From what I understand the the teams that voted against were those who have mainly sorted out their financial problems, and were looking to put tougher restrictions on the larger teams who because of getting European money would still be paying big wages and so there would be no leveling of the playing field, the gap will get wider, unless we can consistently get into europe. The teams who voted against were hoping that the vote would fail and they would have to vote on and have to accept something close to UEFA's proposal. But the problem was Reading abstained and Chelsea changed sides winning the vote for the proposal. It now looks like it is up to Platini to implement their proposal in the European competitions by refusing teams a license to play in competitions like they did to some teams (Malaga being the highest profile) if they fail. Most of the teams who will fall foul of UEFA are more likely to be small teams as TV will not be having the big teams chucked out. But another problem is the downturn of economics of a lot of countries means likes of Spanish, French and Italian clubs will struggle to meet these proposal and rules. And a lot of Goverments will put pressure on UEFA to go easy.
Let's be clear, the limitations are in regards to the new TV money not other revenue streams. So, in effect, this change massively favours the current bigger clubs with alternative revenue streams (e.g. bigger stadia, foreign markets) by pulling the ladder up after them. I imagine this has something to do with Mo's objections.
Brought back memories Bidley - when we nearly did that very same thing 11 years ago. God forbid! February 2002 Fulham are hoping to sell naming rights for their new all-seater stadium for around £10 million. The club is spending £70m redeveloping Craven Cottage at the end of the season and wants to recoup some of the outlay in a 10-year deal. please log in to view this image Bishops Park approach to the proposed new Craven Cottage Leading sports marketing company IMG has been brought in to talk to wealthy companies. If Fulham get the price they want, it would be one of the biggest deals of its kind in the country. Bolton sold their naming rights and club sponsorship to Reebok in a deal worth around £1m-a-year in 1997 when they moved to a new stadium, and Middlesbrough secured a £3.5m 10-year package from BT Cellnet for their new ground in 1994. Other similar agreements, such as Bradford's with Bradford and Bingley, were much less lucrative. But Leeds are hoping to cover the cost of their planned new £60m stadium by selling permanent naming rights. Executives at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff are hoping to get £20m for adopting a new corporate identity. Fulham's deal will need to be in place in time for the scheduled completion of their new 30,000-seat arena in the summer of 2003. please log in to view this image River view of the proposed new Craven Cottage The club has an agreement to play at Queens Park Rangers' Loftus Road ground while work takes place next season. The deal includes an option to extend their stay for a year. But the fee Fulham can attract for naming rights will depend largely on the team's success in the Premiership.
Bloody hell, the view from Bishop's looks horrific! Although at least it wasn't going to be called something like "Harrods Cottage"!
I feel that this development will make us unique,we will have the ultra modern,blending in with the traditional. A ground where FFC and away supporters will find it a pleasure to attend.
Interesting article which compares PL club (player) wages with current performance - http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/wage-and-the-premier-league-scaled-table Interesting, not least, to see where we sit in the wages pecking order (and the latest proposal about regulation for those with a wage bill exceeding £55m). Note: I'm assuming it is (player's) wages and doesn't include the manager, coaches, CEO etc.
