Platini Warns City

[Soulboy]

Oh, and if he's been banging on about this for a decade, how come it only comes into effect when we join the party?
What was stopping him implementing it years ago?

Ah, because the other clubs you mention now realise that their gravy train is hitting the buffers!

Because it takes time:

1. He wasn't even UEFA president when he first started arguing for better financial governance.

2. He's had to persuade clubs to agree to this (and inevitably there has been compromise because of this).

3. He's had to persuade the EU to agree that it doesn't break any of their competition laws.

4. As we all know, there are plenty of people desperate to find loopholes, so it's been a complex process preparing/introducing it.

5. It's been introduced slowly and with plenty of warning to give clubs the best chance to comply.

The UEFA FFP isn't a wonderful rule - it's been watered down from the original plans to tackle debt as well as overspending. Platini has also argued for salary caps (both absolute and as a % of income) and other similar measures, but can't get enough agreement to implement then.

A few pages back on this thread I posted a link to a United forum from 2008. It was almost exactly like this one - full of people accusing him of targeting United, and ignoring Barca and Madrid.

Are you suggesting he spent years talking about teams with debts, salary caps, financial mismanagment, and called Utd, Chelsea, Barca and Madrid cheats for no reason - then when we were taken over said "I must do something...but how...oh yes, all that talk over the years...I'll pretend I really meant it, and I can use it to screw Man City. Just as well the people at UEFA are already working on it. I had told them to get started as they looked bored, but never intended using it against my beautiful United (oh...how it hurt me to call them 'cheats' in public)...but now all that work, all those speeches, those hours of interviews, all the work that money we've spent working on consultation and legal issues won't be wasted. We have a target, and I can pretend it was a real plan all along....Evil Man City, you are in my sights!"

Do you seriously believe he will shit on Barca, the rags, Chelsea, Real, et al?

Of course he won't. He can witter on as much as he likes about financial probity in European football (even though he himself dumped French football to sign for the richest club in the world at that time, to earn huge sums, all paid for by a benefactor!), but he's also a politician.

And a politician targets his battles. Why take on the G14 clubs when you can pretend all is well by targetting an "outsider", a nouveau riche unworthy?

If he is as fair and reasonable as you like to suggest, why does he only ever refer to City these days? Forget the old stuff having a pop at English clubs and their wealth, he's already had his fingers burnt trying to take them on, so he's now doing all in his power to ensure that those he formerly criticised are now those he offers most protection to.

Is that the principles of a visionary with the good of football in his heart? Or a politician prepared to compromise to retain his power above all else?

You are making the mistake of equating Platini the "football man" with Platini the politician. He has an audience he has to appeal to (a bit like Blatter in his World Cup dealings) and he has to ensure he retains power. This is not about making football fairer. It's about protecting the powerful. That's what politicians generally do, so why should Platini be any different?

You decide. I know what I think.

 

[bluenova]

Oh, and if he's been banging on about this for a decade, how come it only comes into effect when we join the party?
What was stopping him implementing it years ago?

Ah, because the other clubs you mention now realise that their gravy train is hitting the buffers!

Because it takes time:

1. He wasn't even UEFA president when he first started arguing for better financial governance.

2. He's had to persuade clubs to agree to this (and inevitably there has been compromise because of this).

3. He's had to persuade the EU to agree that it doesn't break any of their competition laws.

4. As we all know, there are plenty of people desperate to find loopholes, so it's been a complex process preparing/introducing it.

5. It's been introduced slowly and with plenty of warning to give clubs the best chance to comply.

The UEFA FFP isn't a wonderful rule - it's been watered down from the original plans to tackle debt as well as overspending. Platini has also argued for salary caps (both absolute and as a % of income) and other similar measures, but can't get enough agreement to implement then.

A few pages back on this thread I posted a link to a United forum from 2008. It was almost exactly like this one - full of people accusing him of targeting United, and ignoring Barca and Madrid.

Are you suggesting he spent years talking about teams with debts, salary caps, financial mismanagment, and called Utd, Chelsea, Barca and Madrid cheats for no reason - then when we were taken over said "I must do something...but how...oh yes, all that talk over the years...I'll pretend I really meant it, and I can use it to screw Man City. Just as well the people at UEFA are already working on it. I had told them to get started as they looked bored, but never intended using it against my beautiful United (oh...how it hurt me to call them 'cheats' in public)...but now all that work, all those speeches, those hours of interviews, all the work that money we've spent working on consultation and legal issues won't be wasted. We have a target, and I can pretend it was a real plan all along....Evil Man City, you are in my sights!"

Do you seriously believe he will shit on Barca, the rags, Chelsea, Real, et al?

Of course he won't. He can witter on as much as he likes about financial probity in European football (even though he himself dumped French football to sign for the richest club in the world at that time, to earn huge sums, all paid for by a benefactor!), but he's also a politician.

And a politician targets his battles. Why take on the G14 clubs when you can pretend all is well by targetting an "outsider", a nouveau riche unworthy?

If he is as fair and reasonable as you like to suggest, why does he only ever refer to City these days? Forget the old stuff having a pop at English clubs and their wealth, he's already had his fingers burnt trying to take them on, so he's now doing all in his power to ensure that those he formerly criticised are now those he offers most protection to.

Is that the principles of a visionary with the good of footbal in his heart? Or a politician prepared to compromise to retain his power above all else?

You decide. I know what I think.

He's a politician - and I'm not even sure I like the guy - but compared to Sepp Blatter he's at least spent his time at least trying to make things a little better.

A lot of people talk about the G14, but Platini was publicly very critical of them, and he persuaded them to disband in 2008. The replacement group has around 200 member clubs, so it's much more representative. It wouldn't surprise me if there were concessions to the top clubs in FFP as part of the agreement to disband the G14. If so, then sadly that makes FFP less of a useful tool, but disbanding the G14 has reduced the power of the top clubs. Without a G14, the next battle might not be quite as easy to win for them.

It'll take a very long time if football is to start becoming more of a competitive sport instead of a financial race.

 

[Soulboy]

Because it takes time:

1. He wasn't even UEFA president when he first started arguing for better financial governance.

2. He's had to persuade clubs to agree to this (and inevitably there has been compromise because of this).

3. He's had to persuade the EU to agree that it doesn't break any of their competition laws.

4. As we all know, there are plenty of people desperate to find loopholes, so it's been a complex process preparing/introducing it.

5. It's been introduced slowly and with plenty of warning to give clubs the best chance to comply.

The UEFA FFP isn't a wonderful rule - it's been watered down from the original plans to tackle debt as well as overspending. Platini has also argued for salary caps (both absolute and as a % of income) and other similar measures, but can't get enough agreement to implement then.

A few pages back on this thread I posted a link to a United forum from 2008. It was almost exactly like this one - full of people accusing him of targeting United, and ignoring Barca and Madrid.

Are you suggesting he spent years talking about teams with debts, salary caps, financial mismanagment, and called Utd, Chelsea, Barca and Madrid cheats for no reason - then when we were taken over said "I must do something...but how...oh yes, all that talk over the years...I'll pretend I really meant it, and I can use it to screw Man City. Just as well the people at UEFA are already working on it. I had told them to get started as they looked bored, but never intended using it against my beautiful United (oh...how it hurt me to call them 'cheats' in public)...but now all that work, all those speeches, those hours of interviews, all the work that money we've spent working on consultation and legal issues won't be wasted. We have a target, and I can pretend it was a real plan all along....Evil Man City, you are in my sights!"

Do you seriously believe he will shit on Barca, the rags, Chelsea, Real, et al?

Of course he won't. He can witter on as much as he likes about financial probity in European football (even though he himself dumped French football to sign for the richest club in the world at that time, to earn huge sums, all paid for by a benefactor!), but he's also a politician.

And a politician targets his battles. Why take on the G14 clubs when you can pretend all is well by targetting an "outsider", a nouveau riche unworthy?

If he is as fair and reasonable as you like to suggest, why does he only ever refer to City these days? Forget the old stuff having a pop at English clubs and their wealth, he's already had his fingers burnt trying to take them on, so he's now doing all in his power to ensure that those he formerly criticised are now those he offers most protection to.

Is that the principles of a visionary with the good of footbal in his heart? Or a politician prepared to compromise to retain his power above all else?

You decide. I know what I think.

He's a politician - and I'm not even sure I like the guy - but compared to Sepp Blatter he's at least spent his time at least trying to make things a little better.

A lot of people talk about the G14, but Platini was publicly very critical of them, and he persuaded them to disband in 2008. The replacement group has around 200 member clubs, so it's much more representative. It wouldn't surprise me if there were concessions to the top clubs in FFP as part of the agreement to disband the G14. If so, then sadly that makes FFP less of a useful tool, but disbanding the G14 has reduced the power of the top clubs. Without a G14, the next battle might not be quite as easy to win for them.

It'll take a very long time if football is to start becoming more of a competitive sport instead of a financial race.

I'm sorry mate, but professional football in this country (and I assume elsewhere) has rarely been a competitive sport. It has always been a financial race!

Go back to the early 1900's, read Gary James' books, it's all there even then.

Throughout the modern day history of football it has always been about money. And why wouldn't it? It's a business. If you want to watch a "competitive sport" go on the Sunday League games for that.

Disbanding the G14 has had little efect on the power of the biggest clubs. They still want to ensure the Champions League (and the money) reflects their interests above all others. Every change in the top echelons of football is designed to help them... not make it a fairer playing field. Sorry, but you're a bit of an innocent if you believe the most powerful give up their power to help others reduce their power!

Anyway, we're getting off topic here... my original question still stands.. why does Platini no longer target the other clubs and only mentions City? Coincidence?

And the reasons he never mentions PSG are purely nationalistic as he would be berated at home if he ever questioned French football and their right to be a major force in European club football.

 

[The Future's Blue]

Because it takes time:

1. He wasn't even UEFA president when he first started arguing for better financial governance.

2. He's had to persuade clubs to agree to this (and inevitably there has been compromise because of this).

3. He's had to persuade the EU to agree that it doesn't break any of their competition laws.

4. As we all know, there are plenty of people desperate to find loopholes, so it's been a complex process preparing/introducing it.

5. It's been introduced slowly and with plenty of warning to give clubs the best chance to comply.

The UEFA FFP isn't a wonderful rule - it's been watered down from the original plans to tackle debt as well as overspending. Platini has also argued for salary caps (both absolute and as a % of income) and other similar measures, but can't get enough agreement to implement then.

A few pages back on this thread I posted a link to a United forum from 2008. It was almost exactly like this one - full of people accusing him of targeting United, and ignoring Barca and Madrid.

Are you suggesting he spent years talking about teams with debts, salary caps, financial mismanagment, and called Utd, Chelsea, Barca and Madrid cheats for no reason - then when we were taken over said "I must do something...but how...oh yes, all that talk over the years...I'll pretend I really meant it, and I can use it to screw Man City. Just as well the people at UEFA are already working on it. I had told them to get started as they looked bored, but never intended using it against my beautiful United (oh...how it hurt me to call them 'cheats' in public)...but now all that work, all those speeches, those hours of interviews, all the work that money we've spent working on consultation and legal issues won't be wasted. We have a target, and I can pretend it was a real plan all along....Evil Man City, you are in my sights!"

Do you seriously believe he will shit on Barca, the rags, Chelsea, Real, et al?

Of course he won't. He can witter on as much as he likes about financial probity in European football (even though he himself dumped French football to sign for the richest club in the world at that time, to earn huge sums, all paid for by a benefactor!), but he's also a politician.

And a politician targets his battles. Why take on the G14 clubs when you can pretend all is well by targetting an "outsider", a nouveau riche unworthy?

If he is as fair and reasonable as you like to suggest, why does he only ever refer to City these days? Forget the old stuff having a pop at English clubs and their wealth, he's already had his fingers burnt trying to take them on, so he's now doing all in his power to ensure that those he formerly criticised are now those he offers most protection to.

Is that the principles of a visionary with the good of footbal in his heart? Or a politician prepared to compromise to retain his power above all else?

You decide. I know what I think.

He's a politician - and I'm not even sure I like the guy - but compared to Sepp Blatter he's at least spent his time at least trying to make things a little better.

A lot of people talk about the G14, but Platini was publicly very critical of them, and he persuaded them to disband in 2008. The replacement group has around 200 member clubs, so it's much more representative. It wouldn't surprise me if there were concessions to the top clubs in FFP as part of the agreement to disband the G14. If so, then sadly that makes FFP less of a useful tool, but disbanding the G14 has reduced the power of the top clubs. Without a G14, the next battle might not be quite as easy to win for them.

It'll take a very long time if football is to start becoming more of a competitive sport instead of a financial race.

I'm following this debate with interest and nothing against you personally but you seem to be quite naive when it comes to this subject, although I'd suggest you have the right meaning at heart.

Just take the new set-up, bisband the old G14 and bring in a far more representational version, headed by the old guard. It may look better to the naked eye but when you look a little deeper you realise that nothing has changed.

 

[bluenova]

I'm sorry mate, but professional football in this country (and I assume elsewhere) has rarely been a competitive sport. It has always been a financial race!

Go back to the early 1900's, read Gary James' books, it's all there even then.

Throughout the modern day history of football it has always been about money. And why wouldn't it? It's a business. If you want to watch a "competitive sport" go on the Sunday League games for that.

This is a bit of a myth that you usually hear from United supporters.

Football has always been financial to some extent, but not like it is today.

Someone mentioned Notts Forest on here yesterday. Is it possible for a mid sized team like Forest to come up from Championship and win the league now?

In the 70s 11 teams made the top 3 - In the 00s it was just 5 different teams.

In the 70s seven different teams finished in second place.

Remember United getting relegated a few years after they won the European Cup. Can you imagine them being relegated now? United have a revenue of nearly £350m a year - clubs that get relegated have all had less than a third of that revenue.

There has never been a time in football where the gap between the top clubs and the rest was so large - when you were younger would you really look at sides who are usually around the top six (Everton, Villa) and be willing to bet your house that they wouldn't win the league? Of course not.

Disbanding the G14 has had little efect on the power of the biggest clubs. They still want to ensure the Champions League (and the money) reflects their interests above all others. Every change in the top echelons of football is designed to help them... not make it a fairer playing field. Sorry, but you're a bit of an innocent if you believe the most powerful give up their power to help others reduce their power!

Anyway, we're getting off topic here... my original question still stands.. why does Platini no longer target the other clubs and only mentions City? Coincidence?

And the reasons he never mentions PSG are purely nationalistic as he would be berated at home if he ever questioned French football and their right to be a major force in European club football.

Why does he only mention City?

1. We're the most obvious target as we'll get the most publicity (as Chelsea were a few years ago, and Real before them) so we'll get more stick.

2. I suspect, behind the scenes, our owners are the most confrontational - Chelsea have pretty much given in to him.

3. We aren't the only club he mentions. Is it possible that people on this forum read more Man City news than PSG news? He's been critical of PSG, Real, Chelsea, United etc, all since our takeover.

Again - I don't think FFP is brilliant, I don't think Platini is wonderful, and I'm not daft enough to think that the G14 rolled over and let UEFA tickle their belly.

I do think that City fans who think we've been singled out over every other club are as embarrassing as United fans claiming they never won a title because of money.

 

[bluenova]

I'm following this debate with interest and nothing against you personally but you seem to be quite naive when it comes to this subject, although I'd suggest you have the right meaning at heart.

Just take the new set-up, bisband the old G14 and bring in a far more representational version, headed by the old guard. It may look better to the naked eye but when you look a little deeper you realise that nothing has changed.

For about the tenth time. I don't think that Platini is a knight in shining armour who has saved football. I'm as cynical as they come when it comes to football.

What is naive is thinking that City are being targeted specifically by a process that started long before our take over.

I personally don't think football will ever go back to the way it was - but saying 'fuck it - we've got money now, so what do we care' isn't naive, it just makes us sound like rags.

 

[hgblue]

I'm sorry mate, but professional football in this country (and I assume elsewhere) has rarely been a competitive sport. It has always been a financial race!

Go back to the early 1900's, read Gary James' books, it's all there even then.

Throughout the modern day history of football it has always been about money. And why wouldn't it? It's a business. If you want to watch a "competitive sport" go on the Sunday League games for that.

This is a bit of a myth that you usually hear from United supporters.

Football has always been financial to some extent, but not like it is today.

Someone mentioned Notts Forest on here yesterday. Is it possible for a mid sized team like Forest to come up from Championship and win the league now?

In the 70s 11 teams made the top 3 - In the 00s it was just 5 different teams.

In the 70s seven different teams finished in second place.

Remember United getting relegated a few years after they won the European Cup. Can you imagine them being relegated now? United have a revenue of nearly £350m a year - clubs that get relegated have all had less than a third of that revenue.

There has never been a time in football where the gap between the top clubs and the rest was so large - when you were younger would you really look at sides who are usually around the top six (Everton, Villa) and be willing to bet your house that they wouldn't win the league? Of course not.

Disbanding the G14 has had little efect on the power of the biggest clubs. They still want to ensure the Champions League (and the money) reflects their interests above all others. Every change in the top echelons of football is designed to help them... not make it a fairer playing field. Sorry, but you're a bit of an innocent if you believe the most powerful give up their power to help others reduce their power!

Anyway, we're getting off topic here... my original question still stands.. why does Platini no longer target the other clubs and only mentions City? Coincidence?

And the reasons he never mentions PSG are purely nationalistic as he would be berated at home if he ever questioned French football and their right to be a major force in European club football.

Why does he only mention City?

1. We're the most obvious target as we'll get the most publicity (as Chelsea were a few years ago, and Real before them) so we'll get more stick.

2. I suspect, behind the scenes, our owners are the most confrontational - Chelsea have pretty much given in to him.

3. We aren't the only club he mentions. Is it possible that people on this forum read more Man City news than PSG news? He's been critical of PSG, Real, Chelsea, United etc, all since our takeover.

Again - I don't think FFP is brilliant, I don't think Platini is wonderful, and I'm not daft enough to think that the G14 rolled over and let UEFA tickle their belly.

I do think that City fans who think we've been singled out over every other club are as embarrassing as United fans claiming they never won a title because of money.

I'm not sure you quite understand the role the big clubs have had in fashioning FFP. It may well be that Platini set off with good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. FFP should have been about tackling clubs with 'massive' debt. A restriction on the amount of debt allowable (as a proportion of income), excluding clubs from European competition that fail to meet this criteria within a specified time frame, identifying a Rangers type situation before it reaches meltdown and enforcing some financial sense on clubs like these by hitting them where it hurts. Sensible regs like these will NEVER see the light of day because the big clubs won't wear it. They will, however, allow Platini to bring in regs that will carve their financial advantage in stone, and prevent anyone else 'doing a City' and threatening their domestic dominance, and participation in the cash cow that is the Champions League. People shouldn't underestimate how much of a threat City are to the established elite in this country. One of the big four will miss out on the Champions League for the forseeable future and they simply can't afford it. United can no longer trawl all the best talent keeping themselves in a dominant position and are in big trouble with an ageing squad and not enough money to compete with City for the top quality replacements they need. This was the nightmare scenario they tried to prevent and why they gave FFP the thumbs up, but fortunately for us, this came just too late to stop us, but will stop anything like City happening again. This is the real issue, and why FFP is so insidious.

 

[jake28]

Yes the process started before our takeover but under a totally different structure...fact is Platini changed the goalposts when Sheikh Mansour bought us as his original plan was to tackle huge debts...He tries to make it look like he taking the morale high ground but any football fan who even has an iota of interest in what he's doing can see that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[Soulboy]

I'm following this debate with interest and nothing against you personally but you seem to be quite naive when it comes to this subject, although I'd suggest you have the right meaning at heart.

Just take the new set-up, bisband the old G14 and bring in a far more representational version, headed by the old guard. It may look better to the naked eye but when you look a little deeper you realise that nothing has changed.

For about the tenth time. I don't think that Platini is a knight in shining armour who has saved football. I'm as cynical as they come when it comes to football.

What is naive is thinking that City are being targeted specifically by a process that started long before our take over.

I personally don't think football will ever go back to the way it was - but saying 'fuck it - we've got money now, so what do we care' isn't naive, it just makes us sound like rags.

And there's your answer in a nutshell. And you even answered it yourself!


You are clamouring to a sepia-tinted nostalgic time past when it's clear you have a belief rather than evidence to back up your views.

You mention Forest.
You mean the same Forest who were the biggest spenders in the English game when they reached the top division?
You mean the same Forest that outbid the rags for Peter Shilton?

Cloughie in his times at Forest and Derby spent millions. Too many forget that or never realised it in the first place!

This is the sort of guff I've come to expect from Colin Schindler and David Conn, where there is almost fear-like reluctance for City to dip their toes into the murky waters of "buying the league"... that somehow we should be purer and more noble.

Did you see the supporters reactions to the weekend's events? No one cared that we bought the league. Seriously. Everyone does it, and have done going back to Chelsea, the rags, Arsenal, Blackburn Rovers, Liverpool (ah yes, Liverpool, financed by the Littlewoods organisation in the late 60's, taking them from the 2nd. division to European glory!).

We sound like rags? Why say that? Why not say we sound like Chelsea or Blackburn or whatever club you want to name that has won the league in modern times.

Methinks you are a bit too obsessed by the rags mate. Let it go. We'll NEVER be like them.

Anyway, I'm going round in circles with this. You think FFPR is fair to City. I don't. And that's coming from someone who thinks that FFPR will have little impact upon us and merely close the door behind other similar clubs to us who still have dreams.

Now THAT is unfair.

 

[bluenova]

I'm not sure you quite understand the role the big clubs have had in fashioning FFP. It may well be that Platini set off with good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. FFP should have been about tackling clubs with 'massive' debt. A restriction on the amount of debt allowable (as a proportion of income), excluding clubs from European competition that fail to meet this criteria within a specified time frame, identifying a Rangers type situation before it reaches meltdown and enforcing some financial sense on clubs like these by hitting them where it hurts. Sensible regs like these will NEVER see the light of day because the big clubs won't wear it. They will, however, allow Platini to bring in regs that will carve their financial advantage in stone, and prevent anyone else 'doing a City' and threatening their domestic dominance, and participation in the cash cow that is the Champions League. People shouldn't underestimate how much of a threat City are to the established elite in this country. One of the big four will miss out on the Champions League for the forseeable future and they simply can't afford it. United can no longer trawl all the best talent keeping themselves in a dominant position and are in big trouble with an ageing squad and not enough money to compete with City for the top quality replacements they need. This was the nightmare scenario they tried to prevent and why they gave FFP the thumbs up, but fortunately for us, this came just too late to stop us, but will stop anything like City happening again. This is the real issue, and why FFP is so insidious.

I mostly agree - but summing up some of the points I've made.

1. I think Platini had good intentions but that politics, and having to get teams to agree to the plans, means they've been watered down. To suggest it is aimed at us doesn't explain why on earth he's been trying to implement it for years. If anyone thinks he had no intention of implementing it till we came around, or that we're the only club that will fail, then I simply can't argue with that, as it flies in the face of all the evidence.

2. He campaigned for a reduction if CL spots from 4 to 3 - as big a threat to the old 'big four' as City are.

3. FFP isn't going to stop City - our owners have too much influence in Abu Dhabi and money will flow in that will easily bypass FFP. Chelsea and the Italian clubs will be much more affected. Our turnover will match Chelsea's soon and Roman can't call in favours to get more sponsorship.

4. FFP isn't going to stop lots of 'City' transformations happening again. The amount of money needed now is so big that you need to be a multi-billionnaire to take a club to the top. There is a limited supply of those, and fewer still who are football fans.

5. FFP isn't just about the biggest clubs. UEFA only have direct control over the main competitions, but they've been encouraging leagues to introduce their own systems. Our own Football League is introducing FFP for all it's members, which will prevent a lot of clubs failing financially.


Anyway - I think it's time I head off to a Christian website to tell them that God doesn't exist. Faith will be a lot easier to challenge than bluemoon.