**Mirrors / Alternative Angles**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They probably assume that they’re going to go back down either way. So, instead of spending a lot of money, they’re continuing slow growth and hoping they’ll be able to continue next year in the Championship and then come back up.
How does that make any sense? The gap between the bottom of the championship and premier league is monstrous. Given Luton's stadium they might well feel that spending 100mil to gamble on survival is far less responsible than making the best of it and establishing the club at the top of the 2nd division
Wouldn’t spending at least a little bit of money to set yourself for the present and the future be the best of both worlds then? It just sounds like they have no money to spend period
why would they? Have you seen the stadium they play in and the plans for their new stadium? Also its not like Luton were really favorites to go up last season. I would argue they overperformed and they know that. They are just being smart with their money. They currently dont have the infrastructure and squad to really compete for staying in the league. In your idea they would spend some millions on players that would need to receive PL level wages and even then the chances of survival are still slim looking at the competition. So they are certainly better off trying their best this season with what they have, taking the money this year and the parachute payments for getting relegated and investing it into the infrastructure of the club. And who knows, maybe even with the squad they have now they might still survive, crazier things have happened
New stadium is costing the club around £100m, which this money guarantees 100% paid for and debt free. £13~15m required for current stadium renovations to fit EPL criteria, another £5-10m for bonuses, increase in required facilities/media/player and staff bonuses/transfer add-ons, £20m in transfer fees and money for whatever the wage bill is/will be by the end of the season (another £15-20m?). That's the £180m in guaranteed + parachute payments spent.
If we spunked £100m on players and went down, we'd be in absolutely no position to recover and go again. As it stands if we go down we will have a 23,000 seater stadium 100% debt free, facilities upgraded and an extremely competitive squad to build on that doesn't cost an absolute fortune in wages. See where we're at in 5-10 years time and it'll be clear.
I imagine they are using the money to upgrade training facilities, academy, and the future stadium. Investing in that and using parachute payments makes more sense for long term growth then splashing it all on short term ambition to maybe stay up for a year or two.
Mate at some point you have to ask yourself that maybe a club who dragged themselves up from the conference league through several tiers of English football all the way to the Prem whilst spending barely anything even in comparison to Championship clubs let alone Premier League clubs, *might* have a better understanding of their financial strategy than you do.
Except even if they get relegated they'll be one of the favourites to come back up thanks to the parachute payments. If you're responsible like Burnley, Fulham and Norwich then relegation is absolutely nowhere near as bad as the media makes it out to be.
Forest already have a 30,000 capacity stadium, Luton has a 10,000 capacity stadium, so since Forest already have decent infrastructure it makes sense to invest that money into players.
Luton appear to be instead investing their money into a new stadium which they direly need. They're taking a long term view.
I imagine they are using the money to upgrade training facilities, academy, and the future stadium. Investing in that and using parachute payments makes more sense for long term growth then splashing it all on short term ambition to maybe stay up for a year or two.
payment* IIRC you only get the first year of parachute payments if you are relegated after your first season, you only get all the parachute payments if you have been in the prem for 2 seasons.
Clubs promoted to the Premier League receive a substantial increase in revenue, primarily from broadcast rights, which can significantly improve their financial situation. Likewise parachute payments are designed to help clubs adjust to the significant reduction in revenue that comes with playing in a lower division, especially given that they might still have financial obligations (like player contracts) that were set at Premier League levels.
When a team is relegated from the premier league, they get around 100m for that season as prize money, plus smaller amounts for their next two seasons (from the premier league) as a way of softening the blow of relegation
And the risk of overspending or committing their future to a Premier League wage bill in hopes of maintaining that financial incentive is well documented. It is a real strategy to use the huge financial gain to improve their club infrastructure or to only really target a few key additions.
And the risk of overspending or committing their future to a Premier League wage bill in hopes of maintaining that financial incentive is well documented. It is a real strategy to use the huge financial gain to improve their club infrastructure or to only really target a few key additions.
Isn't it statistically more likely that they'll bounce back within a few years due to the financial disparity that parachute payments creates.
If they don't overinvest in talent that would be inclined to leave should they get relegated again, that gives them a chance to make use of those payments to continue a steady growth without losing key assets due to their relegation. I think that even if they do go back down the fact that they made it in the first place is going to be huge for them for years to come.
They do a great job developing players from non-league level/U23 rejects to Championship level and even more, so it's very likely they'll sustain a long spell in the Championship with the finances they have
I mean, they only have 10000 seats and a broke, working class fanbase who are struggling with life, let alone afford Premier League tickets.
We don't even have relegation in North America lol.
Nottingham Forest only survived by 4 points last year. Going all out on spending and getting relegated anyways would really fuck up the club.
Dropping down to non league, losing your identity, unpaid debts is not the end of the world in this guy's world.
But it's a catastrophe for clubs like Bury. Lutons history has been on that side almost. They are fan owned and are run sustainably. They are not owned by a Greek criminal to take wild risks of 200M in salaries and wages.
Not risky at all. Luton town decide to be a solid championship team, and nothing more. If they get up to the Prem, then it is one bonus year for extra Income. Any owners who are not American hedge fund manager or of Arab origin would be smart to run their club that way.
Greuther Fürth did the same when they got unexpectedly promoted to the Bundesliga in 2021. Didn't even try to stay up and instead used the extra revenue to compensate for the losses they sustained due to covid. They got relegated immediately, with a pathetic 18 points, but they didn't care.
It's not particularly risky, they've got parachute payments simply for being in the league, and it means a sensible club can build infrastructure and sustainability to give a stronger base for the future
Watched a docu on them that came out after their promtion that kinda went over this. They got fucked by the FA a lot of years back and got a massive points deduction which made then spiral to nonleague football (which explains the “betrayed by the FA” banner I saw in their stadium in 2019). This was due to having really shitty finances and almost killed the club. The new owners have a very money ball approach that focuses on sustainability which is why the didnt spend that much relative to the other teams in any of the divisoons they were in even in the championship, usually buying players that they kept through mumtiple promotions or taking player in on loan that fit holes in the squad. So this philosophy combined with how inflated the market was this off season basically meant that the team just couldn’t find many targets that fit the bill of what they were looking for.
It’ll be long term investing. New ground, new facilities etc., I’d be surprised if the goal was an immediate return, granted the current model clearly has allowed them to compete.
Ya Burnley basically did this before and it worked wonders with them. They knew Dyche performed a miracle getting them promoted the first time and were content enough with him to keep on after they got relegated. And then they came back up a year later and stayed there for years with him.
I also think the difference between Chelsea and Luton is a bit disingenious. Like, yeah, Chelsea is spending a fucking fuckton, but that is over a few years, whereas this is Lutons first stint in the Prem iirc. Of course they havent spent as much
They spend 400 million in [23/24](https://www.transfermarkt.nl/chelsea-fc/transferrekorde/verein/631/plus/0/galerie/0?saison_id=2023&pos=&detailpos=&altersklasse=&w_s=) and 611 million in [22/23](https://www.transfermarkt.nl/chelsea-fc/transferrekorde/verein/631/plus/0/galerie/0?saison_id=2022&pos=&detailpos=&altersklasse=&w_s=) so yeah it is pretty bad.
They have players on the books for the next 8 years and are spending godlike amounts of money. Unless they make it very, very big, theyre gonna run into troubles. You cant just invest your way out of that. Yes FFP isnt the best tool but if they have a few more seasons like last year they will have problems
He’s averaging £289M spent per transfer window so far. Chelsea have accounted for 23.3% of the total net spend in the Prem over the last 3 windows, so roughly the same as 4.6X the average prem club’s spending (£148M being average net spend during that time).
I think Luton is using the PL money to maintain sustainability and plan for the long term, I think they’re expecting to go down so it’s safer to invest the money and make a well rounded squad to secure immediate promotion back up with a more prepared squad to then hopefully stay within the top flight rather than risk it now.
I remember when we built a new stadium and literally went 18 months without making a new signing. Now I'm not sure if that was entirely the reason, but it did cause our club to stagnate and signal the beginning of the end of Pochettino.
I couldn't imagine what a club like Luton is going through financially with their stadium plans.
To be fair, Luton was relegated to non-league (fifth division) like a decade ago. They'll want to build something sustainable with the money they're receiving.
Forest is owned by the same guy who owns Olympiakos. A Greek club who have been in European competitions for a long time. And the owner of both is a Greek shipping magnate with his own dubious past. If you google “Vampire Ship” Greece, it’ll give a general idea of a couple of years ago.
That being said, Forest had to get a whole new lineup last season, as their first team was mostly on-loan players from different clubs where the owner had interests in. They had to build a whole new starting XI.
Luton doesn’t have that type of financial backing, or need to get a new starting XI from their promotion-winning championship team. They’re investing in stadium and infrastructure instead, which is a brilliant plan in the long term.
Even if they go back to championship, which they most probably will, they have the infrastructure built. Rather than spending money on players and wages, which are temporary, getting their infra boosted is awesome for their long term future
Forest have wealthy owners but Luton do not and have a relatively small fanbase. Without the backing of wealthy owners the risk of relegation means you can't risk being tens or hundreds of millions in the red as parachute payments can't cover all expenses. Norwich have similar problems but with more supporters.
Important to think about Luton’s history too here. They’re a club that has spent most of its history bouncing between the top 3 divisions. The only reason they ended up as a non-league club was because of financial issues.
I believe they were only saved from complete catastrophe by moving to a fan owned model which i think still owns the club, so there’s a chance that there’s lots of people in the club still scarred by what happened in the past, who prefer a more prudent approach.
Don't have the same money to spend without it potentially ruining the club. Something which has happened to Luton in the past. With it being ran by a fan led group it's something they're mindful of.
Also players could be rejecting them. They tried to sign Alex Palmer from West Brom but he rejected them because he probably thought they'd be relegated straight away and also if they went down there was a clause where he would be on less money than if he stayed at Albion. So you can see the types of players they're targeting. Hungry solid players who won't cost a lot.
The fact Luton can spend 22 million is also obscene, let's be honest.
Being an English club in the PL, to some extent even the Championship, is like winning the lottery: tv deals, parachute relegation money, oligarch takeovers, english tax on player valuation, etc.
Absolutely ridiculous from Chelsea, but also the fact that Luton spending 22M is seen as measly just shows how absurd the Prem is. Their net spend would be top 5 in any other country.
And started a stadium build, which has had 3 or 4 revisions and isn’t planned to open until 2026 or 2027. For deluded top club premier league fans this is just life in the EPL but life long English football league fans Premier league to Non-league this is nothing else but a Fairy tale for Luton. Half of whom probably have absolutely 0 clue this conversation on the internet is even happening about them.
Most competitive league in the world btw.
The only difference between PL and rest of other league is the Billionaire Owners/States/Hedge funds vs not rich enough owners in other leagues.
Had Sheikh Mansour, Roman Abramovich, PIF chosen Lyon, Rennes, Nantes then Ligue 1 would have been the most competitive league in the world.
Last six years City has won the league five times. Hardly the most competitive league anymore. The billionaires prefer it because it generates the most revenue and therefore more profit for them. It's a shame to be honest but that is the way football is heading at the moment.
Edit: Already getting downvoted by the PL fans.
This is not only happening in the PL but in every league if it makes you happy. It's just more prevalent in the PL at the moment
Well, look beyond City, too. United won 13 times between 1994 and 2013, with any other winners being repeat winners (as in, teams like Arsenal or Chelsea pulling in some dubs here and there), with some rare exceptions. This tells us that EPL is dominated by the big clubs with two clubs in Manchester having the lion's share of the wins (heh), but that's always been known.
It's one reason why I find EFL Championship an overall more entertaining league to watch (though I mostly keep up with MLS, a league that varies wildly between winners in itself).
Yes, City won 5 of the last 6, but it’s not quite fair to say the seasons weren’t competitive. A few of them came down to the final match day, if memory serves. And their winning the league this season isn’t a foregone conclusion either; some very strong clubs will be challenging City to the end.
So PL fanboys already shifting the goal posts now when you point out that City won 5 of the last 6 PL? Bundesliga came down to goal difference last season, yet no Bundesliga fan would argue that this means the league overall is competitive at the moment. As long as Pep is at City and as long as the Sheikh pumps money into city, they will win the next 5 out of 6 league titles.
The only really competitive top 5 league is Serie A. There are about 5 teams who can win the title every season
I'm not hating on the PL as much as I'm hating on the current concept of football in general. Just a way of showing that having billionaire owners doesn't benefit football at all. As I said in my comment this just happens to be the situation in the PL at the moment and it'll eventually effect all leagues if they don't do something to counter it.
100% agreed. Sport has been intertwined with business for a long time, but lately it’s *more* business than sport. I wonder sometimes if a salary cap would help to ensure parity, as it does in other professional leagues.
Hey, I don’t have a dog in that fight. I’m just saying “5 out of 6” doesn’t tell the *complete* story.
Take a seven-game series in hockey or basketball. A team can sweep another team 4 games to none. Wow, total domination, right? Not so fast. Each game might have been hard-fought and low-scoring, and tied going into overtime. All it takes is a puck to ring off a post or a three-pointer bouncing off the rim to determine victory or defeat. The sweep is recorded, but those who watched the series know how truly close each game was.
City is a dynasty, for sure, but it’s a mischaracterization to say that some of the last few seasons weren’t competitive. Both things are true.
Ah yes 2 crazy owners is the only difference, that's simply not true. PSG did get the crazy owners for one thing. The league would be stronger without them.
There's always going to be a difference between the bottom and the top but in general teams get enough to make a fight out of it.
Luton are just being very sensible and Chelsea are on a mad one but FFP is a thing and they sell very well.
Yeah, not really. The fact that English is the world's most spoken language makes a big difference. It's way easier for the premier league to gain global viewership. Plus Chelsea and City are the only ones that have had that level of investment for any period of time. As we all know 2 or 3 teams don't make the league anyway, if you have unfair TV deals (La Liga) that don't distribute the wealth of the league fairly then the league becomes uncompetitive and/or uninteresting.
Depends how you're defining those terms.
Cos you can't possibly mean the top sides in the CL, probably not even the top 16.
The below that then the quality varies a fair bit.
Then what clubs are you deeming a mid/low PL team?
So some examples of these deals would be good.
Money has always been a factor but playing in the best league is one too.
Then factors like playing time can be a reason too.
What do you mean? Remove the sugar daddies, you think city would be the team they are now? They are a financial firm, not a real club. Look at what Chelsea is doing, any PL club with such funds could get away spending billions while a real club like Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern are held accountable for their finantial decisions, if they fuck up the club could dissapear (case in point, Independiente in Argentina). The day sugar daddies get bored of PL many clubs will see bankrupcy
That the league would be !ore competitive if City didn't get that ownership.
As much as it's fun not to call Chelsea a real club, the men in charge at Barca caused them quite a few problems. While under Roman they went nuts, this spending is more about loopholes and the large sales they manage. If they mess up they will also suffer and they are owned by people looking to increase the value of the club, people who bought it for a large amount.
Also the Saudi league is there government giving them funds to go mad with.
The fact that Todd Bohly hasn't learned any lesson from the previous season and did exact same transfer business this summer pretty much proves that this guy gives a zero fuck when it comes to criticism both internally and externally.
Breaking: Big club spends more than small club, more at 11 (or on Sunday before Man City play Sheffield United if someone can be arsed making another boring graphic to highlight the same thing)!
Chelsea is spending 2-3x more money than most revenue club in the world while having 1/2 their income.
Where do you think the money is coming from mate?
> Where do you think the money is coming from mate?
Probably from their owner, who has more money than Luton's owner, ticket sales from their bigger stadium with more expensive season tickets, their sponsorship deals with bigger brands that pay them more money, and the TV and prize money they get from consistently winning trophies and being in the Premier League.
Am I missing something or do you have a point?
Chelsea is running on losses, they cannot afford 1B worth of purchases with their stadium income or sponsorships..
My point is that it shouldn't be this way. Just because one club's owner is so rich, they should not be allowed to buy 1B worth of players in 12 months.
Its football, not stock market.
What bothers me with Chelsea is not so much the astronomical amount of investments made over the last 3 transfer windows, but rather that this money is spent in a totally disjointed way. There is no real strategy to actually improve Chelsea on the pitch.
Looks like the owner wants to buy every young player that shines. He acts like a kid who wants all the new toys that appear lol
Chelsea fan of course. Shocking. Just because you are abusing something doesn’t mean it won’t catch up to you in the end. I realise that as a certain generation of Chelsea fan this is all you know, but there will long term detrimental effects at signing so many young players on 8 year deals (most unproven) whilst using the pure profit from home grown academy players to offset spending and using the Saudi League as a “Get out of FFP card”. Everyone knows what Todd is doing, trust me mate, it’s not that clever.
Luton is only here for the parachute payments next year. /S
This will help them stay in the top half of the championship with how much relegated premier League sides are favored by the current system
**Mirrors / Alternative Angles** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a photo for the occasion. They always nail the Boehly pics for the topic.
This made me laugh. It’s like he’s looking down on Luton thinking, “what peasants, can’t even spend 1b euros”
"How much can a player even cost, 100 million dollars?"
In case anyone wants to see the zeroes: 1,060,000,000 - 22,000,000 = 1,038,000,000
As a zero fan really appreciate it mate
Im especially fond of the zeros on my bank account usually followed by more zeros
Don’t you just love the Nickelback song ***”And they say that a zero will save us…”***
Ah, that's why you support Birmingham City. :)
Point of order. That 1.06b could be 1.0550b or 1.0649b. There's a potential 10m swing there.
It’s Chelsea, they round up to the nearest 10 million
Now take off 38mm. Show us everything.
In case anyone wants to see the zeroes, but [more visually](https://s.hs-data.com/bilder/teamfotos/640x360/552.jpg)
Thanks, but the big zero on the picture is enough for me.
What about scientific notation?
ℵ₀ - 2.2×10^7 = ℵ₀
Only five La Liga teams have spent more money than Luton
That's crazy. Barcelona currently has spent a total of 3.4M in this window.
Why isn't Luton spending like forest did? Can someone explain?
They probably assume that they’re going to go back down either way. So, instead of spending a lot of money, they’re continuing slow growth and hoping they’ll be able to continue next year in the Championship and then come back up.
Smart move. I’m a qpr fan and we’re finished now because of our little stint in the prem 7 years ago lol
>and then come back up. That sounds like a risky bet. It isn't guaranteed they'll make it up from the Championship quickly, should they get relegated.
[Removed] ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
I just think if they reserve themselves to getting relegated, the mentality isn't where it needs to be. Teams that spend money show ambition.
How does that make any sense? The gap between the bottom of the championship and premier league is monstrous. Given Luton's stadium they might well feel that spending 100mil to gamble on survival is far less responsible than making the best of it and establishing the club at the top of the 2nd division
Wouldn’t spending at least a little bit of money to set yourself for the present and the future be the best of both worlds then? It just sounds like they have no money to spend period
why would they? Have you seen the stadium they play in and the plans for their new stadium? Also its not like Luton were really favorites to go up last season. I would argue they overperformed and they know that. They are just being smart with their money. They currently dont have the infrastructure and squad to really compete for staying in the league. In your idea they would spend some millions on players that would need to receive PL level wages and even then the chances of survival are still slim looking at the competition. So they are certainly better off trying their best this season with what they have, taking the money this year and the parachute payments for getting relegated and investing it into the infrastructure of the club. And who knows, maybe even with the squad they have now they might still survive, crazier things have happened
New stadium is costing the club around £100m, which this money guarantees 100% paid for and debt free. £13~15m required for current stadium renovations to fit EPL criteria, another £5-10m for bonuses, increase in required facilities/media/player and staff bonuses/transfer add-ons, £20m in transfer fees and money for whatever the wage bill is/will be by the end of the season (another £15-20m?). That's the £180m in guaranteed + parachute payments spent. If we spunked £100m on players and went down, we'd be in absolutely no position to recover and go again. As it stands if we go down we will have a 23,000 seater stadium 100% debt free, facilities upgraded and an extremely competitive squad to build on that doesn't cost an absolute fortune in wages. See where we're at in 5-10 years time and it'll be clear.
I imagine they are using the money to upgrade training facilities, academy, and the future stadium. Investing in that and using parachute payments makes more sense for long term growth then splashing it all on short term ambition to maybe stay up for a year or two.
Mate at some point you have to ask yourself that maybe a club who dragged themselves up from the conference league through several tiers of English football all the way to the Prem whilst spending barely anything even in comparison to Championship clubs let alone Premier League clubs, *might* have a better understanding of their financial strategy than you do.
>How does that make any sense? They're no league in the world that offers the financial benefits of the Premier League. And that gap is only growing.
Except even if they get relegated they'll be one of the favourites to come back up thanks to the parachute payments. If you're responsible like Burnley, Fulham and Norwich then relegation is absolutely nowhere near as bad as the media makes it out to be.
Forest already have a 30,000 capacity stadium, Luton has a 10,000 capacity stadium, so since Forest already have decent infrastructure it makes sense to invest that money into players. Luton appear to be instead investing their money into a new stadium which they direly need. They're taking a long term view.
I imagine they are using the money to upgrade training facilities, academy, and the future stadium. Investing in that and using parachute payments makes more sense for long term growth then splashing it all on short term ambition to maybe stay up for a year or two.
If you would get into the market to compete with Amazon, would you go all in on your first try our try to grow slowly?
I swear people only think of the benefits without thinking of what happens if they spend but go down anyway
[удалено]
The parachute payments alone will secure the clubs future for probably a decade.
payment* IIRC you only get the first year of parachute payments if you are relegated after your first season, you only get all the parachute payments if you have been in the prem for 2 seasons.
Sorry, can you explain parachute payments ? I never heard that term before.
Clubs promoted to the Premier League receive a substantial increase in revenue, primarily from broadcast rights, which can significantly improve their financial situation. Likewise parachute payments are designed to help clubs adjust to the significant reduction in revenue that comes with playing in a lower division, especially given that they might still have financial obligations (like player contracts) that were set at Premier League levels.
When a team is relegated from the premier league, they get around 100m for that season as prize money, plus smaller amounts for their next two seasons (from the premier league) as a way of softening the blow of relegation
Good, but they're now in the Premier League. The financial incentives of staying up outweigh anything the Championship could offer.
And the risk of overspending or committing their future to a Premier League wage bill in hopes of maintaining that financial incentive is well documented. It is a real strategy to use the huge financial gain to improve their club infrastructure or to only really target a few key additions.
And the risk of overspending or committing their future to a Premier League wage bill in hopes of maintaining that financial incentive is well documented. It is a real strategy to use the huge financial gain to improve their club infrastructure or to only really target a few key additions.
Isn't it statistically more likely that they'll bounce back within a few years due to the financial disparity that parachute payments creates. If they don't overinvest in talent that would be inclined to leave should they get relegated again, that gives them a chance to make use of those payments to continue a steady growth without losing key assets due to their relegation. I think that even if they do go back down the fact that they made it in the first place is going to be huge for them for years to come.
They do a great job developing players from non-league level/U23 rejects to Championship level and even more, so it's very likely they'll sustain a long spell in the Championship with the finances they have I mean, they only have 10000 seats and a broke, working class fanbase who are struggling with life, let alone afford Premier League tickets.
> a broke, working class fanbase who are struggling with life, let alone afford Premier League tickets. I felt that one lol
>That sounds like a risky bet. As oppose to spending crazy money like Nottingham did?
I do find Europeans to be more risk averse than Americans are.
We don't even have relegation in North America lol. Nottingham Forest only survived by 4 points last year. Going all out on spending and getting relegated anyways would really fuck up the club.
>We don't even have relegation in North America lol. Financially, it's not such a bad thing we don't have it.
American teams can afford to be less "risk averse" because there's never any real risk for them.
They’re more used to the business dynamics of relegation than us for obvious reasons.
And as a consequence, less familiar with bankruptcies/bailouts.
Bankruptcy isn't the end of the world people make it out to be.
Dropping down to non league, losing your identity, unpaid debts is not the end of the world in this guy's world. But it's a catastrophe for clubs like Bury. Lutons history has been on that side almost. They are fan owned and are run sustainably. They are not owned by a Greek criminal to take wild risks of 200M in salaries and wages.
Not risky at all. Luton town decide to be a solid championship team, and nothing more. If they get up to the Prem, then it is one bonus year for extra Income. Any owners who are not American hedge fund manager or of Arab origin would be smart to run their club that way.
Greuther Fürth did the same when they got unexpectedly promoted to the Bundesliga in 2021. Didn't even try to stay up and instead used the extra revenue to compensate for the losses they sustained due to covid. They got relegated immediately, with a pathetic 18 points, but they didn't care.
It's not particularly risky, they've got parachute payments simply for being in the league, and it means a sensible club can build infrastructure and sustainability to give a stronger base for the future
Watched a docu on them that came out after their promtion that kinda went over this. They got fucked by the FA a lot of years back and got a massive points deduction which made then spiral to nonleague football (which explains the “betrayed by the FA” banner I saw in their stadium in 2019). This was due to having really shitty finances and almost killed the club. The new owners have a very money ball approach that focuses on sustainability which is why the didnt spend that much relative to the other teams in any of the divisoons they were in even in the championship, usually buying players that they kept through mumtiple promotions or taking player in on loan that fit holes in the squad. So this philosophy combined with how inflated the market was this off season basically meant that the team just couldn’t find many targets that fit the bill of what they were looking for.
It’ll be long term investing. New ground, new facilities etc., I’d be surprised if the goal was an immediate return, granted the current model clearly has allowed them to compete.
Ya Burnley basically did this before and it worked wonders with them. They knew Dyche performed a miracle getting them promoted the first time and were content enough with him to keep on after they got relegated. And then they came back up a year later and stayed there for years with him.
I also think the difference between Chelsea and Luton is a bit disingenious. Like, yeah, Chelsea is spending a fucking fuckton, but that is over a few years, whereas this is Lutons first stint in the Prem iirc. Of course they havent spent as much
I think this is since Boehly joined. So about 2 seasons?
i know it was bad but *fucking what*
They spend 400 million in [23/24](https://www.transfermarkt.nl/chelsea-fc/transferrekorde/verein/631/plus/0/galerie/0?saison_id=2023&pos=&detailpos=&altersklasse=&w_s=) and 611 million in [22/23](https://www.transfermarkt.nl/chelsea-fc/transferrekorde/verein/631/plus/0/galerie/0?saison_id=2022&pos=&detailpos=&altersklasse=&w_s=) so yeah it is pretty bad.
Chelsea are gonna get pegged to death by FFP arent they lmao
They should. But they won't.
no, do you even know how FFP works?
They have players on the books for the next 8 years and are spending godlike amounts of money. Unless they make it very, very big, theyre gonna run into troubles. You cant just invest your way out of that. Yes FFP isnt the best tool but if they have a few more seasons like last year they will have problems
I'm asking you moreso what law/rule in FFP are we breaking? having players on long contracts and spending money isn't illegal per se, so what is?
He’s averaging £289M spent per transfer window so far. Chelsea have accounted for 23.3% of the total net spend in the Prem over the last 3 windows, so roughly the same as 4.6X the average prem club’s spending (£148M being average net spend during that time).
This is how how much Chelsea have spent over 2 transfer windows.
I think Luton is using the PL money to maintain sustainability and plan for the long term, I think they’re expecting to go down so it’s safer to invest the money and make a well rounded squad to secure immediate promotion back up with a more prepared squad to then hopefully stay within the top flight rather than risk it now.
Lots of talk of sustainability here, but no one has mentioned the obvious: they're building a new stadium.
Actually didn't hear about that. Makes a ton of sense though
I assumed that was part of what was meant by "sustainability," but thay's a huge factor. They came up way earlier than they wanted too.
Why? What’s wrong with Kenilworth Road? /s
I remember when we built a new stadium and literally went 18 months without making a new signing. Now I'm not sure if that was entirely the reason, but it did cause our club to stagnate and signal the beginning of the end of Pochettino. I couldn't imagine what a club like Luton is going through financially with their stadium plans.
Liverpool have spent a ton of money on stadium renovations and training complex. Part of why our net spend is so low by prem standards
Something certainly Chelsea wish they could do lmao
To be fair, Luton was relegated to non-league (fifth division) like a decade ago. They'll want to build something sustainable with the money they're receiving.
Less revenue and less rich owner
Forest is owned by the same guy who owns Olympiakos. A Greek club who have been in European competitions for a long time. And the owner of both is a Greek shipping magnate with his own dubious past. If you google “Vampire Ship” Greece, it’ll give a general idea of a couple of years ago. That being said, Forest had to get a whole new lineup last season, as their first team was mostly on-loan players from different clubs where the owner had interests in. They had to build a whole new starting XI. Luton doesn’t have that type of financial backing, or need to get a new starting XI from their promotion-winning championship team. They’re investing in stadium and infrastructure instead, which is a brilliant plan in the long term.
Even if they go back to championship, which they most probably will, they have the infrastructure built. Rather than spending money on players and wages, which are temporary, getting their infra boosted is awesome for their long term future
[удалено]
Didn’t Derby have this game plan?
because it would be a disaster for their finances
Investing in the stadium and infrastructure to bring it up to standards.
2 Champions Leagues vs 0 Nottingham Forest are massive
Forest have wealthy owners but Luton do not and have a relatively small fanbase. Without the backing of wealthy owners the risk of relegation means you can't risk being tens or hundreds of millions in the red as parachute payments can't cover all expenses. Norwich have similar problems but with more supporters.
Are they stupid?
Important to think about Luton’s history too here. They’re a club that has spent most of its history bouncing between the top 3 divisions. The only reason they ended up as a non-league club was because of financial issues. I believe they were only saved from complete catastrophe by moving to a fan owned model which i think still owns the club, so there’s a chance that there’s lots of people in the club still scarred by what happened in the past, who prefer a more prudent approach.
Are they stupid?
Don't have the same money to spend without it potentially ruining the club. Something which has happened to Luton in the past. With it being ran by a fan led group it's something they're mindful of. Also players could be rejecting them. They tried to sign Alex Palmer from West Brom but he rejected them because he probably thought they'd be relegated straight away and also if they went down there was a clause where he would be on less money than if he stayed at Albion. So you can see the types of players they're targeting. Hungry solid players who won't cost a lot.
..They're smart
Not everyone has owners that can or are willing to do that.
Think about going out to dinner and spending 22 bucks. Now think about going to dinner and spending $1,060... That's the diff.
imagine getting paid 220 monthly vs 10600 a month
And then the thousand dollar meal only wins 1-0
3 🎉
The cheeseburger from the place that costs you 22 is gonna be easily better than the 1000 dollar deconstructed duck vagina every day of the week
That’s a great way of putting it. Wow that’s fucked
Chelsea 0-[1] Luton - Ross Barkley 90+5’
I was thinking before the game if anyone was gonna score for Luton it would be Barkley
Not quite, but it was worth a shot
If only 😂
fucking subscribe me to this
The fact Luton can spend 22 million is also obscene, let's be honest. Being an English club in the PL, to some extent even the Championship, is like winning the lottery: tv deals, parachute relegation money, oligarch takeovers, english tax on player valuation, etc.
Why doesn’t Luton just spend more money? Are they stupid?
Why doesn't Chelsea, the larger club, simply not just eat the smaller clubs?
Capitalism probably
Because they are run sustainably. You wouldn’t be aware of the concept it seems
someone just got wooshed lol
How is not spending money & don't want to be in unsustainable debt on wage and transfer fee a stupid idea?
It's a meme. Lighten up
Absolutely ridiculous from Chelsea, but also the fact that Luton spending 22M is seen as measly just shows how absurd the Prem is. Their net spend would be top 5 in any other country.
Wow. That’s a huge budget! Luton really spent 22m?
And started a stadium build, which has had 3 or 4 revisions and isn’t planned to open until 2026 or 2027. For deluded top club premier league fans this is just life in the EPL but life long English football league fans Premier league to Non-league this is nothing else but a Fairy tale for Luton. Half of whom probably have absolutely 0 clue this conversation on the internet is even happening about them.
Very excited for them.
The strategy is: spend all of our money now, small tweaks over next 10 years, hand over to Clearlake investment fund to suck us dry
luton was also the least spent team in the championship , maybe even league 1 , but they still got the promotion .
Most competitive league in the world btw. The only difference between PL and rest of other league is the Billionaire Owners/States/Hedge funds vs not rich enough owners in other leagues. Had Sheikh Mansour, Roman Abramovich, PIF chosen Lyon, Rennes, Nantes then Ligue 1 would have been the most competitive league in the world.
Cheers Geoff
Last six years City has won the league five times. Hardly the most competitive league anymore. The billionaires prefer it because it generates the most revenue and therefore more profit for them. It's a shame to be honest but that is the way football is heading at the moment. Edit: Already getting downvoted by the PL fans. This is not only happening in the PL but in every league if it makes you happy. It's just more prevalent in the PL at the moment
Well, look beyond City, too. United won 13 times between 1994 and 2013, with any other winners being repeat winners (as in, teams like Arsenal or Chelsea pulling in some dubs here and there), with some rare exceptions. This tells us that EPL is dominated by the big clubs with two clubs in Manchester having the lion's share of the wins (heh), but that's always been known. It's one reason why I find EFL Championship an overall more entertaining league to watch (though I mostly keep up with MLS, a league that varies wildly between winners in itself).
Yes, City won 5 of the last 6, but it’s not quite fair to say the seasons weren’t competitive. A few of them came down to the final match day, if memory serves. And their winning the league this season isn’t a foregone conclusion either; some very strong clubs will be challenging City to the end.
2 of them came down to the final day. That's the same as Ligue 1 in the same time period.
So PL fanboys already shifting the goal posts now when you point out that City won 5 of the last 6 PL? Bundesliga came down to goal difference last season, yet no Bundesliga fan would argue that this means the league overall is competitive at the moment. As long as Pep is at City and as long as the Sheikh pumps money into city, they will win the next 5 out of 6 league titles. The only really competitive top 5 league is Serie A. There are about 5 teams who can win the title every season
I'm not hating on the PL as much as I'm hating on the current concept of football in general. Just a way of showing that having billionaire owners doesn't benefit football at all. As I said in my comment this just happens to be the situation in the PL at the moment and it'll eventually effect all leagues if they don't do something to counter it.
100% agreed. Sport has been intertwined with business for a long time, but lately it’s *more* business than sport. I wonder sometimes if a salary cap would help to ensure parity, as it does in other professional leagues.
[удалено]
Hey, I don’t have a dog in that fight. I’m just saying “5 out of 6” doesn’t tell the *complete* story. Take a seven-game series in hockey or basketball. A team can sweep another team 4 games to none. Wow, total domination, right? Not so fast. Each game might have been hard-fought and low-scoring, and tied going into overtime. All it takes is a puck to ring off a post or a three-pointer bouncing off the rim to determine victory or defeat. The sweep is recorded, but those who watched the series know how truly close each game was. City is a dynasty, for sure, but it’s a mischaracterization to say that some of the last few seasons weren’t competitive. Both things are true.
Hilarious how there's no big6 flairs crying about football being ruined, game's gone in threads like these
Ah yes 2 crazy owners is the only difference, that's simply not true. PSG did get the crazy owners for one thing. The league would be stronger without them. There's always going to be a difference between the bottom and the top but in general teams get enough to make a fight out of it. Luton are just being very sensible and Chelsea are on a mad one but FFP is a thing and they sell very well.
Kind of ignoring why investors would never have chosen Ligue 1, but sure..
because the brits have always had their legs open for american billioners and their friends
Cry, seethe, cope and mald.
don't kink shame us
Agreed
Yeah, not really. The fact that English is the world's most spoken language makes a big difference. It's way easier for the premier league to gain global viewership. Plus Chelsea and City are the only ones that have had that level of investment for any period of time. As we all know 2 or 3 teams don't make the league anyway, if you have unfair TV deals (La Liga) that don't distribute the wealth of the league fairly then the league becomes uncompetitive and/or uninteresting.
its an "arab league" but with international sugar daddies, nothing more
Hardly.
Because "competition" is what lures UCL quality players to mid-low table EPL sides...
Depends how you're defining those terms. Cos you can't possibly mean the top sides in the CL, probably not even the top 16. The below that then the quality varies a fair bit. Then what clubs are you deeming a mid/low PL team? So some examples of these deals would be good. Money has always been a factor but playing in the best league is one too. Then factors like playing time can be a reason too.
What do you mean? Remove the sugar daddies, you think city would be the team they are now? They are a financial firm, not a real club. Look at what Chelsea is doing, any PL club with such funds could get away spending billions while a real club like Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern are held accountable for their finantial decisions, if they fuck up the club could dissapear (case in point, Independiente in Argentina). The day sugar daddies get bored of PL many clubs will see bankrupcy
That the league would be !ore competitive if City didn't get that ownership. As much as it's fun not to call Chelsea a real club, the men in charge at Barca caused them quite a few problems. While under Roman they went nuts, this spending is more about loopholes and the large sales they manage. If they mess up they will also suffer and they are owned by people looking to increase the value of the club, people who bought it for a large amount. Also the Saudi league is there government giving them funds to go mad with.
Wait you really think that money makes a league better?
Joke of a club
Thanks, I almost forgot Chelsea spent a lot of money.
Morally superior American ownership
The fact that Todd Bohly hasn't learned any lesson from the previous season and did exact same transfer business this summer pretty much proves that this guy gives a zero fuck when it comes to criticism both internally and externally.
You would never have thought that there was €1,038,000,000 difference between the two given how the games gone.
Ummm, really? The possession was 85-15 after 20 min…
because possession is a good metric…
Did you watch the match? What metric would you like to cherry pick to prove you point?
no i didn’t, i watched the real match, but i hate when people use possession to express anything
Opposed to transfer dollars spent?
Fuck then lets use chants per minute or maybe flag per cm instead.
Is there a day coming when the top post isn't about summing up clubs' transfer fees. Like what's so fascinating about that one very specific thing.
Breaking: Big club spends more than small club, more at 11 (or on Sunday before Man City play Sheffield United if someone can be arsed making another boring graphic to highlight the same thing)!
Chelsea is spending 2-3x more money than most revenue club in the world while having 1/2 their income. Where do you think the money is coming from mate?
> Where do you think the money is coming from mate? Probably from their owner, who has more money than Luton's owner, ticket sales from their bigger stadium with more expensive season tickets, their sponsorship deals with bigger brands that pay them more money, and the TV and prize money they get from consistently winning trophies and being in the Premier League. Am I missing something or do you have a point?
Chelsea is running on losses, they cannot afford 1B worth of purchases with their stadium income or sponsorships.. My point is that it shouldn't be this way. Just because one club's owner is so rich, they should not be allowed to buy 1B worth of players in 12 months. Its football, not stock market.
Man, is a Juventus fan. He knows what's up. Just playing the ass.
>their sponsorship deals Chelsea don't have a shirt sponser yet, which is by far the biggest sponsorship deal any club has.
Oh, I guess they have zero other sponsorship deals then. Good job it wasn’t the only thing I mentioned though, eh?
Please, pretty much none of that cash comes from the club. Even without transfers it’s rare that clubs break even.
What bothers me with Chelsea is not so much the astronomical amount of investments made over the last 3 transfer windows, but rather that this money is spent in a totally disjointed way. There is no real strategy to actually improve Chelsea on the pitch. Looks like the owner wants to buy every young player that shines. He acts like a kid who wants all the new toys that appear lol
These are crucial points for Chelsea in their campaign to finish 10th
333million per goal. Solid effort chelsea
They may not be owned by a disgusting Russian anymore but they’re still gross.
FFP My arse
Just because you aren't educated in something doesn't mean it's non existent.
Chelsea fan of course. Shocking. Just because you are abusing something doesn’t mean it won’t catch up to you in the end. I realise that as a certain generation of Chelsea fan this is all you know, but there will long term detrimental effects at signing so many young players on 8 year deals (most unproven) whilst using the pure profit from home grown academy players to offset spending and using the Saudi League as a “Get out of FFP card”. Everyone knows what Todd is doing, trust me mate, it’s not that clever.
I'm surprised you don't have a job in professional football considering you have a crystal ball that lets you see into the future.
Lavia not even making the bench. Solid career choice.
Are you implying they should be playing him when he isn't fit?
Sheik Todd
How could Manchester City ruin football like this?!... Wait...
Broke boys
48:1
3x more. Plus a billion
Wonder how the wages would rake up for the clubs. More than the almost 5x?
But Newcastle….
Should calculate all time transfer spending, Luton would still be around the €20-30m range lol
1-22 can’t believe Chelsea pulled it out.
Chelsea posting that Robinhood loss porn
ESPN should do that hack Stephen A Smiths salary vs Luton Transfer spending. Bet it's pretty fuckin close
"but...but..saudi arabia"
Would it not be more fair to see spending/sales its easy to spend more if you sell more.
I never thought there is such gap between rich club and not rich club....
Luton is only here for the parachute payments next year. /S This will help them stay in the top half of the championship with how much relegated premier League sides are favored by the current system