Uefa Talking Sense
Comments (20)
Just read that Uefa are considering revolutionary changes to the way football clubs are run in Europe.
Effectively, what they are saying is that clubs will in future have to live within their means and that expenditure on salaries, transfers and other operational costs should not exceed the income of the club. It looks like a real shot at the sugar daddy syndrome that is ruining the game, and would mean that City and Chelsea "projects" would come under threat.
It's a long way from talking about change to making it, but it's a sign of the mood in European football that Platini is taking Uefa in this direction. I believe that it could be a huge plus for a club like Everton and would, at last, relieve Blue Bill of his 24/7 search for a billionaire investor.
Gerry Grimes,
Dublin Posted 27/05/2010 at 21:38:01
Return to the Mail Bag
Comments
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
I don't understand this, if you own a company and it's doing crap or have overshot the wage bill... as long as you keep the banks sweet then what's the problem? I'm all for it but at the end of the day, if Citeh's owners want to blow money then that's their choice surely? IF they want to get a new player that the owner can afford but not the business, what's the income got to do with anything?
Ok, it's like gambling, but sometimes gambling pays off.
ps: I'm all for this scheme but think it has no chance of coming in to place.
Gerry, it won't happen mate. The top clubs around Europe are too powerful.
Money talks and always has.
Billionaires would simply buy the best legal people they could and blow it out of the water, never going to happen.
This blog on the BBC seems to make pretty good sense of it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/gordonfarquhar/2010/05/uefa_calls_clubs_to_account.html
I have to say that I’m in favour and (perhaps naively) optimistic that it’ll become reality.
I actually think though that billionaire owners do us a favour in some ways, they give clubs stupid amounts of cash (us Lescott, Santa Cruz) etc when otherwise they would not receive it. And also when they throw their toys out of the pram and leave, we will be in a stronger position (Leeds, Newcastle — admittedly not bankrolled by oil but crooks) — I know we're bigger than them both put together but you get my drift.
Look at Utd, Liverpool, were fortunate they got taken over because it is helping our cause in closing the gap (I meant).
It really won't make much of a difference, the clubs with the biggest incomes will have more to spend. So United, the RS, Arsenal and perhaps City and Spurs will always have more money than Bolton, Blackburn, Wigan and us.
Also it doesn't stop the billionaire owners from buying a new stadium, or a new training facility or spending money in other ways that free up income for the larger clubs to spend on players.
It's just a 'revolutionary' way to maintain the status quo and there are no automatic penalties applied.
The only way this would benefit us is if it drove down players wages. Not going to happen. Chelsea and Man C have no real debt, as it was converted to equity. Man U and Liverpool would have ample time to restructure.
It might have an impact on transfer fees, but we depend on selling our players for inflated fees as much as the next team.
If anything, it'll reinforce the stranglehold of the bigger clubs.
Always remember the Golden Rule...
Them what has the Gold makes the rules
City could generate more income simply by making a limited edition kit and selling them for £10m each. The Arab could buy 10 for himself and his mates. Turnover is up by £100m and City are no longer living beyond their means. Simples.
Gerry, that's not how i understood it...i.e. City and Chelsea.
They were saying that the club could only live within its means and not borrow to finance players and salaries. Therefore at City etc, nothing would change as they are not borrowing to create a false economy. Instead they are investing.
Liverpool, Fulham, Sunderland, us, Manure etc would fall foul of this though as they have borrowed to finance everything (as have we).
Arsenal, Chelsea, City and Newcastle would come up trumps.
I believe!
All very cynical, but alas probably correct. Nevertheless, something must be done about clubs being insolvent or on the verge of it. Always remember, Morgan Stanley, Enron et al were bigger and richer than any football club but it didn't stop them collapsing. Too big to fail? ... no such thing.
Won't make a blind bit of difference to City or Chelsea, who do not currently operate according to traditional business rules... but will severely impact the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal, United – so although it isn't the complete answer, it helps surely?
David Conn in The Guardian explains it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/may/26/michel-platini-uefa-club-finances
City will simply introduce the "£1million seat" which the sheik will buy tickets for every match thus meaning they are always living within their means.
Thanks Ella - very informative link.
The way it has "panned" out in our league (from what I've seen), you basically have two types of investors in Premier League football: you have American investors who simply treat it as a business venture and burden the club with a massive debt ... i.e. Manure, Redshite & Villa; then you have the spender billionares ... ie Chelsea, Man City.
It appears very difficult to me to prevent either type of investor from entering clubs; money will always win over & nothing will change. Sounds basically to me like a hot-air comment meant to sound like the right thing to say.
Sense?
I'm not so sure.
Does it include wages as well? What happens if you breach it? What's to stop Man city becoming a parent company for a oil company?
So many questions come from this proposal...it clearly won't create a level playing field...so, what's the point?
Sounds like a load f bollocks to me.
It also doesn't say that clubs cannot go into massive debt, the only requirement is that they are able to service the debt.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Log in now
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.
© ToffeeWeb
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
1 Posted 27/05/2010 at 21:59:12
Report abuse
Ok, it's like gambling, but sometimes gambling pays off.
ps: I'm all for this scheme but think it has no chance of coming in to place.