Title: Platini's new plan for 2012
Description: "clubs to live within their means"
davegordo - August 27, 2009 05:45 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
MONACO - UEFA president Michel Platini revealed his plans for financial reforms in European football on Thursday which could signal the end of "sugar daddies" buying into the game and transforming the fortunes of a club.
The key to Platini's vision of what he has called "financial fair play" is for all clubs to be made to only spend what they earn in football revenues and he says he has the backing of Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich and other rich club owners.
The rules, which UEFA is still formulating and which will not be in place at least until 2012, would also mean owners such as Manchester City's Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan would not be able to make huge gifts of cash to their clubs.
The clubs would, according to Platini, "have to live within their means instead."
Platini told a news conference: "We have everyone on board with this, the owners, the players, the leagues, the national associations.
"If a club can get loans from a bank to buy players and is able to pay back bank loans then it is not a problem. But if a club gets a lot of money or subsidies from a big backer and is still in deficit in two years then it is a problem and we don't want that."
Platini added that an independent panel would be set up to judge whether clubs had broken the rules.
"The panel will refer any matter to the disciplinary committee and sanctions will be taken from a reminder to a fine to expulsion from the Champions League," he said.
Many of Europe's top clubs have huge debts, with Real Madrid having an estimated debt of 563 million euros up to the end of the 2007-08 season.
Financial experts have estimated Real's current debt could run to around 900 million euros following their close season spending spree.
Premier League club Chelsea reported losses of 65.7 million pounds up to June last year while Red Football, Manchester United's parent company owned by the Glazer family, recorded a 21-million-pound loss last year and has a total debt of 575 million pounds.
FORK OUT
Platini said he had the backing of club owners. "It's mainly the owners that asked us to do something - Roman Abramovich, (AC Milan's) Silvio Berlusconi, (Inter Milan's) Massimo Moratti. They do not want to fork out from their pockets any more," he said.
"I have told Mr Abramovich about this and he said nothing against it." UEFA would also look at losses incurred by clubs' parent companies who have to service loans, said Platini.
Sanctions - if implemented - would depend on the size of a club's losses, said UEFA deputy general secretary Gianni Infantino, who is in charge of the detailed planning process.
He said around 20 clubs had been sanctioned in the past few seasons and not given a UEFA licence because their finances were not in order.
"The potential sanction will have to be in proportion - it will be different if you make a loss of one million every two years or 100 million every year," Infantino said.
He said the new rules would not stop clubs like Manchester City breaking up the domination of the Big Four in the Premier League - as long as they were run on the right lines.
"We think that the opposite will happen because if you have a rich sugar daddy coming in and throwing money around this is unhealthy in the medium and long-term," he said.
"For the club to be healthy it has to live on its own means and generate income and this is not impossible. Clubs have generated revenues by investing in stadiums otherwise it is an artificial bubble which inflates the system and is unhealthy and unsustainable." |
davegordo - August 27, 2009 05:48 PM (GMT)
this is good news for us! we're the only team in the top 6 (last seasons table) that are actually "living with our means" we'll fiannly be rewarded for that!
Injury Time - August 27, 2009 05:52 PM (GMT)
If they are not in administration they are "within their means" can see the clubs telling them to feck off and forming a super league :rolleyes:
In Lehmanns Terms - August 27, 2009 06:01 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Injury Time @ Aug 27 2009, 06:52 PM) |
| If they are not in administration they are "within their means" can see the clubs telling them to feck off and forming a super league :rolleyes: |
Good point.
Even though I think Platini is saying the right things, he's not thinking them through.
The fact is there's literally BILLIONS going into and through football nowadays and no-one, even UEFA can do a thing to stop that.
What really should be enforced is a worldwide salary and transfer cap where no single player can earn more than 100k after taxes and can cost no more than £40-£50mil tops!
That would be a start I guess.
davegordo - August 27, 2009 06:04 PM (GMT)
Never gonna happen. FIFA wouldn't allow it!
If the article is true thats a very short time to get finances in order for teams like Chelsea, Real and City, who's wage bills would put them well outside the "within their means" criteria!
I can see the big teams having a bad reaction complete denial "you can't do this to us we're Real madrid you need us in the CL".
Wenger would become the most valuable manager in modern history if it is true!
In Lehmanns Terms - August 27, 2009 06:09 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (davegordo @ Aug 27 2009, 07:04 PM) |
Wenger would become the most valuable manager in modern history if it is true! |
I bet Platini didn't think of that one :lol:
Mug :pal:
davegordo - August 27, 2009 06:11 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (In Lehmanns Terms @ Aug 27 2009, 06:01 PM) |
| QUOTE (Injury Time @ Aug 27 2009, 06:52 PM) | | If they are not in administration they are "within their means" can see the clubs telling them to feck off and forming a super league :rolleyes: |
Good point.
Even though I think Platini is saying the right things, he's not thinking them through.
The fact is there's literally BILLIONS going into and through football nowadays and no-one, even UEFA can do a thing to stop that.
What really should be enforced is a worldwide salary and transfer cap where no single player can earn more than 100k after taxes and can cost no more than £40-£50mil tops!
That would be a start I guess.
|
Thats a worse way of doing it in my opinion!
A team should be allowed to spend as much as they want (within their means) because they have the money to do it! it's a way of spreading the money about to smaller clubs.
It's not like there its a one way thing where a bid comes in and then accepted. A player has a value set by his club and the buying club have to meet that, having a maximum value isn't how to do it... in my opinion!
Jack Will Score - August 27, 2009 09:16 PM (GMT)
there is a salary cap in the us and in rugby? :unsure: also league clubs use a salary as % of turnover rule which sounds reasonable too.
this rule is needed but needs buy in from domestic leagues so even if the big debt clubs try to leave the cl and form something new they will have to leave the domestic leagues too (and therefore their grass roots support and probably a large % of their fans).
davegordo - August 27, 2009 09:57 PM (GMT)
All players would be banned from international competition too...probably...... so Ade would be first to sign up!
Grebbo - August 27, 2009 10:03 PM (GMT)
davegordo - August 27, 2009 10:19 PM (GMT)
Surely if this is to be brought in they'de have to announce it soon because it'd take years to correct for teams like Real and Chelsea who are intrenched in debt and have massive wage bills!
Spiggsy - August 28, 2009 03:04 AM (GMT)
Good idea, but the article really details nothing on the actualities they are planning.
Two points jump right out to me.
Firstly 'sanctions' if a club runs a deficit has to be really carefully thought through. As with any business, we expect a profit each year, with break-even as a minimum, but like in any business there are times that club will run a deficit for various reasons. A deficit is just an operating loss, which is different to not being able to adequately service debt.
A club in transition may be blooding their youth, and upping wages to keep them, whilst still paying higher wages to experienced stars, and could easily run a deficit with this being a factor. In a case like this the deficit would be temporary. Another example would be updating a stadium. Costs incurred might return a deficit for a number of years, but could potentially be offset by cash-in-hand or subsidising from the owners ... remember a cash investment "technically" would not offset a deficit.
The second point, is from the way that they reference Red Football, suggests that a parent company's deficit may affect the club. I can't really comment on them, as I don't know, but we all know about the Emirates and property development issues. If, as we all are led to believe, the potential losses on the flats are to not affect the footballing finances, then financially we should be okay ... but the way this article is worded, would suggest that a loss there would be applied to the club itself! The whole point of a holding company is to create a degree of separation, usually for financial reason.
With rose tinted glasses this whole proposition makes sense, but the reality could potentially be far from that. We could see more instability, and the reverse happen, with a greater separation between the top four and the rest of the league ... let alone lower leagues!
We would see a drop in investments in football, as owners will not want to release additional funds due to 'sanctions' that could be taken against the club. Imagine not being able to have funds made available for that one key player to make a winning side, because it would result in a points penalty!
My major worry would be the injection of funds to a team that is slipping down the table and suffering financially, or a newly promoted team wanting to battle to stay up! There are two times to inject funding as an investment in a company, to remedy a problem and to expand; neither provide instant return.
Once a club begins to slip down the table, if there is no cash on hand, then the club will not be able to rebuild effectively to progress without penalties. Running any type of loss could potentially become a death sentence!
Obviously the way forward is youth, but that would mean all clubs should have acadamies and scouting networks that rival ours ... which is plainly not the case. What would most likely happen is more cases like Abromavich, where clubs become toys and playthings. Winning will be expected, but only the clubs that can remain affluent with cash despite 'sanctions' will be able to survive at the top.
In my opinion, the only way to stop sugar daddies ruining the game is to tie investments to current profitability, which will stop all forms of 'financial doping.' Most clubs that run deficits are already punished, by the creditors! This plan sounds like it will not stop the problem at all, but ruin those already in trouble.
Ach - August 28, 2009 03:18 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
ROMAN ABRAMOVICH is backing UEFA to crack down on Manchester City's spending power - because he does not want to flash any more cash himself.
UEFA president Michel Platini has vowed that any club which does not break even in the next three years will be kicked out of European competitions.
And he is being spurred on by Chelsea's billionaire owner Abramovich, who has spent £700m on the Blues in six years but no longer wants to pour his fortune into the club.
And he does not want anyone to forge ahead of Chelsea either. City have spent £120m in this transfer window alone in a bid to gatecrash Europe's top table compared to Chelsea's £23m.
But UEFA has adopted the mantra of 'financial fair-play' in a bid to make the European game a more level playing field.
Platini is proposing clubs can only spend what they earn in football revenues. He said: "It's mainly the owners that asked us to do something. Roman Abramovich, Silvio Berlusconi at AC Milan and Massimo Moratti at Inter. They do not want to fork out any more.
"Manchester City can spend £300m if they want to but if they are not breaking even in three years then they cannot play in European competition.
"I have met with Abramovich, who is a football person and passionate about the game. He said that we must do something about this.
"It doesn't matter if one team doesn't agree, because this is what the clubs want.
"Under the new system, you will get more investors in the future because they will be able to make money. At the moment you don't get these businessmen because clubs are losing money.
"If a club can get loans from a bank to buy players and is able to pay back bank loans, then it is not a problem. But if a club gets a lot of money or subsidies from a big backer and is still in deficit in two years, then it is a problem and we don't like that."
UEFA deputy general secretary Gianni Infantino insisted: "A rich sugar daddy coming in and throwing money around is unhealthy in the medium and long-term.
"For the club to be healthy it has to live on its own means and generate income. Clubs have generated revenues by investing in things like stadiums, otherwise it is an artificial bubble which inflates the system and is unhealthy and unsustainable."
Platini's bid to curb clubs' spending comes at a time when Real Madrid and Manchester United are also coming under fire for their mounting debts.
Real's deficit is over £550m and projected to rise to a mind-boggling £900m. United's debt is expected to reach £600m by 2017 when it has to be repaid.
|
Injury Time - August 28, 2009 07:46 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Ach @ Aug 28 2009, 03:18 AM) |
| QUOTE | ROMAN ABRAMOVICH is backing UEFA to crack down on Manchester City's spending power - because he does not want to flash any more cash himself.
UEFA president Michel Platini has vowed that any club which does not break even in the next three years will be kicked out of European competitions.
And he is being spurred on by Chelsea's billionaire owner Abramovich, who has spent £700m on the Blues in six years but no longer wants to pour his fortune into the club.
And he does not want anyone to forge ahead of Chelsea either. City have spent £120m in this transfer window alone in a bid to gatecrash Europe's top table compared to Chelsea's £23m.
But UEFA has adopted the mantra of 'financial fair-play' in a bid to make the European game a more level playing field.
Platini is proposing clubs can only spend what they earn in football revenues. He said: "It's mainly the owners that asked us to do something. Roman Abramovich, Silvio Berlusconi at AC Milan and Massimo Moratti at Inter. They do not want to fork out any more.
"Manchester City can spend £300m if they want to but if they are not breaking even in three years then they cannot play in European competition.
"I have met with Abramovich, who is a football person and passionate about the game. He said that we must do something about this.
"It doesn't matter if one team doesn't agree, because this is what the clubs want.
"Under the new system, you will get more investors in the future because they will be able to make money. At the moment you don't get these businessmen because clubs are losing money.
"If a club can get loans from a bank to buy players and is able to pay back bank loans, then it is not a problem. But if a club gets a lot of money or subsidies from a big backer and is still in deficit in two years, then it is a problem and we don't like that."
UEFA deputy general secretary Gianni Infantino insisted: "A rich sugar daddy coming in and throwing money around is unhealthy in the medium and long-term.
"For the club to be healthy it has to live on its own means and generate income. Clubs have generated revenues by investing in things like stadiums, otherwise it is an artificial bubble which inflates the system and is unhealthy and unsustainable."
Platini's bid to curb clubs' spending comes at a time when Real Madrid and Manchester United are also coming under fire for their mounting debts.
Real's deficit is over £550m and projected to rise to a mind-boggling £900m. United's debt is expected to reach £600m by 2017 when it has to be repaid.
|
|
Abumabitch :pal: so it's okay if you have already spent lots but should happen cos the AAArabs are coming, poor Ruski :violin:
Jack Will Score - August 28, 2009 07:49 AM (GMT)
the thing is things aren't exactly cheap at chelsea, just look at the wages they have to pay! will be interesting to see if they can compete without spending to do so, if not I wouldn't be surprised if roman did leave rather than do another mega spend.
the funniest thing would be how much this would do over citeh so soon after they've spent so much! (and real marketing too)
Gubby-Allen - August 30, 2009 07:36 PM (GMT)
I'd like to see a salary cap but doubt it'll ever happen. Failing that, I'd at least welcome a limit to a number of players you can have in a squad - say 25.
I'm not comfortable with Moyes, O'Neil, Hodgson working around a core squad of 18-20 whereas Harry Redknapp needs to operate the same amount of games (or less in their cases) with a squad of 72,336,948 players.
Ach - August 30, 2009 07:40 PM (GMT)
La Liga have that. A limited amount of players that can be used.
Really fucking annoys me on FM though