One rule for one, another for the rest of us- FFP again

[Blue Mooner]

With FFP starting to come into effect it appears to have started to have an impact on our ability to compete in the transfer market (I appreciate that the remaining days of the transfer market may disprove this) however my point in relation to FFP still remains valid and it is thus....

The main premise of FFP is intended to stop clubs spending more than they earn in revenue. This has stopped in its tracks the ability for our wonderful owner to pump his OWN money into the club, which leads to my point.

What is the difference between our owner spending his own money on the club he owns (not lumbering the club with debt incidentally) and the Glazers selling shares in the club to multiple stakeholders (essentially part owners) and using that money to fund transfers like RVP? This can certainly not be argued that this is 'revenue' so why would this be allowed? Not only this our rag friends are now based out of the Cayman Islands leaving much of their financial situation out of the prying eyes of UEFA, why is this equally allowed.

It strikes me as usual that there is one rule for the rags and one for the rest of us.

 

[Anonymous]

hehe ...

i worked that lot out some time ago ......

although probably THE biggest clue is that Platini didn't appear to be worried about any such rules before we came along ....

we knocked him off his whisky swiggin' chair with the size of our alleged financial approach for Kaka , and he's never really forgiven us !

He's never been bothered about how much United spend , or creating 'level playing fields' , that means little to him ....... all he's worried about is that we don't grow that big we swallow up France!

 

[The Future's Blue]

If the money the Rags raise is acceptable it sets a precedent.

I hate to say it but, 'Simples'!

 

[S04]

With FFP starting to come into effect it appears to have started to have an impact on our ability to compete in the transfer market (I appreciate that the remaining days of the transfer market may disprove this) however my point in relation to FFP still remains valid and it is thus....

The main premise of FFP is intended to stop clubs spending more than they earn in revenue. This has stopped in its tracks the ability for our wonderful owner to pump his OWN money into the club, which leads to my point.

What is the difference between our owner spending his own money on the club he owns (not lumbering the club with debt incidentally) and the Glazers selling shares in the club to multiple stakeholders (essentially part owners) and using that money to fund transfers like RVP? This can certainly not be argued that this is 'revenue' so why would this be allowed? Not only this our rag friends are now based out of the Cayman Islands leaving much of their financial situation out of the prying eyes of UEFA, why is this equally allowed.

It strikes me as usual that there is one rule for the rags and one for the rest of us.

Bit tricky but potentially MCFC could issue new shares that are sold to other investors and use that money I guess..thus watering down Sheikh Mansours holding of by adding new shareholders.

But very unlikely in our case of course.

 

[waspish]

It's not stopped us buying because we don't need anyone

 

[Blue Mooner]

With FFP starting to come into effect it appears to have started to have an impact on our ability to compete in the transfer market (I appreciate that the remaining days of the transfer market may disprove this) however my point in relation to FFP still remains valid and it is thus....

The main premise of FFP is intended to stop clubs spending more than they earn in revenue. This has stopped in its tracks the ability for our wonderful owner to pump his OWN money into the club, which leads to my point.

What is the difference between our owner spending his own money on the club he owns (not lumbering the club with debt incidentally) and the Glazers selling shares in the club to multiple stakeholders (essentially part owners) and using that money to fund transfers like RVP? This can certainly not be argued that this is 'revenue' so why would this be allowed? Not only this our rag friends are now based out of the Cayman Islands leaving much of their financial situation out of the prying eyes of UEFA, why is this equally allowed.

It strikes me as usual that there is one rule for the rags and one for the rest of us.

Bit tricky but potentially MCFC could issue new shares that are sold to other investors and use that money I guess..thus watering down Sheikh Mansours holding of by adding new shareholders.

But very unlikely in our case of course.

Agreed but that is not 'revenue', the Glazers of course could put their hands in their pocket and give 150 million to the rags but that's not going to happen either!

My point is that this is a one off sum that allows the rags to pay off debts and release funds for transfers - seriously what IS the difference between that and our owner gifting us funds?

If someone can explain then I am all ears....<br /><br />-- Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:51 pm --<br /><br />

It's not stopped us buying because we don't need anyone

Do you really believe that? I don't believe you can ever stand still and i think last season proves that in some areas our squad needs supplementing.

 

[JamesTenOne]

No issue with their IPO at all with regards FFP, there is nothing to prevent other clubs/owners following the same route and selling off part of the club to shareholders.

I think whats more troubling with regards FFP is that it limits owners like ours from investing new money into football yet allows the likes of the Glazers to actually take money out of the game, using United's huge income for personal gain, rather than it being reinvested in the sport.

 

[Anonymous]

It's not stopped us buying because we don't need anyone

hehe ....

there's a chap named Mancini who'd give you an arguement!

 

[Blue Mooner]

No issue with their IPO at all with regards FFP, there is nothing to prevent other clubs/owners following the same route and selling off part of the club to shareholders.

I think whats more troubling with regards FFP is that it limits owners like ours from investing new money into football yet allows the likes of the Glazers to actually take money out of the game, using United's huge income for personal gain, rather than it being reinvested in the sport.

That may be the case but you have to question why that is allowed under FFP (not sure this IPO is specifically listed as allowed under FFP) - which can clearly be used to create an unfair advantage by injecting a one off amount into the club (clearly some of which the glazers are pocketing the balance to pay down debt). Not only that the dual voting rights waved through in the US is actually illegal under London stock exchange rules so not everyone can do this unless they are prepared to list in the US and lets be fair most clubs would get very little interest from US investors so what's 'fair' about that?

As I say one rule for the rags....

 

[liamctid]

FFP is a myth. No ones going to get banned from any competitions. It's just a way of the people at the top forcing clubs to bring more money from outside of football into it so it filters (up), and the clubs don't mind as it justifies charging stupid amounts of tickets and merchandise.

The people at the top of football like Platini aren't football purists. They couldn't give a fuck as long as they can sustain the future of their wallets. If they wanted to stop football clubs from going into debt then they wouldn't be looking at those at the top, would they?

And yeah, I love conspiracies.