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

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The reason that demands for financial regulation were made after Abramovitch arrived appears to be because he was held to be "inflating the transfer market". This seems to be not so much that he spent a great deal (though he did) but more that he paid far more for individual players than they were worth. The classic example was Essien who was on the verge of signing for Juventus for €15 million, but then went to Chelsea for €36 million! The reason was simple - Abramovitch wanted the best team in the world!

This was not, however, the first time the transfer market had been subjected to such turbulence, and it was not Chelsea who were responsible. In 2000 Real Madrid completed the infamous deal to sell their old training ground for some €480 million, at a time when their revenue was some €135 million for the year. With this money they bought Figo (€60 million) then Zidane (€76 million) and others - without protest, though the effects on the prices of other players were more "inflationary" than the purchase of Essien: Juventus spent the fee for Zidane on a world record fee for a 'keeper, Buffon and another 30 odd million on Thuram. Real were at it again in 2009 with a world record fee for Kaka and then another for Ronaldo. These did not have inflationary effects, but only because Manchester United and Milan (Berlusconi appears to have had no scruples about receiving big fees!) were too broke to be able to spend what they received! The Bale deal did, however, inflate the price of players when who Spurs bought and how much for, is taken into account. The Suarez deal may have had similar consequences, especially in what it has done to the price of English players.

In conclusion, the rising cost of players and wages are by no means down to Chelsea. The massive rise in club income from the 90s onwards began the process and the activities of Real Madrid in particular have contributed. The heavy spending of Real, Barcelona and Manchester United in 2014 may well give the trend a push onwards. What is certain is that neither Manchester City nor Sheikh Mansour nor owner-investors have had anything to do with it.

 

[Petrovs left peg]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The reason that demands for financial regulation were made after Abramovitch arrived appears to be because he was held to be "inflating the transfer market". This seems to be not so much that he spent a great deal (though he did) but more that he paid far more for individual players than they were worth. The classic example was Essien who was on the verge of signing for Juventus for €15 million, but then went to Chelsea for €36 million! The reason was simple - Abramovitch wanted the best team in the world!

This was not, however, the first time the transfer market had been subjected to such turbulence, and it was not Chelsea who were responsible. In 2000 Real Madrid completed the infamous deal to sell their old training ground for some €480 million, at a time when their revenue was some €135 million for the year. With this money they bought Figo (€60 million) then Zidane (€76 million) and others - without protest, though the effects on the prices of other players were more "inflationary" than the purchase of Essien: Juventus spent the fee for Zidane on a world record fee for a 'keeper, Buffon and another 30 odd million on Thuram. Real were at it again in 2009 with a world record fee for Kaka and then another for Ronaldo. These did not have inflationary effects, but only because Manchester United and Milan (Berlusconi appears to have had no scruples about receiving big fees!) were too broke to be able to spend what they received! The Bale deal did, however, inflate the price of players when who Spurs bought and how much for, is taken into account. The Suarez deal may have had similar consequences, especially in what it has done to the price of English players.

In conclusion, the rising cost of players and wages are by no means down to Chelsea. The massive rise in club income from the 90s onwards began the process and the activities of Real Madrid in particular have contributed. The heavy spending of Real, Barcelona and Manchester United in 2014 may well give the trend a push onwards. What is certain is that neither Manchester City nor Sheikh Mansour nor owner-investors have had anything to do with it.

Firstly BSHR, your contributions to this thread are not only insightful but a damn good read. Thank you

Secondly, I think the average fan out there blames Chelsea and City for the inflationary effect, because most players that United, Madrid etc bought were players that other clubs could never dream about signing.
Players such as Barry, Adebayor, Lescott, Bridge etc were not in a superstar league, and thus we were "the cause" of the hyper-inflation in the market of "affordable" players deemed to be in reach of most of the premiership - A fact that the press and (others fuelled by jealousy) were quick to jump on and bleat about.
I don't necessarily disagree with that point, but what still irks me most is that no-one links it back to the bad smell called FFP which determined that period of accelerated spending to get in before the door closed.

 

[moomba]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'd bet wage inflation is around the same level as the increase in TV money. And its the inequity in TV money that is causing problems.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Further points that emerge from an analysis of transfer fee "inflation" is that it keeps the big money in the hands of the magic circle: Figo from Barcelona to Real, Zidane from Juventus to Real, Kaka from AC Milan to Real, Ronaldo from Manchester United to Real. When smaller clubs (in this case Spurs and Liverpool) sell a player for a record busting fee it invariably weakens them because players of the quality of the departing one won't join them and so the magic circle are comparatively stronger and the other non-elite club is weaker.

The other most obvious point is that there is nothing in FFP to stop this inflationary spending. Real are quite entitled to sell their training ground (only the EU might question the propriety of the deal) and spend the proceeds, and Real, Barcelona, Manchester United are entitled to thwart FFP's aims because they are apparently doing it with their own money (courtesy of an American car company).

 

[mat]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

as an aside.....
<a class="postlink" href="http://whatculture.com/sport/gazprom-and-financial-fair-play-a-russian-affair.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://whatculture.com/sport/gazprom-an ... affair.php</a>

You may have noticed the name Gazprom making more appearances during European football matches. They currently sponsor the UEFA Champions League and the Super Cup, Chelsea and the German team Schalke 04. On top of that they own Zenit St Petersburg, the team which recently spent over £60 million on the purchases of Axel Witsel and Hulk. On the face of it there’s absolutely nothing strange; Bwin have sponsored many major European teams and competitions at one time.
Last year the first blow was dealt to Michel Platini’s Financial Fair Play proposals. Under the aforementioned rules, clubs have to disclose their annual finances to UEFA and if the guidelines – which eventually hope to make every club self-sustainable – haven’t been met, they can be stricken from any European competition. Part of the scheme stops rich owners pouring money into their clubs; although none of the new rules affect sponsorship from sources that don’t have significant links to the clubs.
Last season Manchester City, owned by a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family, announced a deal worth an estimated £400 million over ten years with Etihad Airways, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates government. The deal is the most lucrative in any sport and the sum should help the club deal with their heavy financial losses, which have surpassed the £100 million mark in recent years.
That deal managed to avoid FFP regulations, so it came as no surprise when another major European team which regularly makes operating losses formed a new partnership. Gazprom, the largest extractor of natural gas in the world, shares links with the Chelsea owner, Roman Abramovich. The oligarch earned his billions as an owner of Sibneft and when the company was sold in 2005 it was the biggest corporate takeover in Russian history. 73% of the shares were sold for an estimated $13 billion; a majority of them Abramovich’s. The buyer: Gazprom.
Neither Gazprom nor Chelsea have revealed the details involved, which has led many to believe this is their way around FFP. With the estimated £48 million prize they were awarded for winning the Champions League and the plethora of new deals which have subsequently been sealed the Stamford Bridge side should avoid any queries over how their financial security.
Whether other major European teams will strike similar deals has yet to be seen; although it wouldn’t be surprising if Qatari owned PSG soon formed a new business partnership. On paper it would appear that the sale of Abramovich’s assets to Gazprom should count as a substantial link. Luckily for Chelsea, Gazprom also announced a sponsorship deal with UEFA, which should halt any investigations into the deal.
Financial Fair Play once showed potential to be a game-changer. Perhaps clubs would be self-sufficient, salary-caps would be introduced and ticket prices may be lowered to coincide with the massive new TV deals. At the end of the day, all it proves is that football is still governed by money.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

as an aside.....
<a class="postlink" href="http://whatculture.com/sport/gazprom-and-financial-fair-play-a-russian-affair.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://whatculture.com/sport/gazprom-an ... affair.php</a>

You may have noticed the name Gazprom making more appearances during European football matches. They currently sponsor the UEFA Champions League and the Super Cup, Chelsea and the German team Schalke 04. On top of that they own Zenit St Petersburg, the team which recently spent over £60 million on the purchases of Axel Witsel and Hulk. On the face of it there’s absolutely nothing strange; Bwin have sponsored many major European teams and competitions at one time.
Last year the first blow was dealt to Michel Platini’s Financial Fair Play proposals. Under the aforementioned rules, clubs have to disclose their annual finances to UEFA and if the guidelines – which eventually hope to make every club self-sustainable – haven’t been met, they can be stricken from any European competition. Part of the scheme stops rich owners pouring money into their clubs; although none of the new rules affect sponsorship from sources that don’t have significant links to the clubs.
Last season Manchester City, owned by a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family, announced a deal worth an estimated £400 million over ten years with Etihad Airways, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates government. The deal is the most lucrative in any sport and the sum should help the club deal with their heavy financial losses, which have surpassed the £100 million mark in recent years.
That deal managed to avoid FFP regulations, so it came as no surprise when another major European team which regularly makes operating losses formed a new partnership. Gazprom, the largest extractor of natural gas in the world, shares links with the Chelsea owner, Roman Abramovich. The oligarch earned his billions as an owner of Sibneft and when the company was sold in 2005 it was the biggest corporate takeover in Russian history. 73% of the shares were sold for an estimated $13 billion; a majority of them Abramovich’s. The buyer: Gazprom.
Neither Gazprom nor Chelsea have revealed the details involved, which has led many to believe this is their way around FFP. With the estimated £48 million prize they were awarded for winning the Champions League and the plethora of new deals which have subsequently been sealed the Stamford Bridge side should avoid any queries over how their financial security.
Whether other major European teams will strike similar deals has yet to be seen; although it wouldn’t be surprising if Qatari owned PSG soon formed a new business partnership. On paper it would appear that the sale of Abramovich’s assets to Gazprom should count as a substantial link. Luckily for Chelsea, Gazprom also announced a sponsorship deal with UEFA, which should halt any investigations into the deal.
Financial Fair Play once showed potential to be a game-changer. Perhaps clubs would be self-sufficient, salary-caps would be introduced and ticket prices may be lowered to coincide with the massive new TV deals. At the end of the day, all it proves is that football is still governed by money.

Slightly interesting but clearly written by someone who really knows very little about it. For example, he makes no mention (nor demonstrates any understanding) of the concept of related parties and what is/is not a related party and how that is determined. It comes across as fairly uninformed opinion, in my view.

I wonder also how old it is, since our Etihad deal is described as "the most lucrative in any sport" and today this is clearly nonsense.

 

[waspish]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

as an aside.....
<a class="postlink" href="http://whatculture.com/sport/gazprom-and-financial-fair-play-a-russian-affair.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://whatculture.com/sport/gazprom-an ... affair.php</a>

You may have noticed the name Gazprom making more appearances during European football matches. They currently sponsor the UEFA Champions League and the Super Cup, Chelsea and the German team Schalke 04. On top of that they own Zenit St Petersburg, the team which recently spent over £60 million on the purchases of Axel Witsel and Hulk. On the face of it there’s absolutely nothing strange; Bwin have sponsored many major European teams and competitions at one time.
Last year the first blow was dealt to Michel Platini’s Financial Fair Play proposals. Under the aforementioned rules, clubs have to disclose their annual finances to UEFA and if the guidelines – which eventually hope to make every club self-sustainable – haven’t been met, they can be stricken from any European competition. Part of the scheme stops rich owners pouring money into their clubs; although none of the new rules affect sponsorship from sources that don’t have significant links to the clubs.
Last season Manchester City, owned by a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family, announced a deal worth an estimated £400 million over ten years with Etihad Airways, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates government. The deal is the most lucrative in any sport and the sum should help the club deal with their heavy financial losses, which have surpassed the £100 million mark in recent years.
That deal managed to avoid FFP regulations, so it came as no surprise when another major European team which regularly makes operating losses formed a new partnership. Gazprom, the largest extractor of natural gas in the world, shares links with the Chelsea owner, Roman Abramovich. The oligarch earned his billions as an owner of Sibneft and when the company was sold in 2005 it was the biggest corporate takeover in Russian history. 73% of the shares were sold for an estimated $13 billion; a majority of them Abramovich’s. The buyer: Gazprom.
Neither Gazprom nor Chelsea have revealed the details involved, which has led many to believe this is their way around FFP. With the estimated £48 million prize they were awarded for winning the Champions League and the plethora of new deals which have subsequently been sealed the Stamford Bridge side should avoid any queries over how their financial security.
Whether other major European teams will strike similar deals has yet to be seen; although it wouldn’t be surprising if Qatari owned PSG soon formed a new business partnership. On paper it would appear that the sale of Abramovich’s assets to Gazprom should count as a substantial link. Luckily for Chelsea, Gazprom also announced a sponsorship deal with UEFA, which should halt any investigations into the deal.
Financial Fair Play once showed potential to be a game-changer. Perhaps clubs would be self-sufficient, salary-caps would be introduced and ticket prices may be lowered to coincide with the massive new TV deals. At the end of the day, all it proves is that football is still governed by money.

Slightly interesting but clearly written by someone who really knows very little about it. For example, he makes no mention (nor demonstrates any understanding) of the concept of related parties and what is/is not a related party and how that is determined. It comes across as fairly uninformed opinion, in my view.

I wonder also how old it is, since our Etihad deal is described as "the most lucrative in any sport" and today this is clearly nonsense.

Clearly nonsense because we didn't announce how much the deal was...

 

[keith's curle]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

All the discussion on transfer fees over the last few pages, while interesting, has been somewhat irrelevant to the arguement in my opinion.

The question is about inflating the market and the price of the superstars is something of a red herring. It might be in some way relevant as it alters perception of players value, but it probably does this more for fans than for clubs who need to actually find the money. More significantly, these top end fees contribute to the average transfer fee, and that is perhaps their biggest contribution. But more than that, it is their distortion of the average which makes them almost meaningless.

The fee for Bale from Spurs to Real Madrid isn't going to have any real effect on the fee for McCarthy from Wigan to Everton.

Any meaningful arguement about transfer fees would only mention the record breaking fees as some kind of 'also worth noting' kind of point. The real assessment of issues around transfer fees would be looking at averages or more likely mean figures in order to leave the distorting records out of the equation altogether.

In some ways this makes nonesense (maybe that's more nonesense) of Platini's claim that 'all clubs' were panicing about rising fees. Were Wigan or Everton even interested in what Chelsea paid for Essien or that we were after Kaka for a reported £100M.

If anybody knows where to find average fees, or better still some kind of figures ignoring the 'silly money' transfers then they might be worth a look.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Honestly I think all of this endless debate about matters such as wage inflation is really a bit of a waste of time.

There's a million and one made up reasons UEFA can come up with to try to justify FFP and it's pointless debating any of them. We ALL know that the real reason for it, the ONLY reason for it, was the G14 didn't like the idea of City, PSG and potentially future clubs too coming along, buying the best players, knocking them out of their cosy CL spots and taking their CL money off them. That's it, the start, beginning and end of it. Everything else is an irrelevant attempt at a cover up. Everything else.

 

[dom]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Honestly I think all of this endless debate about matters such as wage inflation is really a bit of a waste of time.

There's a million and one made up reasons UEFA can come up with to try to justify FFP and it's pointless debating any of them. We ALL know that the real reason for it, the ONLY reason for it, was the G14 didn't like the idea of City, PSG and potentially future clubs too coming along, buying the best players, knocking them out of their cosy CL spots and taking their CL money off them. That's it, the start, beginning and end of it. Everything else is an irrelevant attempt at a cover up. Everything else.

This , all day long... which is why I worry that Twatini , egged on by te likes of Gill etc may be looking to keep moving the goalposts

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Honestly I think all of this endless debate about matters such as wage inflation is really a bit of a waste of time.

There's a million and one made up reasons UEFA can come up with to try to justify FFP and it's pointless debating any of them. We ALL know that the real reason for it, the ONLY reason for it, was the G14 didn't like the idea of City, PSG and potentially future clubs too coming along, buying the best players, knocking them out of their cosy CL spots and taking their CL money off them. That's it, the start, beginning and end of it. Everything else is an irrelevant attempt at a cover up. Everything else.

This topic is the main reason I read this forum and have only plucked up the courage to join in. There are a lot of really well informed people posting
very intelligent arguments and I've learnt loads by trawling through some very lengthy posts. But as one of the less informed among you I have to agree that what Chippy_boy wrote is the nub of it.
I don't know one Manure fan over here who tries to deny the reality of FFP anymore. They know it's about protecting the elite.
The Arsenal fans I know seem to live in an ambivalent bubble. They don't seem to take an interest in the real workings of things.
And as for my Liverpool supporting mates. Some of them are finally coming out of denial, that all the whinging from them is really because they know
they've probably missed the boat.
Everyone who cares about football knows the reality of FFP, but I love reading this to get an insight into what people think, will happen next.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Honestly I think all of this endless debate about matters such as wage inflation is really a bit of a waste of time.

There's a million and one made up reasons UEFA can come up with to try to justify FFP and it's pointless debating any of them. We ALL know that the real reason for it, the ONLY reason for it, was the G14 didn't like the idea of City, PSG and potentially future clubs too coming along, buying the best players, knocking them out of their cosy CL spots and taking their CL money off them. That's it, the start, beginning and end of it. Everything else is an irrelevant attempt at a cover up. Everything else.

This , all day long... which is why I worry that Twatini , egged on by te likes of Gill etc may be looking to keep moving the goalposts

I wouldn't "worry" about it. You can be certain of it. We represent a very real threat to the dominant position of the G14 clubs and you can bet they will do anything they can to stop anyone usurping them.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

All the discussion on transfer fees over the last few pages, while interesting, has been somewhat irrelevant to the arguement in my opinion.

The question is about inflating the market and the price of the superstars is something of a red herring. It might be in some way relevant as it alters perception of players value, but it probably does this more for fans than for clubs who need to actually find the money. More significantly, these top end fees contribute to the average transfer fee, and that is perhaps their biggest contribution. But more than that, it is their distortion of the average which makes them almost meaningless.

The fee for Bale from Spurs to Real Madrid isn't going to have any real effect on the fee for McCarthy from Wigan to Everton.

Any meaningful arguement about transfer fees would only mention the record breaking fees as some kind of 'also worth noting' kind of point. The real assessment of issues around transfer fees would be looking at averages or more likely mean figures in order to leave the distorting records out of the equation altogether.

In some ways this makes nonesense (maybe that's more nonesense) of Platini's claim that 'all clubs' were panicing about rising fees. Were Wigan or Everton even interested in what Chelsea paid for Essien or that we were after Kaka for a reported £100M.

If anybody knows where to find average fees, or better still some kind of figures ignoring the 'silly money' transfers then they might be worth a look.

I only agree in part.

It's wrong to suggest that the big buy transfers have no effect. They do:

1) Invariably, a headline transfers stimulates the market, as clubs selling a high value player will then purchase another high value player, or a number of lesser value players. I say 'invariably' because that pattern happens almost without exception.

2) The big name transfers set a market benchmark. That doesn't mean Wigan Athletic will be buying Ronaldo any time soon, but it sets the upper tier value, which in turn influences the next tier down price, and so forth. By the time we're 4 or 5 tiers down, the effect will likely have all but dissipated, but it will still have had an impact on the average price. It's very rare for polar opposites to occur in the market, where the top tier prices increase, and the lower tier decrease. The percentage increase can be marked different, but definitely very rare for them be opposing.

3) The club on the receiving end of a big name transfer is typically earmarked as 'having a pot of cash' and that tends to inflate the asking price of players they then seek to purchase. Spurs and Liverpool are prime examples of this in recent years. It's not always the case, but nobody's ever lowered their price towards such clubs, that's for sure.

4) One single record breaking sale, must by definition increase the current average price. Of course, the average might be brought back down with a below average transfer fee, but at the very any above average fee is paid, the average goes up.

5) It's a fairly reasonable assumption that the number of players transferred per season is fairly stable. Across all the clubs, there's no obvious reason why it should fluctuate too dramatically. Of course, I stress this is an assumption, but in general I think it's a fairly sound assumption. With that in mind, you need only look at the total transfer fee records - the ones where Sky will present a grand total of the season's transfer spend. If that increases (which it usually does, then divided by the same number of transfers per year, the average must have increased in line with that figure.

The whole conversation around transfer fees though IS a bit of a diversion, but it's brought up because Platini's suggested that the likes of Chelsea, and not PSG and City are distorting the market (and argument also used by some other clubs). There's not a lot of evidence behind that accusation though.
When the big spenders spend, it really is like a splash in a pool. It sends out a lot of ripples across many clubs, but the actual water level doesn't rise. There's just a bit of turbulence for a short while. The TV money on the other hand is akin to opening up the floodgates and that really DOES start to raise the water level.

Platini can make a fair few subjective comments about the fairness of rich clubs, but he's on a hiding to nothing trying to substantiate his claims that they distort the market.

 

[hgblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Honestly I think all of this endless debate about matters such as wage inflation is really a bit of a waste of time.

There's a million and one made up reasons UEFA can come up with to try to justify FFP and it's pointless debating any of them. We ALL know that the real reason for it, the ONLY reason for it, was the G14 didn't like the idea of City, PSG and potentially future clubs too coming along, buying the best players, knocking them out of their cosy CL spots and taking their CL money off them. That's it, the start, beginning and end of it. Everything else is an irrelevant attempt at a cover up. Everything else.

Very true, but the question is whether the way UEFA have gone about it is legal. Is it legal for a sports governing body to effectively stop a business man investing in his business in order to make it grow? Yes or No. My money is on no.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Honestly I think all of this endless debate about matters such as wage inflation is really a bit of a waste of time.

There's a million and one made up reasons UEFA can come up with to try to justify FFP and it's pointless debating any of them. We ALL know that the real reason for it, the ONLY reason for it, was the G14 didn't like the idea of City, PSG and potentially future clubs too coming along, buying the best players, knocking them out of their cosy CL spots and taking their CL money off them. That's it, the start, beginning and end of it. Everything else is an irrelevant attempt at a cover up. Everything else.

I think that the original reason to have some form of FFP was conceived well before ADUG bought MCFC. However, the G14 via UEFA may very well have hijacked the idea and given it priority by skewing its rules to their liking after the purchase.

Who can blame them, political party's in office always treat their supporters whilst pretending to be fair to the needy in their 'budgets'. ''We are in it together'' fooled nobody
In USA they make no bones about it and blatantly and legally reward those who donate to their election campaign.

Other sectors of industry will cartel if they can (hence the legal need) and will often buy out their competition. Tax loopholes are exploited without regard to fairness all in the name of keeping what they see as earning.

The G14 want their Cash Cow to be exclusive to them and only them. Perhaps they can point to Sheik M. and do not see him sharing his Cash Cow, who knows what their logic is, greed has a wonderful way of breaking friendships and elevating selfish uncaring people to Peers of the Realm.
The difference is that our owner is investing his oil dollars whereas they are preserving their perceived right to have a limited share out.

 

[keith's curle]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

All fair points, but I look at it differently (mostly). I've put the replies below. Unfortunately I'm in work and have to make them too brief so maybe don't get the whole point across. Still, its either that or get on with some work, so here goes....

I only agree in part.

It's wrong to suggest that the big buy transfers have no effect. They do: I don't think they have no effect, just very little on the point central to Platini's claim. Their effect is little if anything on the vast majority of clubs, but marked on the handful of 'elite clubs' and has a noticeable knock-on on the clubs just below them. In other words, FFP is about the elite.

1) Invariably, a headline transfers stimulates the market, as clubs selling a high value player will then purchase another high value player, or a number of lesser value players. I say 'invariably' because that pattern happens almost without exception.
I don't disagree, but really this involves the 'elite' clubs, so its effects on the majority aren't worth mentioning.

2) The big name transfers set a market benchmark. That doesn't mean Wigan Athletic will be buying Ronaldo any time soon, but it sets the upper tier value, which in turn influences the next tier down price, and so forth. By the time we're 4 or 5 tiers down, the effect will likely have all but dissipated, but it will still have had an impact on the average price. It's very rare for polar opposites to occur in the market, where the top tier prices increase, and the lower tier decrease. The percentage increase can be marked different, but definitely very rare for them be opposing.
Again, wouldn't argue with what you're saying other than I think we're only talking 2 tiers down, not 4 or 5. Therefore would say it only sets the benchmark for the 'elite'. It would be interesting to see any figures which can show how it trickles down because I don't think it will

3) The club on the receiving end of a big name transfer is typically earmarked as 'having a pot of cash' and that tends to inflate the asking price of players they then seek to purchase. Spurs and Liverpool are prime examples of this in recent years. It's not always the case, but nobody's ever lowered their price towards such clubs, that's for sure.
You've really got me there as the facts are all on your side. However, I would say that its misleading as its a short term effect and not limited to transfer fees. Spurs have now spent the Bale money, and if they put in for another player they won't be quoted a premium. On the other hand, if they signed a new sponsor mega deal they may well find there's suddenly an upsurge in price. In effect, the market distotion here isn't about transfer fees, but about money generally with transfers being only the most eye-catching factor. Market forces are market forces no matter what.

4) One single record breaking sale, must by definition increase the current average price. Of course, the average might be brought back down with a below average transfer fee, but at the very any above average fee is paid, the average goes up.
Yes, that's common sense, so no arguement about that, but I did specifically point out that averages are not good indicators in situations like this. Any statistical correlation worth its salt would take out these anomolies and work with mean figures in order to avoid the distortion. That is the main reason I contend the eye-catching mega deals are no real indicator of possible over inflation

5) It's a fairly reasonable assumption that the number of players transferred per season is fairly stable. Across all the clubs, there's no obvious reason why it should fluctuate too dramatically. Of course, I stress this is an assumption, but in general I think it's a fairly sound assumption. With that in mind, you need only look at the total transfer fee records - the ones where Sky will present a grand total of the season's transfer spend. If that increases (which it usually does, then divided by the same number of transfers per year, the average must have increased in line with that figure.
Fair point, but again that brings us to averages and I would repeat the above.

The whole conversation around transfer fees though IS a bit of a diversion, but it's brought up because Platini's suggested that the likes of Chelsea, and not PSG and City are distorting the market (and argument also used by some other clubs). There's not a lot of evidence behind that accusation though.
When the big spenders spend, it really is like a splash in a pool. It sends out a lot of ripples across many clubs, but the actual water level doesn't rise. There's just a bit of turbulence for a short while. The TV money on the other hand is akin to opening up the floodgates and that really DOES start to raise the water level.
Couldn't agree more. It would be interesting to see some figure on transfers from somebody who knew how to come up with something meaningful, but, at the end of the day, its just so much smoke and mirrors. There is no doubt (and we don't need anybody else to tell us) that the TV money and the CL money are the real things distorting the playing field. And they distort it year in, year out.

Platini can make a fair few subjective comments about the fairness of rich clubs, but he's on a hiding to nothing trying to substantiate his claims that they distort the market.
He doesn't even seem to be trying too hard - "Berlisconi made me do it"

 

[keith's curle]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

.............well before ADUG bought MUFC.

I'd hide if I was you. Even the edit button can't help you now.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Honestly I think all of this endless debate about matters such as wage inflation is really a bit of a waste of time.

There's a million and one made up reasons UEFA can come up with to try to justify FFP and it's pointless debating any of them. We ALL know that the real reason for it, the ONLY reason for it, was the G14 didn't like the idea of City, PSG and potentially future clubs too coming along, buying the best players, knocking them out of their cosy CL spots and taking their CL money off them. That's it, the start, beginning and end of it. Everything else is an irrelevant attempt at a cover up. Everything else.

Very true, but the question is whether the way UEFA have gone about it is legal. Is it legal for a sports governing body to effectively stop a business man investing in his business in order to make it grow? Yes or No. My money is on no.

It's a tricky one. On the face of it, yours would seem like a sensible view.

But playing devil's advocate for a moment, (a) UEFA took extensive legal advice in drawing up the rules and have stated throughout that they are confident, no, certain of its legality. And (b) you could argue that they aren't stopping anyone from investing, merely suggesting that in order to play in their competition, you have to abide by certain rules. Those rules allow for investment up to certain levels and if you want to go beyond that you can, but you can't play in the competition.

That they have consulted legally doesn't mean it can't be challenged, but I think it does mean that it's not a straightforward case. If it was obviously and undeniably illegal they would have known about it and made changes when it was being drafted. There must be some qualified lawyers who think it is legal as it stands.

Purely based on my personal judgement, I think it will "probably" end up being deemed illegal, but I will only be very slightly surprised if that proves incorrect and it survives legal challenge.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

.............well before ADUG bought MUFC.

I'd hide if I was you. Even the edit button can't help you now.

Fair point.

Sorry about that. Perhaps a certain Peer of the Realm associated with the unfortunate typing error was on my mind.

Back to the Beano.

 

[mad4city]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Of all the people in football for Platini to reach for as an endorsement/ instigator of FFP, Berlusconi seems to my mind, to be the most bizarre.
Isn't he a busted flush, politically, these days? Certainly, his international reputation is in tatters after the bunga bunga revelations (for starters).
The question is why did Platini quote Berlusconi and not say, Rumminege, Gill or Dein, whose international standing is still good (rightly or wrongly)?
Freudian slip, serious boob or subtle attempt to prepare an ecaspe hatch (I was only following orders, yer honour)?
My money is on the latter.

(Apologies for the gammy name spelling, by the way).