Financial Fair Play

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
Don't worry about frontrunning too much. There's an illusion of permanence in a lot of what's happening when the truth is that changes in systems and changes in ownership change the structure of leagues every few years.
 
PSG was mentioned as a behemoth in France. That's because a new ownership bought them a couple of years ago. Before that they hadn't won anything. In general, the French league is the league with the largest parity among top leagues and the league where you can find all sorts of teams winning it this or that year. There's so much parity that you can find former champions in the the second division.
 
The same was true of England. People like to think of the top 4 as entrenched for ever, but look at the league tables in the 70s even the 80s and you ll find a different pecking order where teams like Leeds and Derby County ruled the day and where teams like Nottingham Forrest (now in third division), Aston Villa and Everton won championships.
 
The top for era and the caste system of football is a byproduct of the influx of money caused by the Champion's League along with gazillions of TV money flowing in, both developments favoring bigger clubs. But this will probably change in the medium future as people realize that all this money has thrown competitive balance out of whack. UEFA imposed financial fair play rules are the beginning IMO. Other measures will follow. And when they do, the current ruling class which seems permanently on top will taste dust while other teams get the taste of silverware.
 
So, as others have said, follow the games and soon enough you will find a team that comes naturally to you.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,025
Chelmsford, MA
Nick Kaufman said:
Don't worry about frontrunning too much. There's an illusion of permanence in a lot of what's happening when the truth is that changes in systems and changes in ownership change the structure of leagues every few years.
 
PSG was mentioned as a behemoth in France. That's because a new ownership bought them a couple of years ago. Before that they hadn't won anything. In general, the French league is the league with the largest parity among top leagues and the league where you can find all sorts of teams winning it this or that year. There's so much parity that you can find former champions in the the second division.
 
The same was true of England. People like to think of the top 4 as entrenched for ever, but look at the league tables in the 70s even the 80s and you ll find a different pecking order where teams like Leeds and Derby County ruled the day and where teams like Nottingham Forrest (now in third division), Aston Villa and Everton won championships.
 
The top for era and the caste system of football is a byproduct of the influx of money caused by the Champion's League along with gazillions of TV money flowing in, both developments favoring bigger clubs. But this will probably change in the medium future as people realize that all this money has thrown competitive balance out of whack. UEFA imposed financial fair play rules are the beginning IMO. Other measures will follow. And when they do, the current ruling class which seems permanently on top will taste dust while other teams get the taste of silverware.
 
So, as others have said, follow the games and soon enough you will find a team that comes naturally to you.
 
I didn't know Platini was a member here.  This is such a charitable view, FFP proves that the established teams are going to do everything they can to ensure they get the CL money forever, not the reverse.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
teddykgb said:
 
I didn't know Platini was a member here.  This is such a charitable view, FFP proves that the established teams are going to do everything they can to ensure they get the CL money forever, not the reverse.
 
No kidding.  That might have been the most myopic perspective I've ever seen on FFP and current trends in the game regarding competitive balance.
 

DLew On Roids

guilty of being sex
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
13,906
The Pine Street Inn
teddykgb said:
 
I didn't know Platini was a member here.  This is such a charitable view, FFP proves that the established teams are going to do everything they can to ensure they get the CL money forever, not the reverse.
 
It's fun to see a fan of a petro-club bitter about unfairness.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
I never argued that FPP was perfect. Argue about its merits all you want, but even by the name it's a sign of UEFA responding to cries for more competitive balance. Obviously federation and team politics makes this a difficult equation to solve.

You want to see another for a more level playing field? It's my understanding that TV money are distributed more evenly among teams than they were in the beginning of the EPL.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
Nick Kaufman said:
I never argued that FPP was perfect. Argue about its merits all you want, but even by the name it's a sign of UEFA responding to cries for more competitive balance.
 
Argue about the merits of newspeak all you want, but even by the name its a sign that the regime in 1984 wanted to encourage speaking and expression.
 
All FPP does is entrench the current aristocracy and the fact that its called "financial fair play" just makes it worse, not better.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
 
Argue about the merits of newspeak all you want, but even by the name its a sign that the regime in 1984 wanted to encourage speaking and expression.
 
All FPP does is entrench the current aristocracy and the fact that its called "financial fair play" just makes it worse, not better.
 
I think you guys are ignoring how much deficit spending is killing teams in smaller leagues.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,025
Chelmsford, MA
DLew On Roids said:
 
It's fun to see a fan of a petro-club bitter about unfairness.
 
In this case, my team is in, so I'm really not bitter.  It's just such a laughable and in my eyes transparent attempt to make sure there are no more gate crashers that Nick's post was astounding.  We've had FFP threads in the past and I'm sure my feelings are well known, no need to derail, but I wouldn't advise anyone in this thread to not worry about the class of the team they choose because parity is on the way.  I think Europe is heading in the other direction.
 

URI

stands for life, liberty and the uturian way of li
Moderator
SoSH Member
Aug 18, 2001
10,329
Nick Kaufman said:
I think you guys are ignoring how much deficit spending is killing teams in smaller leagues.
Is it? Teams don't really fail though.

Sure they get relegated, and go into administration, but most of the FFP penalties don't even apply to these teams in smaller leagues.

The way FFP is set up now basically is structured to keep the old-monied incumbency intact. Real Madrid isn't going to be slowed down because their existing revenues are so high. Man City might be because Mansour can't offset his team's revenue with personal wealth.

FFP is a way to ignore small teams, and protect the ManU's of the world from oil money.
 

DLew On Roids

guilty of being sex
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
13,906
The Pine Street Inn
Relative newcomers might not remember when the most hated man in English football was Ken Bates.  In retrospect, for all the hate he got, what he did at Chelsea set them up for the kind of matchday and commercial revenues that make it possible for the club to compete in an FFP world instead of being the big fish in the West London pond with QPR and Fulham.
 
Readying Teddy's and URI's posts back-to-back makes me wonder what would happen if Mansour decided to pack it in and back out of City.  I'm not talking about a Gretna-style abandonment, but if he decided to turn off the money spigot (including the Etihad money) and have the club try to stand on its own revenue.  I don't think they'd become a yo-yo club again--there's been too much structural work done that will benefit City in the long term--but whether that work would allow them to be a Top Four regular, a Europa League contender, or a mid-table side is what I'm thinking about.
 

URI

stands for life, liberty and the uturian way of li
Moderator
SoSH Member
Aug 18, 2001
10,329
My guess is that their revenue base now isn't big enough to sustain their wage bills, so there would be some definite sell-off pains (not that guys like Navas, Toure, and Aguero would be sold on the cheap at all) but I would guess they would be stable enough to stay in the Everton/Spurs group, more than the Newcastle group.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Citeh would be competing with Aston Villa and the other "not-quite-big-enough" clubs and facing relegation if the money got turned off. Unlike Chelsea, Citeh hasn't gotten to the "fruits of a farm system" phase yet and is almost entirely dependent on foreign imports. 
 
I'm very curious to see how they stay eligible for UCL roster purposes this season, given they have barely enough players trained in England and almost no players trained at the club. This is the reason Joe Hart will never, ever be sold or allowed to leave - he's the only thing they've got!
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,025
Chelmsford, MA
soxfan121 said:
Citeh would be competing with Aston Villa and the other "not-quite-big-enough" clubs and facing relegation if the money got turned off. Unlike Chelsea, Citeh hasn't gotten to the "fruits of a farm system" phase yet and is almost entirely dependent on foreign imports. 
 
I'm very curious to see how they stay eligible for UCL roster purposes this season, given they have barely enough players trained in England and almost no players trained at the club. This is the reason Joe Hart will never, ever be sold or allowed to leave - he's the only thing they've got!
 
This is completely untrue, by the way.  City have historically had a decent academy and they're starting to produce fruits from the academy, but academy development isn't necessarily required for FFP compliance and/or the revenue targets.  You need sponsorships in this game, the development is honestly just a small thing that might occasionally save you a big investment in a player who may not work out.  The key thing is to get your revenue numbers high enough to offset your debts so that you can spend.  It's all about sponsorships and pumping up that number.
 
Which is why I'm bumping this thread.  United's new kit deal is a real success story for FFP.  I hope fans of Everton, Southampton, Villa...hell even Spurs, Newcastle...pretty much anyone not making gigantic revenues today see what this monster they've voted for is going to do.  You can't spend it if you don't earn it, but only teams like United can get a kit deal such as that.  So now these other clubs have no chance of earning the same amount as United, which means they have no chance of spending the same amount as United either.  The world we came from was imperfect, teams like United were always going to be able to spend more, but at least another team COULD have a takeover with big investment or COULD try to hit a window with a young player and a one time investment to parlay that into future higher revenues.  That door is now closed.
 
Everyone screamed bloody murder when City signed the Etihad deal and renegotiated with Nike....now that's arguably the worst deal in the league.  With the rules in place, suddenly Arsenal, Liverpool, United and Chelsea are spending money like crazy, especially with City and theoretically PSG having limited budgets, knowing that they can't be challenged in the transfer market.  It's going to be more of the same.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
teddykgb said:
 
This is completely untrue, by the way.  City have historically had a decent academy and they're starting to produce fruits from the academy, but academy development isn't necessarily required for FFP compliance and/or the revenue targets.  You need sponsorships in this game, the development is honestly just a small thing that might occasionally save you a big investment in a player who may not work out.  The key thing is to get your revenue numbers high enough to offset your debts so that you can spend.  It's all about sponsorships and pumping up that number.
 
No, it is not. Please provide the names of the homegrown (academy) products who reasonably will see EPL/UCL playing time for City in 2014-15. 
 
The academy produces assets that can be sold so big purchases can be made. I've posted about this aspect of FFP in the Chelsea thread(s); they don't produce many first-18 players but they consistently buy, develop & sell, allowing them to make first-team purchases while keeping the books balanced. 
 
It maybe that sponsorships are a much larger part but I wasn't arguing that - my point was simply that FFP's buy/sell rules hamper a team without academy production AND that academy products are needed for UCL roster requirements. 
 
Who is Richard Wright? Why is Micah Richards destined to spend his entire career languishing behind Zabaleta and making obscene money? Why is City handcuffed to Joe Hart forever and ever and ever?
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,025
Chelmsford, MA
soxfan121 said:
 
No, it is not. Please provide the names of the homegrown (academy) products who reasonably will see EPL/UCL playing time for City in 2014-15. 
 
The academy produces assets that can be sold so big purchases can be made. I've posted about this aspect of FFP in the Chelsea thread(s); they don't produce many first-18 players but they consistently buy, develop & sell, allowing them to make first-team purchases while keeping the books balanced. 
 
It maybe that sponsorships are a much larger part but I wasn't arguing that - my point was simply that FFP's buy/sell rules hamper a team without academy production AND that academy products are needed for UCL roster requirements. 
 
Who is Richard Wright? Why is Micah Richards destined to spend his entire career languishing behind Zabaleta and making obscene money? Why is City handcuffed to Joe Hart forever and ever and ever?
 
I'll start with your last questions and move backwards.  Richard Wright is a shit keeper who gets to make a fantastic amount of money due to his HG status.  Micah Richards would have prevented Zabaleta from becoming the player he is if he could keep himself off the physio table.  But he can't, so he will languish behind Zabaleta until someone pays a reasonable fee for him as an English HG player.  City brought in competition to Hart in Caballero and I think there's a chance Caballero steals the job outright.  Hart may well be gone this time next year.
 
Academy products are needed for UCL roster requirements, but teams will likely always just stack the bottom of the roster with HG players like Richard Wright if they need to.  The academy won't be necessary for anything but depth.  In the end, it's going to do the opposite of what it is trying to do as teams will need to pay for the Micah Richards of the worlds and keep them stapled to their bench (and not developing) because they need to meet an artificial quota.  It's just another dumb rule that is going to show the law of unintended consequences.
 
City's academy, though, has done very well the last few years and has a few players starting to break through.  Marcos Lopes played in some City matches last season and is spending the season on loan to Lille.  I think he's got a legitimate chance to stick at City if he's patient enough to wait his chance.  John Guidetti would probably have made the 1st team by now but got a debilitating virus after a successful loan at Feynoord and nobody knows if he's going to be able to reclaim his form.  He went on loan to Stoke last season but Hughes simply didn't play him.  He's likely to be sold or go on loan mostly because he will want to control his destiny to try to make up for lost time.  Karim Rekik went to PSV Eindhoven and had a strong year.  Van Gaal named him to his provisional squad for the World Cup.  He'll either become depth at City or be sold/loaned again.  Emyr Huws had a good loan spell at Birmingham last season and will also either make up depth at City (if Garcia is sold) or likely go on loan to continue development.  City also had and sold Denis Suarez back to Barcelona, although not at much profilt.  Then they're building an entire campus in Manchester right next to the stadium that is nearly complete.  There are a few more players in the youth ranks knocking at the door, but the level below has been incredibly successful.  City are almost assuredly a few years behind Chelsea in the buy to sell model, but it isn't true that there's nothing coming out of the youth setup.
 
If you insist on defining success as City Academy product who will see UCL time for MCFC next season, then that's a pretty narrow world view and very little of Chelsea's roster, if any, will meet that criteria outside of John Terry.  If you define it as players with value that might be sold for a profit or be useful for City or another team of any quality, then there's a few more there and more on the way.
 
 
edit: I left out the most important part -- this stuff just doesn't matter.  If you produce a Lionel Messi you're not going to sell him.  So you save a transfer fee more than you make revenue off of it.  These sales that Chelsea have engaged in help the bottom line, but the name of the game in the FFP world is to raise your revenues as high as possible and the players your academy produces who aren't good enough for your team but are good enough to sell aren't going to bring in the kind of money that meaningfully impacts the revenue of the teams at the top of this heap.  Manchester City are likely going over 400M in revenue this season as a result of all of the work that has gone on behind the scenes to grow the brand and sign the types of sponsorships only "big" clubs can get (like United's "official paint parnter" -- Kansai Paint).  All of this stuff is what creates room for larger salaries and large transfer budgets and the smaller clubs are going to be left behind.  With City, United, Arsenal, Chelsea all breaking 400m in revenue this season, it's going to be pretty fucking hard for teams who are making up to 200m or more less to compete.  They simply CAN'T sign players because they can't comply with FFP if they do so while United, City, Chelsea, Arsenal, and Liverpool can.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
teddykgb said:
 
This is completely untrue, by the way.  City have historically had a decent academy and they're starting to produce fruits from the academy, but academy development isn't necessarily required for FFP compliance and/or the revenue targets.  You need sponsorships in this game, the development is honestly just a small thing that might occasionally save you a big investment in a player who may not work out.  The key thing is to get your revenue numbers high enough to offset your debts so that you can spend.  It's all about sponsorships and pumping up that number.
 
Which is why I'm bumping this thread.  United's new kit deal is a real success story for FFP.  I hope fans of Everton, Southampton, Villa...hell even Spurs, Newcastle...pretty much anyone not making gigantic revenues today see what this monster they've voted for is going to do.  You can't spend it if you don't earn it, but only teams like United can get a kit deal such as that.  So now these other clubs have no chance of earning the same amount as United, which means they have no chance of spending the same amount as United either.  The world we came from was imperfect, teams like United were always going to be able to spend more, but at least another team COULD have a takeover with big investment or COULD try to hit a window with a young player and a one time investment to parlay that into future higher revenues.  That door is now closed.
 
Everyone screamed bloody murder when City signed the Etihad deal and renegotiated with Nike....now that's arguably the worst deal in the league.  With the rules in place, suddenly Arsenal, Liverpool, United and Chelsea are spending money like crazy, especially with City and theoretically PSG having limited budgets, knowing that they can't be challenged in the transfer market.  It's going to be more of the same.
 
I agree with your post overall but lets be honest about the "commercial revenue" of City and, most egregiously, PSG.  There is a huge amount of bullshit involved.  The "key thing" isn't just to get your revenues up.  The key thing is to have a corrupt owner from an autocratic backwater who can convince/compel one of his many billionaire cousins to have one of their companies "sponsor" the team at massive rates that don't reflect anything like market value, such that you can effectively transfer funds from the state owned Qatari juice company to the state owned Qatari football team and pretend that these are "revenues."  The other key thing, especially for the owners of PSG, has been to buy off the head of UEFA and his family to such an extent that they're likely to look past many of these shenanigans.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,025
Chelmsford, MA
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
 
I agree with your post overall but lets be honest about the "commercial revenue" of City and, most egregiously, PSG.  There is a huge amount of bullshit involved.  The "key thing" isn't just to get your revenues up.  The key thing is to have a corrupt owner from an autocratic backwater who can convince/compel one of his many billionaire cousins to have one of their companies "sponsor" the team at massive rates that don't reflect anything like market value, such that you can effectively transfer funds from the state owned Qatari juice company to the state owned Qatari football team and pretend that these are "revenues."  The other key thing, especially for the owners of PSG, has been to buy off the head of UEFA and his family to such an extent that they're likely to look past many of these shenanigans.
 
 
First of all, screw you for making me go to MUFC's website.  Second of all, here's the list of sponsors:  http://www.manutd.com/en/Club/Sponsors.aspx?pageNo=1.  Official Wine Partner, Official timekeeping partner, Official office equipment partner, Official Global Partner moving, "The Hong Kong Jockey Club", Official Paint Partner, Official Tire Partner, Official Telecommunications Partner of Manchester United in Pakistan, Official Integrated telecommunications Partner for Manchester United in Nigeria, Ghana, and the Republic of Benin, Official Motorcycle Partner of Manchester United in Thailand, Official Telecommunications and Broadcast Partner for Manchester United in Azerbajan, Official Social Gaming Partner for Manchester United in Japan
 
And that's just United, all the big clubs are doing this.  Quite frankly you're either stupid or government supported if you aren't.   But I'm supposed to believe that City's deals are not valid because they're from Qataris while all of these are just good business?  City's Etihad airways deal is not unique -- plenty of clubs are partnered with airlines -- and at this point it is undervalued.  
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
teddykgb said:
First of all, screw you for making me go to MUFC's website.  Second of all, here's the list of sponsors:  http://www.manutd.com/en/Club/Sponsors.aspx?pageNo=1.  Official Wine Partner, Official timekeeping partner, Official office equipment partner, Official Global Partner moving, "The Hong Kong Jockey Club", Official Paint Partner, Official Tire Partner, Official Telecommunications Partner of Manchester United in Pakistan, Official Integrated telecommunications Partner for Manchester United in Nigeria, Ghana, and the Republic of Benin, Official Motorcycle Partner of Manchester United in Thailand, Official Telecommunications and Broadcast Partner for Manchester United in Azerbajan, Official Social Gaming Partner for Manchester United in Japan
I want no part of going to that web site but will certainly take your word for it.
 
And that's just United, all the big clubs are doing this.  Quite frankly you're either stupid or government supported if you aren't.   But I'm supposed to believe that City's deals are not valid because they're from Qataris while all of these are just good business?  City's Etihad airways deal is not unique -- plenty of clubs are partnered with airlines -- and at this point it is undervalued.
They've all absolutely been doing this kind of thing. The difference is that the most established clubs have huge global fanbases and so whoring themselves out to every sponsor world wide understandably makes them a lot of money. But how does a club like PSG, which in comparison basically has no fans, end up with higher commercial revenues than United, Bayern, Barcelona, or Real?  Sure, they have some legitimate commercial deals (kits, etc). But they get to the big numbers by signing other deals that are essentially farcical - another company controlled by the Sheik or one of his cronies is just transferring money to PSG and the club is calling it revenue. And, to a lesser extent, this is what City has done as well.


 
 

DLew On Roids

guilty of being sex
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
13,906
The Pine Street Inn
Teddy, it sounds like you're saying that FFP is forcing the Man U's of the world into exploiting their brands for extra revenue. But wouldn't they be doing that anyway? This seems like the flip side of the old baseball line about teams raising ticket prices to pay for free agents.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,025
Chelmsford, MA
DLew On Roids said:
Teddy, it sounds like you're saying that FFP is forcing the Man U's of the world into exploiting their brands for extra revenue. But wouldn't they be doing that anyway? This seems like the flip side of the old baseball line about teams raising ticket prices to pay for free agents.
 
It isn't necessary to force Man U into exploiting their brand for revenue, they're a soulless gobshite club who would sell shit to their supporters if they could convince them it came from Ol Whiskeynose.  But in the FFP world, it's a massive, massive advantage that they have over other clubs.  Prior to FFP, there were at least other ways to try to get that revenue to compete with MUFC, among them a rich owner just pouring money into it as a project.  Now, with that door closed, the only way to challenge MUFC is to get to their levels of revenue, otherwise they (and the other top teams like City, Chelsea, Liverpool) can just do what they did to Southampton this season and snatch your best players since you can't pay them what they "deserve" and also comply with FFP.  Except if you're Southampton, Villa, probably even the Toon, you can't possibly get an official tire sponsor in SE Asia because you weren't a big enough club before and didn't spend nearly a decade creating that revenue stream.  So it isn't that MUFC is forced to exploit their revenue streams, it's that they discovered that it was the best way to define "fair play" that would benefit them.
 

DLew On Roids

guilty of being sex
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
13,906
The Pine Street Inn
Ah, OK.  In that case we're on the same page.  The competitive advantage becomes self-sustaining in FFP.
 
We can disagree about whether City is a top team another time.  :whaaaat:
 

Seven Costanza

Fred Astaire of SoSH
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2007
3,016
Slight hijack, but Teddy brings up a point that drives me nuts- that Newcastle isn't a 'big club'.  I don't disagree with what Teddy (or anyone else) means by this assessment- but Newcastle last year had the 3rd highest attendance in all of England.  Shit, their Championship season a few years ago, they were 5th in England. 
 
I just wish the goddamn team would invest in order to get some of those international revenue streams that are increasingly more important in the modern game. There are a lot of 'bigger' teams that would kill for the domestic support Newcastle gets.  There are NO 'bigger' teams that want Newcastle's international presence. 
 
All you have to do is look at where Newcastle is right now- in New Zealand, getting paid bupkus in preseason friendly appearance fees playing against West Ham and A-League teams.  I wonder how much Man United/Arsenal/Tottenham/City made yesterday here in the States. 
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,025
Chelmsford, MA
Seven Costanza said:
Slight hijack, but Teddy brings up a point that drives me nuts- that Newcastle isn't a 'big club'.  I don't disagree with what Teddy (or anyone else) means by this assessment- but Newcastle last year had the 3rd highest attendance in all of England.  Shit, their Championship season a few years ago, they were 5th in England. 
 
I just wish the goddamn team would invest in order to get some of those international revenue streams that are increasingly more important in the modern game. There are a lot of 'bigger' teams that would kill for the domestic support Newcastle gets.  There are NO 'bigger' teams that want Newcastle's international presence. 
 
All you have to do is look at where Newcastle is right now- in New Zealand, getting paid bupkus in preseason friendly appearance fees playing against West Ham and A-League teams.  I wonder how much Man United/Arsenal/Tottenham/City made yesterday here in the States. 
 
Yes, absolutely.  And Samuel nailed this a few days ago here:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2699215/MARTIN-SAMUEL-If-Financial-Fair-Play-gift-club-owners-buy-Aston-Villa.html  .  Clubs like Newcastle and Villa should be able to be sold and have investment drive them to the top.  Now Newcastle need to find a way to become a global brand, secure global sponsorships like crazy, and hope to God they can compete during the process in order to even sniff competition.
 
It wasn't perfect before, but at least the hope that an oil baron or some other rich nutjob could buy your club, invest, and bring you to the top existed.  That door is now closed (too bad, it's an extremely fun door).  Coming back to Villa, what idiot would buy that team? You stand no chance of winning.
 

DLew On Roids

guilty of being sex
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
13,906
The Pine Street Inn
I'm simplifying here, but the basic problem for Newcastle and Villa is that global commercial revenue isn't a dependent variable with respect to matchday revenue.  The 50,000 people coming to St. James's on the weekend don't make Thais more likely to buy shirts.
 
As I understand FFP, there's an exemption made for spending on structural improvements, which could include non-tangible items such as brand-building overseas.  However, Ashley and Lerner aren't interested in dropping a couple hundred million pounds to make their clubs the fifth- or sixth-most recognized English football brand worldwide.  They really have no long-term play here, however because as the globally branded clubs enter the revenue stratosphere, they'll be lucky to tread water.  A couple lean years and you aren't competing with Everton any more, you're competing with WBA and Stoke (OK, Villa are already there).
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,025
Chelmsford, MA
DLew On Roids said:
 
 
We can disagree about whether City is a top team another time.  
 
 

 
And yes, there is an exemption made for structural improvments, but I don't think overseas brand building is in any way included.  It's designed to make it so FFP doesn't prevent investment in youth complexes and the like.  But yeah, Newcastle draw huge attendances and can't improve their lot because attendances have remarkably little to do with football finances.
 

SoxFanInCali

has the rich, deep voice of a god
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 3, 2005
15,568
California. Duh.
Not to belittle Newcastle, but the #1 reason they have the 3rd highest attendance is because they have the 3rd highest stadium capacity.  The place holds around 7,000 more than Anfield and 5,000 more than the Etihad, but does anyone think either Liverpool or City couldn't put 10,000 more people in the stands for every game if they had the capacity?
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
Lerner had every intention of making Villa a global brand, but O'Neill pissed up just enough of his money on mediocre British talent to keep him out of the Champions League, and by the time Lerner realized that the game had changed and having just a billion dollars wasn't enough any more to get your club into the CL.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
sachmoney said:
So um, UEFA is distributing City's fine to the other clubs?
 
teddy is going to lose his mind at the thought of ManU spending ManCity's money. That's almost like the football version of a public shaming. "You spent too much! You are fined! We are giving the money to your rivals!"
 
I intended a Harry joke here but somehow the formatting got f'ed and I can't delete.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,025
Chelmsford, MA
I'm honestly not surprised in the least that the cartel that wrote this letter found a way to ensure they profit off of this.
 

 

 
 
edit: But in regards to the original point, one of the interesting things about City and United is that each club has more or less saved the other at various points in their histories.  "Manchester: A football history" covers the entire history of both clubs and it's sort of amazing how their histories have intertwined at times.
 

DLew On Roids

guilty of being sex
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
13,906
The Pine Street Inn
The fines are distributed equally to each of the 80 clubs in the CL and EL group stages that complied with FFP. I'm sure that £250K made all the difference.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
DLew On Roids said:
The fines are distributed equally to each of the 80 clubs in the CL and EL group stages that complied with FFP. I'm sure that £250K made all the difference.
 
$1 to the Jimmy Fund that ManU's next transfer is XX million and 250K. 
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
$1 to the Jimmy Fund from me for being an idiot. 
 
$1 to the Jimmy Fund from you for poking ManU fans by reminding them they aren't good enough to get the payment.
 

DLew On Roids

guilty of being sex
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
13,906
The Pine Street Inn
The fine is paid over multiple years so ER'RYBODY HAVING A PARTY

Edit: Man U should announce it's spending the fine money on the players' Christmas party, then Instagram the hell out of it. Maybe get an ice sculpture of Mansour.