City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Platini explained that FFP came as a result of complaints by Italian clubs, notably by Berlusconi and Morazzi, who were both losing 100 million euros a year and who complained that such losses were unsustainable. They argued that they could not compete with Abramovitch's Chelsae and that the money Abramovitch was putting in would mean that he simply bought all the best players in the world, so they asked UEFA "to make a rule" to stop him. There followed a year of meetings which decided on FFP and then clubs were given four years to break even. At the end of that period they only punished a small number of clubs "because everyone accepted FFP", and they didn't exclude anyone. He said that there may be measures to adapt (amenager) FFP but not to change it - the break even regulation "is a certainty, it is permanent."

Most of the questioning was in the context of French football, since it was a French channel. He was asked about the claim that FFP was unfair because it did nothing to deal with the debts of "Europe's traditional juggernauts" but he dismissed this (rather evasively) saying that debt is part of the balance sheet and if you pay your debts and balance your baudget you conform to FFP! The chairman of Lille argued that FFP didn't seem to apply to some clubs in Europe and that it would mean that French clubs couldn't compete, but Platini seemed to argue that French clubs didn't spend as much on buying players as elsewhere and that FFP would bring many more invstors into he game.. and then it moved on to PSG. Platini argued that PSG accepted FFP and that they would be able to compete with other European clubs - hadn't they just beaten Barcelona? Anyway they could grow their revenues with a new stadium... why was it that PSG's revenues in a city the size of Paris were only half of those og Bayern in a city of barely a million? PSG had problems managing revenue he said...

It was the usual interview, with interruptions which led the discussion off at a tangent, and there was a recording of the chairman of Lille who seemed critical of FFP but without enough to let us see why! Platini seemed rather evasive, but seemed to have no intention of changing anything substantial
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

BluessinceHydeRoad said:
Platini explained that FFP came as a result of complaints by Italian clubs, notably by Berlusconi and Morazzi, who were both losing 100 million euros a year and who complained that such losses were unsustainable. They argued that they could not compete with Abramovitch's Chelsae and that the money Abramovitch was putting in would mean that he simply bought all the best players in the world, so they asked UEFA "to make a rule" to stop him. There followed a year of meetings which decided on FFP and then clubs were given four years to break even. At the end of that period they only punished a small number of clubs "because everyone accepted FFP", and they didn't exclude anyone. He said that there may be measures to adapt (amenager) FFP but not to change it - the break even regulation "is a certainty, it is permanent."

Most of the questioning was in the context of French football, since it was a French channel. He was asked about the claim that FFP was unfair because it did nothing to deal with the debts of "Europe's traditional juggernauts" but he dismissed this (rather evasively) saying that debt is part of the balance sheet and if you pay your debts and balance your baudget you conform to FFP! The chairman of Lille argued that FFP didn't seem to apply to some clubs in Europe and that it would mean that French clubs couldn't compete, but Platini seemed to argue that French clubs didn't spend as much on buying players as elsewhere and that FFP would bring many more invstors into he game.. and then it moved on to PSG. Platini argued that PSG accepted FFP and that they would be able to compete with other European clubs - hadn't they just beaten Barcelona? Anyway they could grow their revenues with a new stadium... why was it that PSG's revenues in a city the size of Paris were only half of those og Bayern in a city of barely a million? PSG had problems managing revenue he said...

It was the usual interview, with interruptions which led the discussion off at a tangent, and there was a recording of the chairman of Lille who seemed critical of FFP but without enough to let us see why! Platini seemed rather evasive, but seemed to have no intention of changing anything substantial
Click to expand...

You know what else is part of the balance sheet you French twat, investment!
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Mancini Manus Domini said:
So Lionel Messi.

Has it been confirmed by anyone that Barcelona are unable to sell players as part of their transfer ban? The following statement doesn't make it clear to me:-
Fifa said in a statement: “FC Barcelona is to serve a transfer ban which will see the club prevented from registering any players at both national and international level for two complete and consecutive transfer periods, starting with the next registration period (January 2015).”
It just says registering, not selling.

If Messi and his father end up in a Spanish court then he may be motivated to ply his trade in the next best league in the world, in a country that would appreciate him. Should this possibility become real how well are we currently placed to make this happen? I guess FFP has scuppered any chances of it happening for us in January but could it be viable in the 2015 summer window?
Click to expand...
It has never, to my knowledge, been suggested that Barca cannot sell players during their transfer ban.

However if they cannot bring in replacements they are hardly likely to agree to any of their best in-contract players leaving while the embargo remains.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

I doubt he could handle a session in English. He seemed outwardly confident but some of his answers were rather evasive and in others he went off on tangents. His first answer, to why FFP had been brought in, could eventually prove disastrous for the regulations. He was asked to bring in "a rule" , by "all the clubs and especially all the investors", but especially by Berlusconi and Morazzi because they were losing 100 million euros a year , and they were saying that they couldn't afford this so "Do something." He then said that "this was in the wake of the money Abramovitch was putting in." He then said, "so there was an outcry from everyone, but especially in France to do something so that Mr Abramovitch can't put in so much money hecan buy all the best players in the world."

M. Dupont will, I think find that this is dynamite. Platini clearly believes that this is making a reasonable case out for FFP as a mechanism to ensure fair competition. The court may accept that these motives are quite laudable, but I doubt they will accept the legality of FFP. What becomes clear from this answer is that UEFA has never had any objection to very rich owners, nor to their NOT "breaking even". It appears that Mr Berlusconi or Mr Morazzi did not object to losing 100 million euros a year while it worked and they were winning champions leagues ant Italian titles. Nor, it appears, did any other club. What changed was that it blew up in their faces, or threatened to do so, because someone who could spend a great deal came along. What Platini admits is that FFP was directly aimed at Abramovitch, and it was aimed at stopping him investing in Chelsea, as later it was used against Manchester City to stop Sheikh Mansour investing to improve his club.

Now the functioning of the EU sees the protection of competition in quite different terms. No new regulation was needed to stop Berlusconi or Morazzi losing 100 million euros every year because no regulation forced them to do it in the first place. And no law stops Abramovitch investing what he likes. What Berlusconi and all the other investors wanted was to stop Chelsea spending by stopping Abramovitch providing the funds. European law actually sees Abramovitch's spending as increasing competition and the law sees investment as the way to more competition, greater choice and an improved service for the consumer. That's why it goes to such lengths to outlaw cartels trying to prevent investment. There might be nothing wrong with your aim Michel, but your methods are way off.

Surprisingly, Michel then went on to dismiss arguments that FFP would deter investment by arguing that, on the contrary, many English and American (note - not Russians or Arabs) investors would only invest in football if FFP obtained. He wasn't taken up on this at all, probably because it was a French interview. The American owners in English football don't seem to give FFP quite the image Michel wants for the consumers' brave new world: the Glazers who load their club with the biggest debt in football history, Stan "Prudence" Kroenke whose club charges the highest admission prices of any sporting organisation in the world, John W Henry and his Fenway group who intend to finance the redevelopment of Anfield through loans (ie load the club with debt) and have told fans not to expect anything as daft as lower ticket prices, but to expect higher prices to increase turnover (and profit). Oh and poor Randy Lerner - the one decent one of the bunch - who can't sell his club because FFP has made it unsaleable. Well, Michel, that's what the Yanks do - buy the shares, borrow to regenerate or build stadia for already successful clubs, load the debt onto the club, don't invest a penny of their own, charge the fans through the nose, and pick up the compulsory profits. Wonderful.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Staggeringly, when Abramovich arrived, Chelsea weren't much of a threat to the big guns. Sure, they threatened to do well in the PL, but there were a fair way short of winning CL.

Big clubs had already been spending a fortune, and can't blame Chelsea for their perils.

Even if Chelsea did inflate the market... it was one club. All the other clubs could have curtailed their spending to wait and see if Chelsea would become dominant or not (and they didn't, as it happens, they just became very good, but not dominant).

So, years later, Chelsea are being touted as the catalyst for the spending getting out of hand.... not the years of big spending prior to Abramovic?
And let us not forget the competition known as CL which CREATED a behemoth of a revenue generator - so much so that in encouraged clubs to spend a fortune to qualify for the competition.

UEFA really do take the biscuit with their complete denial that THEY contributed to the mess far more than any single club did.

I am 100% sure than those failing clubs would have failed with or without Chelsea, City, PSG et al. Italian football was blowing money sky high in the 80s, and let us not forget, they were also corrupting officials. Hardly the pattern of sound businesses.

I'm all for protecting clubs from themselves - because they DO need it.
I'm all for a fair governing body ensuring that the profits of football are shared sensibly and for the good of the game in general - not least, for the fans and grass roots, but at the same time, rewarding the very best players and clubs.
I'm even all for trying to even out the spending, so that rich clubs can't use their wealth to buy up all the best players (perhaps a spending cap)...

But UEFA don't have these goals at heart. They claim to have, but their actions clearly demonstrate otherwise. I have no faith in FIFA, none in UEFA and none in the FA, nor in the PFA. There's really very little hope for this game is there?
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

I can see why SOME investors wouldn't invest without FFP being in place. But which investors and which clubs?

If the investor is on the Abramovic, Mansour side of the fence, he wants to plough in money to catch the big boys.
If the investor wants to make money from an existing big boy, he doesn't want an upstart emerging that could put a dint in his plans.

UEFA appear to have chosen a stance, which in itself is influencing the market. Platini appears to have determined that one side of the fence holds the correct view, and the other side (City, Chelsea et al) must therefore be curtailed. This 'judgment' on his and UEFA's part is influencing the market.

For every owner who's bought a Liverpool (big club, big brand, and wanting to cash in on that brand, with the perceived perception of FFP), there's another investor who'd like to try and do something with Everton, or Villa, but now knows they can't (due to FFP being so prohibitive).

for over 100 years we've had wealthy owners in football, and we've seen clubs ride and falls, and in some cases cease to exist. Not a lot changed after Abramovic came along. Man United dominated (despite Chelsea's wealth). They won the CL once. Hardly a revolutionary change of the entire football landscape. And yes, Real Madrid are still breaking records for the world's most expensive players.

Not a lot changed Mr Platini, not a lot at all. If anything though, the occasional 'out of the blue' success story has gotten less frequent.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think one of the things which came out very strongly from the interview was that FFP is seen from the point of view of the champions league and the clubs participating in it. Platini's claim that all (=every single) owner and investor asked him to "do something" and agreed with FFP is clearly arrant nonsense. I wonder if Mansfield Town or Bolton Wanderers or even Wigan Athletic were ever consulted. They're actually clubs affected by the regulations both on a domestic and European level. Dave Whelan has actually spent a great deal to make Wigan a far better club than they wee when he bought it. The reality is, however, that most owners put money in simply to keep their club going by keeping the bank at bay. How are they going to break even now? Not by not buying Ronaldo! Not by not building a 60000 capacity stadium! Not by signing a sponsorship deal with Chevrolet! But by sacking staff and selling players. Oh and charging more to get in. Platini has a responsibility for these clubs as much as any other, but the only clubs he mentioned were AC and Inter Milan (only by referring to their owners), PSG, Bayern Munich and Manchester City. It kind of gives away his real concerns. Not a thought of the Dutch or Belgian leagues or any Balkan league or club. It's the CL crew he wants to protect.

But anyway this case will be decided on hard evidence, not Platini's factless, vague threats about what MIGHT happen. Chelsea have not bought all the best players in the world and they have not dominated football - in fact it's the same old crew who have continued to dominate. Nor have we seen ANY American or English investors come in because of FFP. We've heard that the Fenway Group would not have come in without it BUT they are categorically NOT investors since what appealed to them were he guaranteed profits without the need to invest a penny. They intend to "perpetuate the bad old days" of load debt onto the club and milk out the profits. The only club INVESTING for a sustainable future is....Manchester City. Abramovitch doesn't actually look that big a spender anymore and Sheikh Mansour sets records for value for money when compared with Manchester United, Real Madrid, Barcelona who are taking full advantage of the rigged market FFP provides them with. Not one of Platini's justifications for these manifestly unlawful and unfair regulations has shown the slightest sign of jumping the chasm from myth to reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.