Martin Samuel: The plot to shackle City & Chelsea

[abu13]

This is what i can't get my head around, for the sake of arguments lets say that the average wage in London is twice that of say Newcastle.

Clubs can set their ticket prices as they see fit, therefore assuming London is more affluent than Newcastle and have more disposable income then they can charge twice as much for a ticket.

Therefore two clubs could have the same attendance but one earns twice as much as the other, given that you can only spend what you earn then Newcastle are at a disadvantage straight away purely down to location and geographic economic conditions.

The only way this cold be controlled would be by having a fixed ticket price throughout the league. The ticket price would have to low enough to allow clubs like Wigan to retain their support.

The other option for me would be why not just split all gate receipts 50/50 between the clubs involved.

Now that is an argument for FFP.

 

[NipHolmes]

This is what i can't get my head around, for the sake of arguments lets say that the average wage in London is twice that of say Newcastle.

Clubs can set their ticket prices as they see fit, therefore assuming London is more affluent than Newcastle and have more disposable income then they can charge twice as much for a ticket.

Therefore two clubs could have the same attendance but one earns twice as much as the other, given that you can only spend what you earn then Newcastle are at a disadvantage straight away purely down to location and geographic economic conditions.

The only way this cold be controlled would be by having a fixed ticket price throughout the league. The ticket price would have to low enough to allow clubs like Wigan to retain their support.

The other option for me would be why not just split all gate receipts 50/50 between the clubs involved.

Now that is an argument for FFP.

Speaking of Newcastle I don't remember FFP rumbling when Keegan nearly won the title with a then very expensive team. Fair play to them, I was absolutely gutted they failed to win the title. Had they done it they'd have built onwards, had some very tidy players too. Always had a huge soft spot for Shearer for being his own man and turning down United time and again to play for his club, granted he was paid well but it pleases me no end he snubbed Slurgie.

As you say, there's so many variables to take into consideration. A season ticket at Sunderland will be like a third of Arsenals hence why they'd be on a loser straight away. Let alone capacities and the fact London has a massive commercial opportunity to exploit for clubs due to location, why else was Wembley built in London when the Midlands is best for everyone in terms of travel. M1, M6 and M5 all bringing corners to the central.

Back to FFP, I assume its a voluntary vote and then it'll be seem as City doing bad for breaking the pact of clubs in the league. I think that it'll be like religion, a non entity but frowned upon if you sin.

 

[ped]

remember,some years back having a conversation with a mate ,the gist of it was how city were going nowhere,no money no real hope,i said "you never know the sultan of bruni may buy us"yes we can fucking dream was his reply.you see it was the dreaming and the hope that kept us going,take hope away from football fans and you take everthing,KILL THE DREAMS KILL THE GAME,

 

[Dj1979]

Re: Martin Samuel: The plot to shackle City & Chelsea

remember,some years back having a conversation with a mate ,the gist of it was how city were going nowhere,no money no real hope,i said "you never know the sultan of bruni may buy us"yes we can fucking dream was his reply.you see it was the dreaming and the hope that kept us going,take hope away from football fans and you take everthing,KILL THE DREAMS KILL THE GAME,

Yeah pretty much this. Smaller clubs without big attendances are done for already as they stand no chance of getting champions league already as the spending required will almost certainly see them fail ffp rules. Now with these rules you can pull the drawbridge shut for promotions and relegation, any team comimg up from the championship will start from an impossible disadvantage starting from next year which might be behind villa disagreeing. The first and most likely people to suffer will be the fans, if clubs need more money for players and owner investment is restricted then the fans will be made to pay. City should put a cat amongst the pigeons and put forward something where all non local profits from a club are put into a pot with them being shared like the op article said happens in U.S. baseball. Lets see how attractive that sort of fairness appeals to utd and aresenal a hell of a lot less than wigan norwich and stoke I would think

 

[cleavers]

City's transfer expenditure since the PL started.

Ignore the Mansour years. We all know what has been spent. Compare and contrast pre Mansour.

City. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/manchester-city-transfers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier ... sfers.html</a>

This FFPR absolutely stinks. Sheikh Mansour and his cousins from Qatar are all over it. Gill et al can suck our big fat choppers. The argument from the debt ridden clubs is laughable. They are running scared. We know it. They know it.

The Liverpool, and Spurs figures, are out of proportion to their income given their ground capacities, for almost all of these years. Especially spurs, as they have only once (OK twice if you count last year) qualified for the CL from league position, and have won little in that time, and that all points to the fact they must be ripping the piss out of their own fans as far as prices are concerned (or money is coming from somewhere else).

Thanks to Martin Samuel for publishing this, it makes for a interesting debate on the morals in football.

 

[catfish]

Most of the money coming into the game,particularly the epl is from TV, not ticket sales,not merchandising.
I wonder what would happen if ffp was voted in as per arsenal/rags and co. wanted.
We would end up with a similar league to Spain, 2/3 teams only worth watching........or.........heaven forbid Scottish league!
Now I already decided that should any of this shite happen I will dump my subscription to sky and espn.What would be the point in watching shite footie on tv? I`d still get to see city live.
Dump sky and espn and I`d dump their internet and phone and get it cheaper elsewhere and use freeview tv.
Now I have noticed that Sky have kept very quiet about this.Maybe, just maybe they wouldn`t be so happy about losing custom on behalf of Arsenals dreams of making mega bucks for their directors and handing the rags the league every year as a god given right.

 

[ROCKET80]

I don't think it's a coincidence that this FFP is being pushed through by clubs with US owners (apart from Spurs). I'd even go as far as to suggest this is the first step towards creating a US style 'franchise' premier league with no relegation and where profits can go straight into shareholders pockets.

I'd like City and Chelsea to add an amendment to that letter stating that no clubs are allowed to be servicing any kind of debt. See how United and Arsenal react to that.

If it is to be truly fair then all the other clubs should agree to it as long as the below conditions are met:

Gate receipts for all premiership games to be split 50/50
All prize money from European competition to be divided equally between all English clubs.
No individual club sponsorship deals, e.g. all clubs to wear the same sponsor (as they have here in NZ for the Super Rugby Franchise).
Profits from sales of merchandise outside local area to be split evenly between clubs (as Samuel states happens in the US).
TV revenue split evenly between all teams (1st receives the same as 20th)

Can't see those 4 clubs agreeing to this kind of fairness to be honest.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Simple answer:

ALL CLUB REVENUES from all 20 Premier League teams pooled and shared EQUALLY........BUT ONLY AFTER every club has spent as much as the HIGHEST PREMIER LEAGUE SPENDER HAS SPENT IN THE LAST 20 YEARS OF THE PREMIER LEAGUE (and who would that be????).

And NO-ONE can exceed that amount UNTIL the last club has spent that much money, which means one club can spend NOTHING, and others are limited until the rest catch up!

You want a socialist system, then do it THE WHOLE WAY. If you want a CAPITALIST SYSTEM, THAT UTILIZES CAPITALIST BUSINESS PRINCIPLES OF INVEST FOR LONG TERM SUCCESS, then leave the fuck alone and let the chips fall where they may.

Anything in-between is just a game meant to advantage those who have already SPENT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS to put them on top of the revenue pile, and thus cut everyone else of at the knees.

Fucking joke!

UEFA's socialism, and social conscience, appears not to extend to their own finances. They don't allow alcohol served at games, yet one of their largest sponsors is Heineken!?! Fucking hypocrites! Why not espouse ONLY Heineken at least?! Nah, that would not be "Nanny-State" enough!

Did I mention...fucking joke! The lot of them....FIFA, UEFA, The FA!! Old white men counting their pieces of silver behind closed (and locked) doors!

 

[Aledo]

Somebody will have already covered this, but just in case.

Top 20 Spenders since Transfer Window 2003.

Chelsea, £673 million — 12 trophies — 3 Premier League titles (2o05, 2006, 2010), 1 Champions League (2012), 4 FA Cups (2007, 2009, 2010, 2012), 2 League Cups (2005, 2007) and 2 Community Shields (2005, 2009).
Manchester City, £572 million — 3 trophies — 1 Premier League title (2012), 1 FA Cup (2011) and 1 Community Shield (2012).
Liverpool, £414 million — 6 trophies — 1 Champions League (2005), 1 UEFA Super Cup (2005), 1 FA Cup (2006), 2 League Cups (2003, 2012) and 1 Community Shield (2006).
Manchester United, £352 million — 16 trophies — 5 Premier League titles (2003, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011), 1 Champions League (2008), 1 FA Cup (2004), 3 League Cups (2006, 2009, 2010), 5 Community Shields (2003, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011) and 1 FIFA Club World Cup (2008).
Tottenham Hotspur, £350 million — 1 trophy — 1 League Cup (2008).
Arsenal, £214 million — 4 trophies — 1 Premier League title (2004), 2 FA Cups (2003, 2005) and 1 Community Shield (2004).
Aston Villa, £201 million — 0 trophies
Sunderland, £187 million — 0 trophies
Newcastle United, £174 million — 1 trophy — 1 Intertoto Cup (2006).
Everton, £129 million — 0 trophies
West Ham United, £123 million — 0 trophies
Wigan Athletic, £110 million — 0 trophies
Fulham, £107 million — 0 trophies
Portsmouth, £100 million — 1 trophy — 1 FA Cup (2008).
Birmingham City, £92 million — 1 trophy — 1 League Cup (2011).
Blackburn Rovers, £87 million — 0 trophies
Stoke City, £84 million — 0 trophies
Bolton Wanderers, £76 million — 0 trophies
Middlesbrough, £71 million — 1 trophies — 1 League Cup (2004).
West Bromwich Albion, £64 million — 0 trophies

Is it any coincidence that numbers 3-6 in this list are the ones writing to the FA. It's a case of we've spent all of our money, and now no one else should be able to spend theirs. It stinks of hypocrisy and envy.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I don't think it's a coincidence that this FFP is being pushed through by clubs with US owners (apart from Spurs). I'd even go as far as to suggest this is the first step towards creating a US style 'franchise' premier league with no relegation and where profits can go straight into shareholders pockets.

Nor do I think it's a coincidence. The Glazers, Kroenke and Henry all own "franchises" which are profitable and benefit from a much more level playing field this exists in the PL. There is no way any of these clubs would have wanted this under previous owners.