Just last summer, Baines and Herrera were shunted out by respective clubs. And did a daylight robbery with Fellaini.
Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions
- Thread starter PlayerOne
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Just last summer, Baines and Herrera were shunted out by respective clubs. And did a daylight robbery with Fellaini.
Can you not all piss off into the European super league and leave us to think about how to build slightly more equitable leagues?
I can't believe people are genuinely arguing that Man City and Chelsea are good for the league as a whole. Is that a serious argument?
I can't believe people are genuinely arguing that Man City and Chelsea are good for the league as a whole. Is that a serious argument?
Well there we go then, money was pivotal then as well. Not as important as Ferguson himself but it was a factor and without it it's not certain he would have achieved what he did.
Take away the three teams who spent heavily to achieve Premier League success. You would be looking at two different winners, Arsenal and United. The only club who genuinely had a chance to win the league without Chelsea and City is Liverpool. Otherwise, we would be looking at a cycle of United winning a few seasons with the occasional interruption from Liverpool or Arsenal.
Villarreal under Pellegrini pretty much 'organically' managed to break the top two but within a few seasons were playing in the second division. The top teams may be challenged temporarily but that threat will never remain permanent without financial backing (CL money is not enough). I think it is hard to argue City and Chelsea have not been beneficial to the competitiveness of the league. The season just gone is described as the most competitive in Premier League history. Four genuine contenders at varying parts of the season. Two seasons prior it came down to the last kick of the season, the season after the team that lost out won comfortably. The league is more competitive since the sugar daddies arrived.
United didn't have unmatched wealth at the time.
I'm not sure what relevance that has to a club the level of Spurs, let alone clubs like Cardiff or Aston Villa?
At best, the sugar daddy clubs have had no effect on most clubs. Cardiff don't care in the slightest how competitive the top of the table is. And why would they?
Clubs the level of Spurs and Everton care only in so far as breaking into the top 4 regularly even, let alone even thinking about challenging for any of the trophies on a consistent basis, is now a pipe dream, without our own huge infusion of money. All the entrance of Chelsea and Man City has done is ensured that on a long term basis, 3 of the CL spots are sewn up, with some pretty heavy hitters still going for that 4th spot.
Why does it matter to the rest of the league exactly whether it is Man City or Man Utd winning the league? Whether it is Man Utd unsettling and nicking your player or Chelsea?
At best, the sugar daddy clubs have had no effect on most clubs. Cardiff don't care in the slightest how competitive the top of the table is. And why would they?
Clubs the level of Spurs and Everton care only in so far as breaking into the top 4 regularly even, let alone even thinking about challenging for any of the trophies on a consistent basis, is now a pipe dream, without our own huge infusion of money. All the entrance of Chelsea and Man City has done is ensured that on a long term basis, 3 of the CL spots are sewn up, with some pretty heavy hitters still going for that 4th spot.
Why does it matter to the rest of the league exactly whether it is Man City or Man Utd winning the league? Whether it is Man Utd unsettling and nicking your player or Chelsea?
Never claimed they did. But they had a spending power way above those around them in the league and only equaled by a few.
You said: "I can't believe people are genuinely arguing that Man City and Chelsea are good for the league as a whole"
My argument is that by making the league more competitive at the top then surely that is beneficial to the league as a whole as it increases the viewing figures and global demand, leading to a rise in revenue for all the clubs. Cardiff got £62m this season did they not? You think Premier League TV income would have increased the same without the increased competitiveness?
Is that really the case? Ourselves, Arsenal and Newcastle had a few titanic battles down the years.
Nowhere near the extent of Chelsea and City so the comparison doesn't really work.
That increased revenue is useless to them if they have to spend it to have a hope of competing with the clubs around them.
For those arguing against the FFP, do you think there is an alternative set of rules that could be brought in to make it more competitive, or do you just want teams to spend as much as they want.
The other arguments have been just going in cycles and I think this would be an interesting thing to discuss.
The other arguments have been just going in cycles and I think this would be an interesting thing to discuss.
Considering that it's just another company from Abu Dhabi, it shouldn't be even counted as part of the legitimate sponsorship income. City just continue to shit on FFP.
How? It isn't like they can use that money to push on another level because everybody is receiving more money.
Abolish the loan system entirely and look at introducing transfer and salary caps in some way. Or an even distribution of TV and competition money.
Why are salary and transfer caps any fairer than limiting a team to spending what it earns?
I don't see the relevance of the first point. It's sensible to strengthen when you're on top - United have done it frequently in the past. They are doing what they feel they need to in order to continue being successful - as any right thinking club would do.
I'm sure the fans of the other clubs you refer to are touched by your concern - but it highlights my point. Despite United fans thinking our "self generated" mega spending which is likely this summer will be viewed differently to what Chelsea and City have done in the past, the average fan of another side would see no difference. As the spurs fan above said - of doesn't matter whether its Chelsea, City or United taking your best players.
As regards your last point - it raises another issue of the myths surrounding the Oil clubs that they would be bringing in ridiculous amounts if top players and turning the league into a farce. That's something else that hasn't happened. City bought decent but possibly risky players this summer and its worked well for them.
You say you want real fairness so fair play to you. An even playing field wouldn't help United any more than any other club. I suspect you are one if a small minority on here, as I said above, the rest wanting a return to the old days of United's ability to outspend other sides when needed.
Because they wouldn't be tied to revenue, thus outside investment would still be a possibility. Also, the biggest and richest clubs couldn't stockpile as many players as they can now.
It'd be unfair on a side like Everton, were they to break into the CL they'd have extra resources at their disposal, large portions of which they'd perhaps be unable to spend. How can a side like that progress when even when it works itself into a position of having cash on the hip they're told they can't spend any of it above a certain level. What might have taken 3-5 years to build up a team to become serious title challengers will now be a period doubled. The base at which City, United, Chelsea etc are at or will be at will mean it'll take yonks for any other team to catch up if their spending is suddenly limited to £X per year.
Besides where would all the money go? Nobody really dreams about buying a football club to refurbish the car park.
Because the caps would be consistent, every club has the ability, if they so wish, to invest exactly the same amount. The big income clubs would be able to afford to spend up to the caps already, and other clubs can invest to that same level. A system like this would probably attract a lot of investment into clubs in the rest of the league because investors know spending can't spiral out of control because of the caps - the price of running a club becomes reduced while TV revenue continues to grow. It would probably make football very healthy financially in the long-term as well as create an even playing field.
Mind you, it's probably not legal.
Everton could spend just as much as everyone else in that scenario. How is that less fair than the current situation, when certain clubs can blow them out of the water?
Yes, the biggest, most established clubs would still have an advantage. But at least the gap wouldn't grow exponentially and it might even shrink.
Welcome to FFP. Your bias on this topic is tremendous - you're making arguments against other approaches which all but replicate the impact that the current system will have on the game - except slightly worse.Everton breaking into the CL won't take their income above City United or Chelsea - so instead of being able to spend as much as those sides if a cap was introduced, instead they are limited to even less investment (taking even longer to catch them). I think that cap would be relatively healthy, allowing clubs to actually work with decent investment, rather than peanuts for a carpark.
If every club only had the ability to spend as much as the one above them that'd make any progress virtually impossible. You'd say to a team like Everton that if they pulled off a decent commercial deal or somehow otherwise got some spare cash they'd saved for a while because they were waiting for the right player and identified a £40m star signing they wanted to make to drive them forward, how is it 'fair' to tell them that they can't and they have to stick to whatever the pre-arranged transfer limit was?
You'd just be keeping the rest of the pack the same distance away all the time.
That isnt always how salary caps work. As I unuderstand it its not a set amount per team, but usually linked in some way to turnover or revenue. In Rugby Union and League I believe they have a system like that - I assume to encourage clubs to increase the turnover of the clubs and invest in facilites and/or in making the game more popular.
It seems unfair that a club who has invested millions in a new stadium cannot then reap the rwards of that in terms of increased revenue, simply because they are already at the "salary cap".
I'm also unsure how that woudl work in practice, if the intention is to stop teams spending above their limits. What United can afford is more than Southampton can afford based on what they generate - but with a set cap surely a rich owner could just buy into Southampton and pump money in so they could spend up to the cap? I dont see how that gets anyone any further forward.
But Everton spending as much as everyone else isn't 'fair' in the scenario where you have one team worth £400m and another worth £30m and the team that's worth £30m is told it must limit their spending. Yes the two teams will be able too spend as much but how the hell do you close a gap when regardless of commercial intuition or success on or of the field in another way the gap in value of the team will probably always be £370m?
Now Everton have the chance to get a geat commercial deal, perhaps invest TV money wisely and decide for themselves how much it's sensible to spend and if they want to invest big one year, they're able to. I really don't understand the argument that says asking a club to spend what it earns has suddenly become egregious. That's how it always worked before and works for about 89 of the 92 league clubs as it is.
No, they can't decide for themselves. FFP has decided for them. It's a transfer and wage cap but it's a "soft" one because it's tied to revenue. That is why they will never ever have a chance to catch up with the big boys. I'm not sure why you don't see that the current system is far more unfair to Everton than the one I propose. With a hard cap, Manchester United couldn't just throw 200m at the problem after a poor season. Big clubs would be much more vulnerable to poor footballing decisions and their inherent advantage would be necessarily reduced over time because they couldn't stockpile 30m players for every position, paying three times the amount of wages the other clubs do.
And it's not how it always worked before. In the past owners were allowed to invest their personal wealth into the club as they saw fit. See Jack Walker or Silvio Berlusconi or Massimo Moratti.
But with a hard cap no team could throw money at any problem. But you'd still have a situation where Manchester United start off with a team worth £400m and Everton, don't. You can't impose a cap and declare it fair because it applies equally when the starting position is so inherently unfair. There will never be a chance for Everton, regardless of how successful it becomes on or off the pitch, to close the gap.
If you take a team of superstars and a team of also-rans (no disrespect to Everton) and say that from now on they can only spend £30m a year, that isn't 'fair' you're just making it impossible for that lower team to ever catch up. Now Everton can realistically (and have recently) grab 4th, where the potential is to get the additional money and decide how to use it. Your plan would see them possibly being able to grab 4th and then be told you cannot spend anything to widen the gap between themselves and the dislodged Arsenal. The Arsenal team worth much more than the Everton team will go into the next season knowing that whatever happens they'll have the better squad as despite the additional money Everton earn they'll be prevented from spending it beyond the limit amount Arsenal themselves can also spend.
Of the 'top 6' teams over the recent years who aren't sugar daddy funded;
We capitulated last year and finished 7th, Arsenal seem to be married to 4th, Liverpool backfired completely after 2009 until this year and we can all laugh at Tottenham.
Given this I don't see how the argument that without sugar daddies no team would stand a chance of closing the gap or becoming successful, could possibly hold water.
We capitulated last year and finished 7th, Arsenal seem to be married to 4th, Liverpool backfired completely after 2009 until this year and we can all laugh at Tottenham.
Given this I don't see how the argument that without sugar daddies no team would stand a chance of closing the gap or becoming successful, could possibly hold water.
Right now that inherent advantage is there. The starting position is unfair. Financial Fair Play serves to cement that starting position by taking away the chance to match the spending of clubs far bigger. How do you not see that? Will one successful season for Everton increase their revenue significantly enough to get even close to that of United or even Arsenal? Will it feck. Then Arsenal/United will throw money at the problem and boom, Everton are fecked. EDIT: Not to mention that they will lose their best players. They might keep a few more of them if the big clubs cannot just blow them out of the water on wages.
I'm not just suggesting a transfer cap but a wage cap as well. In practice that means that Manchester United or City can't keep up a team worth 400m. Over the short term a cap might not level the playing field but on medium to long term it will definitely shrink the gap between the biggest, most established clubs and the rest. Unlike Financial Fair Play which, if properly implemented, freezes everything in position.
Without the sugar daddy clubs the top four may welll this season have been: Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton, Tottenham.
So again; why is the sugar daddy the only means through which a club can build for success. If anything the existence of them is almost an immovable barrier. Everton may well be a CL regular by now. What might three seasons in the CL have meant for Everton these last 5 or 6 years?
So again; why is the sugar daddy the only means through which a club can build for success. If anything the existence of them is almost an immovable barrier. Everton may well be a CL regular by now. What might three seasons in the CL have meant for Everton these last 5 or 6 years?
That is in reference to people who say, Chelsea had to spend so much just to get to the top. But it didn't stop or even reduce to an extent after that. 100 million in 2005 was a lot. Also, you would see in one of my previous post that after 2005 (when chelsea won the title), they have spent double that of United just on transfer fees. Where they still catching up?. It's just to show that they will outspend, no matter if they are at the top or bottom.
Even distribution of TV money could well have the reverse effect. Now clubs can't improve their financial situation by doing better in the league, and those with better matchday and commercial income will have a financial advantage that will never be affected by poor performance. The gap between Leicester and Everton is smaller than the gap between Everton and United. It may well exacerbate the problem of haves and have-nots by levelling the playing field at the bottom end but not the top.
A transfer and salary cap is a good idea in principle, but fails on the rocks of reality. For one, every FA is an independent body, which means every FA in Europe would have to implement it at the same time (plus the Premier League). If only England did it, you'd be saying bye-bye to all the best players, who would be off to Spain, Germany and Italy where they can get 2 or 5 or 10 times the wages.
Another problem is that clubs have to vote to agree changes to sporting rules of that type in the PL.
Plus putting a salary cap in place for every team for UEFA competitions only would be tantamount to banning all the best players in Europe from the Champions League.
It's also hard to see how an absolute salary cap can possibly be useful for Leicester City with £25Mpa turnover, Everton with £86Mpa turnover and United with £400Mpa turnover. What number do you choose that is in any way fair for all those clubs?
Besides, the upshot would just be a youth academy arms race. That might be morally preferable to the current situation, but it would be the same upshot. Those with the money to pay for a stellar youth academy setup would challenge every season. They'd supplement their better youth players by spending their transfer budget on a smaller number of better players. Same outcome, different means.
The reality is that the problem is a hugely complex one, and there is no simple solution. Simple rules are never going to work. As the saying goes, if you want to turn something complicated into something simple, you need a system that is equally complex.
The fact that we're dealing with lots of different governing bodes, and lots of clubs with their own agendas means that its a slow process. In truth the problem is akin to a mini-version of the EU. If you're an EU politician and you think a rule should be brought in across Europe, it would be much easier if Europe was a single federal entity. But its not, so you can't just bring in blanket rules & expect agreement. You need to employ a mix of carrot and stick, making allies, making threats and shepherding people step by step in a given direction. Most importantly, it requires consensus.
Thats why I think FFP is a decent starting point. If you can get most leading clubs in each European league to start on the principle of break even - no matter how wonky the implementation - you've made a crucial step. You've agreed that spending and financial control is a sound principle. The idea that we should go from where we are now to a single European FA with total control over every aspect of a clubs spending is just unrealistic. It will take time, and will probably never be perfect. But some movement is preferable.
However I've yet to see any argument that says that allowing sugar daddies to take over clubs like City and PSG is sorting out the problem. It just adds another, different, problem to the mix and makes the situation more difficult.
Fair point. Plus, where is this saved up money going to go?. We can only update the infrastructure so much. We certainly don't want the money to go into the glazers' pocket.
This. As a first measure this should be looked into. What we have now is a state of affairs where the clubs that have the biggest revenues to begin with - the clubs that are the biggest "brands" if you will - will also sweep up, by far, the most in terms of TV and prize money. It's an added bonus on top of everything else which the biggest clubs don't really need - and which could make a huge difference for "lesser" clubs.
If every team got the same amount of TV/prize money then clubs lower down the table could never earn more by doing well, and clubs at the top would never earn less from doing badly.
Far from helping, you could have a situation where those with strong matchday and commercial revenue had no risk of their income ever lowering to the level of clubs below them, regardless of performance (in the short to medium term anyway).
It would lower the overall turnover of United, but since our matchday income is greater than Everton's entire turnover, we would still have a huge advantage. The difference is that if we drop out of the top 4 places, and Everton win the league, the gap would be the same rather than shrink.
I never suggested every team should get exactly the same.
The clubs at the top of the food chain should get LESS than they get per now - that is all. The situation in Spain, to make the most obvious example, is perfectly hopeless at the moment.
Well the Premier league already has the fairest split of any major league. The difference between the highest earner and the lowest this year was only £35M (£97M vs £62M).
The real problem is the rampant commercial and matchday income, where United dwarfs most other clubs.
Agreed. But it's very difficult to do something about this (the bit in bold) as it comes down to highly individual criteria and circumstances. The reason we were in a position to exploit the new possibilities in the Sky era to such effect in the first place, was our popularity - both in England and world wide. We had the highest average attendance in the country even before we expanded Old Trafford. The question is to what extent you curb the part of a given club's turnover which is, for lack of a better word, natural?
One could argue that TV money, for instance, falls into the same category - because it is, de facto, the most popular teams that get the biggest share of the cash. But the latter is different nonetheless, since most such deals are negotiated between a league - not a single club - and the networks. And the leagues can, if they so desire, introduce a measure of positive discrimination to make the playing field more even - on the basis that this benefits both bigger and smaller clubs in the long run. Which I believe it does.
I don't think you can discredit every sponsorship to zero from the UAE, because we clearly have some presence over there for obvious reasons, and our shirt and stadium sponsorship has some market value. It's a fair discussion point though, even City fans admit that our deals there are clearly inflated - it's just extremely difficult for UEFA to prove that the worth to that particular company isn't fair value of the sponsorship. IF it's true that the PSG deal to provide 'advice' to Qatar Investment Authority has been revalued from £200m to £84m per year - it sets a benchmark, and is the first big sign that FFP isn't capable of stopping blatant loopholes, which City will also exploit. If the market value of a french football club providing advice to a middle eastern investment authority is £84m, then City could have an exact replica deal with ADIA - the market value has already been set.
It's all a case of seeing how much you can get away with at first, and then replicating deals on the boundary of the benchmark that's set after the initial reviews to avoid risk of revaluation. Just to add meat to the bones of this latest deal (because everybody loves to know the details of City sponsorship deals), the major shareholders of Arabtec are a mixture of various Aabar subsidiaries (whom City also have a sponsorship deal with by the way). Aabar are 98% owned by IPIC, an Abu Dhabi government owned investment company. Sheikh Mansour as well as being deputy PM of UAE, so a key government figure, is also the chairman of IPIC - and there is the link.
Reportedly from a fall as well, so very sudden and could indeed have an impact on timescales.
Thoughts go to his family of course.