UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[salfordbluetrue]

When Platini suggested that regulation should tackle the problem of debt members of the G 14 threatened a breakaway lague AND legal action. I have never concealed my belief that financing a club through debt is both legal and potentially disastrous unless it is part of a coherent investment strategy. The strategy is no business of UEFA's and I do not criticise Abramovitch for spending his own money on Chelsea. What I do criticise him for is hypocrisy, for spending a fortune and then rallying to Platini's plans to control spending because he thought it would prevent City competing. I believe the first time Chelsea made a profit wasduring the first accounting period for FFP! The second thing I criticise him for is his cynicism. He is no better, and may be a good deal worse, than those at Leeds and Portsmouth, who ruined the clubs by borrowing rather than investing. Abramovitch has given Chelsea no choice. The club has been financed through interest free loans. There is, I believe no time limit for repayment apart from repayment in full within 180 days of him leaving the club, but the club still owes him well over £1 billion. It is clear Chelsea will never be able to repay this but if he does ever want out Chelsea would have no choice but to sell the ground and any other assets they have, including the squad. I don't think regulation by UEFA could do anything to protect Chelsea from Abramovitch because football, like any other economic activity is already regulated by the law and quite clearly FFP hasn't helped protect Chelsea at all. As PB has explained to us in considerable detail and on many occasions, FFP actually encourages debt and, just like United, Barcelona etc etc etc Chelsea's debt has increased since FFP was introduced. The only hope, in my eyes, to encourage more rational financial management in football is not through any ban on debt, through which investment for many clubs (eg Spurs and their new ground) would be impossible) or through controls on spending, which effectively dictates a club's investment policies to it, but by deterring the cowboys (not only the American ones!) from buying clubs and encouraging owners of sound and sensible judgement allied to high level management skills to come in. This may need the ending of the obsession with CL and of avoiding relegation, both for financial reasons, but it means much greater attention to who exactly is a "fit and proper person". People may argue that it's okay for a City fan to argue this but such owners do exist and I have argued before that Gibson at Middlesborough is a good example. The trouble is that his job is made impossible by unscrupulous owners with their sky high directors' fees, dodgy sponsorship deals and so on.

Not saying anything above is right or wrong but did not Abramovitch try blackmailing the Chelsea fans into selling their shares in the ground a couple of years ago?

 

[franksinatra]

I see Martin Samuel’s piled in... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...TIN-SAMUEL-FA-not-allow-Cup-squeezed-out.html

What a fantastic journalist this guy is. Nail on the head everytime.

 

[Prophet of Doom]

When Platini suggested that regulation should tackle the problem of debt members of the G 14 threatened a breakaway lague AND legal action. I have never concealed my belief that financing a club through debt is both legal and potentially disastrous unless it is part of a coherent investment strategy. The strategy is no business of UEFA's and I do not criticise Abramovitch for spending his own money on Chelsea. What I do criticise him for is hypocrisy, for spending a fortune and then rallying to Platini's plans to control spending because he thought it would prevent City competing. I believe the first time Chelsea made a profit wasduring the first accounting period for FFP! The second thing I criticise him for is his cynicism. He is no better, and may be a good deal worse, than those at Leeds and Portsmouth, who ruined the clubs by borrowing rather than investing. Abramovitch has given Chelsea no choice. The club has been financed through interest free loans. There is, I believe no time limit for repayment apart from repayment in full within 180 days of him leaving the club, but the club still owes him well over £1 billion. It is clear Chelsea will never be able to repay this but if he does ever want out Chelsea would have no choice but to sell the ground and any other assets they have, including the squad. I don't think regulation by UEFA could do anything to protect Chelsea from Abramovitch because football, like any other economic activity is already regulated by the law and quite clearly FFP hasn't helped protect Chelsea at all. As PB has explained to us in considerable detail and on many occasions, FFP actually encourages debt and, just like United, Barcelona etc etc etc Chelsea's debt has increased since FFP was introduced. The only hope, in my eyes, to encourage more rational financial management in football is not through any ban on debt, through which investment for many clubs (eg Spurs and their new ground) would be impossible) or through controls on spending, which effectively dictates a club's investment policies to it, but by deterring the cowboys (not only the American ones!) from buying clubs and encouraging owners of sound and sensible judgement allied to high level management skills to come in. This may need the ending of the obsession with CL and of avoiding relegation, both for financial reasons, but it means much greater attention to who exactly is a "fit and proper person". People may argue that it's okay for a City fan to argue this but such owners do exist and I have argued before that Gibson at Middlesborough is a good example. The trouble is that his job is made impossible by unscrupulous owners with their sky high directors' fees, dodgy sponsorship deals and so on.

Middlesbrough have debts of £105m to Steve Gibson. No idea why you think they are the the epitome of a well run club ???

In the days before FFP they were paying ridiculous wages they couldn't afford on Boksic and Ravanelli etc then started crying when their cash ran out and foreign ownership arrived.

Google the many interviews Boro Exec Keith Lamb gave at the time of the ADUG takeover and I find it similar sour grapes to Chelsea making an about turn and supporting FFP when other teams started spending big.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Much to agree with here. However, I would not have a problem with sensible regulation of debt which would prevent another Leeds, Portsmouth, or the possible collapse of Chelsea. I would tie a maximum debt to a multiple of turnover (perhaps 1.5) and outlaw borrowings which included onerous pay back terms, e.g. short notice. See PB's comment on NFL regs. Similarly, I would ban owners from selling the ground to themselves or their companies (Brighton, Luton, Bury(?)) or holding a mortgage thereon.

Unfortunately I don't believe you can do this. The G 14 were on solid ground when they threatened Platini with legal action to prevent action on debt because debt is seen as an acceptable, indeed in many cases the only way, of financing investment and if you introduce a limit on debt tied to turn over you make the same mistake that FFP makes by limiting spending to revenue. In fact, you would take the wealth of the owners out of the equation straight away, which would have meant that in 2008 City would have had the wealthiest owner in world football but only been able to borrow 1.5 times very little! On the other hand United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Barcelona, Real etc etc etc .... while Wigan, Watford, Wolves etc etc etc ? Debt control would have the same devastating effect on competitive balance as FFP. What football requires more than ever is investment not regulation which is vulnerable to endless legal challenge, but it has to be real, planned investment.

On the question of the NFL I'm not too well informed, but instinctively I distrust professional American sport. It concerns me that setting up an NFL franchise is very expensive and few cities seem to have more than one team, indeed some teams have the monopoly of an entire state so the kind o rivalry we get in England isn't actually encouraged or welcomed. Most of the Americans I know - and they're not enough to form a valid opinion sample - watch college football out of preference because of their distaste for the way the sport favours corporatism. And then there's the entire cultural background of the NFL, most notably the draft system which does not and cannot exist here. For better and worse players are assets and we have a transfer market and youth academies here to deal with "distribution", which means they are a major item in a club's financial affairs. Controls on debt or spending mean that the big boys control distribution ever more firmly, but the draft system means that no one of the super rich owners feels hard done by - when they choose their all AMERICAN boys. PL owners would not wish to be limited to English players.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

I would go for some sort of wages to turnover cap along with a percentage increase cap against TV revenue increases. Clubs like Huddersfield that come up and have the vast majority of their commercial income as TV money can't afford the wage bill if they go back down, so it needs to be restricted so they are sustainable when they go down. I would get rid of losses as a metric but stipulate the owner has to introduce funds to cover them so a club is at net nil losses over a 5 year period.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Not saying anything above is right or wrong but did not Abramovitch try blackmailing the Chelsea fans into selling their shares in the ground a couple of years ago?

It does ring a bell and I tend not to remember detail of other clubs but form an impression and my impression of Abramovitch is that he is a dodgy Russian oligarch who has brought great success to the club but at a potentially disastrous cost. And FFP hasn't done anything to protect Chelsea's "financial stability" whatever UEFA says.

 

[BobbyBoy]

When Platini suggested that regulation should tackle the problem of debt members of the G 14 threatened a breakaway lague AND legal action. I have never concealed my belief that financing a club through debt is both legal and potentially disastrous unless it is part of a coherent investment strategy. The strategy is no business of UEFA's and I do not criticise Abramovitch for spending his own money on Chelsea. What I do criticise him for is hypocrisy, for spending a fortune and then rallying to Platini's plans to control spending because he thought it would prevent City competing. I believe the first time Chelsea made a profit wasduring the first accounting period for FFP! The second thing I criticise him for is his cynicism. He is no better, and may be a good deal worse, than those at Leeds and Portsmouth, who ruined the clubs by borrowing rather than investing. Abramovitch has given Chelsea no choice. The club has been financed through interest free loans. There is, I believe no time limit for repayment apart from repayment in full within 180 days of him leaving the club, but the club still owes him well over £1 billion. It is clear Chelsea will never be able to repay this but if he does ever want out Chelsea would have no choice but to sell the ground and any other assets they have, including the squad. I don't think regulation by UEFA could do anything to protect Chelsea from Abramovitch because football, like any other economic activity is already regulated by the law and quite clearly FFP hasn't helped protect Chelsea at all. As PB has explained to us in considerable detail and on many occasions, FFP actually encourages debt and, just like United, Barcelona etc etc etc Chelsea's debt has increased since FFP was introduced. The only hope, in my eyes, to encourage more rational financial management in football is not through any ban on debt, through which investment for many clubs (eg Spurs and their new ground) would be impossible) or through controls on spending, which effectively dictates a club's investment policies to it, but by deterring the cowboys (not only the American ones!) from buying clubs and encouraging owners of sound and sensible judgement allied to high level management skills to come in. This may need the ending of the obsession with CL and of avoiding relegation, both for financial reasons, but it means much greater attention to who exactly is a "fit and proper person". People may argue that it's okay for a City fan to argue this but such owners do exist and I have argued before that Gibson at Middlesborough is a good example. The trouble is that his job is made impossible by unscrupulous owners with their sky high directors' fees, dodgy sponsorship deals and so on.

Thanks for the reply but I'm not sure you have answered my question. In regards Abramovich's hypocrisy or otherwise I don't think that's relevant. My personal opinion is Chelsea were never more than an advised financial transaction that gave him something to do on a Saturday. He handed over control with instructions to make him money, hypocrisy doesn't come into it, its Bruce Buck making decisions he feels are best for Chelsea at any given time.

My original point was Abramovich turned massive losses into an interest free loans, FFP as is wouldn't allow him do that anymore, not if they wanted to compete in European competition anyway. Surely you can acknowledge that's a good thing? Your suggestion that everyone finds a Gibson or Mansour is miles off the mark, every con artist and crook that has brought clubs over the years have made the promises that the sun shines out of their arse. I could stay here typing dodgy owners until it gets dark, you would be scraping around the bottom of the barrels within 2 minutes trying to name ones that for your description.

On a side note Chelsea can't sell their ground, although they own it they don't own the turnstiles, a fan group owns them and has repeatedly refused to sell.

 

[Chi-town blues]

As Martin Samuel said: “He wasn’t a professor, far less an economic intellect — just a football manager with a grudge”.

i fucking can’t stand that hypocrite whinny cvnt .

 

[paulchapo]

i fucking can’t stand that hypocrite whinny cvnt .

Me too. He was one of the most vicious at calling for us to be punished and banned. I don't get the love in for this arsehole at all. Sure his teams did on the whole play good football but he was a terrible ungracious loser, he never admitted he saw his side do anything wrong while whining to all and sundry about anything another side did they he considered not fair. An utter wanker.

 

[Newman Noggs]

I suppose a cap on debt is needed or indicated as financially safe but it does show how saying that if United can service their debt it is financially sound may have a limit?

And what no-one mentions is that debt can only be serviced if it correlates to income. United's ability to service its debt is predicated on its previously guaranteed CL income. Clearly a proper test would be whether a club has a level of debt that can be serviced without CL money. That is why they, UEFA and the Premier League are absolutely committed to ensuring that, one way or another, they will be in it. And they will.