"Portsmouth are a perfect example of why FFP need to be enforced immediately"

I think people are forgetting the very distinct difference between them and, say, Chelsea or City. Their owners didn't actually have the money. This is where the lines between FFP and the fit and proper persons test seem to have been blurred. Platini bangs on about how he wants investment to continue, which is why infrastructure investment is exempt.

A lot of the initial reasons FFP was done for in the first place wouldnt have been needed if there was a fit and proper persons test that was, well, fit and proper.

comment by TheKaisersTrainers (U5676)
posted 22 minutes ago
"You still don't understand what is wrong here do you?"

err, no

..................

Then I can only assume you are one very thick individual.

Your own club are for FFP for a very good reason.

Do a thread on your own board and ask your sensible fans like Kemlyn and Dr Seven why City and Chelsea are bad for Liverpool.

It isn't Rocket Science.

"Boris, hypothetically speaking, if your owners business plan fails or unrest in the middle east causes them to cut their loosses, what do you think will happen to your beloved City"

Mudd,

It depends when that would hypothetically happen. If we were still running at a loss and it was after the academy and investment in that was finished, then we would sell off some of the playing staff and look to there. We would still have the infrastructure in place though for a sustainable model from that point on, which is where the long term plan kicks in.

I have to say though, there is nothing in any of their investment history, nor anything that they have done so far, that points towards them doing anything but a long term plan. UEFA have had full visibility of it and said they are happy, so unless that changes, I'm happy too. We will not keep spending like we have done in the past few seasons, I don't think the owners could have been much clearer than that and at all times, they have said they are building a long term sustainable model.

If Bozo wasn't such a inveterate partisan pillock, he actually makes a few salient points.

My stance on 'domestic FFP' is very vague and i am still formulating my opinion.

UEFA's FFP plans on the hand i fully endorse - though it remains to be seen how they intend to fully implement it.

I don't know if you've heard of Amazon - They're now the world's biggest on-line retailer. For the first 9 (nine) years of their existance they made a loss but eventually their business plan came to fruition and they now make a huge profit.
___________________

Funnily enough I have heard of Amazon.

Firstly, your comment is not entirely accurate. I believe it took around 7 years for Amazon to turn a profit - and it needed to generate revenue of more than $1bn in order to make a profit (of just $5m).

The business plan actually failed as it was intended to turn a profit after 4-5 years, which in itself is quite a long time - most investors won't wait that long and Amazon shareholders were fuming that the company ran at a loss for so long.

I would also have a glance at the thread discussing HMV and Blockbuster....Amazon was extremely lucky that it was able to take market share from these giants (and many others that folded sooner) so easily because they simply failed to respond to the competitive threat of online retail. They had stronger brands, more money and a loyal customer base but they screwed up. I think it's fair to say that City's global competitors will not fold quite so easily because their customers (fans) are not quite so ready to switch suppliers (allegiance to club) based on which one is offering the "best deal".

While I take your point, your comparison is flawed in numerous ways. Amazon employed a disruptive business model of disintermediation (cutting out the middle man). They didn't just throw money at it and hope for the best.

"They didn't just throw money at it and hope for the best."

If you think that is what City's owners are doing Misty, fair enough, I went think that is the case at all though. Remember, the consumer for football is global, in plenty of cases, allegiances don't need to be switched (although certain players can help do that, Sun jihai for us for example!), areas that have less coverage just need to be targeted, which is already working well for us. Couple that with the money within the game from tv, the champions league etc. and there is more than just fanbase size that contributes to revenue growth.

"They didn't just throw money at it and hope for the best."

If that accusation had been levelled at Thakin Shinawatra you wouldn't have been wide of the mark but our present owners are in a different league altogether when it comes to both finance and planning.

The Amazon reference was just a loose analogy as obviously an online buisness is galaxies away from owing a football club in practically every repect but my point is that initial losses don't automatically mean that a venture is doomed to failure.

Fair points Melton - I was a bit flippant with that comment. I'm sure they do have a business plan but I don't think it's right for the game. We've seen a 1000% increase in transfer fees in the PL era and I think the sugardaddy model is the worst thing for football.

So many fans don't appreciate that it is precisely this sort of market distortion - particularly wages - that cause ticket prices to increase to the extent that "real" fans can't afford it any more.

Also, smaller clubs will have to keep increasing their wage bill just to attract half decent players because it's the only way they can even attempt to compete. And they don't have sugardaddies to keep wiping the slate clean. That's what this is really about. City turning this into an issue about United is completely missing the point. united are not scared of City - we are rich enough through our own football business to remain competitive. It's everyone else that can't.

I appreciate that FFP does not fix this problem to anyone's satisfaction but it helps because it effectively sets an upper limit on what players can cost. Wages will not be allowed to continue to increase exponentially which can only be good for all clubs and fans alike.

Your business model might eventually come good for you. But at what cost to the game in the meantime?

I agree misty, I would say though that a lot of the same arguments can be pointed the other way too. Average transfer fees and wages increased by a far greater proportion in the nineties before sugar daddies
came on the scene. That was for smaller clubs too.

Ditto with ticket prices, Arsenals rise for example was linked to their stadium repayment costs, not their wage bill. You are right that united aren't scared as they can afford to compete with us financially, the same can be said the other way as well. Newcastle, Blackburn and Arsenal all had significant investment in their playing staff to be able to compete with you in the nineties, it would be the same for anyone trying to now as well.

The money in football won't stop due to FFP (I am actually for a lot of FFP by the way, as I believe city will comply anyway). Just look at the new tv deal for example, that will end up going somewhere and I highly doubt it will subsidise ticket prices. You can say what cost to the game in terms of our model, but I would argue back to that what got investors interested in football in the first place? Football cannot reap all of these financial benefits and then cry foul when others want a piece of the action.

Like I said, I am for a lot of FFP. I just don't think it is as clear cut as some people make it out to be and the problems created financially in football are far from being just investors fault, it has been this way since I can remember. I've also said numerous times that I'm against it purely due to the current economic climate, but that is a different debate entirely!

You are right though that this should not just be a club vs club argument. That is part of the problem, no one is willing o see the others point of view.

TV money drove up wages much, much more than anything

The deals the prem put together for rights, etc have just kept growing

And the players know it

I don't think City fans have any concern on what effects it has on the game and with good cause. United were one of the first clubs to break away from the 'local family business' concept by floating on the stock exchange and were co-instigators of both the PL and CL both of which have polarised football to a certain extent and both of which have generated higher prices.

Arsenal blame City for all their woes but what happed in the years prior to 2008 when they weren't winning trophies yet paying top wages.

Liverpool's owners may have thought they'd bought a healthy franchise and they enjoy a huge fanbase but how many of those fans are actually buying the merchandise everytime the club has a bad season? Revenue is probably dropping in real terms thus the need to to try and stiffle the competition.

I believe revenue is well up on the commercial side for Liverpool

they negotiated massive long term sponsrship deals and have been promoting globally

Of course TV money created a step change in player wages and it had a very simiar ripple effect. But the point is that every new pseudo-riche club creates yet another step change as they have to offer above market rates to attract the best players to their "project". The new market rate is then "set" - it does not return to what it was. Then the next rich owner comes along, and so on, artificially inflating the market.

Also, the key difference is that TV money ultimately comes from the fans - same as gate receipts. That's very different to money being pumped in by people who became wealthy in other industries. I.e. eventually you hit a ceiling in terms of what fans would be prepared to pay for Sky tv. Thus, Sky will eventually reach its limit in terms of what it can afford to bid for football rights.

My whole point throughout this thread is that with sugardaddies there is no upper limit. Nothing to correct the system. No supply and demand curve to establish market equilibrium. It is quite literally a false economy. Not completely unlike the one that caused global financial meltdown. I.e. people and companies making bad investments, borrowing what they can't afford, spending beyond their means, etc.

PS look at Setanta to see what happens when companies bid more for football rights than they can afford.

the FFP were designed by the big clubs for the big clubs. Do you think Bayern, Madrid and United want to go the way of HMV to be replaced by the Amazon that is City, Chelsea or PSG. No way. Which is why they will strong arm UEFA into getting their own way. 90% of the worlds football fans support less than 1% of the clubs and thats where the power lies, not in the old fields of Russia and the Middle East.

oil

To be fair, you are forgetting about a fair few revenue streams Misty, such as sponsorship. The upper ceiling of a sugar daddy club is the exact same as the upper ceiling of a club that is the richest organically - it is slightly higher than anyone else. Neither of those change the fact though that football inflation (which absolutely includes sponsorship and money generated outside football) created far bigger rises in transfers, wages and ticket prices than artificial investment has done. That inflation was just as more damaging to clubs as anything sugar daddies have done, as clubs still had to spend to compete, it is just that even their owners didn't have the money. That's when you get a club do something like Leeds.

Melton it really isn't about morality or stopping wage inflation, or protecting the small clubs it is all about maintaining the status quo. It is about keeping the big clubs big and successful. And it will work.

I agree Siempre, I've never thought otherwise to be honest!

My whole point throughout this thread is that with sugardaddies there is no upper limit.

So what? The history of football is littered with stories of money triumphing over morality. Supporters of clubs who seem to think that they have UEFA in their pockets because they sell more shirts in the the Third World may be in for a shock when the seriously rich get involved.

"Melton it really isn't about morality or stopping wage inflation, or protecting the small clubs it is all about maintaining the status quo. It is about keeping the big clubs big and successful. And it will work."



that's why I oppose it. Rigging the game.

Something needs to be done and there are other ways. This one was written as a tantrum of self-interest, anti-competitiveness, and in the interests of the sponsors.

90% of the worlds football fans support less than 1% of the clubs and thats where the power lies, not in the old fields of Russia and the Middle East.

...and City are in that 1% if you like it or not. Latin America follows La Liga, Europe is obviously parochial but the populous countries of Africa and Asia are solidly behind the PL and more people probably watch Wigan regularly on a global scale than watch Dortmund or Schalke.

So many fans don't appreciate that it is precisely this sort of market distortion - particularly wages - that cause ticket prices to increase to the extent that "real" fans can't afford it any more.

Also, smaller clubs will have to keep increasing their wage bill just to attract half decent players because it's the only way they can even attempt to compete. And they don't have sugardaddies to keep wiping the slate clean. That's what this is really about. City turning this into an issue about United is completely missing the point. united are not scared of City - we are rich enough through our own football business to remain competitive. It's everyone else that can't.
............................

This has always been my point, the sugar daddies have been pretty good for United in a way, Chelsea drove us onto new levels in order to beat them and City seem to be doing the same.

It is everyone else that suffers.

We've seen a 1000% increase in transfer fees in the PL era

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

And if sugar daddy's hadn't come along, what would that percentage increase over the same period be?

The answer: exactly the same.

Don't believe me? Then posit your "argument" in another period, any period, one of your own choosing, evaluate the facts, and then get back to me.

Interesting

http://abehnisch.com/comparing-big-club-spending/