sir baconface
Well-Known Member
BluessinceHydeRoad said:The proposals put forward by Manchester United are so cynical that the people who should really be manning the barricades to protest are those genuine, honest and decent fans of Manchester United – maybe they are protesting, but are obviously so few in number that we can't hear them! If spending were the problem, then it is obvious that Sheikh Mansour's spending is not a problem to Manchester City, since he simply invests the money in the club as investment/equity and, actually, increases the value of the club at the same time. If David Gill or John W Henry was genuinely concerned about the threat to clubs by excessive spending they would, as has been pointed out on this thread many times, simply insist that owners put in money as an investment, not as an interest free loan. Results on the pitch, however, show that Manchester City's spending is quite clearly a problem, and a growing problem at that, to Manchester United. So, some way of stopping City spending must be found.
The way is to stop clubs “living beyond their means”. This appears to be one of those wonderful phrases like being in favour of all things bright and beautiful, but when we identify what those “means” are to be we begin to glimpse the dishonesty yet again. All those revenue streams developed by Manchester United over the last 25 years are to be permissible – increased ticket prices, TV income, sponsorship and any that I've missed. The only one which is not to be tolerated is the one used by that club on 4 separate occasions between the appointment of Ferguson in 1986 and the purchase of their first PL title in 1993 – you've guessed it, the injection of cash by the owners, in the form of rights issues and a flotation on the stock exchange.
The interesting thing is that the regulations put in place in the 19th century to make sure the football league remained competitive restricted or did not allow any of these revenue streams, apart from money put in by the shareholders! Sponsorship was not allowed until the 1980s and TV income was insignificant until the advent of Sky. Very interestingly, the regulations were much more concerned to stop shareholders taking money OUT of their clubs rather than putting it in. Restrictions were placed on dividends to shareholders and on salaries paid to directors (and players, by means of the maximum wage) and the like. Manchester United has done more than any other club to consign these regulations to the bin. They were the club which announced in the early 1960s that it would pay its players more than the maximum wage, they were second after Spurs to announce it would exploit the technicality of a holding company to float on the stock exchange and pay directors and so on. They were the club pressing to change the regulations so that they could keep all gate receipts from league games at OT. They pushed for the redistribution of TV income so that the PL kept virtually the whole lot. And most shamefully, given their new concern to save other clubs, they announced that it was no concern of theirs if other clubs went to the wall.
We all know what has changed their attitude. Their owners don't put money in like ours: their owners take it out, big style. And they want to keep coming back for more. And more. They want to subsidise their other businesses, which, funnily enough, are “living beyond their means”, with money which fans hoped was going to Manchester United! If they can just get these regulations into force, the Glazers won't have to spend much at all (or so they think) to keep United at the top, the money will roll in – they will NEVER have to pay the debt off and they'll be far more money to bleed out of the club, for whatever reason they need. Supporters of Manchester United who believe that their club has a cash flow problem ONLY until the Glazers can pay off the debt, don't recognise the animal they're landed with! The Glazers will bleed United dry for as long as they possibly can.
We face a future of decreasing popularity of the PL brand, lower wages, bleeding of players abroad and all manner of disastrous consequences - all to feather the Glazers' nest if we are stupid enough to let them foist these regulations on the PL.
Well put. Ironic that these regs are about restricting what owners put in rather than what they take out.