Comments on: Do UEFA’s Financial Reforms Unfairly Target Manchester City? http://www.epltalk.com/do-uefas-financial-reforms-unfairly-target-manchester-city/11243 Daily News & Analysis of the English Premier League Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:31:20 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Huh http://www.epltalk.com/do-uefas-financial-reforms-unfairly-target-manchester-city/11243#comment-73653 Huh Sat, 19 Sep 2009 10:29:30 +0000 http://www.epltalk.com/?p=11243#comment-73653 If Abramovich left Chelsea he would have to sell the club which also includes his personal loans, therefore zeroing it's balance (unless he is willing to take a huge loss)and whoever could afford Chelsea would have to be extremely rich leaving them where they already are, with not much disruption to the club. Platini's plans are not just slanted towards the bigger clubs they are 99% vertical! If Abramovich left Chelsea he would have to sell the club which also includes his personal loans, therefore zeroing it’s balance (unless he is willing to take a huge loss)and whoever could afford Chelsea would have to be extremely rich leaving them where they already are, with not much disruption to the club.

Platini’s plans are not just slanted towards the bigger clubs they are 99% vertical!

]]> By: brn442 http://www.epltalk.com/do-uefas-financial-reforms-unfairly-target-manchester-city/11243#comment-73628 brn442 Sat, 19 Sep 2009 02:56:37 +0000 http://www.epltalk.com/?p=11243#comment-73628 What exactly is "soccer generated income"? Does that mean: per club - per league? As previous posters have asked; how is that NOT going to solidify the status quo? Is a heavily leveraged Manchester United, Liverpool, or a Real Madrid brimming with debt (and, yes - they still will be three years from now) be exempted because they can service their loans, while " nouveau riche " clubs like Man City and Chelsea get shafted. How will Clubs from Ligue 1 and the Eredivise who do not get EPL type TV money compete with their richer counterparts in the larger leagues in Europe? I agree that clubs should be punished if they get into self imposed financial distress, however, it should be none of Platini's business where they get their money from. What exactly is “soccer generated income”? Does that mean: per club – per league? As previous posters have asked; how is that NOT going to solidify the status quo? Is a heavily leveraged Manchester United, Liverpool, or a Real Madrid brimming with debt (and, yes – they still will be three years from now) be exempted because they can service their loans, while ” nouveau riche ” clubs like Man City and Chelsea get shafted. How will Clubs from Ligue 1 and the Eredivise who do not get EPL type TV money compete with their richer counterparts in the larger leagues in Europe? I agree that clubs should be punished if they get into self imposed financial distress, however, it should be none of Platini’s business where they get their money from.

]]> By: Thomas http://www.epltalk.com/do-uefas-financial-reforms-unfairly-target-manchester-city/11243#comment-73622 Thomas Sat, 19 Sep 2009 01:51:13 +0000 http://www.epltalk.com/?p=11243#comment-73622 I have to agree with the sentiment that there is a trully anti English bias in the world governing bodies. If French clubs were in the same position as many English clubs, there would be no problem. I don't think Platini really has a problem with Madrid and Barca. He seems to be ignoring the fact that there is a difference between good and bad debt. I have to agree with the sentiment that there is a trully anti English bias in the world governing bodies.

If French clubs were in the same position as many English clubs, there would be no problem. I don’t think Platini really has a problem with Madrid and Barca.

He seems to be ignoring the fact that there is a difference between good and bad debt.

]]> By: jleau http://www.epltalk.com/do-uefas-financial-reforms-unfairly-target-manchester-city/11243#comment-73619 jleau Sat, 19 Sep 2009 01:20:00 +0000 http://www.epltalk.com/?p=11243#comment-73619 Not that I don't think Platini is lunatic, but I don't see that this idea is really that bad. It seems to me that these regulations are aimed at protecting the long-term interests of the clubs and their supporters. The rules don't say that a club like City of instance can't grab a sugar daddy and get tremendous benefits from it. That sugar daddy is going to have to make a real investment in the club not just a temprary splurge on players. New owners can invest in new stadia, or any number of things that can increase the football revenue of the club and by proxy increase the long-term budget that can be spent on players. It's not the quick fix that City is now enjoying but over the long-term aren't clubs better off with that kind of investment? By the way, it's seems to that the new City owners may be willing to do both. It seems to me that these rules are more aimed at Abromovich scenarios or even what is now in place at Liverpool. Roman hasn't really invested anything in Chelsea except a big loan with a delayed payment. All the money was spent on players (short term). If he pulled out tomorrow Chelsea would be left deeply in debt and in a couple of years all of those players would be gone. Certainly this is slanted towards helping bigger clubs and that's not ideal, but that doesn't make it sinister. Hopefully UEFA will take a additional steps to correct the inherent imbalance between the varying clubs. Not that I don’t think Platini is lunatic, but I don’t see that this idea is really that bad. It seems to me that these regulations are aimed at protecting the long-term interests of the clubs and their supporters. The rules don’t say that a club like City of instance can’t grab a sugar daddy and get tremendous benefits from it. That sugar daddy is going to have to make a real investment in the club not just a temprary splurge on players. New owners can invest in new stadia, or any number of things that can increase the football revenue of the club and by proxy increase the long-term budget that can be spent on players.

It’s not the quick fix that City is now enjoying but over the long-term aren’t clubs better off with that kind of investment? By the way, it’s seems to that the new City owners may be willing to do both.

It seems to me that these rules are more aimed at Abromovich scenarios or even what is now in place at Liverpool. Roman hasn’t really invested anything in Chelsea except a big loan with a delayed payment. All the money was spent on players (short term). If he pulled out tomorrow Chelsea would be left deeply in debt and in a couple of years all of those players would be gone.

Certainly this is slanted towards helping bigger clubs and that’s not ideal, but that doesn’t make it sinister. Hopefully UEFA will take a additional steps to correct the inherent imbalance between the varying clubs.

]]> By: cdoyle http://www.epltalk.com/do-uefas-financial-reforms-unfairly-target-manchester-city/11243#comment-73611 cdoyle Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:53:51 +0000 http://www.epltalk.com/?p=11243#comment-73611 Punctuation, people. Jesus Christ. Punctuation, people. Jesus Christ.

]]> By: Huh http://www.epltalk.com/do-uefas-financial-reforms-unfairly-target-manchester-city/11243#comment-73604 Huh Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:41:29 +0000 http://www.epltalk.com/?p=11243#comment-73604 It's definitely going to be used, they just need to sort out things like different tax rates in each county i.e. English high end income tax 50% Spanish 25% Platini trys to make it look like this is good for football when the reality is its only any good for UEFA making more money, but he will be backed by the most powerful clubs who have it all to gain! hopefully it can still be stopped. It’s definitely going to be used, they just need to sort out things like different tax rates in each county i.e. English high end income tax 50% Spanish 25% Platini trys to make it look like this is good for football when the reality is its only any good for UEFA making more money, but he will be backed by the most powerful clubs who have it all to gain! hopefully it can still be stopped.

]]> By: Huh http://www.epltalk.com/do-uefas-financial-reforms-unfairly-target-manchester-city/11243#comment-73603 Huh Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:31:19 +0000 http://www.epltalk.com/?p=11243#comment-73603 Platini's attack is not on Man City think about it. In 3 years if City are not totally self sufficient and more, they can do very simple things like get the biggest ever shirt sponsorship deal with any of the other companies they own or have a majority share in very easy to dodge. The problem is that big business is being attracted to the EPL and this is no good for Platinis dream of a European Super League the more EPL teams have to spend the more Europe's other Leagues lose their best players (just like other countries before them)and then follows the money. That means less money and power for the disgusting French piggy and his cronies. He only wants the strong to become stronger so he can say well there is no point in keeping these Leagues going because the same teams win every year (only because UEFA made it this way) so lets take the top teams from each country and make a supper league, too much interest in the EPL only means trouble for this long term plan. These Leagues each have turns at the top in the 80’s and 90’s it was Italy turn late 90’s early to mid 00’s Spain's go. You see it's not City he's not happy about it's the other clubs that might do the same. Sod Schalke 04, Bolton, Rennes, Athletico Madrid, and Vitesse Arnhem they can play but not win. I'm Sure you get my drift. Something needs to be done about UEFA and it’s money and power hungry little piggys. UFEA should always come second to the countries Leagues! Platini’s attack is not on Man City think about it. In 3 years if City are not totally self sufficient and more, they can do very simple things like get the biggest ever shirt sponsorship deal with any of the other companies they own or have a majority share in very easy to dodge. The problem is that big business is being attracted to the EPL and this is no good for Platinis dream of a European Super League the more EPL teams have to spend the more Europe’s other Leagues lose their best players (just like other countries before them)and then follows the money. That means less money and power for the disgusting French piggy and his cronies. He only wants the strong to become stronger so he can say well there is no point in keeping these Leagues going because the same teams win every year (only because UEFA made it this way) so lets take the top teams from each country and make a supper league, too much interest in the EPL only means trouble for this long term plan. These Leagues each have turns at the top in the 80’s and 90’s it was Italy turn late 90’s early to mid 00’s Spain’s go.
You see it’s not City he’s not happy about it’s the other clubs that might do the same. Sod Schalke 04, Bolton, Rennes, Athletico Madrid, and Vitesse Arnhem they can play but not win. I’m Sure you get my drift. Something needs to be done about UEFA and it’s money and power hungry little piggys. UFEA should always come second to the countries Leagues!

]]> By: Tench http://www.epltalk.com/do-uefas-financial-reforms-unfairly-target-manchester-city/11243#comment-73601 Tench Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:11:19 +0000 http://www.epltalk.com/?p=11243#comment-73601 Well said. Throw in the fact that the European Qualifying system rewards good teams with money, which for a person used to American draft rules, I'm flabbergasted by this. Is this plan for real? Might this actually go anywhere? Well said. Throw in the fact that the European Qualifying system rewards good teams with money, which for a person used to American draft rules, I’m flabbergasted by this. Is this plan for real? Might this actually go anywhere?

]]> By: Huh http://www.epltalk.com/do-uefas-financial-reforms-unfairly-target-manchester-city/11243#comment-73598 Huh Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:41:50 +0000 http://www.epltalk.com/?p=11243#comment-73598 Dave Man City cost £119m, £220 Player and land development to bring in line with the top clubs, Ground and its land approx £200m Total = £539m. Man Utd Cost approx £870m, Liverpool £605m excluding its debts pos £219m total = £824m, Arsenal £670 plus debts pos £400m total = £1.0bn+ Chelsea £750m? debts £? total =£750m+ Now do you know what they saw in City? Dave

Man City cost £119m, £220 Player and land development to bring in line with the top clubs, Ground and its land approx £200m Total = £539m.
Man Utd Cost approx £870m,
Liverpool £605m excluding its debts pos £219m total = £824m,
Arsenal £670 plus debts pos £400m total = £1.0bn+
Chelsea £750m? debts £? total =£750m+

Now do you know what they saw in City?

]]> By: fifthcolumnblue http://www.epltalk.com/do-uefas-financial-reforms-unfairly-target-manchester-city/11243#comment-73597 fifthcolumnblue Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:31:49 +0000 http://www.epltalk.com/?p=11243#comment-73597 @ Phil Lines - You forgot to mention that our owners recently hauled Barclays Bank out of the mire by investing £2billion, and then several months later, sold the same stake for £4 billion. For the benefit of those who are somewhat lacking in the brains department (not mentioning any names TYSON), that's a profit of £2 billion in just under a year. To put that figure into perspective, that is what Roman Abramovich's personal wealth is estimated to be after the effects of the credit crunch. Stick to biting ears Tyson, you obviously aren't up to anything else. @ Phil Lines – You forgot to mention that our owners recently hauled Barclays Bank out of the mire by investing £2billion, and then several months later, sold the same stake for £4 billion. For the benefit of those who are somewhat lacking in the brains department (not mentioning any names TYSON), that’s a profit of £2 billion in just under a year. To put that figure into perspective, that is what Roman Abramovich’s personal wealth is estimated to be after the effects of the credit crunch.

Stick to biting ears Tyson, you obviously aren’t up to anything else.

]]>