soxfan121 said:
Oh, you mean like selling your best player in January so you can avoid qualifying for the Europa League and the increased expenses that go with it? Mr. Ashley says yes, tanking is very much possible.
(Someone had to.)
The Eagles of Crystal Palace: Flying High...or crash and burn?
- Thread starter candylandriots
- Start date
- Status
Oh, you mean like selling your best player in January so you can avoid qualifying for the Europa League and the increased expenses that go with it? Mr. Ashley says yes, tanking is very much possible.
(Someone had to.)
Well that was a relief - too bad there are only two teams from Liverpool in the Premier League because it seems they're the only ones that Palace can get a result against.
It seems that if Yannick Bolasie could find the back of the net, he'd be a superstar. Love that guy...
It seems that if Yannick Bolasie could find the back of the net, he'd be a superstar. Love that guy...
What a steaming turd of frustration that was against Villa. Dominated roughly 89 minutes and had about 5000 scoring opportunities and lost 1-0.
Sometimes I really hate this game.
Sometimes I really hate this game.
Warnock gone - Keith Millen in as caretaker manager (again).
http://www.cpfc.co.uk/news/article/crystal-palace-can-today-confirm-that-neil-warnock-has-been-relieved-of-his-duties-and-is-no-longer-first-team-manager.-2167047.aspx
http://www.cpfc.co.uk/news/article/crystal-palace-can-today-confirm-that-neil-warnock-has-been-relieved-of-his-duties-and-is-no-longer-first-team-manager.-2167047.aspx
Jesus fuck that's not what I wanted to come home to - though Warnock never was an inspired choice, Jersey Shore shirt size aside.
I was (foolishly) hoping Pulis and Parrish would kiss and make up.
Time for a new avatar I guess.
I was (foolishly) hoping Pulis and Parrish would kiss and make up.
Time for a new avatar I guess.
Sanogoals is coming your way on loan.
I'm not sure he has much future at Arsenal but he might be a good fit for you guys. There is a lot of talent there, all wrapped up in a lanky, goofy, often injured package.
I'm not sure he has much future at Arsenal but he might be a good fit for you guys. There is a lot of talent there, all wrapped up in a lanky, goofy, often injured package.
Looks like ownership of another Premier League team is headed to the USA as Philadelphia 76ers owner Josh Harris moves in.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/13/crystal-palace-takeover-nearing-completion-josh-harris
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/13/crystal-palace-takeover-nearing-completion-josh-harris
GBP 90MM seems like quite a bargain when they had GBP 73MM of TV revenue last year (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/10830916/Premier-League-clubs-earn-record-breaking-sums-thanks-to-TV-bonanza.html). This is a team that looks as if it will be a fixture in the league, it's based in London instead of some Midlands shithole and has a well-like if old stadium.cjdmadcow said:
Here's hoping that this ownership group does better with CP than with the 76ers.
I just feel like pointing out that after a horrible start last year and pending relegation, Palace got a new manager and ended 11th. After another horrible start and pending relegation this season, Palace got a new manager and currently sit 11th.
I am officially on the Pardew bandwagon, despite my anxiety (in part based on the Toon fans here) that I expressed a few months ago.
This is a pretty good team. I think Speroni might be done. Will be interesting if they can spend some money on a long term solution at keeper and shore up the defense a bit this offseason -- and see if they can make a push for the top half for next year.
Edit: What I meant to add to this was that I wonder what 3 years of Premier League revenues, along with the idea that they may be a fixture in the league, will mean to them as they look over the transfer market this year.
I am officially on the Pardew bandwagon, despite my anxiety (in part based on the Toon fans here) that I expressed a few months ago.
This is a pretty good team. I think Speroni might be done. Will be interesting if they can spend some money on a long term solution at keeper and shore up the defense a bit this offseason -- and see if they can make a push for the top half for next year.
Edit: What I meant to add to this was that I wonder what 3 years of Premier League revenues, along with the idea that they may be a fixture in the league, will mean to them as they look over the transfer market this year.
Like Fullham and Charlton before them, Palace are not and ought not to see themselves as a fixture in the league. Newcastle are not a fixture in this league. Southampton are not a fixture. I know your post has some qualifying mights and ifs, but Palace could finish 6th next year and bottom the year after. It's so competitive, a few injuries and some bad signings are all it takes. All Palace can do is be well run, not over reach financially, invest in better facilites and youth system and pray.
How close to a Champions League place would Alan Pardew be if you took his Newcastle + Crystal Palace results in aggregate, I wonder?
fletcherpost said:
I think that's fair - and I hope that the team's management reads something like your post every single day.
I've gotten the impression that management has been very much focused on having the rug pulled out from under them at any point. They've been very cautious about spending and not getting out over their skis. But three years of Premier League revenue has to put them on better footing going forward. They have a really interesting core of good young players that they have a handle on keeping (Bolasie, Zaha, Gayle) and some veterans like Jedinak and Puncheon who I expect will be around for a while.
In other words, they've stabilized the ship after coming out of administration, they've made some smart decisions with players and financially. I'm hopeful that they can start doing some of the investments that you suggest now. Steve Parish has said he'd like to get to the point where they're 100-1 to be relegated and pick up a trophy in 5-10 years. I think that's a realistic timetable and hopefully demonstrates that they won't go the way of Fulham or Charlton.
It has to be becoming a much more attractive place for talented players to want to be.
How does one even go about trying to build a new contender in the modern Premiere League? I'm not even knowledgable here, let alone an expert, but it seems incredibly difficult given the ruthless capitalism of world football.
I know the FFP is supposed to level some sort of playing field in theory, but in practice seems to be enshrining the perennial powers and whichever nouveau riche oil clubs happened to dump all the money in before it was instituted.
Is there even a theoretical path these days for a Crystal Palace to rise up to the higher levels of European footbal, or is the best that can be hoped for to lurk around the fringes of the top four, if even that? Is it just a long slog of developing talent, selling it to the cash cow clubs, using that cash to improve infrastructure and marketing and make smart buys to get a little better repeated ad nauseam hoping one wheel doesn't inevitably come off, or is there any other way to move forwards?
I'm new enough to this stuff that I'm still trying to wrap my head around it all. It's probably the part of global soccer that I find hardest to adjust to, given the way that American sports always try to at least keep up a pretense of a more even league.
Sorry if this is too general for the Crystal Palace thread, but it's been on my mind lately as I increasingly have the sport invading my brain and it seems to be where the conversation is drifting a bit.
I know the FFP is supposed to level some sort of playing field in theory, but in practice seems to be enshrining the perennial powers and whichever nouveau riche oil clubs happened to dump all the money in before it was instituted.
Is there even a theoretical path these days for a Crystal Palace to rise up to the higher levels of European footbal, or is the best that can be hoped for to lurk around the fringes of the top four, if even that? Is it just a long slog of developing talent, selling it to the cash cow clubs, using that cash to improve infrastructure and marketing and make smart buys to get a little better repeated ad nauseam hoping one wheel doesn't inevitably come off, or is there any other way to move forwards?
I'm new enough to this stuff that I'm still trying to wrap my head around it all. It's probably the part of global soccer that I find hardest to adjust to, given the way that American sports always try to at least keep up a pretense of a more even league.
Sorry if this is too general for the Crystal Palace thread, but it's been on my mind lately as I increasingly have the sport invading my brain and it seems to be where the conversation is drifting a bit.
Jimy Hendrix said:
I'm on the extreme end of the argument against FFP but in my opinion you've basically nailed it. The door was slammed shut on everyone when Man City got purchased and the existing top 4 panicked into the FFP rules we have today. Teams will likely always be able to pull a season like Everton or Southampton (x2!) but will spend the summers selling their best players to the bigger clubs in the league while they start over. The "spend what you earn" rules were trying to stop massive money infusions from outside investors, but they limit a smaller club tremendously if they want to make the leap on some sort of spending spree. I hate everything about it, but the only way to consistently contend in this new environment is to hit homerun after homerun in the youth ranks. It's a tough way to proceed to be sure.
teddykgb said:
Unregulated spending drove the sport into the stratification that exists in most of the big leagues, most prominently in Spain and England. Blaming FFP for the current situation is neither fair nor accurate; we're not even one season deep into the actual implementation of it and while ManCity and PSG are pissy they can't make it rain like in years past, the idea that FFP is at all involved in what the game became in the recent past is inaccurate, at best.
The fact is that we don't know if or how FFP will level the playing field. What isn't in dispute is that allowing the "haves" to do whatever they want DID result in a system where only a few teams had a chance at the top spots in a given year.
The small sample size does, however, challenge TKBG's idea that they only way to succeed (short of being the plaything of an oil baron) is to hit "homerun after homerun" in the youth ranks. Newcastle and Stoke don't do that. Southampton didn't have to hit homers with Chambers or Shaw - they just had to give them a cup of coffee and a few at bats and the "haves" came marching in with 50M+ with which the Saints went out and bought young veterans who have had them in the mix for Europe, again. Swansea has done roughly the same thing - smart reinvestment after being raided by those "haves", resulting in team depth and quality.
FFP may or may not work in the long run. But what small evidence we have thus far says it is far better than allowing ManCity or Chelsea to just buy anything they want without consequence. Perhaps - in time - teddy will be proven right that FFP handicaps smaller clubs. But there's zero evidence of that right now and some that indicates it to be more sour grapes from big clubs, and supporters, who want the freedom to buy everything, anytime. Anyone who thinks that's a good idea should look at Spain and see how well it's working for 15 of the 20 clubs qualified to take beatings from Barca and Real twice a season.
soxfan121 said:
You've caught me at a bad time so I'll respond more fully later, but I don't think much of your post matches reality. Spain is an entirely different ballgame -- the way TV revenue has been distributed in Spain along with the government intervention throughout history makes it an apples to pears comparison.
In any case, we didn't get where we are today because of FFP, I'd agree on that point, but this isn't about sour grapes. My team got in just in time and as a result my team is protected from all of this nonsense. I'd prefer you leave my team out of it and examine it from a Palace perspective. Or Stoke or Newcastle if you prefer. Let's say Gareth Bale comes free this summer, fed up of the abuse he receives in Madrid, he decides to return to England. This becomes the impetus for one of these owners to try to make a push for the league title and Champions League, which means a requirement to be FFP compliant. How do you get Bale and the 2-3 other pieces you need to compete?
Perhaps you'd say that you can't get Bale, you have to develop the next Bale. This is basically your point about Soton and, strangely, Swansea. You could probably add Atletico Madrid to this group, if you wanted, as another team that has developed to sell and re-invest. But when teams come back to Soton for Clyne, Alderweireld,and Schneiderlin this season, they're going to have buy shrewdly again. In any year, they're likely to do it, you can build a contender this way. But if in any of those seasons they "miss", they're going to be in a lot of trouble. The players rapidly lose value and their sell on becomes lower than the fees Soton paid and they won't have the sponsorship to eat the money and buy again. I don't know if there's a talent evaluator in the sport who can pick the right players at the youth and transfer tables year in and year out, and that's what these teams who are mid table are going to need to do. From time to time, I think we'll see a single team execute this cycle well for 2 to 3 develop and sell periods, sort of like Atletico right now, but I don't see how any team could sustain it for a very long period, it's just too difficult.
But I agree with you that this hasn't played out yet at all. This is a new reality and it really narrows the options for the sides that are trying to build today. Sometimes you just need to acquire proven talent and proven talent will always be more "affordable" to clubs with better balance sheets -- it creates an unfair advantage for the teams who already built sizable revenue pools. Every pound spent by City is a smaller percentage of revenue than a pound spent by Southampton.
teddykgb said:
1. If Gareth Bale decides to return to England this summer there are three teams who can afford him; Man City, Man U and Chelsea. Period. Arsenal won't blow up the wage structure, Tottenham & Liverpool aren't rich enough and won't be in the CL and no other clubs could afford either the fee OR the wages.
Now, you've claimed that this is FFP-related (previous post, not the quoted one above). That the inability for a new owner to enter the PL, buy Palace (hi Josh Harris!) and then dump billions of personal wealth into the team, allowing them to buy Bale and others. Still...why would Bale go to there? No CL. No EL. So...no Bale.
The fact is that the old system's remnants - and its stratification - works against those "little clubs" far more than FFP ever could, because FFP doesn't address the already-boned system, it only seeks to slightly hobble the "1%" into only one luxury purchase a season. So...Bale will probably be in sky blue if he wants to return to England. And FFP will have had nothing to do with it, as the rich get richer.
2. So...your theory is that Soton, despite showing it can be competitive, won't be if it has to do it every year? The phrase cart before horse comes to mind here. You may be correct that Soton will eventually be swamped under by the system...but there's zero evidence of that right now and more than a little that it isn't happening right now. Better luck proving the little guys can't compete next year? ;-)
3. I know that no one likes to include Spain in these discussions because they aren't "like" the others; that's true. They aren't. They are the ideal of the non-FFP world. Every single anti-FFP screed basically boils down to "I like super teams". Real Madrid - and their world-leading valuation, fan following and roster of all stars - is simply the best example of what happens when you let the rich clubs rig the system for their own benefit. The EPL was headed down this road - to where only 3 teams had a legit chance at the title, forever - and FFP is at least a step towards addressing that scenario. It isn't perfect - it isn't even good - but it is something. And teams like RM, PSG and Man City (sorry, but they got one of two actual penalties under this system, so they have to be included in the discussion) are forced to pretend they play in the same stratosphere as everyone else.
There's too much competition
If you mean a real title contender, it's basically impossible. When was the last time someone outside the current big clubs (Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal) made a realistic title challenge? [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]Everton finished 14 points behind last year in fifth. [/SIZE]Newcastle finished 3rd in 2003, but 14 points behind. Leeds finished 12 points back in 1999. Spurs, who are probably the most consistent of the non-big money clubs now, unless you consider them a a big-money club, have twice finished fourth, but never closer than 16 points behind the champion.
Southampton are a nice story, but for all their great scouting and player development and shrewd signings and cash inflows, the result will probably be a 7th place finish to go with their 8th place finish last year, no European football or trophies, and the sales of many of their best players again in the summer. They may also struggle to keep their coach, again. Southampton are a pretty good demonstration of where the ceiling is for smaller clubs right now.
Jimy Hendrix said:
If you mean a real title contender, it's basically impossible. When was the last time someone outside the current big clubs (Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal) made a realistic title challenge? [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]Everton finished 14 points behind last year in fifth. [/SIZE]Newcastle finished 3rd in 2003, but 14 points behind. Leeds finished 12 points back in 1999. Spurs, who are probably the most consistent of the non-big money clubs now, unless you consider them a a big-money club, have twice finished fourth, but never closer than 16 points behind the champion.
Southampton are a nice story, but for all their great scouting and player development and shrewd signings and cash inflows, the result will probably be a 7th place finish to go with their 8th place finish last year, no European football or trophies, and the sales of many of their best players again in the summer. They may also struggle to keep their coach, again. Southampton are a pretty good demonstration of where the ceiling is for smaller clubs right now.
Blame all this on Leeds and Pompey just as much as on City and Chelsea. If they hadn't overspent and basically gone bankrupt, there wouldn't be as much of a feeling that UEFA and the FA have to save clubs from themselves.
soxfan121 said:
There is no doubt that FFP has nothing to do with the stratification of football into rich and poor clubs, since that has always existed. But I don't how you move to the conclusion that FFP has a chance in hell of actually changing that situation in a meaningful way.
The reality is that FFP has nothing to do with addressing "fairness" between clubs big and small or leveling that kind of playing field. Really there are two purposes to FFP:
1) Protecting "old money" clubs with high revenues like Real, Barca, Bayern, United from "new money" clubs with similar ambitions but lower revenues and owners who want to spend out of their pocket like City, Chelsea, and PSG.
2) Lowering the chance that smaller clubs will bust themselves (like Portsmouth or Leeds) in ways that create bad press for the sport and piss off supporters.
Neither of these things have anything to do with leveling the playing field between big clubs and small clubs or making mobility between those categories easier.
Edit: And SFiC beats me to the punch on point #2...
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
Good points; I definitely hadn't considered 2 enough.
I dunno how you got to the bolded, especially given you highlighted two points in my previous post that state, unequivocally, I don't know jack or shit (and neither does anyone else). That's like, the opposite of "moving to a conclusion". I do know that doing something was better than doing nothing, even if the something turns out to be inconsequential.
soxfan121 said:
Except that leaving open the possibility that X (FFP) will affect Y (parity and mobility between small and large clubs) is itself a conclusion of sorts.
"The fact is that we don't know how and whether Obamacare will lead to an increase in Islamic terrorism, but I guess we'll see.."
Yes, I am being snarky because in your case X actually has been framed as a means to achieve Y by UEFA and is at least implicit in the (highly misleading) FFP title itself. I just think, when you drill down to the nuts and bolts of what the rules actually do, there is really no connection between them and leveling the playing field between larger and smaller clubs. Its not that the causal impact is unclear. Its that there is nothing in there that really even seems intended to achieve that goal.
The list of clubs that tried to spend their way to the top with funny money and had it blow up in their face is really, really, really long. Portsmouth and Leeds were reasons for the FA to support FFP, but every single country in Europe almost has examples.
Rangers. AZ Alkmaar and FC Twente in Holland. Borussia Dortmund (after their late 90s CL winning run) and many other clubs after the Kirch TV bankruptcy in Germany. Deportivo La Coruna, Villarreal, Real Betis and Valencia in Spain. Atletico's balance sheet is shocking as well, but they stagger on. God knows how many clubs in Italy - Sampdoria, Napoli, Parma right now. Torino barely scraped a Europa League entry as their finances are so bad. I think Marseille in France had some really fallow years. Those are just off the top of my head - God knows there are more.
Crystal Palace have been in dire financial straits several times in the last 15 years, so keeping a tight wrap on their spending is something their fans are pretty keen on. An Abramovich is unlikely to appear, as they're an unsexy south London club with a funny, crappy ground and shirts nicked off Barcelona. There's not too many billionaires floating about Croydon either.
Rangers. AZ Alkmaar and FC Twente in Holland. Borussia Dortmund (after their late 90s CL winning run) and many other clubs after the Kirch TV bankruptcy in Germany. Deportivo La Coruna, Villarreal, Real Betis and Valencia in Spain. Atletico's balance sheet is shocking as well, but they stagger on. God knows how many clubs in Italy - Sampdoria, Napoli, Parma right now. Torino barely scraped a Europa League entry as their finances are so bad. I think Marseille in France had some really fallow years. Those are just off the top of my head - God knows there are more.
Crystal Palace have been in dire financial straits several times in the last 15 years, so keeping a tight wrap on their spending is something their fans are pretty keen on. An Abramovich is unlikely to appear, as they're an unsexy south London club with a funny, crappy ground and shirts nicked off Barcelona. There's not too many billionaires floating about Croydon either.
The huge increases in revenues at the top clubs means it is also much harder than it used to be to buy your way to the top. It's been done three times in England in the PL era, but the progression in spending from Blackburn -> Chelsea -> Man City is orders of magnitude. When Jack Walker bought the title for Blackburn, their most expensive signings were Shearer and Sutton, for 3.5m and 5m gbp. When Abramovich first bought Chelsea, they spent about 290m the first three years. And Man City have run a net spend of well over 500m gbp since Sheik Mansour bought the club, with over 416m before they won their first title, and that doesn't even include wages or infrastructure investment. If you started now, it would probably cost at least 1 billion gbp to build a PL champion from scratch.
Great discussion. In particular, I had never considered MMS's point about one of FFP's purpose being to avoid messy bankruptcies. I'd always taken the cynic's view that FFP was solely meant to entrench the old money clubs even further.
Soxfan's point that we don't exactly have any history of how FFP has affected various leagues is true, but even if the list of possible ways to gain success was extremely limited before FFP, the net result is that there is now an additional barrier to entry.
It's relatively easy to look at City and see how they might have been affected had FFP been implemented in 2007, right before being purchased by Sheikh Mansour. Here are City's revenues in the three years prior:
So what did the Sheik's money buy? Starting in 2008/9, City finished 10th, 5th, 3rd, 1st, 2nd and 1st. They are now 2nd in the PL and 6th in the world in terms of revenue (£346.5 million).
The only players on City's 2007/8 roster that was still there for the 2011/2 title winning season were Joe Hart and Micah Richards. Of the rest of City's roster, two were bought in 2008, seven in 2009, six in 2010, and seven in 2011. I just don't see how any of that is possible without the massive influx of cash, and City's revenues trailed investment (as is the norm in just about every industry on earth), not the other way around.
If FFP had begun in 2008, City would probably have about as much success as West Ham has had (plus whatever error bars are appropriate), given that their revenues were very similar between 2005 and 2008. I just don't see how you can't escape the conclusion that it is now much harder than ever before for teams to move up into the global top-10.
Soxfan's point that we don't exactly have any history of how FFP has affected various leagues is true, but even if the list of possible ways to gain success was extremely limited before FFP, the net result is that there is now an additional barrier to entry.
It's relatively easy to look at City and see how they might have been affected had FFP been implemented in 2007, right before being purchased by Sheikh Mansour. Here are City's revenues in the three years prior:
- 2007/8: £104 million (finished 9th)
- 2006/7: £84.6 million (finished 14th)
- 2005/6: £89.4 million (finished 15th)
So what did the Sheik's money buy? Starting in 2008/9, City finished 10th, 5th, 3rd, 1st, 2nd and 1st. They are now 2nd in the PL and 6th in the world in terms of revenue (£346.5 million).
The only players on City's 2007/8 roster that was still there for the 2011/2 title winning season were Joe Hart and Micah Richards. Of the rest of City's roster, two were bought in 2008, seven in 2009, six in 2010, and seven in 2011. I just don't see how any of that is possible without the massive influx of cash, and City's revenues trailed investment (as is the norm in just about every industry on earth), not the other way around.
If FFP had begun in 2008, City would probably have about as much success as West Ham has had (plus whatever error bars are appropriate), given that their revenues were very similar between 2005 and 2008. I just don't see how you can't escape the conclusion that it is now much harder than ever before for teams to move up into the global top-10.
How much of Man City's revenues are thinly disguised bungs from their owners? I seem to recall their sponsorship deal is insanely lucrative, since Etihad is also owned by the sheikhs.
I have zero problem with clubs not being able to sheikh their way into the top 10 anymore. Lol boo hoo. You can still spend on infrastructure improvements to your heart's delight, so it's not like Arsenal would be getting FFP sanctions for building a stadium.
I have zero problem with clubs not being able to sheikh their way into the top 10 anymore. Lol boo hoo. You can still spend on infrastructure improvements to your heart's delight, so it's not like Arsenal would be getting FFP sanctions for building a stadium.
So for the guys in favor of FFP - what do you think has to happen for a club like Crystal Palace to be able to legitimately contend for a title? Or do you agree that it's more or less impossible given the current rules?
Is it better to have teams be able to crash and fail than to have the same five clubs always competing for the trophy?
I was pretty much against FFP on principle, but I've heard some good points from the proponents here. So thanks for the discussion guys. This is really enjoyable for me. I'm still learning a lot and this kind of stuff is helping.
Is it better to have teams be able to crash and fail than to have the same five clubs always competing for the trophy?
I was pretty much against FFP on principle, but I've heard some good points from the proponents here. So thanks for the discussion guys. This is really enjoyable for me. I'm still learning a lot and this kind of stuff is helping.
Spacemans Bong said:
And that's what makes the whole thing an even bigger joke. Did you know that PSG - a club essentially with no fans and no brand outside of France - had larger global "commercial revenues" in 2013-14 than Manchester United, Barcelona, or Real Madrid? How does that happen? If your club happens to be owned by a monarchial dictatorship with its fingers in every pie of their domestic economy, its pretty easy to come up with "sponsorship deals" in which some Qatari juice company (coincidentally owned by the dictator or one of his 400 cousins) happens to sponsor your soccer team at massively above-market rates, therefore driving up the "revenues" of said team and allowing them to buy more players. This is also where there is actually a big difference between being owned by a genuine dictatorship, as with City and PSG, or a mere solitary oligarch, like Abramovitch. Chelsea has a deal with Gazprom but overall their revenues are actually pretty legitimate. Of course, they've had considerably longer to grow a real global brand.
Is it really true no one cares about PSG outside of France? Anecdotes don't equal data, but I know a fair number of people here in Portland that follow them to some extent.
And we already did this exercise where I started linking to the official sponsors of other clubs like MUFC and Real Madrid, etc. They're all sponsored to a crazy extent by outside money, not just PSG or Man City. It's like I'm taking crazy pills and money from the Arabian penninsula is somehow not legitimate while money elsewhere is totally OK. Not to mention that the Etihad deal at City is extremely low if compared to United's deal or Chelsea's new deal.
But jkempa is refocusing the discussion where it belongs. We can redo FFP discussions all day, but make it more real. Palace have a mid table at best squad today, how can they challenge for a title? This is too basic an analysis, but their balance sheet shows them operating at basically a slight loss last year: https://www.google.com/finance?q=crystal+palace+football+club&fstype=ii
FFP allows them to lose a maximum of 15 million pounds over a 3 year period without owner investment or 105 million with owner supplied money (5m a year or 34m a year losses per year). What can Palace do to grow a legitimate title contender under these conditions?
Bear in mind that they'll probably need to give Bolasie some increased money to keep him. Palace have been active in the loan market, but I don't know that they can afford to loan the Falcaos of the world under this type of restriction, so it's going to be very hard for them to improve to title level through players other teams have deemed surplus to their requirements. Nonetheless, they can definitely build depth in squad this way. I suppose they have to try to time a few of these loans while hoping to develop another player or two and keeping Bolasie, hoping he makes a leap. If, say, Sanogo had shown up and set the world on fire while a youth team member had really shot the moon, maybe they could have pushed for 4th this season. The game for Palace and nearly any club in their situation will be to make the CL spots to get the money infusion -- this allows the team to immediately buy at least a player at that level but comes with the downside of all your existing players gaining additional prestige and having other CL teams come sniffing for them. If, as an example, Bolasie leads Palace to a CL contention next season, he's going to get huge offers from outside of Palace.
I guess the only real move for Palace is to try to do all of them while playing the business side. It's sort of funny, but under these rules, it's the folks in charge of sponsorships who are going to win games. Any club looking to go bigger are going to have to follow the trend of worldwide global partnerships to secure additional revenue. Realistically, Palace gains the opportunity to grow by either increasing the revenues or reducing the expenses, and since wages are an expense there's really no joy in reducing wages and trying to get better. So you have to grow your revenue, but that has not nearly enough to do with ticket sales and far more to do with global sponsorships, CL money, and TV Rights money.
But jkempa is refocusing the discussion where it belongs. We can redo FFP discussions all day, but make it more real. Palace have a mid table at best squad today, how can they challenge for a title? This is too basic an analysis, but their balance sheet shows them operating at basically a slight loss last year: https://www.google.com/finance?q=crystal+palace+football+club&fstype=ii
FFP allows them to lose a maximum of 15 million pounds over a 3 year period without owner investment or 105 million with owner supplied money (5m a year or 34m a year losses per year). What can Palace do to grow a legitimate title contender under these conditions?
Bear in mind that they'll probably need to give Bolasie some increased money to keep him. Palace have been active in the loan market, but I don't know that they can afford to loan the Falcaos of the world under this type of restriction, so it's going to be very hard for them to improve to title level through players other teams have deemed surplus to their requirements. Nonetheless, they can definitely build depth in squad this way. I suppose they have to try to time a few of these loans while hoping to develop another player or two and keeping Bolasie, hoping he makes a leap. If, say, Sanogo had shown up and set the world on fire while a youth team member had really shot the moon, maybe they could have pushed for 4th this season. The game for Palace and nearly any club in their situation will be to make the CL spots to get the money infusion -- this allows the team to immediately buy at least a player at that level but comes with the downside of all your existing players gaining additional prestige and having other CL teams come sniffing for them. If, as an example, Bolasie leads Palace to a CL contention next season, he's going to get huge offers from outside of Palace.
I guess the only real move for Palace is to try to do all of them while playing the business side. It's sort of funny, but under these rules, it's the folks in charge of sponsorships who are going to win games. Any club looking to go bigger are going to have to follow the trend of worldwide global partnerships to secure additional revenue. Realistically, Palace gains the opportunity to grow by either increasing the revenues or reducing the expenses, and since wages are an expense there's really no joy in reducing wages and trying to get better. So you have to grow your revenue, but that has not nearly enough to do with ticket sales and far more to do with global sponsorships, CL money, and TV Rights money.
jkempa said:
More improbable than impossible. It is possible for everything to go right; if the Money Clubs are hobbled by injuries, incompetence, scandal or other circumstance; if the top 11 of the club are in-form and healthy all season; if there is stability on the bench & management office; if new acquisitions hit the ground running and endure no acclimation issues; if bounced from Cup competitions early (not testing the depth of the squad); if a promising player or two becomes a legit superstar or goes on an epic hot streak. IF all those things happen, Palace could win a title. They couldn't win two - not without a massive influx of cash. IOW, some club could get lucky...but it's not bloody likely.
Is it better to have teams be able to crash and fail than to have the same five clubs always competing for the trophy?
I don't think so, but I need to invoke Spain to explain why and as pointed out previously, Spain is a difficult comp. However, it is an extreme example of what happens when "wealth" is allowed free rein over the others in the association. There are two stable clubs in Spain; everyone else is a bad season or two from insolvency. The entire system is rigged for those two clubs; everyone else gets less TV money, less everything. The third best team in the country and the only one capable of a serious challenge to the top 2 is held together with baling wire and duct tape; Atletico is doing a commendable job keeping up but when they stumble, they too may well be insolvent in less than a season.
This is where League 1 (France) is heading, if PSG and Monaco aren't reined in. ManU, ManCity and Chelsea own the advantage in England and even Arsenal and Liverpool cannot keep up, despite being "old money" clubs themselves with the attendant stadiums/sponsorships/history to have been in the conversation, but increasingly left behind as the others accessed their inexhaustible sources of cash.
The real problem with FFP - aside from it being toothless and small sample, etc. - is that Chelsea has already adapted to a model that should never get them in "trouble" with FFP regs. Buying, and loaning, and then selling at a profit is the way around FFP (as opposed to buying "in-their-prime" stars for large money), as it subsidizes one or two big purchases while also robbing small clubs of developmental "stars". Lukaku is a nice example here. The proverbial 100M developmental machine, if you will. ManU and Arsenal are already moving in this direction, but Man City hasn't shown any indication they've figured it out. Maybe paying the fine/losing the roster spots shows them the way forward, in which case FFP is entirely as useless as MMS claims.
teddykgb said:
For an otherwise really sensible guy, you just go off the rails when discussing this issue. Nobody is doubting that "outside money" is the driver of commercial revenue, if by that you mean sponsorship deals with partners outside the club's own country.* But there is a difference between commercial revenue that derives from market-rate sponsorship deals in which independent business entities vie to sponsor the club because they have a massive global brand built over decades and hundreds of millions of fans and sponsorship deals in which entities tied to the club's very owners sponsor that club at above-market rates even though such deals make no commercial sense whatsoever in a vaccuum. Its ultimately the difference between earning money in the market and laundering your own money.
*Germany is a little different as German clubs get massive commercial revenues from domestic partners, for various reasons.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
I'm not sure how sensible I am in general, but on this topic I've done an inordinate amount of reading. I've spent more time on the Swiss Ramble than I'd even care to admit to. There's a lot of fiction on this topic, and a lot of fans are very comfortable making claims that aren't backed up by the reality. For anyone who wants to go down the rabbit hole, I'd recommend reading this article from before all this stuff really played out to get an understanding of the issues at play. There's a lot of "shady" deals at multiple clubs -- I'm trying very hard not to turn this into a defense of City (maybe I'll write that up in the City thread), but overall this article is probably the best rundown of all aspects of FFP I've come across.
http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2012/09/uefas-ffp-regulations-play-to-win.html
I do get animated on this topic, but for me for a very good reason. I really really really hate the idea of denying other fans the experience I went through when Mansour bought City. I think it's really hard for other teams fans to understand how incredible that experience was as a sports fan. To have City, of all fucking teams, suddenly linked with Berbatov, Kaka and Robinho....Robinho actually signs at City...this stuff was just staggering. The only mildly apt comparison I can draw is when the Sox were linked with ARod and Schilling and we saw all the activity that brought about. It was one of the greatest experiences I've ever had as a fan, a type of off field improbable comeback and I hate the idea of setting up rules which essentially make that impossible. As a City fan, I'm quite familiar with the mentality of rooting for a team that has little to no chance of winning the title and for whom just not getting relegated is a target. But even in those days, it felt like if City could just get the mix right and a little luck, they might be able to build something. Or if SWP and Micah Richards became the stars they were destined to be.... etc. I see these rules as denying even that shred of opportunity, where the business of football makes it so that that type of miracle turnaround just isn't possible.
Which brings me back to Southampton, which soxfan121 trumpets as a counter to my points. I see it 100% differently. Southampton had the makings of something special last season. I would have loved to have seen them have an opportunity to keep Lallana and Lovren, not have their coach jump, maybe still add Tadic and build up the core they had. That's really interesting to me. Prior to FFP, they were still likely to have their players picked off and their team dismantled, but in an FFP world the business people would be crazy to not sell off the pieces in order to comply with the rules. And they did a good job of doing so, and they've managed to tread water this season. They'll likely have to do it again this offseason.
I totally get that there is and was a problem around owners feeling forced into spending the clubs into oblivion. Maybe, as an example, the Southampton owner couldn't afford to finance further improvements but would have felt compelled to try prior to FFP. But I try not to get in the habit of feeling bad for billionaires and how they feel pressured to spend their fortunes. I just don't think that the rules they came up with did enough to address the problems of clubs making themselves insolvent -- they did far more to prevent clubs like City, PSG, etc from interrupting the steady revenue streams of the big dogs than they did to actually protect the smaller clubs.. If this were really an issue, we'd be talking far more about even distribution of TV money throughout the divisions, salary caps ,etc.
But for me, it all comes back to how incredible an experience that was in 2008. There are so many great clubs in England who "deserve" to have that outside chance of experiencing that. Clubs with clownshoes ownerships but great fans and history who just need a break to break out. I just can't feel good about any system which systematically closes the door on that kind of stuff.
teddykgb said:
I am actually in full agreement with everything else you wrote: I love the idea that new money can come into the system and change the fortunes of a club. The last thing I want is a stagnant aristocracy in which the set of big clubs is locked into place and if you weren't a relatively big one in 2000 (or 1975!) then you have no chance of becoming one now. And the anarchist in me would love to see some of the biggest clubs completely fall apart and become supplanted over time because, you know, I like to see the world burn.
All that aside, we should still be willing to call a spade a spade about the revenues of clubs like PSG and City. When the Qatari Tourism Authority decides to pay €200M per year to sponsor a team held by the Qatari Investment Authority - and both those entities are owned by the exact same people - that is an accounting trick, not a market transaction. Some sheikh is moving money from the right pocket of his thobe to the left pocket of thobe and declaring it revenue. And it is simply not true that all the big clubs are involved in similar behavior. That is a fundamentally false equivalence.
jkempa said:
soxfan121 said:
SF, I feel like you just gave arguments in favor of why it'd be better to let clubs (at least in England) crash and burn in exchange for some more movement at the top. Correct me if I'm missing something, but you seem to equate the lack of FFP historically with causing the current situation in Spain, and want to prevent the same thing happening in e.g. France and England. But I don't think that's an accurate appraisal.
As you said, the entire Spanish system is rigged for Barca and Real, but it has been that way for nearly a century (85 years). It's clear that the powers that be, perhaps largely collected in the Spain's two biggest cities, prefer that the two biggest clubs from those respective cities succeed to the detriment of everyone else. Since the beginning of La Liga in 1929, one of Barca or Real Madrid has won the league 65% of the time. Since 1950, that figure rises to 76%. The issues in Spain (at least related to title chances) are systemic. No amount of FFP is going to stop the runaway train that is the Barca/Real express. Only a league salary cap or luxury tax or even equal TV money distribution would be a start, but none of those are going to happen. FFP might prevent smaller clubs in Spain from going under, but it will also make it even harder for anyone to upset the Barca/Real dominance.
soxfan121 said:
As you say, there's no shortage of ways for teams that are currently fattening themselves on the teats of CL and other TV money to enhance their nominal revenue, whether it be from buying and loaning or leveraging massive sponsorship through friends and family. So what is the real effect of FFP? It makes it impossible for other individuals or teams of investors to buy a lower or mid table team, invest like crazy, and succeed - at least not without having similar networks of friends and sponsorships and a really strong business case to back it up to the regulators.
Teams like United saw these trends and figured that they are far better off fighting their historical rivals (Arsenal, Liverpool) than also dealing with then-upstarts like Chelsea or City. Case in point: between the formation of the Premier League in 1992 and Chelsea's first title in 2005, United won the league 8 of 12 years. Only Arsenal and a Shearer-powered Blackburn could even challenge them (though I believe Liverpool was in the mix a few times). Terrible, right? That's why FFP is being instituted, right?
Since Chelsea joined the big money league in 2005, they essentially traded titles with United until City joined the party, and it's largely been those three ever since (notwithstanding the Moyes era). But now that Arsenal is coming out of their 10-year building project and Liverpool have secured a smart, proven successful group of owners, the league has potential to be very exciting. What would happen if another billionaire or two joined the party? Now you're looking at 6-7 teams with realistic title chances each year. That's a lot better than it used to be. If FFP had been established in 2004, for example, would United have won in 2006, 2010 and 2012 as well? Who would be there to stop them? It would've been somewhat similar to Spain but with one team at the top.
I would argue that the presence of CL TV money and global trends increasing valuation of sports clubs have provided that incentive for investment, and that investment has helped add variety and some (extremely limited) competitive equity. My line of causality would roughly go increased money --> increased benefits for investment --> greater movement and variance --> greater parity at the top --> even more investors get involved. Unlike US sports, there is no effective monopoly on club soccer and free market principles have clearer application. Without FFP, over the next 15 years, there could be far more moving and shaking at all levels. But now that Chelsea's/City's revenues are established and protected from competition, they aren't going anywhere.
To address Palace specifically, the only way I see for them to win a title are to accumulate lots of little successes. Walks and singles, if you will. Home runs have been eliminated to reduce the chance of strikeouts.
The downside to having more big teams that can compete for the title is it becomes much harder for a small club to have a miracle year. In the 90s, when Man Utd were the only big fish in the pond, teams like Newcastle and Blackburn could make serious title challenges in years when Man Utd didn't blow everyone away. It's a lot easier to take down one giant than five or six.
I hate to be glib but I've got a newborn and a mom who is giving me the eyes of death, but:
Neither of those clubs had a miracle year, they were financially doped by rich owners. Jack Walker and Sir John Hall paid the bills.
None of what Southampton did has anything to do with FFP. It has everything to do with the fact Markus Liebherr died and his daughter is running the team and preparing to sell it. The rebuilding job went unbelievably well, unbelievably well, better than anybody could have imagined. But they sold Lallana, Shaw and Lovren so they could make some motherfucking money, not to satisfy FFP regulations. They lost something like 12 million quid in 2013-14 (before those sales, IIRC), and I'm sure there were infrastructure investments to bring that number down in terms of FFP.
Neither of those clubs had a miracle year, they were financially doped by rich owners. Jack Walker and Sir John Hall paid the bills.
None of what Southampton did has anything to do with FFP. It has everything to do with the fact Markus Liebherr died and his daughter is running the team and preparing to sell it. The rebuilding job went unbelievably well, unbelievably well, better than anybody could have imagined. But they sold Lallana, Shaw and Lovren so they could make some motherfucking money, not to satisfy FFP regulations. They lost something like 12 million quid in 2013-14 (before those sales, IIRC), and I'm sure there were infrastructure investments to bring that number down in terms of FFP.
I did not see the game yesterday, but I'm ecstatic with the outcome. Back in December I was researching how to watch Championship games and now the team ends the season in the top half.
I was equally optimistic at the end of last season and then Pulis bailed out. I am hopeful that Pardew doesn't pull the same move and the team starts next year with some stability. Pardew is the man. One man's trash and all that. He really made a big difference with two clubs this year.
Palace have become an exciting team to watch with some excellent attacking talent. Speroni may be done, so they will need to look at replacing him.
Hopefully they can hold on to Bolasie. If so, I think 55 points is pretty do-able and challenging for a Europa Cup spot is not totally out of the question.
Good times at Selhurst Park! Can't wait for next season already.
I was equally optimistic at the end of last season and then Pulis bailed out. I am hopeful that Pardew doesn't pull the same move and the team starts next year with some stability. Pardew is the man. One man's trash and all that. He really made a big difference with two clubs this year.
Palace have become an exciting team to watch with some excellent attacking talent. Speroni may be done, so they will need to look at replacing him.
Hopefully they can hold on to Bolasie. If so, I think 55 points is pretty do-able and challenging for a Europa Cup spot is not totally out of the question.
Good times at Selhurst Park! Can't wait for next season already.
I doubt Pardew's going anywhere. Famous ex-player and the only two job openings he might consider would be West Ham and Southampton*, he has already managed at both and likely doesn't want to go back.
* Koeman will obviously be welcomed back but he's always been the kind of manager who is looking for his next job, whether at a big club abroad or answering the pleas of the Dutch nation to take over the Oranje from Hiddink.
* Koeman will obviously be welcomed back but he's always been the kind of manager who is looking for his next job, whether at a big club abroad or answering the pleas of the Dutch nation to take over the Oranje from Hiddink.
- Status