accounts, we spent £87m on wages, they spent £111m. This discrepancy existed in 2018 as well, and I dare say in earlier year too,

Player costs? In the 2019 accounnts, the total cost of our squad was £125m, theirs was £209m.

Balance sheet? We have net non-fixed assets of £11m. In other words, if we call in all our debts and pay all our creditors, we would have £11m left in the bank. Plus, we own our own gtound and have a spanking new training facility.

Bournemouth have net non-fixed liabilities of £207m. When they call in all their debts and try to pay the liabilities, they are £207m short - and only half of that is to the owner. They don't own their ground, they haven't developed a new training ground. They pay £6m interest per year and about £600k ground rent.

[KateR]

Wasn't the problem for some clubs that they got rid of perfectly good managers, rather than any financial issues (Managers such as Pulis, Big Sam etc.)

So very true, image and fans believing in the way XXYY we play are huge contributors, we've all heard several managers talking about what they could or should be doing if a name ended in "O" and had that ohhh so sexy foreign sounding name. West Ham the stand out club in this regard, definitely thinking they are bigger than they are, which hopefully again today, we will show them exactly where they are

[TVC15]

I don’t get this “we’ll go down at some point” view. I really, really don’t. It’s also not about having to have massive investment either. It’s having the right people at the right time. That is a HUGE task.

Look at teams that have been in the PL who fell out and spent years now in the lower leagues. Who replaced them in the PL, teams like Burnley. Charlton were never replaced by a huge club who’s spent huge amounts to stay up. But with clubs similar size in terms of money spent, squad ability have replaced them like for like.

There’s always been and always will be smaller clubs in the PL. So why can’t a club like Burnley spend 30/40 years there?

Just a historical statistic thing more than anything - out of around 50 clubs to have played in the Premier League only United, Liverpool, Everton, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal (I think !) have never been relegated.
So whilst inevitable might be the wrong word it seems highly likely that we will at some point.
There is probably a whole other set of other statistics around the financial model, wage bill, net transfer spend and size of Burnley etc which make the likelihood of Burnley going down even greater.

[Chester Perry]

If you try and compare Bournemouth and Burnley as "model football clubs", the difference in how they are run is vast. They are contrasts, not similarities.

Income is similar. TV money is similar, and although their ground capacity is 40% smaller, their ticket prices are 50% higher which makes up for it. More or less. (Don't know what they charge for Twix!)

Expenses? In the 2019 accounts, we spent £87m on wages, they spent £111m. This discrepancy existed in 2018 as well, and I dare say in earlier year too,

Player costs? In the 2019 accounnts, the total cost of our squad was £125m, theirs was £209m.

Balance sheet? We have net non-fixed assets of £11m. In other words, if we call in all our debts and pay all our creditors, we would have £11m left in the bank. Plus, we own our own gtound and have a spanking new training facility.

Bournemouth have net non-fixed liabilities of £207m. When they call in all their debts and try to pay the liabilities, they are £207m short - and only half of that is to the owner. They don't own their ground, they haven't developed a new training ground. They pay £6m interest per year and about £600k ground rent.

like I said in the OP not my choice of a "Model Club" but then again neither are Stoke, Bolton, Fulham or Swansea - all lived beyond their means and that is what did for Charlton in the end - changing the sustainability model

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Just a historical statistic thing more than anything - out of around 50 clubs to have played in the Premier League only United, Liverpool, Everton, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal (I think !) have never been relegated.
So whilst inevitable might be the wrong word it seems highly likely that we will at some point.
There is probably a whole other set of other statistics around the financial model, wage bill, net transfer spend and size of Burnley etc which make the likelihood of Burnley going down even greater.

I think it's Everton who have the longest unbroken spell in the top flight.
I know they've tried really hard to end that run a few times but they've managed to get their act together and stay in the PL.

[Hipper]

Part of this conversation shows why managers SHOULD NOT be bigger then a club, and the Burnley management should not be afraid to get rid of Dyche if he doesn't stick to the agreed plan for running the club - if he becomes more ambitious for himself then the club. I just hope they are constantly prepared for this eventuality.

The alternative managerial system might have been Watford's. This made a lot of sense when you look at the possible trauma of managerial departures (Coyle's being an extreme example) but this season it looks like this plan is no better then the more conventional managerial arrangements.

[Dyched]

Wasn't the problem for some clubs that they got rid of perfectly good managers, rather than any financial issues (Managers such as Pulis, Big Sam etc.)

After Pulis Hughes took them to 9th, 3 years on the bounce.

[Dyched]

and that is the problem to have the right people there (and for not too much to go wrong within a single season), to keep them wanting to be there to have them appropriately motivated is difficult. Succession planning both on field and off just compounds the issue - we are in the transition to what is distinctly Dyche's 3rd team with us, he has performed miracles, he is starting to show frustration regularly, it is so easy for what was/is working to slip away and we (like many before us) do not have the means to afford many slip ups.

Do that for 30/40 years has so far proved impossible for a smaller club at any time in the history of the game - let alone in the modern hyper monied self interested era that we are now in.

So far impossible. What we MUST do as fans once Dyche goes is support the club/board and the new man 100%! The board must do the same and the new manager too. Someone out there will look at what Dyche has done and use it as a foundation for his own vision. With a set of new eyes who knows what more we can achieve. I know most likely we won’t survive. But what I’m getting across is Charlton, Wigan then Burnley have done it. Why not just 1 club instead of those? It can be achieved and it will. At this club!!

[Chester Perry]

Part of this conversation shows why managers SHOULD NOT be bigger then a club, and the Burnley management should not be afraid to get rid of Dyche if he doesn't stick to the agreed plan for running the club - if he becomes more ambitious for himself then the club. I just hope they are constantly prepared for this eventuality.

The alternative managerial system might have been Watford's. This made a lot of sense when you look at the possible trauma of managerial departures (Coyle's being an extreme example) but this season it looks like this plan is no better then the more conventional managerial arrangements.

When a manager has been in post for as long as Dyche, and with the depth of influence of Dyche, switching to any new approach from outside the current system will prove difficult/challenging - the 2 routes: manager with overall control; coach under sporting director will inevitably lead to changes as whoever is in charge looks to instil their own imprint on the club. Consistency is essential, and given clubs our size are always ripe to be poached for talent or for ambitious individuals to move on to "bigger clubs, that is very difficult to achieve.

This is where the board and executives come into play. we have lost a key person recently in Dave Baldwin and we cannot afford to lose the manager in the near future, that would cause potentially too much internal disruption in what are still very uncertain times. The club will need to review their succession plan and long term approach to the sporting director/manager/coach role so that hey are prepared for when Dyche does leave.

FWIW i don't believe (and hope) the club see Rigg as an overall Sporting Director, guiding the long term strategy of the club

[AndrewJB]

There is more “equality” in North American professional sports, but interesting to consider how small town clubs elsewhere overachieve:

http://jeffreyobrien.today/understandin ... y-packers/

[Chester Perry]

There is more “equality” in North American professional sports, but interesting to consider how small town clubs elsewhere overachieve:

http://jeffreyobrien.today/understandin ... y-packers/

I keep saying there are things our club can do to become the Green Bay equivalent in the Premier League whilst being mindful of the advantages they have that we will never have - no relegation, salary cap, equal central payments, the draft

[AndrewJB]

I keep saying there are things our club can do to become the Green Bay equivalent in the Premier League whilst being mindful of the advantages they have that we will never have - no relegation, salary cap, equal central payments, the draft

Their ownership model is keeps them anchored in Green Bay, whereas it’s common for a sports “franchise” over there to relocate to another city, usually with incentives. Barcelona is another model of ownership that is successful and safe.

Having a draft here could be interesting. Separating youth football from the professional game and giving it a pyramidal nation structure would boost football in areas where there aren’t many professional clubs, and allow clubs to concentrate on their first and second teams. It seems to me that big clubs hoover up young talent but very little comes out the other end. Perhaps if young talented players found themselves playing for lower league teams in the beginning of their careers (assuming a draft begins with the bottom teams having first choice), then lower league football could be enlivened and those teams might earn more through player sales later on. As you say, won’t happen here, but the game here could definitely be improved.

[mdd2]

I think it's Everton who have the longest unbroken spell in the top flight.
I know they've tried really hard to end that run a few times but they've managed to get their act together and stay in the PL.

Everton have been in the top flight longer than any other club, but Arsenal have the longest spell since promotion. Cliff Britton took Everton to Div2 after he left us in the early 50's and they were there three seasons and they were in div 2 one season in 30-31. Arsenal got back by some underhand methods almost certainly when voted back into Div 1 when it was enlarged in 1919-20 season having been relegated in 1913, so have spent the last 100 years in the top flight. They should not have been promoted as on merit I think Spurs were higher placed in Div 2 at the end of 1914-15 season but were out voted and was argued (I think) that Arsenal have Div1 heritage and so should be back.
As Everton were founder members they have been playing in the top flight for more years than the Gooners who first hit the top flight in 1904