Couldn't that have been said about Chelsea five years ago? And then look what Man City did. But now no-one else will be able to do that. That's the effect of the ruling - to make something that was improbable actually imossible. I don't know. I really don't know how I feel about this. Just exercising the arguments...
This time there really will be no competition. Unless you can think of anybody who has more financial power at their disposal than an Arab oil state, such as Dubai, or Abu Dhabi, who may also be interested in buying a football club?
Well yeah, just A N Other Arab oil state? Or a Bill Gates (obvious example) or some other hugely wealthy person. Who knows where they might come from? Perhaps the person who invents the next facebook or the person who owns the only mine outside China of a rare mineral that will power 21st century communications technology (a technology yet to be invented). Or maybe just someone who writes a book about Wizards. Who knows where obscenely huge wealth is going to come from? Oil is only one avenue. And if my geography lessons thirty years ago are to be believed I think other, non-oil, fortunes will have to be made some point in the next few decades. Oil sheiks might be the wealthiest people on Earth now (are they?) but it won't always be this way. Plus there must be a few sheiks to go round, no? Must stress - I'm not advocating huge buy-outs and rich man's toy takeovers. Just probing the argument.
It remains my contention that something has to done to check these hugely wealthy clubs. We have never before seen clubs in football that are state- owned in all but name. Not just state- owned but owned by countries with almost unimaginable sums of disposable cash. As I mentioned earlier, in this country there is the meteoric rise of Man City from nowhere. We're seeing here in Spain, Malaga come to prominence - a previously insignificant La Liga team. In France it's PSG. I really believe tat in a relatively short space of time these clubs will have an iron grip on the European game, if UEFA do nothing.
NSIS and I are not so much disagreeing on the idea of bringing in at least some degree of regulation, and I do agree to an extent with NSIS in respect of his/her comments about the threat whereby extortionately rich people can create a scenario which leads to the clubs that they own ultimately dominating the game. That is a possible danger, and thus a valid concern, without doubt. But only to an extent. As I've said previously in this thread, no owner will invest more than he has to. It doesn't matter that City's owner has a personal worth of £20 billion (and a family worth of £500 billion), because the amount that he invests in to City will never ever come close to that amount. Just as Jack Walker was worth £600m - the amount he invested into Blackburn was just over 3% of his overall wealth. People say that what Mansour has invested into City barely touches the interest that he earns on his wealth. Well the same can be said of owners in the past. And of course, if anyone's concern lies with predominantly with such ridiculously wealthy people owning clubs, then that concern will remain. For the FFP will not stop such ridiculously wealthy people from buying clubs. What it may result in however is such ridiculously wealthy people only ever buying into the very biggest clubs. Not the case with Chelsea and Abramovich. Not the case with Mansour and City. What NSIS and I also agree on is that dominance will happen, with or without the FFP. Where we differ (I think) lies in that I have (what some may feel) a more brutal approach to the game that allows investment to take place, whereas I get the impression that NSIS feels that investment (to the degree seen at the likes of City and Chelsea) will only be bad for the game. That is something I will never agree with. Not because I'm a City fan, but because it is something that flies in the face of football and its history, and that history has, without doubt, shaped the game that we all know today. I simply feel that clubs should be allowed to grow. If that requires investment (and it often does), then so be it. If the biggest clubs are worth (and generating) billions, then then it stands to reason that it will take billions to catch (and compete, and maybe overtake) them. As long as such investment can be covered, initially by the owner and eventually (long-term) by the club, then I simply do not see a problem. But, I do value the idea of clubs - all clubs - becoming in the long term self-sustainable. That's the reason why I agree that sanctions do have to be made. As a City fan, I would never want the club I support to have to rely on investment indefinitely. For investment (no matter how much is required) should only ever really kick-start the process and have an end goal that enables development, growth, and sustainability to be realised. My problem with the FFP (as it is) is that it will deny clubs that opportunity.
As you say, we agree on some points. However, clubs such as Man City intend to dominate the game - I have no doubt that that is their intention. They will therefore spend whatever is necessary to achieve their goal. My point is that there is no comparison, no precedent, for the amount of money they, and clubs like them, have at their disposal. Of course, nobody spends more than they have to. However, that's all relative, again. One billion, or whatever City have spent so far is, too most other clubs, an unimaginable sum to have available. To the owners of Man City, it represents not much more than petty cash.
Not exactly from nowhere. From a mid-table position in the richest, arguably most competitive top flight domestic league in the world. A club that prior to its investment resided in the top twenty list of the world's most richest clubs. A club that prior to investment resided in the top 4-5 best attended football clubs in the country. That you feel City's rise has come "from nowhere" actually serves to make my point. City were never in with a realistic chance of winning the league prior to the investment. What does that say about your concern in regards to the sport being dominated, when a club in the world's top twenty rich list, among the handful of best supported clubs in the country, has little chance of challenging? Exactly the same can be said of Spurs - a huge club, in a huge (affluent) city, with a great history and tradition. A club that has little chance of ever dominating the game as it stands. I said it before - a club that resides a mere two or three places below the most dominant team in the Premier League's history is worth a fraction of the amount of that dominant team, and generates a fraction of the amount in revenue. That disparity has to be countered. But it will NOT be countered by the FFP. It will merely be compounded. And that ultimately is my problem with the FFP. And yet your problem lies with ridiculously rich people coming into (and investing into) the game. I'm sorry, but I simply do not understand that reasoning. At least investment into lesser clubs enables those clubs to at least challenge the hegemony of the biggest clubs. Take that opportunity away, and you're left with what? Madrid? United? Barcelona? Let's all go home now and leave them to it. Spurs? Forget it. That dream is now over.
Again, we're going around in circles. Yes, all that would happen at the moment is that one elite would be replaced by another. However, this one would be impossible for anybody to displace except by virtue of regulation. Certainly not, as the current hegemony will be replaced, by huge sums of money As to City's rise, I still maintain that it's meteoric from ( ok) relative obscurity to Premiership Champions. When is the last time you were anywhere near challenging for the title before your benefactors came along? Again, No FFP is not a foolproof panacea. But I still strongly feel that some effective regulation must be put in place to prevent these super rich clubs from just buying the game.
And what is wrong with that? The club, and its owners (because the owners own the club, I now view it as one entity) can afford to at least take the financial risk in order to achieve a goal that every single fan of every single club (no matter how big or small) would love their club to attain. That's where we disagree. Throughout the history of the game there has always been times when "unprecedented" amounts were spent and invested. It was unprecedented in 1991 with Blackburn. It was unprecedented in 1923 with Juventus. It was unprecedented in the early 1900s with Arsenal. Just three examples. There are many more. Walker - 3% of his overall wealth invested. Mansour, 5% of his overall wealth invested. Abramovich, 8% of his wealth invested. These mega rich people do not invest their entire wealth into the clubs. Not even a significant percentage of it. And what the likes of United are worth and earn in revenue are unimaginable sums to most other clubs. Wigan spend £5m on a player - to them a huge sum. To the biggest clubs, petty cash. £5m to Wigan is 10% of their overall revenue per year. £5m to United it is around 2%. City spend £100m on transfers in a season. £100m is what United earn in match-day revenue alone. This is what clubs are up against. The amounts invested into City are singled out and regarded as ridiculous. But when put into context (that is, what clubs are worth, what clubs can potentially earn), then it becomes understandable. So City have invested £1b over 4 years. Extortionate and unprecedented? And all at a time when the FFP didn't restrict the owner spending any amount of his own wealth. So why didn't he do so? 4 years Mansour's been at City. City could have signed Messi for £1b and £1m per week, Ronaldo for the same. That wouldn't have even dented his family's wealth, and more to the point it wouldn't have even been a problem in regards to the FFP (because they would have been signed prior to when the FFP come into effect). So why didn't he? After all, that's your concern that he (because of his wealth) is able to threaten the game in that way. Even before the FFP came in, City never got close to spending £80m on one player, despite that being chicken feed to City's owner. What makes you think that, if the FFP didn't come it, it would be any different?
Haha. I wondered if we were gonna get through this thread without things getting partizan. Just the slightest glimmer nearly coming in now... But your point in bold I cannot argue with. It is unhealthy that the gap between mid-table (or even non CL) and the top should be so great finance-wise. But can't help but think that more whimsical investment by the mega-rich into those outside the elite not only has potentially bad ramifications for the club itself in the long term but also the viability of all the other clubs trying to keep up. More huge investment from outside football will only make the whole edifice more unstable, won't it? We need clubs to be able to finance themselves don't we? The number of clubs in this tiny country and the diversity of our footballing culture is a fantastic wealth that we have. (And whilst sudden injections of wealth have happened often down the years I'd have thought that steadily living within means has led to most of the hundreds of professional clubs over the last 150 years enduring). Huge investment makes winning things more likely but future existence less likely (though whether by a major amount or just a tiny fraction we will have to wait and see). I really agree with much of what you've said but think that ultimately I disagree on the point that I think outside investment does have to be stemmed somehow. And if, once that's happened, Man Utd's income is still 5 or 10 times greater than the fourth-placed team then start looking at how revenue from within the competitions is divided. Or something. But that conclusion is a bit more gut-reactiony than massively reasoned out at this point.
That's where we do agree! I want to see investment. I want to see as many clubs as possible to able to grow, develop, and yes challenge. I don't want to stop rich people from buying into clubs, simply because when such rich people are attracted to the game than that means that the game overall is in good shape. I don't want to see one club ever dominate. But I want to see several clubs being able to compete. If it requires investment for clubs to be able to do so, then I have no problem with that, even if the club I support isn't among them. The FFP? Not for me. At least as it stands. It won't help Spurs. It won't help Everton. It won't help even the likes of Crawley. And that, to me, is a shame. Take away the ability of an owner to come along, have a vision, invest, take a risk, and if it pays off reap the rewards later is a romantic ideal of the game that I never want to see the game lose.
Haha. I wondered if we were gonna get through this thread without things getting partizan. Just the slightest glimmer nearly coming in now... But your point in bold I cannot argue with. It is unhealthy that the gap between mid-table (or even non CL) and the top should be so great finance-wise. But can't help but think that more whimsical investment by the mega-rich into those outside the elite not only has potentially bad ramifications for the club itself in the long term but also the viability of all the other clubs trying to keep up. More huge investment from outside football will only make the whole edifice more unstable, won't it? We need clubs to be able to finance themselves don't we? The number of clubs in this tiny country and the diversity of our footballing culture is a fantastic wealth that we have. (And whilst sudden injections of wealth have happened often down the years I'd have thought that steadily living within means has led to most of the hundreds of professional clubs over the last 150 years enduring). Huge investment makes winning things more likely but future existence less likely (though whether by a major amount or just a tiny fraction we will have to wait and see). I really agree with much of what you've said but think that ultimately I disagree on the point that I think outside investment does have to be stemmed somehow. And if, once that's happened, Man Utd's income is still 5 or 10 times greater than the fourth-placed team then start looking at how revenue from within the competitions is divided. Or something. But that conclusion is a bit more gut-reactiony than massively reasoned out at this point.
Lenny It is admittedly hard not to become partizan. Even harder to convince others that I'm not being partizan!! As a City fan, I will always run that risk!!! Anyway, in respect of your comment "whimsical investment", I genuinely do not see it that way. Since 2008, City's value has increased by $252m. The revenue from 2008 to 2012 has doubled. Those figures are before we played in the CL, and before the disclosure of our sponsorship deal, and of course before we won the PL. So the value of the club and the revenue will have undoubtedly increased since then. During this time, Sheikh Mansour has invested around £930m into the club. During that time, the club has earned around £350m in revenue. So the cost to Mansour (in the sense that the debt has been turned into equity) has been in the region of £600m (give or take a few (I'll take a few personally, pay off my debts and then leave some!!)). The long term goal (anyone can see this - the mission statement being made public) is for the club to become self-sustainable. Yet because of the FFP, the spending (investment) had to be accelerated. The club was nevertheless always going to make losses in the first few years of Mansour's tenure (3 years so far), and it will only be further down the line whether we can see if it pays off (from a financial perspective) or not. At the moment, just merely going off the simplistic figures above (the increase in revenue and value), it could just possibly do just that. Good point about looking at how revenue within competitions can be divided. I agree completely. If UEFA want to create a level playing field (which is a goal of the FFP after all), then it has to address the disparity between what the very top clubs earn and the rest earn, even if only in terms of competitive rewards alone (I doubt it could control sponsorship (even though it wants to implement a "fair market value"), or that it could control ticket prices (in my opinion the biggest obstacle to creating a level playing field), or that it could (or more to the point want) to control television revenue).
I understand, but please don't think that there is any great philanthropy, or higher purpose in the money these oil states are pumping into football. It's all dine for a reason.
This is Mansours's personal money only in name. Let's face it, City are a state owned and funded club. Funded by a fabulously wealthy oil state that has virtually unlimited resources. Once again, this was all relative. However, now we are talking about the ultimate in financial resources. Not just state owned and financed clubs, but oil state financed clubs. Again, there is no way, once established as the new hierarchy, to supplant these people. It could only possibly be done by regulation. In my view, it is far better from the governing bodies point of view, to do this now, before they become powerless to resist the financial power of these clubs. It's hardly the point that City haven't signed Messi, or Ronaldo for some extortionate fee. They are not so stupid as to be THAT ostentatious. I have no doubt, however, that if they felt it could be done without raising too many voices of protest, that is what they would have done.
It does seem to happen in MLS (Beckham at the LA Galaxy being the most obvious example), but that's only because MLS is still foolishly operating along similar lines to the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB in terms of drafts and player salaries. The fact is that if one player gets half a club's wage bill, that will piss off the rest of the squad - as noted when Landon Donovan, and some Galaxy fans, publicly voiced concern about Beckham a couple of years back.
If it was one player per club it would just about be excusable, but it isn't. Galaxy they have Beckham and Keane, whilst the NY Red Bulls have Henry and Rafa Marquez (and Teemu Tainio), after that Chicago Fire have Arne Friedrich and the Seattle Sounders have Mauro Rosales, but after that the rest of the league have to make do with what they've got.
