The End for Chelsea and Man City?

[flasher]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/87...

Quite how UEFA/FIFA will control this is another matter, but the days of clubs buying trophies while living beyond their means and going hundreds millions into debt looks to be over...

[ascayman]

hopefully, they've cheated for far to long.

[tobster]

Be loads of ways to go around it. Owner could set up a company to sponsor the team and give them 100m a year.

I can understand why they want to bring the rule and I do think it makes sense but as I've said there are going to be a lot of loopholes which will get exploited.

[Atomic Gibbon]

Balls. It'll just make them crafty with their accounts. Thos esame benefactors can simply use one of their companies to hire boxes at silly rates, or purchase a vast amount of sportswear, export it to Russia and incinerate it. These tycoon types are clever enough to get one over the tax man, and the tax man has more experience in these things than the Uefa boys will.

[GT03ROB]

Hmmm so...... Manure & Liverscum are fully solvent of course.....and Real Madrid??

So just how have Chelsea & City "cheated" their way to the top?? Spent money?? Hmmm how much did Manure spend on Berbatov & Ferdinand?

[flasher]

GT03ROB said:

Hmmm so...... Manure & Liverscum are fully solvent of course.....and Real Madrid??

So just how have Chelsea & City "cheated" their way to the top?? Spent money?? Hmmm how much did Manure spend on Berbatov & Ferdinand?

By spending money that the club doesn't generate. They are not self sufficient in the slightest. If Abramovich pulled the plug tomorrow what do you seriously think would happen? Or do you have your head completely in the sand?

United's debt is purely down to the way the Glazers purchased the club. Liverpool are in total mess because of the way Hicks and Gillete have purchased it.

Chelsea owe £700m plus to Abramovich which it appears he has decided to write off, hardly a fair playing field is it? This will also stop clubs like Portsmouth living totally beyond their means.

[TEKNOPUG]

It's totally unenforceable unfortunately, just like the salary cap is.

Besides, even if it was enforceable, what would the end result be? The biggest clubs would generate the most money, buy the best players and win everything. So that'll be ManURe, Real Madrid, Barca, Milan, Juve, Bayern etc. Nothing will change.

[ascayman]

GT03ROB said:

So just how have Chelsea & City "cheated" their way to the top?? Spent money?? Hmmm how much did Manure spend on Berbatov & Ferdinand?

money they the club have generated. they are able to spend money now because they spent many many years bringing youthful tallent through the club to get them into the position whereby they earnt the money to go out and splash money on the likes of ferdinand and berbatov.

chelsea and now man city have bought thier sucsess, without either owner they'd be nowhere near the top.

[TEKNOPUG]

ascayman said:

GT03ROB said:

So just how have Chelsea & City "cheated" their way to the top?? Spent money?? Hmmm how much did Manure spend on Berbatov & Ferdinand?

money they the club have generated. they are able to spend money now because they spent many many years bringing youthful tallent through the club to get them into the position whereby they earnt the money to go out and splash money on the likes of ferdinand and berbatov.

chelsea and now man city have bought thier sucsess, without either owner they'd be nowhere near the top.

I think ManU ability to buy Rio Ferdinand had a lot more to do agressive marketing, brand globalisation and financial speculating than working with kids on the training pitches.

[flasher]

TEKNOPUG said:

It's totally unenforceable unfortunately, just like the salary cap is.

Besides, even if it was enforceable, what would the end result be? The biggest clubs would generate the most money, buy the best players and win everything. So that'll be ManURe, Real Madrid, Barca, Milan, Juve, Bayern etc. Nothing will change.

You could be right, but this is not dissimilar the way German, French and Italian football associations audit their clubs books. UEFA are after Chelsea for the way they operate and I think they will be coming down like a ton of bricks on anyone that is up their neck in debt. The good news for United and Liverpool fans is that this could force their current owners out...

[ascayman]

TEKNOPUG said:

ascayman said:

GT03ROB said:

So just how have Chelsea & City "cheated" their way to the top?? Spent money?? Hmmm how much did Manure spend on Berbatov & Ferdinand?

money they the club have generated. they are able to spend money now because they spent many many years bringing youthful tallent through the club to get them into the position whereby they earnt the money to go out and splash money on the likes of ferdinand and berbatov.

chelsea and now man city have bought thier sucsess, without either owner they'd be nowhere near the top.

I think ManU ability to buy Rio Ferdinand had a lot more to do agressive marketing, brand globalisation and financial speculating than working with kids on the training pitches.

indeed but it was the bringing through of the kids that got them into that position in the first place.

[TEKNOPUG]

flasher said:

TEKNOPUG said:

It's totally unenforceable unfortunately, just like the salary cap is.

Besides, even if it was enforceable, what would the end result be? The biggest clubs would generate the most money, buy the best players and win everything. So that'll be ManURe, Real Madrid, Barca, Milan, Juve, Bayern etc. Nothing will change.

You could be right, but this is not dissimilar the way German, French and Italian football associations audit their clubs books. UEFA are after Chelsea for the way they operate and I think they will be coming down like a ton of bricks on anyone that is up their neck in debt. The good news for United and Liverpool fans is that this could force their current owners out...

Possibly but then Liverpool and ManU are unlikely to find a buyer who will just come in and clear all the debt. So a change of ownership doesn't mean it will lead to salvation.

There is a more intrinsic issue here; the issue that debt is bad. All businesses need to borrow to grow. Whether it's for new premises, machinery, whatever. Providing the debt repayments are sustainable within the clubs financial model, I don't see an issue. Borrowing to buy players if fairly stupid as it's purely specualtion. Borrowing for a new stadium, training grounf or other tangible asset is different.

At the end of the day though, there is nothing to stop "GazProm" sponsoring Chelsea £300m a year or hiring John Terry on £5m a year for "Ambassador" work outside of his footballing contract (if salary caps were ever introduced).

[TEKNOPUG]

ascayman said:

TEKNOPUG said:

ascayman said:

GT03ROB said:

So just how have Chelsea & City "cheated" their way to the top?? Spent money?? Hmmm how much did Manure spend on Berbatov & Ferdinand?

money they the club have generated. they are able to spend money now because they spent many many years bringing youthful tallent through the club to get them into the position whereby they earnt the money to go out and splash money on the likes of ferdinand and berbatov.

chelsea and now man city have bought thier sucsess, without either owner they'd be nowhere near the top.

I think ManU ability to buy Rio Ferdinand had a lot more to do agressive marketing, brand globalisation and financial speculating than working with kids on the training pitches.

indeed but it was the bringing through of the kids that got them into that position in the first place.

What kids and in what way? You mean Duncan Edwards? George Best?

[ascayman]

TEKNOPUG said:

ascayman said:

TEKNOPUG said:

ascayman said:

GT03ROB said:

So just how have Chelsea & City "cheated" their way to the top?? Spent money?? Hmmm how much did Manure spend on Berbatov & Ferdinand?

money they the club have generated. they are able to spend money now because they spent many many years bringing youthful tallent through the club to get them into the position whereby they earnt the money to go out and splash money on the likes of ferdinand and berbatov.

chelsea and now man city have bought thier sucsess, without either owner they'd be nowhere near the top.

I think ManU ability to buy Rio Ferdinand had a lot more to do agressive marketing, brand globalisation and financial speculating than working with kids on the training pitches.

indeed but it was the bringing through of the kids that got them into that position in the first place.

What kids and in what way? You mean Duncan Edwards? George Best?

butt, beckham, scholes, neville(s) etc etc

the big purchases only really followed after that and the sucsess that followed.

[Yelly]

It's for the good of the game that this happens. All clubs are businesses, and need to be run like businesses. So not running at a loss every year is the first step. Many clubs run at a loss nearly every year. My favourite club Newcastle Utd for instance, would have gone out of business if it wasn't for the interest free loans that Mike Ashley has pumped into the club, to keep it running when the cashflow is not high enough. And Southend, Stockport, Cardiff, and many other clubs have hit financial rock bottom in the last year or two.

[TEKNOPUG]

ascayman said:

TEKNOPUG said:

ascayman said:

TEKNOPUG said:

ascayman said:

GT03ROB said:

So just how have Chelsea & City "cheated" their way to the top?? Spent money?? Hmmm how much did Manure spend on Berbatov & Ferdinand?

money they the club have generated. they are able to spend money now because they spent many many years bringing youthful tallent through the club to get them into the position whereby they earnt the money to go out and splash money on the likes of ferdinand and berbatov.

chelsea and now man city have bought thier sucsess, without either owner they'd be nowhere near the top.

I think ManU ability to buy Rio Ferdinand had a lot more to do agressive marketing, brand globalisation and financial speculating than working with kids on the training pitches.

indeed but it was the bringing through of the kids that got them into that position in the first place.

What kids and in what way? You mean Duncan Edwards? George Best?

butt, beckham, scholes, neville(s) etc etc

the big purchases only really followed after that and the sucsess that followed.

Not at all. ManU were the biggest and richest club in England long before then. After the Munich disaster they most people number 2 team (outside of England) In the 60's they had success and 3 high-profile players in Charlton, Best and Law. When Martin Edwards took over, he realised the potential returns that could be made from football long before other owners/chairman did and marketed and ran the club accordingly. ManU were the biggest spenders and smashing transfer records long before Beckham/Scholes/Giggs arrived.

August 1979 Ray Wilkins Chelsea £825,000
October 1980 Gary Birtles Nottingham Forest £1,250,000
October 1981 Bryan Robson West Bromwich Albion £1,500,000
June 1988 Mark Hughes Barcelona £1,800,000
August 1989 Gary Pallister Middlesbrough £2,300,000
September 1989 Paul Ince West Ham United £2,400,000
July 1993 Roy Keane Nottingham Forest £3,750,000

[GT03ROB]

Unfortunately all this will ever seek to do is ensure the rich clubs stay rich & nobody else stands a hope in hell of breaking through. If the game plan is to cement the arrangement where ManUre, Liverpool, Real, Barcelona, Milans, win everything it's wonderful.

What will happen in the England will be the big boys will demand the same as Brcelona & Real have. IE: the lions share of domestic TV deals. This will be a disaster for the smaller clubs. This deal doesn't encourage the smaller clubs, it totally favours the big boys.

That is not good.

[TEKNOPUG]

This

It's just cementing the Staus Quo forever more

[Dracoro]

Why are football clubs any different to other businesses? I can't see any legislation like this seeing the light of day.

It appears many fans want football clubs to see all the benefits of being run as a business but none of the pitfalls. They want to be seen as a "special case" when they are mismananged.

They could be set up as non-profit organisations. i.e. any money made goes back into the club (or club could choose to reduce ticket prices), help buy players, set up youth academnies, finance new stadiums etc.. Thing is, many clubs have "sold their souls" for potential success in the league. Too many clubs gambling on the hope of success but no way to pay off their gamble if/when it doesn't work out.

We're not at page 1 anyway, so I don't think that much can be done regardless.

Personally, I think they should be allowed to go whichever path they want as long as they accept the consequences.

[Wacky Racer]

flasher said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/87...

Quite how UEFA/FIFA will control this is another matter, but the days of clubs buying trophies while living beyond their means and going hundreds millions into debt looks to be over...

Like Manchester United you mean.

Money has always talked in football.

They signed Denis Law from Torino in 1962 for £116,000 when a typical fee for a very good player was £30,000...

Oh, and Real Madrid £80m for Ronaldo......


ffs!

I agree with the principle of clubs not getting out of their depth, like Leeds and Portsmouth, but this does not apply to Manchester City or Chelsea......unless the owners decided otherwise........(always possible of course)