I’m not going to quote the long posts above about how we’re doomed if we make it to the PL and don’t have mega rich owners. Season tickets don’t have to go up to eye watering levels. They can stay at a reasonable price to fill the bulk of the ground and thereby reduce the number available on a casual match basis. Those tickets can be sold at a premium if the match warrants it (Man Utd, Arsenal Chelsea etc) otherwise it’s the tv and other ancillary income that is what the club would survive and thrive on
Name other clubs our size doing this now? I assume Bournemouth come to mind. But for every one of these, I can name 6 clubs or more that tried the same exact thing and got relegated doing so the last few years. And I can give you one or two trying that right now that will go down this year... Huddersfield and Cardiff. And I can name clubs that fit my profile, with rich owners willing to lose a lot of it, whose clubs are not going down now or anytime soon.... Wolves, Brighton, Watford. In fact, Bournemouth's owner is very rich, so I am not sure I can actually think of some PL club "thriving" on subpar attendances and low matchday income. I believe what you think exists is a "unicorn."
What others say about match day income being less important now because of TV money is simply incorrect and is a shallow analysis that does not match studies and research data on the subject.
First, TV money is not distributed evenly, or even close to such. Clubs that generate more match day income spend it on players. This makes them win more. This moves them up the table.... which LEADS to much bigger TV income. And that TV income is then spent on more players that are better and the cycle continues.
Second, sponsors look at match day income and attendances to determine what to pay for sponsorships, which is a huge factor in staying up over time. Lower attendances and lower matchday money send a signal to sponsors that not enough eyeballs and not enough money exist with followers of that club, and thus the club also gets much lower sponsorship income.
The combination of these two factors will mean CAFC, with an owner unwilling to lose money, and a good dose of it, will never make us more than a yo-yo club. This is not 2001, anymore.
yet bournemouth have a top gate of just under 12,000 and they seem to be getting on ok?
didnt we previously have approval for extending the Valley (pre dowie) to 40,000. that would be more than sufficient imo
That is called "selectivity bias." You find the one club with a low gate that has made it 5 years and then "project" that as proof. It's like when someone says "Wow, its 40C out today, which proves global warming cannot be true." Same thing.
Let's not forget that Bournemouth's owner is a billionaire. And that he spent more than FFP allowed to get promoted and got fined millions for it. So even your one example actually proves MY point.
Clubs can make the PL without a super rich owner. And without overspending. And with low gate income. It's called "luck." But they don't stay there long. The way to get there and stay there is to have very rich owners willing to overspend and then make sure you are at least in the middle of attendances.
Just re-look at the chart of attendances I showed on the other page. Look at the top half and the bottom half. Despite TV income, notice how attendances strongly correlates with where clubs finish, over the long term.
Why does Tottenham have a new stadium? Why does Chelsea want one? Why does Everton want one? Why did West Ham move from a great stadium? Why did Arsenal leave? Not because they are "old." It's because they KNOW that with new stadiums they will raise prices and get more seats and more tourists and thus.... more money. It won't make them a profit in most cases. Every cent will be spent on new players, except maybe for Arsenal.
You simply have to have the money (from every source you can) or you will never reach your goals. If the goal is to win the PL, that requires X, 90% of the time. If it is to make top 4, it requires Y. If it is to stay up, it requires Z.
I am fine with having Z and just "staying up." But the best way to ensure that is to be Wolves, Watford, Brighton, Leicester. Not Huddersfield and Cardiff. In every single case I mentioned, FFP rules were broken to go up and in all cases, big fines were imposed doing so (except Wolves, who are soon going to get it, retroactively.) If our next owner is not comfortable with that.... then everyone had better be fine with lowered expectations, because there are always a few clubs EVERY year in the Championship who ARE willing. And those are the ones going up. Newcastle lost £90 million to go up in the Championship.... in one year! And that was WITH parachute payments. It was money VERY well spent.
And as more of them go up by spending (and stay), and more rich clubs that do the same go up from the Championship, it leaves less and less room over time for "family clubs" to see the light of day.
Because the money in the PL is so vast, more new owners feel that £40M to buy a club and then another £100-150M over six year on wage over-runs and infrastructure improvements is worth it, for once they are in the PL, they recoup all that and then some, in valuation. They are right. Wolves is a PERFECT example.
As more owners figure this out, clubs with nice, properly run family orientations, hoping to limit losses will become permanent minnows. Food for whales.
For any buyer of us - surely they can see the potential of the club. Getting to the PL would be the obvious pull but maxing out on Corporate would add to the Income. We are a little'sleeping giant'
Except for a couple recently promoted minnows, the majority of season tickets in the PL are about £600-2000 for the best seats and mostly £300-800 for the cheapest, now. Are Addicks prepared for that? I somehow don't think so. Tickets are so much more expensive than the last time CAFC were in the PL. Look at the lowest priced clubs and for the most part, where are they in the table?
Which means we would struggle to stay in it. Clubs with low gate receipts typically go down sooner rather than later, which is why Palace and other clubs are desperate to increase their capacity and if necessary, attract a different kind of crowd. The ability to get 35,000+ for every match and charge tourist prices for many of them is not a luxury anymore, it's required.
This is why that although I agree there is big potential here, what we really need to reach that potential (and keep it) in my opinion is an owner willing to spend £150-250M like Tony Bloom did on Brighton.
Getting out of the Championship now requires clubs to lose the max allowable each year and often more the last year. If it were to take even just 4 years, that's £50M. If it takes seven, that's £90M. Unlike L1, the Championship has 3 new clubs every year getting parachute payments that are twice more than CAFC's entire turnover would be in that division. And often 4-8 clubs at any one time getting some form of parachutes. It's hell to get out of the Championship. Wolves lost £50-60M just the last two seasons to get out, breaching rules. Some think that is now the only way to get out, as there will always be a few clubs each year willing to role the dice. How to compete?
The Valley by all accounts needs upgrades. Getting approvals, plans, plans approved, construction, cost overruns, etc.... at least another £75M over a decade and maybe£100M. Everton decided it would cost less per seat to just build a new stadium than re-develop Goodison due to proximity of houses and streets and the difficulty of approving one stand change at a time, plus the lost revenue each year a stand is under construction, which cannot be tolerated.
Palace are renovating theirs. Arsenal have a newer one. Chelsea has approval for one. Shahid Khan is going to buy Wembley and yeah, he is eventually going to be tempted to move there. Palace is getting £100M to re-develop Selhurst and you just know the real price will be £150M+ by the end. West Ham now get attendances of 56,000 now, even in a crap stadium. You may all love the Valley, but it is not going to cut the mustard in the PL, as is.
The training ground facilities themselves are not quality PL level, even if the pitches are. The proposed new building is at best "okay" for the PL and it is not under construction yet. Even MLS teams have facilities now that dwarf those of CAFC. Wolves spent £55M to get theirs to Category One and that was a few years ago. I think we need another £30M+ to get it to a level that will attract international talent. We won't survive in the PL without such an ability.
So...... if we don't get an owner who can spend this kind of money without cringing, I think we have very long, hard road ahead. As in a generation or more. More smaller clubs will get sold to rich owners in that period who won't bat an eyelash at spending what is necessary to get to the PL.
This is what worries me about the Aussies now. They seem scared by the £15M gap between their offer and Roland's wishes. If they can't deal with that, then how will they deal with the inevitable costs to get us to the PL? And even more... to stay there more than 1-2 seasons?
yet bournemouth have a top gate of just under 12,000 and they seem to be getting on ok?
didnt we previously have approval for extending the Valley (pre dowie) to 40,000. that would be more than sufficient imo
No.
That is called "selectivity bias." You find the one club with a low gate that has made it 5 years and then "project" that as evidence. It is not logical and in fact, is contrary to the evidence.
It's like when someone says "Wow, its 40C out today, which proves global warming cannot be true." Same thing.
Let's not forget that Bournemouth's owner is a billionaire. And that he spent more than FFP allowed to get promoted and got fined millions for it. So even your one example actually proves MY point.
Clubs can make the PL without a super rich owner. And without overspending. And with low gate income. It's called "luck." But they don't stay there long. The way to get there and stay there is to have very rich owners willing to overspend and then make sure you are at least in the middle of attendances.
ok Burnley, Stoke, Watford as another example. its more than just a gate. luck and form play a massive part of it. aside from the top 7, pretty much every club are battling relegation in the PL.
or we could just look at this the average premiership attendance for the past 10 years. all under 40,000.
I hear you, and you are free to a different opinion, of course. But I don't really have an opinion, I just have the data. Data does not lie. Single examples are utterly meaningless compared to true studies of the subject.
Here is data that a statistician and economist would call "evidence"....
From 2003-2012, over a decade. All clubs in the Premier League AND The Championship. X axis is average rank of the clubs among the group, the Y axis is money spent on wages.
If TV money makes matchday and sponsorhips less relevant, then how does someone explain this data?
Across the PL and Championship, clubs are "suppose to" spend the same amounts relative to turnover within the leagues. So if that is the case, how is it that clubs that spend the most on wages do soooooooooo much better. And those that do not... do worse?
The answer is that those who can spend the most will get promoted and stay there. Those that do not, are toast. Not every year. Not every team. But overall.
Analysis of this data by economists have come to the same conclusions...
1. Financially, "clubs are simply vehicles to fund money to players." 2. Players have almost total control over where they play and they follow the money 3. Thus, the best players go where they can make the most money. 4. Stadium capacity correlates with league position 5. Matchday correlates with league position 6. Because that excess money from those sources is the "edge" that attracts the best players 7. If you spend the "average" wage in the PL, you stay up 90% of the time 8. If you spend half the average, you stay up 60% of he time. 9. Except for the Big 3 clubs, whose economics are almost irrelevant, if you try to make a profit (or just not lose money), your chances of relegation skyrocket. (Newcastle got relegated twice while making a profit.) 10. Above all, WAGES correlate with league position, which are paid for by all sources, of which match day and sponsorships (and an owner willing to fund losses) is crucial.
And the way to spend enough on wages to make and stay in the PL is to have owners who are willing to lose lots of money.... IF... they do not have a big match day or sponsors. Which we won't. Otherwise, where does the money come to pay for players to keep one up? Or even get there in the first place?
People can disagree with this "theory" all they want. Because it is about as much a "theory" as global warming. If anyone can find a study, real data, over a longer period than this, that supports the idea that clubs can now succeed without big time spending, and do so with low attendances and low income, I am VERY open to it. Until I see that, I'll go with the data. To do otherwise is simply irrational.
No one is saying spending a lot of money does not help clubs be more successful.
We all know that and all knew that many many years ago. It has been that way since 1888 at least.
You might as well mansplain how snow is cold and rain is wet.
But you are making huge assumptions based on very little and dismissing valid evidence IE Bournemouth when it disproves your flawed, original argument that Charlton could only have success if we spent £100m on upgrading the Valley as that was essential to competing.
You then ignored all the evidence that gate money is now a lower percentage of a premier club's income.
It is stating the bloody obvious that having a big stadium capacity would help but if that was the MAIN factor then Man Utd would win the league every year and Newcastle would finish above Liverpool and Chelsea.
And Leicester would never have won the league but they did.
Coaching, tactics, player recruitment and academies are all variables. See Watford's network as an example of success in a "small" ground not significantly different from the Valley.
Stadium capacity is just one method of increasing income, it's not the only one and how your use your resources is as important as how much you have. See Duchatelet at Charlton and Curbishley at Charlton.
Put a . Because if I accidently click on "quote". the thing won't go unless I post a comment. F!!!!ing annoying. Bastards! Aaaggghhhhhhh.... so annoying.
Covered End - tbh I’d have to do a bit more homework,but I would have thought that c £20- 25m in the current market would be about right, but valuing football clubs is certainly an anomaly- after all the buyers are paying £20-25m to buy the right to lose another c £10m a year which is totally bizarre. In most business purchases, in order to justify a price of £20-25m you’d expect the business to be actually making a profit !! of probably c £2m to £3m a year. Football club purchases generally defy any business logic because they are a relatively quick way to become poor or broke.
In the dim and distant past, I did mention a friend who has worked in football all his life and has also introduced a number of investors to clubs in recent years.
Charlton were looked at, but the price that Duchâtelet wanted was unrealistic. I was told then that this is all down to property - The Valley & Sparrows Lane - as there is nothing else tangible - players on minimal contracts and mostly not valued highly and we are loss making.
The valuation I was told was £20m to (at a push) £25m. Nothing has changed in terms of other tangibles, so Roland needs to bite the bullet or carry on losing £1m a month.
It doesn’t take an Alan Turing-like genius to work it out.
Was that before the sale of Lookman or before his arrival?
Before his sale & after. Lookman had less that 50 games for us before leaving in Jan 2017. There was potential, but no guarantee on who would come in and what they would bid. Konsa was about the only other one on the horizon and it was pretty clear he wouldn’t be there long.
Yes but that was before selling the houses/land behind the east stand. Would be difficult to raise the height of the stand now.
I've been wondering about that. Is it just because the actual space is not enough for the stand itself or is it because there is not enough space behind it for cranes, etc, to build one?
Also, I suspect we could use more suites. So if we cannot build seats out.... how about up? Like this, although smaller? I see more stadiums doing things like this in confined spaces.
The capacity at the Valley could be improved by rebuilding the Jimmy Seed stand and making it a wrap around. I'm sure the travelling supporters of Man U, Liverpool and the big London clubs would fill the space very easily. Oh nearly forgot, we need new ownership, a huge injection of cash, a large chunk of serendipity and a five ten year plan for that to happen. Dream on ... dream on.
Think there would be objections from the occupants of the new houses to raising the roof of the east stand. Increasing the Jimmy Seed capacity would skew the percentage of the ground that has to be allocated to away fans.
Think there would be objections from the occupants of the new houses to raising the roof of the east stand. Increasing the Jimmy Seed capacity would skew the percentage of the ground that has to be allocated to away fans.
Isn't the Valiant House, I think thats the name of the tall apartment building, also a problem now with expanding Jimmy Seed?
Think there would be objections from the occupants of the new houses to raising the roof of the east stand. Increasing the Jimmy Seed capacity would skew the percentage of the ground that has to be allocated to away fans.
The JS stand could be split into upper and lower to counter that problem. However, as I understand it, there may be a problem with access as home and away fans may need to be separated on entry and exit, as well as whilst in the stadium.
Put a . Because if I accidently click on "quote". the thing won't go unless I post a comment. F!!!!ing annoying. Bastards! Aaaggghhhhhhh.... so annoying.
It’ll save as a draft. On the left there is an option for drafts. Go into there and then click delete.
Yes but that was before selling the houses/land behind the east stand. Would be difficult to raise the height of the stand now.
I've been wondering about that. Is it just because the actual space is not enough for the stand itself or is it because there is not enough space behind it for cranes, etc, to build one?
Also, I suspect we could use more suites. So if we cannot build seats out.... how about up? Like this, although smaller? I see more stadiums doing things like this in confined spaces.
Problem with increasing the capacity of the East is not the height as I understand it but is because the access ways have been limited I believe, although its possible access could be increased via land to the Southeast
Yes but that was before selling the houses/land behind the east stand. Would be difficult to raise the height of the stand now.
I've been wondering about that. Is it just because the actual space is not enough for the stand itself or is it because there is not enough space behind it for cranes, etc, to build one?
Also, I suspect we could use more suites. So if we cannot build seats out.... how about up? Like this, although smaller? I see more stadiums doing things like this in confined spaces.
Yes but that was before selling the houses/land behind the east stand. Would be difficult to raise the height of the stand now.
I've been wondering about that. Is it just because the actual space is not enough for the stand itself or is it because there is not enough space behind it for cranes, etc, to build one?
Also, I suspect we could use more suites. So if we cannot build seats out.... how about up? Like this, although smaller? I see more stadiums doing things like this in confined spaces.
Problem with increasing the capacity of the East is not the height as I understand it but is because the access ways have been limited I believe, although its possible access could be increased via land to the Southeast
I think there would be a height issue now because the new houses are closer to the stand than the existing properties. However, the increase in capacity of the east stand wasn’t that significant IIRC - it was more about creating extra space for ancillary accommodation (not primarily for matchday use) to fund the wider works, including the SE corner. Club assurances on these issues are worthless at this point as there is no one there now who fully understands the practicalities.
Yes but that was before selling the houses/land behind the east stand. Would be difficult to raise the height of the stand now.
I've been wondering about that. Is it just because the actual space is not enough for the stand itself or is it because there is not enough space behind it for cranes, etc, to build one?
Also, I suspect we could use more suites. So if we cannot build seats out.... how about up? Like this, although smaller? I see more stadiums doing things like this in confined spaces.
Problem with increasing the capacity of the East is not the height as I understand it but is because the access ways have been limited I believe, although its possible access could be increased via land to the Southeast
I think there would be a height issue now because the new houses are closer to the stand than the existing properties. However, the increase in capacity of the east stand wasn’t that significant IIRC - it was more about creating extra space for ancillary accommodation (not primarily for matchday use) to fund the wider works, including the SE corner. Club assurances on these issues are worthless at this point as there is no one there now who fully understands the practicalities.
I recall that the number of extra seats would relatively small as the upper tier would mainly be for better executive boxes
Just rebuilding the JS and filling in the corners would liberate enough extra capacity for what we would realistically need in the PL. I've never though we needed more then say 32k.
I hear you, and you are free to a different opinion, of course. But I don't really have an opinion, I just have the data. Data does not lie. Single examples are utterly meaningless compared to true studies of the subject.
Here is data that a statistician and economist would call "evidence"....
From 2003-2012, over a decade. All clubs in the Premier League AND The Championship. X axis is average rank of the clubs among the group, the Y axis is money spent on wages.
If TV money makes matchday and sponsorhips less relevant, then how does someone explain this data?
Across the PL and Championship, clubs are "suppose to" spend the same amounts relative to turnover within the leagues. So if that is the case, how is it that clubs that spend the most on wages do soooooooooo much better. And those that do not... do worse?
The answer is that those who can spend the most will get promoted and stay there. Those that do not, are toast. Not every year. Not every team. But overall.
Analysis of this data by economists have come to the same conclusions...
1. Financially, "clubs are simply vehicles to fund money to players." 2. Players have almost total control over where they play and they follow the money 3. Thus, the best players go where they can make the most money. 4. Stadium capacity correlates with league position 5. Matchday correlates with league position 6. Because that excess money from those sources is the "edge" that attracts the best players 7. If you spend the "average" wage in the PL, you stay up 90% of the time 8. If you spend half the average, you stay up 60% of he time. 9. Except for the Big 3 clubs, whose economics are almost irrelevant, if you try to make a profit (or just not lose money), your chances of relegation skyrocket. (Newcastle got relegated twice while making a profit.) 10. Above all, WAGES correlate with league position, which are paid for by all sources, of which match day and sponsorships (and an owner willing to fund losses) is crucial.
And the way to spend enough on wages to make and stay in the PL is to have owners who are willing to lose lots of money.... IF... they do not have a big match day or sponsors. Which we won't. Otherwise, where does the money come to pay for players to keep one up? Or even get there in the first place?
People can disagree with this "theory" all they want. Because it is about as much a "theory" as global warming. If anyone can find a study, real data, over a longer period than this, that supports the idea that clubs can now succeed without big time spending, and do so with low attendances and low income, I am VERY open to it. Until I see that, I'll go with the data. To do otherwise is simply irrational.
Interesting graph, thanks for posting....got your x and y axes mixed up though....x is along the bottom. The R squared value is quite impressive; 1 is a perfect positive correlation and this data gets far closer to that than I would have expected. You could kind of look at it in terms of a performance indicator, i.e clubs above the plot line are 'overperforming' relative to wages and those under it the opposite (note how many Championship teams trying to get to the promised land are in this category, e.g Leeds, Derby and how some other 'smaller' champ teams are managing to overperform on more modest budgets)…...I suppose it is no surprise to find out which side of the line we are!
So, in general, the correlation is pretty strong, but as Henry says, the rub is really in whether you are getting results appropriate to the money you are spending on wages...this is where the human factor comes in and things such as coaching, staff and management really make the difference - or not, as the case may be!
Yes but that was before selling the houses/land behind the east stand. Would be difficult to raise the height of the stand now.
I've been wondering about that. Is it just because the actual space is not enough for the stand itself or is it because there is not enough space behind it for cranes, etc, to build one?
Also, I suspect we could use more suites. So if we cannot build seats out.... how about up? Like this, although smaller? I see more stadiums doing things like this in confined spaces.
Surely it would read ‘thanks Colin’?
You can't see it but on the stand to the right it actually says "DRIESEN"
Comments
What others say about match day income being less important now because of TV money is simply incorrect and is a shallow analysis that does not match studies and research data on the subject.
First, TV money is not distributed evenly, or even close to such. Clubs that generate more match day income spend it on players. This makes them win more. This moves them up the table.... which LEADS to much bigger TV income. And that TV income is then spent on more players that are better and the cycle continues.
Second, sponsors look at match day income and attendances to determine what to pay for sponsorships, which is a huge factor in staying up over time. Lower attendances and lower matchday money send a signal to sponsors that not enough eyeballs and not enough money exist with followers of that club, and thus the club also gets much lower sponsorship income.
The combination of these two factors will mean CAFC, with an owner unwilling to lose money, and a good dose of it, will never make us more than a yo-yo club. This is not 2001, anymore.
Let's not forget that Bournemouth's owner is a billionaire. And that he spent more than FFP allowed to get promoted and got fined millions for it. So even your one example actually proves MY point.
Clubs can make the PL without a super rich owner. And without overspending. And with low gate income. It's called "luck." But they don't stay there long. The way to get there and stay there is to have very rich owners willing to overspend and then make sure you are at least in the middle of attendances.
Just re-look at the chart of attendances I showed on the other page. Look at the top half and the bottom half. Despite TV income, notice how attendances strongly correlates with where clubs finish, over the long term.
Why does Tottenham have a new stadium? Why does Chelsea want one? Why does Everton want one? Why did West Ham move from a great stadium? Why did Arsenal leave? Not because they are "old." It's because they KNOW that with new stadiums they will raise prices and get more seats and more tourists and thus.... more money. It won't make them a profit in most cases. Every cent will be spent on new players, except maybe for Arsenal.
You simply have to have the money (from every source you can) or you will never reach your goals. If the goal is to win the PL, that requires X, 90% of the time. If it is to make top 4, it requires Y. If it is to stay up, it requires Z.
I am fine with having Z and just "staying up." But the best way to ensure that is to be Wolves, Watford, Brighton, Leicester. Not Huddersfield and Cardiff. In every single case I mentioned, FFP rules were broken to go up and in all cases, big fines were imposed doing so (except Wolves, who are soon going to get it, retroactively.) If our next owner is not comfortable with that.... then everyone had better be fine with lowered expectations, because there are always a few clubs EVERY year in the Championship who ARE willing. And those are the ones going up. Newcastle lost £90 million to go up in the Championship.... in one year! And that was WITH parachute payments. It was money VERY well spent.
And as more of them go up by spending (and stay), and more rich clubs that do the same go up from the Championship, it leaves less and less room over time for "family clubs" to see the light of day.
Because the money in the PL is so vast, more new owners feel that £40M to buy a club and then another £100-150M over six year on wage over-runs and infrastructure improvements is worth it, for once they are in the PL, they recoup all that and then some, in valuation. They are right. Wolves is a PERFECT example.
As more owners figure this out, clubs with nice, properly run family orientations, hoping to limit losses will become permanent minnows. Food for whales.
or we could just look at this the average premiership attendance for the past 10 years. all under 40,000.
i here you but very much disagree.
Sadly after 3 nights of less than 3 hours sleep on the trot it could be voices in my head.
I hear you, and you are free to a different opinion, of course. But I don't really have an opinion, I just have the data. Data does not lie. Single examples are utterly meaningless compared to true studies of the subject.
Here is data that a statistician and economist would call "evidence"....
From 2003-2012, over a decade. All clubs in the Premier League AND The Championship. X axis is average rank of the clubs among the group, the Y axis is money spent on wages.
If TV money makes matchday and sponsorhips less relevant, then how does someone explain this data?
Across the PL and Championship, clubs are "suppose to" spend the same amounts relative to turnover within the leagues. So if that is the case, how is it that clubs that spend the most on wages do soooooooooo much better. And those that do not... do worse?
The answer is that those who can spend the most will get promoted and stay there. Those that do not, are toast. Not every year. Not every team. But overall.
Analysis of this data by economists have come to the same conclusions...
1. Financially, "clubs are simply vehicles to fund money to players."
2. Players have almost total control over where they play and they follow the money
3. Thus, the best players go where they can make the most money.
4. Stadium capacity correlates with league position
5. Matchday correlates with league position
6. Because that excess money from those sources is the "edge" that attracts the best players
7. If you spend the "average" wage in the PL, you stay up 90% of the time
8. If you spend half the average, you stay up 60% of he time.
9. Except for the Big 3 clubs, whose economics are almost irrelevant, if you try to make a profit (or just not lose money), your chances of relegation skyrocket. (Newcastle got relegated twice while making a profit.)
10. Above all, WAGES correlate with league position, which are paid for by all sources, of which match day and sponsorships (and an owner willing to fund losses) is crucial.
And the way to spend enough on wages to make and stay in the PL is to have owners who are willing to lose lots of money.... IF... they do not have a big match day or sponsors. Which we won't. Otherwise, where does the money come to pay for players to keep one up? Or even get there in the first place?
People can disagree with this "theory" all they want. Because it is about as much a "theory" as global warming. If anyone can find a study, real data, over a longer period than this, that supports the idea that clubs can now succeed without big time spending, and do so with low attendances and low income, I am VERY open to it. Until I see that, I'll go with the data. To do otherwise is simply irrational.
No one is saying spending a lot of money does not help clubs be more successful.
We all know that and all knew that many many years ago. It has been that way since 1888 at least.
You might as well mansplain how snow is cold and rain is wet.
But you are making huge assumptions based on very little and dismissing valid evidence IE Bournemouth when it disproves your flawed, original argument that Charlton could only have success if we spent £100m on upgrading the Valley as that was essential to competing.
You then ignored all the evidence that gate money is now a lower percentage of a premier club's income.
It is stating the bloody obvious that having a big stadium capacity would help but if that was the MAIN factor then Man Utd would win the league every year and Newcastle would finish above Liverpool and Chelsea.
And Leicester would never have won the league but they did.
Coaching, tactics, player recruitment and academies are all variables. See Watford's network as an example of success in a "small" ground not significantly different from the Valley.
Stadium capacity is just one method of increasing income, it's not the only one and how your use your resources is as important as how much you have. See Duchatelet at Charlton and Curbishley at Charlton.
Also, I suspect we could use more suites. So if we cannot build seats out.... how about up? Like this, although smaller? I see more stadiums doing things like this in confined spaces.
fiveten year plan for that to happen. Dream on ... dream on.However, as I understand it, there may be a problem with access as home and away fans may need to be separated on entry and exit, as well as whilst in the stadium.
Just rebuilding the JS and filling in the corners would liberate enough extra capacity for what we would realistically need in the PL. I've never though we needed more then say 32k.
So, in general, the correlation is pretty strong, but as Henry says, the rub is really in whether you are getting results appropriate to the money you are spending on wages...this is where the human factor comes in and things such as coaching, staff and management really make the difference - or not, as the case may be!