Does this mean that Bury have disappeared as a club completely? Or will they be able to work their way up the leagues again? I don't really understand the ins and outs of it.
Dont think they've disappeared completely as havent gone into liquidation
At the moment they've just been expelled from the Football League
If they can get their finances in order they'll be allowed to apply for re-entry into the Football System as Bury FC from next season (reckon this'll be either the Northern Premier League or or the Northern Premier Division One which is either one level or two levels below Welling)
Should they be liquidated then I imagine a Phoenix club will have to be setup, yet will start much further down
To put it into context; AFC Wimbledon started four levels below Welling... So the equivalent for AFC Bury (or whatever they call themselves) would be the North West Counties Football League which'll see them playing against the likes of Northwich Victoria
Maidstone United are another example of a club rising from the bottom of the football ladder. Both Maidstone and Dartford continued their existence by being based around their youth teams
The best hope for Bury (regardless if they have to start a Phoenix club) is that their fans stick by them
In League Two last season; Bury had the seventh largest ground (Yup no guarantee that they can keep Gigg Lane) and 15th highest attendance of around 4,000 - I know the amount of fans you get through the gates wont win you games but they'll certainly help as they'll get gate receipts that opposing teams can only dream of - Just look @ Stockport at times last season!!
Its going to be a long road (one that the likes of Bradford Park Avenue | Hereford | Darlington are still on) but I wont be surprised if we see them back in the Football League again one day
There is however a natural and broadly welcome evolution which has seen relatively new clubs (at least in terms of playing in the EFL) which are sensibly run and financed eg Forest Green, Fleetwood, Crawley, Accrington, Wycombe, Burton, Salford etc. succeed whilst the likes of Stockport, Wrexham, Bury, York, Notts C, Hereford, Chesterfield, Darlington fade away.
Of course there were also several clubs that shone briefly then too faded away (eg Boston, Rushden & Diamonds etc).
i wouldn’t wish the outright closure of a club on any supporter but it’s right that new better run clubs get the chance to compete and take on the incumbents.
Let's all remember what makes up the EFL - the clubs themselves! They are meant to be there to administer the competition on behalf of member clubs. So of course they are not fit for purpose as a regulator. And imo, neither is the FA, though somehow that seems to be the policy of the FSA (Football Supporters' Association).
The FSF think the FA should be the regulator? Dear Lord! Oh hang on, "CEO" Kevin Miles.
i think the FAPL and EFL should be disbanded, TV rights negotiated and disbursed by the FA, who would also operate a proper Ownership test and control audit. Crucially all overseen by a properly independent regulator which includes supporter "voices" in its team. Someone like you, for example, Heather :-)
I dont pretend that is easy to enact, but I would like to read a coherent argument as to why this would not be a better structure.
There is however a natural and broadly welcome evolution which has seen relatively new clubs (at least in terms of playing in the EFL) which are sensibly run and financed eg Forest Green, Fleetwood, Crawley, Accrington, Wycombe, Burton, Salford etc. succeed whilst the likes of Stockport, Wrexham, Bury, York, Notts C, Hereford, Chesterfield, Darlington fade away.
Of course there were also several clubs that shone briefly then too faded away (eg Boston, Rushden & Diamonds etc).
i wouldn’t wish the outright closure of a club on any supporter but it’s right that new better run clubs get the chance to compete and take on the incumbents.
I agree with the rest but not Salford, the plaything of some famous ex pros and a foreign billionaire
There is however a natural and broadly welcome evolution which has seen relatively new clubs (at least in terms of playing in the EFL) which are sensibly run and financed eg Forest Green, Fleetwood, Crawley, Accrington, Wycombe, Burton, Salford etc. succeed whilst the likes of Stockport, Wrexham, Bury, York, Notts C, Hereford, Chesterfield, Darlington fade away.
Of course there were also several clubs that shone briefly then too faded away (eg Boston, Rushden & Diamonds etc).
i wouldn’t wish the outright closure of a club on any supporter but it’s right that new better run clubs get the chance to compete and take on the incumbents.
I agree with the rest but not Salford, the plaything of some famous ex pros and a foreign billionaire
Made me laugh the other day when Phil Neville piped up about his ties with Bury and how it was a scandal that they werent being saved what with both his Mum and Dad being involved at the club for god knows how many years
Could easily have saved them rather than wanting their own pet project in Salford City!!
Let's all remember what makes up the EFL - the clubs themselves! They are meant to be there to administer the competition on behalf of member clubs. So of course they are not fit for purpose as a regulator. And imo, neither is the FA, though somehow that seems to be the policy of the FSA (Football Supporters' Association).
The FSF think the FA should be the regulator? Dear Lord! Oh hang on, "CEO" Kevin Miles.
i think the FAPL and EFL should be disbanded, TV rights negotiated and disbursed by the FA, who also operate a proper Ownership test and control audit. Crucially all overseen by a properly independent regulator which includes supporter "voices" in its team. Someone like you, for example, Heather :-)
I dont pretend that is easy to enact, but I would like to read a coherent argument as to why this would not be a better structure.
Why arent the FA being disbanded too as part of your shake up?
Whole lot needs to go, absolute snakes the lot of them
There is however a natural and broadly welcome evolution which has seen relatively new clubs (at least in terms of playing in the EFL) which are sensibly run and financed eg Forest Green, Fleetwood, Crawley, Accrington, Wycombe, Burton, Salford etc. succeed whilst the likes of Stockport, Wrexham, Bury, York, Notts C, Hereford, Chesterfield, Darlington fade away.
Of course there were also several clubs that shone briefly then too faded away (eg Boston, Rushden & Diamonds etc).
i wouldn’t wish the outright closure of a club on any supporter but it’s right that new better run clubs get the chance to compete and take on the incumbents.
By 'fade way' do you mean (bar Bury) find them themselves in a divison or two below their natural level? It wont be long before several of those teams are back in the league due to the size of their support.
New clubs sensibly run? Forest Green, Fleetwood and Salford are where they are due to wealthy backers. Like Rushden a few years ago, now look at them. Wycombe got into financial diffulties and needed the trust to step in. New clubs are much like those they have replaced some good some bad.
There is however a natural and broadly welcome evolution which has seen relatively new clubs (at least in terms of playing in the EFL) which are sensibly run and financed eg Forest Green, Fleetwood, Crawley, Accrington, Wycombe, Burton, Salford etc. succeed whilst the likes of Stockport, Wrexham, Bury, York, Notts C, Hereford, Chesterfield, Darlington fade away.
Of course there were also several clubs that shone briefly then too faded away (eg Boston, Rushden & Diamonds etc).
i wouldn’t wish the outright closure of a club on any supporter but it’s right that new better run clubs get the chance to compete and take on the incumbents.
By 'fade way' do you mean (bar Bury) find them themselves in a divison or two below their natural level? It wont be long before several of those teams are back in the league due to the size of their support.
New clubs sensibly run. Forest Green, Fleetwood and Salford are where they are due to wealthy backers. Like Rushden a few years ago, now look at them. Wycombe got into financial diffulties and needed the trust to step in. New clubs are much like those they have replaced some good some bad.
Are Salford being sensibly ran though?
They were paying players the sort of wages that National League / League Two teams couldnt compete with seeing that they were able to bring in the likes of Adam Rooney and Graham Alexander
Would say its very risky if the owner decided that he didnt want to be involved anymore
There is however a natural and broadly welcome evolution which has seen relatively new clubs (at least in terms of playing in the EFL) which are sensibly run and financed eg Forest Green, Fleetwood, Crawley, Accrington, Wycombe, Burton, Salford etc. succeed whilst the likes of Stockport, Wrexham, Bury, York, Notts C, Hereford, Chesterfield, Darlington fade away.
Of course there were also several clubs that shone briefly then too faded away (eg Boston, Rushden & Diamonds etc).
i wouldn’t wish the outright closure of a club on any supporter but it’s right that new better run clubs get the chance to compete and take on the incumbents.
I agree with the rest but not Salford, the plaything of some famous ex pros and a foreign billionaire
Made me laugh the other day when Phil Neville piped up about his ties with Bury and how it was a scandal that they werent being saved what with both his Mum and Dad being involved at the club for god knows how many years
Could easily have saved them rather than wanting their own pet project in Salford City!!
Is Neville just a figurehead who is /may make some money from Salford? I read Lim is covering future costs /debts, the risk / expense seems to lie with him.
There is however a natural and broadly welcome evolution which has seen relatively new clubs (at least in terms of playing in the EFL) which are sensibly run and financed eg Forest Green, Fleetwood, Crawley, Accrington, Wycombe, Burton, Salford etc. succeed whilst the likes of Stockport, Wrexham, Bury, York, Notts C, Hereford, Chesterfield, Darlington fade away.
Of course there were also several clubs that shone briefly then too faded away (eg Boston, Rushden & Diamonds etc).
i wouldn’t wish the outright closure of a club on any supporter but it’s right that new better run clubs get the chance to compete and take on the incumbents.
By 'fade way' do you mean (bar Bury) find them themselves in a divison or two below their natural level? It wont be long before several of those teams are back in the league due to the size of their support.
New clubs sensibly run. Forest Green, Fleetwood and Salford are where they are due to wealthy backers. Like Rushden a few years ago, now look at them. Wycombe got into financial diffulties and needed the trust to step in. New clubs are much like those they have replaced some good some bad.
Are Salford being sensibly ran though?
They were paying players the sort of wages that National League / League Two teams couldnt compete with seeing that they were able to bring in the likes of Adam Rooney and Graham Alexander
Would say its very risky if the owner decided that he didnt want to be involved anymore
Apologies, should have been a question mark after sensibly run
'Dale, however, never satisfied the league that he had the necessary
money to sustain the club, a requirement of EFL rules for new owners
before a takeover or, at the latest, 10 days later. Throughout nine
months in charge Dale has never provided the EFL with the evidence of
funding it has required.'
That is just outrageous. How the hell are the EFL getting away with that?!
Remarkable how he got away with this.
Why didn't the ELF impose their 10 day thing and say if you can't prove to us by then you have the money then the takeover isn't ratified and the club is back up for sale.
They have basically done just that.......but 8 months too late. Dale was just like your typical debter - ignored all the nice phone calls & polite letters & only acted when the bailiffs were sent in.
Let's all remember what makes up the EFL - the clubs themselves! They are meant to be there to administer the competition on behalf of member clubs. So of course they are not fit for purpose as a regulator. And imo, neither is the FA, though somehow that seems to be the policy of the FSA (Football Supporters' Association).
The FSF think the FA should be the regulator? Dear Lord! Oh hang on, "CEO" Kevin Miles.
i think the FAPL and EFL should be disbanded, TV rights negotiated and disbursed by the FA, who also operate a proper Ownership test and control audit. Crucially all overseen by a properly independent regulator which includes supporter "voices" in its team. Someone like you, for example, Heather :-)
I dont pretend that is easy to enact, but I would like to read a coherent argument as to why this would not be a better structure.
Why arent the FA being disbanded too as part of your shake up?
Whole lot needs to go, absolute snakes the lot of them
Fair question, which I had already been pondering after reading Weegie's post.
I think you have to have a body which has the same overall remit as the FA, which encompasses the professional and amateur games, and ensures, among other things, that our amateur game is properly funded by the riches of the professional game. As far as I am aware every other European country has a similar named body with a similar function, and usually sitting above the league organisations.
On the other hand I agree that you would want to have a clearout of the management structure including the old "blazers" from the county associations.
Let's all remember what makes up the EFL - the clubs themselves! They are meant to be there to administer the competition on behalf of member clubs. So of course they are not fit for purpose as a regulator. And imo, neither is the FA, though somehow that seems to be the policy of the FSA (Football Supporters' Association).
The FSF think the FA should be the regulator? Dear Lord! Oh hang on, "CEO" Kevin Miles.
i think the FAPL and EFL should be disbanded, TV rights negotiated and disbursed by the FA, who would also operate a proper Ownership test and control audit. Crucially all overseen by a properly independent regulator which includes supporter "voices" in its team. Someone like you, for example, Heather :-)
I dont pretend that is easy to enact, but I would like to read a coherent argument as to why this would not be a better structure.
Whilst I agree those things should happen, but do you realistically ever see turkey's voting for xmas?
Or should we probably be setting more realistic goals?
Let's all remember what makes up the EFL - the clubs themselves! They are meant to be there to administer the competition on behalf of member clubs. So of course they are not fit for purpose as a regulator. And imo, neither is the FA, though somehow that seems to be the policy of the FSA (Football Supporters' Association).
The FSF think the FA should be the regulator? Dear Lord! Oh hang on, "CEO" Kevin Miles.
i think the FAPL and EFL should be disbanded, TV rights negotiated and disbursed by the FA, who would also operate a proper Ownership test and control audit. Crucially all overseen by a properly independent regulator which includes supporter "voices" in its team. Someone like you, for example, Heather :-)
I dont pretend that is easy to enact, but I would like to read a coherent argument as to why this would not be a better structure.
Whilst I agree those things should happen, but do you realistically ever see turkey's voting for xmas?
Or should we probably be setting more realistic goals?
Sure, like I said, don't pretend it is easy, but I think you can set realistic goals more effectively if you have a vision for where you want to end up, which for me would be the above structure.
I suppose that you would start with setting up the regulatory body, which might itself start with reviewing the existing structure and reporting back to Parliament on what is needed and what is practical.
Let's all remember what makes up the EFL - the clubs themselves! They are meant to be there to administer the competition on behalf of member clubs. So of course they are not fit for purpose as a regulator. And imo, neither is the FA, though somehow that seems to be the policy of the FSA (Football Supporters' Association).
The FSF think the FA should be the regulator? Dear Lord! Oh hang on, "CEO" Kevin Miles.
i think the FAPL and EFL should be disbanded, TV rights negotiated and disbursed by the FA, who would also operate a proper Ownership test and control audit. Crucially all overseen by a properly independent regulator which includes supporter "voices" in its team. Someone like you, for example, Heather :-)
I dont pretend that is easy to enact, but I would like to read a coherent argument as to why this would not be a better structure.
Whilst I agree those things should happen, but do you realistically ever see turkey's voting for xmas?
Or should we probably be setting more realistic goals?
Sure, like I said, don't pretend it is easy, but I think you can set realistic goals more effectively if you have a vision for where you want to end up, which for me would be the above structure.
I suppose that you would start with setting up the regulatory body, which might itself start with reviewing the existing structure and reporting back to Parliament on what is needed and what is practical.
Parliament? What has happened to make you think anyone there gives a flying ****.
The EFL could make a start on getting clubs to sort their finances out by making relegation the penalty for going into administration; and an automatic 10 point deduction for any team that makes a loss over a rolling 3 year period. Both those measures could be monitored and enforced.
But you have clubs like Derby “selling” the stadium to the owner to cover the cost of players and their wages. Rich owners will find other ways of getting around the rules. Cheating.
Wage caps would make it even easier for clubs from the Premiership, Scottish clubs etc to pick off players with lower transfer fees as players will want to leave.
Roland was right only once. FFP was the way forward, but they bottled it. Derby should even now be told that money raised from selling the stadium doesn’t count. But for anything like that to happen now or in the future the governing body would have to be independent.
Any salary cap would have to be UEFA wide. It could work but would take time...it'll never happen. Greed rules.
There's a lot wrong with the NFL but they have it spot on with ownership rules and salary caps.
The NBA used to share the income around. I don't know if they still do.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate to an extent and my tin hat is at the ready but here goes...!
How many people posting on this thread have moaned on other threads on here about Roland's refusal to pay more than £5k a week in wages? (A quarter of a million pounds a year lest we forget). How many people have said Roland should just give Taylor the £20k a week Brentford supposedly offered? This at a time when we are what, £40/£50 million pounds in debt?
You can blame Sky, the Premier League, the unfair distribution of TV money whatever for the mess many clubs, including our own, are in. But the fact is players' wages are in most cases totally out of kilter to a club's income. (Indeed, wasn't this what Bury were supposed to have been doing, paying ludicrous wages?) Until those wages are reduced, clubs will not be sustainable to run unless they have a billionaire (not millionaire) or Sovereign state behind them.
Players' wages in the Championship are crazy. Look at the figures for Fulham that were published on here recently. The only possible outcome for clubs like Fulham who don't get back up to the Premier League is severe financial problems in the future.
And that's the unpalatable truth that clubs have to face and deal with.
Roland would have needed to cut wages almost 80% in 2017-18 to break even and be "sustainable." Doubt that would have went over well.
If every club had to break even we'd see a drop in these ridiculous wages.
Sure would. But the best players would just migrate to Italy and Spain, where debts are even higher and where the country itself often bails out the clubs and builds their stadiums. It’s a global economy and players will go where they are paid most. If England really cracks down on wages it does not mean other counties will. If the best players go to other countries, England will not be the center of the global football universe.
Heck, maybe that is actually what is needed though? Everyone’s desperation to reach the holy grail of the PL could be part of the problem. Maybe the PL needs to be brought down a slight notch for the good of the larger game in England? I think I read that until 1992 the first division clubs had turnover only 3x the second division? Now what it is... 10x?
I'm playing Devil's Advocate to an extent and my tin hat is at the ready but here goes...!
How many people posting on this thread have moaned on other threads on here about Roland's refusal to pay more than £5k a week in wages? (A quarter of a million pounds a year lest we forget). How many people have said Roland should just give Taylor the £20k a week Brentford supposedly offered? This at a time when we are what, £40/£50 million pounds in debt?
You can blame Sky, the Premier League, the unfair distribution of TV money whatever for the mess many clubs, including our own, are in. But the fact is players' wages are in most cases totally out of kilter to a club's income. (Indeed, wasn't this what Bury were supposed to have been doing, paying ludicrous wages?) Until those wages are reduced, clubs will not be sustainable to run unless they have a billionaire (not millionaire) or Sovereign state behind them.
Players' wages in the Championship are crazy. Look at the figures for Fulham that were published on here recently. The only possible outcome for clubs like Fulham who don't get back up to the Premier League is severe financial problems in the future.
And that's the unpalatable truth that clubs have to face and deal with.
Roland would have needed to cut wages almost 80% in 2017-18 to break even and be "sustainable." Doubt that would have went over well.
If every club had to break even we'd see a drop in these ridiculous wages.
Sure would. But the best players would just migrate to Italy and Spain, where debts are even higher and where the country itself often bails out the clubs and builds their stadiums. It’s a global economy and players will go where they are paid most. If England really cracks down on wages it does not mean other counties will. If the best players go to other countries, England will not be the center of the global football universe.
Heck, maybe that is actually what is needed though? Everyone’s desperation to reach the holy grail of the PL could be part of the problem. Maybe the PL needs to be brought down a slight notch for the good of the larger game in England? I think I read that until 1992 the first division clubs had turnover only 3x the second division? Now what it is... 10x?
Which is why the only solutions are UEFA wide, focusing on just England will solve nothing.ll
The NBA used to share the income around. I don't know if they still do.
They have a strange hybrid-revenue sharing system but with one interesting wrinkle. Every team has the same player salary cap. You can exceed it all you want. But if you exceed it, you are taxed on the excess and those payments go to smaller clubs. These “luxury cap” taxes are gigantic in many cases.
How it it would look in the PL for example? Imagine every club was capped at £100M per year in wages, including transfer fees. You can spend more if you wish, but if you spend £150M, the extra £50M is taxed at 50%, meaning that club must come up with ANOTHER £25M on top of that to be distributed to other clubs in the division. If you spend £200M, the tax on the excess is 75%, and it keeps going higher and higher, exceeding 100%. These luxury cap taxes and their redistribution help a lot of smaller clubs like Milwaukee, retain their best stars. Without it, only 4-5 clubs would every need to bother showing up for games. It would be too lopsided.
So if an owner wants to spend silly money, they can. But they have to pay other clubs for the privilege to make up for the fact they are skewing the league. This is one reason why you see teams like Toronto or Milwaukee coming out of nowhere every few years. Heck, Golden State was one of the smaller clubs just a decade ago.
Applying American sports methods to football simply wouldn't work. Primarily because the NFL, NBA etc are closed leagues with no relegation.
Smaller teams don't need to spend a fortune in a bid to 'survive' in the league because a) they can't be relegated and b) if they perform badly it means they get a top pick in the draft for a top young player the following season.
The premier league also won't adopt a salary cap (say 250k a week) because then the leagues best players would soon be leaving for PSG, Bayern, Spain etc where they could earn more.
You’re probably right. Too many differences. Another one... the worst clubs can force the best young players to play for them for 3-5 years via the “Draft” as their first pro contract. Imagine telling London players at age 18 that they were “drafted” by some team up north and they have no choice but to play for them at below market wages until age 22. I honestly have no idea how American sports gets away with what seems like slavery on this issue. In fact, they are given exemptions on these kinds of issues by Congress.
Jevans refused to rule out whether the Serious Fraud Office could be called into to investigate the handling of the club. Concerns, she said, had been raised by C&N Sporting Risk, another of the failed bidders.
"So when C&N SR were given time to do their due diligence, as they have said publicly, while they wished they had more time, they also discovered a number of things in doing that," she said. "They have offered to share it with us and we’ll be taking up that offer. That’s all I can say."
Damian Collins, chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, has called for a full review the crisis, which also threatens Bolton's future. The MP claimed the EFL has let Bury’s fans down.
However, Jevans said she was "devastated, sad, any number of adjectives" about Bury's plight, and the league had done all it could to save the club. "This isn’t a situation that has arisen over the last 24 hours," she said. "This has been constant work, rightly, for weeks and months, numerous conversations with the board and Mr Dale trying to find solutions. So, yes, devastated, no other word for it. I understand what I’ve heard the fans say. It’s very sad."
The blame was laid entirely at the door of Bury's owner Steve Dale. "At the end of the day, it was his choice not to sell," she added. "All we can do is work with the power we have to find a solution. The EFL doesn’t run football clubs; it can work with the owners to give them all the options, which is what we did."
She said it was not "within our gift" to relegate the club, instead of axing their league membership entirely."
A post-mortem examination of Bury will be held with the other clubs next month to ensure any further club collapses are avoided, she said.
Comments
Likewise. I love Charlton but pretty much despise professional football.
In League Two last season; Bury had the seventh largest ground (Yup no guarantee that they can keep Gigg Lane) and 15th highest attendance of around 4,000 - I know the amount of fans you get through the gates wont win you games but they'll certainly help as they'll get gate receipts that opposing teams can only dream of - Just look @ Stockport at times last season!!
Its going to be a long road (one that the likes of Bradford Park Avenue | Hereford | Darlington are still on) but I wont be surprised if we see them back in the Football League again one day
Of course there were also several clubs that shone briefly then too faded away (eg Boston, Rushden & Diamonds etc).
i wouldn’t wish the outright closure of a club on any supporter but it’s right that new better run clubs get the chance to compete and take on the incumbents.
i think the FAPL and EFL should be disbanded, TV rights negotiated and disbursed by the FA, who would also operate a proper Ownership test and control audit. Crucially all overseen by a properly independent regulator which includes supporter "voices" in its team. Someone like you, for example, Heather :-)
I dont pretend that is easy to enact, but I would like to read a coherent argument as to why this would not be a better structure.
Could easily have saved them rather than wanting their own pet project in Salford City!!
Whole lot needs to go, absolute snakes the lot of them
New clubs sensibly run? Forest Green, Fleetwood and Salford are where they are due to wealthy backers. Like Rushden a few years ago, now look at them. Wycombe got into financial diffulties and needed the trust to step in. New clubs are much like those they have replaced some good some bad.
They were paying players the sort of wages that National League / League Two teams couldnt compete with seeing that they were able to bring in the likes of Adam Rooney and Graham Alexander
Would say its very risky if the owner decided that he didnt want to be involved anymore
I think you have to have a body which has the same overall remit as the FA, which encompasses the professional and amateur games, and ensures, among other things, that our amateur game is properly funded by the riches of the professional game. As far as I am aware every other European country has a similar named body with a similar function, and usually sitting above the league organisations.
On the other hand I agree that you would want to have a clearout of the management structure including the old "blazers" from the county associations.
Or should we probably be setting more realistic goals?
I suppose that you would start with setting up the regulatory body, which might itself start with reviewing the existing structure and reporting back to Parliament on what is needed and what is practical.
He never really seemed bothered whether they were saved or not.
Heck, maybe that is actually what is needed though? Everyone’s desperation to reach the holy grail of the PL could be part of the problem. Maybe the PL needs to be brought down a slight notch for the good of the larger game in England? I think I read that until 1992 the first division clubs had turnover only 3x the second division? Now what it is... 10x?
How it it would look in the PL for example? Imagine every club was capped at £100M per year in wages, including transfer fees. You can spend more if you wish, but if you spend £150M, the extra £50M is taxed at 50%, meaning that club must come up with ANOTHER £25M on top of that to be distributed to other clubs in the division. If you spend £200M, the tax on the excess is 75%, and it keeps going higher and higher, exceeding 100%. These luxury cap taxes and their redistribution help a lot of smaller clubs like Milwaukee, retain their best stars. Without it, only 4-5 clubs would every need to bother showing up for games. It would be too lopsided.
So if an owner wants to spend silly money, they can. But they have to pay other clubs for the privilege to make up for the fact they are skewing the league. This is one reason why you see teams like Toronto or Milwaukee coming out of nowhere every few years. Heck, Golden State was one of the smaller clubs just a decade ago.
Smaller teams don't need to spend a fortune in a bid to 'survive' in the league because a) they can't be relegated and b) if they perform badly it means they get a top pick in the draft for a top young player the following season.
The premier league also won't adopt a salary cap (say 250k a week) because then the leagues best players would soon be leaving for PSG, Bayern, Spain etc where they could earn more.
Jevans refused to rule out whether the Serious Fraud Office could be called into to investigate the handling of the club. Concerns, she said, had been raised by C&N Sporting Risk, another of the failed bidders.
"So when C&N SR were given time to do their due diligence, as they have said publicly, while they wished they had more time, they also discovered a number of things in doing that," she said. "They have offered to share it with us and we’ll be taking up that offer. That’s all I can say."
Damian Collins, chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, has called for a full review the crisis, which also threatens Bolton's future. The MP claimed the EFL has let Bury’s fans down.
However, Jevans said she was "devastated, sad, any number of adjectives" about Bury's plight, and the league had done all it could to save the club. "This isn’t a situation that has arisen over the last 24 hours," she said. "This has been constant work, rightly, for weeks and months, numerous conversations with the board and Mr Dale trying to find solutions. So, yes, devastated, no other word for it. I understand what I’ve heard the fans say. It’s very sad."
The blame was laid entirely at the door of Bury's owner Steve Dale. "At the end of the day, it was his choice not to sell," she added. "All we can do is work with the power we have to find a solution. The EFL doesn’t run football clubs; it can work with the owners to give them all the options, which is what we did."
She said it was not "within our gift" to relegate the club, instead of axing their league membership entirely."
A post-mortem examination of Bury will be held with the other clubs next month to ensure any further club collapses are avoided, she said.