Platini Warns City

[cibaman]

That sounds pretty good, I remember the glazers pottering around the world trying to sell bonds to every man and his dog a couple of years back, if they can do it then I don't see how UEFA could stop us.

THe money raised would be income, for the Sheikh. He'd only do this as a means of selling, not to raise money for the club.

I've always doubted that the Sheikh would be around for more than 10 years. By then the benefits of owning a PL club as a means of raising awareness of Abu Dhabi will decline.

But it makes no sense whatsever for Sheikh Mansour to leave the club in a financial mess. He will want to sell it as a going concern in good financial shape. He'll never recover the money he's invested in the club, but selling it as a successful business is the best way of mitigating his losses.

And the longer the Sheikh stays invested in City, the more permanent become the improvements that have been made to the club. The improvements in infrastructure, the increased fanbase, the improved commercial side will all outlast the Sheikh providing he stays for 2 or 3 more years.

Are you on drugs? He's here long term, as in for the rest of his life. Why would he walk away?

Because he hasn't got any emotional involvement in City. He's probably very pleased with the way things are going but, ultimately, he's not a fan.
If he decides that City has served its purpose in promoting Abu Dhabi he could decide to move on to something else.

I don't actually see anything wrong with that. In the short term he's not going to want to pick the team. There's no risk of him "falling out of love" with City or becoming bored with football. And he will still want the club to be successful. If he does decide to end his involvement with City he'll do it in an orderly manner that leaves us financially strong.

If he does stay for the very long term he's very unlikely to be pumping hundreds of millions into the club every year, even if UEFA will let him. Eventually we have to become less dependent on him financially so that even if he does sell it shouldl not be the end of the world.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know of any other industry where there is such protectionism, and worse, it is accepted. Cocal Cola and Pepsi are rival companies, competing for market share. No one is interested in how they have grown their brand, how they have developed their product, how they have exploited their commercial markets, how they have been funded or what they have invested in. Further, no one is demanding those companies share their profits equally within their industry among Virgin Cola, Rola Cola, Panda and Corona.

It's quite incredible.

The oil companies used to operate a cosy cartel in the 1970s which was broken up through pressure from monopolies/competition type legislation. FFP is nothing but a throwback to this.

I understand the FSA monitor the financial industry, but I'm not sure they have the power to impose business models on its members. I understand the Law Society monitors the legal sector, but has no power to impose a business model on a law practice.

Surely UEFA are no different? They can uphold the rules of the game, they can invent competitions but surely it is well outside their jurisdiction to be able to dictate who can invest what and where? This is blatantly restraint of trade or am I being too simplistic?

Strategic partnerships with Budweiser, Mastercard, whoever UEFA are in bed with, would cause a stir I reckon!

As to salary caps! They would not even get off the ground. Bosman and others have proven in the courts that specific rules which apply only to the game in terms of freedom of movement and do not apply across the labourforce in Europe are illegal.

We are talking a multibillion pound indsutry, suject to the same market forces, accounting legislation and country specific laws as most businesses. Some tin pot dictator will not be able to change that easily if at all. It does not need additoinal legislation other than a tighter, fit and proper persons test. Mind you, half the boards across Europe would be empty if that came about, so NOT going to happen!

On one level, Napoleon could actually be trying to bring in something that absolutely flies in the face of what 'Europe' and its free market economy stands for.

Ludicrous!

 

[colourmeblue]

Its pretty much ironic (or maybe not) that FFP could be what screws Rangers for a very long time too.

 

[Pam]

Why can't people ignore this constant Twattini attention seeker. Fuck all will come of this and it will be gone completely as soon as the top FIFA job becomes available. Or it will wither on the vine as unimplementable.

 

[gaudinho's stolen car]

THe money raised would be income, for the Sheikh. He'd only do this as a means of selling, not to raise money for the club.

I've always doubted that the Sheikh would be around for more than 10 years. By then the benefits of owning a PL club as a means of raising awareness of Abu Dhabi will decline.

But it makes no sense whatsever for Sheikh Mansour to leave the club in a financial mess. He will want to sell it as a going concern in good financial shape. He'll never recover the money he's invested in the club, but selling it as a successful business is the best way of mitigating his losses.

And the longer the Sheikh stays invested in City, the more permanent become the improvements that have been made to the club. The improvements in infrastructure, the increased fanbase, the improved commercial side will all outlast the Sheikh providing he stays for 2 or 3 more years.

Are you on drugs? He's here long term, as in for the rest of his life. Why would he walk away?

Because he hasn't got any emotional involvement in City. He's probably very pleased with the way things are going but, ultimately, he's not a fan.
If he decides that City has served its purpose in promoting Abu Dhabi he could decide to move on to something else.

I don't actually see anything wrong with that. In the short term he's not going to want to pick the team. There's no risk of him "falling out of love" with City or becoming bored with football. And he will still want the club to be successful. If he does decide to end his involvement with City he'll do it in an orderly manner that leaves us financially strong.

If he does stay for the very long term he's very unlikely to be pumping hundreds of millions into the club every year, even if UEFA will let him. Eventually we have to become less dependent on him financially so that even if he does sell it shouldl not be the end of the world.

He hasn't missed a game all season, admittedly he's watched them on TV but could you say the same about the Glazers or even Randy Lerner? I don't think so. You may call me naive but I genuinely believe the Sheikh is a fan. He won't lose interest in his F1 commitments, or horse racing commitments. Why would he lose interest in this? He is a businessman first and foremost and makes many billions of dollars profit a year, do you think he is not allowed to spend some of it on something he derives great pleasure from?

 

[cleavers]

If he does stay for the very long term he's very unlikely to be pumping hundreds of millions into the club every year, even if UEFA will let him. Eventually we have to become less dependent on him financially so that even if he does sell it shouldl not be the end of the world.

That has been the plan from the start, and Khaldoon said so, at the start. They will want the money back eventually, and to get it back we have to become globally huge, winners, and very profitable, and that will be when he looks to move on (if indeed he does, he might give it to his kids/family to run).

They're not investing this kind of effort into something to run away in 3 or 4 (or even 10) years time in my opinion, by which time, he may well love the club as much as we do.

 

[Squadmissile]

Sheikh Mansour is not Ken fucking Bates

 

[Damocles]

I guess all of 25 year plans he's making and investing hundreds of millions into are just because he's bored.

Oh, and the owner has to give 12 months notice to the board if he wants to withdraw or withhold the expected level of funding. You can read this in Citys own accounts, an agreement inserted by that Cook bloke who obviously was a buffoon.

I do wonder sometimes that people on here and in the media seem to think that they can come up with ideas that some of the worlds top executives can't. The mind boggles.

 

[TCIB]

Are you on drugs? He's here long term, as in for the rest of his life. Why would he walk away?

Because he hasn't got any emotional involvement in City. He's probably very pleased with the way things are going but, ultimately, he's not a fan.
If he decides that City has served its purpose in promoting Abu Dhabi he could decide to move on to something else.

I don't actually see anything wrong with that. In the short term he's not going to want to pick the team. There's no risk of him "falling out of love" with City or becoming bored with football. And he will still want the club to be successful. If he does decide to end his involvement with City he'll do it in an orderly manner that leaves us financially strong.

If he does stay for the very long term he's very unlikely to be pumping hundreds of millions into the club every year, even if UEFA will let him. Eventually we have to become less dependent on him financially so that even if he does sell it shouldl not be the end of the world.

He hasn't missed a game all season, admittedly he's watched them on TV but could you say the same about the Glazers or even Randy Lerner? I don't think so. You may call me naive but I genuinely believe the Sheikh is a fan. He won't lose interest in his F1 commitments, or horse racing commitments. Why would he lose interest in this? He is a businessman first and foremost and makes many billions of dollars profit a year, do you think he is not allowed to spend some of it on something he derives great pleasure from?

This also ^^

If even he does get what he wants commercially out of us, we will be a continued major source of continued positive exposure. Which a good sports team brings to all aspects of his dealings and personal life.

Any view now is only rosey for the club but like GSC i can see exactly why he would never have a need to leave us.

1, Continued good positive exposure
2, Self sustaining (3 or so years) (longer for the new development to pay of)
3, Genuine love of seeing what he has built and given to that part of a deprived area and indeed further afield in Manchester.
4, If his son grows up supporting us he will never let dad get rid :p

Edit: Damo says it more succinctly above :D

 

[Damocles]

Problem is that the original concept dealt with excess debt.

Amazing how it now ignores the debt, something the vast majority of the major clubs are in and instead, threatens a business model that pumps millions into the game without a cent of debt.

Very true - there's a bit more info here from David Conn as to why that concept changed http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/dav...ay/25/financial-fair-play-uefa-michel-platini

Dumping Platini is only likely to make things worse. Anyone who replaces him is likely to be of the Richard Scudamore 'all money is good' persuasion.

Ignore everything that uninformed prick writes.