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

Centurions said:
The first 6 years of the PL that certainly wasn't true. 1998-2010 however was when the money really began to tell. United, Arsenal, Chelsea & Liverpool all filled the top 4 spots in every season bar seven. And it was only Leeds, Spurs, Newcastle & Everton that managed to break the monopoly, mostly taking 4th spot.
Click to expand...
Every season in 12 years bar 7,so 5 out of 12 seasons
 
BobbyBoy said:
I don't think they're should be limits on what someone can ask for but if the buyer is heavily penalised for going over a certain amount then eventually the selling clubs will reduce prices or better still keep the players and develop.

The 3 best teams in Europe over the last 3 years have transfer records of between £65m and 75m. If that's enough to win you the European Cup then surely that's an acceptable number to agree on and charge the so called luxury tax on anything beyond that? If an outside investor buys Newcastle and wants to buy Halaand then let him, he pays Dortmund the 200m and pays 130m extra in luxury taxes that goes into a fund to spread around European national associations. No restrictions against investment but it is heavily penalised if it gets out of hand.

Wages is a harder number to agree a starting point on but it needs sorting out.
Click to expand...

If the transfer money stays within the game then generally that will still be good for football, the wealth gets spread. If some clubs get their transfer policy wrong then they risk losing their 'status', they would have to accept becoming Aldi rather than Waitrose. Boo hoo, that's business. If Haaland or Coutinho are a flop at the buying club then it's still a success for the selling club.

Money being taken out of the game is the real problem, by owners such as the Glaziers, by Agents getting ridiculous fees and in some cases by hyper inflated player wages.

The 'investment' by the new breed of billionaires and consortiums is generally all aimed at making significant money from the game in the short term. Taking it out of the game.
City's model is slightly different in that the owner isn't taking any money out of the game. OK in his case he's rich enough that he doesn't need to but maybe that's the place to start. Legislate tighter the areas where the money disappears out of the game.

Remember that after the initial injection of money into the club pre FFP that the rest of City's wealth has come from good management, strong commercial deals and success breeding success.
City didn't have the hyper inflated deals that PSG got away with either, the Etihad sponsorship was value for money. Not the lowest possible but not the highest possible either.

Allow competition. Allow cash injections into clubs but limit them e.g £x in 'y' years, and make sure that proof of funds exist first, possibly some form of football escrow.
If a club can attract a rich owner/investor willing to stake their own money on building a successful football future then why shouldn't they be allowed to do it without others bleating that it's not fair.
Fair is a policy that gives any club the same opportunity of investment and building success, some will win, some will lose; that's business. Unfair is having rules that protect the established elite. Saying a Fulham or a Southampton can't invest money because they didn't have the turnover in previous years - which is what current FFP rules do.

FFP rules should be looking to the now and the future, not to the past.
 
SWP's back said:
The league table suggests it’s not that good, bud. It also depends what a club’s target is. Do they want to challenge consistently or do they want to make a good chunk of their income from player sales.
Click to expand...
It would be a better strategy with FFP gone, right now they can't fully reinvest the money from sales due to the three year rolling period.
 
Bandofblues said:
If the transfer money stays within the game then generally that will still be good for football, the wealth gets spread. If some clubs get their transfer policy wrong then they risk losing their 'status', they would have to accept becoming Aldi rather than Waitrose. Boo hoo, that's business. If Haaland or Coutinho are a flop at the buying club then it's still a success for the selling club.

Money being taken out of the game is the real problem, by owners such as the Glaziers, by Agents getting ridiculous fees and in some cases by hyper inflated player wages.

The 'investment' by the new breed of billionaires and consortiums is generally all aimed at making significant money from the game in the short term. Taking it out of the game.
City's model is slightly different in that the owner isn't taking any money out of the game. OK in his case he's rich enough that he doesn't need to but maybe that's the place to start. Legislate tighter the areas where the money disappears out of the game.

Remember that after the initial injection of money into the club pre FFP that the rest of City's wealth has come from good management, strong commercial deals and success breeding success.
City didn't have the hyper inflated deals that PSG got away with either, the Etihad sponsorship was value for money. Not the lowest possible but not the highest possible either.

Allow competition. Allow cash injections into clubs but limit them e.g £x in 'y' years, and make sure that proof of funds exist first, possibly some form of football escrow.
If a club can attract a rich owner/investor willing to stake their own money on building a successful football future then why shouldn't they be allowed to do it without others bleating that it's not fair.
Fair is a policy that gives any club the same opportunity of investment and building success, some will win, some will lose; that's business. Unfair is having rules that protect the established elite. Saying a Fulham or a Southampton can't invest money because they didn't have the turnover in previous years - which is what current FFP rules do.

FFP rules should be looking to the now and the future, not to the past.
Click to expand...
Problems again! "Money being taken out of the game is the real problem" is far too simplistic. If money doesn't go out of the game no investor will put their money in. This can be observed in every area of economic activity. It is not immoral, unethical or cheating to want a return on an investment. The problem can arise when more is going out than coming in but this is certainly not happening at Manchester United. It can be argued much more cogently that there are simply too many clubs (certainly in England) for the investment available. There were always more professional clubs in the Manchester area than in any other comparable area in Europe. Now there are two super clubs and a number of minnows in serious financial difficulties. FFP regulations, both domestic and European have done nothing to help and a great deal to damage these clubs. Regulation rarely helps because it tends to see money as the problem rather than as the solution. For UEFA and FFP money is the problem: for the Sheikh it is the answer. Yesterday we read a poster's comment that the championship was proof of the damage too much money in the game could do and today we have Bandofblues telling us to "Allow cash injections into clubs but limit them e.g £x in 'y' years, and make sure that proof of funds exist first". This is actually more restrictive than FFP. FFP does allow investment in stadia and "owners" can put 30 million euros in without proof that the funds exist. The trouble is that many clubs in the Manchester area do not attract sufficient revenue from the other sources acceptable to FFP to have any chances of balancing the books. Far from being able to build a new stadium they are forced to watch te one they've got become an even more dilapidated ruin. And Platini's answer that club's could rise to the top by building a better stadium has been shown to be the nonsense many always feared. No system of regulation can increase crowds, sponsorship or solve any of the problems facing football clubs. It seems inevitable that the football league will be rather leaner (and hopefully fitter) in a few years. If it is those clubs which are fitter will owe it to the work of their owners and chairmen. But again UEFA sees the owners (some at least) as the problem, even as an enemy. But only they can judge the level of investment required or possible, not a system which allows "£x in 'y' years" as long as "the money exists" while the club heads downhill to oblivion. Allowing clubs to run themselves and make their own decisions may only be worth two cheers but that's a damned site more than FFP and any other blanket system of regulation.
 
SWP's back said:
He chose Dortmund over any of the ‘super’ clubs for the fact that they’d always be a stepping stone and that they’d guarantee him first team minutes as the number one striker. We weren’t able to do that. Neither were United who went balls deep for him.

Top young players now use Dortmund as a 1-3 year finishing school. I’d hate that as a Dortmund fan tbh.
Click to expand...
You saying non of the top clubs could of swayed him. Its rather the top clubs playing the weight and see game. Bet their sorry now.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
Problems again! "Money being taken out of the game is the real problem" is far too simplistic. If money doesn't go out of the game no investor will put their money in. This can be observed in every area of economic activity. It is not immoral, unethical or cheating to want a return on an investment. The problem can arise when more is going out than coming in but this is certainly not happening at Manchester United. It can be argued much more cogently that there are simply too many clubs (certainly in England) for the investment available. There were always more professional clubs in the Manchester area than in any other comparable area in Europe. Now there are two super clubs and a number of minnows in serious financial difficulties. FFP regulations, both domestic and European have done nothing to help and a great deal to damage these clubs. Regulation rarely helps because it tends to see money as the problem rather than as the solution. For UEFA and FFP money is the problem: for the Sheikh it is the answer. Yesterday we read a poster's comment that the championship was proof of the damage too much money in the game could do and today we have Bandofblues telling us to "Allow cash injections into clubs but limit them e.g £x in 'y' years, and make sure that proof of funds exist first". This is actually more restrictive than FFP. FFP does allow investment in stadia and "owners" can put 30 million euros in without proof that the funds exist. The trouble is that many clubs in the Manchester area do not attract sufficient revenue from the other sources acceptable to FFP to have any chances of balancing the books. Far from being able to build a new stadium they are forced to watch te one they've got become an even more dilapidated ruin. And Platini's answer that club's could rise to the top by building a better stadium has been shown to be the nonsense many always feared. No system of regulation can increase crowds, sponsorship or solve any of the problems facing football clubs. It seems inevitable that the football league will be rather leaner (and hopefully fitter) in a few years. If it is those clubs which are fitter will owe it to the work of their owners and chairmen. But again UEFA sees the owners (some at least) as the problem, even as an enemy. But only they can judge the level of investment required or possible, not a system which allows "£x in 'y' years" as long as "the money exists" while the club heads downhill to oblivion. Allowing clubs to run themselves and make their own decisions may only be worth two cheers but that's a damned site more than FFP and any other blanket system of regulation.
Click to expand...
Of course everyone wants a return on their investment, I wasn't implying they didn't but as with all things there has to be a balance. 'Super agents' taking tens of millions on transfers isn't good for the game. Buying clubs by leveraging them with debts they are unlikely to ever pay off unless they win the lottery of the PL or CL isn't good for the game.

Not sure how allowing cash injections 'x in y years' is more restrictive than current FFP when FFP only looks at what you did in the past and not what you want to do in the future?
When talking about cash injections I was meaning allowing cash injections over and above anything else, not as the only means of revenue. The same way that the Sheik was able to do with City before FFP, the same way that owners have done for decades in years gone by.

£30m Euros doesn't buy a strikers left arm these days. Why not allow the likes of Newcastle to be taken over and have money pumped into them in order to transform the team, but don't allow it to be unlimited to the extent that the elite can simply ramp it up further and blow away everyone else. For example allow clubs up to £500m of direct additional investment in a four year period.
Infrastructure projects can be treated separately to the investment made in the team itself.
 
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.