Platini just wont go away will he...

[Royaloak]

I wonder if the Sheikh has considered ordering the Abu Dhabi security services to execute the fucker? It would sort all of this out and I can't think that the twat would be missed other than by close family members.

 

[Damocles]

Platini isn't some pie in the sky twat out to destroy Man City. He's doing his job, and trying to represent the majority opinion of football fans.

Whether we like it or not, 90% of fans are in favour of this.

Mainly because they don't grasp the full ramifications. The "living within your means" rules he is proposing would, forever, close the doors on top level achievement to 99% of football teams. If you've got relatively small gate receipts, fanbase and income streams you're screwed. You won't be able to buy players of any real quality as the transfer fees will be out of your reach, and the wages will be preventative too. The likes of Barcelona, Real Madrid, United, Liverpool etc will, in the long run, remain at the top, just how Platini wants it.

So your argument is that other football fans just don't understand the rule like us? That's a little arrogant.

The discussions I've had with the guys who are for this, state that building a team slowly, whilst building the club, is something that they would prefer. The exorbitant transfer fees and wages are out of their reach anyway, so this is a leveller against the rich clubs such as ourselves.

 

[BlueMo']

People, people. Fear not these proposals for the offer no threat to our club.

Verily I say unto thee that we can relax and remain focussed on the trophies soon to be arriving.

Here are the publicly accepted limitations of the plans from Rumminegge (sp) and Platini -

As long as a club derives income from signed and agreed sponsorships or partnerships then that is OK within the new rules.

Owners can only put money into their clubs (over the agreed limits) by buying shares that is OK (technically known as debt equity swap). They cannot simply have loans owed to them.

Now since Khaldoon and the Sheikh had met with UEFA and agreed that the new rules were acceptable the following has happened at City-

4 new sponsors based in Abu Dhabi or the Mid East

Sheikh Mansour carried out a debt equity swap of about £90m for last seasons shortfall.

Both those things are OK within the new FFP rules and will continue to be OK.

OK?

I choose to believe this^^
Ahhh......That's better!

 

[malg]

Does this not come up every close season. Also, this is the Daily Mail that everyone was slating on another thread, so why bother! It's obviously a slow sports day. Boring stuff really, and not worth 5 pages. Mind you, I've just added to it haven't I.......

 

[M18CTID]

Platini isn't some pie in the sky twat out to destroy Man City. He's doing his job, and trying to represent the majority opinion of football fans.

Whether we like it or not, 90% of fans are in favour of this.

Mainly because they don't grasp the full ramifications. The "living within your means" rules he is proposing would, forever, close the doors on top level achievement to 99% of football teams. If you've got relatively small gate receipts, fanbase and income streams you're screwed. You won't be able to buy players of any real quality as the transfer fees will be out of your reach, and the wages will be preventative too. The likes of Barcelona, Real Madrid, United, Liverpool etc will, in the long run, remain at the top, just how Platini wants it.

There's definitely a sense of maintaining the status quo in Platini's plans, but I think he's not just doing it to spite the lesser clubs - he's probably worried that the more established clubs might one day form their own breakaway European super league and UEFA's hand may, to an extent, have been forced on this issue.

Anyway, as things stand I think we might be okay in time. If the new rules don't come in until 2012-13, we can theoretically spend a lot of money over the next couple of seasons and have a team that is realistically capable of challenging for domestic and European trophies by then. Even after 2012-2013, there's a 3-year period of leeway to help get us self-sufficient.

So while we may well be fine in the long-term, smaller clubs will be screwed if a rich benefactor comes along over the next few years and tries to do the same with them that Sheikh Mansour has done with us.

I also think that plenty of clubs across Europe could be affected by this, especially in eastern Europe where rich benefactors have had an influence on more teams than most of us realise. Look at Zenit St.Petersburg for example - they haven't risen to prominence in recent years solely on the back of no significant investment. They're bankrolled by Gazprom. If Platini gets his way then Zenit could well disappear back into mid-table obscurity in the Russian league which would be a bit rich considering Platini used to play for Juventus at a time when they were bankrolled by Fiat.

The poster who mentioned wildly conflicting ticket prices in different countries has got a very good point - what chance do the teams in the poorer European countries have of attracting decent players, or hanging onto their own talented players when these rules come in?<br /><br />-- Thu May 27, 2010 4:32 pm --<br /><br />

Mainly because they don't grasp the full ramifications. The "living within your means" rules he is proposing would, forever, close the doors on top level achievement to 99% of football teams. If you've got relatively small gate receipts, fanbase and income streams you're screwed. You won't be able to buy players of any real quality as the transfer fees will be out of your reach, and the wages will be preventative too. The likes of Barcelona, Real Madrid, United, Liverpool etc will, in the long run, remain at the top, just how Platini wants it.

So your argument is that other football fans just don't understand the rule like us? That's a little arrogant.

The discussions I've had with the guys who are for this, state that building a team slowly, whilst building the club, is something that they would prefer. The exorbitant transfer fees and wages are out of their reach anyway, so this is a leveller against the rich clubs such as ourselves.

Only because their own club doesn't have a rich owner. They won't be saying it for any other reason except jealousy.

 

[Skashion]

Does this not come up every close season. Also, this is the Daily Mail that everyone was slating on another thread, so why bother! It's obviously a slow sports day. Boring stuff really, and not worth 5 pages. Mind you, I've just added to it haven't I.......

Yes, but there appears to be a new development; a 'market-test' for sponsorship deals to determine whether benevolent owners, such as ours, willing to invest via a legitimate revenue stream, can do so. Our right honourable friend Platini doesn't want them to invest too much you see. He's so conscientious isn't he? Being so concerned for our owner's wallet and all. What a guy.

 

[Damocles]

Only because their own club doesn't have a rich owner. They won't be saying it for any other reason except jealousy.

Daft argument, that all football fans refuse to look beyond jealousy to the root of an argument.

 

[SWP's back]

Mainly because they don't grasp the full ramifications. The "living within your means" rules he is proposing would, forever, close the doors on top level achievement to 99% of football teams. If you've got relatively small gate receipts, fanbase and income streams you're screwed. You won't be able to buy players of any real quality as the transfer fees will be out of your reach, and the wages will be preventative too. The likes of Barcelona, Real Madrid, United, Liverpool etc will, in the long run, remain at the top, just how Platini wants it.

So your argument is that other football fans just don't understand the rule like us? That's a little arrogant.

The discussions I've had with the guys who are for this, state that building a team slowly, whilst building the club, is something that they would prefer. The exorbitant transfer fees and wages are out of their reach anyway, so this is a leveller against the rich clubs such as ourselves.

So fucking what if it is a little arrogant as you so put it. It is the truth. Most on here are fully aware of the implications as this rule is aimed at our club more than most other fans. A County fan isn't gong to read into the full details but will be in agreement as "in principle", it will stop teams like City spending. (though we know it won't).

As for building a team slowly. It cannot be done anymore. If you are graced with 2 or 3 great young footballers, as soon as they do ok, then the big boys would just come in and buy them. Look at Everton with Rooney, Villa with Milner, Spurs with Carrick, Leeds with Rio, West Ham with half the current England squad.

Just because most fans of other clubs haven't or don't think things through, doesn't make these proposals fair or even handed.

 

[M18CTID]

Only because their own club doesn't have a rich owner. They won't be saying it for any other reason except jealousy.

Daft argument, that all football fans refuse to look beyond jealousy to the root of an argument.

No it isn't. Put it this way, most City fans weren't calling for spending restrictions when we were shit and teams like Blackburn and Chelsea were benifitting from huge investment. But as soon as we won the lottery the bitterness from some opposition fans has gone through the roof. Why wasn't there that level of bitterness when Blackburn and Chelsea did it?

 

[fbloke]

OK, the 'Market Test'

As with any opinion based assessment it can always be countered with someone else's opinion and incidentally who is it that decides on a market value for a sponsorship? The very companies that are trying to get every penny for their clients surely. They will always agree with the higher valuation as it helps ALL clubs up their rates.

The test is worthless unless they cap what ALL teams can charge for sponsorship.

Without a cap they cannot say that the next deal is not acceptable can they.

What did United get from their first shirt sponsorship? What did they just get for it?

What will they be able to get next time? Its a fluid market and one with very many variables including the performance of the team and the demographic make-up of the squad amongst them.

Whilst we dont think in these terms as English City fans deals can be massively inflated in some foreign markets because a team has a player from say Korea or China.

So nobody can tell me a deal in China this year for a team with a Chinese player should be the same as a club with no Chinese player in China last year. So what the M. Platini will you say to a Chinese company sponsoring Birmingham City (with their Chinese connections) paying £30m a year as a sponsor?

Could Platini say that they are not offering market value?

If they can get that much then so be it, especially if the company in question has no direct links to the club.

A friend of Carson Yeung does him a favour and spends £30m on sponsorship and are we led to believe that UEFA will say you cant have it? That would be against the law as long as the deal is official and legal.

Here's another one to consider from City.

A deal has just been agreed between City and the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority (ADTA) fr sponsorship of the academy if that was £100m a year but included the development of 2,000 young people in the UAE is that now value?

Thats £50,000 per kid before expenses. So what is it worth to take a child through FA accredited coaching by a top Premiership side, what is that market value?

Then what is it worth to have that deal in each country that ADTA wants a presence?

What is the fair value for Abu Dhabi to be recognised as a brand in the US? £1bn?

What is Coca Cola worth as a brand, MacDonalds?

So you tell me where is the value of a test of a fair market test? About nothing unless you provide a framework in values each year and then you open up real issues of accountancy and marketing arguments.

If they dont value these things then its worth exactly nothing.