Stuart Brennan: the truth about M.U.F.C.F.F.P.

[Ted Hughes]

At last someone puts it in black & white & gives examples to back it up. Considering the writer is a former Utd fan, I salute you Stuart.

This deserves reading:

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchesterevening ... a-bit-rich

[Original Dub]

Can you paste the article Ted? It won't open for me !!

[CTID Hants]

Can you paste the article Ted? It won't open for me !!

Manchester City



Manchester United's FFP stance a bit rich

United couldn’t beat City on the pitch or in the title race last season, so it seems they have hatched a dastardly plot to undermine them off the field.

The Reds have teamed up with Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham to press for the Premier League to adopt its own financial fair play rules, specifically targeting clubs with rich benefactors – just like Chelsea and City, by sheer coincidence!

United are suddenly worried that all this money being pumped into unnamed clubs is bad for the game, as it creates ‘inflationary spending’.

They want to adapt Uefa’s new rules, aimed at stopping clubs spending beyond the money they generate themselves, to our domestic league.

Of course, by a happy twist of fate, this would mean United – whose revenue is way ahead of everyone else in the league – could buy all the best players, give them the best wages, and win everything, from here to eternity.

And, by another weird coincidence, it would also mean Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs would suddenly edge ahead of City and Chelsea in chasing lucrative Champions League places.

We could even stop playing each other at football altogether, re-name the Premier League the Manchester United League, hand them all the trophies in August and fly off somewhere warm for the winter.

This self-interested foursome are now trying to sell their idea to the rest of the Premier League, to get the 14 votes, out of 20, they would need to change the rules.

“It’s a debate – we’re having a discussion on financial fair play,” said Gill. “The impact of the new TV money has clearly focused the minds. Seven or eight clubs are going to have to abide by UEFA’s regulations in any case.

“The league are working on this and will put a paper together to be discussed at the February meeting. Whatever’s decided is dictated by 14 clubs.”

United need to hope that, if their plan for world domination goes through, that the Premier League doesn’t start applying it retrospectively.

The Reds were one of the main movers behind the Greedy League which aimed to concentrate the wealth in the hands of the few at a time when football was turning from a sport into a multi-billion pound business.

As the richest club in the country, they drove the agenda as English football underwent the biggest inflation – of transfer fees, player wages and, as a consequence, ticket prices – in football history.

They more than quadrupled the record fee paid by an English club – which they already held for the 1981 signing of Bryan Robson – in 1995 when they paid £7m for Andy Cole.

They almost doubled the record by paying over £28m for Seba Veron in 2001, only to break it again a year later to bring in Rio Ferdinand.

They happily paid top dollar to their squad of top players, forcing other clubs to either take financial risks to try and catch them, or simply be content to sit back and admire as United won everything.

It was natural law, they thought. They were earning their own money and spending it. Only Blackburn, who briefly found a rich owner, and moneyed Arsenal interrupted their dominance, and they were just a temporary irritation.

It was a great arrangement. Then along came Chelsea, and more latterly, City to mess up this perfect world, by finding wealthy foreign owners who were prepared to pour money into the clubs they bought.

At the same time, United – despite a brave effort by a minority of their fans – found an American owner who did the exact opposite and began leeching money OUT of their club.

Suddenly, clubs throwing their money around are doing a bad thing, says Gill.

It is not their own money, so they shouldn’t spend it, goes the new mantra.

But the market doesn’t care whether Gill made the money by grafting at a coal face for 12 hours a day, or was handed it by a friendly Arab.

Spending more than the others inflates, wherever the cash come from.

Leeds nose-dived, financially and in football terms, by trying to keep up with United, long before Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour came on the scene.

City and Chelsea have played the game by rules which United liked when it suited them. Now the rules suit other clubs more, United and the other three want to change them.

If they truly want financial fair play, all revenue should be centrally pooled and dished out, preferably with the Football League and grassroots football getting a fair share.

Chances of United going for something truly fair? Don’t hold your breath.

[Duckman]

Manchester United's FFP stance a bit rich


United couldn’t beat City on the pitch or in the title race last season, so it seems they have hatched a dastardly plot to undermine them off the field.

The Reds have teamed up with Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham to press for the Premier League to adopt its own financial fair play rules, specifically targeting clubs with rich benefactors – just like Chelsea and City, by sheer coincidence!

United are suddenly worried that all this money being pumped into unnamed clubs is bad for the game, as it creates ‘inflationary spending’.

They want to adapt Uefa’s new rules, aimed at stopping clubs spending beyond the money they generate themselves, to our domestic league.

Of course, by a happy twist of fate, this would mean United – whose revenue is way ahead of everyone else in the league – could buy all the best players, give them the best wages, and win everything, from here to eternity.

And, by another weird coincidence, it would also mean Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs would suddenly edge ahead of City and Chelsea in chasing lucrative Champions League places.

We could even stop playing each other at football altogether, re-name the Premier League the Manchester United League, hand them all the trophies in August and fly off somewhere warm for the winter.

This self-interested foursome are now trying to sell their idea to the rest of the Premier League, to get the 14 votes, out of 20, they would need to change the rules.

“It’s a debate – we’re having a discussion on financial fair play,” said Gill. “The impact of the new TV money has clearly focused the minds. Seven or eight clubs are going to have to abide by UEFA’s regulations in any case.

“The league are working on this and will put a paper together to be discussed at the February meeting. Whatever’s decided is dictated by 14 clubs.”

United need to hope that, if their plan for world domination goes through, that the Premier League doesn’t start applying it retrospectively.

The Reds were one of the main movers behind the Greedy League which aimed to concentrate the wealth in the hands of the few at a time when football was turning from a sport into a multi-billion pound business.

As the richest club in the country, they drove the agenda as English football underwent the biggest inflation – of transfer fees, player wages and, as a consequence, ticket prices – in football history.

They more than quadrupled the record fee paid by an English club – which they already held for the 1981 signing of Bryan Robson – in 1995 when they paid £7m for Andy Cole.

They almost doubled the record by paying over £28m for Seba Veron in 2001, only to break it again a year later to bring in Rio Ferdinand.

They happily paid top dollar to their squad of top players, forcing other clubs to either take financial risks to try and catch them, or simply be content to sit back and admire as United won everything.

It was natural law, they thought. They were earning their own money and spending it. Only Blackburn, who briefly found a rich owner, and moneyed Arsenal interrupted their dominance, and they were just a temporary irritation.

It was a great arrangement. Then along came Chelsea, and more latterly, City to mess up this perfect world, by finding wealthy foreign owners who were prepared to pour money into the clubs they bought.

At the same time, United – despite a brave effort by a minority of their fans – found an American owner who did the exact opposite and began leeching money OUT of their club.

Suddenly, clubs throwing their money around are doing a bad thing, says Gill.

It is not their own money, so they shouldn’t spend it, goes the new mantra.

But the market doesn’t care whether Gill made the money by grafting at a coal face for 12 hours a day, or was handed it by a friendly Arab.

Spending more than the others inflates, wherever the cash come from.

Leeds nose-dived, financially and in football terms, by trying to keep up with United, long before Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour came on the scene.

City and Chelsea have played the game by rules which United liked when it suited them. Now the rules suit other clubs more, United and the other three want to change them.

If they truly want financial fair play, all revenue should be centrally pooled and dished out, preferably with the Football League and grassroots football getting a fair share.

Chances of United going for something truly fair? Don’t hold your breath.

What do you think? Have your say

[Ted Hughes]

Manchester United's FFP stance a bit rich


United couldn’t beat City on the pitch or in the title race last season, so it seems they have hatched a dastardly plot to undermine them off the field.

The Reds have teamed up with Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham to press for the Premier League to adopt its own financial fair play rules, specifically targeting clubs with rich benefactors – just like Chelsea and City, by sheer coincidence!

United are suddenly worried that all this money being pumped into unnamed clubs is bad for the game, as it creates ‘inflationary spending’.

They want to adapt Uefa’s new rules, aimed at stopping clubs spending beyond the money they generate themselves, to our domestic league.

Of course, by a happy twist of fate, this would mean United – whose revenue is way ahead of everyone else in the league – could buy all the best players, give them the best wages, and win everything, from here to eternity.

And, by another weird coincidence, it would also mean Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs would suddenly edge ahead of City and Chelsea in chasing lucrative Champions League places.

We could even stop playing each other at football altogether, re-name the Premier League the Manchester United League, hand them all the trophies in August and fly off somewhere warm for the winter.

This self-interested foursome are now trying to sell their idea to the rest of the Premier League, to get the 14 votes, out of 20, they would need to change the rules.

“It’s a debate – we’re having a discussion on financial fair play,” said Gill. “The impact of the new TV money has clearly focused the minds. Seven or eight clubs are going to have to abide by UEFA’s regulations in any case.

“The league are working on this and will put a paper together to be discussed at the February meeting. Whatever’s decided is dictated by 14 clubs.”

United need to hope that, if their plan for world domination goes through, that the Premier League doesn’t start applying it retrospectively.

The Reds were one of the main movers behind the Greedy League which aimed to concentrate the wealth in the hands of the few at a time when football was turning from a sport into a multi-billion pound business.

As the richest club in the country, they drove the agenda as English football underwent the biggest inflation – of transfer fees, player wages and, as a consequence, ticket prices – in football history.

They more than quadrupled the record fee paid by an English club – which they already held for the 1981 signing of Bryan Robson – in 1995 when they paid £7m for Andy Cole.

They almost doubled the record by paying over £28m for Seba Veron in 2001, only to break it again a year later to bring in Rio Ferdinand.

They happily paid top dollar to their squad of top players, forcing other clubs to either take financial risks to try and catch them, or simply be content to sit back and admire as United won everything.

It was natural law, they thought. They were earning their own money and spending it. Only Blackburn, who briefly found a rich owner, and moneyed Arsenal interrupted their dominance, and they were just a temporary irritation.

It was a great arrangement. Then along came Chelsea, and more latterly, City to mess up this perfect world, by finding wealthy foreign owners who were prepared to pour money into the clubs they bought.

At the same time, United – despite a brave effort by a minority of their fans – found an American owner who did the exact opposite and began leeching money OUT of their club.

Suddenly, clubs throwing their money around are doing a bad thing, says Gill.

It is not their own money, so they shouldn’t spend it, goes the new mantra.

But the market doesn’t care whether Gill made the money by grafting at a coal face for 12 hours a day, or was handed it by a friendly Arab.

Spending more than the others inflates, wherever the cash come from.

Leeds nose-dived, financially and in football terms, by trying to keep up with United, long before Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour came on the scene.

City and Chelsea have played the game by rules which United liked when it suited them. Now the rules suit other clubs more, United and the other three want to change them.

If they truly want financial fair play, all revenue should be centrally pooled and dished out, preferably with the Football League and grassroots football getting a fair share.

Chances of United going for something truly fair? Don’t hold your breath.




Whilst I'm at it: can anyone explain to me how the CEO of Manchester Utd, clearly trying to use his influence to help his PLC outperform another perfectly legitimate business, can also be deputy head of the FA & attempt to become decision maker at UEFA ?

CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Surely ? Obviously ?

[Ted Hughes]

Also this from the OS on the same subject (notice it is quoted in full on City's own official site).

Repeats what some of us have been saying for a long time.



We start this morning with an interesting perspective by sports economist Stefan Szymanski on the subject of Financial Fair Play.

Writing in The Times today, Szymanski puts forward the following.

"Adopting Uefa’s rules will only make it harder for small clubs to break into the elite," he claims.

"Manchester United, Spurs, Liverpool and Arsenal are quietly lobbying the chief executive of the Premier League to limit the spending power of Chelsea and Manchester City. It is no surprise that some of the big clubs advocate the adoption of Uefa’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules. Clubs are struggling to be profitable and insolvency is rife.

"Under FFP, clubs have to maintain solvency and must not spend more than their football income — the so-called break-even rule — which restricts the ability of owners to cross-subsidise the team from other business income. According to Uefa, this would “protect the long-term viability and sustainability of European club football”. Worthy goals indeed, but the rules may have less virtuous consequences.

"Given that the more successful teams generate the largest incomes, the only way lesser teams can challenge them is for someone to inject money from outside. It’s no coincidence that the only teams to break the dominance of the established clubs in the past 20 years have been Blackburn Rovers, Chelsea and Manchester City, all of whom had “sugar daddies”. FFP would make it harder for upstart clubs to challenge those already at the top.

"Uefa presents itself as a benevolent regulator with the best interests of football as its sole objective. But it has a financial interest as well. According to its 2010-11 accounts it generated €1.4 billion from the sale of rights, primarily to the Champions League, and paid out €1 billion to clubs, thus keeping 28 per cent to spend as it sees fit. The relationship is analogous to that between a car manufacturer and its dealers, a brewer and the pubs that sell its beer or a newspaper publisher and the corner shops that sell papers.

"EU competition law prohibits companies competing in the same industry from making agreements that restrain competitive behaviour. This protects consumers from conspiracies to raise prices or lower the quality of goods and services, and protects workers from employers ganging together to cut wages.

"Restrictions imposed from above can be good for consumers if they ensure that the product is delivered to them in good condition. Joaquín Almunia, the European Commissioner in charge of competition, appears to have approved FFP, thinking that it will benefit fans. This may be true when it comes to requiring clubs to pay their debts (including players’ wages) and maintain solvency. But by appearing to endorse the break-even rule the European Commission is failing to uphold the best interests of the fans.

The likely effect will be to ossify competition and maintain the dominance of established clubs (ironically, Chelsea and Manchester City may be the greatest beneficiaries, having already paid to join the elite). Less competition will reduce the pressure to spend on players’ salaries. While few may shed a tear for multimillionaire footballers, the quality of competition will also fall, as owners funnel their income into profits, not players.

"The Premier League case seems even simpler. Chapter One of the Competition Act prohibits agreements between undertakings that “have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the United Kingdom” and this applies to agreements that “limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment”. This move by some of the Premier League clubs would appear to be an open-and-shut agreement to limit investment, and therefore illegal.

"To those who say that these rules are necessary to preserve the fabric of English football I would ask how many professional clubs have gone out of business in the past hundred years. Of the 88 members of the Football League in 1923, 85 still exist today, most still in the top four divisions (the exceptions being Aberdare Athletic, Merthyr Town and South Shields). Insolvency and restructuring of the limited liability companies that own football clubs are commonplace but should not be confused with the termination of the club, which almost never happens.

"English football is healthier than it has been for decades — the quality of the game has risen immeasurably in the past 20 years, attendances have almost doubled despite astronomic increases in ticket prices, upwards of £2 billion has been invested in stadiums. The Premier League is a global phenomenon, generating as much money from selling rights overseas as at home. And foreign investors have flocked to put their money in.

"Having thrived in a competitive environment, why on earth should the big clubs now be allowed to end that competition? If they manage to persuade the rest of the Premier League to adopt FFP it will be time to call in the Office of Fair Trading."

[Rag_hater]

I'm sort of glad they greedy established old so called elite have done this.Seems to have forced the Boss to take the fuckers to court and we will finally get some resolution.We will know what we have to do

[Cocacolajojo1]

Also this from the OS on the same subject (notice it is quoted in full on City's own official site).

Repeats what some of us have been saying for a long time.



We start this morning with an interesting perspective by sports economist Stefan Szymanski on the subject of Financial Fair Play.

Writing in The Times today, Szymanski puts forward the following.

"Adopting Uefa’s rules will only make it harder for small clubs to break into the elite," he claims.

"Manchester United, Spurs, Liverpool and Arsenal are quietly lobbying the chief executive of the Premier League to limit the spending power of Chelsea and Manchester City. It is no surprise that some of the big clubs advocate the adoption of Uefa’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules. Clubs are struggling to be profitable and insolvency is rife.

"Under FFP, clubs have to maintain solvency and must not spend more than their football income — the so-called break-even rule — which restricts the ability of owners to cross-subsidise the team from other business income. According to Uefa, this would “protect the long-term viability and sustainability of European club football”. Worthy goals indeed, but the rules may have less virtuous consequences.

"Given that the more successful teams generate the largest incomes, the only way lesser teams can challenge them is for someone to inject money from outside. It’s no coincidence that the only teams to break the dominance of the established clubs in the past 20 years have been Blackburn Rovers, Chelsea and Manchester City, all of whom had “sugar daddies”. FFP would make it harder for upstart clubs to challenge those already at the top.

"Uefa presents itself as a benevolent regulator with the best interests of football as its sole objective. But it has a financial interest as well. According to its 2010-11 accounts it generated €1.4 billion from the sale of rights, primarily to the Champions League, and paid out €1 billion to clubs, thus keeping 28 per cent to spend as it sees fit. The relationship is analogous to that between a car manufacturer and its dealers, a brewer and the pubs that sell its beer or a newspaper publisher and the corner shops that sell papers.

"EU competition law prohibits companies competing in the same industry from making agreements that restrain competitive behaviour. This protects consumers from conspiracies to raise prices or lower the quality of goods and services, and protects workers from employers ganging together to cut wages.

"Restrictions imposed from above can be good for consumers if they ensure that the product is delivered to them in good condition. Joaquín Almunia, the European Commissioner in charge of competition, appears to have approved FFP, thinking that it will benefit fans. This may be true when it comes to requiring clubs to pay their debts (including players’ wages) and maintain solvency. But by appearing to endorse the break-even rule the European Commission is failing to uphold the best interests of the fans.

The likely effect will be to ossify competition and maintain the dominance of established clubs (ironically, Chelsea and Manchester City may be the greatest beneficiaries, having already paid to join the elite). Less competition will reduce the pressure to spend on players’ salaries. While few may shed a tear for multimillionaire footballers, the quality of competition will also fall, as owners funnel their income into profits, not players.

"The Premier League case seems even simpler. Chapter One of the Competition Act prohibits agreements between undertakings that “have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the United Kingdom” and this applies to agreements that “limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment”. This move by some of the Premier League clubs would appear to be an open-and-shut agreement to limit investment, and therefore illegal.

"To those who say that these rules are necessary to preserve the fabric of English football I would ask how many professional clubs have gone out of business in the past hundred years. Of the 88 members of the Football League in 1923, 85 still exist today, most still in the top four divisions (the exceptions being Aberdare Athletic, Merthyr Town and South Shields). Insolvency and restructuring of the limited liability companies that own football clubs are commonplace but should not be confused with the termination of the club, which almost never happens.

"English football is healthier than it has been for decades — the quality of the game has risen immeasurably in the past 20 years, attendances have almost doubled despite astronomic increases in ticket prices, upwards of £2 billion has been invested in stadiums. The Premier League is a global phenomenon, generating as much money from selling rights overseas as at home. And foreign investors have flocked to put their money in.

"Having thrived in a competitive environment, why on earth should the big clubs now be allowed to end that competition? If they manage to persuade the rest of the Premier League to adopt FFP it will be time to call in the Office of Fair Trading."

Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper are the ones to pay attention to when it comes to football. Arsene Wenger to actually, when it comes to matters where he has no self interest.

[Hazy2]

Win the League this ye both Gill and Rednose will be gone.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

Great article from Stuart Brennan, with a nice touch of irony/sarcasm. And nice piece from Stefan Szymanski. The truth is out there....

[Alioune DVToure]

A very good article, but one (extremely trivial) thing...

Didn't Blackburn pay about £5 million for Chris Sutton in 1994? It must have been 1994 or earlier as it was the SAS that won them the league. I remember my mind being blown by that figure as a kid. Seems like peanuts now.

Either way, I'm sure the record fee paid by a British club was miles more than £1.5 million at the end on 1994. What did we pay for Terry Phelan, Keith Curle and Nicky Summerbee (to name but three)?

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

A very good article, but one (extremely trivial) thing...

Didn't Blackburn pay about £5 million for Chris Sutton in 1994? It must have been 1994 or earlier as it was the SAS that won them the league. I remember my mind being blown by that figure as a kid. Seems like peanuts now.

Either way, I'm sure the record fee paid by a British club was miles more than £1.5 million at the end on 1994. What did we pay for Terry Phelan, Keith Curle and Nicky Summerbee (to name but three)?

£2.5 million for the first two, if I remember correctly. A Sherbet Dip and half-a-dozen conkers for the latter.

[Scatman]

A very good article, but one (extremely trivial) thing...

Didn't Blackburn pay about £5 million for Chris Sutton in 1994? It must have been 1994 or earlier as it was the SAS that won them the league. I remember my mind being blown by that figure as a kid. Seems like peanuts now.

Either way, I'm sure the record fee paid by a British club was miles more than £1.5 million at the end on 1994. What did we pay for Terry Phelan, Keith Curle and Nicky Summerbee (to name but three)?

He took his figures from here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressio ... fee_record

which doesn't include the sub transfer record fees that were between english clubs, which were higher than the Robson figure.

[LookMumImOnMCF.net]

So, in conclusion:

Clubs get lucky
Other clubs want to get lucky
Quoting on MCF.net reaches ridiculous new heights

[lets all have a disco]

I read the article this morning and thought it was a good piece.


Finally bringing forward what fucking snakes the rags are,if we won the league for the next 20 years and was widely deemed the best team if for instance Newcastle got a massively wealthy owner and became better than us then so be it i wouldnt push for rule changes to fuck people over.


Gill and the rags and the other posse are wankers.

[Tokyo Blue]

Finally bringing forward what fucking snakes the rags are,if we won the league for the next 20 years and was widely deemed the best team if for instance Newcastle got a massively wealthy owner and became better than us then so be it i wouldnt push for rule changes to fuck people over.

Indeed. You'd congratulate the Geordies then have a pint with them. That is what it's all about.

I liked this bit of the Szymanski piece:

"Having thrived in a competitive environment, why on earth should the big clubs now be allowed to end that competition? If they manage to persuade the rest of the Premier League to adopt FFP it will be time to call in the Office of Fair Trading."

[john68]

That bit about "thriving in a competitive environment" is NOT true.

They thrived because they gained control of that environment, manipulated the rules to suit themselves and make it uncompetitive. The angle of what was once a reasonably LEVEL playing field was not simply changed, it was tipped up and flipped over.

[Sideshow Bob]

And, by another weird coincidence, it would also mean Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs would suddenly edge ahead of City and Chelsea in chasing lucrative Champions League places.

do the filthy spuds have a higher turnover than chelsea or us? seems unlikely but i haven't seen the numbers.

[john68]

@ Sideshow Bob,

Provisionally, I would say that quote about Spurs is correct. I haven't got the latest years figures for Spurs/Chelsea to hand Mate but based on the previous year (2010-11),it would seem so.

The figures for 2010-11 show the effective FFPR break even points for each club at; City £-142m, Chelsea £-8M and Spurs in credit of £17M.
City's latest figures show us with a £-99.7M loss. I think that Chelsea have moved into or nearer to credit and I can't find any reason to suggest that the Spurs finances have imploded to such an extent that they would move below us.

Hope that helps Mate.

[john@staustell]

I think Liverpool, Arsenal and Spuds must be a bit dim if this is aimed at City, as it must surely be aimed at preventing 'another City or Chelsea'.

Last time I looked our revenue had topped £231M, even without any ground expansion, new TV deal or decent CL money. Liverpool's last figure was a measley 170M, Spuds a bit less but rising, and Arsenal 230M and flat, with City soaring past them.

They do know this dont they? They cant be that dim?

Obviously United are desperately trying to stop us where we are.