UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[waspish]

Just reading The Athletic story on the Glazers and the point is made that you're only allowed to secure up to £300m ($350m) debt on an NFL franchise. And that's gone up from $250m fairly recently. That's 15% of the average value of an NFL franchise, which is just over $2.5bn, which is what United are currently worth.

So they're carrying $300m more debt on United ($650m) than they'd be able to carry on the TB Buccaneers.

Got to love the Glazers borrowed the money at around 5% to purchase them and let the rags have it at 10%.

 

[Rochdale Blue]

Wenger's Arsenal paymasters were part of the US-owned, G-14 cartel, who don't want us gatecrashing their cosy little party.

Whereas FIFA and the UEFA secretariat seem to be much more neutral if not more on our side.

Which is I assume a possible reason Wenger has done his about turn. None of them are to be trusted or worthy of having the responsibility of running our game.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Abramovich's spending and Chelsea's losses predate FFP. I may be wrong but FFP wouldn't allow that now, as someone who is firmly against FFP surely you would agree you are highlighting some of the benefits it brings?

All the noise seems to be pointing towards a restructuring of FFP, I don't think this is a good thing. For example say Abramovich only bought Chelsea now and wanted to buy Mbappe, the total cost for the deal is £300m, Chelsea can't afford that without making enormous losses, if he deposit's £300m to UEFA (not a good example i know but I can't think of anyone else at this hour) then that should be allowed, within reason*. If he wants to buy him but loan Chelsea £300m like he actually did then that shouldn't be allowed. Chelsea are a phone call away from going bankrupt, as much as I hate them that can't be allowed to happen.

When Platini suggested that regulation should tackle the problem of debt members of the G 14 threatened a breakaway lague AND legal action. I have never concealed my belief that financing a club through debt is both legal and potentially disastrous unless it is part of a coherent investment strategy. The strategy is no business of UEFA's and I do not criticise Abramovitch for spending his own money on Chelsea. What I do criticise him for is hypocrisy, for spending a fortune and then rallying to Platini's plans to control spending because he thought it would prevent City competing. I believe the first time Chelsea made a profit wasduring the first accounting period for FFP! The second thing I criticise him for is his cynicism. He is no better, and may be a good deal worse, than those at Leeds and Portsmouth, who ruined the clubs by borrowing rather than investing. Abramovitch has given Chelsea no choice. The club has been financed through interest free loans. There is, I believe no time limit for repayment apart from repayment in full within 180 days of him leaving the club, but the club still owes him well over £1 billion. It is clear Chelsea will never be able to repay this but if he does ever want out Chelsea would have no choice but to sell the ground and any other assets they have, including the squad. I don't think regulation by UEFA could do anything to protect Chelsea from Abramovitch because football, like any other economic activity is already regulated by the law and quite clearly FFP hasn't helped protect Chelsea at all. As PB has explained to us in considerable detail and on many occasions, FFP actually encourages debt and, just like United, Barcelona etc etc etc Chelsea's debt has increased since FFP was introduced. The only hope, in my eyes, to encourage more rational financial management in football is not through any ban on debt, through which investment for many clubs (eg Spurs and their new ground) would be impossible) or through controls on spending, which effectively dictates a club's investment policies to it, but by deterring the cowboys (not only the American ones!) from buying clubs and encouraging owners of sound and sensible judgement allied to high level management skills to come in. This may need the ending of the obsession with CL and of avoiding relegation, both for financial reasons, but it means much greater attention to who exactly is a "fit and proper person". People may argue that it's okay for a City fan to argue this but such owners do exist and I have argued before that Gibson at Middlesborough is a good example. The trouble is that his job is made impossible by unscrupulous owners with their sky high directors' fees, dodgy sponsorship deals and so on.

 

[Rochdale Blue]

Maybe but in the normal legal world.it was necessary to make cartels (we suffered a barrier to entry type of cartel) illegal which would not be necessary if high street companies were all as gentlemanly as you suggest.

I didn't mean to imply they are all angels, but the nasty and often unwarranted attacks that City face should not be allowed to happen to any club. The fact that we have been the victim of criminal acts on more than one occasion for me means the whole cabal of associations and ruling organisations need wiping out and replacing with bodies fit for purpose.

 

[nmc]

The US business model generally is built on debt driven acquisition. I see it in the industry I sell into as the large US owned groups have huge debt whereas the European ones generally have little or no debt.

US sports model is all about maximising revenues, having a salary cap and maximising profit. I’m guessing US owners are outraged by the percentage of revenue spent on salaries in the Premier League. I know a few years ago the NBA was spending about 51 per cent of revenue on salaries and the NFL was slightly lower at 47 per cent - although with “rookie deals” and front loading of contracts (now outlawed in the NHL) the salary cap in the US can be complicated. It’s interesting that United and the Dippers both US owned have done more to inflate salaries than any other club in recent years. I guess they hope to get to a point where they become so dominant - same top 4 every year - that every other club gives up.

 

[KS55]

When Platini suggested that regulation should tackle the problem of debt members of the G 14 threatened a breakaway lague AND legal action. I have never concealed my belief that financing a club through debt is both legal and potentially disastrous unless it is part of a coherent investment strategy. The strategy is no business of UEFA's and I do not criticise Abramovitch for spending his own money on Chelsea. What I do criticise him for is hypocrisy, for spending a fortune and then rallying to Platini's plans to control spending because he thought it would prevent City competing. I believe the first time Chelsea made a profit wasduring the first accounting period for FFP! The second thing I criticise him for is his cynicism. He is no better, and may be a good deal worse, than those at Leeds and Portsmouth, who ruined the clubs by borrowing rather than investing. Abramovitch has given Chelsea no choice. The club has been financed through interest free loans. There is, I believe no time limit for repayment apart from repayment in full within 180 days of him leaving the club, but the club still owes him well over £1 billion. It is clear Chelsea will never be able to repay this but if he does ever want out Chelsea would have no choice but to sell the ground and any other assets they have, including the squad. I don't think regulation by UEFA could do anything to protect Chelsea from Abramovitch because football, like any other economic activity is already regulated by the law and quite clearly FFP hasn't helped protect Chelsea at all. As PB has explained to us in considerable detail and on many occasions, FFP actually encourages debt and, just like United, Barcelona etc etc etc Chelsea's debt has increased since FFP was introduced. The only hope, in my eyes, to encourage more rational financial management in football is not through any ban on debt, through which investment for many clubs (eg Spurs and their new ground) would be impossible) or through controls on spending, which effectively dictates a club's investment policies to it, but by deterring the cowboys (not only the American ones!) from buying clubs and encouraging owners of sound and sensible judgement allied to high level management skills to come in. This may need the ending of the obsession with CL and of avoiding relegation, both for financial reasons, but it means much greater attention to who exactly is a "fit and proper person". People may argue that it's okay for a City fan to argue this but such owners do exist and I have argued before that Gibson at Middlesborough is a good example. The trouble is that his job is made impossible by unscrupulous owners with their sky high directors' fees, dodgy sponsorship deals and so on.

Much to agree with here. However, I would not have a problem with sensible regulation of debt which would prevent another Leeds, Portsmouth, or the possible collapse of Chelsea. I would tie a maximum debt to a multiple of turnover (perhaps 1.5) and outlaw borrowings which included onerous pay back terms, e.g. short notice. See PB's comment on NFL regs. Similarly, I would ban owners from selling the ground to themselves or their companies (Brighton, Luton, Bury(?)) or holding a mortgage thereon, thus separating club and ground.

 

[nmc]

And they are paying for Brady and Gronk!

A 43 year old QB (Who wants to call all the plays) and a Tight End with a notorious bad back.... not sure this gamble will end well.

 

[nmc]

I wonder if this will finally see the two airline carriers merge?

It was mooted last year and would seem to make even more sense during this time.

How delicious it would be to see us have a say in pulling the plug on Arsenal and others.

We could always let them use Etihad instead!

A merged UAE Airlines makes an awful lot of sense.

 

[Mikeegrini]

When Platini suggested that regulation should tackle the problem of debt members of the G 14 threatened a breakaway lague AND legal action. I have never concealed my belief that financing a club through debt is both legal and potentially disastrous unless it is part of a coherent investment strategy. The strategy is no business of UEFA's and I do not criticise Abramovitch for spending his own money on Chelsea. What I do criticise him for is hypocrisy, for spending a fortune and then rallying to Platini's plans to control spending because he thought it would prevent City competing. I believe the first time Chelsea made a profit wasduring the first accounting period for FFP! The second thing I criticise him for is his cynicism. He is no better, and may be a good deal worse, than those at Leeds and Portsmouth, who ruined the clubs by borrowing rather than investing. Abramovitch has given Chelsea no choice. The club has been financed through interest free loans. There is, I believe no time limit for repayment apart from repayment in full within 180 days of him leaving the club, but the club still owes him well over £1 billion. It is clear Chelsea will never be able to repay this but if he does ever want out Chelsea would have no choice but to sell the ground and any other assets they have, including the squad. I don't think regulation by UEFA could do anything to protect Chelsea from Abramovitch because football, like any other economic activity is already regulated by the law and quite clearly FFP hasn't helped protect Chelsea at all. As PB has explained to us in considerable detail and on many occasions, FFP actually encourages debt and, just like United, Barcelona etc etc etc Chelsea's debt has increased since FFP was introduced. The only hope, in my eyes, to encourage more rational financial management in football is not through any ban on debt, through which investment for many clubs (eg Spurs and their new ground) would be impossible) or through controls on spending, which effectively dictates a club's investment policies to it, but by deterring the cowboys (not only the American ones!) from buying clubs and encouraging owners of sound and sensible judgement allied to high level management skills to come in. This may need the ending of the obsession with CL and of avoiding relegation, both for financial reasons, but it means much greater attention to who exactly is a "fit and proper person". People may argue that it's okay for a City fan to argue this but such owners do exist and I have argued before that Gibson at Middlesborough is a good example. The trouble is that his job is made impossible by unscrupulous owners with their sky high directors' fees, dodgy sponsorship deals and so on.

The odd thing here is, and I'm unaware of any other club in this position, that Abramovich doesn't own the name Chelsea FC and the naming rights or the pitch, the freehold, or indeed the turnstiles. In effect Abramovich has put in a billion to rights to run the team?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Maybe not Companies in the High St, but in another sector it happened before... https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2003/sep/14/features.magazine87
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4699582.stm

Freddie Laker was a godsend at the time. If you went standby you could fly from Manchester to New York for £50 and that's what I did. He was forced out by a cartel of British and other airlines and the consumers paid the price.