Manchester city... ffp?

[Infra-red]

Anyone seeing Levy's comments here as a direct dig at City?

Id have started a thread but I can't do that yet. Couldn't see a thread already either.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11675/10961911/daniel-levy-defends-tottenhams-transfer-policy

Except that City's spending very much is sustainable - their owners have essentially infinite funds with which to purchase players. The same goes for PSG. If United, Arsenal or Liverpool were to start spending £400m per summer on player acquisitions then obviously that would not be sustainable, but as things stand, those clubs are living within their means too.

Whether or not football itself can sustain a protracted sporting war between two sovereign countries, is a slightly different question...

 

[robinamicrowave]

Levy's comments just sounds like posturing to me. Dare I say it, Wenger-like posturing.

 

[clarkydaz]

yet he is happy to squeeze every last drop when selling his players

 

[Josep Dowling]

Levy's comments just sounds like posturing to me. Dare I say it, Wenger-like posturing.

He has to give the fans some sort of reason for not buying any players.

'We develop our youth' sounds better than 'we have no money because we are trying to build a stadium.

 

[GlastonSpur]

yet he is happy to squeeze every last drop when selling his players

Of course - why wouldn't he be? That helps Spurs and is grist to his unsustainability argument concerning the spending of certain other clubs.

 

[FujiVice]

I dont think anyone knows what FFP is. Its all bollocks sadly. If there is a way to con it, the idea of a FFP governing body makes the game a laughing stock.

 

[GlastonSpur]

He has to give the fans some sort of reason for not buying any players.

'We develop our youth' sounds better than 'we have no money because we are trying to build a stadium.

Except Spurs do have money (e.g. the £50m for Walker, plus other money from other players sold this window). In the same interview Levy also said: " ....I can honestly say it [money invested in the stadium and new training centre] is not impacting us on transfer activity because we are not yet in a place where we have found a player that we want to buy who we cannot afford to buy.”

 

[Josep Dowling]

Except Spurs do have money (e.g. the £50m for Walker, plus other money from other players sold this window). In the same interview Levy also said: " ....I can honestly say it [money invested in the stadium and new training centre] is not impacting us on transfer activity because we are not yet in a place where we have found a player that we want to buy who we cannot afford to buy.”

Believe what you want to believe. Wenger said similar things when they were having their stadium built.

Levy happily spent money when Bale was sold. Your're not even linked with anyone.

 

[Catt]

Those Levi comments are Wengeresque.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Believe what you want to believe. Wenger said similar things when they were having their stadium built.

Levy happily spent money when Bale was sold. Your're not even linked with anyone.

I don't need to "believe" that we've so far sold players this window for a value exceeding £68m (plus potential add-ons) - it's a matter of established fact. So clearly we have money to spend if we want to, even aside from any positive net-spend transfer budget that Pochettino might have been given.

Therefore there is every reason to believe Levy when he says "... we are not yet in a place where we have found a player that we want to buy who we cannot afford to buy."

 

[SAFicus]

Except Spurs do have money (e.g. the £50m for Walker, plus other money from other players sold this window). In the same interview Levy also said: " ....I can honestly say it [money invested in the stadium and new training centre] is not impacting us on transfer activity because we are not yet in a place where we have found a player that we want to buy who we cannot afford to buy.”

You do realise that he has essentially said "we cannot afford to buy anyone worth buying." right?

Its like me saying I have not yet found a football club I want to buy, but can't afford...

The truth to that statement is that I can't afford to buy a club, except maybe the local pub side and probably not even that.

Edit: Not saying Spurs have no money, nor am I saying they do have money. Just saying the quote you are using says nothing.

 

[GlastonSpur]

You do realise that he has essentially said "we cannot afford to buy anyone worth buying." right?

Its like me saying I have not yet found a football club I want to buy, but can't afford...

The truth to that statement is that I can't afford to buy a club, except maybe the local pub side and probably not even that.

Edit: Not saying Spurs have no money, nor am I saying they do have money. Just saying the quote you are using says nothing.

I don't see that at all. You have translated his words out all recognition. The window has many weeks to run - how are you going to explain away your "translation" if Spurs do buy one or more players? Or are you predicting that we won't?

 

[SAFicus]

I don't see that at all. You have translated his words out all recognition. The window has many weeks to run - how are you going to explain away your "translation" if Spurs do buy one or more players? Or are you predicting that we won't?

1. You have no idea what Levy means when he says "want to buy". If you ignore figures then surely he would want to buy Messi, Neymar, Mbappe.

2. Since we don't know what goes into Levy wanting a player. If we assume Levy wanting to buy a player considers price thus ruling out players such as those above then if you say there are no players you "want to buy" that you also cant afford it is an absolutely meaningless caveat.

3. I was open about the fact that none of us, including you, know if Spurs have money to spend or not so nothing to explain away.

The simple fact is that ive never found something I could never hope to afford that I wanted to buy. There are things I cannot afford that I want. But not that I want to buy. Theres a difference. Daniel Levy is clever enough to know it.

 

[clarkydaz]

Of course - why wouldn't he be? That helps Spurs and is grist to his unsustainability argument concerning the spending of certain other clubs.

so overpay for spurs players by all means, then judge all the other transfers as irresponsible

 

[M18CTID]

@M18CTID

Sure the butterfly effect can always be mentioned. Can even go further back if you want when Woolwich two main founders, Danskin and Humble, allegedly had a "spy network" throughout all the munitions factories where if a young lad could play footy he would "found a job" making more money at the Woolwich Arsenal. And I think the key to Arsenal losing their plot was the Fiszman-Dein fallout which left the club leaderless at the top.



It was Fiszman yeah but that is a fair point. He did inject £50M and that was definitely important in getting wages on par throughout the 90s and providing enough funds to secure Bergkamp, Platt, Vieira. Oh and as our PSG friends will remind, the Anelka deal was not exactly the most "classy" of moves either (@Ecstatic)

I should have mentioned Fiszman as well since it was Fiszman who pushed the stadium build while Dein mistakenly wanted to rent Wembley. So its fair that both contributed. Of course their fallout over some {suspect} diamond dial ended up really hurting the club and was the butterfly effect that leaves us in the current strange situation of having 2 of the richest 3 owners in world football (plus Kroenke is married into the WalMart fortune) yet our club is still the most miserly of any of the top 12-20 clubs.

Thanks for the insight mate. Some interesting stuff there that I wasn't aware of - I didn't know of any issues regarding the Anelka deal and just assumed it was great scouting work on Wenger's part at a time when he seemed to be streets ahead of everyone else in the Premier League regarding that kind of thing.

 

[Ødegaard]

I dont think anyone knows what FFP is. Its all bollocks sadly. If there is a way to con it, the idea of a FFP governing body makes the game a laughing stock.

Ffp isn't there to make clubs with owners not spend money. It'd there to make it so the owners have to invest longer than the initial pay up so the clubs would survive if they backed out.

If ffp wasn't in place, cities owners wouldn't have to make "fake sponsorships", and the club could go bankrupt if the owners left the club with huge expenses they couldn't cover. Now the club would survive.
That's what ffp was introduced to help, from my point of view.

 

[M18CTID]

so overpay for spurs players by all means, then judge all the other transfers as irresponsible

It's always the way. The buying club gets accused of inflating the market while the selling club escapes all criticism for inflating the price of a player when a club with plenty of cash comes calling. The reality is that it's a two-way thing of course and both parties are culpable. To be fair to Spurs though, you'd never see them splashing out £30 million on a midfielder on the back of a mediocre season in a Newcastle team that ended up getting relegated.

Anyway, Levy's comments are all a bit meh IMO. Instead of being a dig at clubs splashing big money on players, I think he's just getting his excuses in with the Spurs fans and deflecting away from them spending even less money this window than they normally do.

 

[Ian Reus]

Still having a pop at City over FFP is pissing in the wind frankly and some people need to get over it. Money talks in a sport that has zero moral compass and the origins of their money is of little consequence to those who run the game. If you want a leveller playing field you'll, ironically, have to drop down a couple of divisions.

Not having a pop also means you don't get City fans dredging up examples of other clubs trying to get ahead of the pack at the very birth of the professional game as some sort of moral justification for their recent shenanigans.

However City got back to the top they're there and it's a challenge we should relish. Despite their new found resources they've hardly set the world alight anyway and all talk of a new dynasty and shift of power firmly to the blue half Manchester looks pretty daft really. If we had our own house in order there'd be far less wailing and gnashing of teeth about FFP and City.

+1

 

[ghagua]

Thought this was funny

 

[Markolan]

La Gazzetta dello Sport have interviewed the head of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play commission and about AC Milan, Manchester City and Paris SG he has said:

"Milan will not be an exception to Financial Fair Play because no club enjoys an exception, fair play does posterior controls though, we can’t say what to do and what not to do. Everyone is free, then there are consequences"

"Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain respect the deal: they have huge revenues so they can take action, just look at City. The rules are the same for everyone, if a club buys then we’ll assume they’ve balanced the accounts. If not, they’ll be punished, but we can’t stop them buying. [...] Everyone is obsessed with the figures for Neymar but revenues for clubs have increased and, presumably, their accounts allow them to spend.

 

[Ecstatic]

La Gazzetta dello Sport have interviewed the head of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play commission and about AC Milan, Manchester City and Paris SG he has said:

"Milan will not be an exception to Financial Fair Play, because no club enjoys an exception, fair play does posterior controls though, we can’t say what to do and what not to do. Everyone is free, then there are consequences"

"Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain respect the deal: they have huge revenues so they can take action, just look at City. The rules are the same for everyone, if a club buys then we’ll assume they’ve balanced the accounts. If not, they’ll be punished, but we can’t stop them buying. [...] Everyone is obsessed with the figures for Neymar, but revenues for clubs have increased and, presumably, their accounts allow them to spend.

Good post

 

[Henrik Larsson]

Are you 100% sure about that? In Germany wages are typically reported as net. Makes more sense as well. Wouldn't make any sense what so ever to compare gross wages from a club in England to a club from Russia or Germany

Conversely, journalists being tax experts to an extent where they can accurately determine the net earnings of players in various countries around the world makes even less sense. I assume the best most can realistically come up with is taking a gross income and apply some basic income tax rules they've googled and then give a very random 'net salary' in their article, or copying/translating some other journo's calculations.


I've always had a feeling salaries were reported gross by media all around the world, including Germany, unless they explicitely state it's net income.

For example:

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/ge...-merkel-verdient-fast-am-besten-a-423908.html

https://data.gov.uk/data-request/pm-tony-blair-salary

Article says Merkel made around 260000 euro in 2006, Blair made 268000 euro in 2006. 1 Sterling was 1.4 Euro in 2006, so the data.gov.uk matches perfectly when they list his salary as 180000 pounds.

But surely Spiegel are talking about gross salaries in that article?

 

[Thunderhead]

that defence spending pic is bloody funny

 

[BobbyManc]

 

[Celestiale]

Article says Merkel made around 260000 euro in 2006, Blair made 268000 euro in 2006. 1 Sterling was 1.4 Euro in 2006, so the data.gov.uk matches perfectly when they list his salary as 180000 pounds.

But surely Spiegel are talking about gross salaries in that article

Well, i don't know about Blair, but regarding Merkel gross is pretty much net. Public servants are probably not the best example to make such a comparison. But German media mentions "net" pretty often in newspaper articles, like the Oscar one i mentioned before. But you are right, they mostly mention it, they don't just say "XY earns $$ fullstop". You always hear net or gross. And regarding the difficulty to judge one's net income - those sportsman are all in the highest tax category no matter where they come from, not too hard to figure out their rates. Don't have to be a tax advisor to figure that out.

I was just amazed about Rooney's "low" net income compared to some John Doe's in the Russian Premier or the US. Doesn't sound as crazy as some posters tried to make it look, when compared to other footballers..

 

[GlastonSpur]

1. You have no idea what Levy means when he says "want to buy". If you ignore figures then surely he would want to buy Messi, Neymar, Mbappe.

1 Since we don't know what goes into Levy wanting a player. If we assume Levy wanting to buy a player considers price thus ruling out players such as those above then if you say there are no players you "want to buy" that you also cant afford it is an absolutely meaningless caveat.

3. I was open about the fact that none of us, including you, know if Spurs have money to spend or not so nothing to explain away.

The simple fact is that ive never found something I could never hope to afford that I wanted to buy. There are things I cannot afford that I want. But not that I want to buy. Theres a difference. Daniel Levy is clever enough to know it.

1 & 2. Wrong. I have good idea what he means. And what he means excludes players - regardless of cost - who would not realistically leave their current clubs to come to Spurs and England - which excludes Messi, Neymar and Mbappe. And it includes players who would fit with the team ethic and work ethic instilled by Pochettino - which excludes players who may be very talented but are egotistical and lazy. And it includes players who would either be an upgrade on someone in our first XI or be able to compete for a first XI place, or provide squad cover in any areas where we need it.

If Spurs wanted to spend £100m on a single player this window then we could afford to do so (we've already sold players this window to the tune of nearly £70m excluding potential add-ons, so £100m would amount to a net spend of around £30m, which is hardly beyond us). But the fact is that we don't, not least because, as Levy and others have said, there is little value in this current market, especially at the top-end.

3. Wrong. See above.

 

[mitchmouse]

FFP is effectively dead.

However it is interesting looking at how City will cope financially.

They've currently spent about 130 million and recouped 30 million. That's obviously a massive net spend so far and will rise.

However Zabaletta, Nolito, Callabero, Hart, Clichy, Navas and Sagna have been shifted from their wage bill. If they're earning about an average of 75k a week, that's half a million savings a week. You'd expect that to be a conservative figure and they're going to get rid of more as well.

Interestingly we've spent about the same net wise (We're on about 100 million ourselves) but I think our wage bill has been shredded as well. Rooney and Zlatan alone will probably result in 40 million less on wages this year alone! This means we have a bit of manoeuvrability in the transfer market.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were paying some part of Hart's joke wages

 

[padr81]

I wouldn't be surprised if they were paying some part of Hart's joke wages

£55k of Harts wage I believe.

 

[KingMinger22]

Except Spurs do have money (e.g. the £50m for Walker, plus other money from other players sold this window). In the same interview Levy also said: " ....I can honestly say it [money invested in the stadium and new training centre] is not impacting us on transfer activity because we are not yet in a place where we have found a player that we want to buy who we cannot afford to buy.”

Hahaha

Come off it.

Maybe because their aims are so modest for transfers.

 

[SAFicus]

1 & 2. Wrong. I have good idea what he means. And what he means excludes players - regardless of cost - who would not realistically leave their current clubs to come to Spurs and England - which excludes Messi, Neymar and Mbappe. And it includes players who would fit with the team ethic and work ethic instilled by Pochettino - which excludes players who may be very talented but are egotistical and lazy. And it includes players who would either be an upgrade on someone in our first XI or be able to compete for a first XI place, or provide squad cover in any areas where we need it.

If Spurs wanted to spend £100m on a single player this window then we could afford to do so (we've already sold players this window to the tune of nearly £70m excluding potential add-ons, so £100m would amount to a net spend of around £30m, which is hardly beyond us). But the fact is that we don't, not least because, as Levy and others have said, there is little value in this current market, especially at the top-end.

3. Wrong. See above.

Do tell your good friend danny boy I said hi then won't you?

I can see now why nobody else bothered to try and have a logical debate with you.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Do tell your good friend danny boy I said hi then won't you?

I can see now why nobody else bothered to try and have a logical debate with you.

You put out your own view on what Levy's statement means, so why is it "illogical" for me to have my own view?

PS. I don't need to know Levy personally to have the view I gave - it's based on the player-sales figures this window so far, a knowledge of the Spurs squad that's likely more in-depth than yours, and a knowledge of the principles that Pocchettino values highly and has spoken about many times.

 

[Ronetta]

Ffp isn't there to make clubs with owners not spend money. It'd there to make it so the owners have to invest longer than the initial pay up so the clubs would survive if they backed out.

If ffp wasn't in place, cities owners wouldn't have to make "fake sponsorships", and the club could go bankrupt if the owners left the club with huge expenses they couldn't cover. Now the club would survive.
That's what ffp was introduced to help, from my point of view.

That's the cover story.

The real story is that the G14 wanted to protect their gravy train and didn't want Arab funded clubs gatecrashing the party. The G14 had the biggest revenues and recognised that aligning spending with revenue, was the perfect protection for them; confining the smaller, poorer clubs to forever being smaller and poorer. Platini may have had some decent intentions, but that was not what drove FFP at all. It's no coincidence that it was swiftly introduced once Abu Dhabi and Qatar had bought City and PSG. And interesting how levels of debt - which also threaten clubs - never featured in the rules. Funny that.

Remember the Arsenal letter?

Where does this say anything about protecting clubs from potential insolvency?

 

[Ecstatic]

@Ronetta

Top post. I also think that Russian, Chinese and other Asian investors are also targeted.

In economic terms, the FFP is a barrier to entry - nothing to do with concepts of ethics or fair competition.

The idea is to protect the interests of an historical oligopoly of clubs that don't want new insiders in the football landscape. Monaco, ManCity, PSG are viewed as potential fierce enemies in the long-term.

FFP is an excellent false pretext to say "We have to stop the rapid development of these clubs owned by exotic investors".

In any case, I consider the FFP as a barrier to entry the circle of clubs likely to win the ECL.

 

[Ødegaard]

That's the cover story.

The real story is that the G14 wanted to protect their gravy train and didn't want Arab funded clubs gatecrashing the party. The G14 had the biggest revenues and recognised that aligning spending with revenue, was the perfect protection for them; confining the smaller, poorer clubs to forever being smaller and poorer. Platini may have had some decent intentions, but that was not what drove FFP at all. It's no coincidence that it was swiftly introduced once Abu Dhabi and Qatar had bought City and PSG. And interesting how levels of debt - which also threaten clubs - never featured in the rules. Funny that.

Remember the Arsenal letter?

Where does this say anything about protecting clubs from potential insolvency?

No, never seen it before, but thanks for sharing.
But that doesn't matter though since it's referring to implementing the system that isn't keeping oil-clubs from spending for the rest of the PL, or is there something im missing?
All for learning new stuff, and I have no doubts there was hopes of it stopping rich owners from changing the market, but I still can't see it as something with the main intent of stopping owners instead of protecting the clubs.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

No, never seen it before, but thanks for sharing.
But that doesn't matter though since it's referring to implementing the system that isn't keeping oil-clubs from spending for the rest of the PL, or is there something im missing?
All for learning new stuff, and I have no doubts there was hopes of it stopping rich owners from changing the market, but I still can't see it as something with the main intent of stopping owners instead of protecting the clubs.

The richest clubs have always tried to lock things down. When the premier league was formed it was the result of an attempt led by David Dein to get the traditional Big 5 at the time (United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton, Tottenham) special broadcast rights and Ken Bates working to outmaneuver Dein to keep Chelsea (and as a result the other clubs) on par financially.

Which isn't specific to England as Real and Barca have long benefited from exclusive broadcast money to give massive advantage over the rest of La Liga.

And the dark side of Serie A is well known on how certain clubs tried to maintain advantage over others.

 

[Josep Dowling]

I was looking at the accounts for Manchester City (yes I'm boring). Weirdly it comes under a group including New York City and Melbourne City.

They have made losses of around £35-40m in each of the last two years. Not quite sure how this is balancing the books? And when you consider their revenue is inflated further by sponsorship from friends their losses are substantial.

As for funding the company this is covered by issuing new shares. Last year they issued enough shares to cover the transfer spending last summer and more to a Chinese company. I suspect the same thing will happen again.

 

[namco]

That's the cover story.

The real story is that the G14 wanted to protect their gravy train and didn't want Arab funded clubs gatecrashing the party.

Remember the Arsenal letter?

Where does this say anything about protecting clubs from potential insolvency?

Did you read this before you posted. It clearly states in the letter ''Meaningful measures to restrict the owner funding losses''. The big clubs had nothing against any of the smaller clubs building themselves up & gaining entry to the elite. It wouldn't happen overnight but it could be done if they put the work in.

The whole purpose of FFP was to stop what's happening at City right now. As City haven't done any of the work needed to get to the top, the club is on foundations of sand. The club is kept afloat due to Mansour's personal wealth, as a business it's worthless to an investor.

 

[Josep Dowling]

If Spurs wanted to spend £100m on a single player this window then we could afford to do so (we've already sold players this window to the tune of nearly £70m excluding potential add-ons, so £100m would amount to a net spend of around £30m, which is hardly beyond us). But the fact is that we don't, not least because, as Levy and others have said, there is little value in this current market, especially at the top-end.

This is just complete rubbish. Yes you may (and it's a big may) have £100m but Spurs are never going to spend that on one player. You wouldn't offer enough wages for a £100m player for starters. That's if they would even be interested in joining the club.

Your biggest transfer is currently £30m. You don't have a history of spending big, your players wages are not at current market rate of the other Top 5.

Please don't try and make out Spurs are not spending money due to the manager's philosophy and wanting to use youth players. You need as much as possible to fund the stadium. They can't just pluck £500-700m from nowhere.

Spurs are 2 world class players away from winning the title. If you don't invest now you will only be going backwards. Any manager would know this and would buy if they could.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Do tell your good friend danny boy I said hi then won't you?

I can see now why nobody else bothered to try and have a logical debate with you.

Most posters gave that up lonnnnnnnnnnng ago.

 

[Eckers99]

This is just complete rubbish. Yes you may (and it's a big may) have £100m but Spurs are never going to spend that on one player. You wouldn't offer enough wages for a £100m player for starters. That's if they would even be interested in joining the club.

Your biggest transfer is currently £30m. You don't have a history of spending big, your players wages are not at current market rate of the other Top 5.

Please don't try and make out Spurs are not spending money due to the manager's philosophy and wanting to use youth players. You need as much as possible to fund the stadium. They can't just pluck £500-700m from nowhere.

Spurs are 2 world class players away from winning the title. If you don't invest now you will only be going backwards. Any manager would know this and would buy if they could.

You can end this anytime you like by saying his name 3 times.