Does Anyone Know?

[marky No.1]

If Crawley realise there is a maximum they can spend on players/wages in
relation to their "income".

They have just signed yet another on a "staggering" wage. There is only one
way this is going to go IMO

Further up the scale, to get round a similar thing for the Champions League,
I've heard that the Man City
owners are simply going to buy their own sponsors boxes
for ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

which will increase their matchday turnover and get round the problem.
Have Crawley a similar scheme in mind ?

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/cc ... e3&BID=422

[Heysham_Shrimp]

If Crawley realise there is a maximum they can spend on players/wages in
relation to their "income".

They have just signed yet another on a "staggering" wage. There is only one
way this is going to go IMO

Further up the scale, to get round a similar thing for the Champions League,
I've heard that the Man City
owners are simply going to buy their own sponsors boxes
for ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

which will increase their matchday turnover and get round the problem.
Have Crawley a similar scheme in mind ?

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/cc ... e3&BID=422

"Turnover" is allowed to include the issue and sale of shares so that is possibly how they get round it.

Loans from Directors is not allowed to be classed as "turnover"

[marky No.1]

"Turnover" is allowed to include the issue and sale of shares so that is possibly how they get round it.

Loans from Directors is not allowed to be classed as "turnover"

You should have been an Accountant! The point with such as Man. City was, although the owners can't "loan" the money, they can easily give the money in terms of increased sponsorship value.

e.g. a sponsors box maybe £50K but an "owner" or his son's, Aunties, cousins, brother can have a shed company in Abu Dhabi who feels that the Box is actually worth £75 Million for that particular season and will increase his sales with the extra publicity on matchdays.

EDIT: Just found this which says they can't !

"To make things even harder for teams, only certain types of revenue will be permitted by Uefa. Increasing ground capacity or naming rights deals are fine but a huge injection of cash from a new sponsor with links to a club's owner or parent company will be ruled out unless it can be proved they are paying the going market rate."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/20 ... es_la.html

Maybe they can give naming rights to each seat in the stands

[Shrimpy]

I understand that the Crawley benefactor who recently died has provided the club with enough money to see them through the next 10 years. None of this is in the form of loans and all transfer fees they shell out are paid for in one lump sum rather than being spread out over several months / years as alot of clubs do. I also understand that the players they have are given incredibly large signing on fees and then a much more sensible weekly wage which is probably how they get around the wage cap rules.

Obviously when these 10 years come to an end they will have to cut back accordingly but what they are doing is perfectly above board, they are just extremely lucky to have had a lifelong fan who was very rich and knowing that he was about to die wanted to give something back to his football club, it's just a shame that he couldn't last to see his team play a game in the Football League.

I hope all the genuine Crawley fans will enjoy the ride and that when the money eventually dries up the club will be able to continue to operate unlike what has happened at Rushden which is a very similar situation.

[ockers]

aside from obviously having large pots of money they have brought in some very good players
money didnt get mancini or ancelotti the premiership.....
i dont like steve evans one bit but he has won two conference promotions albeit one via cheating and one via having pots of money
i wouldnt rule out back to back promotions for them
will be interesting to see his team at dagenham next season

[marky No.1]

Fair play, but:

"been fashioned with sudden new money. Huge transfer fees for this level, estimated at £600,000, have been spent since the summer on the striker Richard Brodie from York City, the midfielder Sergio Torres from Peterborough United, and others, with a wage bill to match. Yet despite the media floodlighting the club since their Cup wins began, they have still refused to say who has provided the money, except that it is a group of people in "the far east". Bruce Winfield, the Crawley chairman who, with his wife Silpa, is a major shareholder, told the Guardian's Digger column that these far east investors now own 40% of the club. However, he has not identified them, explained where their money has come from, or why they want to remain anonymous.

After so many financial meltdowns at all levels it is widely accepted that it is important to know who owns football clubs and the fact that Crawley Town are substantially owned and funded by anonymous investors steals a little romance from this tale. That United, arguably English football's most storied name, are owned by the Glazers, who recently reorganised the club's ownership into the US state of Delaware, where shareholders can also remain unidentified, completes the flipside of the tie's allure.

This week Susan Carter, Winfield's fellow director, again declined to say who the club's backers are. Asked about their spending, on transfer fees and players' wages said to be around £100,000 a year for some, Carter replied: "How many clubs actually spend what they make in income? Very few. It's a problem in football; we're only doing what other clubs are doing.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/davi ... ted-fa-cup

Bruce Winfield has sadly passed away recently, having been a dedicated Fan for over 50 years.

[Shrimpy]

The general consensus seems to be that Winfield was the backer all along but didn't want to draw attention to the fact that he was on the verge of death so they used the "mystery backer" line to claim that money was coming from elsewhere. There was always the question of "if it is Winfield throwing the money in why didn't he do it 12 months previously when the club were on the verge of going under" so by claiming it wasn't him the spotlight was taken away from him and any further digging into why he had chosen now to suddenly start splashing the cash which may have unveiled his illness.

As his death drew closer I think they pretty much admitted that there were never any mystery investors and it was instead just one mans dying wish to see his football club have a bit of success.

[marky No.1]

one mans dying wish to see his football club have a bit of success.

Well when you read that he signed himself out of the hospice to watch his team play 3 days before his death, I can see what you are saying.