UEFA cave in on FFP

[El Presidente]

This is where I struggle to understand how clubs like Bournemouth with 12K crowds can outbid us for Grabban, for example.

Because they told him the same as we told Elliott Bennett. We will give you a good pay rise for 4-5 months then allow you to sign for another club and give you a bigger slice of the transfer fee.

It didn't help that Oscar Garcia couldn't be found on the day of the transfer and Grabban didn't think the Albion were that bothered about signing him.

 

[El Presidente]

All, (most?), businesses have trading debts - not all businesses have long term debts incurred to cover trading losses.

I see no reason why the Albion would be disadvantaged in comparison to other clubs were a system in force that prevented clubs from continuously trading at a loss and covering those losses by way of increased debt. To a large extent TB has behaved 'responsibly' in that respect by converting much of his financial support for the club into equity.

1: Manchester City, Chelsea, PSG, Real, Barcelona have all incurred debts to cover losses, and they deliver trophies.

2: TB initially lent the Albion money to cover trading losses, which he wouldn't be able to do under your half baked scheme.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Because....

... It didn't help that Oscar Garcia couldn't be found on the day of the transfer and Grabban didn't think the Albion were that bothered about signing him.

I thought that the problem was BERK SINGING during in the negotiations ?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Because they told him the same as we told Elliott Bennett. We will give you a good pay rise for 4-5 months then allow you to sign for another club and give you a bigger slice of the transfer fee.

It didn't help that Oscar Garcia couldn't be found on the day of the transfer and Grabban didn't think the Albion were that bothered about signing him.

With regards to your second paragraph, I heard it was Tony Bloom who was unavailable due to the time difference in Australia.

 

[El Presidente]

With regards to your second paragraph, I heard it was Tony Bloom who was unavailable due to the time difference in Australia.

I've heard that story too but it's a myth.

 

[El Presidente]

I thought that the problem was BERK SINGING during in the negotiations ?

A Kylie and Jason MEDLEY too

 

[KZNSeagull]

This is where I struggle to understand how clubs like Bournemouth with 12K crowds can outbid us for Grabban, for example.

To add to EP's answer, that rule is only relevant to the Premier League - the rule is that they are "only" allowed to spend 52m of their TV revenue money on wages (they can spend more than that from other sources of income), so they are left with a healthy whack of tv money left over. As a result of that, only 3 PL team made a loss last season (Man City, Sunderland and I think Villa) - many Championship clubs still have wages to turnover ratios much higher than 60%.

 

[Creaky]

1: Manchester City, Chelsea, PSG, Real, Barcelona have all incurred debts to cover losses, and they deliver trophies.

2: TB initially lent the Albion money to cover trading losses, which he wouldn't be able to do under your half baked scheme.

I don't dispute that incurring large debts can "deliver trophies" - what a system that allows this form of management does NOT do though is keep player costs reasonable, ensure the financial viability of clubs in general nor deliver a level playing field between clubs.

TB did indeed loan the Albion large sums to cover trading losses, loans that wouldn't have been allowed under the current FFP system either. What my 'half baked scheme' would have allowed though is for TB to have injected capital into the club via equity purchase unlike the current FFP regulations.

You really haven't justified why a scheme to limit debt is 'half baked'.

Football is not the same as other businesses - in general owners aren't in the football 'business' to make money, (there are a few exceptions admittedly), but because they are fans or they enjoy the glory or for marketing purposes for other businesses. I see no reason why if an individual or business wants to invest millions of their own money into a club they shouldn't be allowed to do so. The real problems arise when such 'investments' have been made as way of loans and either the owners interest in a club diminishes or they run out of money. It is far more difficult to find a new 'sugar daddy' to buy a club that is loaded with debt and running at a loss than it is for one with no debt.

 

[El Presidente]

What my 'half baked scheme' would have allowed though is for TB to have injected capital into the club via equity purchase unlike the current FFP regulations.

.

He could have done that anyway. He didn't want to. Neither did Abramovic, Abu Dhabi or the Qataris at PSG.

 

[scousefan]

To add to EP's answer, that rule is only relevant to the Premier League - the rule is that they are "only" allowed to spend 52m of their TV revenue money on wages (they can spend more than that from other sources of income), so they are left with a healthy whack of tv money left over. As a result of that, only 3 PL team made a loss last season (Man City, Sunderland and I think Villa) - many Championship clubs still have wages to turnover ratios much higher than 60%.

I hadn't understood that before. I have to say that in s football world where none of the financial regulations and sanctions make sense - this is a note of sanity. It explains in part why Palace returned a profit.

 

[Creaky]

He could have done that anyway. He didn't want to. Neither did Abramovic, Abu Dhabi or the Qataris at PSG.

Agreed - Sheik Mansour on the other hand did, resulting in Manchester City having zero debt yet ironically still having to pay a pay a £50 million fine for failing FFP!

The owners you mention have loaned millions to their respective clubs landing them with enormous debts - yes they have won trophies but are you really suggesting that this type of finance makes football more sustainable in comparison to the way Manchester City have handled their finances and gained trophies.

 

[El Presidente]

Agreed - Sheik Mansour on the other hand did, resulting in Manchester City having zero debt yet ironically still having to pay a pay a £50 million fine for failing FFP!

The owners you mention have loaned millions to their respective clubs landing them with enormous debts - yes they have won trophies but are you really suggesting that this type of finance makes football more sustainable in comparison to the way Manchester City have handled their finances and gained trophies.

Manchester City is sustainable and they deliver trophies.........and they're not Manchester United. What's not to like?

 

[Easy 10]

As usual, Martin Samuel nailed it yesterday

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...tini-destroying-football-finally-seen-it.html

Great column.

 

[El Presidente]

Great column.

I remember those nights under the pier when you said those same words to me *sniff*

 

[Easy 10]

I remember those nights under the pier when you said those same words to me *sniff*

Heady days, on the broadsheets

*wistful*

 

[Creaky]

As usual, Martin Samuel nailed it yesterday

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...tini-destroying-football-finally-seen-it.html

Great column.

Some, (whilst not wishing to be rude), might call that article gibberish and supporting a half baked idea.

From the article ;

Don’t be mistaken. The relaxation of UEFA’s wrecking ball regulation is a mighty positive for football, particularly if it ensures that, from here, owner investment must be a gift.