My story doesn't change. You're the one that keeps trying to come up with different versions of how the accounting is done.
It seems to be you that doesn't get it. The potential loss of TV money, plus the dilution, if not eradication of their own power and position, is exactly why the governing bodies are liable to act sooner rather than later, before it all goes too far!
This has already been happening for years though, just some teams didn't capitalise. Look at Lazio and Parma, or Blackburn for bad examples, or AC/Inter, Barca, Real, Chelsea for modern examples
Yes, but this is different, and far more threatening. You are talking about basically, oil state owned football clubs, who will have, if left unchecked, virtually limitless supplies of money with which to dominate the game. We're not talking mere millions, or even billions here. We're talking hundreds of billions.
You are of course correct in as much as that's what some of these owners are worth, but I doubt we will see hundreds of billions being invested into a football team (with or without FFP) any time soon, simply because it isn't necessary to invest such amounts. People will only ever invest into their "business" what they have to, and such investment is reflective on the financial value of the market (game) overall. We have seen an alleged £1 billion invested into City and Chelsea respectively in an era when the very best clubs are themselves valued at £1 billion plus. In the past we saw 10s of millions being invested at a time when football clubs were valued at a similar amount. For example, in 1991 Jack Walker (at the time worth around £600m) took full control of Blackburn and began investing an amount similar to the value of the richest clubs (United, for example, were valued at £20m two years previously). And further back 10s of thousands being invested at a time when clubs were valued at a similar amount. Investment has always happened, albeit to varying degrees but nevertheless at numerous points throughout the history of the game and what were at various times in the past regarded as unprecedented amounts. Some of the clubs that today are regarded to be the biggest have benefited from significant investment in their history that enabled them to either lay the foundations or build on their previous successes, resulting in a history for such clubs that is without doubt a significant factor as to how they are regarded today. We applaud (or at least respect) such clubs today, yet we deride certain (other) clubs who are essentially reflecting the ambitions that today's most successful clubs had expressed in years gone by. Some argue that the likes of City and Chelsea take the romance out of the game, negating the competitive aspect that is essential in any sport. The funny thing is, FFP may well result in the very same thing, just with a handful of different names residing at the top of the tree. And with very little hope of any other club being able to usurp them. In my opinion, FFP need not stop investment into a team per se, but rather limit the amount that can be invested into a team per season. After all, an owner being allowed to finance the signing of a player that could result in his club finishing higher in the league (which itself has its financial rewards) isn't something that should be frowned upon, especially so when an owner can afford to take such a risk. Also, UEFA could introduce a salary cap for players, or better yet a salary cap for the entire squad (so that clubs could never stock-pile players). Maybe even limit the amount of transfers that a club can make above a certain value per season (thus resulting in the better players either staying with their current clubs longer and/or being spread to a greater extent across numerous clubs). And also perhaps limit the amount that can be earned from its competitions so that the disparity that exists within the game between the very best and the rest isn't as great as it currently is. My point is that there are several methods that could be employed in order to both safeguard the future of clubs, while at the same time increasing the competitive element of the game that I'm sure we would all love to see, and at the same time enabling at least a certain degree of investment that has been a staple ingredient of the game ever since its inception.
Yes, your comments are interesting. Of course, untold billions would not necessarily be invested in these clubs, it was meant purely as an example of the amounts of money at the disposal to the owners of what are, state owned, and financed clubs. Yes, I believe that possibly the overall salary cap would work - it's currently in place in English R.F.U. But, I fear that these top football clubs, with the massive resources they have, will simply find another way of compensating their top players. My fear remains, however. The massive financial resources of these clubs will inevitably tell. We are already seeing it here. Man City - premiership champions Chelsea CL & FA cup holders. What's the connection? Money, of course!!
As a City fan I'm glad we just snuck in, this has nothing to do with fair play, it's just another measure to protect the so called "elite"
Good article but you should have written it in 1991 when your club was a part of creating what we now see happening today!
I see what you're saying, however there's very little comparison. Now, we're talking about state owned and financed clubs, with who's financial power, nobody can compete. Even Abramovich could be made to look a relative pauper compared to the financial fire power of oil state owned clubs.
I'm a "if you can't beat them join them type of guy" your club along with a few others created this in the early 90's and now it's being challenged you don't like it, i've seen both sides you have only seen one!
Unfortunately we seem to have created a monster, Oil mogul with plaything or investment for when oil runs out, yankee investor borrows money to buy worlds biggest club, lands them with the dept but takes his ex's every year, which is better? i don't know but it's come a long way since my 1st game in 1959/60 season!
We have the same situation here in Spain. Malaga, funded again by oil state money, will very soon be challenging and, most probably, eventually overtaking Barca & Real. Ok, you can say that La Liga needs more competition, but this is just replacing one virtual monopoly with another.
In truth, I see it as a no win situation for many clubs, whether or not the FFP comes into effect. For either way they won't be able to compete, be it against clubs that have benefited from significant investment or clubs that are more established and have a much higher earning potential. Using Everton as an example, Bill Kenwright is desperate for someone to come in and buy the club. FFP coming into effect will, I believe, make it harder. If the club has to rely solely on self-generated income (and over the last 5 years it has lost money), then the club will become a less attractive proposition if an owner isn't able to invest in improving the team. Sure, an owner could come along and finance a stadium (thus increasing Everton's revenue potential), but then according to Trevor Birch, Everton's former CEO, "a stadium costs £300-£400m. Who is going to make that investment?" Well someone with hundreds of billions of pounds perhaps. But the pay-off for doing so, without being able to invest significantly in the team, could take many many years, and even then the pay off could be minimal. Everton's match-day income for a season was, in 2011, around £20m (compared to United's match-day income of circa £100m a season). A new stadium, with an increased capacity over Goodison of say 20,000 (with improved hospitality facilities), may double Everton's match-day income. Let's be liberal and say it triples it. Well it still falls short of United's current match-day revenue by £40m. Yet without FFP, someone could come along, may be even stagger their investment - invest first into the team, improving the on-field performances (more money), maybe getting the club into the CL (more money), increasing the clubs exposure as a result (more sponsorship money), and then go on and improve the stadium. With FFP, someone could come along, not being able to invest into the team, thus no improvement in the on-field performances (reducing the capability to earn more money), not getting the club into the CL (reducing the capability to earn more money), and thus not increasing the clubs exposure (reducing the capability to earn more money from sponsorship). But at least (s)he could build a stadium! The point is that it will stifle growth for many many clubs, even the ones who have been frugal prior to the FFP proposals. Simply put, the FFP doesn't benefit such clubs. It will however result in a bigger gulf between them and the bigger clubs being created. It just doesn't particularly sit well with me that many of those bigger clubs (the likes of Milan, United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Juventus, Madrid, Barcelona, etc) have all benefited from investment into their team in the past, but no other club will be able to benefit from investment into their team in the future. It even doesn't particular sit well with me that City (I am a City fan) have benefited from significant investment yet from now on no other club will be able to. An established order has been set up, is now firmly in place, and I am absolutely positive that the FFP will result in maintaining it. In my humble opinion, that's no better for the game overall than you (clearly) feel extortionately rich owners are.
Yes, all very relevant, however, it merely means replacing one " aristocracy" with another. The next one will however, be far more powerful, and in my opinion, if left unchecked, will take over football entirely.
LDL, understand what your saying but forgive me for being a little cynical, being a Manchester lad I've watched you mop up trophy after trophy through the 1990's/ 2000's and I've congratulated my red aquaintences, albeit through gritted teeth, on their success but on none of those occasions as it crossed my mind to say it's only because you have more money than we do, which you clearly had, where was the FFP then? Times and circumstances change, in life I see this as a good thing, it's maybe our turn now and hopefully someone else's tomorrow, accept it, it creates great debate, we as fans can only do what we do best in supporting our teams, what happens at the top is out of our control, as proved by your Norwich scarf thing, unfortunately! all the best. ps please don't go down the "we earnt it road" or I'll have to give you a history lesson!
Like I said several posts ago, the investment made into (for example) City and Chelsea is a similar amount to what the richest clubs are currently valued at, and no one will ever invest more than they have to, irrespective of how rich they are. Thus, checked or unchecked, it will always be relative. It always has been. Just imagine how different the game would be today if the FFP had existed right from the start. Besides, the FFP won't stop the mega (oil) rich people from buying clubs, just as it won't stop your local businessman-done-good from buying clubs they support. But it will stop any owner from investing any amount into the team itself. That's going too far to try and address the "problem" that UEFA hope to solve - that being to safeguard the long-term survival of clubs. But then what about the short-term survival of clubs? Will any owner be able to cover any losses that their club makes over any interim period? In that respect, what's in a clubs better interests? To have a debt that falls within the FFP guidelines (thus complying with the FFP over the next several years) or to have that debt paid off in full by its owner who is more than happy to do so (which would be against the FFP)? Of course, the best option is to have a world in which no club has any debt whatsoever. But I'll state right now that I doubt the FFP will ever achieve that. And it will simply be unreasonable to expect every club to make a profit (or at least break-even) every single season (which is the goal of the FFP come the end of this decade). What isn't unreasonable however is to allow clubs to have a certain level of debt that is serviceable. What also isn't unreasonable is to allow an owner to service that debt himself by turning it into equity. What really needs to be addressed however is the tendency of some clubs who borrowed money that neither itself or its owner could afford. That is what threatens the long-term stability (survival) of a club. Not one who can service a debt by dipping into his loose change.
