The ECA, UEFA and City

[BobKowalski]

The Negrado deal got me thinking the other day and it resurfaced as I read about the ECA and UEFA mutually congratulating themselves as they divvied up the FFP 'fines' (which kind of irritated me as it smacked of rubbing our noses in it) with promises to fine tune FFP and make it 'dynamic' which I guess is code for 'how can we trip them up next time' but I digress.

The Negrado deal. No question that Txiki is a smooth operator when it comes to buying and selling but the Negrado deal is very generous so I wondered if there was more to it then just Txiki cutting a good deal but part of establishing a network of interested clubs and owners like Peter Lim for whom FFP is a hinderence. And not just FFP but the Spanish TV deal which massively disadvantages Valancia who Lim now owns.

The ECA allows UEFA to run European football in return for them ensuring the commercial advantages of the established elite. But there are a lot more clubs who are not part of the elite and want their fair share of the pie so is there room for a second 'ECA'? Another organisation to represent clubs who are not only hampered by FFP but other inequalities. An organisation that could act as a pressure group on UEFA to look at income spread to retain competitiveness in respective leagues, a different model to redistribute CL income, an alternative to FFP where debt is also an issue or the use of escrow funds to deter cowboy owners.

City will want to be a major player in the ECA as a first and preferred option but the setting up of an alternative representative body with clubs like City, PSG, Valencia, Zenit and clubs like Porto, who apparently are also at risk of falling foul of FFP, may be the way forward if our voice is not heard. It would be a situation not dissimilar to the F1 war in the eighties with the UK teams taking on and winning against the established order.

I cited the Negrado deal only because it smacks of us helping them with the use now pay later option and a very generous fee for City in return. That and the fact Txiki has been lunching with Peter Lim made me think there could be more to what was on the face of it an odd transfer ie the buying of future political capital.

I personally don't see the ECA being that accommodating to City and our current business model is viewed with suspicion to the point where FFP will no doubt address the way we do business. On the flip side a second representative body may be welcomed by UEFA as a means of balancing the pressure they are under from the ECA.

The big, established clubs with the guaranteed revenue do need the smaller clubs unless they think the future of football is Real, Barca, Bayern and ManU playing each other forever on an endless loop. We need competitive leagues and genuine competition that excites us. Every society needs social mobility and every industry needs cycles where clubs rise and fall and rise again. FFP is just protectionism and that never ends well.

Offering UEFA a second representative body to talk too and one that has legitimate concerns about the current protectionism model and has viable solutions to those concerns may be a better long term political strategy.

 

[BlueTG]

Don't remember signing a 'Negrado', let alone selling him.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Great post Bob, The world of Football corruption is laid bare.

BTW

Don't remember signing a 'Negrado', let alone selling him.

Bobs posh and writes as he says it. He Pronounces an e after an r as an a.

 

[BobKowalski]

Great post Bob, The world of Football corruption is laid bare.

BTW

Don't remember signing a 'Negrado', let alone selling him.

Bobs posh and writes as he says it. He Pronounces an e after an r as an a.

Knew I should have called him Alf. Rookie error on my part...

 

[mrbelfry]

It seems to me that UEFA is a little bit 2 minded at the minute. One the one hand you have things like FFP which demonstrates the power of the old elite and on the other there is more weight be given to less fashionable teams (like the changes being made to the euros). Doesn't the ECA already represent the clubs and isnt a rehash of G14?

 

[mrbelfry]

Just checked and the ECA represents 197 clubs including us (and Fulham). Their executive board still seems to be full of the usual suspects but in any event still demonstrates a 'democratisation' of sorts

 

[BobKowalski]

Just checked and the ECA represents 197 clubs including us (and Fulham). Their executive board still seems to be full of the usual suspects but in any event still demonstrates a 'democratisation' of sorts

The ECA does represent around 200 clubs and is the designated body that protects their interests. The executive is, unsurprisingly, full of the usual suspects. There is an FFP panel that is charged with the vigorous implementation of FFP and to maintain its relevance going forward. The executive is very keen on FFP in its current format because it largely protects the interests of the clubs that wield the most influence in the ECA so whilst the ECA represents City it is still inimical to City's interests and from the noises they are making at their latest shindig will continue to be.

Khaldoon talked about our friends in UEFA having at some stage to listen to us. UEFA may at some stage listen to us and we may at some stage have some meaningful influence at the executive level on the ECA but right now we don't or at least don't appear too (none of us are privy to what goes on behind the scenes). Instead there is an unease about City that goes beyond rich owner pumps money into club. The way we are building the brand, the overseas clubs, the worry in the media from the usual suspects that loaning Lamps was all part of an FFP dodge. There is almost an obsession about the way City does it's business and who will bet against FFP being reworked to further hinder our progress?

As part of the pact that the top clubs made with UEFA was the provision that only the ECA can represent European clubs thereby ensuring that only their voice is heard and their interests protected. So what do City do if their interests are not the interests of the ECA? The same applies to PSG. Our interests right now are contrary to the interests of the sole body that is charged with representing us with the governing body and that is a situation that cannot endure. Either UEFA and the ECA do indeed 'listen to us' or we set about making our voice heard via a different channel.

 

[mrbelfry]

In a broad sense our interests are the same as most clubs - a self sustaining club that is positioned to win trophies. The conflict is in how that is achieved but once we've achieved it (by increasing our revenue and by carefully balancing our squad with purchases or home grown players) then in my naive uncomplicated view of the world there is no reason for the conflict to continue. By setting up a rival group with PSG or whoever we immediately position ourselves to be in conflict with UEFA and the other ECA teams with no real resolution. I see what you are saying that in terms of FFP we are in conflict with the big shots in the ECA but we seem well placed to comply and be heralded as an FFP success story. A split right now makes no sense as potentially FFP will become a none issue for us. However depending on what happens during the dynamic rule evaluation planned for October then we may need to reconsider our position. I realise i sound a little like Neville Chamberlain.

Best way to get influence is to increase revenue, perform well in the champions league and secure high profile sponsorship away from the Middle East. Hopefully the academy will start producing quality and we will quickly become the model to follow by embracing traditional footballing values with an innovative business approach.

Part of the threat we represent to the elite is the way we are doing business to secure the long term financial security of Manchester City hence our response to the FFP sanctions being a commitment to simplify our accounts to UEFA - instead of accounting for IP sales we should just have put them down as bungs, money laundering or payments made from a dog - these are terms understandable to football.

Ultimately success is the channel through which we will get our voice heard. A splinter group makes us easier to isolate

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

". . . . . . . . . .who will bet against FFP being reworked to further hinder our progress?"

I am certain the Rags and their national and continental comrades will shift the goalposts and relay the running track in a different direction as soon as we are compliant with the first prototype of FFPR. New and MCFC specific regulations will be spawned that home in on the way we operate. We all know what the game is - the status quo is to be maintained.

 

[BobKowalski]

In a broad sense our interests are the same as most clubs - a self sustaining club that is positioned to win trophies. The conflict is in how that is achieved but once we've achieved it (by increasing our revenue and by carefully balancing our squad with purchases or home grown players) then in my naive uncomplicated view of the world there is no reason for the conflict to continue. By setting up a rival group with PSG or whoever we immediately position ourselves to be in conflict with UEFA and the other ECA teams with no real resolution. I see what you are saying that in terms of FFP we are in conflict with the big shots in the ECA but we seem well placed to comply and be heralded as an FFP success story. A split right now makes no sense as potentially FFP will become a none issue for us. However depending on what happens during the dynamic rule evaluation planned for October then we may need to reconsider our position. I realise i sound a little like Neville Chamberlain.

Best way to get influence is to increase revenue, perform well in the champions league and secure high profile sponsorship away from the Middle East. Hopefully the academy will start producing quality and we will quickly become the model to follow by embracing traditional footballing values with an innovative business approach.

Part of the threat we represent to the elite is the way we are doing business to secure the long term financial security of Manchester City hence our response to the FFP sanctions being a commitment to simplify our accounts to UEFA - instead of accounting for IP sales we should just have put them down as bungs, money laundering or payments made from a dog - these are terms understandable to football.

Ultimately success is the channel through which we will get our voice heard. A splinter group makes us easier to isolate

I agree that the our ultimate aim is that of all clubs ie self sustaining and ability to compete for trophies. The conflict is the method in which that aim is achieved with the City model or outside investment model largely redundant under FFP. I say largely because outside investment is permitted if you spend it on academies, infrastructure etc but you cannot ring fence or protect that investment by gatecrashing the CL party through player acquisitions and salaries.

I also agree that UEFA have taken their FFP pot shot at us and missed making us reasonably fireproof going forward unless FFP is reworked to exclude the buying of overseas clubs or something that impacts on our business model going forward. That City ducked a fight this time round is evidence that City would much prefer to work within the existing power structures than outside (plus the fight was not worth having over the sanctions imposed) but if the ECA and UEFA continue to be inimical to the way City wish to operate and grow the club and the brand then at some point a fight becomes necessary and a group of clubs fighting under some form of association or memorandum of understanding may prove better than City fighting a lone fight from within. Again using F1 as a parallel the teams did that a few years ago with the threat of a break away under a loose umbrella. It was about getting leverage more than actually wanting to break away but it does concentrate the minds.

I guess I am not convinced the ECA want 'an innovative business approach' from their members or anything that potentially rocks the boat from the current set up given it suits the ones that profit the most who coincidentally happen to wield the most influence. Its not just City either but the whole CL payments which distort smaller leagues through disproportionate cash injections not to mention uneven spread for those that participate based on what TV companies will pay. Ideally UEFA should even it out to make it more equitable but again the wealthiest clubs want the biggest share even as it continues to distort competition. Any system that prohibits innovation and outside investment whilst safeguarding structural inequalities that distort sporting competition cannot succeed long term.