Forums / Manchester United
Order: Newest / Oldest
Does The FFP Rules Prevent The "small Clubs" From Reaching The Top Of The Sport?
[account-removed] 2 years ago
Does the FFP rules prevent the "small clubs" from reaching the top of the sport? Does it prevent clubs from being bought by wealthy individuals and run by sugar daddies?

The financial fair play rules designed by European footballs governing body, UEFA, has split opinions of football fans worldwide over the future of the sport in Europe. Many aspects are still debated and legions of fans added to each side of the argument on a daily basis since word of these rules were first rumoured.

One of the most debated aspects is whether these rules will prevent the "small clubs" from rising to the top of game and rub shoulders with the so called "traditional giants" of the sport e. G. Manchester United, Real Madrid, Juventus, Bayern Munich, etc. Are these rules unfairly preventing them from reaching the heights that every club dreams of aspring to?

The answer to that is simple, no. The rules do not stop the so called "smaller clubs" from reaching the top of the sport. The FFP rules were designed to help the sport become more financial stable and viable for the long term, and its rules are enforced on all clubs, big and small, for the benefit of the sports future.

Clubs that aspire to reach the top can choose one of two paths:

1.) Long route-here the club spends years building upon the success of season after season and gradually climbing up the ladder to the top.
2.) Shortcut-here the club gets bought by a rich individual, or group of individuals, and the club is given money by them to reach the top much quicker.

"smaller club" supporters feel that the FFP prevent them from using option 2 and is thus favouring the "traditional big clubs". But is their sentiment true? No, it isn't true.

The FFP rules don't prevent a club from being bought by a rich individual(s) and they don't dictate to them what they should do. But, the FFP rules do dictate to them that if they want to participate in the UEFA competitions (I. E. Champions League and Europa League) then they have to follow one major rule, I. E. Break-even.

All clubs participating are required to break even in order to compete in these 2 competitions. If they don't, then they are not allowed to enter these competitions. But, even here UEFA has given some rope to these clubs whereby they allow a club that isn't breaking even to compete in these European competitions if they at least show a decreasing trend of losses.

Therefore, UEFA can grant temporary 1 year licences to clubs that don't break even as long as they show a decreasing trend of losses and projections of future years where they break even and viable plans of how they plan to accomplish this goal.

Another common question aired about the FFP rules is, does the FFP rules prevent "smaller clubs" from being bought by a rich individual(s)?

The answer to that question is, no, it doesn't.

Uefa can't stop any club from being bought by wealthy individuals in the future. They don't have the authority to do that.

For example, if Everton was bought by Bill Gates tomorrow, then he could invest as much money as he wanted into the club and Everton could spend it on whatever they wanted, including youth development, stadium improvements, transfers, wage budgets, etc. UEFA won't be able to stop Everton from doing so. But UEFA will be able to prevent Everton from competing in the Champions League and the Europa League since they govern that competition and they have set the rules down which have to followed by all the clubs, big or small. Therefore, Eveton could keep continuing to grow even though they will be exiled from the UEFA competitions and the club can use this time to grow both on the pitch and off the pitch. They can take their time in building up their commercial revenue streams, sponsorships, youth development programmes and stadium even though they can't participate in the UEFA competitions. This can help them reduce their losses, and with a sound long term plan, a patient board and talented manager, they can be in a position where they are in line with the rules that they need to abide by in order to compete in the UEFA competions.

So, whoever that says that the FFP rules prevent smaller clubs from growing, or being bought by wealthy individuals is quite frankly misinformed and needs to take a good look at the rules before forming an opinion that can be considered informed.

However, altough UEFA doesn't have the authority to prevent clubs from being bought, the national FA's of the clubs respective country can prevent a club from being bought. Different leagues have different rules on this matter. For example, in the Bundesliga there is "50+1" rule, in the Premier League there is the "fit and proper person test", etc.

Also, losses made by a club are dealt with differently by the FA's of different countries. In the Premier League, if Everton made a loss tomorrow of £100 million, then there is nothing the English FA can do to stop them as long as Everton can keep operating as a going concern. But in the Bundesliga, if Leverkusen made a loss of £100 million, then the German FA can prevent Leverkusen from competiting in the Bundesliga and the domestic cup competitions by denying them a licence to participate in that seasons domestic tournaments.

Hope this puts to rest the myth that the FFP rules and UEFA plan to prevent "small clubs" from reaching the top of the game. If you meet someone that has this opinion, then feel free to use this "article" to educate them and spread the word.

Next "article" will be about the reasons why the FFP will be successfully implemented and accepted by the clubs in the long term, and the challenges that the FFP still faces.

Disclaimer: all the words written in this "article" are mine, and my own, if someone wishes to challenge it, then I accept the challenge. Plus, all questions about the topic discussed are more than welcome and I would love to answer them and debate them
Niru (Chelsea) 2 years ago
Nice essay mate, keep it up!
HilaryMaphorisa (Manchester United) 2 years ago
Thanks for the information
[account-removed] 2 years ago
Your welcome
T11D (Manchester City) 2 years ago
Good writeup. Not sure if you've covered this in previous posts, but stadiums and youth development, as well as brand growth (marketing, building of club shops, property improvement, etc) all fall outside of FFP. Conceivably, a team like QPR could build a 70, 000 person stadium this summer to add to matchday revenue. Revenue without any losses= free FFP profit. Just one of the easy ways for rich owners to get around the system.

I think you're ignoring the biggest issue with the "small clubs can't grow" debate, though. If a team like Everton never gets bought out by a rich owner, can they truly take the "long route" to success? In order to maximize profit, teams must compete in Europe. This requires winning the FA Cup or finishing in the top 5. Without a lot of luck, it is simply inconceivable that a team of Everton's stature do that.

My position of FFP: simply put, it solidifies the elite of each division, and eliminates any small teams from contention. Every year, MUFC, MCFC, Chelsea, Real Madrid, Barca, Dortmund, Bayern, PSG, OL, OM will make the Champions League. This is because of their solid revenue streams that have been in place for years. There is no parity. The remaining 15-17 teams in each division will be competing for 1 or 2 spots. FFP only solidifies this current disparity.

((PS Sorry for the ignorant City fans that immediately get defensive as soon as any mentions "ffp" in a thread.))
[account-removed] 2 years ago
@t11d

You are right. Stadium development, youth development, brand growth, etc fall outside the FFP and don't count towards the expenditure figure used in the break even calculation. I wouldnt agree that this is a way for rich owners to get around the system completely. UEFA's FFP rules have no problem with attracting investment, but they prefer investment in football infrastructure e. G. Stadiums, youth dev, brand growth, etc. They don't like to see a rich owner taking over a club and spending like crazy to get into the Champions League, or win the league title. They are encouraging clubs to pick the long route and not the short cut, so that clubs are financially solvent and the infrastructure of the football club and football in general is enhanced in the process. Technically, UEFA's FFP rules is trying to protect footballs long term survival and viability, because currently football is expanding so fast that its showing signs of a "bubble", like an economic bubble such as the dot.com bubble. If the bubble goes bust, then football collapses a lot. But with the introduction of rules like FFP, UEFA can do whatever possible to prevent a bubble from forming and minimise the impact of a potential future bubble bursting on the football scene as a whole, after all, UEFA is meant to look out for the stability and future of football across all countries from England to Turkey.

Clubs that don't get bought by wealthy owners can grow. All that's needed is 1.) a patient and smart board 2.) a talented manager.

Lets take Everton for example. They have been in the Premier League for so long, but they have failed to take advantage of this and build up their brand power, commercial revenues and sponsorships. Things like this are taken care of by the board of directors, CEOs, etc. But they have clearly not done enough, and/or simply don't have the business nous to take advantage of it.

Lets take Arsenal for example now. Their commercial revenues are poor compared to Manchester United. Even though Manchester United has had so much success in the recent past, that doesn't mean that there is no money left for Arsenal to grab in the commercial market like sponsorships. There is a lot of money in football, especially in areas like East Asia, North America, South America, etc. Arsenal are one of the leading 15 brands in world football, yet their off the pitch performance, in terms of commercial revenue generated, is so poor. Reasons for this are:

1.) the Emirates deal. The shirt sponsorship deal, and the stadium naming rights deal is not rewarding enough for Arsenal based on the clubs strength in the brand market. But, it is understandable that they have no choice but to take this sponsorship initially due to the fact that the club needed money to build the Emirates stadium. But the sponsorship deal expires in the 13/14 season if I am not mistaken. So, there should be a major improvement in 2 years time of what Emirates offer to Arsenal in order to continue as their shirt and stadium name sponsors, or since Arsenal will still be a strong brand by the 13/14 season that they can choose another sponsor that gives them a fair price for having the rights to print their names on the Arsenal jersey and naming the stadium after them.

2.) this point is even more important that point 1.). The Arsenal board are useless when it comes to securing sponsorships and further increasing brand power. If I was the CEO of Arsenal, I would have fired those that are running the brand and sponsorship side of things. A club of Arsenals stature should have a lot more sponsors than what they currently have. This is a major reason why Arsenal have less money to spend in the transfer market, such a strict and arguably low wage structure, and the fact they lose key players almost every season to other clubs whether it is for ambition or wage demands.

Most clubs in the Premier League are very poor at building their brands and securing sponsorships. The truth is, there is a lot of money in football, but clubs like Everton, Sunderland, Fulham, Aston Villa, etc are very poor at increasing commercial revenue. The fault lies with the Directors and Heads of the departments that are responsible for the respective clubs brands. For example, the 4 clubs I just named have been in the Premier League for a while, and they have built up a reputation as a Premier League club. Each club boasts players that foreign fans want to see live, e. G.

Everton- Cahill, Howard, Fellaini, Baines, etc
Sunderland- Sessegnon, Larsson, O'Shea, etc
Fulham- Schwarzer, Riise, Bryan Ruiz, Duff, Dempsey, etc
Aston Villa- Given, Bent, Agbonlahor, N'Zogbia, etc

Now say in the upcoming preseason, these 4 clubs together went on a preseason tour to the Far East and played a friendly tournament among themselves and a few local Asian clubs, then that would help to increase the profile of all 4 Premier League clubs in that region. Obviously this will increase their brand strength, merchandise sales in that region, and help them secure more sponsorships thus increasing their commercial revenue, which will in turn give them more money for transfers, wage structure, youth development, etc.

The biggest problem is actually the lack of business nous of many of the Premier League clubs Directors in building up brand strength and commercial revenue. Money needs to be invested by clubs to hire more skilled and daring personnel in this key area so that they can continue to grow.

I think the FFP rules are actually designed to bridge the gap between the rich and not so rich. The FFP is putting a soft cap of what top clubs can spend, due to the fact the have to break even some years from now they can't take bank loans, and government aid to finance transfer sprees.

But the smaller clubs can, since they arent in UEFA competitions, they can take loans, get bought by a rich owner that pumps money in, etc and use that to bridge the gap between themselves and the top clubs. That's because they don't have to worry if they break even enough due to the fact that they arent presently in the UEFA competitions, so they don't have to worry about their financial performance in order to get a UEFA licence.

The FFP rules are actually putting a soft cap of the rich and big clubs, and giving leg room to the small clubs to bridge the gap. But, in some leagues poor financial performance can mean that they won't even be allowed to play in their domestic leagues, e. G. Bundesliga. But in the Premier League it doesn't matter if the club is making big losses as long as the club is a going concern and isn't going to go bankrupt. Richard Scudamore, the Chief Executive of the Premier League himself has said that. In the Premier League, we should witness the gap between the rich and the poor decreasing, but the poorer clubs need to take initiatives to improve their position as well as I have pointed out above.

Thanks for your response and feedback.
DaniPak (Arsenal) 2 years ago
@t11d funny you didn't mention that Arsenal will be in champions league...
Rubin (Inter Milan) 2 years ago
Seems like you work for UEFA.  Jk, good job. I agree with what UEFA is doing
[account-removed] 2 years ago
Thanks for reading and giving your feedback
TheBarcaShow (Footytube Staff) 2 years ago
Great read, great emphasis on the fact that FFP is only for UEFA competitions.

This definitely doesn't stop money rich teams from becoming power houses. Chelsea, City, PSG and Malaga are probably in the clear and in the eyes of UEFA are fine although I am sure UEFA would prefer if they would stop spending enormous amounts and raising prices for everyone. The type of team being targeted is Anzhi though which is nowhere close to sustainable.

Actually this kind of gives them a good time line as I believe FFP runs in 4 year cycles. (I might be mistaken) 4 years gives a decent amount of time to build the brand and build the team as well as upgrade or build new facilities. Anyways, as Khalid has already stated FFP is all about sustainability. UEFA wants teams to become more efficient with how they are run, increase revenue and decrease costs not to mention grow the next generation of players
[account-removed] 2 years ago
@TheBarcaShow

The rich teams are already powerhouses imo, but I think based on everything and the information that is available about the FFP, we should see a reduction in the gap between the "big" and "small" clubs. The leagues in which I think the gap will reduce is the Premier League for sure and the Bundesliga (they need to market their league more though). Most of the "smaller" leagues will benefit as well by longer runs in UEFA competitions, at least in theory, e. G. Dutch league, Portuguese league, etc.

The earliest time by which clubs participating in the UEFA competitions are expected to break even is 2018/2019 season, until then clubs can make losses to an extent. Probably Anzhi will be banned because they are just spending money but arent simultaneously building up revenue streams, so they are most likely going to be punished in the future. Clubs like Chelsea, City, PSG and Malaga will face some problems, but there is still time, so they might still be safe if certain scenarios play out in their favour.

Football in Europe needs the FFP rules badly, in order to protect the sustainability and future of football. Without rules and governance, football can run itself to the ground, as is anything that involves high sum of money, just like those that football currently attracts
Etepttocs (Manchester City) 2 years ago
Link: www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-07-03/manchester-unit...

The filing says "our indebtedness could adversely affect our financial health and competitive position" and reduce "the availability of our cash flow to fund the hiring and retention of players and coaching staff."

United also warns that new UEFA spending restrictions "could negatively affect our business."

European soccer's governing body is phasing in spending restrictions over several seasons, known as Financial Fair Play. Under the rules, clubs have to break even from soccer operations, or they risk being excluded from European competitions starting with the 2014-15 season.

Tick Tock Tick Tock
Etepttocs (Manchester City) 2 years ago
But you already knew that last bit didn't you
[account-removed] 2 years ago
Thanks for your feedback

You have raised some great points related to the Manchester United IPO.

The filings to the SEC (US Securities and Exchange Commission) does say that, well according to the papers and media at least. But the wordings need to be taken with with caution and a sense of realism.

Manchester Uniteds debt have been affecting them ever since the takeover was completed nearly 7 years ago. But the club has still been competitive on both fronts, on the pitch and off the pitch. They manage to pay interest payments and still make a profit. Thus they are not only paying off the debts, but are also making profits off the pitch as a business and being successful on the pitch as well. Since the interest payments are easily serviceable by the club and the revenues have increasing (mostly due to commercial revenue), it is safe to say that the financial future of the club does not depend on the success or failure of the IPO, and nor does it get inversely affected by the upcoming FFP rules.

The competitive position is a possibility that could take a hit due to the presence of domestic clubs with rich benefactors (e. G. Manchester City, Chelsea). Their owners have deep pockets and willing to spend in order to see their clubs gain success on the pitch. But, many signs have been visible in the Manchester City camp, and the Chelsea camp, that they take the threat of the FFP regulations quite seriously, which is why they have lessened their transfer spending sprees, attempting to reign in costs, widen revenue bases and be more successful off the pitch in terms of commercial revenue, sponsorships, brand value, etc. Therefore, since Manchester United is not under any threat to change its current operations and operating activities in order to comply, and there two biggest domestic rivals and threats have to change their operating activities to comply with FFP, it seems that Manchester United here have the upper hand, and should consider themselves quite safe regarding their competitive position in the domestic league.

Their competitive position in Europe is where the status quo might be changed. Due Barcelona's and Real Madrid'd capability of negotiating individual domestic TV rights, they have the upperhand in terms of transfers spending and salaries that they can pay out to its employees. Even PSG are likely to gain an upperhand due to the fact that they are the only big weights financially in their domestic league and their increased profile which will soon be capable of attracting many of the best players now. Malaga of Spain too have a change of jumping ahead of United on the European front. But Malaga and PSG too face the threat of the FFP due to their operating activities being unsustainable and against the regulations. But should everything go as planned for PSG and Malaga, then they would probably rank with other clubs like Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester City, Bayern Munich, Arsenal, etc as a Tier 2 club, and Barcelona and Real Madrid would rank as a Tier 1 club. By Tier 1 I mean, this group of club(s) has the best chance of competing for the Champions League due to their circumstances, in this case is the individual domestic TV rights that both Barcelona and Real Madrid enjoy. Tier 2 sees a lower probability of success in the Champions League competition based on the club(s) circumstances. It should be mentioned however that PSG operates in a domestic league far less lucrative that the Premier League and La Liga with respect to its domestic TV revenue. Malaga too have this problem due to the individual TV rights issue in La Liga, but that could change for Malagas benefit if the planned revolt in few years time by lower clubs aligns the La Ligas TV revenue distribution with those currently in place in the Premier League or the Bundesliga.

You mentioned, "the availability of our cash flow to fund the hiring and retention of players and coaching staff". This might have some weight especially if you check the recent accounts where there is a fall in Cash in Hand of this year, when compared with the financial results of previous year. But, this could easily be tempered by the fact that Manchester United is a successful business off the pitch and always finds way of increasing Cash in Hand when there is a drop in previous years. This has happened in the past, and using that as a trend, it is likely that Cash in Hand will increase in the next financial year. Retention of players doesn't seem to be a particularly big problem for the club over the years. Only 2 big players it could be argued left the club against their wishes, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Tevez. Player retention statistics from the recent past look to favour Manchester United. Increased success in the commercial revenue sector could offset the increased inflation in wages, just as it has done in the past, caused by clubs like Manchester City, PSG, etc. The club can't match wages offered by the clubs with wealthy owners, but the level of pay is still one that can attract the required calibre of players to Manchester United in order for them to be a success on the pitch and off the pitch.

As stated by Manchester United CEO, David Gill: "Funds are available without a doubt, " Gill said to MUTV.
"We can still pay very well in terms of wages and transfer fees. "


In the SEC filing, Manchester United have mentioned that the FFP rules "could negatively affect our business. " this is a vague statement, because it does give any specific in which how the FFP rules could affect the business. Manchester United makes profits, both operating and net, even without the FFP rules being fully in place, so I don't see them being affected by the rules when it comes fully into place. Also, there is an allowable deviation limit that is permitted during the years preceding the year when the FFP will fully be in place. So, in the event that there is a hit taken by the business, the allowable deviation loss limit should more than cover for it. The allowable loss deviation limit is specified in the FFP regulations, Article 61, Paragraph 2, called "Notion of acceptable deviation".

Some of the benefits that Manchester United already have in place before the FFP is fully in place are as follows:

1.) a strong team on the pitch
2.) a strong team off the pitch
3.) acceptable youth development infrastructure
4.) accepatable stadium size, that also has the scope of expanding to 90, 000+ seats.
5.) one of the top clubs in terms of revenue generation and a good spread of revenue being generated from media, commercial and matchday, and all three 3 revenue sources show promise of increasing for the forseeable future.
6.) a strong worldwide brand which helps Manchester United find new partners and sponsorships (e. G. The Chevrolet deal that replaced Audi is more lucrative and financially rewarding to Manchester United)
7.) operating activites are well served by its current revenue base and show promise that it will be maintained at a level that is both financially profitable for the club, as well as profitable on the pitch in terms of titles.
8.) in the event that the IPO is a failure, the debts are serviceable by the club and they already pass the FFP test.

Comparison with domestic clubs shows that only other club that is as well placed as Manchester United at passing the FFP test, and that's Arsenal.

Manchester City and Chelsea (the other 2 English participants of the Champions League for the upcoming season) are not as well placed as Manchester United and Arsenal, and the 2 clubs bankrolled by wealthy benefactors have a some way to go in order to be ready for passing the FFP test and to demonstrate whether they are able to stand the test of time by being successful both on and off the pitch.

As things stand, Manchester United is well placed to pass the FFP test and be a major force in the Premier League as well as Europe for the long term, even more so if the IPO is a success.

You were quite right in stating that Manchester United is claiming poverty when they said lines like:
"our indebtedness could adversely affect our financial 

Health and competitive position" and reduce "the availability of our cash 

Flow to fund the hiring and retention of players and coaching staff. "

United also warns that new UEFA spending restrictions "could negatively 

Affect our business. "

But, as I have already proved earlier in my reply, this doesn't seem to be the case, and Manchester United doesn't seem to be poor, nor risk being poor in the forseeable future. Then why is it that the club are claiming poverty? Without more facts, we can only come up with theories.

Based on the facts and my intuition, the Glazers are aware that the shares that they are going to be listing is not attractive to private investors that have no attachment to Manchester United, especially not at the price that they are rumoured to be quoting. The fact that the shares on offer have only one vote per share is another factor why such investors won't be interested in buying these shares.

But fans of Manchester United and especially Manchester United fans that happen to be businessmen and investors (e. G. The Red Knights) will be willing to buy the shares due to their attachment to Manchester United. By pretending to be poor, or offer profit warnings so early on before the IPO is even registered seems to me that the Glazers are trying to use the Manchester Uniteds supporters emotions to their advantage by offering these shares at way above market price especially since these shares have few voting rights. Any shares not snapped up by Manchester United fans can then be bought by the various big financial institutions that are underwriters of this IPO.

Also, it is my belief that the Glazers investment in Manchester United has been very good for the Florida based family. Most of the money used to buy the club is being paid for by the club anyway, and the I think the Glazers are planning to sell the club when its market value is at its highest in the foreseeable future. Currently the club is valued by Forbes at £1. 4 billion, and the Glazers have in the past rejected rumoured bids by the Qatar Royal Family (Al-Thani) of £1. 5 billion. The question I ask myself is, why did the Glazers reject that bid? They would have made a huge return on their investment if they accepted the bid (since United have been paying off most of the debts since their leveraged buyout). So why did the Glazers reject it? The only logical explanation is that the Glazers value Manchester United at more that £1. 5 billion that Forbes and the Qatar Royal Family seem to feel the club is worth. The Forbes valuation had taken into account the debts currently placed on the club in its consolidated accounts. If the debts were to be wiped out by this initial rumoured IPO, then the clubs valuation could rise a lot more that £1. 5 billion. The valuation could reach £2 billion if the debts are wiped out by the IPO, and if there is more success on the pitch (trophies) and more success off the pitch (increased commercial revenue, media revenue, etc) then the valuation could rise even more than £2 billion. They could possibly value the club at £2. 5 billion. I think the Glazers plan to use proceeds from the IPO to pay the Manchester United debts off, oversee a few more year of on the pitch and off the pitch success, and then launch a full IPO and sell all their shares at a valuation of around £2. 5 billion. The question then would be, who will then be the owners of Manchester United? Will it be the fans? A financial institution? A Sheikh? A Glazer? Who knows, but time will tell.

Lastly, you asked me, "Khalid7 this floatation is set to raise around $100 million or £64 million. How is that going to pay off most of the debt, which is estimated anywhere between £350-650 million, depending on who your listening to? "

My reply:

Well, the debt currently stands at a little over £400 million according to the the last set of financial statements released in 31st March 2012. The floation is rumoured to be around the $100 million mark. But this is a common tactic used by majority of IPOs in order to find out what the registration fees is going to be for the IPO, and to test the waters a bit. Majority of IPOs quote a very low initial floation for this purpose, and when those launching the floatation have all their bearings, then the real amount planning to be raised from the floatation is revealed. The Glazers are certainly not stupid at valuation of Manchester United and its future potential valuation. That's why it very likely that the sum they wish to generate from the initial IPO is a lot more that $100 million. I don't think we will know the real amount the Glazers are planning to raise soon, but a month or so from now, we should get word on how much the Glazers are planning to raise from this IPO. My estimate is £500 million and they will probably list 25-30% of their shares, just as they were planning to do in Singapore. Most of it will be used to pay off the debt as proposed in their prospectus when they were earlier planning to float in Singapore Stock Exchange, and the rest of the money will be taken by the Glazers. I don't think all the debts will be cleared by this IPO, but a huge chuck off it should be payed off, and the rest of the remaining debt should be serviced by Manchester United. That way, the debts will be reduced substantially, and Manchester United will get a boost in transfer spending and wage budget in order for it go more toe-to-toe with other rich clubs for players, etc.

Anyways, thanks for your feedback and questions
Etepttocs (Manchester City) 2 years ago
" We have become the laughing stock of the premiere league"
Market strategist,former professional footballer and Man Utd fan Michael Jarman.


Link: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18699885
[account-removed] 2 years ago
Unfortunately I can't access the vid. Don't know what the problem is. I have tried looking for this interview in written words, but I can't find it online. Do you have any links that can help me out here?

Also, yes, I do hate City. Of course I do. I hate City because its the same as Chelsea now. Its not trying to build success on its own like United, Arsenal, Liverpool, etc. Instead they are following the Chelsea route of buying success. I don't hate the owner though, as I have said earlier, I am used to Sheikhs owning clubs in the Middle East (my original home region).

But, please do understand that when I am writing articles, or responding to queries in an article I have written, I take off my United-tinted glasses and speak objectively as a football fan and an accountant. I don't speak as a United fan, or City rival, or Chelsea rival, etc in my articles. One reason is I am trying to be objective, and the second reason is that I am trying to engage fans of all clubs here in footytube, and thirdly because if I prove to myself that I can do a good job with writing objective articles, then I can apply to write for Bleacher Report and other sports related websites where I can engage and talk to many, many fans of all sorts of clubs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I copied pasted this answer from a similar thread that is also running in the City forum, so that more fans can see and get involved in the discussion, at least I hope so, since footytube users don't tend to reply much to blogs
[account-removed] 2 years ago
I just got the chance to watch the vid, thanks for the link.

I respect the fact that he is a market analyst, but some of his facts don't really add up. I myself am an accountant and I have also done and still do market research all the time, so I don't get why he is only showing one side of the situation. I think a longer interview would have helped that man give a balanced view so that he can cover all the available facts and little details.

Anyways, I will cover the points that I don't agree with him and why I don't agree with his view:

1.) he keeps mentioning that the IPO is only going to be for $100million. It doesn't make sense because the Glazers are reported to be offering 25-30% of the shares. To value 25% of Uniteds shares at $100 million, means the Glazers would value the whole club (100% shares) at around $400 million. The club is valued by Forbes at $2. 235 billion. If this market analyst seriously believes the Glazers value the club at $400million, and 25% of the shares at $100million, then this is one of the best investment options of the decade, and definitely this year. But, he didn't state that usually in IPOs, especially in the NYSE, the initial quoted floatation is just a means of figuring out how much the registration fees are going to be for the IPO, as well as testing the waters in terms of how much interest there is in the IPO and trying to build some more publicity and interest in the IPO. The Glazers are bad businessmen, but I am sure their advisers are smart enough to see that $100million for 25% of Manchester Uniteds shares is a bad move by the Glazers. The quoted amount the Glazers wanted to raise when they were planning to list in Singapore Stock Exchange was $1billion when they released a prospectus related to the the possible IPO in Singapore, and Hong Kong as well. I am pretty sure, the Glazers know that 25% of Manchester United shares are worth a lot more than $100million. My conservative estimate of what the Glazers possible valuation of the 25% of the shares is around £500million (around $800 million). That would make the valuation of all 100% of the shares at £2 billion, and I calculate that is a realistic future market value since without the debts and a few years of success (on the pitch and off the pitch) should make this value realistic. I think the Glazers will target £400-£600 million for 25% of the shares, but I am going to sit on the fence and say £500 million, and whatever is not bought by the market will be bought by the IPOs underwriting banks.

2.) he mentioned that the IPO had some doomsaying stuff about Manchester United. I have mentioned earlier in a previous post why I don't agree with this view, but there is one reason I failed to mention as well. A doomsaying report in the IPO registration in the SEC will help a lot with publicity and attracting more fans to buy the Manchester United shares with their hearts and not with their minds. Its a good tactic. News like this would be headlines in every major newspaper, especially the sports and business sections. This PR move has worked in my opinion since any and every sports, business, general news, etc website has this IPO as headlines. It could further help the Glazers raise more money and possibly exceed my £500million conservative estimate of what they are going to raise. I don't understand why the market analyst has failed to grasp this important piece of information.


3.) there are 5 major investment banks that are underwriting this IPO and these types of banks are seriously not going to be interested in an IPO that is only for $100 million.
The 5 investment banks underwriting this IPO are:
I.) JPMorgan Chase & Co: $136. 58B
Ii.) Deutsche Bank AG : $34. 32B
Iii.) Credit Suisse Group : $22. 78B
I've.) Jefferies Group, Inc. : $2. 96B
V.) subsidiary of Bank of America, Merrill Lynch : $86. 86B

The figueres stated above are the market capitalisations of the IPOs investment banks as quoted in the NYSE. As you can see, all the banks are too big to be underwriters for an IPO as small as $100m, with the exception of Jefferies Group who only started being involved in investments since the early 2000s. All indicators point toward the IPO being a lot larger than $100million, and in my estimate it should be around £500million. These 5 banks that are the underwriters already know how much the Glazers plan to raise from this IPO, and since there are so many large banks, I think its safe to assume the IPO will be bigger than whats seen quoted in the press.

4.) he mentioned that since 5 banks are underwriting these shares that the market doesn't want to buy these shares. I don't agree because it doesn't make sense for 4 (out of 5) large banks to be willing to put money into buying shares as the underwriters if there is no market to sell it to. Underwriters usually buy the remaining left over stocks (shares) of an IPO for a discounted price and then sell it to the market for the market price, thus the underwriting banks make a profit through the underwriting process. Although the US market has far less fans than the Asian markets, the sign that big banks want to underwrite this IPO shows that there is a market for these shares. So in the event that the IPO has limited success, then the shares will be bought by the underwriting banks for a discounted price and then they will sell at the market price when they wish to for a profit.

5.) when Manchester United was planning to launch the IPO is Singapore and Hong Kong, there were also many underwriters for that proposed IPO, and only 1 bank has dropped out of transferring its support for Manchester Uniteds support in the NYSE and not in Singapore, and that's Morgan Stanley. But, with the presence of other big name underwriters for the IPO in the NYSE, I willing to put my neck on the line and say that the IPO will generate a lot more than $100 million.

Thanks for the link!
Usmonster (Manchester United) 2 years ago
Good article but I don"t agree with the sentiment that FFP protects smaller clubs. I do think it is designed to maintain the status quo. My thoughts on the same theme....


Link: eltriumvirate.co.uk/?p=2251
[account-removed] 2 years ago
Thanks for participating in the discussion

I have read the article that was posted in the link you provided and I don't quite agree with lots of it.

Mainly, that article is written more with emotion than facts. To use a quote from the film Sherlock Holmes 1, featuring Robert Downey Jr. your article has used "facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts". Might I also add that most of the facts that you have used are wrong. I will highlight the areas of the article that I don't agree with, and why I don't agree with it.

In the article it says, "FFP hasn’t come about because UEFA have suddenly developed a conscious and want to protect the best interests of the beautiful game. "

Uefa is a big organisation, but it was around 20 years ago when UEFA only seven people employees and had an annual turnover of 15m Swiss francs, now it has more than 200 staff member and a turnover of over 2,000m. A lot of little improvements in the game (club licensing system, youth development standards, stadium standards, various infrastructure, etc) have mostly come in the past 20 years, and as I mention lower down in this post, evolution and betterment takes time to happen. UEFA (and football as a sport) might be a big and rich organisation now, but it wasnt this big around 20 years ago. So, it takes time for improvements to happen.

In the article it says, "FFP has come about because the established old guard have got their noses out of joint because their cosy, untouchable positions at the apex of world football are under serious threat from a growing list of clubs led by the likes of Chelsea, City, PSG et al. ."

I don't agree with this statement. Where is your evidence and facts?

In the article it says, "FFP is not about establishing fair play which is a quixotic notion at best, the truth is that it is about maintaining the status quo. The G14 clubs have an iron grip over UEFA and effectively act like a cartel ensuring UEFA pushes their agenda ."

I don't agree with this statement. Again, where is the proof/facts/evidence?

In the above 2 pieces that I have quoted from that article, you keep mentioning the G-14 and that the G-14 forced UEFA to make the FFP rules. The G14 was disbanded in 2008, the FFP rules concept was introduced after a survey and research done by UEFA in 2009 about the state of finances in football clubs across Europe, of clubs of all sizes. Therefore, the G-14 didn't exist when the FFP rules came into place, and the G-14 didn't even exist when the survey/research by UEFA was conducted (the survey was done in 2009, and the FFP rules concept was introduced in late 2009- early 2010).

Actually, the G-14 was replaced by the European Club Association (ECA) which is a body that is made up of 201 football clubs from 53 associations across Europe. It is made up of clubs of all sizes and statures, both big and small. The ECA was one of the stakeholders whose input and feedback that was taken into account by UEFA when the FFP rules were being thought of after that research/survey (that was conducted in 2008-2009) and the when the FFP concept was introduced (in 2009-2010).

I should point out that the ECA is made of many more clubs than the big-name clubs in Europe, like, Manchester United, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, etc. The ECA is mostly made up of comparitively smaller clubs , like, Fulham FC of England, FC Utrecht of Holland, Deportivo of Spain, RC Lens of France, Parma of Italy, and many, many more clubs from countries like Andorra, Belarus, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Malta, etc, as well as from the more prominent European football nations like England, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc. For the full list of the ECA's members, click on the link below where the member clubs are shown according to the member nation that they belong to:


Link: www.ecaeurope.com/eca-members/eca-members/...

When the Memorandum of Understanding was signed with UEFA, one of the ECA's functions was to act as the sole (and only) body representing European football clubs. Platini was against the G-14 because he didn't like the fact that it was only made up of mostly big football clubs and termed it as "elitist", and wanted it disbanded. After a long series of talks and events, the G-14 was disbanded and the ECA was formed in its place so that UEFA can use it as a means of getting European football clubs opinions about topics and events, such as FFP, etc.

In the article it says, "FFP has come about because the established old guard have got their noses out of joint because their cosy, untouchable positions at the apex of world football are under serious threat from a growing list of clubs led by the likes of Chelsea, City, PSG et al. ."

How can you say that? Might I remind you that Paris St-Germain and Chelsea were also members of the G-14 before it was disbanded. Paris St-Germain, Chelsea and Manchester City are also part of the ECA when the FFP rules were introduced. If the "old guard" like say, Manchester United, Real Madrid, etc wanted to protect their position in the football hierarchy, then they would have taken some of the following steps:

1.) not allowed Chelsea to become part of the G-14 when it still existed.
2.) withdrawn from the G-14 when Chelsea were accepted in the G-14 group.
3.) not allowed Chelsea, Paris St-Germain, and Manchester City to be part of the European Club Association (ECA) when the G-14 was disbanded.
4.) withdrawn from the ECA if any one of Chelsea, Manchester City, Paris St-Germain were accepted as part of the ECA.
5.) formed another group, like say G-1, where the top football clubs of the past decade or two would be part of this group.

But, none of these actions were taken, so how can you say that "The G14 clubs have an iron grip over UEFA and effectively act like a cartel ensuring UEFA pushes their agenda."? You should remember that clubs like Chelsea, Manchester City and Paris St-Germain are also part of the ECA, and were also involved in the dialogue between UEFA and ECA when the FFP rules idea was being discussed. If these 3 clubs (Chelsea, Manchester City and Paris St-Germain) had any objection to the FFP rules then they could have voiced it very easily through the media, and could have also withdrawn from the ECA to put pressure on other clubs and UEFA over this topic.

In the article it says, "Why were UEFA not perturbed when Real Madrid mysteriously wiped out their debt by selling their training ground ."

When this incident happened, which if I am not mistaken was in 2001, Platini was not the President of UEFA, and at the time UEFA were focused on other issues in football and not the financial side. UEFA only started to become worried about the state of football clubs finances when Platini became President in 2007. True, Real Madrid's sale of their training ground should have been thoroughly investigated by UEFA at the time, but this is one of the problems with evolution, which is that things take time to improve and better. Nothing can be done in one day and mistakes have to be made in order to learn from them and learn how to correct ourselves in the future. There are so many things that UEFA have made mistakes in, like the Bosman ruling, where UEFA underestimated the influence of the EU. It was only after making that mistake that UEFA started having personnel based in Brussels that are in constant dialogue with the EU over a variety of matters. If it wasnt for the mistake in the Bosman incident, then this improvement in efficiency and dialogue between uefa-eu relations would probably not have taken place. Thus, in the course of evolution, things take time to happen and it takes time and even mistakes for people, and not just UEFA, to learn how to improve things.

In the article it says, "Why do they turn a blind eye to the fact that Barcelona and Real have made La Liga a two game shoot out with their massive TV deals while the rest of the league struggle in vain to compete? ."

There is not much UEFA can do about this since its up to the Spanish FA to regulate the happenings in Spanish football. UEFA can advise the Spanish FA, but it can't take action by bypassing the Spanish FA. Personally, I hope the Spanish clubs see sense and for the sake of the long term viability of their league decide to switch to a more fairer format of distributing La Liga TV revenue money, like the ones followed in some other big leagues, like the English Premier League, German Bundesliga, Italian Serie A, etc. This is the jurisdiction of the Spanish FA and not UEFA.

In the article it says, "didn’t bat an eyelid when Perez and Madrid brazenly tapped up players and urged them to force through moves to Madrid’s latest attempt to create a footballing version of the Harlem Globetrotters. Barça of course are not innocent of employing such tactics either. Even other members of the G14; Juventus (Zidane), Arsenal (Fabregas) and Manchester United (Ronaldo) ."

True, UEFA and FIFA were pretty silent on incidents like this, but the fault lies with more than just UEFA and FIFA. The selling clubs of those star players could have done more to protest the behaviour of Real Madrid , Florentino Perez, Barcelona, Joan Laporta, and Sandro Rosell, but they didn't. Why? This is a question that should be asked to the heads of the selling clubs. Also, this is an issue (tapping-up of players) that hasnt been given enough importance because it seems UEFA and FIFA are focused on other issues at the moment. But, I think it will eventually be addressed at some point in the future and patience is required because as I pointed out earlier, evolution and betterment takes time, and sometimes even mistakes.

In the article it says, "is it right that UEFA should be appointed the gendarme of finances for football clubs? ."

Who then do you prefer should take charge of regulating European football instead of UEFA? Lets face it, there is no other body. The only other body that can do this is a group of clubs, like the ECA. Would you happy with that instead? In this instance its about choosing the lesser of two evils, and that's UEFA, and I believe you would too since there is deep mistrust of clubs engrained in the general sentiment in your article. Also, the FFP rules applies only to clubs competing in UEFA competitions and those trying to reach UEFA competitions. The FFP rules do not apply to the national leagues of member nations of UEFA.


In the article it says, "The classic European Cup was long established as the premier tournament to decide the best team in Europe. There was nothing wrong with that format and the trophy was no less prestigious than it is today. The only problem was that only 1 team per league (the Champions, fancy that eh?) could take part and the greed of the top clubs couldn’t be sated on such infrequent visits to the buffet table. ."

The European Cup itself was not started for deciding the best team in Europe. It was started as a money spinning move where the most popular clubs at the time where invited to play. Then it evolved into a competition that decided which was the best club in Europe. You should recall how the European Cup itself came into being, especially in England. When the European Cup started, the Football League Secretary, Alan Hardaker, prevented Chelsea from competing in it in the 1955-56 season, and tried his best to prevent Manchester United from competing in it in the 1956-57 season. But Sir Matt Busby, manager of Manchester United, wanted to see them participate for various reasons, one of which being he knew the fans too wanted to see their (English) clubs participate and compete against other European teams and get to see other great players of the era.

As said by Sir Bobby Charlton, "for the first time we saw players we'd only dreamt about – Puskas, Di Stefano, Yashin. We used to read about them in the papers, but suddenly we were playing against them. It was magic. I remember going down to Wolverhampton Wanderers to see them play Honved from Hungary [in 1954]. It was so exciting. "

Sir Matt Busby said, "there was the opportunity for fans to enjoy the skills of continental players. "It always seemed to me the logical progression that the champions of England should pit their abilities against the best of Europe. You cannot make progress standing still. "Looking back now, I can see that our resolve to enter into European competition was a significant milestone in the history of the game."

So to an extent, the clubs and Football League (the Football Association already favoured the clubs inclusion in European football) bowed to fan pressure and allowed English clubs to compete in the European Cup. Alan Hardaker, who was later promoted to Chairman of the Football League, wanted to prevent English clubs from competing due to various reasons, like, xenophobia, fear of European football potentially becoming bigger than English football, fixture congestion, etc. He had also blocked English foobtall league matches, and even highlights, being showed on TV because he felt it would "damage the health of the game", even though fans all over the country wanted the matches and highlights to be available on TV since most fans did not live close enough to see the best teams of the time play live in a stadium.

Although the the participation of the English clubs in the European Cup was met with some opposition, in the end it was allowed due to it being a way for football to progress and evolve into something bigger and better. Similarly, in the 1990's there was talk of some big European clubs breaking away from the European Cup and forming their own Champions League. Why? Because there was more than enough demand from the football fans to make such a thing a reality, even though it was met by opposition from UEFA and some member nation's football associations. Of course the big clubs and UEFA were at loggerheads and didn't see eye to eye. The clubs wanted to see more than 1 club per nation participate in the competition, but UEFA wanted to stick to the older method. Eventually, both sides by persuing their own individual ambitions managed to make the European Cup much better, and it is now the current version of the Champions League which is awash with money and media interest is through the roof in most parts of the world. The old European cup was just as prestigious as the current Champions League, but it generated nowhere near as much money and interest as the current version of the competition does. This contesting ambition between the two parties (clubs and UEFA) ended up doing something that was for the common good.

As the father of modern economics, Adam Smith said, "In competition, individual ambition serves the common good". Also, as said by Sir Matt Busby, the fans wanted to see the top clubs of the time and the top players of the time, because he termed it as "progress" and that's what the fans wanted and still want. Except now, there are a lot more top clubs and players and lots of these players are scattered across many top teams of any given division. So its only natural that the Champions League should expand to cope with the improvement of competition (in terms of both, quality teams and quality players).


In the article it says, "The Europa League will soon meet the same fate as its vanished sister tournament as with a lack of interest from clubs and TV alike it is a moribund competition waiting for UEFA to pull the trigger and put it out of its misery. ."

I agree with your view here. Right now the Champions League is better than the old European Cup, in terms of money and media attention. But Platini seem to believe that the Champions League can become even better, and I agree with him. He is supposedly planning to merge the Europa League with the Champions League by 2016. In my opinion, this is a very good idea and will help to distribute the enormous amounts of money and media interest more evenly among the various clubs that are involved in the two UEFA competitions and as well as those striving to reach these competitions. But I have to say that the Europa League is a great and entertaining competition, and therefore its a shame that they don't get as much attention (both media and fan) and money as the Champions League gets. That's why its better for the two competitions to be merged instead, and the winner here will not be the "big" clubs. The winners will be the "smaller" clubs that routinely have to play in the Europa League and the the merged competition itself. I am completely in favour of merging the two competitions and if Platini can get clubs to agree with FFP rules, then I don't see why he can't get the approval of the ECA to merge Europa League with the Champions League.

In the article it says, "if Etihad want to sponsor Manchester City’s kit to the tune of £800m (Dhs 4,480 Billion) isn’t that a legitimate form of income? Here FFP gets all subjective ."

I would have replied to this, but I am working on an article on this very same theme. Its about 75 per cent-ish done, and I will notify you through twitter when its done. Should be in a couple of days or so, but I will inform you once its ready.

In the article it says, "But does that make things better or worse than a football world without FFP? In my opinion it actually makes things worse because it effectively condemns the likes of Fulham and Stoke to a life of making up the numbers. These clubs will never be able to compete as the only way they can change the landscape (huge cash injection) will be banned."

I have spoken about this in the very first post on this thread in detail. Also, this ties in to the other article that I mentioned was close to completion, so I will give my full reply in that article.

In the article it says, "Similarly if a company receives a large cash injection from a stakeholder than their ambitions can change practically overnight. Why does football have to be different?"

Football clubs are not similar completely to any other business like textiles, IT, petrochemicals, etc. Football clubs are traditionally very involved in the community that it is based in (more involved that most regular companies and businesses), so a failure (bandruptcy) of the club has an impact on much more than just the club. It has a huge impact on the community it exists in, just ask the Rangers fans, or Portsmouth fans, or Leeds fans, etc. Also, without FFP rules, it has been proven that just because there is a lot of money in football, there are a lot of clubs that arent run professionally enough, at least by modern standards. Many clubs, even those that are competing in UEFA competitions are not run professionally enough and are wasteful in their use of resources, and that includes money. Take a look at Spain for instance and see how many of their clubs fail to pay their taxes. Atletico Madrid have a tax debt of €155m and are regular competitors in UEFA competitions. In most other leagues, the club would have probably been told to wind up and shut down. Or take a look at Chelsea and you can see that Roman Abramovich hasnt fulfilled his promise of making Chelsea self-sustainable by 2010, and the club still works on a poor financial model. Say for instance Roman Abramovich passed away tomorrow, God Forbid, how would Chelsea survive at the level it is at now? Or take Fiorentina that went bankrupt only a decade ago due to working on a poor financial model, after which they were refounded in 2002 and are now back in the Serie A. Or Leeds, or Portsmouth, or Rangers, etc. Most of the clubs I just mentioned are/were regular competitors in UEFA competitions and yet they were/are operating on unsustainable financial models. Something needs to be done to bring more professionalism into the clubs off-the-pitch activites and a switch to practical and sustainable financial models for the long term. Trying to do whatever it takes financially to achieve success is not the way forward in order to see the sport progress off-the-pitch. The clubs off-the-pitch professionalism, business acumen, financial models, etc, need to improve, and I believe the FFP is the push that is needed in order to achieve this.

Ask a Portsmouth fan this question, "was the FA Cup that they won so meaningful and important that the club jeopardised its long term future and went into administration in order to achieve this trophy or high status as a club at the time?"

Or ask a Leeds United fan this "was the short term risky financial push to achieve the Champions League place they wanted that they were willing to risk its long term future?"

Also, lets look at this way. The only way a "smaller" club, like say Wigan Athletic, can become a big club that competes in UEFA competitions is by using one of the following methods:

A.) they upon success of seasons upon season, and gradually see the club progess up the ladder, without use of a rich financial benefactor that is willing to subsidise them enormously.

Be.) they gain enormous finances, but not through a rich and wealthy owner, but instead they do so like say through a huge bank loan, and then use this to buy players at inflated prices and at inflated wages to quickly move up to the UEFA competitions.

See.) get bought by a rich benefactor that subsidises them, like in the case of Manchester City, Chelsea, etc.

Option A is the long term option and is what most clubs are faced with having to use.

Option be is possible, but unrealistic since no bank or financial institution is going to give a club like Wigan Athletic a huge loan, like say £500million. But in the event that the club does, and if it fails to reach its goals, then it will most likely suffer the same fate as Leeds United.

Option see is the only shortcut method available. But even here you have risks because for every Sheikh Mansour that you pull out of a hat, there is also a stinker like Venky's (owner of Blackburn Rovers). For every Roman Abromovich, there is also a Eggert Magnússon (former owner of West Ham United)

Therefore, Option see is risky, Option be isn't practical and despite Option A being the most risk-free, it is a long term approach.

As I mentioned, football is evolving, not just on the pitch, but off the pitch as well. It could very easily be argued that there have been more developments off the pitch than on the pitch in the past 2 decades. I most certainly hold this view. In the past there were some clubs that were financed through big companies and some through very rich owners that were mostly putting money into football for the love of the sport, e.G. Roman Abramovich, Silvio Berlusconi, Dave Whelan, etc. But in the past few years we have seen a new evolution in football's off-the-pitch affairs, and that is clubs now being owned by countries.

Manchester City---owned by Abu Dhabi (indirectly through Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan)

Malaga--------------owned by Sheikh Abdullah Al-Thani (member of the Qatar Royal Family)

Paris St-Germain—owned by Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al Thani (since he is the chairman of the board of directors of Qatar Investment Authory, and also the heir apparent to the throne of Qatar.

Getafe----------------owned by Dubai indirectly since the chairman of the company that owns Getafe (Royal Emirates Group) is Sheikh Butti Bin Suhail Al Maktoum, and is a member of the Dubai Royal Family.

All of these purchases by Middle East royal families have been since 2008, and its only a matter of time before the Royal Family of the Emirate of Sharjah, and the Royal Families of other Middle East countries get in on the act (example, the much richer families of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). Why are they doing this? I am covering this in another article. But the signs are already there that this is starting to spell the end and downturn of football, which is also going to be covered in that article. The only way to prevent this is by strong governance by the official bodies. The FA's of most individual European countries have already proven to be weak and useless, except the German FA. So, its now left to UEFA to protect European football. If they don't take a tough stance, then the end/doomsday/apocalypse of European football starts now, and if UEFA doesn't make a stand, then football in the future will be in the same position it was in the 1950's. More on this in the upcoming article.

I am not the only one that believes that is a very real possibility, Lennart Johansson (former President of UEFA) said " The down side of all this money in the game is that it allows too many clubs to spend beyond their means in search of the big prizes. The speculation in club ownership that we’re seeing at the biggest clubs today. These people don’t see clubs as sporting institutions, but as businesses. It’s hard to predict how long this level of interest in football will last or whether it’s a bubble that’s simply waiting to burst. "


Thanks for participating in the discussion, and I would be interested in your views and reply. I will notify you when any article that you may be interested in is ready.
Usmonster (Manchester United) 2 years ago
First of all let me clear something up straight away - I am a lifelong Manchester United fan and therefore the claim that I am in any way emotionally affected by FFP is off the mark. If anything it will benefit my club but I happen to disagree with it on principle.

Right, let me start with your request for evidence with my assertion that FFP is designed to curb the likes of City et al. It was an opinion piece but I dare say UEFA are not likely to admit such a thing are they? One can look interpret things different way and sometimes we need to read between the lines. If you take everything that UEFA say at face value than of course you'll never come to any other conclusion than the one they want you to. The fact is and I would suggest this is incontrovertible - UEFA and the top clubs have a symbiotic relationship resulting in a marriage of convenience in the Champions League. If one day the big revenue generating clubs like Barca, Real and Manchester United threatened to leave all at once UEFA would HAVE to kowtow to their demands. Just because there is no evidence of this happening no one can be naive enough to think it didn't and doesn't - it is why we have a Champions League, why we had a two group stages at one stage and why the Europa League will go leaving one European Super League.

The point about G14 was that it was an exclusive club, the moment Chelsea were allowed in it pretty much disbanded. The ECA is a pointless invention that achieves nothing and is merely a box ticking exercise. Once again you seem to accept at face value that the original G14 members are NOT still colluding to push their own interests. The problem here is that they couldn't not accept Chelsea once the club fit their criteria (ostensibly) and therefore couldn't publicly admit the organisation was a cartel. Instead they've disbanded it and continue to work unofficially. This will always happen because common interest is one of the most compelling factors in human history. Wars have been fought where the most bitter enemies unite for a common cause.

I'm sorry but I don't accept your defence of UEFA over the Madrid training ground cover up or their inaction in enforcing their own tapping up rules. Really? You are blaming the victim clubs? That is like saying a Policeman in the street does not have to rush to the aid of a mugging victim if it occurs in front of them unless the victim complains? Many clubs have complained about Real Madrid but since UEFA never do anything most have given up.

Your question that who else but UEFA should police football clubs finances is the wrong question in my opinion. My point is not whether UEFA or another body should be placed in charge of football finance - it was that there should NOT be a policing body at all. In the real world I can choose to spend my money how I like, businesses can take risks as they see fit, yes it can fail as Leeds and Portsmouth have proved but so what? Football clubs like businesses should have that choice.

Finally you say "Option A is the long term option and is what most clubs are faced with having to use. " Here we are in agreement, FFP is designed to force clubs into Option A which leaves the established clubs as untouchable, which is the essence of my point completely. How realistic is it for Wigan to develop enough to challenge United? The moment they get a half decent side together their better players will be cherry picked by the bigger clubs in the Champions League offering glory and money. Wigan can't hold them off so they start again. As a result gate receipts stay the same. In the meantime the bigger clubs continue to keep and retain the best player and the bigger gates/TV money. We don't need FFP to see how this scenario will work, we can see for ourselves over football history. When was the last team that succeeded using Option A?
[account-removed] 2 years ago
As I mentioned before, a merger between the Europa League and the Champions League into a bigger Champions League, or European Super League is better for football. Such a thing will not benefit the big clubs much, but it will benefit the smaller clubs a lot, especially the clubs that regularly play in the Europa League.

It will benefit the "smaller" clubs in the following ways:

1.) increased stadium attendances (for both domestic league games and European matches) due to increased status by participating in Champions League.
2.) Better sponsorship deals for the smaller clubs, especially shirt sponsorship deals due to the sponsoring company receiving better advertising and marketing opportunities in the Champions League.
3.) More opportunities for smaller clubs to have multiple sponsorships and partnerships which can be used to close the gap financially between themselves and the bigger clubs.
4.) Increase in fanbase due to increased status by participating in the Champions League and increase in various other revenue streams, such as shirt sales.
5.) Increase TV revenue money, not only from the Champions League, but also from the domestic leagues since leagues with increased Champions League slots will become even more attractive to the TV companies.

The bigger clubs will have benefits too, but its clear to me that the biggest winner here is the smaller clubs.

I understand that you are skeptical/suspicious of the activities of UEFA, big clubs, the defunct G-14, ECA, etc. But even then you need some sort of facts/evidence/proof to back up your opinion and beliefs, especially if you intend on making others believe your point of view. I am sorry but I don't see any facts that support your claims, and you havent provided any either. I look at and find all the facts available before I make up my opinion and theory, and I would like to see the facts that you have used to make your theory.

I don't agree with your belief that the ECA is a "box ticking exercise". The ECA, and in the past the G-14, has already done things that have improved football and are still actively looking at more ways to improve football by being a unified voice that can communicate with UEFA and FIFA over football matters and together find ways of improving things. The ECA website for example is a good place for finding things that the ECA has already accomplished and the the things that the ECA are still working towards.

Regarding Real Madrid's and Barcelona's conduct when trying to acquire players, I am not only blaming the victim clubs. I am blaming all parties, the buying clubs, the selling clubs, the authorities (UEFA and FIFA), players, etc. The selling clubs that feel that they are being bullied really don't take enough of a stand, that's a fact. How many clubs that have been bullied have launched an official complaint with FIFA and UEFA in the past? Not many. Right now this is a big issue and I blame all parties for not doing enough to fix this issue. But I hope in the future this will be an issue where all parties focus on and try to accomplish something so that this problem will no longer exist in the future, but unfortunately it seems most, if not all, parties are distracted with other issues, such as FFP.

I will cover why UEFA needs to play a leading role in policing football clubs financial models in an upcoming article, and I will inform you when its ready so that we can share our views on this topic as well.

There have been clubs in the recent past that have been successful using Option A. Montpellier, Dortmund, Spurs, Newcastle, etc have recently been good users of Option A to be well on the way to becoming big clubs, but only time will tell how much longer they can continue it. For the record, I think Dortmund, Spurs, and Newcastle are well placed to become bigger and better. Montpellier still have more to prove, but time will tell.
Etepttocs (Manchester City) 2 years ago
[account-removed] 2 years ago
This thread is meant for another topic regarding FFP and to what extent it impacts of smaller clubs. This thread isn't meant for discussing United's finances and/or IPO.

Many points that the link you listed has missed out on, but remembering that its none other than Etepttocs I am talking to, I am am not interested in engaging in a discussion with you about any topic, let alone United.

As usual, piss off, stick your head back in the sand (like most other City fans on this website) and head back to the City forum.

Troll, btw, guess how I knew you were a troll? Your opinions on United are well known to all, me especially, so posting anything on the United forum is equivalent to trolling. You should be familiar with this reasoning since you employed such lame reasoning it a little earlier yourself. After all, only one such as yourself can come up with such pathetic reasoning.

Piss off
Etepttocs (Manchester City) 2 years ago
As I pointed out earlier in this forum;

The filing says "our indebtedness could adversely affect our financial health and competitive position" and reduce "the availability of our cash flow to fund the hiring and retention of players and coaching staff. "

United also warns that new UEFA spending restrictions "could negatively affect our business. "

European soccer's governing body is phasing in spending restrictions over several seasons, known as Financial Fair Play. Under the rules, clubs have to break even from soccer operations, or they risk being excluded from European competitions starting with the 2014-15 season.

Therefore my last post is relevant to this thread
[account-removed] 2 years ago
Nope, still not relevant. The topic is about how the FFP impacts the "small" clubs.

I answered your earlier off topic queries about United's finances and IPO out of general courtesy for a fellow footytube user and also to try and forge a warmer relationship between the United and City sides of the website. But the courtesy is not mutual, so I don't see the sense in entertaining any more off topic discussions on this thread. But, do feel free to open another separate thread in the United forum about the topic you wish to discuss and invite other United fans to contribute their thoughts and opinions. But leave this thread alone since it isn't relevant to your query.

Otherwise, stop trolling and return to your cave. You can find it by clicking on "teams", which is located on the header above, and then looking down the list called "my teams" till you find the Manchester City forum



   
Kick4Life - changing lives through football