Platini Warns City

[Newman Noggs]

Socialist principals?? Any scheme that aims to keep the rich, rich doesn't look very socialist to me. This guy has remarked about the "arab" owners here at at PSG. Whoever called him a nazi earlier in the thread wasn't far off.

I was thinking the word "collaborator" was more appropriate. Appeasing the G14 and doing whatever he thinks will line his own pockets

 

[Chris in London]

Whatever the original thinking behind FFP, the way it is being applied prevents anybody who wants to spend money they haven't earned chasing the dream from doing so, and effectively prevents anybody else from challenging the established order because the income differentials between those who have Champions League TV money and those who do not has been growing for 20 years and is now just too great a chasm to bridge. And it's getting wider all the time. Look at what it has taken us to break the Sky 4 cartel.

For make no mistake, it is a cartel that FFP guards. It protects an elite. It is wrong.

I don't disagree that it's hugely flawed, and as you mention twenty years late. That's a key point, because, as I pointed out, it no longer takes a rich sugar daddy to get to the top, it takes a SUPER-MEGA-RICH-SUGAR DADDY. You've mentioned 3 teams - us, PSG and Chelsea. Two of which are pretty much owned by countries! That's hardly sustainable.

Which makes you wonder where the next challenge to the established order could possibly come from. Could it be Celtic or Aston Villa say? No chance. They haven't got the income to bridge the gap without massive investment, and the one thing that FFP chokes is massive investment whether it is with the owners own money or with borrowed money.

So what if a club like that develops a really really good youth development system, and comes up with a world beating team from within, like the rags did in the 90s? Well, how many brilliant youngsters have the rags produced since? Not many. So its not that likely to start with. And how many did we produce before the takeover? A few, but they got snapped up and sold off - Sweep to Chelsea being the most obvious example. Look at how many good players Southampton have lost. The truth is, nobody outside the big 4 could afford to pay big wages to 17 or 18 year old kids with talent, and if you are an 18 year old at Southampton, would you sooner stay where you are on 5K a week or go to Arsenal for £30,000 a week? The best talent is attracted to the biggest teams, and so the realistic chances of a home grown group of world beaters challenging Europe's elite fade to nothing. Put it another way, if Scholes, Beckham, Giggs, Butt, the Chuckles etc had come through the ranks together at Bolton, no way would they have stayed together. They would have been cherry picked by the big boys long before they came to be a double winning team.

So the answer is.... the challenge doesn't come from anywhere. It doesn't exist.

Who benefits from that....

 

[RandomJ]

It was obvious the FFP law was brought in exclusively to stop City and this has just confirmed that fact.

 

[squirtyflower]

The G-14 (18) benefit, that's who

 

[blueinsa]

Been mentioned before but real FFP would mean salary caps, 50/50 split of gate receipts and TV monies along with caps on sponsership deals.

Go on Platini.....I dare you?

 

[Rammyblues]

What he wants is

European League

Real Madrid
Barca
Bayern Munich
Man U
Ajax
PSG
Marseilles
Arsenal
Liverpool
Celtic
Inter Milan
AC Milan
Feyenoord



No relegation, no promotion, play each other twice over the course of season once at home the other away, top three qualify for semi finals 4th spot allocated via a play off system between 4th 5th 6th and 7th.

Total 24 games plus two games re semi final and three games for play off teams. Venues to be determined whereby maximum income streams to be gathered so Man U v Real Madrid would take place in Asia where Man U have their fan base. Maybe the Italian sides would play their games in say New York, just examples. Winners go on to take on teams from rest of world in a super cup.

 

[bluenova]

Whatever the original thinking behind FFP, the way it is being applied prevents anybody who wants to spend money they haven't earned chasing the dream from doing so, and effectively prevents anybody else from challenging the established order because the income differentials between those who have Champions League TV money and those who do not has been growing for 20 years and is now just too great a chasm to bridge. And it's getting wider all the time. Look at what it has taken us to break the Sky 4 cartel.

For make no mistake, it is a cartel that FFP guards. It protects an elite. It is wrong.

I don't disagree that it's hugely flawed, and as you mention twenty years late. That's a key point, because, as I pointed out, it no longer takes a rich sugar daddy to get to the top, it takes a SUPER-MEGA-RICH-SUGAR DADDY. You've mentioned 3 teams - us, PSG and Chelsea. Two of which are pretty much owned by countries! That's hardly sustainable.

Which makes you wonder where the next challenge to the established order could possibly come from. Could it be Celtic or Aston Villa say? No chance. They haven't got the income to bridge the gap without massive investment, and the one thing that FFP chokes is massive investment whether it is with the owners own money or with borrowed money.

So what if a club like that develops a really really good youth development system, and comes up with a world beating team from within, like the rags did in the 90s? Well, how many brilliant youngsters have the rags produced since? Not many. So its not that likely to start with. And how many did we produce before the takeover? A few, but they got snapped up and sold off - Sweep to Chelsea being the most obvious example. Look at how many good players Southampton have lost. The truth is, nobody outside the big 4 could afford to pay big wages to 17 or 18 year old kids with talent, and if you are an 18 year old at Southampton, would you sooner stay where you are on 5K a week or go to Arsenal for £30,000 a week? The best talent is attracted to the biggest teams, and so the realistic chances of a home grown group of world beaters challenging Europe's elite fade to nothing. Put it another way, if Scholes, Beckham, Giggs, Butt, the Chuckles etc had come through the ranks together at Bolton, no way would they have stayed together. They would have been cherry picked by the big boys long before they came to be a double winning team.

So the answer is.... the challenge doesn't come from anywhere. It doesn't exist.

Who benefits from that....

You mention Aston Villa - they've already had a billionaire owner who failed to even break the top four. Forty years ago the wealthiest man in town could support the football club - not the wealthiest people in the country would struggle. The status quo was already protected because there aren't dozens more multi-billionaires desperate to run football clubs.

The links I added in my last post show Platini has consistantly criticised the top clubs (calling Utd and Chelsea cheats in 2008, and Barca and Madrid cheats in 2004). FFP is a tiny sticking plaster, but it's still a start. Maybe teams like Everton will stop their pointless search for a sugar daddy and start standing up for themselves.<br /><br />-- Fri May 18, 2012 6:10 pm --<br /><br />

It was obvious the FFP law was brought in exclusively to stop City and this has just confirmed that fact.

On the previous page I've posted a link to United fans in 2008 complaining that he was exclusively targeting them, and a link to some of Platini's earliest comments on FFP in 2004 in which he calls Madrid and Barca cheats.

 

[Chris in London]

You mention Aston Villa - they've already had a billionaire owner who failed to even break the top four. Forty years ago the wealthiest man in town could support the football club - not the wealthiest people in the country would struggle. The status quo was already protected because there aren't dozens more multi-billionaires desperate to run football clubs.

The links I added in my last post show Platini has consistantly criticised the top clubs (calling Utd and Chelsea cheats in 2008, and Barca and Madrid cheats in 2004). FFP is a tiny sticking plaster, but it's still a start. Maybe teams like Everton will stop their pointless search for a sugar daddy and start standing up for themselves.

Yes there aren't many trillionaires wanting to buy Bolton or Stoke, but then again there aren't many teams in the real european elite. About 14, in fact. The status quo itself isn't threatened by City's arrival, but the place of this or that individual club within the status quo certainly is.

I don't agree FFP is a start, I think its an end. It is an end to the rags-to-riches dream which we are taught about as children, we read about in fairy tales and which we saw come true on Sunday. I think that's a bad thing.

 

[bluenova]

You mention Aston Villa - they've already had a billionaire owner who failed to even break the top four. Forty years ago the wealthiest man in town could support the football club - not the wealthiest people in the country would struggle. The status quo was already protected because there aren't dozens more multi-billionaires desperate to run football clubs.

The links I added in my last post show Platini has consistantly criticised the top clubs (calling Utd and Chelsea cheats in 2008, and Barca and Madrid cheats in 2004). FFP is a tiny sticking plaster, but it's still a start. Maybe teams like Everton will stop their pointless search for a sugar daddy and start standing up for themselves.

Yes there aren't many trillionaires wanting to buy Bolton or Stoke, but then again there aren't many teams in the real european elite. About 14, in fact. The status quo itself isn't threatened by City's arrival, but the place of this or that individual club within the status quo certainly is.

I don't agree FFP is a start, I think its an end. It is an end to the rags-to-riches dream which we are taught about as children, we read about in fairy tales and which we saw come true on Sunday. I think that's a bad thing.

Remember that the Football League have introduced FFP too, following from UEFA's lead - surely that's a benefit considering those 40 clubs that have gone into administration in the last decade?

If it is an 'end' then that 'end' came a decade ago when the gaps at the top became too big to bridge through any kind of organic growth. When it reaches the stage that there are only a few people in the world who could save a club (and most of those aren't interested in doing so) then we need to do something.

 

[Dextersmate]

From the very beginning it was always about a European elite league.

European cup to European CL,next step get rid of the no hopers.