Man City and FFP

[Red Eye]

Sorry AK you cannot use the market forces argument against FFP. Financial doping as a rich man's plaything is about as far removed from business and the market as you can get.

FFP is flawed but it is an attempt to force football to follow a business model and use market forces alone.

Football is far from being the only rich person's play thing and the notion that there is some kind of self-regulating, ethical, market in business that football should follow belongs in the pages of fantasy fiction. I would have thought that the Adam Smith, 'market myth', school of economics had been finally torpedoed by the world's greatest ever act of theft, recently perpetrated by the financial 'services' sector.

The actual business model that football follows is the law of the pig trough. FFP will not correct that and, to be honest, I doubt if it's intended to - it's just a means of retaining the exclusivity of the current Champions League group. Still, at least those upstarts from Man City have been put in their place again - we couldn't have them beating Man United too frequently, could we?

FFP is not just about stopping clubs like city (unfairly) challenging the very top clubs. How would a club like Spurs or those below be better off if FFP were removed? I can only see three or four clubs that would benefit enormously and everyone else would be worse off. Would everyone else take solace in the distant dream that a billionaire might, just might, one day pick their club?

You are right about the 'pig trough' though - the rich have got richer, FFP won't solve that and nor is it designed too. But I am of the view that two wrongs don't make a right - yes the wealth is unequal but saying to hell with it why not let billionaires eat the game for breakfast will only make it worse. They are two separate issues that imo get mixed up together.

[thebillfella]

Sorry AK you cannot use the market forces argument against FFP. Financial doping as a rich man's plaything is about as far removed from business and the market as you can get.

FFP is flawed but it is an attempt to force football to follow a business model and use market forces alone.

Football is far from being the only rich person's play thing and the notion that there is some kind of self-regulating, ethical, market in business that football should follow belongs in the pages of fantasy fiction. I would have thought that the Adam Smith, 'market myth', school of economics had been finally torpedoed by the world's greatest ever act of theft, recently perpetrated by the financial 'services' sector.

The actual business model that football follows is the law of the pig trough. FFP will not correct that and, to be honest, I doubt if it's intended to - it's just a means of retaining the exclusivity of the current Champions League group. Still, at least those upstarts from Man City have been put in their place again - we couldn't have them beating Man United too frequently, could we?

So teams that manage themselves better and improve from long term sustained success on the pitch shouldn't be allowed to reep the benefits from that better management or on the field success; but teams that are managed so poorly that they become a logical scaleable investment for someone who can throw money at them should be allowed to benefit not from success but from an immediate non-football related injection of cash.

Sorry, but I think your assumption / interpretation that FFP is a vehicle created by the well run teams to prevent those less well run buying success is both flawed and clouded. I don't think FFP is perfect or the answer, but it is a lot better for football as a whole than not having FFP. And don't forget, for every Sheikh Mansour there are hundreds of Gillett/Hicks or Ridsdales.

[Darbyand]

FFP is not just about stopping clubs like city (unfairly) challenging the very top clubs. How would a club like Spurs or those below be better off if FFP were removed?

I would see Spurs and Everton (and latterly Liverpool) as the main victims of City and Chelsea's doping. Where would those 3 be with 2 or 3 extra seasons in the Champions League each between them? Always surprises me fans of those clubs criticise FFP. What's the hope, that a billionaire of your own will come along and put you in the club? Aspire higher guys.

[hancockjr]

Lets move away from city for a minute to more neutral territory and re-wind to the mid-eighties and consider Spurs and Arsenal. At that time broadly speaking I'd say those clubs had equal stature - big, prestigious clubs (part of Big 5), sporadic cup success but neither the major force etc. Now consider where they are now - Arsenal have a stadium and revenues not far off double those of Spurs and that is because they have been far better managed over a prolonged period of time. Now if we did away with FFP, there would be nothing to stop Spurs usurping Arsenal almost overnight if some random billionaire felt like opening his wallet in their direction. No-one will ever be able to tell me that would be fair yet preventing it is somehow considered 'elitist'. (this is nothing against Spurs as I actually feel they are one of the clubs most affected by Chelsea and city artificially anchoring themselves in the CL places).

Arsenal would never have achieved that without having City's money to overpay for all their players (Adebayor, Toure, Clichy, Nasri). If clubs waste money other clubs benefit.

[thebillfella]

Behave hancockjr

Arsenal had already moved into the Emirates by the time City became a mega rich club overnight. The trouble is Arsenal didn't benefit because Wenger hid the cash under his bed rather than spend it on suitable replacements!

And because the likes of City and PSG could suddenly pay way over the odds to get players we all ended up being worse off.

[Darbyand]

Behave hancockjr

Arsenal had already moved into the Emirates by the time City became a mega rich club overnight. The trouble is Arsenal didn't benefit because Wenger hid the cash under his bed rather than spend it on suitable replacements!

Not to mention the "socialist" wage structure that made so many of the original stars want to leave as much as the perceived downgrading of ambitions. And Arsenal clearly drastically under-estimated the likely spikes in TV and other revenues in the 10-15 years following the stadium move. They could have deferred payments, carried on business-as-normal and paid it off very quickly in the next few years.

[AkNotSpur]

FFP is not just about stopping clubs like city (unfairly) challenging the very top clubs. How would a club like Spurs or those below be better off if FFP were removed?

I would see Spurs and Everton (and latterly Liverpool) as the main victims of City and Chelsea's doping. Where would those 3 be with 2 or 3 extra seasons in the Champions League each between them? Always surprises me fans of those clubs criticise FFP. What's the hope, that a billionaire of your own will come along and put you in the club? Aspire higher guys.

From my (albeit distant) Spurs perspective, I've seen the club's attempts to break into the Top 4 dashed by the loss of key players to bigger clubs - Carrick & Berbatov to Man United and then Modric and Bale to Real Madrid. Not only will FFP fail to stop that, the fact that it stipulates that the clubs with the highest revenue can spend the most on players makes it even more likely to continue. Although I do take the point about Chelsea and Man City leapfrogging - there is also a consideration that without 4 wealthy clubs the Premiership might already be looking at dropping to 3, and then even possibly 2, clubs in the Champions League and a Man United-Arsenal duopoly in the Premiership.

Actually, as Spurs are going to be financially hamstrung, for a while, by building their new stadium, another (richer) billionaire to replace Joe Lewis/ENIC would be just what the doctor ordered! I don't see any great ethical issue with that - after all looking at the Glazers, the billionaires on the Arsenal board, Roman's Roubles and Sheikh City - where's the Virgin Mary in that lot?

The only way to level the playing field would be to limit wages and transfer fees to a level affordable by around 20 clubs and we all know, given the global nature of the football market, that isn't feasible.

[tedbull]

United were valued at £1.6bn in 2010 (by 2014 they were worth £3bn)

The Sheik bought City in 2008… for £200m? But has then spent £1bn?

He could have just bought United and he'd have doubled his money whilst investing a fraction (if anything)? Factoring in how much they have repaid in interest and also 'loans' to the glazer family.

They may well consider that the difference between what they would have spent on the two is a mere fraction.

[Zimmerman]

It was more a response to billfella? Who talked about commercial opportunities.

[Zimmerman]

FFP is not just about stopping clubs like city (unfairly) challenging the very top clubs. How would a club like Spurs or those below be better off if FFP were removed?

I would see Spurs and Everton (and latterly Liverpool) as the main victims of City and Chelsea's doping. Where would those 3 be with 2 or 3 extra seasons in the Champions League each between them? Always surprises me fans of those clubs criticise FFP. What's the hope, that a billionaire of your own will come along and put you in the club? Aspire higher guys.

Maybe it's because clubs like Everton and Spurs have put up with status quo for the previous 20years anyway. They're used to haves/have nots. They're used to a bigger club rocking up and usurping them (or asset stripping). So to them, makes no difference if United are out muscling everybody, or City are.

There had been an established top 4 (CL doped) for long enough to ensure Everton and Spurs were only realistically competing to be top of Tier B.

As a Liverpool fan, am I hoping for a sugar daddy? No. (Although it would be nice). But I enjoyed many years of buying the best players because we had more money than most. I can't now complain because others have more.

Just because somebody has blue blood, are they more deserving of their wealth?

[Zimmerman]

13/14 - City/Liverpool/Chelsea/Arsenal (Everton 5 / Spurs 6)
12/13 - United/City/Chelsea/Arsenal (Spurs 5 / Everton 6
11/12 - City/United/Arsenal/Spurs (Everton 7)
10/11 - United/Chelsea/City/Arsenal (Spurs 5 / Everton 7)
09/10 - Chelsea/United/Arsenal/Spurs (Everton 8th)

SEPT 08 SHEIK TAKES OVER CITY

08/09 - United/Liverpool/Chelsea/Arsenal (Everton 5 / Spurs 8)
07/08 - United/Chelsea/Arsenal/Liverpool (Everton 5 / Spurs 11th)
06/07 - United/Chelsea/Liverpool/Arsenal (Spurs 5 / Everton 6)
05/06 - Chelsea/United/Liverpool/Arsenal (Spurs 5 / Everton 11)
04/05 - Chelsea/Arsenal/United/Everton (Spurs 9th)
03/04 - Arsenal/Chelsea/United/Liverpool (Spurs 14/Everton 17)

June 2003 - ROMAN TAKES OVER CHELSEA

02/03 - United/Arsenal/Newcastle/Chelsea (Everton 7 / Spurs 10)
01/02 - Arsenal/Liverpool/United/Newcastle
00/01 - United/Arsenal/Liverpool
99/00 - United/Arsenal/Leeds
98/99 - United/Arsenal/Chelsea
97/98 - Arsenal/United
96/97 - United/Newcastle | Arsenal/Liverpool
95/96 - United | Newcastle/Liverpool

[Darbyand]

Nice one Zimm. I'd under estimated it; four or five opportunities each for Everton and Spurs denied by the dopers.

And a title for Liverpool.

[Giggs11]

Not all bad then ...

[Darbyand]

They've taken plenty more from us...starting 20 years ago.

Odds on Klopp to City shortening all the time...he'd better not take Hummels and Reus with him.

[thebillfella]

United were valued at £1.6bn in 2010 (by 2014 they were worth £3bn)

The Sheik bought City in 2008… for £200m? But has then spent £1bn?

He could have just bought United and he'd have doubled his money whilst investing a fraction (if anything)? Factoring in how much they have repaid in interest and also 'loans' to the glazer family.

They may well consider that the difference between what they would have spent on the two is a mere fraction.

This assumes they then spend £0 on players at utd in that time to be comparable, which clearly would never have been feasible or logical over the same time period.

I guess what Mansour's team won't have appreciated at the time is how few Manchester fans would actually come to the ground given all the BS bravado coming out of Stockport

[Zimmerman]

How much have United repaid in loans and interest?

And transfers?

And loans to the Glazer family?

They'd have more than enough in invest in the squad, without any sheik money.

Meanwhile doubling the value of the club (with no more commercial potential).

[thebillfella]

Fair comment. I guess if they couldn't predict the low attendances they probably wouldn't have predicted the increase in commercial value without external cash injection

[murf]

They've taken plenty more from us...starting 20 years ago.

Odds on Klopp to City shortening all the time...he'd better not take Hummels and Reus with him.

Sounds like big money to be made laying that one!

BBC say virtually zero chance and last I heard he was odds on to go there at the bookies.

Could make enough to buy a non league team. Or is that doping?

[Giggs11]

How much have United repaid in loans and interest?

And transfers?

And loans to the Glazer family?

They'd have more than enough in invest in the squad, without any sheik money.

Meanwhile doubling the value of the club (with no more commercial potential).

Why do you think we hate the yank gimps?

We've been successful enough obviously but with even a half decent owner, who had enough of their own money to simply buy the club, United would have been right up there challenging Barca as the best club side ever.
And FFP wouldn't have been able to touch us ...

[AkNotSpur]

FFP is not just about stopping clubs like city (unfairly) challenging the very top clubs. How would a club like Spurs or those below be better off if FFP were removed?

I would see Spurs and Everton (and latterly Liverpool) as the main victims of City and Chelsea's doping. Where would those 3 be with 2 or 3 extra seasons in the Champions League each between them? Always surprises me fans of those clubs criticise FFP. What's the hope, that a billionaire of your own will come along and put you in the club? Aspire higher guys.

Maybe it's because clubs like Everton and Spurs have put up with status quo for the previous 20years anyway. They're used to haves/have nots. They're used to a bigger club rocking up and usurping them (or asset stripping). So to them, makes no difference if United are out muscling everybody, or City are.

That's exactly the point. The biggest club victims of financial doping are Man United and Arsenal - then, to a lesser extent, Liverpool...to which my reaction is...tough luck - those clubs have had more than their fair share of success over the years. What I'd like to see is a Premiership with a dozen decent teams, not just 4-5, and FFP isn't going to provide that.

[Darbyand]

In the past Liverpool, United and Arsenal were strengthening to try and win the title and with the best will in the world, with the exception of a brief period mid-80s, that was probably beyond Everton and Spurs.
However, they could easily, and regularly did, finish in the top 4 and as we know that means something very different in the modern football world. As Zimm's stats show City/Chelsea have taken those spots away and the revenues that follow. Without the dopers they'd probably still be behind the "big" clubs. With it they've been nudged back an extra couple of places and that is crucial right now.

[mikeg13]

That's exactly the point. The biggest club victims of financial doping are Man United and Arsenal - then, to a lesser extent, Liverpool...to which my reaction is...tough luck - those clubs have had more than their fair share of success over the years. What I'd like to see is a Premiership with a dozen decent teams, not just 4-5, and FFP isn't going to provide that.

While understand your thinking, United and Afc problems to me self inflicted, United by the daft situation that enabled the buy out and Afc by being not just belt and braces, but padlocks as well financially.
To me no question way rule is applied favors the haves, that can not be right if aim is to bring fair play to the game, way it is at mo see's investment in its proper sense and finance doping as same thing, that is crazy.
Between the 2 Manchester clubs the biggest wrong not City but way United were sold and nothing done about that under the regs, thats wrong.
United if they had proper ownership would easily be richest club in the world, in my view, if that would have been good for Prem another question, but to be fair to United for many years they were way above all in English top division when it came to money, but dont remember them inflating the market, the Fair play regs have done nothing to regulate transfer market, thats supposed to be the point.

[AkNotSpur]

In the past Liverpool, United and Arsenal were strengthening to try and win the title and with the best will in the world, with the exception of a brief period mid-80s, that was probably beyond Everton and Spurs.
However, they could easily, and regularly did, finish in the top 4 and as we know that means something very different in the modern football world. As Zimm's stats show City/Chelsea have taken those spots away and the revenues that follow. Without the dopers they'd probably still be behind the "big" clubs. With it they've been nudged back an extra couple of places and that is crucial right now.

Much as it pains me to point this out, Chelsea had actually leapfrogged over Spurs well before the Roman Regime. This happened in the 96/97 season when Chelsea finished in 6th place - since then they haven't been out of the Top 6 and Spurs have only finished above them once (ironically, of course, the year that Chelsea fluked the CL). OK, Chelsea may have gone to the wall in 03 without the Russian, but if they'd ended up with a less wealthy owner they might still be Top 4 regulars. So, maybe, only City have nudged back Spurs in the past few seasons by FD?

[Darbyand]

OK, Chelsea may have gone to the wall in 03 without the Russian

Putting it mildly really. Their spending of the previous few years had no relation to their revenues, the old school "Ridsdale" type of doping.

The Bates era wasn't all good, however, and towards the end of his reign Chelsea were once more teetering on the edge of a financial abyss, saved by the arrival of Roman Abramovich and his vast wealth. While Bates had overseen refurbishments to Stamford Bridge, trophies and impressive finishes in the Premier League, mounting debts nearing £80m meant a top four finish, which they secured on the final day of the 2002/03 season, was crucial to the club's survival, before white knight Abramovich swept in a new era of unprecedented riches.
http://talksport.com/magazine/features/ ... hSdvKYL.99

[Zimmerman]

It's also a bit presumptuous to say that without City Spurs would be benefitting.

Prior to the sheik rocking up:

08/09 8th
11th
5th
5th
9th
03/04 14th

Not exactly perennial challengers.

Everton on the otherhand

5th
5th
6th
11th
4th
17th

But it's a leap (not a massive one) to assume they'd have stepped up?

What might have happened without the lescott funds? We'll never know of course.

What might have happened if City hadn't got in to a bidding war for Berbatov?

What might have happened if Arsenal didn't get all the money from City (Toure, Adebayor and Nasri must have been about £60m)?

[Darbyand]

But what happens when two of those 5ths are converted to 4ths...start to bed into the Champions Lge...get better players...keep your better players. Virtuous circles and all that.

And let's have a look at City's positions in the same era (if you have a chance) to show their worthiness to take one of the spots? About the last time they played a game under their own steam they were getting dicked 8-1 up at Boro.

[Zimmerman]

Those 5ths were prior to the Sheik

So they didn't have that divine right to step in/up to those CL places.

Arguably Spurs' recent consistent challenging status is a result or the revenue from those CL forays. Last 5 years has seen them in the top 5/6 (inc 4th in 11/12 and 09/10).

Who's to say it's down to CL money or a by-product of City's wealth?

Ie without City, United, Arsenal and Chelsea might have been even stronger. Liverpool too perhaps. It's been said, with a finite pool of players available, easier for 3 or 4 teams to get them.

Villa might not have lost Milner, Young or Downing. Liverpool might not have had to look at players like Adam or Downing.
Arsenal might still of had some of their players
United night have been able to sign different players to Smalling et al

Etc etc

Lots of whatifs

It's a very delicate conundrum and all too easy to think take them out and this this and this would have happened.

[Darbyand]

The 5ths were when Chelsea had nabbed a spot was what I was getting at.

[murf]

Without the oil doping would England have been overall less appealing to the stars like Torres, Ozil and Di Maria?

Would the likes of Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool be that tiny bit weaker?

Would Everton and Spurs (and an undoped Chelsea?) etc be that little bit closer accordingly or would there best players be filling the gaps at the bigger clubs??

Too many 'what ifs'


A bit before even my time but was watching a documentary on Shankly last night and there was a scene where it seemed the whole world had descended on central Liverpool for an open top bus celebration - just for winning the FA Cup. Complete madness and a love of footie. - and then another slightly less mad one when they had come runners up in a couple of comps. Can't help thinking footie was better back then and in my day. Glad to have lost the hooligans but was it worth what we lost ?????

[Red Eye]

So with oil doping the gap between richer and poorer gets wider but hey the wealth will trickle down so everyone is better off?

Obviously it is a bit simplified to say Spurs/whoever would be 4th if etc etc. - you can question that kind of premise but I think the point is a bit moot. The point is people critcize FFP for for cementing an elite, but nothing cements an elite more than having teams within it who are borderline impregnable because they are doped.

My view is that Chelsea and city are (were) not naturally among the top/biggest 4/5 clubs in this country - they are pumped-up cruiserweights. Chelsea may have finished 4th/won trophies before Roman but, as said, they did so by living beyond their means and that does not mean they would have been cemented in the elite as they are now (even if you assume their debt would have been paid off and they wouldn't have gone bust).

With or without the CL you will always have a fairly stable elite just because some clubs are massive and have big commercial revenues. But I think its indisputable there would be a more fluid situation at the top without oil doping.