Martin Samuel reveals Arsenal's big idea to hand the title to Manchester United and cream off the profits in a plot which could destroy English football
By Martin Samuel
PUBLISHED:23:00, 13 January 2013| UPDATED:23:00, 13 January 2013
No more of this: Success like Blackburn's, aided by Jack Walker, would be prevented under the proposed rules
All you need to know about the latest proposal for financial fair play in the Premier League is that, if the rules were passed, Venky’s catastrophic takeover of Blackburn Rovers would still be permitted. Jack Walker’s title win, however, would not.
Yes, he could have bought the club just the same, but Walker would not have been allowed to do much of worth with it. He would not have been able to invest at a level that could bring quick success; he would not have been able to challenge the established elite effectively.
So no Alan Shearer, no Chris Sutton, probably no Kenny Dalglish either, because what would be the point? And no league title. Manchester United would have won the championship in 1995, as they did in 1993, 1994, 1996 and 1997 and the modern era’s greatest achievement would never have happened.
Walker could still have purchased Blackburn, the club he loved, but only to manage their mediocrity, perhaps with small incremental improvements each year. The revolution, the great leap forward, the dream of every supporter across the land, would have been thwarted by supposed fair play.
Venky’s plans, meanwhile, would pass on the nod. There are to be no restrictions on those who want to buy a club and ruin it. Sell their best player, under-invest, bring in a cabal of clowns to run the show, get relegated. The elite are more than happy for the new money men to do that.
It is Walker, and those like him, that have them running scared. They fear competition, not tame bottom feeders. Manchester United are fine with Blackburn selling them Phil Jones; they just don’t like being taken on over Shearer or Carlos Tevez.
On Tuesday, December 18, when Premier League chairmen met to discuss the latest financial fair play proposals, four elite clubs attempted a coup. Until that moment, the general consensus had been that regulation was required to prevent another Ports-mouth, but not another Manchester City, which seems reasonable.
There is a significant difference between owner investment and owner loans. There can be no repeat of the chaos at Pompey, but this can be achieved without restriction on fresh funds coming into English football to make the league more competitive.
And then the game changed.
On Arsenal headed notepaper, a letter was handed out, signed by four clubs — Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur — stating the existing FFP proposals did not go far enough and that greater limitations should be placed on owner investment.
David Gill, the chief executive of Manchester United, rose to speak. He questioned why the Premier League had to serve the needs of oligarchs and oil-rich Sheiks. Manchester United were focused on the health of the competition, he said — at this point it would have taken a heart of stone not to laugh — and he would go a stage further. The league should consider implementing UEFA financial fair play proposals to the letter, even getting UEFA in to regulate and ensure their strict application.
The rest of the clubs are thinking over this proposal before their next meeting. Some may even be stupid enough to consider it seriously.
FFP plans: The letter with the Arsenal header which says the proposed regulations do not go far enough
Effectively, what Gill wants is for a man like Bill Kenwright, chairman of Everton and the leading theatrical impresario in the world, to check his business dealings with Jean-Luc Dehaene, the former chairman of the bank that could yet do for the European economy what Lehman Brothers did for the fiscal stability of the United States.
Dehaene is the figure Michel Platini, UEFA president, has made chief investigator and chairman of the Investigatory Chamber of the Club Financial Control Body and, therefore, one presumes, the man Gill would have rooting through the finances of Premier League football clubs, too.
He would certainly have more time to concentrate on the project, having resigned as chairman of Dexia Bank on July 1, 2012. You may recall that Dehaene was due to speak on financial propriety at a Leaders In Football conference in London in 2011 but couldn’t make it because his bank had gone skint requiring a £3.45billion bail-out from the Belgian government. This in addition to the £5.18bn it had received to stay afloat in 2008, when Dehaene took over.
Dexia Holdings confirmed a loss of £9.73bn for 2011 and was subsequently embroiled in a scandal after the revelation that, between 2006 and 2008, Dexia Bank Belgium had loaned £1.3bn to two of their largest institutional shareholders to buy shares in other arms of the company to keep their stock price afloat.
Since resigning from Dexia, where a further £70.2bn is to be spent to allow what is termed the ‘orderly resolution’ of their financial problems, Dehaene has been taking his rather personal interpretation of financial fair play to new levels.
Now a member of the European Parliament, he was forced to issue a revised declaration of interests after failing to detail £4.41million of share options in a Belgium-Brazilian beer conglomerate AB InBev.
This is the man Gill would place in charge of the financial policing of the English game.
So what is in it for Manchester United and friends? Money, obviously.
If clubs like United and Arsenal, with the biggest grounds and revenue streams, can limit spending to percentage of turnover, they will always have the biggest transfer pot and therefore the greatest chance of success. That is why owner investment terrifies them. Forget this guff about the health of the league. If they wanted that, the elite would be advocating some of the wealth redistribution initiatives that exist in American sport.
Profits from a Manchester United shirt sold beyond their catchment area — in the West Country, for instance — would be split throughout the 20 Premier League clubs, as happens to New York Yankees merchandise sold outside club shops or the New York metropolitan area.
Not going to happen here, is it?
Gill will not be giving too many speeches in favour of that one.
Self-interest: David Gill would not, of course, be in favour of sharing shirt sale profits with other teams
This is about exclusion, not fairness, and the established elite do not like the idea of another Sheik Mansour coming along. They don’t like Roman Abramovich buying the best players, either.
And, if they can rope in enough dopes who see the plan simply as a way of saving money and cutting expenditure, this naked self-interest may carry the day. So far, only Chelsea, Manchester City, Fulham, West Bromwich Albion and Aston Villa are against it and 14 votes are needed to alter the rulebook.
Once secured, forget the dream of your very own Jack Walker. All any new owner will be able to do is maintain the status quo.
As for Gill, his plan to deliver English football to Europe’s governing body, not so much wrapped in a bow as trussed like a turkey, coincides a little too neatly with his campaign to get elected to UEFA’s executive committee at the next UEFA Congress in May. Call it his dowry.
Ivan Gazidis, the man whose vision has helped make Arsenal the club they are today, is another with serious political ambitions.
He has already wormed his way on to the executive board of the European Clubs Association, as their representative on UEFA’s Professional Strategy Council, as well as holding a position on the ECA Legal Advisory Panel.
In addition, there is his slot on the FA’s Professional Game Board, the FA Council, FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber and the Premier League’s Working Group for Elite Player Performance. Quite the busy boy, considering he joined Arsenal as chief executive only in 2009. A cynic would think he had an agenda: or a plan.
A better plan than selling the best player to Manchester United and ramping up the ticket prices, one hopes. No wonder Gazidis wants his Premier League rivals bound in financial red tape. How else are his club to get back in the game?
It has been another illuminating week at Arsenal with the admission that manager Arsene Wenger knew selling Robin van Persie to Manchester United would take the title to Old Trafford, proof if any were needed that he no longer regards Arsenal as title contenders.
‘It is painful to see United so far in front of us,’ Wenger said. ‘You know when you sell Van Persie to United that this will be the case.’
Yet, if Wenger thought Arsenal could win the league, surely he would not have agreed the transfer that took this hope away.
One can only presume from his analysis, therefore, that he did not see Manchester United as rivals even before the season began. Then followed Wenger’s justification of Arsenal’s extortionate ticket prices, with Manchester City returning 900 seats for yesterday’s game after fans balked at the £62 cost.
All about the money? Robin van Persie's sale betrays Arsenal's supposed ambitions
‘The only way we can pay the wages and compete without any external help is through ticket prices,’ Wenger insisted.
And don’t say you were not warned. The fans will be the collateral damage of financial fair play. There is a going rate for player wages and it cannot fall without triggering free contract clauses. So, if the owners pass a mess of rules that stop them paying the bill, who do you think is going to get stuck with it?
Not Stan Kroenke. Not Gazidis, either. His big idea involves handing the title to Manchester United, creaming off the profits while trying to negotiate Chelsea and Manchester City out of contention with politics, lawyers and sneaky little closed-door carve-ups. Until that works, you pick up the tab.
Liverpool and Tottenham are clearly vying to gobble the meagre crumbs from Arsenal and United’s table, but why any of the other clubs are supportive, who knows?
West Ham United could soon move to the Olympic Stadium, with a genuine chance for expansion.
Surprising: West Ham could soon move to the Olympic Stadium - why would they shoot themselves in the foot?
Why would they vote to limit their possibilities simply to ensure the success of an established few? Why would any club with potential, from Aston Villa, to Sunderland or Southampton? Maybe it’s the Arsenal-headed paper reeling them in.
It always stood for something in the days when the club were the province of tradition, old Etonians and old money. Arsenal had class.
Arsenal had never been relegated. The chairman was posh and his name was hyphenated. When he talked, football listened.
This missive, however, is the work of an absentee American chairman and a chief executive whose grand plan would as good as hand the title to United each year, with his team coming an expensive second. Expensive for those watching, that is.
And who will preside over this, the world’s dullest league: why our old mate from Bank de Potless in Belgium. Thirty five quid a month on Sky, if you’re interested.
Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2261817/Arsenal-Manchester-United-financial-fair-play-plot-ruin-Premier-League--Martin-Samuel.html#ixzz2Htuq9hgI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z2Htuq9hgI</a>
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
