2010/11 season Chelsea - £191m (up from £174m in 2009-10) Manchester City - £174m (£133m) Manchester United - £153m (£132m) ------------> 46% of income Liverpool - £135m (£121m) Arsenal - £124m (£111m)
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/club-finances/club-finances-201011.html I spoke from memory, and was a bit out, but Manchester City is the only club whose wage bill exceeds it's turnover.
UEFA has already stopped some clubs competing: http://www.insideworldfootball.biz/...results-in-uefa-europe-ban-for-turkish-clubs- Not under the new FFP rules, but under the existing rules that allow them to withhold a license from clubs who don't pay debts or go into administration (like Pompey and Rangers). The Turkish clubs went to CAS and had their punishments upheld, so it looks like any legal challenge to FFP by a club may be a futile one.
When the FFP were first discussed I niaively believed that it would stop the chequebook clubs and Arsenal would become the dominant force of English football, I've had plenty of time to consider things since and since the Etihad naming rights debacle I've come to the conclusion that nothing will beat the financial bullies. Even if rules are applied and penalties are issued there's every chance that Abramovic's and the Arabs lawyers will be better than the FA's or EUFA's and they'll win in the courts, the rich owners certainly have deeper pockets.
To be fair though mate, I think Swarbs previous post shows that UEFA have got some teeth as demonstrated by the withholding of licences for clubs who can't pay their debts. I know the Etihad deal was fishy, but it might not be a precedent for FFP. I think we need to give it some time to see how it's implemented and what effect it has. I remain optimistic until proven otherwise
Piskie - taking on a couple of Turks is a world away from taking on blokes who own half the worlds oil reserves. The issue of witholding licences relates to clubs whose owners have got their clubs into financial trouble, nothing here that will prevent owners from taking ownership of historic clubs where they could turn them into champions lge winners or land them in the lower leagues or worse still watch a household football clubs name fold completely. It's roulette, some clubs will get lucky and some won't, what these people are doing is playing with clubs futures and of course it's the fans who have an undying passion who suffer most when the owners irresponsibility takes hold. Remember also that it's the irresponsibility of some owners that have created an artificial market that allows only an elite group to compete in....
I hear you mate I just think we should give FFP a fair go first. UEFA are staking their reputation on it, so it's in their interests to make it work. Whether it will, remains to be seen.
Maybe I'm being overly pessamistic but the governing bodies within football have never really covered themselves in glory in my book, FIFA is crooked and EUFA make some strange calls, the FA have passed a number of owners as credible who have ruined clubs and lives that are associated with them, so I wouldn't be massively confident they can make serious changes that create a more level playing field. My point is that we (Arsenal fans) are more concerned with the rules stopping rich kids from buying more toys, I say any penalty applied to these clubs will be met with the biggest legal challenge in history - remember how Chelsea reacted when they were banned from trading in a transfer window a few years ago ? At the other end there'll be more Rangers, Portsmouths, Leeds, Charltons, Forests, Southamptons etc
Piskie - the problem they're faced with is that the most irresponsible owners are those of some of the big box office clubs, City, Chelsea, PSG, Barca, Madrid etc, so making a stand against these clubs and potentially preventing them from competing in the best club competition in the world would directly impact income generated by EUFA from sponsors, advertising, TV deals etc. It won't happen sadly, the chequebook bullies are used to buying everything in life and I don't see them changing their behaviour or softening their arrogance anytime soon....
Well, FFP has been set up specifically to deal with owners who simply pour endless millions into their pet projects. So it at least has to try to address the problem. I hear what you're saying and it's hard not to be cynical about it, given the history of FIFA and UEFA's own corruption. But this is an opportunity to start to address some of the inequities in the game.
The Scum and the Arse getting in bed with each other, how sweet. Your owners are ripping the **** out of you and your better players all want out, don't worry about City meeting FFP worry about when you are next going to win something, you don't want fair play you want to be back at the top.
I was making a perfectly reasonable point, saying what I thought the regulation would be and saying that there was only one club that would have a problem with it. I am one of the people who have no issue with the way our club is run, and I have very little regard for the general "wisdom" that any given flavour of the month player is "best" and invaluable to a team. Losing Song and RvP this year has been a minor bump that, based on our season so far, was barely noticed. You may see that Song hasn't played much for Barcelona (I don't think he would have played yet for us either) and RvP is now injured. I would be advocating running Arsenal the way it is run, whether FFP was being talked about or not. Arsenal are at the top, and have been for a long, long time. They will also be there for a long time in the future, long after your rich owners have got bored and you are back in the second division again. It seems like you are very worried about FFP being introduced and so you should be, but I would be looking across the water to Malaga and worrying about that too. Sleep well!
