Financial Fair Play rules

[Turkish]

Had a lot of comments on here that this will make it more a of a level playing field and will help Saints so perhaps we could have it explained how this is so. Also if they help Saints why we were one of three clubs, the other two who funnily enough have wealthy owners as well, who voted against the being introduced in the championship.

 

O if we could have a clear explanation of them from our experts on here and how they help saints that would be great as I am clearly missing something.

[Danbert]

"Also if they help Saints why we were one of three clubs, the other two who funnily enough have wealthy owners as well, who voted against the being introduced in the championship."

 

I thought that was a very telling fact. The club's rhetoric is that we will be put on a "sustainable footing" in the Premier League. This is also something Chelsea have been talking about now for about 10 years.

 

The trouble is, that once you start spending more than you earn it's very difficult to stop. If our overspending is to stop it has to stop now. Once we start paying wages that are unsustainable in the Premier League there's no extra income we can generate in the short term that will reduce those costs as a proportion of turnover. So I'm hoping, for the club's sake, that none of the fanciful Stalinist dreams on the 5-year plan thread get put into action.

 

Financial Fair Play Regulations are a disadvantage to Saints in the Championship (as this means we can't take a punt on promotion). If we're planning on a sustainable business model in the Premier League then clearly they'll be an advantage to us as they'll make it harder for other clubs with different business models to overspend.

[Glasgow_Saint]

Nobody plays fair - if you did you would lose

[Brussels Saint]

My guess, is that it will help us in the Premier League, but not in the Championship.

 

I believe the PL new rules prevents wealthy owners spending a lot on transfer fees and wages, but they can invest in infrastructure. As such, this then makes a more level playing field as it's unlikely we will go down the route of paying transfers in the 10s of millions.

 

The Championship Fair Play rules, are different then the PL ones, as they cover total expenditure. Saints voted against probably due to the fact we seem happy to spend more than we earn, on projects such as the academy to help us get to the PL. If we were still in the Championship/L1 we could not have done what we did in the last 2 seasons due to the financial restrictions.

[Turkish]

The bottom line is though, that you can't spend more than you earn. So in reality all it will mean is the clubs with the biggest stadiums, merchandise and commercial revenues will continue to have more income than middle sized Premier League clubs like Saints, with no way of ever catching up, no?

[View From The Top]

The bottom line is though, that you can't spend more than you earn. So in reality all it will mean is the clubs with the biggest stadiums, merchandise and commercial revenues will continue to have more income than middle sized Premier League clubs like Saints, with no way of ever catching up, no?

 

It's to do with debt as well which, with ours turned into equity, means we are in a very strong position.

[Turkish]

It's to do with debt as well which, with ours turned into equity, means we are in a very strong position.

 

What's the situation with the debt under these laws? From what I can see most clubs in the PL are in debt.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

The bottom line is though, that you can't spend more than you earn. So in reality all it will mean is the clubs with the biggest stadiums, merchandise and commercial revenues will continue to have more income than middle sized Premier League clubs like Saints, with no way of ever catching up, no?

 

Exactly, these fair play rules should hopefully limit the likelihood of clubc doing a Pompey but they will also make it easier for the really big clubs to stay ahead. If these rules had been in place since the Prem started only Man U and Arsenal would have won the league, Chelsea and Blackburn wouldn't have been able to provide much needed competition.

[Sour Mash]

My guess, is that it will help us in the Premier League, but not in the Championship.

 

I believe the PL new rules prevents wealthy owners spending a lot on transfer fees and wages, but they can invest in infrastructure. As such, this then makes a more level playing field as it's unlikely we will go down the route of paying transfers in the 10s of millions.

 

The Championship Fair Play rules, are different then the PL ones, as they cover total expenditure. Saints voted against probably due to the fact we seem happy to spend more than we earn, on projects such as the academy to help us get to the PL. If we were still in the Championship/L1 we could not have done what we did in the last 2 seasons due to the financial restrictions.

It will benefit the bigger clubs, as Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs etc will be able to generate more money than most other clubs by a long, long way. Makes it even more of a closed shop. Blackburn would never have won the league if these rules were in place at the time. Wigan, QPR etc would massively struggle.

 

I also don't like the.rule as it'll further necessitate the need to further rinse every last penny out of the paying fan one way or another.

[skintsaint]

The bottom line is though, that you can't spend more than you earn. So in reality all it will mean is the clubs with the biggest stadiums, merchandise and commercial revenues will continue to have more income than middle sized Premier League clubs like Saints, with no way of ever catching up, no?

 

I don't agree with you often but you are spot on here. It means top clubs will have to tighten their belt, maybe transfer fees and wages will drop, but ultimately they will still be able to pay more etc due to all that extra worldwide income that clubs like Saints do not currently have coming in. Won't change the structure of the league too much imo.

[Sour Mash]

Exactly, these fair play rules should hopefully limit the likelihood of clubc doing a Pompey but they will also make it easier for the really big clubs to stay ahead. If these rules had been in place since the Prem started only Man U and Arsenal would have won the league, Chelsea and Blackburn wouldn't have been able to provide much needed competition.

Exactly what I was trying to say while posting at the same time.

[Turkish]

I don't agree with you often but you are spot on here. It means top clubs will have to tighten their belt, maybe transfer fees and wages will drop, but ultimately they will still be able to pay more etc due to all that extra worldwide income that clubs like Saints do not currently have coming in. Won't change the structure of the league too much imo.

 

So actually, in terms of our champions league aspirations they are a hindrance not a help?

[View From The Top]

What's the situation with the debt under these laws? From what I can see most clubs in the PL are in debt.

 

There is a turnover/debit ratio involved, hence Chelsea hoping to right it all off with the "cost" of the new ground.

[Thedelldays]

There are ways around this anyway. Talking about it on the radio.

 

Barca and Madrid would be hammered if uefa follow it through properly

 

Could you imagine Madrid and barca being barred from the CL?

[Brussels Saint]

The bottom line is though, that you can't spend more than you earn. So in reality all it will mean is the clubs with the biggest stadiums, merchandise and commercial revenues will continue to have more income than middle sized Premier League clubs like Saints, with no way of ever catching up, no?

 

In the Prem, I think you still can though, so long as its pure infrastructure. Eventually though when we have completed investments in the academy, ground expansion, gold plated bogs etc. you are right, the big clubs will still have the advantages.

My guess is the financial gap between the top (Man U, City, Arse, Chelsea, Liverpool, Spurs) and the middle (Villa, Everton, Newcastle and hopefully us) will be less.

 

I dont think that means we will be able to compete for the top honours, but it should bring transfer fees and wages down and that helps the middle clubs just to run themselves more effectively.

[Turkish]

In the Prem, I think you still can though, so long as its pure infrastructure. Eventually though when we have completed investments in the academy, ground expansion, gold plated bogs etc. you are right, the big clubs will still have the advantages.

My guess is the financial gap between the top (Man U, City, Arse, Chelsea, Liverpool, Spurs) and the middle (Villa, Everton, Newcastle and hopefully us) will be less.

 

I dont think that means we will be able to compete for the top honours, but it should bring transfer fees and wages down and that helps the middle clubs just to run themselves more effectively.

 

I think you're right in as much as that spending on infrastructure and academy is excluded so it's great that we are investing in the academy and certainly if we can keep producing another Bale, Chamberlain or Walcott every three or four years that will certainly provided some extra revenue from player sales. I can see how the FFP rules will help us establish ourselves again in the premier league as a midtable club, I don't seem how it will help realise our champions league dreams like some seem to believe. In fact it's strange that on the one hand people will say that we will get there because Cortese is investing, yet then on the other hand say the FFP will help us because it means rich owners can't spend millions the club doesn't have.

[skintsaint]

So actually, in terms of our champions league aspirations they are a hindrance not a help?

 

basically it doesnt change anything from now. I'm not sure what to make of all this CL talk, yes NC has mentioned its our target but I'm intrigued at how we are going to manage this. Exciting times though I feel.

[Micky]

I think you're right in as much as that spending on infrastructure and academy is excluded so it's great that we are investing in the academy and certainly if we can keep producing another Bale, Chamberlain or Walcott every three or four years that will certainly provided some extra revenue from player sales. I can see how the FFP rules will help us establish ourselves again in the premier league as a midtable club, I don't seem how it will help realise our champions league dreams like some seem to believe. In fact it's strange that on the one hand people will say that we will get there because Cortese is investing, yet then on the other hand say the FFP will help us because it means rich owners can't spend millions the club doesn't have.

 

Sorry but I just hate that word. Investing....!!! Total bollux. I agree, btw, with the rest of your post but this investing 'argument' is totally rubbish. Just how much do you think Mr Cortese would need to invest to get us anywhere near the CL? Just to put this into some perspective, I think you'll find that Man City posted something like a 190 million pound loss this season. 190 million pounds. Loss.

 

That is not investment - investment means you intend to regain your outlay, and more. Liken it to the Pompey Takeover Saga - you know - they cannot find 'investment' - because the product is cra p.

 

Sustaining a mid table (Everton, Fulham, Norwich) type presence, with the occasional flirtation in one of the cup competitions is probably where we are going to be, realistically.

 

Champions League is not out of the question though. All it would take is expansion of the ground to 60k at least and regular punters filling it. But you don't want to go there again, do you Turkish.

[Psycrow]

There are ways around this anyway. Talking about it on the radio.

 

Barca and Madrid would be hammered if uefa follow it through properly

 

Could you imagine Madrid and barca being barred from the CL?

 

I'm not sure they actually would TDD. Swiss Ramble wrote a great blog on them a couple of weeks ago. Debts greatly exaggerated because of various definitions of what constitutes debt and other aspects.

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2012/04/truth-about-debt-at-barcelona-and-real.html

[Pilchards]

The new 8 page thread!!!

[patred44]

this article on an Ipswich site is interesting

 

http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/ipswichtown/fb_news.php?storyid=16968&title=clegg:_clubs_which_ignore_financial_fair_play_taking_a_big_risk

[dronskisaint]

I think the key definition will be about the more than you 'earn' factor. Man. City have, if I remember correctly, a multi-million stadium naming deal with Etihad wh are owned by their owners. If sponsorship is to be included (and why shouldn't it be?) then the balance is tilted towards the club that can attract (or in City's close move a bit of paperwork around) the biggest spending sponsor and you're back where you started.

 

I can't see it being legally viable to restrict the amount outside sponsors can put in it's just the legitimacy of the percentage of turnover that needs to have a formula for calculating it - I fear that there are always going to be rich and poor clubs whether gates, sponsorship or whatever other categories you put it undr.

 

Now having to have a minimum number of home-grown players....that can't be bad for football can it...if you can only play a limited number of players that you buy in you could have the highest value bench but only so many on at a time.

 

Hope this does go 8 pages...it's worth debating.

[Chin Strain]

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

 

The PL hasn't got any FFP rules at all at the moment. The only teams it affects is those wanting to play in Europe. However, with the FL introducing FFP, it's going to make it interesting as to how bottom third PL teams (i.e. those likely to be involved in a relegation battle) structure their deals to ensure that they can survive in the FL if they go down.

 

The top teams will try and get around the rules because, as it stands, there's no way on earth that Chelsea and City can qualify for Europe. There are supposed to be rules governing sponsorship to avoid City's owners just sponsoring their ground by way more than anyone else would sponsor it, but it remains to be sen how vigorously this is enforced. If it's not, it's a farce.

 

In my view, I think Platini has completely hung his credibility on this. I think it's a case of who blinks first - the clubs or UEFA. A Champions League without several of the bigger clubs would start to devalue the competition. Likewise, a breakaway competition for these clubs, not sanctioned by UEFA, would have limited appeal also.

 

I think there's a mixed message here with the different financial rules in place. UEFA seem to want theirs to ensure that it's an even competition in the CL and Europa League, whereas the FL want to ensure that clubs don't run into debt.

 

I'd have though a rule whereby salaries are limited to a percentage of turnover and, if clubs want to go over that percentage, they should have to put the excess funds in an escrow account. If they also banned director loans, and insisted that owners turn debt into equity, that would avoid what seems to be a big problem with a lot of clubs.

[Turkish]

Sorry but I just hate that word. Investing....!!! Total bollux. I agree, btw, with the rest of your post but this investing 'argument' is totally rubbish. Just how much do you think Mr Cortese would need to invest to get us anywhere near the CL? Just to put this into some perspective, I think you'll find that Man City posted something like a 190 million pound loss this season. 190 million pounds. Loss.

 

That is not investment - investment means you intend to regain your outlay, and more. Liken it to the Pompey Takeover Saga - you know - they cannot find 'investment' - because the product is cra p.

 

Sustaining a mid table (Everton, Fulham, Norwich) type presence, with the occasional flirtation in one of the cup competitions is probably where we are going to be, realistically.

 

Champions League is not out of the question though. All it would take is expansion of the ground to 60k at least and regular punters filling it. But you don't want to go there again, do you Turkish.

 

 

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, I'm just using the argument that the shall we call them, ambitious posters use. They all claim we can get there because Cortese is investing and Lowe didn't. Yet on the other hand claim the FFP will help us, which actually rules this out to a certain extent. Maybe our 'ambitious posters' can help you answer your questions.

[Micky]

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, I'm just using the argument that the shall we call them, ambitious posters use. They all claim we can get there because Cortese is investing and Lowe didn't. Yet on the other hand claim the FFP will help us, which actually rules this out to a certain extent. Maybe our 'ambitious posters' can help you answer your questions.

 

I have no problem whatsoever with ambition - but it must be ambition within your means.

 

Ambitious outstide of your means - look no further than 25 miles down the road. CL ambitions outside of your means - check out Leeds United. Who wants to pay the full price of misguided ambitions?

Edited 7 May, 2012 by Micky

[Micky]

...

Edited 7 May, 2012 by Micky
Deleted - duplicate post

[Thedelldays]

I'm not sure they actually would TDD. Swiss Ramble wrote a great blog on them a couple of weeks ago. Debts greatly exaggerated because of various definitions of what constitutes debt and other aspects.

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2012/04/truth-about-debt-at-barcelona-and-real.html

interesting read.

how long before Man U decide they want to negotiate their own TV deal in order to try and match Man City in the transfer market?

[Psycrow]

interesting read.

how long before Man U decide they want to negotiate their own TV deal in order to try and match Man City in the transfer market?

 

Pretty sure Liverpool have mooted the idea already since the new Yanks took over. But it was shot down.

[View From The Top]

interesting read.

how long before Man U decide they want to negotiate their own TV deal in order to try and match Man City in the transfer market?

 

They voted against it. Only Liverpool have mooted it.

[dubai_phil]

Sorry but I just hate that word. Investing....!!! Total bollux. I agree, btw, with the rest of your post but this investing 'argument' is totally rubbish. Just how much do you think Mr Cortese would need to invest to get us anywhere near the CL? Just to put this into some perspective, I think you'll find that Man City posted something like a 190 million pound loss this season. 190 million pounds. Loss.

 

That is not investment - investment means you intend to regain your outlay, and more. Liken it to the Pompey Takeover Saga - you know - they cannot find 'investment' - because the product is cra p.

 

Sustaining a mid table (Everton, Fulham, Norwich) type presence, with the occasional flirtation in one of the cup competitions is probably where we are going to be, realistically.

 

Champions League is not out of the question though. All it would take is expansion of the ground to 60k at least and regular punters filling it. But you don't want to go there again, do you Turkish.

 

Just a point of order. 190 million was invested in Man City. Just because you lot still think they are a Football Club has clouded your judgement.

 

It was an ADVERTISING budget, Invested by Etihad Airways. It included some 400 mil for the Naming rights to the Stadium. The club actually can show that with the 190 mil spend they made a profit.

 

They will have every proof in the book to show the number of Impressions that their brand got and how cheap it was. Jeez, a crappy Ladies Golf Tournament down here produced $33.6 mil equivalent value for Rolex & CNN

 

In the same way that the Infrastructure "Investment" can be loans but loans to the club have to be converted into shareholder Equity.

 

It's all about the BRANDING

 

And Jeez, haven't you lot worked out yet how Accountants can bend anything they like?

[whelk]

All we need is a Liebherr cranes sponsorship deal worth £200m

[whelk]

Exactly, these fair play rules should hopefully limit the likelihood of clubc doing a Pompey but they will also make it easier for the really big clubs to stay ahead. If these rules had been in place since the Prem started only Man U and Arsenal would have won the league, Chelsea and Blackburn wouldn't have been able to provide much needed competition.

 

The league always had competition in the past and gone are days when Ipswich, Villa, WBA, QPR etc could mount a serious challenge for the league. These rules wont reverse that but stopping the likes of City and Chelsea buying players like Bridge, Parker, Johnson, Santa Cruz etc from smaller clubs when they dont play them must be better for the game. Big clubs always will get the best players of course but at least intentions are there.

[Torrent Of Abuse]

I have no problem whatsoever with ambition - but it must be ambition within your means.

 

Ambitious outstide of your means - look no further than 25 miles down the road. CL ambitions outside of your means - check out Leeds United. Who wants to pay the full price of misguided ambitions?

 

It depends on the type of ambition. There are no rules about spending money to expand your facilities. That is "good" investment. The idea is that clubs can still expand but they must have the potential there. Surely the FFP rules out two models of Premier League Interloper: the P*mpey and the Wigan. In the first case they didn't even bother to redevelop their stadium and so tried to run a 5-star team off a 2-star budget in a 1-star dump. In Wigan's case, does anyone actually turn up? Do they have a fan base? If you can't bring in the fans, you won't get the money to spend.

 

I'd guess it favours clubs with a big, established fan base like Leeds or the Sheffield clubs. We are in a pretty good position having access to a large swathe of southern England which has smaller clubs but few top clubs. If the blue few's exile is long-term, would our fan-base swell to fill the gap? I think it takes a generation to truly establish a bigger club but I can see our owners extending the ground to a 40-45,000 seater and (provided the club is still well run) we would find it fits us properly in about 10 years. In which time we might have had some dalliances with cups a few times and set ourselves up as a top half club. Like Aston Villa of a few years ago but hopefully without the boredom and recent decline.

 

Think the FPP therefore favours us a little as it favours those willing to spend on infrastructure but keep wages sensible. Big clubs will always find a way to abuse it but that's life. Don't think any development in the game is going to give us a massive advantage but every club WILL need a top class academy and modern stadium. I'm just happy we have owners who know to pursue those things without us having to drum it into them.

[Torrent Of Abuse]

Also the best recent measure for increasing competition in the EPL was to get the Glaziers to buy ManU. The financial restrictions their loans have imposed has allowed other teams at least a chance. I'd hate to think what sort of money they could spend if they had no debts!

[Matthew Le God]

Had a lot of comments on here that this will make it more a of a level playing field and will help Saints so perhaps we could have it explained how this is so. Also if they help Saints why we were one of three clubs, the other two who funnily enough have wealthy owners as well, who voted against the being introduced in the championship.

 

O if we could have a clear explanation of them from our experts on here and how they help saints that would be great as I am clearly missing something.

 

1) Clubs with the larger turnovers benefit most from FFP.

 

- In 2011/12 only 10 Premier League club averaged over 30k.

- Southampton will join this list next season.

 

2) Clubs with the stronger academies will benefit from FFP as the transfer market will change and those able to bring through their own quality youngsters will benefit.

 

- Saints have one of the strongest academies in England

- Next season under EPPP Saints will be category 1

 

3) Clubs with rich benefactors will benefit from FFP.

 

- Although they can't fund the club through loans or equity as they have before they can still invest in infrastructure.

- Saints are currently building a £15 million development at Staplewood.

- Cortese has stated he has plans to either expand St Mary's or relocate if required, that will help increase revenue streams even further. Clubs without strong financial backing will struggle to do this.

- Cortese has also hinted at development around St Mary's. Maybe hotels, restaurants, shops, apartments etc etc, all would help boost revenue and then be used on the team. Giving them an advantage over competitors.

[Sour Mash]

1) Clubs with the larger turnovers benefit most from FFP.

 

- In 2011/12 only 10 Premier League club averaged over 30k.

- Southampton will join this list next season.

 

2) Clubs with the stronger academies will benefit from FFP as the transfer market will change and those able to bring through their own quality youngsters will benefit.

 

- Saints have one of the strongest academies in England

- Next season under EPPP Saints will be category 1

 

3) Clubs with rich benefactors will benefit from FFP.

 

- Although they can't fund the club through loans or equity as they have before they can still invest in infrastructure.

- Saints are currently building a £15 million development at Staplewood.

- Cortese has stated he has plans to either expand St Mary's or relocate if required, that will help increase revenue streams even further. Clubs without strong financial backing will struggle to do this.

- Cortese has also hinted at development around St Mary's. Maybe hotels, restaurants, shops, apartments etc etc, all would help boost revenue and then be used on the team. Giving them an advantage over competitors.

So we'd be about 10/11th in terms of income. Sounds about right.

[pap]

Just a point of order. 190 million was invested in Man City. Just because you lot still think they are a Football Club has clouded your judgement.

 

It was an ADVERTISING budget, Invested by Etihad Airways. It included some 400 mil for the Naming rights to the Stadium. The club actually can show that with the 190 mil spend they made a profit.

 

They will have every proof in the book to show the number of Impressions that their brand got and how cheap it was. Jeez, a crappy Ladies Golf Tournament down here produced $33.6 mil equivalent value for Rolex & CNN

 

In the same way that the Infrastructure "Investment" can be loans but loans to the club have to be converted into shareholder Equity.

 

It's all about the BRANDING

 

And Jeez, haven't you lot worked out yet how Accountants can bend anything they like?

 

Spot on with the Etihad sponsorship deal. That'll be the way things go, especially if it's uncontested.

 

Financial Fair Play is about clubs living within their means. The biggest expense for clubs is player's salaries. Theoretically, it should level the playing field, but what'll actually happen is that we get more Etihad wheezes. And to be honest, I'm not really sure that UEFA gives a crap. At least this way, the clubs can actually point to the cash in the bank.

[Matthew Le God]

So we'd be about 10/11th in terms of income. Sounds about right.

 

And to climb higher than the ambitions of Rupert Lowe, St Mary's will need to be expanded and/or development around the stadium.

 

Ask yourself, does Cortese have ambitions higher than Rupert Lowe? Does Cortese have the resources from the Liebherr's to match those ambitions? Announcing a £15 million training ground whilst in League One suggests he does...

[Sour Mash]

And to climb higher than the ambitions of Rupert Lowe, St Mary's will need to be expanded and/or development around the stadium.

 

Ask yourself, does Cortese have ambitions higher than Rupert Lowe? Does Cortese have the resources from the Liebherr's to match those ambitions? Announcing a £15 million training ground whilst in League One suggests he does...

I don't know what Lowe's ambitions were. Or what Cortese's are. Or what our current resources are. And neither do you despite how much you like to think you're on the same unique wavelength as NC that the rest of us mere mortals, normal football fans don't get.

[aintforever]

I don't know what Lowe's ambitions were. Or what Cortese's are. Or what our current resources are. And neither do you despite how much you like to think you're on the same unique wavelength as NC that the rest of us mere mortals, normal football fans don't get.

 

If you havn't got a clue what our resources are why are you saying Cortese's plan of aiming for CL football is b*ll*x?

[Lord Duckhunter]

My issue is the timing of any financial fair play rules.There is a point where the clubs that have benefitted pull up the ladder behind them.

 

Why should clubs like Wigan & Fulham benefit from Premiership TV money, and clubs like Brentford & Northampton not be allowed to follow the same route as them? It's ok for Man C to benefit from massive owner spending because that was before , now if Bill Gates wanted to do a Man C with Southampton, that would not be allowed.

 

The way to stop financial mismangement is to make the punishments extremely harsh. At present we are looking at it from the wrong end and all that will happen is the rich will get richer and the gap between rich and poor will increase even more. If Man Utd ect started doing their own TV and internet deals it would further enhance the bigger clubs advantage.They will be looking at ways to increase revenue to stay within the rules. TV deals is a great way of doing so.

[Matthew Le God]

If you havn't got a clue what our resources are why are you saying Cortese's plan of aiming for CL football is b*ll*x?

 

Because Sour Mash has a history of contradicting himself.

[Chin Strain]

Spot on with the Etihad sponsorship deal. That'll be the way things go, especially if it's uncontested.

 

Financial Fair Play is about clubs living within their means. The biggest expense for clubs is player's salaries. Theoretically, it should level the playing field, but what'll actually happen is that we get more Etihad wheezes. And to be honest, I'm not really sure that UEFA gives a crap. At least this way, the clubs can actually point to the cash in the bank.

 

UEFA are looking at the stadium deal. I also think that for UEFA it isn't about clubs living within their means, it's about a level playing field to make it a better competition.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2136754/UEFA-chiefs-tough-warning-Chelsea-City-face-Europe-ban.html

[Turkish]

And to climb higher than the ambitions of Rupert Lowe, St Mary's will need to be expanded and/or development around the stadium.

 

Ask yourself, does Cortese have ambitions higher than Rupert Lowe? Does Cortese have the resources from the Liebherr's to match those ambitions? Announcing a £15 million training ground whilst in League One suggests he does...

 

Just out of interest what percentage of income comes from match day revenue from English clubs currently playing in th champions league, does anyone know? As this will give us a strong indicator as to if expanding SMS will help us to benefit from these FFP rules.

Edited 7 May, 2012 by Turkish

[Sour Mash]

Because Sour Mash has a history of contradicting himself.

Please show evidence of me contradicting myself? Think thats something else that only exists in your little make believe world.

[Sour Mash]

If you havn't got a clue what our resources are why are you saying Cortese's plan of aiming for CL football is b*ll*x?

Do you even know what Cortese's plans are? No you don't. I've got a rough idea of what it'd take in terms of spending to get us in the Champions League. No club like us has came close to doing so. Until I see evidence of us spending that sort of money I won't be expecting Champions League football like 99% of normal Saints fans.

[Legod Third Coming]

Ok, tin hat time...

 

Why do you care about fair play?

 

How has it helped in any sport you name??

 

Let's take F1. If you had 'fair play', do you think you would ever have seen a Red Bull race? No.

But for years people would have said - it's unfair, Ferrari win every year...

 

Short memories that's your problem.

 

When I was aged 12, I had only ever seen Liverpool win the league. Since the Premier League, I have seen Blackburn, Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and this year Manchester City win it... one of those clubs has dominated because of one man and good on him!

 

Money doesn't guarantee success but sport is about the best example of the free market there is and, on the whole, it works doesn't it??

 

Yes there will always be losers. But what would you suggest, the money is distributed equally like some Stalinist/Leninist collective (within which by the way, the rich were still always rich but the poor were really, really poor)?

 

Years ago when Rugby was 'amateur' Serge Blanco used to rock up to training in a Lamborghini - unpaid, he had a job at the club's owner's business... Isn't sport about achieving the pinnacle and hasn't that always been about talent, hard work and finance?

[Turkish]

/\ because a lot on here keep banging on that we are going to be In such a great postition to fullfil our champions league dream when they come in, when the reality is they don't help us as all, as proven by the cases of Man City, Chelsea and Blackburn who would be no where near the champions league if these rules existed 15 years ago.

[Micky]

Just a point of order. 190 million was invested in Man City. Just because you lot still think they are a Football Club has clouded your judgement.

 

It was an ADVERTISING budget, Invested by Etihad Airways. It included some 400 mil for the Naming rights to the Stadium. The club actually can show that with the 190 mil spend they made a profit.

 

They will have every proof in the book to show the number of Impressions that their brand got and how cheap it was. Jeez, a crappy Ladies Golf Tournament down here produced $33.6 mil equivalent value for Rolex & CNN

 

In the same way that the Infrastructure "Investment" can be loans but loans to the club have to be converted into shareholder Equity.

 

It's all about the BRANDING

 

And Jeez, haven't you lot worked out yet how Accountants can bend anything they like?

 

Errr just a small point of order here too. You may wish to dress it as some branding / image rights (where have I heard that before) / naming rights pot of money.

 

Bullshyte - they have some very creative accounting if that be the case:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/18/manchester-city-biggest-ever-loss

 

While city fans will be over the moon - this is all that is wrong with football in this country. Think where we were a couple of seasons ago. Clubs are going to the wall for the price of 1 days pay to Carlos Tevez - absolutely criminal.

 

Branding - my arse.

[Torrent Of Abuse]

I think the upshot of the FFP rule is that 5 year plans become 10-20 year plans. You can't just buy a big team and hope people turn up. You have to invest in the infrastructure, Build your fan base, set up an academy to bring in young talent, get other revenue streams and then work from there. If you don't do that then the best you can hope for is to stay where you are.

 

It favours ambition but not blind ambition. P*mpey's plans would be knocked on the head - and if they don't get people in to watch the games they'd stay down where they are too. It would favour big clubs currently down on their luck in lower divisions but still getting good attendances. It would hinder clubs wanting to grow quickly from a non-existent fan base (MKDons anyone?). With quite loyal support, good location for attracting new fans, good infrastructure and a good academy, we seem to be well prepared for life under FFP. Better than many clubs anyway. We were not this prepared for the changes the Bosman ruling brought about that's for sure.