A
A
Anonymous
Guest
20 years too late.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
uefa to curb spending sprees
- Thread starter azatheblue
- Start date
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
anymore than 2sheiks said:I think this is aimed squarley at us.I can honestly sense them plotting to do us somehow.I suspect they'll go along the lines of turnover or gate reciepts,thus keeping rags,madrid,barca etc....the choice of all the cream and bar anyone else from gatecrashing.
The day after, we will put those posters up in the urinals at the CoM, for an estimated £1bn sponsorship deal with ADUG.
Cobwebcat said:
Again, if we limit the squads to 25, then players under the age of 21 who are any good will be cause to break the world transfer record. Besides, it won't work because most teams can't survive on a 25 man squad. Benitez uses that for 2 games.
Miami Weiss
Well-Known Member
Just look at the prick!
Helmet Cole
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 8,054
Bring it on. As previous posters have said, we will just get a huge "sponsorship" instead of cash, and the very clubs Platini is trying to protect will get caught out by their debt.
In fairness though, I think he is after Manure and Madrid as much as city - he wants to protect the status of French and German clubs.
In fairness though, I think he is after Manure and Madrid as much as city - he wants to protect the status of French and German clubs.
There are usually fairly simple ways of getting around rules. I'm not so sure Uefa are aiming at City, they possibly have Real Madrid in their sights, but if some sort of regulation comes into force, it won't be a problem for us. Our player purchases are gifts that leave us debt free, and whatever expenditure there is on player wages will, according to recent reports, be within the income of the club.
Whatever the powers that be try to do, there will be a way around it.
It's not a problem, IMO.
Our owner wants to buy a signed shirt from the club shop for, oooh, £120 million, what's wrong with that? It helps us along, does'nt it?
Whatever the powers that be try to do, there will be a way around it.
It's not a problem, IMO.
Our owner wants to buy a signed shirt from the club shop for, oooh, £120 million, what's wrong with that? It helps us along, does'nt it?
bizzbo
Well-Known Member
yeah, everyone needs to relax a bit, this is aimed more at clubs over extending themselves then getting the credit written off, a la Leeds.
There is no indication that these proposals would make an issue of 'private sponsorship', which is more or less the situation at our club. It's hard to see why they would tackle this, for all the talk about 'level' playing fields, the strong case is surely for regulation ensuring clubs handle their finances with as ethically and responsibly as the rest of the world.
It's a total disgrace that clubs can write off more debt than they have ever generated in income, and remain in business. Utd will remain largely untouched as they have genuinely strong revenue streams that pay for wages. The Glazers answer to the banks in a real sense, as do Hicks and Gilette. They are de facto owners, but the debt is very well secured against the outright ownership of the club. Real's position is a little less clear, as they appear to use the credit market to finance player acquisitions and wages. They appear to be able to make their debts disappear with no consequence as to the ownership of the club.
Coming back to the situation at city, it's hard to see how a donation of private capital to a club is either unethical or irresponsible. They may decide not to count it as a revenue stream when calculating the 'acceptable' spending on wages and transfers, but, again, if an individual provides a guarantee for the wages, what can they say? It's not putting the club at any risk. Even if they took the line that this was unfair on other clubs, how would they differentiate between the revenues generated through private sponsorship and corporate sponsorship, in principle? Why is one an acceptable revenue stream, and the other not? Where does one end and the other begin? :ook at a case like virgin. Branson's private and commercial interests coincide perfectly. What would be the difference between him, or the virgin brand, sponsoring a club, and Sheik Mansour sponsoring city to enhance the profile of his interests in Abu Dhabi?
There is no indication that these proposals would make an issue of 'private sponsorship', which is more or less the situation at our club. It's hard to see why they would tackle this, for all the talk about 'level' playing fields, the strong case is surely for regulation ensuring clubs handle their finances with as ethically and responsibly as the rest of the world.
It's a total disgrace that clubs can write off more debt than they have ever generated in income, and remain in business. Utd will remain largely untouched as they have genuinely strong revenue streams that pay for wages. The Glazers answer to the banks in a real sense, as do Hicks and Gilette. They are de facto owners, but the debt is very well secured against the outright ownership of the club. Real's position is a little less clear, as they appear to use the credit market to finance player acquisitions and wages. They appear to be able to make their debts disappear with no consequence as to the ownership of the club.
Coming back to the situation at city, it's hard to see how a donation of private capital to a club is either unethical or irresponsible. They may decide not to count it as a revenue stream when calculating the 'acceptable' spending on wages and transfers, but, again, if an individual provides a guarantee for the wages, what can they say? It's not putting the club at any risk. Even if they took the line that this was unfair on other clubs, how would they differentiate between the revenues generated through private sponsorship and corporate sponsorship, in principle? Why is one an acceptable revenue stream, and the other not? Where does one end and the other begin? :ook at a case like virgin. Branson's private and commercial interests coincide perfectly. What would be the difference between him, or the virgin brand, sponsoring a club, and Sheik Mansour sponsoring city to enhance the profile of his interests in Abu Dhabi?