Sunday's B*l**x (updated)

[ronk]

Platini is the architect of FFP, he has powerful backers but it's how he's making his name.

It's about protecting the status quo to some extent but it's also been accepted across a wider circle of clubs. It kills the profitable quick exit strategy for many owners, but there hasn't been strong opposition.

We're a target but we're not the main target, the Leeds/Portsmouth/Rangers spree until success or doom are the main ones. They've become an issue for owners since Bosman. Free agency means that clubs don't control players, superagents do. It's almost impossible to not overspend, i.e. to be a profitable club. Players don't care about profitability, fans don't.

At its basic level, FFP is just a way for owners to agree to end the price war. It's the Geneva Convention. We have our enemies, but they'll only go so far. We've done enough to ensure that nothing serious will happen. The last thing Platini wants to do is actually kick us out of a competition: that way lies controversy, division, court-cases, new enemies and the awkwardness of explaining to the public why everyone isn't treated the same (and this last one is unavoidable if there's a big dispute: we're not the only ones who could be in trouble).

As FFP bites we may start to see an increase in transfer fees relative to wages. We may already have. Transfer fees suit owners: that's paper money that stays in the system, wages are dead money to an owner.

[Swales4ever]

welcome old common good sense!

Did I ever mention that I truely love Ronk, despite I am pretty sure that in the real world HE is an "ugly" bloke, nowhere near to the LOVELY Lady behind which he hides... ;)

[ronk]

welcome old common good sense!

Did I ever mention that I truely love Ronk, despite I am pretty sure that in the real world HE is an "ugly" bloke, nowhere near to the LOVELY Lady behind which he hides... ;)

I figured we'd all rather look at her than me.

[john68]

Sorry Ronk mate but I don't agree about Platini being the main architect. Nor do i think there is any other motive than the elite clubs defending their ill gotten gains. How they choose to disguise it or dress it up is only cosmetic.
I agree that we are not the main targets insofar as I don't think it's personal against City, we just happen to be the club at the vanguard of a bunch of new money that threatens them.
It is no surprise that only a couple of weeks ago, Gill was gloating about City never being as big as City. As a main architect of all this, he was fully aware of the proposal to introduce similar constraints in the Prem.

Even a cursory glance through the many previous battles between the elite clubs and UeFA will show that Platini has been slapped down by them on a number of occasions. KHR has already threatened to "close the UeFA shop."

By doing as he is told by those who control him, he is guaranteed the Blatter job....and those who control him then,will be globally powerful. That is the essence of Gill's statement. Please remember that UeFA are a series of committees, as are FIFA. Check just how powerful Mr Gill is.

[ronk]

Gill's influence can be easily seen in the out-of-place debt provisions and insistence on banning owner equity injections. We agree on that.

I think there's a lot of worrying behind closed doors: some about us and Chelsea, but more about all the really dodgy owners who are betting the future of clubs. These guys are having major impacts. How can football increase its fan base when clubs are going out of business? Think about it, it drives fans away.

Long term FFP will be good for football. Clubs will be more stable and there won't be boom-to-bust cycles to the same extent. The prem is pretty fair in terms of the money split, except for the 4 CL places. Overseas TV money is evenly split, and the results are high standards (especially compared to other leagues). But clubs are spending all their income just keeping up with the other guys who are spending.

The football won't be any worse for a handful less mercenaries and more teams actually able to build from their academies.

We're not out there throwing silly money at signings anymore, we have a more sustainable model. Hence, we're not a threat (in the spending sense).

[Swales4ever]

welcome old common good sense!

Did I ever mention that I truely love Ronk, despite I am pretty sure that in the real world HE is an "ugly" bloke, nowhere near to the LOVELY Lady behind which he hides... ;)

I figured we'd all rather look at her than me.

ahaha... same did I, Mate.... :)
My sad reality can be checked onto off topic...

[john68]

Ronk,
1...Historically, clubs have always gone out of business. Bad business models have always existed, even when the money was shared out more equitably.
2... Domestically to think that anyone is worried about that is a tad naive mate. The removal of the gate money share out for away clubs. The greed that underpinned the Prem breakaway and the subsequent removal of the trickle down of money between divisions. The other divisions being isolated from the broadcasting deals. The TV deal being largely based on finishing position. All have been major domestic factors over recent years that have caused financial inequality and instability.
3...Long term, the FFPR when added to a 5 year based seeding and European coefficients will only serve to cement the position of the top clubs. The fact that there is a larger and separate slush fund based on the coefficients (the rags lost the final to Barca at Wembley but still received more money from UeFA). The whole share out is biased heavily towards the elite clubs.
4...The 4 CL places ARE the crucial ones.
5...The new rules on academies, empowers the top clubs and decreases the chances that the lower clubs have to earn income from developing and selling on players.
6...Our model was always planned to be sustainable in the longer term. The silly money was only ever meant to bridge the gap from mediocrity to CLqualification. The FFPR only served to speed up that process and was the sole reason our strategical spending was changed.

People still blame Platini and UeFA for this but the truth is that it came from the UeFA committees dominated by those elite clubs who coerced UeFA to change the format of the CL and its financial share out. There is not one shred of evidence that any of these clubs nor UeFA ever considered financial justice in any of their previous considerations....Not until they were threatened by new moneyfrom the likes of Chelsea, City and other new money clubs.
FFPR could only work in an equitable way if those other financial anomalies were also removed.

[Bianchi on Ice]

As John has said platini needs the backing of the g14 clubs to get the fifa job. Its politics at yhe end of the day. Fair play has nothing to do with it. Gill is rightfully playing the smug cunt as he has his fingers in all the pies

[ronk]

At its simplest, FFP means less money can be spent on players, this money goes to the owners.

The owners want this (in general), but by making it happen Platini is making a name for himself. Risk taking is fine during the expansion phase of a business, but you want to make a profit eventually.

The really big clubs have had little trouble keeping down others, FFP is a bit drastic in that it affects them too.

In aggregate, clubs lose money at the moment. To all make a small profit, player wage growth will have to be restrained. that will make things easier for scum and Arsenal to make money, it will slow us down a little.

This is about money, it's that simple. The anti-City parts are a populist distraction and secondary benefit. We're seeing it at the moment, we couldn't find a taker for Adebayor's wages. More players are going for transfer fees and aren't really getting the silly wages. Even Arsenal are spending money and guys like RVP are going in their last year for solid fees rather than holding out for crazy wages.

The attitude a while back was that wages were good and transfer fees are bad. We're seeing that balance change somewhat.

[john68]

At its simplest, FFP means less money can be spent on players, this money goes to the owners.

The owners want this (in general), but by making it happen Platini is making a name for himself. Risk taking is fine during the expansion phase of a business, but you want to make a profit eventually.
Agreed

The really big clubs have had little trouble keeping down others, FFP is a bit drastic in that it affects them too.
By threatening UeFA unless they got the financial and structural changes they wanted. (see earlier posts regarding KHR). It affects non of the top earners whatsoever, their income ensures their spending will be unaffected.

In aggregate, clubs lose money at the moment. To all make a small profit, player wage growth will have to be restrained. that will make things easier for scum and Arsenal to make money, it will slow us down a little.
European clubs earned 4.4Bn Euros in the last Deloitte list. Who of the top clubs apart from Chelsea lost money?

This is about money, it's that simple. The anti-City parts are a populist distraction and secondary benefit. We're seeing it at the moment, we couldn't find a taker for Adebayor's wages. More players are going for transfer fees and aren't really getting the silly wages. Even Arsenal are spending money and guys like RVP are going in their last year for solid fees rather than holding out for crazy wages.
I agree, it is only about money and not anti City. It is about defending the gains they have already made and there are more than City who pose a threat to that.

The attitude a while back was that wages were good and transfer fees are bad. We're seeing that balance change somewhat.
There is plenty of evidence to disprove that mate. A glance at some of the rags and Madrid's buying policy should do for starters.

[ronk]

That's revenue. They want profit and lots of it.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/m ... pe=article

[john68]

That's revenue. They want profit and lots of it.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/m ... pe=article

£260+M was lost by City and Chelsea between them.

[ronk]

11 clubs lost money. Newcastle made money with transfer fees (someone else's loss).

Yes, we (& Chelsea) made up a wedge of the total, but there was still around £200m lost by 9 other clubs.

Look at the last paragraph again: Dave Whelan lost £48m. He wants wage restraint. He wants to start earning money. Clubs that make money and don't pile on debt will be less likely to fail.

[john68]

Dave Whelan is a master of bluff, bluster and bullshit. He is on a par with Twitchy when it comes to the populist soundbite.

He knows full well that under the present system, he can choose to invest whatever amount he deems sufficient and necessary to ensure Wigan remain a Prem club.
Under the proposed FFPR, he would lose that control and be limited by his small club's tiny turnover. The chances of Wigan surviving would be greatly reduced. He fully understands the maths of a £48M current loss and how that would stack up against the losses he would incur with relegation.

That is replicated all the way from the mega rich to the poorest clubs. Spending controlled by size and wealth. Currently,we sit sit about £200M behind the rags and trailing Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool by substantial amounts.

[Slim]

I am sure we have people who have looked into FFP regulations more than me, but our owners must have a lot of influence over banks, finanacial instrutions and loansharks, if we cannot offset the losses in keeping with the FFP regulations, why can't we just shift them into debt? The rags have insane debts and they aren't bothered by it at all.

[Ted Hughes]

I am sure we have people who have looked into FFP regulations more than me, but our owners must have a lot of influence over banks, finanacial instrutions and loansharks, if we cannot offset the losses in keeping with the FFP regulations, why can't we just shift them into debt? The rags have insane debts and they aren't bothered by it at all.

That's something I was wondering about.

If the bank of Abu Dhabi was to loan us some money for instance, payable at 'x' per season, ('x' being not very much) how can Platini or anyone determine that as being wrong, when Real Madrid, who are owned by Spaniards, borrow from Spanish banks & Utd who are owned by Americans, borrow from American banks ?

They can't possibly say we have to rule out borrowing from Abu Dhabi banks, simply because the owner happens to be Abu Dhabi royalty. If a deal is 'favourable' to City, that could be because of the publicity generated by using our 'brand'. How much was that last game worth to Etihad in exposure around the world ?

Ronaldo for instance (god forbid) could be paid for on the drip & sponsored by Nike & the bank of Abu Dhabi.

Then of course there is the new 'collar site' around the ground & the property deals which our French friend will have to wade through & then if he decides to meddle in that, the court case to expose the corruption involved by our competitors using their influence to stop our business from getting off the ground & competing with theirs..

[Swales4ever]

I am sure we have people who have looked into FFP regulations more than me, but our owners must have a lot of influence over banks, finanacial instrutions and loansharks, if we cannot offset the losses in keeping with the FFP regulations, why can't we just shift them into debt? The rags have insane debts and they aren't bothered by it at all.

That's it, at least a part of, along with what explained by Ronk, plus a certain politacal influence on several votes at any FIFA election and - regretfully I do not handle the english language well enough to put it an short theatrical screenplay - being in the position to ring the UK PM and say "Look David, what about if I stop pouring fresh equity in the British Economy and I revert it to an edge fund aimed to speculate shorting Your Sovereign Debt", and so on...

perhaps it's a too cynical point of view, certainly little accorded to the political friendly approach of the Club, but all this FFP scare is... not accorded to... well, the reality of present history.

[ronk]

I am sure we have people who have looked into FFP regulations more than me, but our owners must have a lot of influence over banks, finanacial instrutions and loansharks, if we cannot offset the losses in keeping with the FFP regulations, why can't we just shift them into debt? The rags have insane debts and they aren't bothered by it at all.

That's it, at least a part of, along with what explained by Ronk, plus a certain politacal influence on several votes at any FIFA election and - regretfully I do not handle the english language well enough to put it an short theatrical screenplay - being in the position to ring the UK PM and say "Look David, what about if I stop pouring fresh equity in the British Economy and I revert it to an edge fund aimed to speculate shorting Your Sovereign Debt", and so on...

perhaps it's a too cynical point of view, certainly little accorded to the political friendly approach of the Club, but all this FFP scare is... not accorded to... well, the reality of present history.

Sheik Mansour is not putting equity into the British economy. He lent money to Barclays so they could avoid taking a government bailout that came with restrictions on executive pay, and he made a good profit from it.

For reasons that my understanding of macro-economics are just keeping up with, Britain is effectively immune from the type of bond vigilantism that is affecting Ireland, Spain and Greece. Borrowing in your own currency creates a stabilising mechanism for any capitol flight that makes it less likely, whereas borrowing in a shared currency amplifies the situation so that even a perfectly sound economy can be forced into submission, even Germany.

The FFP regulations are about losses, not how those losses are paid for. Some expenses can be excluded but they know all the big ones that count for FFP as long as we continue to pay players above the table, which of course we will continue to do. Footballers don't keep secrets well, we'd be blackmailed by every unhappy player and it would be a lot worse for us than losing Cook because he pissed off Ned's mom (in case anyone thinks it's a good idea) and the whole club isn't worth the risk for Khaldoon. Some income is excluded too, so we couldn't just buy Umbro and list every England shirt sold as income for FFP purposes.

The best crooks UEFA, FIFA and the big football clubs of Europe can provide drew up these regulations to avoid the sort of loopholes they could envisage (and not control). We'll have to work within the framework, but I think that's possible.

[Swales4ever]

I am sure we have people who have looked into FFP regulations more than me, but our owners must have a lot of influence over banks, finanacial instrutions and loansharks, if we cannot offset the losses in keeping with the FFP regulations, why can't we just shift them into debt? The rags have insane debts and they aren't bothered by it at all.

That's it, at least a part of, along with what explained by Ronk, plus a certain politacal influence on several votes at any FIFA election and - regretfully I do not handle the english language well enough to put it an short theatrical screenplay - being in the position to ring the UK PM and say "Look David, what about if I stop pouring fresh equity in the British Economy and I revert it to an edge fund aimed to speculate shorting Your Sovereign Debt", and so on...

perhaps it's a too cynical point of view, certainly little accorded to the political friendly approach of the Club, but all this FFP scare is... not accorded to... well, the reality of present history.

Sheik Mansour is not putting equity into the British economy. He lent money to Barclays so they could avoid taking a government bailout that came with restrictions on executive pay, and he made a good profit from it.

For reasons that my understanding of macro-economics are just keeping up with, Britain is effectively immune from the type of bond vigilantism that is affecting Ireland, Spain and Greece. Borrowing in your own currency creates a stabilising mechanism for any capitol flight that makes it less likely, whereas borrowing in a shared currency amplifies the situation so that even a perfectly sound economy can be forced into submission, even Germany.

The FFP regulations are about losses, not how those losses are paid for. Some expenses can be excluded but they know all the big ones that count for FFP as long as we continue to pay players above the table, which of course we will continue to do. Footballers don't keep secrets well, we'd be blackmailed by every unhappy player and it would be a lot worse for us than losing Cook because he pissed off Ned's mom (in case anyone thinks it's a good idea) and the whole club isn't worth the risk for Khaldoon. Some income is excluded too, so we couldn't just buy Umbro and list every England shirt sold as income for FFP purposes.

The best crooks UEFA, FIFA and the big football clubs of Europe can provide drew up these regulations to avoid the sort of loopholes they could envisage (and not control). We'll have to work within the framework, but I think that's possible.

Ronk, Sir,
my demi-rant was not deemed to be specifically technical, rather than to provvide a general, and still incomplete, breakdown of reasons why I - personally and humbly - do think that FFP is not a serious threat for MCFC, particularly from where we stand now (as per Soccs's and NQDP's, could have been different and worser if the Owners had pleased the Rags media and gave another couple of "fair chances" to Sparky to keep us off the CL spots).
yet, far from polemic mood, I struggle to see how injecting about £ 1.2 bil (less fee paid to Frank for the shares) on players acquisitions (i.e. fees paid to other Clubs, most of them English, at least along the 1st phase of the project ) and redevelopment of the whole Eastlands area, hence creating jobs and increasing real properties values, are not "not putting equity into the British economy". Again, let me stress the point, free of any polemic will.. ;)

[ronk]

Ronk, Sir,
my demi-rant was not deemed to be specifically technical, rather than to provvide a general, and still incomplete, breakdown of reasons why I - personally and humbly - do think that FFP is not a serious threat for MCFC, particularly from where we stand now (as per Soccs's and NQDP's, could have been different and worser if the Owners had pleased the Rags media and gave another couple of "fair chances" to Sparky to keep us off the CL spots).
yet, far from polemic mood, I struggle to see how injecting about £ 1.2 bil (less fee paid to Frank for the shares) on players acquisitions (i.e. fees paid to other Clubs, most of them English, at least along the 1st phase of the project ) and redevelopment of the whole Eastlands area, hence creating jobs and increasing real properties values, are not "not putting equity into the British economy". Again, let me stress the point, free of any polemic will.. ;)

You're right. They're investing heavily in UK businesses and expanding operations of Etihad etc.

Next year we're going to see movement in the right direction. We've been trimming our wage bill and raising our revenues.