Bizarre twist as FFP expert praises City

[ranxerox]

I think the origins of FFP emerged after the experience of Leeds and their disastrous financial plight. However, as a solution has been developed this has been hijacked by the European Elite and wealthiest clubs the Rags, Real, Barca & Bayern to maintain the status quo. FFP is not surprisingly supported by a raft of other clubs including Liverpool, AC Milan and Arsenal who are struggling to compete financially with not just the Elite but also these wealthy gatecrashers. PSG are also making a late challenge to gatecrash this group and will potentially be the last club to make the transition.

FFP will bring to the end clubs like City and Chelsea challenging the supremacy of the elite clubs, although it looks like both City and Chelsea will adjust to conform with FFP and potentially be joined by PSG if they can invest and financially restructure before FFP kicks in.

This is captured well by Martin Samuels article in the Daily Fail in April:



This is the last group of fans who can be lifted from mediocrity by the fairytale: the one where a very rich man flies in bearing gifts and transports a club to the heavens. And surveying the sheer pleasure that it brought one half of Manchester on Monday, we have to ask: how did football allow this to happen?

How did the sport permit a single man's idea of what is right and preferable to erase one of the most potent forces for good in the game? Money from outside, coming in, to make dreams come true. What on earth was wrong with that?

Forget Portsmouth, forget Leeds United, forget the financial disaster stories that are trotted out to make fans think like accountants and turn their fun, their weekend release, into an extension of mundane, recession-blighted existence.

This is not about spending money a club does not have, or ruinous owner loans that are given and then just as unthinkingly recalled. The focus here, specifically, is on the Abu Dhabi project and others like it, when a very rich man gives - without expectation of return - money to a football club to have a right old go.

Take City away and what would this season have brought? A 13th Premier League title for Manchester United. Unlucky for some; mainly those who seek variety. Here comes another one, just like the other one.

Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2138085/Sorry-Manchester-City-UEFA-glad-song-make-bitter--Martin-Samuel.html#ixzz25m1TqafU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... z25m1TqafU</a>

The fact is that FFP is flawed as it seeks to target one ownership model and remove it as an option for any other club. Whose to say that the Rags model where they are plunged into debt by their corporate owners forced to service this debt and then see the owners syphon off the profits year after year is Morrally more acceptable than the Rich owner investment model.

Madrid, Barca and Bayern would also suffer without huge investment from individuals at various stages to sustain their European dominance. The hypocrisy of clubs like Arsenal who without the invesment of their rich board member and daimond merchant Danny Fiszman wouldn't have won the doule in 1998 & 2002.

At least we can continue to challnge the elite clubs and along with Chelsea and PSG besat them at their own game.

Well said! The point I was trying to make but done so much better!

-- Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:22 am --

Not according to David Gold. He thinks 17 teams are up for it.

You're relying on David Gold?

No, I hope he's wrong but he was party t the meeting and you or I were not.

True he was but I don't think he is someone who is reliable when it comes to the truth about anything..

David Conn in the Guardian lists at least 5 clubs that aren't in favour of new regulations and Stoke is only talking about some sort of plan to limit salary increases to 10%

 

[flb]

Well said! The point I was trying to make but done so much better!

-- Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:22 am --



You're relying on David Gold?

No, I hope he's wrong but he was party t the meeting and you or I were not.

According to the Guardian at least 5 other clubs are against the so-called FFp regs:

"Other clubs, including Fulham, Everton, West Bromwich Albion, Newcastle and Tottenham Hotspur, are also understood to question whether clubs need new regulations, rather than being trusted to manage their own affairs."

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/06/premier-league-salary-cap?newsfeed=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... sfeed=true</a>

City need to lobby these clubs and others, eg Chelsea and QPR and defeat these anti-competitive proposals which wil only serve Utd, Arsenil, Livp'l and other owners like Whelan and Coates (Stoke) who don't want to invest.

I'd rather trust the Guardian (yes, even them) over David Gold, a man who wants to move his club against the wish of West Ham supporters. In fact I'd believe most people over David Gold.

Its funny how Chelsea seem to approve of FFP,like theyve been sitting at the top table for 20 years-the sooner we pull away from them in turnover and losses the better.

As for David Gold he should stick one of them "rabbit" things up his arse that he sells in his Soho shops.

 

[grunge]

I can see no evidence that the advent of FFP has influenced, let alone affected, City's spending in the slightest.

All in all an excellent post.

While I believe there has been a valid business plan all along I do believe our spending has been influenced by FFPR and its pending arrival, Im sure our spending was accelerated quite dramatically ( was it Cook that said we have done 10 years spending in 2 years? ) when FFPR firmed up. And its no surprise we have moved to a sell off the dead wood as a matter of urgency before signing new people the same year the monitoring started.

 

[Lord Blue]

I'm not worried about the Premier League introducing FFP.

If the top 4 clubs have to satisfy FFP for the Champions League, then we might as well have the rest of the Premier League satisying it too.

Although as i'm not interested i may have missed something obvious.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Sheikh Mansour has never claimed to be, and has never been, a “sugar daddy”. He has never set out to pour money endlessly into the club to maintain a position at the summit of the game. He has set out to equip the club to stand on its own two feet.

Excellent, excellent post. I've highlighted the bit that succintly describes what I & others believe but the mainstream media don't get. Sheikh Mansour has invested in the club as entrepreneurs do, in order to make an underperforming business perform better.

In 14 months time, when our 2012/13 accounts are produced and our wage bill is less than the UEFA recommended maximum ratio to turnover, it might start to dawn on people just what he has done for us.

I'm not sure how true this statement by BluesinceHydeRoad is. When the takeover first went through the gobby mouthpiece Sulamain Fahim was talking about endless spending and buying the best players in the world and dominating European football.

The initial reaction of the British media, wider football community, and many City fans was that it was tasteless, uncomfortable, and didn't reflect very well on Sheik Mansour and Abu Dhabi. The Sheik's advisors seemed to realise this very quickly, and appointed the more level headed, professional and charming figure of Khaldoon Al Mubarak as chairman, and voice of the club.

When all the formalities of the takeover has gone through some weeks later, there was clearly a more considered, level headed and respectful tone to the plans Khldoon and Sheik Mansour laid out on the City website and wider media. One of respecting the traditions of the club, investing in youth, continuing to support the community etc.

I think it's fantastic that they are taking this approach, and reflects very well on the club, the owners, and Abu Dhabi. However, I am unsure if it was their initial intention on the day we signed Robinho to approach this in a sustainable, investing in youth, complying with FFP way.

The club was clearly bought as a vehicle to market Abu Dhabi and generate as much positive exposure for the country as possible. Khaldoon has alluded to it himself, and Garry Cook even referred to Manchester City as a "Proxy brand of Abu Dhabi". Complying with FFP and making the club self sustainable is the best way to not upset the apple cart, and generate a positive image for Abu Dhabi.

If FFP did not exist, and there was no need to break even and be self sustaining, I would bet there would be continued heavy investment in the first team until we became European champions, as this would give the most exposure to Abu Dhabi, and would give Sheik Mansour the on field success he no doubt wants.

Sheik Mansour is the best owner in football, it is like a lifelong dream come true for me to be able to win trophies, and it largely down to his incredible investment. However, my opinion remains that he didn't initially buy the club because he saw City as a stand alone business that could be invested in, made self sustainable, and then sold on at a profit.

I think he saw taking a mid table Premier League club in the same city as one of the biggest clubs in the world, investing huge sums in it and winning trophies with it, he could gain more positive column inches, internet hits and TV minutes for Abu Dhabi than any other business.

It wasn't City as a company that he wanted to invest in, it was the exposure and profile City could generate for Abu Dhabi which was the motivating factor. And of course, I'm sure there is a big part of him that he loves football and wants his team to be the best. I hope we still will be European Champions one day, but there's no doubt in my mind that if FFP didn't exist we'd get there much quicker.

 

[Carlos The Jackal]

Sheikh Mansour has never claimed to be, and has never been, a “sugar daddy”. He has never set out to pour money endlessly into the club to maintain a position at the summit of the game. He has set out to equip the club to stand on its own two feet.

Excellent, excellent post. I've highlighted the bit that succintly describes what I & others believe but the mainstream media don't get. Sheikh Mansour has invested in the club as entrepreneurs do, in order to make an underperforming business perform better.

In 14 months time, when our 2012/13 accounts are produced and our wage bill is less than the UEFA recommended maximum ratio to turnover, it might start to dawn on people just what he has done for us.

I'm not sure how true this statement by BluesinceHydeRoad is. When the takeover first went through the gobby mouthpiece Sulamain Fahim was talking about endless spending and buying the best players in the world and dominating European football.

The initial reaction of the British media, wider football community, and many City fans was that it was tasteless, uncomfortable, and didn't reflect very well on Sheik Mansour and Abu Dhabi. The Sheik's advisors seemed to realise this very quickly, and appointed the more level headed, professional and charming figure of Khaldoon Al Mubarak as chairman, and voice of the club.

When all the formalities of the takeover has gone through some weeks later, there was clearly a more considered, level headed and respectful tone to the plans Khldoon and Sheik Mansour laid out on the City website and wider media. One of respecting the traditions of the club, investing in youth, continuing to support the community etc.

I think it's fantastic that they are taking this approach, and reflects very well on the club, the owners, and Abu Dhabi. However, I am unsure if it was their initial intention on the day we signed Robinho to approach this in a sustainable, investing in youth, complying with FFP way.

The club was clearly bought as a vehicle to market Abu Dhabi and generate as much positive exposure for the country as possible. Khaldoon has alluded to it himself, and Garry Cook even referred to Manchester City as a "Proxy brand of Abu Dhabi". Complying with FFP and making the club self sustainable is the best way to not upset the apple cart, and generate a positive image for Abu Dhabi.

If FFP did not exist, and there was no need to break even and be self sustaining, I would bet there would be continued heavy investment in the first team until we became European champions, as this would give the most exposure to Abu Dhabi, and would give Sheik Mansour the on field success he no doubt wants.

Sheik Mansour is the best owner in football, it is like a lifelong dream come true for me to be able to win trophies, and it largely down to his incredible investment. However, my opinion remains that he didn't initially buy the club because he saw City as a stand alone business that could be invested in, made self sustainable, and then sold on at a profit.

I think he saw taking a mid table Premier League club in the same city as one of the biggest clubs in the world, investing huge sums in it and winning trophies with it, he could gain more positive column inches, internet hits and TV minutes for Abu Dhabi than any other business.

It wasn't City as a company that he wanted to invest in, it was the exposure and profile City could generate for Abu Dhabi which was the motivating factor. And of course, I'm sure there is a big part of him that he loves football and wants his team to be the best. I hope we still will be European Champions one day, but there's no doubt in my mind that if FFP didn't exist we'd get there much quicker.

Cracking post chief, absolutely bang on as far as i am concerned.

 

[LoveCity]

Even if we were the biggest revenue making machine in football I'd be against FFP, it is a vile and transparent law with a blatant agenda to help maintain the status quo at the expense of any club given the chance of a dream via investment. I might be in favour of certain other financial rules that weren't so agenda-driven, like that Stoke idea to limit salary increases.

 

[jrb]

This is a great thread with some excellent and well tought out posts. Thank you all.

I know you all know, but I will reiterate it again.

We have no need to worry.

Platini, UEFA and Gill may slow us down, but they can't stop us.

Once the training complex is up and running, the stadium is expanded, and the commercial proposals surrounding the stadium are built and are generating an income, FFPR will be a distant memory.

Manchester thanks Sheikh Mansour.

-- Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:56 pm --

PS.

One thing often forgotten.

Who sanctioned the fit and proper takeovers of Pompey, etc?

The PL.

Exactly.

 

[Chi-town blues]

Where were these hypocrites when rags and rest of the so called big clubs were splashing cash ?now there is a new kid in town and the hypocrites cries for fair play. If it is really about fairness then we need to go back in time and review all the trophies won by these hypocrites and verify if it complies with the ffp or not.If not then take those hardware away from them which is never going to happen but that is an argument ffs

 

[JGL07]

I would have thought that the top four to five would be in in favour of FFP for the Premier League as would mean that all other clubs were subjected to the same rules as they already have to face (for European Competition).

The big losers would be those teams with a decent support base and history (Everton, Aston Villa, Newcastle, etc) as they would never be able to mount a serious and sustained challenge to the top teams even if they secured new owners who were prepared to invest to take them there.

It might appeal to the likes of Wigan and Norwich as it would impair the ability of the bigger Championship clubs (Sheffield Wednesday, Leeds, Forest) from spending big to gain promotion and stay up.

On the face of it it looks like restraint of trade and could be open to challenge in the courts.