womblemaster Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 for once in 1000 years a frenchman does something right.... "Uefa would also look at losses incurred by clubs' parent companies who have to service loans, said Platini. " THis should kill off the glazier finance model at scum utd. `Manchester United's parent company owned by the Glazer family, recorded a £21m loss last year and has a total debt of £575m. ` http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/8225941.stm 3 years to get rid of their debt, or they get whacked with big the nasty stick from uefa. lets see how the mancland monkeys deal with this! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Sure they will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I think the rule will happen, it was the main agenda on Platini's manifesto when he got elected. Not sure what effect it would have though or how they could enforce it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 This is the article on the subject from the Beeb. It sounds like the chief targets are the 'sugardaddy' clubs like Chelsea and Man City. Good news for us though, in the long term - Uefa plans to curb clubs' debts Uefa president Michel Platini has vowed to bring in regulations that ensure football clubs manage their finances so they "live within their means". 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 claims he has the backing of Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich and other rich club owners. The rules are still being formulated and would not be in place before 2012. Platini said: "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." It would 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. 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's an estimated debt of £500m up to the end of the 2007-08 season. Financial experts have estimated Real's current debt could run to about £800m following their summer spending spree. Premier League club Chelsea reported losses of £65.7m up to June last year while Red Football, Manchester United's parent company owned by the Glazer family, recorded a £21m loss last year and has a total debt of £575m. Platini added: "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. "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. But Infantino insists 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." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Roman Abramovich is complaining about the levels of spending and debt? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Roman Abramovich is complaining about the levels of spending and debt? Now that Man City are doing the same thing, he is. It's like kicking the ladder away once you've reached the top. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil K Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Roman Abramovich is complaining about the levels of spending and debt? Considering Man U had ranted against Abramovich after spending vast sums, while they did the same on the likes of Rooney, Ferdinand, and a host of others for prices pretty much at LEAST as high as what Chelea were spending, why is Abramovich any worse ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Roman Abramovich is complaining about the levels of spending and debt? Considering Man U had ranted against Abramovich after spending vast sums, while they did the same on the likes of Rooney, Ferdinand, and a host of others for prices pretty much at LEAST as high as what Chelea were spending, why is Abramovich any worse ? Like all the huge amounts of money WE spent, the Manchester United money was EARNED money (in football). The Abramovich money was just "given/donated" and had nothing to do with earned football money. It made a fairly grotty mid-table club into a superficial 'big' club (despite HUGE losses of about £300M in many individual years). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 And we rant about Real and then go and spend €60m on Ibrahimovic. I would love to see the whole madness brought down, mind you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 So what about the likes of Real Madrid? I guess they get off fucking scot-free as usual Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 If UEFA push this through all that will happen is the likes of Real Madrid and Man U will form a breakaway Super League outside of UEFA's family. Games will have 4 quarters, the pitch will be full of sponsorship painted on it and music will be blaring after every goal. Time outs will be allowed, along with rolling substitutes. I can't wait personally, get rid of the monsters and let the rest of us get back to enjoying football with all of its flaws Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil K Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Roman Abramovich is complaining about the levels of spending and debt? Considering Man U had ranted against Abramovich after spending vast sums, while they did the same on the likes of Rooney, Ferdinand, and a host of others for prices pretty much at LEAST as high as what Chelea were spending, why is Abramovich any worse ? Like all the huge amounts of money WE spent, the Manchester United money was EARNED money (in football). The Abramovich money was just "given/donated" and had nothing to do with earned football money. It made a fairly grotty mid-table club into a superficial 'big' club (despite HUGE losses of about £300M in many individual years). Ever heard of the term "speculate to accumulate" ? Why the hell should the same teams stay winning stuff because they have the highest attendances (never worked with us) ? Good for Chelsea, good for Man City - new faces winning things is GOOD - by however they get there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Roman Abramovich is complaining about the levels of spending and debt? Considering Man U had ranted against Abramovich after spending vast sums, while they did the same on the likes of Rooney, Ferdinand, and a host of others for prices pretty much at LEAST as high as what Chelea were spending, why is Abramovich any worse ? Like all the huge amounts of money WE spent, the Manchester United money was EARNED money (in football). The Abramovich money was just "given/donated" and had nothing to do with earned football money. It made a fairly grotty mid-table club into a superficial 'big' club (despite HUGE losses of about £300M in many individual years). Ever heard of the term "speculate to accumulate" ? Why the hell should the same teams stay winning stuff because they have the highest attendances (never worked with us) ? Good for Chelsea, good for Man City - new faces winning things is GOOD - by however they get there. It is strange for me to see someone using the phrase "speculate to accumulate" to ME!!! That was the very phrase that I (as a very young-un) used to use in many of my letters to Mckeag & Co, before SJH took over. As a lad I could not understand why we did not do that, why we did not spend the money we had earned from our huge crowds and TV money (albeit MUCH smaller then) etc. We 'must' be a big club (all the evidence was there) I thought, why did we not "speculate to accumulate" like Liverpool did?? In all my years of letter writing to NUFC in those days, I only got ONE reply - thanking me for my interest! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 UEFA is the main culprit though, with the bloated CL money and the privileges it gives big clubs and leagues (four places, seeding, byes, etc...) that makes it an exclusive group hard to break, and devalues other competitions that are easier to break in, and could work as stepping stone otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Isn't the debt more like 1billion? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpy Gunt Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 The FA should have been doing this years ago. The top 4 (5 with Citeh) posses as much debt (if not more) than the rest of the league. They are buying their position at the top of the tree. Making Clubs exist debt free would make it a much fairer and competetive league. The Premiership is as boring as the SPL. The sooner SKY take their cameras and fuck off from the game the better for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatwax Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Roman Abramovich is complaining about the levels of spending and debt? Considering Man U had ranted against Abramovich after spending vast sums, while they did the same on the likes of Rooney, Ferdinand, and a host of others for prices pretty much at LEAST as high as what Chelea were spending, why is Abramovich any worse ? Like all the huge amounts of money WE spent, the Manchester United money was EARNED money (in football). The Abramovich money was just "given/donated" and had nothing to do with earned football money. It made a fairly grotty mid-table club into a superficial 'big' club (despite HUGE losses of about £300M in many individual years). To be honest they were hardly a mid-table club, they won the FA cup in 97, league cup in 98 and got to the Champions League quarter finals in 2000. On top of that they finished 4th in the 2002/2003 season. I know that the Russian bought them in 2003, but I forget when. Either way, they've been a good team for a long time. Man City however.. if it wasn't for Thaksin they'd be absolutely knackered. I miss the days of Pearce managing them and them having no money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Roman Abramovich is complaining about the levels of spending and debt? Considering Man U had ranted against Abramovich after spending vast sums, while they did the same on the likes of Rooney, Ferdinand, and a host of others for prices pretty much at LEAST as high as what Chelea were spending, why is Abramovich any worse ? Like all the huge amounts of money WE spent, the Manchester United money was EARNED money (in football). The Abramovich money was just "given/donated" and had nothing to do with earned football money. It made a fairly grotty mid-table club into a superficial 'big' club (despite HUGE losses of about £300M in many individual years). To be honest they were hardly a mid-table club, they won the FA cup in 97, league cup in 98 and got to the Champions League quarter finals in 2000. On top of that they finished 4th in the 2002/2003 season. I know that the Russian bought them in 2003, but I forget when. Either way, they've been a good team for a long time. Man City however.. if it wasn't for Thaksin they'd be absolutely knackered. I miss the days of Pearce managing them and them having no money. Chelsea had been living way beyond their means for a few years prior to Abramovich buying them, they were rumoured to be very close to going into administration at the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 it wasn't so long a go platini was getting slated for this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 UEFA is the main culprit though, with the bloated CL money and the privileges it gives big clubs and leagues (four places, seeding, byes, etc...) that makes it an exclusive group hard to break, and devalues other competitions that are easier to break in, and could work as stepping stone otherwise. The whole thing is a cosy little club and if Platini is an honest man among thieves then he'll soon be slapped down if he endangers the status quo. As someone has said the FA are equally to blame, but while Uncle Rupert is throwing his money around don't expect things to change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonarmy Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 It's too bad there's only like a 1% chance of this actually going through and happening (in my opinion at least). Operating at these levels of debt is simply bad business and unsustainable, any businessman should know that, but they all deal with it because the clubs are their private playthings. If anything happens, this Man City thing and Madrid's spending this summer in the midst of one of the worst global downturns ever might just be the straw that breaks the camels back. But watch, if this isn't implemented before the economy seriously rebounds, it's dead. The moment Roman and the rest have money to burn again is the moment this all dies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
broonalegeordie Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Roman Abramovich is complaining about the levels of spending and debt? Considering Man U had ranted against Abramovich after spending vast sums, while they did the same on the likes of Rooney, Ferdinand, and a host of others for prices pretty much at LEAST as high as what Chelea were spending, why is Abramovich any worse ? Like all the huge amounts of money WE spent, the Manchester United money was EARNED money (in football). The Abramovich money was just "given/donated" and had nothing to do with earned football money. It made a fairly grotty mid-table club into a superficial 'big' club (despite HUGE losses of about £300M in many individual years). To be honest they were hardly a mid-table club, they won the FA cup in 97, league cup in 98 and got to the Champions League quarter finals in 2000. On top of that they finished 4th in the 2002/2003 season. I know that the Russian bought them in 2003, but I forget when. Either way, they've been a good team for a long time. Man City however.. if it wasn't for Thaksin they'd be absolutely knackered. I miss the days of Pearce managing them and them having no money. Chelsea had been living way beyond their means for a few years prior to Abramovich buying them, they were rumoured to be very close to going into administration at the time. im sure there were rumours at the time that we were in for gallas and terry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 We were in for Terry but we picked Woodgate over him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatwax Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Roman Abramovich is complaining about the levels of spending and debt? Considering Man U had ranted against Abramovich after spending vast sums, while they did the same on the likes of Rooney, Ferdinand, and a host of others for prices pretty much at LEAST as high as what Chelea were spending, why is Abramovich any worse ? Like all the huge amounts of money WE spent, the Manchester United money was EARNED money (in football). The Abramovich money was just "given/donated" and had nothing to do with earned football money. It made a fairly grotty mid-table club into a superficial 'big' club (despite HUGE losses of about £300M in many individual years). To be honest they were hardly a mid-table club, they won the FA cup in 97, league cup in 98 and got to the Champions League quarter finals in 2000. On top of that they finished 4th in the 2002/2003 season. I know that the Russian bought them in 2003, but I forget when. Either way, they've been a good team for a long time. Man City however.. if it wasn't for Thaksin they'd be absolutely knackered. I miss the days of Pearce managing them and them having no money. Chelsea had been living way beyond their means for a few years prior to Abramovich buying them, they were rumoured to be very close to going into administration at the time. Still doesn't make them a grotty mid-table club. They were achieving good league finishes and had some really good players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 the rumour was that we had agreed deals for gallas and gudjohnson before the roman took over Link to post 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