‘We’re Like Starving Peasants Begging For Your Scraps’ – Accrington Stanley Chairman Criticises Premier League For ‘Obscene’ Over-Spending In Astonishing Twitter Diatribe

Chris Wright

10th, May 2017

6 Comments

Soccer - FA Cup - Fourth Round - Accrington Stanley v Fulham - Crown Ground

Accrington Stanley chairman Andy Holt has become tangled up in a quarrel with the Premier League after criticising the sheer amount of money being sloshed around up in the top flight.

Prompted by a recent leak that claimed agent Mino Raiola pocketed £41million after facilitating Paul Pogba’s transfer to Manchester United last summer, Holt released a series of tweets on Tuesday afternoon barracking the Premier League for allowing such “disgraceful largesse” to manifest.

His main bone of contention was that, as the upper echelon continues to get ever more “obscenely” rich, the Football League is akin to a “starving peasant begging for scraps” off their table.

Holt sought to put the mind-boggling Pogba numbers into stark contrast, revealing that Accrington are run on a yearly operating budget of less than £2.2million, on which the League Two side make an average annual loss of around £500,000.

The Premier League then responded later that same day, with a spokesman for the league board issuing the following statement (via Guardian):

The Premier League supports all clubs in the EFL with solidarity payments and provides significant funding for their community projects and youth development schemes – all things that Accrington Stanley benefits from.

It is only because of the interest in our competition and in Premier League clubs that we can support Accrington, the wider football pyramid, and communities and schools across the country.

We will be writing to Mr Holt to ask him if he wishes for the Premier League to continue the support we currently provide for his and other clubs in the EFL.

In short, ‘pipe down or we’ll cut off your allowance.’

For the record, Accrington (as well as every other club in League Two) will receive around £430,000-450,000 from the Premier League coffers this season as a drip-down from the top flight’s massive new television broadcast deal.

This didn’t discourage Holt, who once again hit back at the Premier League for opting to make thinly-veiled threats against his club, rather than against him personally.

He then issued a counter-statement of his own, in which he branded the Premier League’s caution about withholding payments “a threat too far” before stating they could “please themselves with their funds” for all he cares…

Holt then followed up by reiterating his standpoint, once again calling out the Premier League for their “obscene” spending and once again making sure to reinforce the fact that he was SPEAKING PERSONALLY…

And that’s the state of play at time of writing. Whether the Premier League actually intend on carrying through with their grandstanding remains to be seen.

Regardless, what Holt has succeeded in doing is laying bare the disparity between the gilt-edged promised land and the garden of bones that lies just beneath it.

Good on him for having the mettle to speak out.

Posted in Football League, Managers, Media, Newsnow, Premier League

Share this article: Email

6 Comments

  1. Eric M. says:

    Good on him for standing up for the little guy. I hope he maintains that stance.

  2. Sushrut says:

    Speaking personally, the premier league’s arrogant response was sickening and proved the man’s point.

  3. milt_palacio says:

    When it started with “Hang you’re (sic) heads” I thought I was in for a treat. He is right though, and that response from the PL is disgusting.

  4. oz says:

    That PL response is the one of a spoiled rich brat. “I spend so many in philanthropy and the poor still thing i’m a bastard”. Yes, you are.

  5. Pete says:

    Wow he really loves the word “largesse”. The PL’s response was disappointing but Don’t agree with his point. The free market WILL regulate itself even if it takes a few years. The TV money won’t be as insane as now I’ve heard.

Leave a Reply to Eric M.