Financial Fair Play

[DubaiSpur]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

So, let me get this straight.

Chelsea Football Club getting bought by a fraudulent, corrupt Russian oligarch with a questionable legal background, who then spends billions jumping the queue, buying everyone else's best players(mostly foreign), firing countless managers, and splashing 70 million pounds on Torres and Luiz in one window because he was scared that sensibly-run Spurs would finish above his plaything = fair, righteous and a beautiful thing for the English game.

Manchester United using their revenues, accrued through years of masterful marketing, successful on-pitch management, careful spending and the occasional lucky break, to buy players that would help them win the title in a league without reckless over-spending = horrific, and the carving up of English football by those nasty big clubs and their UEFA cohorts, desperate to ensure that the G14 club remains unmolested forever more.

West Ham using Gold and Sullivan's money to fund grandiose expenditures like the Olympic Stadium bid, thus elbowing little Leyton Orient out of the way without so much as a second look while slandering their chairman and claim to the site = fair, wholesome and good for the English game.

Spurs trying to get a system implemented that would reward them for their prudence and careful management while West Ham floundered in financial trouble as a result of overspending on wages and transfer fees = Unfair, how dare they try to 'lap up the crumbs from Arsenal and United's table'?!?

Arsenal's history of using their influence in the game for less than savoury purposes (Norris' bribery preventing Spurs from a First Divison place, Dein's shenanigans on the morning of Pastagate, 2006, and several other misdemeanours) = traditional, solid, old Etonians, old money, 'class'

New American owner trying to bring in a version of Fair Play without resorting to bribery (as Norris did), being up front about their intentions = terrible, clueless, malevolent, handing the title to United on a plate.

Just so we know where we stand. Thank you, Martin.

There are a lot of things wrong with these proposals. But having a condescending **** like Samuel trying to proclaim one set of sporting excesses 'traditional, right and fair' while branding the more reasonable (albeit far from perfect) proposals as 'the death of the English game' will not help bring the flaws of this plan to light any more than listening to Hitler's 'Untermensch' speeches would give you an accurate knowledge of the flaws of human evolution.

 

[jimmyb]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Haven't got time to read the whole article now but, if I've understood the gist correctly, I have to say that I broadly agree with Martin Samuel on this.

FFP is as much about the self interest of the established elite as it is about the more proper desire to prevent some clubs from getting themselves into severe financial difficulty.

The only way that there could ever be true financial fairness is if revenues were shared among the clubs. But that's never going to happen. Consequently, Man Utd will enjoy a massive financial advantage over every other club in England in perpetuity. As a greater variety of commercial deals are signed, that gap will only grow. And you can bet your bottom dollar that Utd are also eyeing the possibility of a move to individual TV rights deals. If and when that happens, we will have a situation every bit as bad as they have in Spain.

So I hope that this proposal fails to secure the necessary majority. At the very least, I hope that it only succeeds on condition that the agreement will be considered broken if ever Utd, Arsenal, Lverpool etc. decide to opt out of signing a collective Premier League broadcasting rights deal.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Haven't got time to read the whole article now but, if I've understood the gist correctly, I have to say that I broadly agree with Martin Samuel on this.

FFP is as much about the self interest of the established elite as it is about the more proper desire to prevent some clubs from getting themselves into severe financial difficulty.

The only way that there could ever be true financial fairness is if revenues were shared among the clubs. But that's never going to happen. Consequently, Man Utd will enjoy a massive financial advantage over every other club in England in perpetuity. As a greater variety of commercial deals are signed, that gap will only grow. And you can bet your bottom dollar that Utd are also eyeing the possibility of a move to individual TV rights deals. If and when that happens, we will have a situation every bit as bad as they have in Spain.

So I hope that this proposal fails to secure the necessary majority. At the very least, I hope that it only succeeds on condition that the agreement will be considered broken if ever Utd, Arsenal, Lverpool etc. decide to opt out of signing a collective Premier League broadcasting rights deal.

Like I said, there's a lot wrong with these proposals. United in particular stand to gain the most, and may come to exert a Bayern-style dominance over the league should this come to pass. But Samuel's assertions that somehow the wholesale financial doping of hitherto uncompetitive clubs by oligarchs and human rights abusers (step up, Sheikh Mansour!) is good, proper, and what every fan aspires to..... that is absolute horse brick. And, speaking as a Hammer with a vested interest (namely defending Gold and Sullivan's pumping of money into West Ham), Samuel comes across as a fervent admirer of any club that wins the lottery and shoots to the top.

In his entire diatribe, nowhere does he acknowledge that well-run, stable clubs are deserving of success in their own right, and deserve at the least a playing field with as few inherent disadvantages afforded to them as possible. And while the Premier League's FFP doesn't exactly remove those disadvantages, it nullifies those that annoy fans the most, i.e the quick fix billionaires pupming money into unsustainable ego-pits. And the fact that he conveniently ignores this forces me to repeat that he is a condescending ****.

 

[Modric THFC]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Haven't got time to read the whole article now but, if I've understood the gist correctly, I have to say that I broadly agree with Martin Samuel on this.

FFP is as much about the self interest of the established elite as it is about the more proper desire to prevent some clubs from getting themselves into severe financial difficulty.

The only way that there could ever be true financial fairness is if revenues were shared among the clubs. But that's never going to happen. Consequently, Man Utd will enjoy a massive financial advantage over every other club in England in perpetuity. As a greater variety of commercial deals are signed, that gap will only grow. And you can bet your bottom dollar that Utd are also eyeing the possibility of a move to individual TV rights deals. If and when that happens, we will have a situation every bit as bad as they have in Spain.

So I hope that this proposal fails to secure the necessary majority. At the very least, I hope that it only succeeds on condition that the agreement will be considered broken if ever Utd, Arsenal, Lverpool etc. decide to opt out of signing a collective Premier League broadcasting rights deal.

I can't see how each club wont have their own online channel showing all their games live within 10 years.
I've never subscribed to Sky but would subscribe to a reliable official channel that just showed Spurs live online.

This will end up being bigger than TV.

 

[braineclipse]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Yes FFP regulations will most likely solidify the top clubs in their position.

Walker couldn't have done what he did with Blackburn now regardless of FFP, not unless he was willing to spend a lot more money. A hell of a lot more.

From Wikipedia:

He took full control of the club in January 1991, having backed the club on a regular basis for five years previously, and within the first three years he spent £25 million on new players, twice breaking the British record for the most expensive transfer of a football player, signing Alan Shearer from Southampton for £3.3million in 1992 and Chris Sutton from Norwich for £5million in 1994.

[...]

The Ewood Park ground was reconstructed at a cost of more than £20 million to give it a capacity of just over 30,000, with a new Jack Walker Stand providing a lasting tribute.

I have seen estimates that the Mansour family have spent over a billion pounds at City. So far to win the league once. The situations can be compared, but only just. The kind of money Walker spent on Blackburn might have gotten them into the Europa League from a mid table position.

I don't think FFP was put in place primarily to stop these kinds of money injections into football, and it certainly wasn't put in place to level the playing field or secure more mobility for clubs below the top. I think these rules were put in place because chairmen gambled with the future of their clubs by spending money neither they or the club actually had.

 

[jimmyb]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

I can't see how each club wont have their own online channel showing all their games live within 10 years.
I've never subscribed to Sky but would subscribe to a reliable official channel that just showed Spurs live online.

This will end up being bigger than TV.

It might well happen.

But it would be the final nail in the coffin of the Premier League.

 

[Jordinho]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Online streaming will and must come, but it should be run by the PL and profits shared equally.

 

[Crawley]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

I've rarely agreed with anything Samuel writes.

Now, I'm spitting feathers.

That piece is written from the standpoint of a bitter twisted West Ham fan, who thinks that the proposed move to the OS will bring his pathetic little club wealth and success beyond their wildest dreams. With the hoped for assistance of an oil baron, obviously, who sees the move into such a stadium as a major publicity coup.

Utter vitriol from the king of it.

Jealous that his little club are not part of the bigger picture.

 

[jts1882]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

It's not often you see the Daily Mail advocating a European solution, although at least they are being consistent in their use of reason.

Samuels is of course right that the FFP rules are being brought in to protect the european football elite and that those clubs have little interest in fair play. They don't want a level playing field and that quite like the existing slope. However, his polemic goes off on a few tangents and is largely irrelevant.

One, what has Dehaene got to do with the argument? OK, he is Belgian and a banker, enough to raise the blood pressure of Mail readers, but the ability of a Belgian banker to run a bank is not really relevant to whether the PL implements FFP rules. This is a bit like arguing that EU bendy banana regulations are a threat to our national security so we should leave the EU (not sure if the Mail has had an editorial on this).

Two, he ignores the fact that owners are allowed to invest in infrastructure. So Walker could have paid to rebuild Ewood Park. West Ham's owners would be allowed to pay for the Olympic Stadium, if it was not being gifted to them. A new rich owner would be able to build a new WHL or Anfield and that would immediately boost the prospects of the clubs.

Three, the stuff about Gazidis masterminding Arsenal's vision is simply irrelevant. Gazidis joined Arsenal in 2009 so was neither part of the stadium development or the architect of their trophy-less ambition. He has just continued to implement the owners plans, although the list of players he has sold is impressive. This line of argument is nothing more than an excuse to criticise foreigners in our game.

However, it's not really necessary for the PL to implement the European FFP rules. As the letter points out, there are usually seven PL clubs competing in Europe and they will have to comply with the rules anyway. A rich owner is hardly going to invest hundreds of millions and opt out of European competition. The only difference the PL rules would make would be preventing owners from leapfrogging their clubs into the European mix. Once there they would have to follow UEFA rules so it wouldn't make much difference for title ambitions.

What would be useful is for the PL to come up with rules to prevent the fiasco's at Portsmouth and Blackburn and to prevent leveraged buyouts. The latter nearly brought down the most successful club in the land and is a much bigger threat to a club like Spurs than anything else.

 

[Jordinho]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Four of the leading top-flight clubs have put into writing their demand for Uefa's full financial fair play rules to be brought in to the Premier League.

A letter from Arsenal, Tottenham, Manchester United and Liverpool to the league chief executive Richard Scudamore calls for full spending controls – where clubs must break even – without wealthy owners being allowed to cover clubs' losses.

Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea are opposing any spending controls being brought in but it is likely the 20 clubs will agree on a compromise at their meeting in February, which will allow a fixed amount of losses to be covered by owners.

The letter from the four clubs states: "Thank you for your continued work on the vital subject of Financial Regulation for the Premier League.

"However, we do not feel that the latest proposals go far enough to curb the inflationary spending which is putting so much pressure on clubs across the entire League.

"We continue to believe that to be successful and have the best chance of gaining at least the 14 votes necessary, any proposals for Financial Regulation must include meaningful measures to restrict the owner funding of operating losses."

West Brom and Fulham also oppose any spending controls, while the remaining 12 favour some form of compromise solution.

www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/jan/14/leading-clubs-financial-regulations-premier-league

 

[Rorschach]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

In principle I agree with the general premise of FFP in that a clubs size is effectively determined by the size of it's support. This on the surface seems reasonable and it is then up to each club to run itself properly and grow it's support over time. However this approach unaltered will perpetuate the status quo. This to me it is the lesser of two evils, but it's far from perfect.

Football must be competitive or it becomes pointless. Countries whose leagues are dominated by one or two clubs indefinitely are not attractive to the viewing public, so the FFP should aim to promote competitiveness at it's core. You could argue that City and Chelsea's wealth has made the top of the league more competitive but they have trampled roughshod over any notion of fair play to get there. They have injected themselves into the mix at the expense of other clubs whose long path to the top has seen them endure years of developmental growth only to be beaten to the prize by the vanity of some rich prick who should be using his money for something far more worthwhile.

So I agree to an extent with FFP as sugar daddy phenomenon will ultimately destroy the game. But equally there must be some push to make the league more open for those teams outside of the CL places. There has to be a chance, however small, that a team can come from nowhere to win it. That will never happen while money holds such a sway over this sport.

 

[Spursalot]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Online streaming will and must come, but it should be run by the PL and profits shared equally.

In part it has come, albeit a little lacking. With channels like sky go, itv player etc.


The problem is i am not sure the PL can run it, they sell the distribution rights to different companies and if the PL started running online streaming the amount of money the tv deals are worth would go through the floor. It would be a very precarious situation.

 

[Danners9]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Football must be competitive or it becomes pointless. Countries whose leagues are dominated by one or two clubs indefinitely are not attractive to the viewing public, so the FFP should aim to promote competitiveness at it's core. You could argue that City and Chelsea's wealth has made the top of the league more competitive but they have trampled roughshod over any notion of fair play to get there. They have injected themselves into the mix at the expense of other clubs whose long path to the top has seen them endure years of developmental growth only to be beaten to the prize by the vanity of some rich prick who should be using his money for something far more worthwhile.

Sorry for cutting your post to bits, this paragraph is important.

Chelsea were on the curve towards the top, City were not as far along that line. Still they are not as dominant as Chelsea under Mourinho in the early-Roman Empire. They are just not as good, yet. Despite the signings.

What has happened in the Russian league is forewarning to all leagues about the impact of sugar daddies. It is a league where every club is run by a very very rich businessman. So much so that the winners go through cycles of dominance before the next big spender comes along, and some teams have been closed as a result of their backer disappearing.

CSKA lead this season. Zenit won it last season and the one before. Rubin Kazan before that for 2 years. Zenit. CSKA. Lokomotiv.

In the cup, Terek Grozny won and then started well in the league then fell right away. Saturn have closed entirely, dissolved in 2011. The league is not interesting at all. Managers sacked if they lose 2 in a row. The rich guys take turns in besting each other until their interest dries up.

 

[Superhudd]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Great posts Danners9

 

[Raziel]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

The solution is simple (-ish), football cannot be treated any different than any other businesses and must be subject to anti-competitive/dumping rules and restrictions.

The challenge is, it would mean instant action against Cheat$ki and City. Just as I could not open a Chinese car company, manufacture a Car for $10K and sell it on the UK market for $2K, no Sugar Daddy should be able to just invest Billions of dollars to buy success (market share) at huge losses (it's unfair business practice)

And yes, it means that clubs that historically have a bigger fanbase or established income will have an advantage (that's normal business practice).

 

[JPG_357]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

As has been said it can easily be argued that Chelsea and City have made the league more competitive. I think Scudamore would argue this, so probably would Sky and Samuels.


Without the sugar daddies how many titles would United have won, the mind boggles. The Prem would have been even worse than La Liga and the Scottish Prem, being a virtual one horse race.

Yes, it would have been better for us had Chelsea and City not won the lottery, Would we have won the title, I doubt it very much, unless we'd have won the lottery instead of Chelsea which might have been a possibility.

Things would have also been better for Arsenal as they could have carried on their cosy carve up of the league with Utd, as very much the junior partner of course.

 

[Spursalot]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

As has been said it can easily be argued that Chelsea and City have made the league more competitive. I think Scudamore would argue this, so probably would Sky and Samuels.


Without the sugar daddies how many titles would United have won, the mond boggles. The Prem would have been even worse than La Liga and the Scottish Prem, being a virtual one horse ravce.

Yes, it would have been better for us had Chelsea and City not won the lottery, Would we have won the title, I doubt it very much,, unless we'd have won the lottery instead of Chelsea which might have been a possibility.

I disagree with this.


Without Chelsea and Arsenal the other 'big clubs' would have found it easier to buy players as there would have been a far less competitive market as well as a much reduced wage inflation.

In addition to which it is possible other clubs would have sprouted up and become top 4 regulars.

United weren't winning the league every year before Chelsea and City, so there is no reason to assume they would be without Chelsea and City.

 

[Crawley]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

As has been said it can easily be argued that Chelsea and City have made the league more competitive. I think Scudamore would argue this, so probably would Sky and Samuels.


Without the sugar daddies how many titles would United have won, the mind boggles. The Prem would have been even worse than La Liga and the Scottish Prem, being a virtual one horse race.

Yes, it would have been better for us had Chelsea and City not won the lottery, Would we have won the title, I doubt it very much, unless we'd have won the lottery instead of Chelsea which might have been a possibility.

Things would have also been better for Arsenal as they could have carried on their cosy carve up of the league with Utd, as very much the junior partner of course.

Arsenal won titles without massive financial input. They built teams. As did United to a point (although prior to Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project we would probably have accused them of reckless spending).

We ourselves have shown over recent years that it is possible to build a competitive team without that type of outlay, and, lets face it, were City and Chelsea not in the positions they were financially, there is every chance it would have been us in the title fight. And of course, if our manager had kept his eye on the right prize (sorry to bring that up, but relevant to the last couple of seasons).

 

[JPG_357]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Arsenal won titles without massive financial input. They built teams. As did United to a point (although prior to Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project we would probably have accused them of reckless spending).

We ourselves have shown over recent years that it is possible to build a competitive team without that type of outlay, and, lets face it, were City and Chelsea not in the positions they were financially, there is every chance it would have been us in the title fight. And of course, if our manager had kept his eye on the right prize (sorry to bring that up, but relevant to the last couple of seasons).

That's kind of my point, Arsenal and Utd would have dominated without Chelsea and City, so it can be argued they made the lge more competitive.

As for us, we've finished behind Arsenal and Utd every season this century so I see no cause to believe we would have won the title. We would have got closer I'm pretty sure, but title winners, I don't see it. Unless of course we'd have got RA's money which would have transformed our chances completely.

 

[Crawley]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

That's kind of my point, Arsenal and Utd would have dominated without Chelsea and City, so it can be argued they made the lge more competitive.

As for us, we've finished behind Arsenal and Utd every season this century so I see no cause to believe we would have won the title. We would have got closer I'm pretty sure, but title winners, I don't see it. Unless of course we'd have got RA's money which would have transformed our chances completely.

Fair points, but as someone already said, the multitude of players Chelsea and City have bought couldnt ALL just go to United. The option for them to be elsewhere would have existed. Backed-up by Edin Hazard coming out and saying he would have signed for us had we not been pipped to CL by the cheats.