Found a good report in the press today regarding FFP an biased it is towards the establishment cartel
What with Chelsea having little sniping remarks as well, I can't see FFP standing up for much longer
The below came from <a class="postlink" href="http://www.sport.co.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">www.sport.co.uk</a> and has ben written by a united fan
Hands up if you've ever heard Manchester City or Chelsea being branded as ‘oil clubs’, who’s success is entirely down to the billions put in by owners to force them up the table. I know everyone has, and bar City or Chelsea supporters, you've probably used that to attack those clubs. But if you believe that the great problem in the game today is this kind of investment, then you’re dead wrong, and you should be glad you didn't create policies to stop this, or you’re Michel Platini, in which case not only are you dead wrong, but you should also be ashamed of create policies that stop this.
A few years ago UEFA introduced Financial Fair Play, or FFP, a law claiming to bring fairness and fiscal responsibility to clubs, but in reality handing the biggest clubs what billion dollar corporations always want, laws that prevent competition. Platini’s law states that clubs cannot spend more than they make from club-based income, which is ridiculous because individual clubs has vastly different incomes and exist in countries with different tax codes. The law basically legislates what clubs are allowed to spend. Manchester United, for instance, makes around £450m a year, while Manchester City make closer to £270m. So according to this law, United are allowed to spend twice as much as City, despite the fact that they have £380m more debt. Last summer City were fined by UEFA and prohibited from spending in excess of £49m net this year, which has assisted in helping Chelsea win the league by choking their spending. I agree, though, that some of it is City’s own poor transfer policy. But think about it for a moment. This summer Manchester City can spend only £49m net, even though they have the money lying around and no debt. This is the effect of the law, so that United can spend £150m again and continue to leap in front of the line. With their growing incomes, United could keep spending this kind of cash forever, while others cannot, and eventually United will also be fixed at the top, because as they keep winning, their income will continue to disproportionately rise to everyone else’s, pummelling the competition. But you must be thinking, what about the fact that United’s money is club earned, and City’s isn't?
Well, United themselves benefited from the massive investments by Martin Edwards in the 80's, and James Gibson during the depression. Arsenal too in the past have received vast amounts of money from owners, which helped them keep up with United in the nineties. My point is essentially that all big clubs have this kind of help. Real Madrid were aided by General Franco and the club’s president Santiago Bernebeau in the Fifties, and that’s why they eventually became a behemoth. Why shouldn't Manchester City or Paris Saint-Germain have this opportunity? Does time stop today?
Owner investment is a normal thing, which is needed at first. City made a £197m loss a couple of years ago, convincing everybody that their model was wrong. Well, last season the loss was just £23m, nowhere near that. City now make more money from football related work than Arsenal or Liverpool, and if Abu Dhabi’s government suddenly went bankrupt then they would still be able to compete with the big clubs, without being artificially propped up. And frankly, which is worse- City’s owners spending billions to build a great team, expanding the stadium and a new training ground, or Arsenal’s sitting on their cash as the team stagnates and the fans pay record prices? City have built a massive empire of a training ground, they’ve slowly grown more responsible in paying for players, and are financially perfect. Clubs like Leeds United and Portsmouth don’t collapse because they spend too much, they collapse because the money is in the form of loans from the owner, which he eventually wants back. Neither City nor Chelsea have done that.
Besides, imagine how awful football would be without these owners. Manchester United and Arsenal would dominate the league, ruining the fantastic competition we love so much by eliminating the two clubs that this decade have made it interesting by challenging United. PSG wouldn't be around to go up the table, and establishment clubs like United, Arsenal and Bayern would continue to win every season. Frankly what distinguishes England from Spain and Germany is that people came in and invested in other teams, creating genuine challengers. The dream that owners would help out your own small town club and take it to the top has always existed, but now Platini has successfully stopped it. City have an ageing squad they cannot replace easily, when United had that problem a year ago they could.
One thing I do believe is that there should be rules about fiscal responsibility. But they should be rules about debt, about how the clubs would deal with worst case scenarios. That would make clubs safer. There should be rules on whether owners are fit and proper, that they will run the club intelligently. However, the most important is in having laws that spread money more evenly, forcing top clubs like United to share more of it with the rest (which I will say, they already do for TV money, but not other commercial revenue) like the NFL does. There has to be some inequality as reward for success, but it should be cut by also spreading Champions League revenue, so that countries with single representatives don’t end up becoming one club shows (Greece- Olympiacos and Switzerland- Basel comes to mind). Until rules are in place to spread money equally so nobody needs a billionaire owner, people need to shut up and accept that Sheikh Mansour and Roman Abrahamovich have done a service to the game, while the owners at Man United and Arsenal continue to steal from it.
Oh, and I’m a Manchester United supporter.
Read more at <a class="postlink" href="http://www.sport.co.uk/football/owner-investment-at-clubs-like-city-and-chelsea-isnt-evil/5996785/#HIoLjrKqVgOu1fB8.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sport.co.uk/football/owner-i ... gOu1fB8.99</a>
