The mancityfans.net football forum

I trust him, he's a Doctor:

“As the rules stand, if you buy a club and put in new equity and finance, that is fine,” said Dr Miller.

“If you buy a club and then take out debt to improve facilities or build a new stadium, Uefa don’t have a problem.

“But if you are a club which runs persistent losses, financed by borrowing, there is a problem. When you get the kind of plans City have for developing the area around Eastlands, I don’t think UEFA would want to be seen trying to stop such investment in a socially-deprived area. It’s not what they are about.

“They do have a problem with owners who buy success without making a financial commitment, in terms of expanding the equity of the club.”

Hopefully not the Shipman type!

Cant be, that would ruin the anti-City and Chelsea press' headline bank!

So the new rule clarification has just caused more confusion?

At least UEFA havent changed how they do things ...

Haven't read it all, but we can spend as much as we want doing up the ground etc, even if that meant borrowing on hedge funds.

So say we approach Bob the Builder and say we've got a nice little contract to build the world's biggest pizza restaurant next to Eastlands. His quote is 100m, but we decide that looks a little low and we want to make sure they have enough to buy themselves a nice car as well, so we pay them £200m. They decide we're such nice people, they want to sponsor us and agree to a 10 year deal to sponsor us at £10m a season. Everyone is happy.

That is therefore income from an outside source and ok by UEFA.

I don't say any issues with their watertight new rules and this will ensure that there is a fair playing field for all. I'm off to William Hill's to stick a tenner on Blackpool winning the champions league by 2015, as they have as much chance as anyone with these new austerity regulations.

john@staustell wrote:Cant be, that would ruin the anti-City and Chelsea press' headline bank!

there's huge difference between us and Chelsea. Whereas Roman loans all the money to Chelsea, eventhough there's no interest nor repayments, Sheik (bless him) simply puts money in the club. This is because Chelsea are still PLC with other shareholders whereas we are effectively private business.

Regarding the story, finally someone puts some sense to this.

even without the clarification from the expert there, as he points out Uefa still have to figure out how they close the loopholes.. and that is only the loopholes they can imagine.. believe me there will be no end of 'interesting' deals going on around football and players etc etc, in the next few years as this kicks in. Nice to know though that City will be in less of a need of that 'creativity' as some others not very far away will be.

The bottom line in all this is that Platini is trying to regulate capitalism.. and im sorry but he wont even come close. As we have all seen the collective authority and power of world governments are always one step behind and playing catch up to capitalist markets.

Formula 1 agreed to limit the power of the cars.. 'voluntarily' eventually.. but that was on the basis of driver safety in the end.. football doesn't have such issues.. so if you think that Everton are not going to take an opportunity to have a competitive advantage off the field, over say Villa, that would result in a competitive advantage on the field over said Villa.. then you are in total dreamland.. and you would probably see Monsieur Platini ambling along enjoying the dreamland day!

If it wasn't football with its global power of attraction, we as fans should be worried.. because the ultimate effect of Platini's control efforts would be to turn off investors in football.. (they would simply go somewhere else) .. and by so doing reduce the dosh in the sport..with all the knock on effects that would have.. like stagnation. But that wont happen as football is too interesting and too powerful an entertainment. Platini is wasting his time.

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

john@staustell wrote:Cant be, that would ruin the anti-City and Chelsea press' headline bank!

there's huge difference between us and Chelsea. Whereas Roman loans all the money to Chelsea, eventhough there's no interest nor repayments, Sheik (bless him) simply puts money in the club. This is because Chelsea are still PLC with other shareholders whereas we are effectively private business.

Regarding the story, finally someone puts some sense to this.

Yep and its also saying our owner is doing so much for the surrounding areas that if they were to touch him it would make them look bad and they wouldn't want that. So he is making himself untouchable right now.. Genius.

This whole thing pickles my fuckin head. All i know is that we need to be in the CL to stand any chance of breaking even don't we?

brite blu sky wrote:even without the clarification from the expert there, as he points out Uefa still have to figure out how they close the loopholes.. and that is only the loopholes they can imagine.. believe me there will be no end of 'interesting' deals going on around football and players etc etc, in the next few years as this kicks in. Nice to know though that City will be in less of a need of that 'creativity' as some others not very far away will be.

The bottom line in all this is that Platini is trying to regulate capitalism.. and im sorry but he wont even come close. As we have all seen the collective authority and power of world governments are always one step behind and playing catch up to capitalist markets.

Formula 1 agreed to limit the power of the cars.. 'voluntarily' eventually.. but that was on the basis of driver safety in the end.. football doesn't have such issues.. so if you think that Everton are not going to take an opportunity to have a competitive advantage off the field, over say Villa, that would result in a competitive advantage on the field over said Villa.. then you are in total dreamland.. and you would probably see Monsieur Platini ambling along enjoying the dreamland day!

If it wasn't football with its global power of attraction, we as fans should be worried.. because the ultimate effect of Platini's control efforts would be to turn off investors in football.. (they would simply go somewhere else) .. and by so doing reduce the dosh in the sport..with all the knock on effects that would have.. like stagnation. But that wont happen as football is too interesting and too powerful an entertainment. Platini is wasting his time.

Soooo YEAH

There is no way we will fall foul of these rules. Our owner is a sucessful businessman and extremely wealthy, I have no doubt since these rules were being discussed last year we have had accountants, lawyers scrutinising every part of them. They will have worked out forecasts on our future income and expenditure and have used different scenarios on league position to ensure that if we finish in top four we will be able to participate. In five years I suspect the stadium, and surrounding area at COMs will have been transformed you only have to look at the Olympic Village in Statford East London to see the transformation there has been there in the last year or so. Our income streams will match our expediture and I for one am not concerned.

We'll eventually end up with a quarter of Manchester owned by the Sheikh (via the club) and providing revenue for the team. Happy days.

lol
The clowns at UEFA taking on the most sucessfull business empire on the planet.

Only one winner

Our Owner decrees and it happens.

If the reports are correct, this doesn't come into effect until 2012-13.
Even then, an owner will be able to subsidise a club for the next 3 years until 2014-15 to the tune of £38M and for the three years after (until 2017-18) by £26M.
Considering that money invested on Academies will not be counted in this, I see that we have plenty of leeway to abide by the rules.

City stated some time ago that it is the long term plan to invest in youth and develop our own stars of the future and we have seen that policy already in action with Cassell setting up a World Academy system.

I have less fears about this than I had some time ago.

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

john@staustell wrote:Cant be, that would ruin the anti-City and Chelsea press' headline bank!

there's huge difference between us and Chelsea. Whereas Roman loans all the money to Chelsea, eventhough there's no interest nor repayments, Sheik (bless him) simply puts money in the club. This is because Chelsea are still PLC with other shareholders whereas we are effectively private business.

Regarding the story, finally someone puts some sense to this.

Chelsea are owned by a holding company, Abramovich loaned the money to the holding company and the holding company gave the money to chelsea. This way the football club are not in debt to abramovich but he holding company are, it was their way around it.

sky sports news are still implyng that this is curtains for city - dicks

Vhero wrote:

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

john@staustell wrote:Cant be, that would ruin the anti-City and Chelsea press' headline bank!

there's huge difference between us and Chelsea. Whereas Roman loans all the money to Chelsea, eventhough there's no interest nor repayments, Sheik (bless him) simply puts money in the club. This is because Chelsea are still PLC with other shareholders whereas we are effectively private business.

Regarding the story, finally someone puts some sense to this.

Yep and its also saying our owner is doing so much for the surrounding areas that if they were to touch him it would make them look bad and they wouldn't want that. So he is making himself untouchable right now.. Genius.

I agree, I was just pointing out that the press usually lump us together in this story, and since Roman arrived Chelsea have suffered from a similar bias from the RED tops that City do. Still do.

Wonderwall wrote:

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

john@staustell wrote:Cant be, that would ruin the anti-City and Chelsea press' headline bank!

there's huge difference between us and Chelsea. Whereas Roman loans all the money to Chelsea, eventhough there's no interest nor repayments, Sheik (bless him) simply puts money in the club. This is because Chelsea are still PLC with other shareholders whereas we are effectively private business.

Regarding the story, finally someone puts some sense to this.

Chelsea are owned by a holding company, Abramovich loaned the money to the holding company and the holding company gave the money to chelsea. This way the football club are not in debt to abramovich but he holding company are, it was their way around it.

Southampton were and pompey were set up this way. The courts ruled the southampton and the holding company had a mutually financial interest and therefore went into administration. I think uefa would use this precident to link chelsea and the holding company if they needed to. So I think WW is spot on.

simon12 wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

john@staustell wrote:Cant be, that would ruin the anti-City and Chelsea press' headline bank!

there's huge difference between us and Chelsea. Whereas Roman loans all the money to Chelsea, eventhough there's no interest nor repayments, Sheik (bless him) simply puts money in the club. This is because Chelsea are still PLC with other shareholders whereas we are effectively private business.

Regarding the story, finally someone puts some sense to this.

Chelsea are owned by a holding company, Abramovich loaned the money to the holding company and the holding company gave the money to chelsea. This way the football club are not in debt to abramovich but he holding company are, it was their way around it.

Southampton were and pompey were set up this way. The courts ruled the southampton and the holding company had a mutually financial interest and therefore went into administration. I think uefa would use this precident to link chelsea and the holding company if they needed to. So I think WW is spot on.

Actually, that would make it so that I was right and WW was wrong. To be fair though, there are some blindspots in my general knowledge of corporate law.

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

simon12 wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

john@staustell wrote:Cant be, that would ruin the anti-City and Chelsea press' headline bank!

there's huge difference between us and Chelsea. Whereas Roman loans all the money to Chelsea, eventhough there's no interest nor repayments, Sheik (bless him) simply puts money in the club. This is because Chelsea are still PLC with other shareholders whereas we are effectively private business.

Regarding the story, finally someone puts some sense to this.

Chelsea are owned by a holding company, Abramovich loaned the money to the holding company and the holding company gave the money to chelsea. This way the football club are not in debt to abramovich but he holding company are, it was their way around it.

Southampton were and pompey were set up this way. The courts ruled the southampton and the holding company had a mutually financial interest and therefore went into administration. I think uefa would use this precident to link chelsea and the holding company if they needed to. So I think WW is spot on.

Actually, that would make it so that I was right and WW was wrong. To be fair though, there are some blindspots in my general knowledge of corporate law.

Your right I mis read who`d posted what sorry. It will be interesting to see how uefa treat chelsea with regard to this position. Southampton and pompey were only treated under uk law but I beleive southampton did try europe to see if the ruling could be overturned and were told "no". So a precident set in europe too if that`s the case.