Andy Holt Vs The Premier league on Twitter

[KRBFC]

No, you don't give a shite about Accrington Stanley. Clearly many people with common sense and a sense of fair play do. It isn't just because it's Accy, to see any team struggling financially, when there is so much money in the game, is sad to say the least. The supporters of these 'small' clubs are true fans. You don't go away to follow Exeter or Stanley to the other end of the country. Stand in a leaky **** hole of a shed, to see your team get beat again, unless you are passionate about the game. These fans wouldn't recognise a prawn sandwich if you gave them one, AND if you were a real fan yourself, you would understand that. Unfortunately your just a sad troll looking for a bite. Try Rovers board.

You want the PL to bankroll league two clubs. What about non league clubs? Should the PL bankroll them? How far down the pyramid do we go? What relation does this have to do with the spending of Man Utd? Quite frankly you cant wrap your head around why PL clubs receive more money in TV rev than a league two team which I thought was kind of obvious. These foreign owners of PL clubs can spend whatever they like on whoever they like, it has nothing to do with Accy Stanley. I'm a Rovers troll, yeah sure... We can see who the Accrington fan turned glory seeking Claret is....

[Quickenthetempo]

Andy Holt could do with practicing what he preaches. Unless it's the Premier Leagues Fault that the Plastic Box Company (Whatmores) take an eternity to settle an invoice...

Andy Holt does a lot for local sports clubs, never mind the 25k he is donating to young Charlie Proctor who was mascot at the weekend.

[KRBFC]

The likes of Chelsea, and City, as has been shown with their ban, can afford to buy multiple youngsters dirt cheap. Very few of these players make it into the first team, but they can 'afford' to carry the cost because it is a pittance compared to what they would have to pay a smaller club for someone who had been playing first team football. The smaller clubs have no way of retaining these youngsters once they have had their heads turned, with all the glitz and the glamour.
The little club lose yet another possible asset, another youngster finds himself on the scrap heap when his dream is shot down, and the big clubs don't bat an eyelid, because it is chicken feed to the money they are receiving.
That is the main point, they don't earn money from being on TV, they receive money. They don't create anything, or produce anything, they just turn up for the cameras. Far better for football all round, if the money from TV was filtered down the pyramid to improve grass roots football. It would create better English players, eventually it would improve the England team. It would improve the quality of the football on show.
All this could be done and the Premier League would hardly notice the difference, but the changes it could make to the rest of the football league would be immense.
There have always been, and always will be, teams that abuse the system and spend what they haven't got, but this is for those clubs who try to live within their means but find it impossible. It gives clubs like Accy a fighting chance.

So in effect you think the PL clubs like ourselves should get screwed so we can handout to league two teams? Its all about viewership, at least get a ******* brain its not rocket science. United shouldn't be paying for Pogba they should be bankrolling the entire football pyramid. What was Glazer thinking paying Tevez' wages when he could be handing it out to Accy Stanley.

[Bin Ont Turf]

We can certainly see who the.... football management computer game loving, I've always got Sky Sports on, how many goals has Messi scored against an nondescript Spanish siesta club... w*nker is on here.

[RocketLawnChair]

Andy Holt does a lot for local sports clubs, never mind the 25k he is donating to young Charlie Proctor who was mascot at the weekend.

All very commendable, I do my bit for local sports clubs. And I have charity commitments. I also pay my sub contractors on time.

[RocketLawnChair]

To be fair Andy Holt employs people to sort that side of his business out he would have known nothing of it probably. So I am out of order to bring it up.

[Hipper]

The likes of Chelsea, and City, as has been shown with their ban, can afford to buy multiple youngsters dirt cheap. Very few of these players make it into the first team, but they can 'afford' to carry the cost because it is a pittance compared to what they would have to pay a smaller club for someone who had been playing first team football. The smaller clubs have no way of retaining these youngsters once they have had their heads turned, with all the glitz and the glamour.
The little club lose yet another possible asset, another youngster finds himself on the scrap heap when his dream is shot down, and the big clubs don't bat an eyelid, because it is chicken feed to the money they are receiving.
That is the main point, they don't earn money from being on TV, they receive money. They don't create anything, or produce anything, they just turn up for the cameras. Far better for football all round, if the money from TV was filtered down the pyramid to improve grass roots football. It would create better English players, eventually it would improve the England team. It would improve the quality of the football on show.
All this could be done and the Premier League would hardly notice the difference, but the changes it could make to the rest of the football league would be immense.
There have always been, and always will be, teams that abuse the system and spend what they haven't got, but this is for those clubs who try to live within their means but find it impossible. It gives clubs like Accy a fighting chance.

You are right of course about the unfairness of some aspects of football. However I can't agree with the concept that Premier League clubs 'don't earn money from being on TV, they receive money'.

Of course they earn it. It's a return on their investment in players for example. Those that watch Sky (and I'm now one of them) enjoy seeing the likes of Spurs and Man City, and even Chelsea, because of the top quality players they have. I marvel sometimes at what they can do. It seems to me only right that those clubs that have invested in the likes of Hazard, de Bruyne etc., get some financial reward for providing this entertainment for me.

I don't disagree that it would be nice if more money filtered down the football pyramid, but that is on a socialist principle that the better off help the less well off. Football is no longer like that particularly since the formation of the Premier League, which was done exactly to distribute television money to the top clubs.

Our own club now benefit from this, just as we suffered when these socialist aspects were gradually removed from football (although most of our suffering was self inflicted mismanagement).