Uefas new money laws?

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Do you think it's fair Arsenal can charge more than 50 per cent more than City for tickets and corporate, simply due to location in the UK?

You have a margin that can only be closed by someone with the deepest of pockets.

You have also sold Highbury and lived off the development as such.

Our owners are in the process of related developments, without asking for £400mk debt you acquired to build the Emirates.

And we're not fair how?

 

[daveduke67]

I've said this before - the whole money thing that has gone on since PL/Sky/CL etc. has effectively stopped there ever being another Brian Clough's Derby or Forest again. The best anyone other than the big five can realistically hope for is a League cup.

Smaller teams - and I'm talking Everton, Villa sized clubs here - cant afford to keep top quality players - the big clubs can offer better wages/sponsorship/image rights etc. and the prospect of winning something!

Without our new money we'd be like the Evertons and Villas too - best we could hope for is a League Cup, a decent Europa run and the only thing we realistically could look forward to in the league would be a derby double, some big four wins and a couple of hammerings dished out to the Bolton, Wigans and Blackburns!


Another thing I said about our new money is the way we behaved with Lescott particularly and to some extent Milner. I'm not saying other clubs don't do it - but I don't like that new side to us.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

This is a genuine question - so don't throw the toys out. But do you genuinely feel that a club bankrolled like yours is is good for football?

This might sound like sour grapes coming from a Gooner - as we have had a much shorter time out of the trophies than you lot, and haven't had to bear the heartache that you have in the EPL era.

And what's more we are a wealthy club, and its a bit hypocritical the way some Gooners play the pauper card.

But if your model is replicated, the league becomes nothing more than a contest to see which billionaire has the biggest cock. After the first couple of titles, won't it all get a bit pointless?

It has ALWAYS been the one's with the biggest cock's who have been successful and it always will be. The teams that in recent history have been prominent have never been the one's holding out begging bowls; the rags, Liverpool, Chelsea etc have all benefitted from cash injections the sources of which have been discussed to death on this forum. The constant argument of
'Ruining Football' had never been brought up before we started to receive the largesse from the sheikh.
What is now happening is these teams are now running scared and are terrified of their cosy monopoly ending. As has been stated on here, once the global profile of a club increases, revenue rockets and the source of the original money is soon forgotten. So no, gunner, it is not or ever going to be 'pointless.'
It's not 'Bad for football' which is now being rolled out ad nauseum, but it is bad for those fans who support these clubs who now have to get used to the idea they are not going to steamroller their way to success automatically. Platini and his ilk's ill thought out subterfuge has blown the likes of Everton's chances of competing should they get a benefactor in the future and as such will, I am sure be challenged in the European courts as detrimental to competition.

 

[more lazy than useless]

Dear The Shrike,

I think it's fair to say that the concensus on here is, no, it isn't pointless!
A reasonable question though. And it has got me thinking about other owners. For example, take Arsenal. If I remember correctly, some of the shareholders have been there a long time. Does that make them better owners? Perhaps Arsenal are a bad example, but are they saying 'sustainable business/develop academy/etc' because it's in the best interests of the game or because it's in the best interests of their investment? Didn't one of them personally buy half the media rights?
Arsenal are probably a bad example because it's hard to pick too much from the way they run the club, but the point stands. Just because an owner can keep a club going without debt are they good, and is an owner like ours who is willing to put a lot of money into local community etc bad because he's rich?

 

[KenTheLandlord]

This is a genuine question - so don't throw the toys out. But do you genuinely feel that a club bankrolled like yours is is good for football?

This might sound like sour grapes coming from a Gooner - as we have had a much shorter time out of the trophies than you lot, and haven't had to bear the heartache that you have in the EPL era.

And what's more we are a wealthy club, and its a bit hypocritical the way some Gooners play the pauper card.

But if your model is replicated, the league becomes nothing more than a contest to see which billionaire has the biggest cock. After the first couple of titles, won't it all get a bit pointless?

I think that has been the position for the last 5 years. You probably haven't noticed as you have been in the cosy little club.<br /><br />-- Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:13 pm --<br /><br />

If they want fair play they should make allowances for taxation laws in variuos countries. Spain has reduced its upper rate from 43% to 23% for people earning over 600,000 Euros - of the 60 people who qualify 43 are footballers.

That means that a Spanish player who is paid £50k a week would have to be paid £80k by an English team to have the same take home pay!

We have far too many people earning over £500k a year over here for the Govt. to drop our upper tax band to 23%

City, or any other British club for that matter, have to take £40million a year from their income for salaries, whereas Real Madrid only have to find £25million to give its players the same take home pay.

And that's fair is it?

Dave, that law was aimed at highly paid worker, to which footballers clearly fall. It was known as The Beckham rule as he was one of the first to benefit. Unfortunately it went by the wayside earlier this year.

 

[The Shrike]

Interesting comments, all.

And I accept entirely that to an extent its always been about who has the biggest cock - and I can understand that questioning your financing sounds like sour grapes coming from a fan of a traditionally wealthy club.

...and believe me - you were many peoples' second team for ages because of what you lot had gone through (and the fact that you hate Manure even more than the rest of us).

If I were a City fan I would probably be defensive of my owners too. And I am not necessarily having a pop at them. Its the principle that I am questioning.

There are degrees of wealth. And your new owners have taken things to a level that goes beyond anything ever witnessed before. The bottom line is that your oweners are so wealthy they can make the playing field more or less vertical in City's favour. Like it or not - no matter how wealthy clubs are in the traditional sense, and how well they are managed, your owners can make winning the league almost inevitable - and may well do so once you start winning silverware and can become a destination club for players motivated by more than just money.

So in this context, I see the financial fair play rules as necessary in order to preserve any proper element of competition. And BTW its not just since your Arab money that fans have been questioning this kind of financial doping - Chelsea have been on the end of this for years.<br /><br />-- Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:33 pm --<br /><br />

Do you think it's fair Arsenal can charge more than 50 per cent more than City for tickets and corporate, simply due to location in the UK?

You have a margin that can only be closed by someone with the deepest of pockets.

You have also sold Highbury and lived off the development as such.

Our owners are in the process of related developments, without asking for £400mk debt you acquired to build the Emirates.

And we're not fair how?

....because your income has nothing to do with your success as a business?

 

[jimbo101]

For the rags nothing to worry about.. The operating profit posted by the club is likely to mean they meet the requirements. At the end of the day as a business they are profitable, just weighed down by financing which is only reflected in the net figure. Net Losses are sustainable over a longer period providing they service the debt, Operating losses are not.

I'm no accountant, but are you sure this is right?
I know amortisation & depreciation are 'non cash' entries, but they still form part of the equation UEFA will use for their FFPR.

 

[more lazy than useless]

....because your income has nothing to do with your success as a business?

But that's part of the point. It is a business. Tesco got to be the biggest supermarket chain because they invested a lot of money. Do Sainsbury's think it's fair?

Do Blackpool fans look at City and say 'that's terrible' or do they look at the top end of the table and say 'it'll never happen for us'? Outside the top end of the table, looking at all of the 'top' clubs, does it matter that you have one set of advantages, us another and so on, we're all advantaged. Don't look as an Arsenal fan and you might see it differently.

Maybe this one sums it up. Were Southampton happy to sell you Theo Wallcott? What if they sold there next rising star to us? Where's the difference?

I agree that the playing field is vertical in our favour, but you had it in yours at one time. As for the FFP rules, good idea, but it looks like it's simply going to mean cementing the top clubs at the top and holding the other clubs down.

 

[Skashion]

So in this context, I see the financial fair play rules as necessary in order to preserve any proper element of competition. And BTW its not just since your Arab money that fans have been questioning this kind of financial doping - Chelsea have been on the end of this for years.

Can't agree with you there. Money buys success, as you've admitted yourself. Therefore if clubs can only spend what they earn the richest clubs will always be at the top. That's not competition, unless you mean competition between the top three or four richest clubs. The ability to gamble your way into the top four by signing players via loans in the hope of increasing revenue to pay for it later will be gone. Only a mega rich owner who's prepared to take the losses in the hundreds of millions and who's prepared to invest to expand revenue like our owners have and will continue to do, will stand any chance.

Do not imagine this to be self-interest by the way. In the short-term, yes, the rules will affect us more than anyone else but in the long-term they will be to our benefit. We will become part of the top four and the rules will ensure that competitors to our place within the oligarchy are few to zero.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

So in this context, I see the financial fair play rules as necessary in order to preserve any proper element of competition. And BTW its not just since your Arab money that fans have been questioning this kind of financial doping - Chelsea have been on the end of this for years.

Can't agree with you there. Money buys success, as you've admitted yourself. Therefore if clubs can only spend what they earn the richest clubs will always be at the top. That's not competition, unless you mean competition between the top three or four richest clubs. The ability to gamble your way into the top four by signing players via loans in the hope of increasing revenue to pay for it later will be gone. Only a mega rich owner who's prepared to take the losses in the hundreds of millions and who's prepared to invest to expand revenue like our owners have and will continue to do, will stand any chance.

Do not imagine this to be self-interest by the way. In the short-term, yes, the rules will affect us more than anyone else but in the long-term they will be to our benefit. We will become part of the top four and the rules will ensure that competitors to our place within the oligarchy are few to zero.

The way i see these fair play rules is. If i started my own company and it started doing better than i thought and to continue this i took a big gamble or losing more than i earnt for the next 2 years but by year 4 i would make 20x what i did before in the meantime as my company becomes more succesful and compete against the bigger companies in my market and therefore allowing my company to become a better brand.
But Platini is saying "non you connot dou zis, it iz not fair on ze big companiessss that were there before youz"
Shirley there is a way in the courts to tell him to go love himself in private!!!

Or to put it another way i get on dragons den with the most fantastic idea ever concived by mankind and they all turn around and say "i would like to invest in your company and idea but unfortunatly i cant because of the FFPR and therefore this show is now redundant good night and godbless"