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

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

UEFA has one language, and it's universal...

££££

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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."

I wonder.......

 

[FanchesterCity]

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.

I completely agree. He espouses trying to stop clubs going out of business, but I don't believe those clubs were ever consulted. As you say, it's all about Champions League.
None of the elite have been in danger of going out of business. Making huge losses yes, but in danger of going under? no, not really, so what was he protecting... their futures, or their profits? I suggest the latter.

And as you say, Chelsea haven't bought up all the best in the world. For that matter neither have City or PSG. We (arguably) now have some of the best players in the world, but none were considered the best when we bought them. Even Aguero was considered a great player, but his reputation's soared at City. We have never bought a recognised world class player (at the time of buying). The big boys have, and they've bought them aplenty.

The truth is, Chelsea and City, and to a lesser extent PSG have simply demonstrated what we always knew - throw enough money at sport, and you'll get some success. You can't guarantee the level of success, but you can be pretty sure the odds will massively tip in your favour. We all know this, and in fairness it's true that City have bought their success. I don't think any credible and fair City can deny it. What we are argue is that money played a huge part in other clubs success over the years. Not in every single case, of course not, but generally speaking, money has played a huge part.

Once that's agreed, the argument seems to twist into the legitimacy of the money spent / earned. All of a sudden it's ok to buy success if your money arrived via path A, but not so if it arrived via path B. Unfortunately for UEFA, money is arriving at the top clubs through so many different paths, they can no longer block a route to the likes of City without blocking a route to the established elite, even though they've had a try with FFP.

City are actually an example that completely contradicts Platini's assertion that investors won't come without FFP. Our owners have repeatedly stressed how urgently they needed to invest BEFORE FFP came into play. Had it already been in place, their interest would have been severely curtailed.

As I said before, I don't doubt some investors want FFP and some don't. It's two sides of a fence. It's not UEFA's place to be deciding which businesses win and which lose. A free market will decide that for itself, and if not, the law makers will intervene. UEFA is a sporting body, not a law making one. It should be reminded of this by the ACTUAL law makers.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

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?

Fanchester, I enjoy your posts and many of your arguments. However, I think your are underplaying the impact of Abramovich when he arrived in July 2003. His spend was enormous relative to what had been seen before, there was almost an immediate impact in terms of success on the pitch both domestically and in Europe.

In 2003/2004 Chelsea's net spend was a huge c£150 million and in the 3 seasons 2003/2004 to 2005/2006 total net spend was approaching £300 million. To put that into perspective the cumulative net spend for the "big" clubs at the time for the 5 seasons before including 2003/2004 was:

United - £80 million
Newcastle £50 million
Liverpool £50 million
Arsenal £30 million.

As they were moving up from a higher starting point than City, their success was immediate and they did, for a couple of seasons at least, completely dominate the domestic game.

in 2003/2004 2nd in the league and Semi-Finals of the Champions League
2004/2005 1st in the league with a record tally of 95 points and Semi Finals of Champions League
2005/2006 1st in the League with 91 points ( a total United have never bettered) and knocked out by Barcelona in R16 of Champions League.

Of course everyone buys success in various degrees but Abramovich's spend was fooking huge and unprecedented and the shock waves and fear with the "elite" was staggering.

 

[Marvin]

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?

Fanchester, I enjoy your posts and many of your arguments. However, I think your are underplaying the impact of Abramovich when he arrived in July 2003. His spend was enormous relative to what had been seen before, there was almost an immediate impact in terms of success on the pitch both domestically and in Europe.

In 2003/2004 Chelsea's net spend was a huge c£150 million and in the 3 seasons 2003/2004 to 2005/2006 total net spend was approaching £300 million. To put that into perspective the cumulative net spend for the "big" clubs at the time for the 5 seasons before including 2003/2004 was:

United - £80 million
Newcastle £50 million
Liverpool £50 million
Arsenal £30 million.

As they were moving up from a higher starting point than City, their success was immediate and they did, for a couple of seasons at least, completely dominate the domestic game.

in 2003/2004 2nd in the league and Semi-Finals of the Champions League
2004/2005 1st in the league with a record tally of 95 points and Semi Finals of Champions League
2005/2006 1st in the League with 91 points ( a total United have never bettered) and knocked out by Barcelona in R16 of Champions League.

Of course everyone buys success in various degrees but Abramovich's spend was fooking huge and unprecedented and the shock waves and fear with the "elite" was staggering.

Fergsuson said that when Abramovic took over there was nothing Utd could do. At the time they did not have the financial power to go head to head with them - no one did.

 

[Bluewonder]

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?

Fanchester, I enjoy your posts and many of your arguments. However, I think your are underplaying the impact of Abramovich when he arrived in July 2003. His spend was enormous relative to what had been seen before, there was almost an immediate impact in terms of success on the pitch both domestically and in Europe.

In 2003/2004 Chelsea's net spend was a huge c£150 million and in the 3 seasons 2003/2004 to 2005/2006 total net spend was approaching £300 million. To put that into perspective the cumulative net spend for the "big" clubs at the time for the 5 seasons before including 2003/2004 was:

United - £80 million
Newcastle £50 million
Liverpool £50 million
Arsenal £30 million.

As they were moving up from a higher starting point than City, their success was immediate and they did, for a couple of seasons at least, completely dominate the domestic game.

in 2003/2004 2nd in the league and Semi-Finals of the Champions League
2004/2005 1st in the league with a record tally of 95 points and Semi Finals of Champions League
2005/2006 1st in the League with 91 points ( a total United have never bettered) and knocked out by Barcelona in R16 of Champions League.

Of course everyone buys success in various degrees but Abramovich's spend was fooking huge and unprecedented and the shock waves and fear with the "elite" was staggering.

Fergsuson said that when Abramovic took over there was nothing Utd could do. At the time they did not have the financial power to go head to head with them - no one did.

That sounds like what the other 19 PL clubs could've said about Ferguson's Utd from '86 until Abramovich arrived.

 

[fbloke]

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.

UEFA consulted (on behalf of ALL clubs) the ECA and enabled that organisation to tailor FFP.

As i've said previously and many times (no doubt boring people too) to empower the ECA empowered the 'cartel' adn even extended the number of clubs who could be included in that description.

 

[FanchesterCity]

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?

Fanchester, I enjoy your posts and many of your arguments. However, I think your are underplaying the impact of Abramovich when he arrived in July 2003. His spend was enormous relative to what had been seen before, there was almost an immediate impact in terms of success on the pitch both domestically and in Europe.

In 2003/2004 Chelsea's net spend was a huge c£150 million and in the 3 seasons 2003/2004 to 2005/2006 total net spend was approaching £300 million. To put that into perspective the cumulative net spend for the "big" clubs at the time for the 5 seasons before including 2003/2004 was:

United - £80 million
Newcastle £50 million
Liverpool £50 million
Arsenal £30 million.

As they were moving up from a higher starting point than City, their success was immediate and they did, for a couple of seasons at least, completely dominate the domestic game.

in 2003/2004 2nd in the league and Semi-Finals of the Champions League
2004/2005 1st in the league with a record tally of 95 points and Semi Finals of Champions League
2005/2006 1st in the League with 91 points ( a total United have never bettered) and knocked out by Barcelona in R16 of Champions League.

Of course everyone buys success in various degrees but Abramovich's spend was fooking huge and unprecedented and the shock waves and fear with the "elite" was staggering.

I have to disagree...

Chelsea had already won a couple of FA cups and a league cup (I think) prior to Abramovich, in part due to Harding's investment in them. That's not to say that Abramovich didn't spend a fortune, that's not in question, but my point is that it DIDN'T change the world did it? it's got them three titles in 12 years, and a CL. That's hardly dominance.
Yes the money talked, but at the same time Arsenal were also breaking records with their Invincibles - which helps to support the claim that you can still have competition without spending anywhere near as much as the big spenders. Chelsea bought a fine team, but not at the exclusion of other clubs being able to develop their own fine teams.
He took an 'decent' club and made them a very successful one, much like Mansour has done at City so far, but it's too early to know if we will dominate or not. Liverpool dominated. United dominated, but Chelsea never really did. Had it not been for United, they may well have done so, but that's ifs and buts.

The staggering amounts I agree with, they were staggering, but that's not my point. Chelsea didn't go on to change the world. So by the time the next 'Chelsea' arrived (Man City), there had already been a precedent to show that any feared effects where largely unfounded. All that happened was that Chelsea bought themselves into the top flight, but didn't ruin football as a result.
Does it matter if they spent 300 million or 3 billions? the money all went back into the game one way or another - the question isn't about the amount spent, but the effect (positive or negative) that level of spending has on competition. To my mind, it's not changed much. Our domestic league is still between two favourites, with 2 or 3 'outsiders' (much as it's been since way before Abramovic). The Champions League is much the same too. I've no idea who will win it, but can guess it'll be one of a group of about 6 clubs only. The specific teams have changed over the years, but the essential bredth of competition hasn't altered. At least not in my opinion.

Given that, why would Manchester City's new money be any different than the Chelsea experience?

I can accept that at the time Abramovich started spending, it probably worried people, and yet nobody put FFP into place then. Every other club in the world at that time could have chosen not to pay the prices that Chelsea did and let them get on with it. After all, they couldn't swallow up ALL the players in the world could they? and they were sill a bit of an experiment rather than a genuine elite club back then so still had to face the battle City did in attracting top players (no matter what price they paid).
So what really happened? the clubs pretty much carried on as they always had done. They carried on spending of their own volition, but because Chelsea forced their hand. It's just wrong (in my opinion) to claim Chelsea were the reason some clubs were losing 100 million a season. Serie A had been overspending since the 80s.

So 10 years after the Chelsea experience, FFP started to come into being. By that stage there was already plenty of evidence to show that MASSIVE investment in a club didn't massively distort a league, or ruin competition in Europe, nor did it stop top players going to Spain, Germany or Italy. It DID buy some success - which was hardly a surprise, but not as much as people had expected.
And almost as if by blueprint, we're having about the same level of success Chelsea had. Very good (by our standards), but we still only just scraped two league titles and haven't been particularly impressive in Europe, so I can't see a great deal of evidence to suggest we ruin competition.

I honestly do not believe Chelsea affected most clubs. They (arguably) put a couple of clubs noses out of joint, but for the vast majority of clubs, they made no difference - it was just another club vying with United - something most clubs stood no chance of being able to do.
Therefore, the only impact would be on a couple of clubs, not the majority.

Like I said, I'm not denying their spending bought them success (much like us), nor am I denying it took staggering amounts to do so.... I'm arguing that they haven't taken over the world, they've not grabbed all the world's best players, and therefore it weakens any argument that a sugar daddy club might ruin competition. Moreover, given there are now multiple 'sugar daddy' clubs, by definition, it's even less likely that one can dominate. It also means we are likely to nudge some clubs out of the limelight. But the way Platini's arguing, he'd rather the 'competition' be amongst the same set of clubs every time based on some historical prestige or 'revenue generation' capability - neither of which are any more sporting than a lottery winner like City.

 

[Helmet Cole]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It's payback time. Platini/UEFA are just protecting the G14 in return for them not binning CL and forming their own cartel/competition/tv deals a few years ago.

 

[aguero93:20]

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?

Fanchester, I enjoy your posts and many of your arguments. However, I think your are underplaying the impact of Abramovich when he arrived in July 2003. His spend was enormous relative to what had been seen before, there was almost an immediate impact in terms of success on the pitch both domestically and in Europe.

In 2003/2004 Chelsea's net spend was a huge c£150 million and in the 3 seasons 2003/2004 to 2005/2006 total net spend was approaching £300 million. To put that into perspective the cumulative net spend for the "big" clubs at the time for the 5 seasons before including 2003/2004 was:

United - £80 million
Newcastle £50 million
Liverpool £50 million
Arsenal £30 million.

As they were moving up from a higher starting point than City, their success was immediate and they did, for a couple of seasons at least, completely dominate the domestic game.

in 2003/2004 2nd in the league and Semi-Finals of the Champions League
2004/2005 1st in the league with a record tally of 95 points and Semi Finals of Champions League
2005/2006 1st in the League with 91 points ( a total United have never bettered) and knocked out by Barcelona in R16 of Champions League.

Of course everyone buys success in various degrees but Abramovich's spend was fooking huge and unprecedented and the shock waves and fear with the "elite" was staggering.

Fergsuson said that when Abramovic took over there was nothing Utd could do. At the time they did not have the financial power to go head to head with them - no one did.

Excuse me for a bit Marv, I've got tears in my eyes for the Rudolph **** here, imagine having 17 years of "financial doping" to help you and then someone took it away from you. My heart bleeds.