tooner 243 Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2009...p-uefa-ban.html wow, is all I have to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 wont happen - if they bring this in the big clubs will just set up a new superleague. and if the big clubs really take the huff - is there anything to stop them from setting up their own euro-wide association? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted August 27, 2009 Author Share Posted August 27, 2009 http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2009...p-uefa-ban.html wow, is all I have to say tough room........ apparently not all that interesting......i was shocked that ManUre were over 1billion in debt certainly has the potential to even the pitch if it goes through, or do you think clubs will find a way around this if it comes to pass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3311 Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 wont happen - if they bring this in the big clubs will just set up a new superleague. and if the big clubs really take the huff - is there anything to stop them from setting up their own euro-wide association? FIFA could ban their players from playing international football which a lot of them may miss. Also the idea of a euro superleague is a red herring imo. The amount of money dropped from laying week in week out in the domestic leagues is too much. Would they get more for a uero super league than they do for both champ league and domestic league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4296 Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 wont happen - if they bring this in the big clubs will just set up a new superleague. and if the big clubs really take the huff - is there anything to stop them from setting up their own euro-wide association? FIFA could ban their players from playing international football which a lot of them may miss. Also the idea of a euro superleague is a red herring imo. The amount of money dropped from laying week in week out in the domestic leagues is too much. Would they get more for a uero super league than they do for both champ league and domestic league? exactly, if things got that far which they wouldn't fifa would fuck them over completely and eventually they would stop mattering and there would be new "big teams" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul 0 Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 wont happen - if they bring this in the big clubs will just set up a new superleague. and if the big clubs really take the huff - is there anything to stop them from setting up their own euro-wide association? Would be a good thing imo, would certainly make domestic football more competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 27050 Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Looks like Chelsea have found a way to avoid it. Chelsea football club now 'virtually debt-free' Chelsea football club has said it is now "virtually debt-free". The company made the announcement along with its full-year results. It said it had turned almost all its debt into equity. The debt was an interest-free loan of £340m ($537m) from its parent company, which is controlled by wealthy Russian Roman Abramovich. Chelsea also announced reduced losses for the fourth year in a row. Losses fell to £44.4m ($70m) from £65.7m. Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck said: "The club's debt load has been reduced almost to nil in order to provide more long-term stability for the club. It will also enable the club to comply with any regulations on debt levels which are being discussed by the football community." 'Disciplined management' Chelsea needs to be debt-free to comply with future Uefa rules. Uefa's president, Michel Platini, wants to ban clubs from the lucrative Champions League after 2012 unless they break even on football-related business. The club said that "disciplined management" of capital expenditure had reduced the cash spend from £107.4m to £16.9m. It added that revenues remained stable despite the economic climate, reflecting the strength of the team, its continued success and the attractiveness of the FA Premier League allied with the continued allegiance of our fans and commercial partners. Net capital expenditure fell from £85.1m to £4.2m following the completion of major capital projects such as the training centre at Cobham The results include exceptional items of £12.6m related to compensation payments to a first team manager and three coaching staff. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8434698.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 And at the other end of the spectrum.... Portsmouth Football Club has been issued with a winding-up petition by HM Revenue & Customs, the BBC has learned. The petition was presented on 23 December, but a full court hearing will not take place until February. If the club is unable to strengthen its financial position by then, the club could be declared bankrupt. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8434987.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 And at the other end of the spectrum.... Portsmouth Football Club has been issued with a winding-up petition by HM Revenue & Customs, the BBC has learned. The petition was presented on 23 December, but a full court hearing will not take place until February. If the club is unable to strengthen its financial position by then, the club could be declared bankrupt. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8434987.stm ouch. They were "well managed" a couple of years ago, when we were the only team in the country "spending money we didn't have" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Looks like Chelsea have found a way to avoid it. Chelsea football club now 'virtually debt-free' Chelsea football club has said it is now "virtually debt-free". The company made the announcement along with its full-year results. It said it had turned almost all its debt into equity. The debt was an interest-free loan of £340m ($537m) from its parent company, which is controlled by wealthy Russian Roman Abramovich. Chelsea also announced reduced losses for the fourth year in a row. Losses fell to £44.4m ($70m) from £65.7m. Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck said: "The club's debt load has been reduced almost to nil in order to provide more long-term stability for the club. It will also enable the club to comply with any regulations on debt levels which are being discussed by the football community." 'Disciplined management' Chelsea needs to be debt-free to comply with future Uefa rules. Uefa's president, Michel Platini, wants to ban clubs from the lucrative Champions League after 2012 unless they break even on football-related business. The club said that "disciplined management" of capital expenditure had reduced the cash spend from £107.4m to £16.9m. It added that revenues remained stable despite the economic climate, reflecting the strength of the team, its continued success and the attractiveness of the FA Premier League allied with the continued allegiance of our fans and commercial partners. Net capital expenditure fell from £85.1m to £4.2m following the completion of major capital projects such as the training centre at Cobham The results include exceptional items of £12.6m related to compensation payments to a first team manager and three coaching staff. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8434698.stm Given that it's a loan from another company, isn't that still a debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 27050 Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 It's not technically a loan though, they've just exchanged the debt for shares e.g. instead of Abramovich owning 100% for 500 shares, he now owns 100% of 1000 shares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCUM 1 Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 If it stops anybody else from doing a 'Glazer' and dumping the purchase price onto the club's books, it can only be a good thing. Liverpool's owners then followed the same plan. It's immoral, why should supporters have to stump up the purchase cost for these leeches. If you want to buy a club then you should have to stump up the cash or raise it from personal borrowings. The only slight downfall is that if all clubs can only operate within the parameters of self generated revenue then the same 'big clubs' will always stay at the top. Then again, is that not what is already happening bar Chelski? I think it would certainly be good for North East football. Both Newcastle, and to a lesser extent Sunderland, are capable of standing up with most in self generating revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Speculate to accumulate is great in principle but the problem is that football operates across a number of tiers. The leagues first of all, then the 3 distinct groups in the top league we have now, then Europe. The problem for clubs that speculate and do well is that for them to consolidate their position amongst their new peers and perhaps go on to do well in Europe, they need further investment. Hence creating the need to spend before the revenues can be gained. However, removing the ability of clubs like Man City, Chelsea and Real Madrid from operating the way they do should bring down inflation in wages/prices. Price inflation feeds the debt cycle for ambitious clubs, so controlling this may ease the problem. There is imo a bit of mix-up of ideas about competition in sport and competition in markets. Many people like to think of sport as a competitive market, so the rules of the economic market should apply i.e. clubs should be allowed to flourish or die without intervention. This is daft. Football is already a highly regulated game since it has rules. It is the rules that define it as a sport. Therefore, rules of engagement need to be applied to the organisation of the game as well as the game itself. Is the advantage of having debts beyond the means of the club itself just like the advantage gained from controlling the ball with the hand before scoring? Perhaps its even greater but at the moment it isnt even considered 'cheating'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCUM 1 Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Many years ago, when football club's first started to become plc's, there was a lot of opposition to it from supporters. The cries then were that it's 'sport' not 'business'. How times have changed! I now think that it's the best and fairest way to run football clubs. They are subject to conventional business law and with a plc there is a degree of openness with the financials. If supporters trusts can raise sufficient money to have a major say within that plc then so much the better. Either side of the 'plc' phenomenon we had differing scenarios. Firstly we had the Westwoods, McKeags, Edwards of this world lining their pockets and more recently we've had the Russians & Arabs happy to pour money in without any intention of a return. I'm not convinced either extreme is good for the game. I never thought I'd hear myself say it, but bring back the plc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCUM 1 Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 There is imo a bit of mix-up of ideas about competition in sport and competition in markets. Many people like to think of sport as a competitive market, so the rules of the economic market should apply i.e. clubs should be allowed to flourish or die without intervention. This is daft. Why is it daft though? Like it or not, professional sport is big business now and it should have to stand or fall along those lines. More general business is being slowly strangled by the dreaded pre-pack and phoenix companies and it won't be long before it's happening regularly in football. Why should club's be allowed to spend billions they don't have, bump the company and the debts and then carry on with a major advantage over other club's who have managed their finances properly? Ultimately, that's where it's leading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 15005 Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) There is imo a bit of mix-up of ideas about competition in sport and competition in markets. Many people like to think of sport as a competitive market, so the rules of the economic market should apply i.e. clubs should be allowed to flourish or die without intervention. This is daft. Why is it daft though? Like it or not, professional sport is big business now and it should have to stand or fall along those lines. More general business is being slowly strangled by the dreaded pre-pack and phoenix companies and it won't be long before it's happening regularly in football. Why should club's be allowed to spend billions they don't have, bump the company and the debts and then carry on with a major advantage over other club's who have managed their finances properly? Ultimately, that's where it's leading. Because it's immoral, but not literally cheating...like say a club like say Juventus for example. Who Michel Platini used to play for. If he wants a level playing filed in european football theres no fuckin way they should've been allowed back in the champs league for at least a decade. He should look closer to home if he wants worse examples of what he may or may not consider to be cheating your way to an advantage. Edited December 31, 2009 by PaddockLad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCUM 1 Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Because it's immoral, but not literally cheating...like say a club like say Juventus for example. Who Michel Platini used to play for. If he wants a level playing filed in european football theres no fuckin way they should've been allowed back in the champs league for at least a decade. He should look closer to home if he wants worse examples of what he may or may not consider to be cheating your way to an advantage. Platini is a cock of the highest order (like most of UEFA) who constantly shows his arse with his anti English vitriol. I agree about Juventus and the noise is conspicuous by it's absence when the Spanish government repeatedly bail out their 'pet club'! We are going back 40 years to when football was a rich man's plaything, the only difference is that they are now shovelling money in rather than out (with the obvious exception of your lord & master) but that doesn't make it better in my view. I just want to see clubs 'sustainable' in their own right and not have the risk of thousands of supporters having the future of their club's dependant on the whim of an Abramovic, Ashley or Glazer. Sure the big clubs will always survive, when Glazer finally runs out of funding and can't borrow any more, there will always be a rich arab or such-like prepared to take it on but the same isn't true for all clubs. There has to be a 'line in the sand' somewhere. For me, that was breached when somebody was allowed to buy Wimbledon and move it to Milton Keynes. It's been downhill from there. It is sport and it is business and I appreciate that we need rules and regulations that encompass both, which is difficult I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt 0 Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) What the Glazers have done at Man Utd has been repeated all over the world in all industries with some massive sucesses but just as many huge failures. Many regulated industries must maintain their finances at a certain level (water companies for an example need to maintain a BBB grading so they cant take on dangerous levels of debt). What we need is a sensible approach to club finance along similar lines- some debt is necessary but can be restricted in its usage- for example debt incurred in building a stadium would be treated seperately. It is not unreasonable to restrict over-leveraging of football clubs- you simply put a leverage cap on the 'operating licence holder' (ClubCo) and any additional debt must be raised above this level (HoldCo) meaning that the club itself is protected from the brunt of the aggressive structure. Most importantly, clubs need to control their wage bill. If we don't want clubs to fail then the free market in the football industry will need to be curbed. Edited December 31, 2009 by Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 What the Glazers have done at Man Utd has been repeated all over the world in all industries with some massive sucesses but just as many huge failures. Many regulated industries must maintain their finances at a certain level (water companies for an example need to maintain a BBB grading so they cant take on dangerous levels of debt). What we need is a sensible approach to club finance along similar lines- some debt is necessary but can be restricted in its usage- for example debt incurred in building a stadium would be treated seperately. It is not unreasonable to restrict over-leveraging of football clubs- you simply put a leverage cap on the 'operating licence holder' (ClubCo) and any additional debt must be raised above this level (HoldCo) meaning that the club itself is protected from the brunt of the aggressive structure. Most importantly, clubs need to control their wage bill . If we don't want clubs to fail then the free market in the football industry will need to be curbed. possibly the biggest point of all. How to do it ? Would the PFA sanction some sort of wage capping or percentage of earnings of the big earners to be used for the benefit of all their members or football as a whole. I doubt it personally but somebody has to get a grip of this and come up with a workable and acceptabale solution to spiralling and obscene, eerr, I can't bring myself to call it "wages" as it implies money well earned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCUM 1 Posted January 1, 2010 Share Posted January 1, 2010 Matt / Leazes, I agree with you that the wages are obscene and it needs controlling but how to do it? The usual scenario discussed is making players wages a percentage of turnover but that just protects the big clubs. As chezgiven rightly said earlier in this thread, clubs need to speculate to accumulate sometimes. In effect this denies them the opportunity to do that and build a club up, they can't start to improve the quality of playing staff until they increase turnover, it's the old chicken & egg syndrome. A couple of years ago, I was talking a senior exec of Nike on the train about the same thing. He told me that discussions had already taken place with certain clubs that if wage capping came in, they would reduce the amount paid directly to clubs for sponsorship and increase the sponsorship deals to the individual players to get round it. They will find ways around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now