Salford City

Anything and everything related to Barnet FC
User avatar
ninestein
Posts: 6936
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 20:00

Salford City

Post: # 252157Post ninestein »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44894821

I know this has been touched on in another thread, but it's probably worth one on its own...
Gary Neville getting into a war of words with the Accrington chairman.
Salford being accused of trying to buy a league place. I think a lot of neutrals will agree with the Accrington chairman.

My personal view is that if a club is managed correctly and plays by the rules, I generally have no problem with that.
However, what I do have an issue with is clubs throwing cash around, paying ridiculous wages which are not sustainable for the level they compete at. This is the approach several big clubs took back in the early 2000's and it nearly bankrupted them. Leeds were a classic example. Salford have received a lot of investment from the ex-United players. I've got no problem with that. Some clubs are fortunate to have wealthy backers who care about the club they are involved with.

But their fans should be asking the question: what if the current owners walked away tomorrow? The club would be left with a crippling wage bill, and unless their infrastructure and fanbase can sustain it, they will go the same way as Rushden & Diamonds very quickly.

If TK sold our club to a wealthy backer and boosted our playing budget overnight, I'd be thinking "Great, but what's it going to be in 5 years time?" There would be a niggling worry in the back of my mind.

The other thing which gets to me based on Neville's tone, is that he goes on about money and success. I think he's totally missing the point of what football is all about at this level. This isn't the Premier League where if you don't win the title the club has failed. Fans at this level are far more tolerant when a club doesn't go up. I have a saying of my own: that if it clicks one season and you have success, you end up paying for it over the next few seasons, but that's part of football life as a lower league fan.

Salford City are setting themselves up to be shot at. Every opponent now is going to be ready for their game against them and treat it like a cup final. Will they be ready for it? They could have come across as being a bit more humble, evolved their side gradually whilst they found their feet at this level, and neutrals would have a lot more respect for them.
Barnet showing all the flair of Rupert-the-Bears trousers, but lots more style!
User avatar
MCB
Posts: 4948
Joined: 11 May 2016, 17:41

Re: Salford City

Post: # 252160Post MCB »

So Salford has signed a striker who is reportedly on more money than Gateshead FC's entire budget this season.

The lowest Premier League salaries are around £80 million, and with no player earning £1.5 million a week it's fare to say this wouldn't happen in our higher leagues due the quantity of money thrown around.

Has it ever happened before that one players wages has exceeded a competitors entire budget before?
hoppy
Posts: 5027
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 09:43

Re: Salford City

Post: # 252161Post hoppy »

Did we buy the title back in 1990/91?
User avatar
ninestein
Posts: 6936
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 20:00

Re: Salford City

Post: # 252162Post ninestein »

hoppy wrote:Did we buy the title back in 1990/91?
Far from it. Barry Fry did a lot of wheeling & dealing to build that side.
And it took us several attempts to finally win the league.
We were well respected at the time as a non league club.
Stan did put money in, but nothing on the scale of Salford. Then he took the money out...
Barnet showing all the flair of Rupert-the-Bears trousers, but lots more style!
NoMagRyan
Posts: 397
Joined: 16 Mar 2017, 13:06

Re: Salford City

Post: # 252164Post NoMagRyan »

If they're playing by the rules, they're playing by the rules, and it's a non-issue for me. I agree that having so much investment makes them a more volatile club if their owners decide to walk away but that's for their fans to worry about. And tbh I don't think any of them are worrying about it, they'd probably rather rocket up the leagues off the back of investor money.

Personally, for all our problems, I'm just happy to be supporting a club that's stable and has a long-term vision.
User avatar
rudebwoyben
Posts: 8940
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 18:53
Location: Seven Sisters, London N15

Re: Salford City

Post: # 252165Post rudebwoyben »

ninestein wrote:
hoppy wrote:Did we buy the title back in 1990/91?
Far from it. Barry Fry did a lot of wheeling & dealing to build that side.
And it took us several attempts to finally win the league.
We were well respected at the time as a non league club.
Stan did put money in, but nothing on the scale of Salford. Then he took the money out...
We did spend about £250k on players that season but on the other hand we received £175k for Phil Gridelet, £250 for Andy Clarke and £85k for Dave Regis and Paul Harding.
hoofer2
Posts: 5261
Joined: 01 Feb 2011, 13:48

Re: Salford City

Post: # 252168Post hoofer2 »

ninestein wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44894821

I know this has been touched on in another thread, but it's probably worth one on its own...
Gary Neville getting into a war of words with the Accrington chairman.
Salford being accused of trying to buy a league place. I think a lot of neutrals will agree with the Accrington chairman.

My personal view is that if a club is managed correctly and plays by the rules, I generally have no problem with that.
However, what I do have an issue with is clubs throwing cash around, paying ridiculous wages which are not sustainable for the level they compete at. This is the approach several big clubs took back in the early 2000's and it nearly bankrupted them. Leeds were a classic example. Salford have received a lot of investment from the ex-United players. I've got no problem with that. Some clubs are fortunate to have wealthy backers who care about the club they are involved with.

But their fans should be asking the question: what if the current owners walked away tomorrow? The club would be left with a crippling wage bill, and unless their infrastructure and fanbase can sustain it, they will go the same way as Rushden & Diamonds very quickly.

If TK sold our club to a wealthy backer and boosted our playing budget overnight, I'd be thinking "Great, but what's it going to be in 5 years time?" There would be a niggling worry in the back of my mind.

The other thing which gets to me based on Neville's tone, is that he goes on about money and success. I think he's totally missing the point of what football is all about at this level. This isn't the Premier League where if you don't win the title the club has failed. Fans at this level are far more tolerant when a club doesn't go up. I have a saying of my own: that if it clicks one season and you have success, you end up paying for it over the next few seasons, but that's part of football life as a lower league fan.

Salford City are setting themselves up to be shot at. Every opponent now is going to be ready for their game against them and treat it like a cup final. Will they be ready for it? They could have come across as being a bit more humble, evolved their side gradually whilst they found their feet at this level, and neutrals would have a lot more respect for them.
But TK is a wealthy backer - who knows what could have happened if he decided to sell up when we at Underhill - thankfully we were one of the lucky ones where he stuck by us and the Hive is a huge asset.
We could have gone the way of Enfield, Wealdstone etc. where ground is sold and clubs lead a nomadic existence. It'll be interesting to see what happens to Eastleigh too.

However if TK ever did sell the Hive - who knows if new owners would keep Barnet FC as a team - they could elect to dissolve the Club / attract a higher profile team from another sport....

I have no objection to the rise of Salford, but wish the gobby Mancs would show a pair and try their hand at managing the side rather than sticking to the easy life of punditry.
hoofer2
Posts: 5261
Joined: 01 Feb 2011, 13:48

Re: Salford City

Post: # 252169Post hoofer2 »

NoMagRyan wrote:If they're playing by the rules, they're playing by the rules, and it's a non-issue for me. I agree that having so much investment makes them a more volatile club if their owners decide to walk away but that's for their fans to worry about. And tbh I don't think any of them are worrying about it, they'd probably rather rocket up the leagues off the back of investor money.

Personally, for all our problems, I'm just happy to be supporting a club that's stable and has a long-term vision.
They are also giving something back to the community. All have personal ties with Salford and I'd like think it's more than a vanity project and negative comments always have an element of envy.
The fact that Salford City has an academy is giving something to the grassroots and giving kids the chance to play football is great.

I'd prefer Salford City to be successful than FC United of Manchester, that's for sure.
RichardM
Posts: 1530
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 18:19

Re: Salford City

Post: # 252170Post RichardM »

hoppy wrote:Did we buy the title back in 1990/91?
Yes.
Norfolkbee
Posts: 4394
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 09:43

Re: Salford City

Post: # 252171Post Norfolkbee »

The owners of Salford City have always been upfront about their aims and have been willing to finance the club to achieve it. Most clubs (including Barnet) rely on wealthy backers to keep them in business. Of course, these people could pull out at any time, but that's football in the 21st century. If you went through life thinking "what if?" you'd get nowhere. My guess is that, if TK was to sell up to someone willing to put £Squillions into the club, very few of us would be looking five, ten, twenty years down the line, we'd be planning for next season and sod what other clubs think.
Jon83
Posts: 2116
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 19:35

Re: Salford City

Post: # 252172Post Jon83 »

hoofer2 wrote:
NoMagRyan wrote:If they're playing by the rules, they're playing by the rules, and it's a non-issue for me. I agree that having so much investment makes them a more volatile club if their owners decide to walk away but that's for their fans to worry about. And tbh I don't think any of them are worrying about it, they'd probably rather rocket up the leagues off the back of investor money.

Personally, for all our problems, I'm just happy to be supporting a club that's stable and has a long-term vision.
They are also giving something back to the community. All have personal ties with Salford and I'd like think it's more than a vanity project and negative comments always have an element of envy.
The fact that Salford City has an academy is giving something to the grassroots and giving kids the chance to play football is great.

I'd prefer Salford City to be successful than FC United of Manchester, that's for sure.
It's a non-issue until it goes wrong. Just like at every single club in the land. They've spent a lot of money and they are allowed to. They've upset people and will continue to upset people, even their own fans (some werent happy that they changed the colour of their home shirt a season or 2 back). They are heavily backed by the Singaporean chap who also owns Valencia but it is a good story with the involvement of Neville et al.

Generally speaking, surely the majority of teams that wins a league/contends spends a lot on transfers and/or wages. Lots of teams do spend and do not achieve as well. (Pboro chairman said they were paying Danny Lloyd £80k last season).
Bee52
Posts: 692
Joined: 09 May 2015, 10:59

Re: Salford City

Post: # 252175Post Bee52 »

Conversation overheard in the pub. To counter the the likes of Salford all of the other National League clubs should buy a specialist clogger, who should be given an airing against Salford with about 5 minutes to go. His job should be to crock the most expensive opposing Salford player left on the pitch and to put him out of the season for as long as possible. If all the other teams did it, the "Mancs investment" might hold less clout.

Obviously not for the purists! Personally, I think it's a terrible idea, but the conversation did develop into how unfair the money gap is between Premier League clubs and the lower leagues and non-league clubs having to further suffer further financial disadvantage as a result of a group of overpaid ex-Premier League players who are using their unnecessary wealth to create further hurt to the poorer clubs even when they're retired.

Quite amusing or maybe just frustrating when you consider that the main Mancs mouthpiece failed miserably when trying to manage his way to success. He'd be very tall if he stood on his own bullshit!

Of course, I don't agree with any of that.
jerroll
Posts: 11808
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 17:25

Re: Salford City

Post: # 252176Post jerroll »

Bee52 wrote:Conversation overheard in the pub. To counter the the likes of Salford all of the other National League clubs should buy a specialist clogger, who should be given an airing against Salford with about 5 minutes to go. His job should be to crock the most expensive opposing Salford player left on the pitch and to put him out of the season for as long as possible. If all the other teams did it, the "Mancs investment" might hold less clout.

Obviously not for the purists! Personally, I think it's a terrible idea, but the conversation did develop into how unfair the money gap is between Premier League clubs and the lower leagues and non-league clubs having to further suffer further financial disadvantage as a result of a group of overpaid ex-Premier League players who are using their unnecessary wealth to create further hurt to the poorer clubs even when they're retired.

Quite amusing or maybe just frustrating when you consider that the main Mancs mouthpiece failed miserably when trying to manage his way to success. He'd be very tall if he stood on his own bullshit!

Of course, I don't agree with any of that.
Sounds like Lincoln City in 1987/88
Bee52
Posts: 692
Joined: 09 May 2015, 10:59

Re: Salford City

Post: # 252177Post Bee52 »

:y: :y:

Well said!!! I wish I'd thought of that!
User avatar
Reckless
Posts: 2851
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 17:53
Location: Potters Bar
Contact:

Re: Salford City

Post: # 252180Post Reckless »

RichardM wrote:
hoppy wrote:Did we buy the title back in 1990/91?
Yes.
No. We won the league with some seriously good players bought at going rates. Wages were not that great although perhaps occasional bonuses were tidy!
You ask all the players from the era if they joined because of the money? They knew Barry had grafted for 4 seasons to get to the top and we were going places. Unless they are all liars. Stan put money in from the off but one day he decided he wanted it all back!
Post Reply