TheSBH Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 In financial . Will it be any difference ? I want to choose between AFC Wimbeldon & AFC Telford AFC Wimbeldon with more fan and budget but have 1.2 million debt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
golfpunk Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Well managing a team who are in debt you are likely to have a restricted transfer budget and wage budget aswell as a low % of your received transfer fees being made available to you. You may also be in danger of losing players who are transfer targets for other clubs because your chairman is more likely to overrule some transfer deals and sell a player over your head. Also, the main danger is that if you fall even further into debt then the nasty old administrators will have to come in and you will end up being docked points in your current season or the coming season. Not good for the club Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLmichiej Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Sure there's a difference. When you're in debt you probably won't have a transfer budget which would force you to either use your own youth or sign players on free transfers. When you got a budget like Chelsea the sky's the limit, you can buy whoever the heck you'd want to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.