The mancityfans.net football forum

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009 ... h-spending


Roman Abramovich puts the squeeze on Manchester City

• Chelsea owner backs Uefa plans to curb spending
• Michel Platini wants budget caps by 2012

* Kevin McCarra
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday 27 August 2009 21.29 BST
* Article history



Chelsea's owner, Roman Abramovich. Photograph: Ian Kington/AFP/Getty Images

Manchester City's bid to dominate English football with overwhelming financial power is under threat from Chelsea. The Stamford Bridge club, despite their own previous extravagance, are backing a proposal that would limit the amount clubs can spend. The Uefa president, Michel Platini, is intent on ensuring that, by 2012, Champions League entrants will be obliged to balance their books. It was telling that Platini named Chelsea's owner as a supporter of the scheme.

Roman Abramovich will be accused of trying to sabotage a competitor who simply wishes to follow his example. City's outlay in this transfer window alone has amounted to £120m. Such splurges used to typify Chelsea when they were aiming for the prominence they have now secured.

"It's mainly the owners that asked us to do something: Roman Abramovich, [Milan's] Silvio Berlusconi, [Internazionale's] Massimo Moratti," Platini said. "They do not want to fork out any more.

"Manchester City can spend £300m if they want to but if they are not breaking even in three years then they cannot play in European competition. I haven't spoken to Manchester City about this and I don't remember meeting their owner [Sheikh Mansour], but I'm sure I will. Roman Abramovich is a football person and passionate about the game. He loves football. He has come to me and said that we must do something about this."

The oligarch embarked on a long spree after his takeover of Chelsea in 2003. It has been sustained and a loss of £67.5m in the most recent accounts took the overall outlay to almost £700m. But they have circumspection in mind for themselves in future, as well as trust that restrictions can be imposed on City and others.

The Chelsea chief executive, Peter Kenyon, broadly welcomed Platini's stance but added: "The real work is in the detail and those discussions will continue in earnest over the next 12 months. I don't think anyone could disagree with the broad principle." The club is experimenting with relative austerity and has confined itself so far in this transfer window to buying Yuri Zhirkov for £17m.

Uefa has to consider complex factors. It would not, for instance, oppose clubs which laid out great sums to construct a new stadium, as Arsenal have done in going in the region of £400m in debt while building the Emirates and embarking on property development projects.

Uefa's stance towards Manchester United would be intriguing to hear. The accounts for 2007-08 showed debts of £699m, which related to the Glazers' purchase of the club. There are similarities with Tom Hicks's and George Gillett's takeover of Liverpool. This is not, of course, an exclusively Premier League topic. Some analysts estimate that Real Madrid's current transfer spree will take their borrowings to well over £800m.

The Uefa initiative is under the control of its deputy general secretary, Gianni Infantino. He, however, seems to have in mind the increasingly rare sugar daddies who simply pay the bills out of their own pockets. "If you have a sugar daddy it is unhealthy," he said. "The club has to stay on its own legs and generate its own revenue."

While Chelsea officials and many others now share that viewpoint, they also feel that there will be great difficulty in enforcing such a policy. Uefa, too, is aware that, unless there is some flexibility, it could freeze small clubs at their existing levels. In essence, Uefa would be in danger of ensuring that the hierarchy with which we are so acquainted could never come under threat.

There might be no hope in future of the kind of invigorating episode in which Jack Walker could buy Blackburn Rovers, underwrite the acquisition of players such as Alan Shearer, who helped bring the Premier League title to Ewood Park in 1995, and ultimately make good profits on them when they were sold. Infantino hints at a flexible approach that would leave scope for such a story to occur again, but it is hard to tell how such regulations could be drafted.

Platini's stance is simple and indisputable. He is sure that Uefa must act when the financial crisis is felt in all 53 of its member countries. "We are not trying to put down Chelsea, Real Madrid or Manchester United," he said. "It's for all clubs."

The Uefa president also stated that unless Fifa agrees that the 2018 World Cup must be staged in Europe, it would be important for the continent to put forward only one candidate, so as not to split the votes for European option. England, who hope to host that World Cup, may find an additional hurdle in their path.

It doesnt mean jack shit to City we can balance the books easily Etihad just sponsor us for the next three years in a world record 200 million pound sponsorship deal,throw in gate receipts etc etc etc and boom they are balanced.

Plus we have zero on the balance sheet.

This will never happen,Scouse 1,Rags,Arse,Chelsea,Barca,Madrid ETC ETC ETC would all not be able to compete.

Total crap, and exactly how is he going to square of the ridiculous debt levels of scum, scouse and chelski??

Our books are balanced anyway aren't they, didn't the Sheikh say that the money to buy the players is a gift?

it will never happen. and if it does by some miricle it still won't affect us.

lets all have a disco wrote:It doesnt mean jack shit to City we can balance the books easily Etihad just sponsor us for the next three years in a world record 200 million pound sponsorship deal,throw in gate receipts etc etc etc and boom they are balanced.

Exactly.
This will only lead to Clubs being more clever with their accounts. That's all. Borrowing through third party who "invest" on club and bollocks like that. That's the problem with Platini and rest of them clowns, they spout their populistic shite without thinking how they are really going to be able to impose such restrictions.

The biggest indication yet that the sky4 are well fuckin worried about us imo.

once the franchise Academies start paying for themselves they will add quite a bit of turnover - and I would assume the cap will be based on a club's turnover (or at least that was the plan). I think the Sheikh is already on this, and very probably one or more steps ahead of it.

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

lets all have a disco wrote:It doesnt mean jack shit to City we can balance the books easily Etihad just sponsor us for the next three years in a world record 200 million pound sponsorship deal,throw in gate receipts etc etc etc and boom they are balanced.

Exactly.
This will only lead to Clubs being more clever with their accounts. That's all. Borrowing through third party who "invest" on club and bollocks like that. That's the problem with Platini and rest of them clowns, they spout their populistic shite without thinking how they are really going to be able to impose such restrictions.

Thats because its ex-footballers (who lets face it aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the box) trying to play politics and economics. Fucking ridiculous.

Let's face it, the Sheikh, Khaldoon and Cook will run rings round UEFA

[quote= Roman Abramovich is a football person and passionate about the game. He loves football. He has come to me and said that we must do something about this.
[/quote]

Puts me in mind of the school bully running to teacher cos a bigger boys come to the school.

Actually in the report I read it said Abramovich hadn't objected to the idea, not that he proposed it.

Bit too late now anyway, I doubt we will see this amount of spending in one season again from City. :)
Especially by 2012, 3 years from now, we should have established ourselves in a way that we only need to buy 1 or 2 players per window.

Nobody seems to have commented on the report carried by this evening's MuEN, which when tied in with this Guardian report may go some way to explaining City's present, player investment levels. It could also explain the announced, future investment emphasis on City's Academy.
There are three things that I feel sure we can take for granted.
1...That our owners are well informed and fully aware of moves by the established European clubs to inhibit or stop our rise to challenge their self interest.
2...That, though the G14 group are now supposedly disbanded, they will still have close working relationships with each other regarding what is in their mutual interest.
3...That those ex G14 clubs are too politically and financially powerful for UeFA to stand up to and oppose. Those clubs acting together will get what they want.

The MuEN report stated that City's owners had made the decision to bring forward the player investment originally planned over the next 5 windows and spend it in this window, in order to attempt to take City to the level expected, now rather than in a few years time.
That having spent the money now, there would be less need to spend heavily over the next few years.
That the next step would be to invest heavily on the City Academy, in order that we could produce the majority of our own players and not be reliant on buying in from outside.

It would seem that when those two reports are put together, that our owners may be slightly ahead of the game. By the time any progress is made by the Ex G14 clubs and by the time they have managed to coerce UeFA to put the blocks on City's spending power, we will hopefully be almost self sufficient in producing most of our own player needs.

I'll be interested what others think.

This has wound me up more than anything else this season. How can Abramovic look in the mirror. To me hae has lost every ounce of respect he has ever had. We should Nuke the rest of football by blowing everyone apart transfer wise. I think we would be safe for a season or two anyway, and by then we would be far out of site.

What other business or sport attacks investors whilst giving the green light for clubs like the rags, who can basically bankrupt themselves. Chelsea, your time is over, get out of the way, you've had your 5 minutes of glory, now f**k off

Isn't this a direct attack on our club and if so, isn't this classed as a form of discrimination? I've heard many things said about this and that most of the restrictions will come in within 3 years, but what I find wierd is the fact that someone like Abramovich is consulted on what of the main things he is responsible for.

Before they starting imposing restrictions, they need to ensure that clubs are financially stable, ie. No debt or realistically manageable debt (not being dependant on Euro football). It seems that the cash cow of the Top 4 continues and I'm expecting to see other penalties for teams who could have an adverse affect on them!

Red Rom's views are listened too cos his club is one of the, now defunct G14 clubs. But at the end of the Platini (as smarmy and self obbessed is he is) is looking after the money spinners of UEFA.

It will never pass EU law, and even if it does, there are a million ways our owners could get round it.

More interesting is how teams like Scum, Red scouse and Real madrid are going to get in the competition if they are millions in debt.

If - and its a big if - these proposals go through, we've got 3 years to establish ourselves. If we do then the gate is going to slam shut behind us, not in front of us, and we can join their "big boys" club, and them smash em to pieces.

It seems that the G14, and Chelsea, are not satified with sewing up all the cash through the Champions League, they now want to stop anyone else having a chance of getting any. We are lucky with having Sheik Mansoor, but the likes of Villa and Everton, who have been close to breaking the top 4 recently will have no chance, unless they can get some investment right now, cos once that gate slams shut, thats it.

The idea that clubs can borrow from banks if they can pay the loans back is so obviously for the benefit of the likes of rags, liverpool, madrid etc as to be embarrassing, as is clubs going into debt to build stadia (arsenal, valencia).

I'm sure our owner, who was clever enough to make £1.5 BILLION from Barclays in a few months will find a way round this. But it leaves a bad taste, it really does.

You´re spot on Pat - bully - these Rusky oligarchs and the ensuing mafias that have penetrated the whole of western europe are exactly that,and we all know that deep down in every bully lies a coward. Frankly I wonder how we allow refuge to cnuts like Rom anymore - what a 2 faced , despicable hypocrite he has made himself - Chelski fans should hang their heads in shame - hope we give him the stick he deserves - fuclin surrender monkey. We all know this will make not a jot of difference to City´s upward trajectory, so hows about this as a scenario?
If Platini carries on with this madness the only logical conclusion in my eyes would be a breakaway Euro League which would be based on a combination of qualifying and invitation, ensuring that the big guns with the clout obtain entry
Guess which club would not be invited as our owners would veto it?

john68 wrote:Nobody seems to have commented on the report carried by this evening's MuEN, which when tied in with this Guardian report may go some way to explaining City's present, player investment levels. It could also explain the announced, future investment emphasis on City's Academy.
There are three things that I feel sure we can take for granted.
1...That our owners are well informed and fully aware of moves by the established European clubs to inhibit or stop our rise to challenge their self interest.
2...That, though the G14 group are now supposedly disbanded, they will still have close working relationships with each other regarding what is in their mutual interest.
3...That those ex G14 clubs are too politically and financially powerful for UeFA to stand up to and oppose. Those clubs acting together will get what they want.

The MuEN report stated that City's owners had made the decision to bring forward the player investment originally planned over the next 5 windows and spend it in this window, in order to attempt to take City to the level expected, now rather than in a few years time.
That having spent the money now, there would be less need to spend heavily over the next few years.
That the next step would be to invest heavily on the City Academy, in order that we could produce the majority of our own players and not be reliant on buying in from outside.

It would seem that when those two reports are put together, that our owners may be slightly ahead of the game. By the time any progress is made by the Ex G14 clubs and by the time they have managed to coerce UeFA to put the blocks on City's spending power, we will hopefully be almost self sufficient in producing most of our own player needs.

I'll be interested what others think.

If our wage bill is higher than our income over the 3 year period though, this would still mean we can't play in the Chump's league ,therefore even if we use young players & manage to get our wage bill etc within control, chances are we have no money left to compete in the transfer market for even one player without bringing in money & therefore going outside the Platini cartel's rules.


This is the most sickening thing I've ever heard from UEFA in all the years I've been watching football. It's basically a public admission that they're in bed with people like Berlusconi & want to protect their interests at all costs. It's looking like they're going to try to make rulings purely to stop us, so anything we do, they're going to try & make it illegal. Any lingering doubts that this man genuinely had the good of football at heart & not just protecting his mates, has gone out of the window. How can it be better to be £900 mill in debt than to have no debt at all?

I've never met the Sheikh of course but I wonder what his reaction will be to some poodle of Berlusconi trying to put restrictions on how he & a sovereign country, can spend their money? Platini v Abu Dhabi. How would any court in any country find it fair to stop someone from receiving money without interest but it's ok for somone else to be £900m in debt ? Presumably all the Sheikh's other investments in those countries will be unwelcome then? If he goes ahead with this; the shit is going to hit the fan & the outcome will be something completely different than what Platini & his corrupt mates are hoping for.

So the established current cartel suddenly want to balance their books do they? Wonder why.

Good good then. As United and Real Madrid are around £600m in debt I will expect no major signings and a complete firesale of stars over the next 2 years as they rush to beat the deadline ....... will this happen? Will it bollocks, end of. Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea too are in mountains of debt which they have zero chance of clearing within 2 years - especially Liverpool who are skint and still trying to finance a new stadoium to boot - as I'd suggest are most of the other clubs in the current G14.

It's hyperbole that is unworkable in real life and any such case against a single club would either bring virtually all the others down, or be completely thrown out. Imagine Uefa being allowed to pick through some of the dodgy finances of these clubs - not a chance.

I'll be expecting a Champions League with Ajax winning it every year then!

John68 - spot on analysis too on City's quick moves this summer.

The wage bill would have nothing to do with it as long as the owners were able to have direct or probably in this case indirect sponsorship deals in place - so Platini has clubs like Milan onside , well we almost certainly have Barca so the beginnings of a fissure are there for all to see
Completely agree with Beefy that this is unquestionably a premeditated and direct assault on our club