[kurtsimonw]

Yes, but that doesn't autmatically mean all defenders now are better than all defenders then. It just means that players like Messi now would have no problem at all replicating what Pele did (nd much more).

[dst]

Hey Kurt... this guy too is making a fortune from football...

[kurtsimonw]

That's horrible. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Malouda missed an open goal from 2 yards at the weekend as well, can't find a video though.

[kurtsimonw]

So.. the ruling to destroy football forever has been passed.

Under the new financial fair play ruling teams have to make a profit after all debt payments and transfers activities have been completely.

So it basically just gives a huge advantage to the rich clubs as they can bend the rules, their owners can just donate money to their club to put them into profit. If teams fail the test, they aren't allowed into Europe (which is where alot of lesser teams make money to compete).

I personally don't care all that much, because European competition has been a joke for nearly 2 decades now. The problem is that I support a fan friendly club and as such we make a loss every year because we don't make all that much from ticket prices, but spend big on transfers. So basically, to make Europe, we have to charge silly prices for tickets?

**** off Platini, you cancer.

[Jack Sparrow]

Erm no...the owners can't donate money....I've obviously read a different article then. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

[kurtsimonw]

Erm no...the owners can't donate money....I've obviously read a different article then. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

No, you probably didn't, that was just an assumption I made.

They can't stop Citeh being sponsered by one of their owners other companies though for a ridiculous sponsorship deal, so the stupid rich teams will still be fine.

It's just Platini's way of keeping the big names where they are. CL teams earn more and can therefore spend more and can then make it back to the CL and repeat.

It is in conspiracy, even Scudamore had a slip of the tongue a few years back by saying having the same 4 teams make the CL every year was financially perfect for the EPL.

[Fishdoll]

Actually Kurt, clubs like United, Real, and Liverpool may end up having a real problem now, as I understand it. I'd need to read the technical details to be sure tho. All those clubs have massive debts - United is at the point where they have to go far in the CL just to cover debt payments and even that wasn't quite enough and they sold their best player last year. Arsenal's got capital debt (they're paying off the construction of their stadium) which is a little different than owing money to banks because you got a loan to buy players (which Real did this past year).

When I'm awake and have time, I'll look at the details.

[kurtsimonw]

I thought that at first, but so long as they can pay their interest payments they're fine. The article I read was pretty much only talking about EPL clubs, but said only Chelsea of the big 4 have anything to worry about, apparently Uniteds turnover is more than enough to pay off their interest payments.

Admittedly I've only read 2 articles on it, so I will have to have a good look into it. On first impression it looks like disaster.

[Fishdoll]

I'll take a look when I'm more awake.

[Jack Sparrow]

This is what I read:

Three-quarters of the Premier League's clubs will need to reduce significantly their spending on players' wages if they are to qualify for European competitions after Uefa's "financial fair play" rules are introduced tomorrow. The European governing body's executive committee is set to approve the regulations, which will require clubs to break even, not make persistent losses, from 2012-13.

In 2008-09, the most recent year for which the Premier League's 20 clubs' accounts are published, 14 made substantial losses. One other, Blackburn Rovers, made a £3.6m profit but were subsidised with a £5m loan from the club's owners, which will no longer be permitted.

Most clubs in the Premier League are funded by owners, most spectacularly at Chelsea and Manchester City, where Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour subsidised losses of £47m and £93m respectively. Owners will, according to the rules, be permitted to invest in clubs, via permanent shares rather than repayable loans, to build solid infrastructure such as training grounds or youth development facilities, but not overspending on wages or transfers.

Uefa has taken more than three years to develop the rules since the organisation's president, Michel Platini, warned of the "danger to football" posed by debt, overspending and "rampant commercialism". They will be phased in, with club owners allowed to subsidise €45m (£38m) losses over the three years from 2012-13, reducing to €30m in total over the next three years.

Platini has described the need to staunch overspending as "a question of survival for our sport". In the Premier League, besides Chelsea and City, Aston Villa, subsidised by the club's owner, Randy Lerner, lost £46m in 2008-09, while Sunderland lost £26m. Liverpool lost £55m, principally because they had to pay £40m interest on £250m borrowed from banks. Manchester United made a profit only because of the £81m sale of Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid; in previous years since the Glazer family took over what was then the world's most profitable club and ladled huge debts on to it, United have sustained losses.

The Premier League had argued that clubs should be allowed to be continually subsidised by owners, but was overruled, as Uefa insisted it wanted to steer clubs across Europe to a more sustainable existence. Yesterday a Premier League spokesman acknowledged the clubs will have to rein in their spending in order to comply.

"The vast majority of what is being proposed is common sense, and has already [been], or is about to be, incorporated into Premier League rules," a spokesman said. "If the regulations are introduced as reported, we envisage a difficult period of adjustment for our member clubs who play, or aspire to play, in European competitions."

Source: Guardian Online (guardian.co.uk)

[Linkman]

I'm no economist, but I think in the long term, such a reduction shouldn't have such a big impact on football as a whole. Since teams will be forced to go without debt (and of course, owner investment should be also regulated), what will happen is that things will remain as they are, but player prices and wages will be reduced considerably. If today a decent player can be worth 15-20 million euros, we will probably see similar players sold at 5 mil. Clubs will continue to sell players (in order to maintain their finances), but the buyers will no longer be up for exorbitant Madridesque prices.

[kurtsimonw]

It just goes back to what I said in the UEFA Cup thread. It's not a fans game anymore. Platini seems to be intent on making sure it's a game for the rich.

[Fishdoll]

how do you get from clubs being forced (albeit gradually) to live within their means to compete in europe to Platini making sure it's a game for the rich?

[servbot]

Has UEFA ever considered just having a straight salary cap for squads? It seems that would be the most simple and fair solution.

[kurtsimonw]

how do you get from clubs being forced (albeit gradually) to live within their means to compete in europe to Platini making sure it's a game for the rich?

Because of its start point.

If you can only spend what you earn, where do you think that puts every club except for United, Cheslea, etc? They have CL football which gives them a head start on revenue, they also have a much, much bigger fan base which ultimately = more £££.

How can other teams compete? Literally the only thing they can do is push up ticket prices, it's really the only choice they have. People nowadays simply can not afford it.

He could have easily introduced a spending cap which would solve an awful lot of problems, including teams not needing to push up prices. But this is Platini we're talking about.