In our dreams!

[tajjuk]

I think you're missing the point. It doesn't really matter whether they were direct products of the youth team or not. They were young players nurtured and developed by those clubs into top-level Premier League players and then sold onto bigger clubs. It's the way the world works.

 

 

Not really no, my point was two fold:-

 

- First not many premiership clubs are producing as many top level youth products as we have done recently.

 

- Secondly not many are forced to sell them, they get offered huge fees that they think is a good deal and as long as we maintain our premiership status we will be in a similar position. Without any debts and other areas of investment needed these huge fees can re-invested in the playing squad, maybe we will be able to buy the Bales/Barrys/Johnsons etc. for samllish £5 million fees from lesser clubs in the future and sell them on at big profits as well as producing talent of our own.

 

From your examples none of Henderson, Carroll, Allen, Downing etc. were agitating for moves to bigger clubs. Only Barry to my recent memory had a bit of hissy fit and demanded a move, in most cases the selling club seems to have gained the most out of these sales. If you asked if Luke Shaw wants to play for Arsenal he would probably say yes however if Arsenal bid £5 million and we rejected it I think it's unlikely he would go on strike or something so we will be able to get a very high fee for him.

 

You seem to make out it's a case of Man Utd or Liverpool come whistling and we have to sell, whereas if the guy is under contract, the selling club is stable financially they hold all the cards and the big club has to do the running.

[Zlavik]

Where has anyone said we should just avoid relegation?

 

How will the financial fair play rules change anything?

 

"UEFA's Executive Committee unanimously approved a financial fair play concept for the game's well-being in September 2009. The concept has also been supported by the entire football family, with its principal objectives being:

 

• to introduce more discipline and rationality in club football finances;

• to decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect;

• to encourage clubs to compete with(in) their revenues;

• to encourage long-term investments in the youth sector and infrastructure;

• to protect the long-term viability of European club football;

• to ensure clubs settle their liabilities on a timely basis.

 

These approved objectives reflect the view that UEFA has a duty to consider the systemic environment of European club football in which individual clubs compete, and in particular the wider inflationary impact of clubs' spending on salaries and transfer fees.

 

In recent seasons, many clubs have reported repeated, and worsening, financial losses. The wider economic situation has created difficult market conditions for clubs in Europe, and this can have a negative impact on revenue generation and creates additional challenges for clubs in respect of the availability of financing and day-to-day operations. Many clubs have experienced liquidity shortfalls, leading for instance to delayed payments to other clubs, employees and social/tax authorities.

 

Therefore, as requested by the football family, and in consultation with the football family, UEFA is introducing sensible and achievable measures to realise these goals. They include an obligation for clubs, over a period of time, to balance their books or break even. Under the concept, clubs cannot repeatedly spend more than their generated revenues, and clubs will be obliged to meet all their transfer and employee payment commitments at all times. Higher-risk clubs that fail certain indicators will also be required to provide budgets detailing their strategic plans.

 

The financial fair play measures involve a multi-year assessment, enabling a longer-term view to be formed and within the wider context of European club football. They reach beyond the existing UEFA club licensing system criteria that are primarily designed to enable an assessment of a club's financial situation in the short term, and is primarily administered by the governing bodies in each UEFA national association.

 

The UEFA Executive Committee approved the formation of the two-chamber Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) in June 2012 to oversee the application of the UEFA Club Licensing System and Financial Fair Play Regulations.

 

The CFCB replaced the Club Financial Control Panel, which had monitored clubs since the first introduction of the regulations in May 2010, with the main evolution being that the CFCB is an UEFA Organ for the Administration of Justice. It is also competent to impose disciplinary measures in the case of non-fulfilment of the requirements, and to decide on cases relating to clubs’ eligibility for UEFA club competitions.

 

Under Article 34 of the procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body, CFCB members remove themselves from cases, on their own initiative or upon request if they themselves, their association or a club belonging to that association, or another club with which they are connected in any other way, are directly concerned, or if their independence or impartiality is in doubt.

 

The UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, which were approved in May 2010 after an extensive consultation period and updated in the 2012 edition, are being implemented over a three-year period, with clubs participating in UEFA club competitions having their transfer and employee payables monitored since the summer of 2011, and the break-even assessment covering the financial years ending 2012 and 2013 to be assessed during 2013/14."

 

Meaning, no sheik can come in and just throw money in the team. It has to be able to survive without outside money.

[Scummer]

One would hope that if he does it is for significantly more than the ludicrous £7M figure that Newcastle received for Ba.

 

I'm sure I read that Ba got £2.5m of that for himself as well........

[The Kraken]

Meaning, no sheik can come in and just throw money in the team. It has to be able to survive without outside money.

 

Incorrect. You've sidestepped half of this thread which is devoted to ways in which FFP can be circum-navigated, whether by extensive sponsorship deals, increase in share equity or various other creative measures.

 

FFP may well stop clubs spending money they don't have; I certainly hope so. I can't see a realistic way it will stop clubs spending money they do have.

[Zlavik]

Incorrect. You've sidestepped half of this thread which is devoted to ways in which FFP can be circum-navigated, whether by extensive sponsorship deals, increase in share equity or various other creative measures.

 

FFP may well stop clubs spending money they don't have; I certainly hope so. I can't see a realistic way it will stop clubs spending money they do have.

 

Ah but the sponsorship has to be "resonable", that's why PSG is under investigation from UEFA right now for their deal with a Quatar(i think it was Quatar) bank that will give them a buttload of money.

[Sour Mash]

"UEFA's Executive Committee unanimously approved a financial fair play concept for the game's well-being in September 2009. The concept has also been supported by the entire football family, with its principal objectives being:

 

• to introduce more discipline and rationality in club football finances;

• to decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect;

• to encourage clubs to compete with(in) their revenues;

• to encourage long-term investments in the youth sector and infrastructure;

• to protect the long-term viability of European club football;

• to ensure clubs settle their liabilities on a timely basis.

 

These approved objectives reflect the view that UEFA has a duty to consider the systemic environment of European club football in which individual clubs compete, and in particular the wider inflationary impact of clubs' spending on salaries and transfer fees.

 

In recent seasons, many clubs have reported repeated, and worsening, financial losses. The wider economic situation has created difficult market conditions for clubs in Europe, and this can have a negative impact on revenue generation and creates additional challenges for clubs in respect of the availability of financing and day-to-day operations. Many clubs have experienced liquidity shortfalls, leading for instance to delayed payments to other clubs, employees and social/tax authorities.

 

Therefore, as requested by the football family, and in consultation with the football family, UEFA is introducing sensible and achievable measures to realise these goals. They include an obligation for clubs, over a period of time, to balance their books or break even. Under the concept, clubs cannot repeatedly spend more than their generated revenues, and clubs will be obliged to meet all their transfer and employee payment commitments at all times. Higher-risk clubs that fail certain indicators will also be required to provide budgets detailing their strategic plans.

 

The financial fair play measures involve a multi-year assessment, enabling a longer-term view to be formed and within the wider context of European club football. They reach beyond the existing UEFA club licensing system criteria that are primarily designed to enable an assessment of a club's financial situation in the short term, and is primarily administered by the governing bodies in each UEFA national association.

 

The UEFA Executive Committee approved the formation of the two-chamber Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) in June 2012 to oversee the application of the UEFA Club Licensing System and Financial Fair Play Regulations.

 

The CFCB replaced the Club Financial Control Panel, which had monitored clubs since the first introduction of the regulations in May 2010, with the main evolution being that the CFCB is an UEFA Organ for the Administration of Justice. It is also competent to impose disciplinary measures in the case of non-fulfilment of the requirements, and to decide on cases relating to clubs’ eligibility for UEFA club competitions.

 

Under Article 34 of the procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body, CFCB members remove themselves from cases, on their own initiative or upon request if they themselves, their association or a club belonging to that association, or another club with which they are connected in any other way, are directly concerned, or if their independence or impartiality is in doubt.

 

The UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, which were approved in May 2010 after an extensive consultation period and updated in the 2012 edition, are being implemented over a three-year period, with clubs participating in UEFA club competitions having their transfer and employee payables monitored since the summer of 2011, and the break-even assessment covering the financial years ending 2012 and 2013 to be assessed during 2013/14."

 

Meaning, no sheik can come in and just throw money in the team. It has to be able to survive without outside money.

ANd how will any of that help Saints to compete with 5 or 6 of the biggest clubs in world football? They will still have far, far more money and resources than us. If anything it will just mean match tickets for away games at these places go up, as these clubs scrape every £ they can out of their other sources of income now.

[The Kraken]

Ah but the sponsorship has to be "resonable", that's why PSG is under investigation from UEFA right now for their deal with a Quatar(i think it was Quatar) bank that will give them a buttload of money.

 

Under investigation is not stamped out. Its a really, really dangerous game that UEFA could get themselves into if they start vetoing sponsorship deals. And if they do clubs will simply find another way around it; as I quoted earlier and Platini himself said "clubs will have to get more creative". Also i think you'll find that Michel Platini's son as taken up a role at PSG, so we'll see how far that investigation goes. UEFA? Corruption? Never.

[Zlavik]

ANd how will any of that help Saints to compete with 5 or 6 of the biggest clubs in world football? They will still have far, far more money and resources than us. If anything it will just mean match tickets for away games at these places go up, as these clubs scrape every £ they can out of their other sources of income now.

 

Since clubs will have to breakeven, they can't buy players for so much money as they do now. That will mean that we (hopefully) can keep our young talents and live on our youth school.

This will (hopefully) mean that within 5-15 years we can compete at the top level, simply because we will be able to keep talent.

 

This is my hypothesis and I'm not saying that I'm right. I'm simply speculating.

[Zlavik]

Under investigation is not stamped out. Its a really, really dangerous game that UEFA could get themselves into if they start vetoing sponsorship deals. And if they do clubs will simply find another way around it; as I quoted earlier and Platini himself said "clubs will have to get more creative". Also i think you'll find that Michel Platini's son as taken up a role at PSG, so we'll see how far that investigation goes. UEFA? Corruption? Never.

 

Of course you are right, they are not stamped out yet. But I'm trying to be positive here, hopefully UEFA will do their job and we will be in a much better position thanks to it

[Graffito]

We're more Crewe than Manu. I'd settle for watching 50% academy graduates in a team which holds a PL place as there is a certain amount of pride in having players that have come up through the ranks. I won't give up on the dream of something better but there would have to be an exceptional set of circumstances and a major structural shift in football finance for that to become a reality.

[The Kraken]

Of course you are right, they are not stamped out yet. But I'm trying to be positive here, hopefully UEFA will do their job and we will be in a much better position thanks to it

 

I don't see it matters, really. So long as clubs have the money, I think they should be able to spend it (within legal parameters of course). And as long as any money coming into the club to cover "debt" cannot be taken back out of the club, leaving it in debt. The purpose of FPP should be to ensure clubs only spend what money they have, and not to regulate how they get that money if it is coming from legal sources. IMO anyway.

[tajjuk]

Of course you are right, they are not stamped out yet. But I'm trying to be positive here, hopefully UEFA will do their job and we will be in a much better position thanks to it

 

I don't really see how it helps us, it kind of draws a line in the sand and says if you aren't big now you will never be.

 

Clubs like Man Utd with big stadiums and oversees mechandising will benefit the most.

 

We're more Crewe than Manu. I'd settle for watching 50% academy graduates in a team which holds a PL place as there is a certain amount of pride in having players that have come up through the ranks. I won't give up on the dream of something better but there would have to be an exceptional set of circumstances and a major structural shift in football finance for that to become a reality.

 

Kind of makes us more of Bilbao, they are essentially the role model for what we are trying to do.

[Zlavik]

I don't see it matters, really. So long as clubs have the money, I think they should be able to spend it (within legal parameters of course). And as long as any money coming into the club to cover "debt" cannot be taken back out of the club, leaving it in debt. The purpose of FPP should be to ensure clubs only spend what money they have, and not to regulate how they get that money if it is coming from legal sources. IMO anyway.

 

I think they are trying to become more like the NHL, in the last 12 seasons there has been 10 different teams that has won. This is because of the changes that has been made financially to the teams in the league. If this would happen in PL it would be a good thing for us IMO and it would be awesome. FPP is a good start on regulating the league.

[Doctoroncall]

Since clubs will have to breakeven, they can't buy players for so much money as they do now. That will mean that we (hopefully) can keep our young talents and live on our youth school.

This will (hopefully) mean that within 5-15 years we can compete at the top level, simply because we will be able to keep talent.

 

This is my hypothesis and I'm not saying that I'm right. I'm simply speculating.

 

It's not as simiple as that as there are acceptable deviations to break-even.

 

Besides, if FFP makes that much of an impact on the transfer market - remember the player is a valued asset - the whole market will become deflated so if Bale is worth £40m now but no one can afford to buy at that price under FFP, but only at £20m, Gaston may then be valued at £10m. I agree it will be easier to hold on to them from similar to Europa achieving level clubs, but those in the CL and/or have a significant global brand and income will still be able to pick up players they need.

 

All Saints can do is finid an environment and structure to help keep players (that are wanted) happy to stay for as long as possible, and if forced to sell, sell for the maximum value.

[Zlavik]

I don't really see how it helps us, it kind of draws a line in the sand and says if you aren't big now you will never be.

 

Clubs like Man Utd with big stadiums and oversees mechandising will benefit the most.

 

 

 

Kind of makes us more of Bilbao, they are essentially the role model for what we are trying to do.

 

Fans always support a winning team. If Man Utd cant buy the players they need to win, another team will start winning and they will get more fans and more money.

It will be different teams on top simply because no team will be able to buy a winning team.

 

Lets say for example Man Utd wins the league, the next year their players are getting older and can't keep up. They won't be able to buy a ****load of players with a good financial system and therefore another team will most likely win.

[The Kraken]

I think they are trying to become more like the NHL, in the last 12 seasons there has been 10 different teams that has won. This is because of the changes that has been made financially to the teams in the league. If this would happen in PL it would be a good thing for us IMO and it would be awesome. FPP is a good start on regulating the league.

 

I hope not too much like the NHL, they're on strike all the time!

[Sour Mash]

Since clubs will have to breakeven, they can't buy players for so much money as they do now. That will mean that we (hopefully) can keep our young talents and live on our youth school.

This will (hopefully) mean that within 5-15 years we can compete at the top level, simply because we will be able to keep talent.

 

This is my hypothesis and I'm not saying that I'm right. I'm simply speculating.

But the big teams will still have far more money than us and will be able to buy our best players, just like they pretty much always have. Football is more commercial now than other, regardless of team's using debt or donations from wealthy benefactors. The fair play rules will just benefit those clubs that are able to generate the most money themselves - so Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, etc etc. It doesn't help us at all.

[Depressed of Shirley]

Of course there always have been bigger clubs, even in the days before vast television revenues. In the days when clubs had to rely on what they brought in through the turnstiles Man Utd and Liverpool were always bigger clubs than Saints at The Dell.

And yes, we did rely heavily on Marcus's millions to get us out of League One and back to the Prem, and under those circs it might be hypocritical to bemoan about other clubs having a financial advantage.

But there was more opportunity back in the day for the smaller clubs to gatecrash the big boys party.

Under Ted we were able to finish high enough to qualify for Europe, and even when the capacity of The Dell was cut even further we were able to finish runners-up.

That was probably because the difference between the bigger and smaller clubs was not so big as it is now.

We might not have entered every season in the top flight with the hope of winning it, but we always had a reasonable expectation of tweaking the big boys tails more regularly than we do now.

I think that what caused the Big Bang moment was not so much Sky's arrival on the scene, but the Bosman ruling.

It changed the dynamic and while nobody would want to see a return to the days of the Maximum Wage and players being held hostage by clubs retaining their registration, it has created the situation where what earmarks a club for success is not its ability to recruit and develop players and create a winning team by canny coaching, tactics and management but simply the ability to pay the sort of sort of crazy wages players demand.

Yes, there's always been an element of that, and even we managed to sign Kevin Keegan.

My own view is that while the FFP rules are well intended, clubs will always find a loophole.

If Uefa are deadly serious about making it work, they have to be prepared to take on the big boys and close those loopholes.

At which point, they will all bugger off and in a Kerry Packer circus style, form their own show with other top clubs from across Europe (and possibly the world) and backed by even bigger TV revenues, thanks to vast Asian audiences, stick two fingers up to Fifa en route.

It will mean the end of a meaningful World Cup as we know it, but that won't matter to all the Man Utd shirt-wearing hordes in Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzho.

Blimey, perhaps it's the time of year. Somebody cheer me up!

 

Actually, there were two big bang moments, the first one being when clubs stooped sharing gate receipts with the opposition for league games, and the second was Sky.

[Zlavik]

But the big teams will still have far more money than us and will be able to buy our best players, just like they pretty much always have. Football is more commercial now than other, regardless of team's using debt or donations from wealthy benefactors. The fair play rules will just benefit those clubs that are able to generate the most money themselves - so Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, etc etc. It doesn't help us at all.

 

Everybody loves a winner. Imo these clubs now run on the fact that they can buy players from other teams and it doesn't matter if they lose money in their books.

With a good financial system no team would be able to buy a lot of players every year and they would instead have to rely heavily on their youth academy for future talent, or they would have to buy cheaper players from lower leagues and take a gamble.

 

This will lead to more competitive football imo.

[tajjuk]

Fans always support a winning team. If Man Utd cant buy the players they need to win, another team will start winning and they will get more fans and more money.

It will be different teams on top simply because no team will be able to buy a winning team.

 

Lets say for example Man Utd wins the league, the next year their players are getting older and can't keep up. They won't be able to buy a ****load of players with a good financial system and therefore another team will most likely win.

 

But Utd draw in the biggest amount of money so will be able to spend the most, they already develop their own players, buy and develop younger players from other clubs. They then top this up with proven class for big money, in recent years they have had competition from the likes of Man City, Chelsea and PSG with their big money offers menaing they have lost the likes of Nasri and Moura to them. With these rules they will have the biggest spending power and thus the best team.

 

We also can't be that far away from the top prem clubs negotiating their own TV deals like they do in Spain, Man Utd and Liverpool fans must make up a huge proportion of the overseas TV watchers, how long till they demand a bigger slice of the pie, specially if they are looking to max revenues.

[Sour Mash]

Everybody loves a winner. Imo these clubs now run on the fact that they can buy players from other teams and it doesn't matter if they lose money in their books.

With a good financial system no team would be able to buy a lot of players every year and they would instead have to rely heavily on their youth academy for future talent, or they would have to buy cheaper players from lower leagues and take a gamble.

 

This will lead to more competitive football imo.

Which bit of Manchester United still having far, far more income than Saints and therefore far, far more to spend on players after the FFP is introduced, do you not understand?

[Sour Mash]

But Utd draw in the biggest amount of money so will be able to spend the most, they already develop their own players, buy and develop younger players from other clubs. They then top this up with proven class for big money, in recent years they have had competition from the likes of Man City, Chelsea and PSG with their big money offers menaing they have lost the likes of Nasri and Moura to them. With these rules they will have the biggest spending power and thus the best team.

 

We also can't be that far away from the top prem clubs negotiating their own TV deals like they do in Spain, Man Utd and Liverpool fans must make up a huge proportion of the overseas TV watchers, how long till they demand a bigger slice of the pie, specially if they are looking to max revenues.

It's one of the reasons I think some of the foreign owners at Man Utd, Liverpool etc got involved in them, it's the one remaining area to really be exploited and grown for their benefit.

[St Marco]

the idea of saints playing in the CL is just daft...I know wes etc think it is possible...but it isnt WITHOUT seriously putting the club at risk

 

If the rumour of uefa killing the europa cup and expanding the champions league are true then it isnt daft to think we could get there one day.

If they increase it to the top 8 and the two cups winners get a spot then we have a far better chance then we do now.

Who knows what they will do or how they will do it but to think it is daft we could play in it is wrong. People probably thought we would never play in the uefa cup.

[Zlavik]

Which bit of Manchester United still having far, far more income than Saints and therefore far, far more to spend on players after the FFP is introduced, do you not understand?

 

I think you guys overestimate Uniteds (and all other major clubs) finances.

They would have made a loss of 5 million pounds during last year if it wasn't for some tax credit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19633967

 

They are also over 300 million pounds in debt.

[Doctoroncall]

I think you guys overestimate Uniteds (and all other major clubs) finances.

They would have made a loss of 5 million pounds during last year if it wasn't for some tax credit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19633967

 

They are also over 300 million pounds in debt.

 

So what is it that isn't acceptable under the FFP rules?

[Sour Mash]

I think you guys overestimate Uniteds (and all other major clubs) finances.

They would have made a loss of 5 million pounds during last year if it wasn't for some tax credit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19633967

 

They are also over 300 million pounds in debt.

This is hard work. How do you think they bought Van Persie and Kagawa? Do you understand the reasons for United's debt?

 

Man Utd were just an example, take Arsenal then and explain to me they won't still be massively financially stronger than us after the FFP rules come in?

[The Kraken]

If the rumour of uefa killing the europa cup and expanding the champions league are true then it isnt daft to think we could get there one day.

If they increase it to the top 8 and the two cups winners get a spot then we have a far better chance then we do now.

Who knows what they will do or how they will do it but to think it is daft we could play in it is wrong. People probably thought we would never play in the uefa cup.

 

It isn't true. I posted earlier that UEFA re-clarified their position on this in that they have no plans of terminating the UEFA cup, but they do want to look at ways of making it stronger and more relevant in isolation of the Champions league.

[aintforever]

They can, but they'll be massively at pains not to. Trying to sell a Champions League TV package is much more attractive (and expensive) with the huge teams in it; there's no financial interest in UEFA banning such clubs from their own tournament, let alone the precedent it might accelerate in them forging their own breakaway league.

 

No one in Europe would give a sh!te if clubs like Chelsea and Man City were not allowed in.

[Doctoroncall]

Actually, there were two big bang moments, the first one being when clubs stoped sharing gate receipts with the opposition for league games, and the second was Sky.

 

I was trying to remember when that happen, as I thought the same.

 

 

If United, Liverpool want to take their share of the TV money under seperate deals I don't think the premeir league will be a viable entity!

[The Kraken]

No one in Europe would give a sh!te if clubs like Chelsea and Man City were not allowed in.

 

If various clubs such as Man City, Chelsea, PSG, Real Madrid etc were to be denied access to the Champions league then yes, they'd very much give a sh*te. Particularly those TV broadcasters who currently spend hundreds of millions of euros and line UEFA's pockets through extortionate deals. It simply won't get to that; not a chance.

[ottery st mary]

I had a dream the other night:rolleyes:

 

We nearly made it to C L and the USA nearly made it to the moon:p

 

 

At least I have big dreams like the Yanks:D

 

COYS keep progressing is all that is asked of you for now...

[buctootim]

Man U's income is around £350m pa, Saints is around £60m. Luck skill and good judgement might enable you to have the occasional good season but without similar resources we're not going to match the top clubs.

[St Marco]

It isn't true. I posted earlier that UEFA re-clarified their position on this in that they have no plans of terminating the UEFA cup, but they do want to look at ways of making it stronger and more relevant in isolation of the Champions league.

 

It will happen simply because right now bigger clubs see it more as a nuisance then something worth winning. I think i recall someone talking about (might be Pardew) pulling the team out in the future. If teams would rather bail then enter it shows something is wrong.

It is now sort of seen as the league cup. A cup that isnt very important until your in the final.

Uefa know there is really no reason for it. The big tv companies dont care about it and wont pay much to show it. I doubt there was anything they could do to make it more appealing.

[Zlavik]

So what is it that isn't acceptable under the FFP rules?

Did I say that it wasn't? I just pointed out that their finances aren't that great and they would have made a loss unless they got a one-time tax cut.

 

This is hard work. How do you think they bought Van Persie and Kagawa? Do you understand the reasons for United's debt?

 

Man Utd were just an example, take Arsenal then and explain to me they won't still be massively financially stronger than us after the FFP rules come in?

 

From my perspective FPP is just the beginning. There will be more regulations. I'm not saying FPP will make it perfect but it's a step in the right direction.

Arensal and Man Utd will have more money than us, yes. But clubs won't be able to spend money that they don't have to buy players, like it is in todays market.

This means that they might be able to get one of our, lets say, three top prospects but not all three. We will keep two out of three and thanks to that we will be more competitive.

 

The reason for the debt is from my perspective that it is good business as long as the country has a decent inflation rate.

Uk has had a pretty high inflation rate wich makes loans good business.

[The Kraken]

It will happen simply because right now bigger clubs see it more as a nuisance then something worth winning. I think i recall someone talking about (might be Pardew) pulling the team out in the future. If teams would rather bail then enter it shows something is wrong.

It is now sort of seen as the league cup. A cup that isnt very important until your in the final.

Uefa know there is really no reason for it. The big tv companies dont care about it and wont pay much to show it. I doubt there was anything they could do to make it more appealing.

 

Well right now UEFA are against it. And so are the power-brokers.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/dec/05/uefa-europa-league-boost-not-scrap

 

"Importantly the major European clubs, from whom any lobbying for change is taken seriously at Uefa, immediately rejected the reports last week. Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, chairman of Bayern Munich and of the European Club Association, left no room for doubt in his response. "We are not in favour of the abolition of the Europa League and totally against the expansion of the Champions League," Rummenigge said, on behalf of the 207 ECA member clubs which compete in the Uefa competitions."

Edited 4 January, 2013 by The Kraken

[buctootim]

Did I say that it wasn't? I just pointed out that their finances aren't that great and they would have made a loss unless they got a one-time tax cut.

 

 

The Glazers borrowed that money and loaded up Man U with the debt because its a strongly cash generative business which can stand it - and they get to invest / pocket that money. It also means, not by coincidence, that the interest payments due on the debt mean Man U make a small accounting loss most years - very handy for avoiding corporation tax and reducing pressure from players for higher wages.

Edited 4 January, 2013 by buctootim

[aintforever]

If various clubs such as Man City, Chelsea, PSG, Real Madrid etc were to be denied access to the Champions league then yes, they'd very much give a sh*te. Particularly those TV broadcasters who currently spend hundreds of millions of euros and line UEFA's pockets through extortionate deals. It simply won't get to that; not a chance.

 

 

This geezer doesn't seem too bothered about Man City, neither I expect would most of Europe...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19819454

[Frank's cousin]

If CL qualification is as simple as keeping your academy players, I don't understand why more teams haven't tried it... oh wait, that's because you also need to supplement it with hundreds of millions of pounds.

 

Anyone on here who thinks we will qualify for the CL within the next 25 years, without a Man City style spending spree is a moron.

 

Not true in all countries - Germnay being the best example of how talented crops of younger players that STAY beyond our usual 17 years - can allow 'unfashionable' clubs a cyclical punt at success. The problem in England is obviously the rediculously stupid wages paid, the greed of the agents and perhaps most telling a cultural thing. namely that young players tend to have their heads turned at 16/17 and leave for the bench of a bigger club and 25k a week, rather than staying at the club that developed them until 22-24 as they mostly do in Germany etc.

 

Money has killed off much of the chance for clubs to break into the top 6 or so, but IF and its a fricken big IF, we could create a culture at Saints that saw us somehow hold on the the Shaw's, Bales, etc until they were 22-23, then it mightbe possible to have a cyclical flirtation with the top 8 - and if you get to that point its not beyond the realms of possiblity to be sneak in in an unusuallly successful season. It needs to start with educating young players and importantly their parents that they should avoid agents like the plague until players are in their 20s. These leaches never have the welfare or best interests of the players at heart, only their own wallets.... but greed is a tough one to crack.

 

If this sort of culture did permiate throughout the top tier, then it would come down to which club ran the best academies, rather than just had the largest budget... but sadly the 'I want it now' generation couple with those ****** agents, has left this an almost impossible expectation.

 

...the irony is that most real fans would much rather see their club win things with local home grown talent, than as a chelskiciteh abomination of bought success.

[The Kraken]

This geezer doesn't seem too bothered about Man City, neither I expect would most of Europe...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19819454

 

Barcelona 77M annual losses and over 400M in debt.

 

http://www.barcelonareporter.com/index.php?/news/comments/fc_barcelona_news_barca_posts_77_million_euros_financial_losses/

 

3 of England's current "big 4" clubs (including the current CL holders) all made significant losses last year and are saddled with huge debt.

 

In Italy, Inter are destroyed financially. Juventus are perhaps Italy's richest club and they made 40M losses over 6 months in 2011. Milan lost 70 million.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12599543http://www.rossoneriblog.com/2011/04/21/milan-report-losses-of-e69-million-in-revenue/

 

http://www.rossoneriblog.com/2011/04/21/milan-report-losses-of-e69-million-in-revenue/

 

But yeah, your plan of just excluding them all will probably work. No-one else in Europe gives a sh*te about those clubs.

[Sour Mash]

Did I say that it wasn't? I just pointed out that their finances aren't that great and they would have made a loss unless they got a one-time tax cut.

 

 

 

From my perspective FPP is just the beginning. There will be more regulations. I'm not saying FPP will make it perfect but it's a step in the right direction.

Arensal and Man Utd will have more money than us, yes. But clubs won't be able to spend money that they don't have to buy players, like it is in todays market.

This means that they might be able to get one of our, lets say, three top prospects but not all three. We will keep two out of three and thanks to that we will be more competitive.

 

The reason for the debt is from my perspective that it is good business as long as the country has a decent inflation rate.

Uk has had a pretty high inflation rate wich makes loans good business.

I don't think you understand the topic. How many players have Man Utd, Arsenal, or Spurs bought with money "they don't have"?

 

Have a read of Buctootim's summary of Man Utd's debt, it explains it very well. I don't think you have any idea of the vast sums of revenue they generate each year.

[aintforever]

Barcelona 77M annual losses and over 400M in debt.

 

http://www.barcelonareporter.com/index.php?/news/comments/fc_barcelona_news_barca_posts_77_million_euros_financial_losses/

 

3 of England's current "big 4" clubs (including the current CL holders) all made significant losses last year and are saddled with huge debt.

 

In Italy, Inter are destroyed financially. Juventus are perhaps Italy's richest club and they made 40M losses over 6 months in 2011. Milan lost 70 million.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12599543http://www.rossoneriblog.com/2011/04/21/milan-report-losses-of-e69-million-in-revenue/

 

http://www.rossoneriblog.com/2011/04/21/milan-report-losses-of-e69-million-in-revenue/

 

But yeah, your plan of just excluding them all will probably work. No-one else in Europe gives a sh*te about those clubs.

 

The whole point is to get footballs finances in order. The big clubs will be able to sort their finances and still qualify, clubs like Chelsea wont.

[Thedelldays]

The whole point is to get footballs finances in order. The big clubs will be able to sort their finances and still qualify, clubs like Chelsea wont.

I bet chelsea do......

[St Marco]

Well right now UEFA are against it. And so are the power-brokers.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/dec/05/uefa-europa-league-boost-not-scrap

 

"Importantly the major European clubs, from whom any lobbying for change is taken seriously at Uefa, immediately rejected the reports last week. Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, chairman of Bayern Munich and of the European Club Association, left no room for doubt in his response. "We are not in favour of the abolition of the Europa League and totally against the expansion of the Champions League," Rummenigge said, on behalf of the 207 ECA member clubs which compete in the Uefa competitions."

 

Of course they are against it. They don't want the money they get to be shared out amongst more teams....

 

The problem is the competition itself. The champions league is fine as it is.

But Uefa have always had this feeling that they don't want the Uefa cup/Cup winners cup/Europa league (sure there are more names) to be considered second best. They keep chopping and changing it to try and make it sound better. When in reality it never works as it will always be seen as the second competition. If you look at how the money is raised/given out they rely on 75% of broadcasting rights and the rest through sponsorship. Those numbers are getting smaller and smaller. Meaning there is only so long until the money is all from broadcasting. And how much money do you think they will be getting from people like channel 5?

 

So this is why they are talking about changes....again. It is down to money and increasing opinion that the competition is not worth it for the bigger clubs. Only a few years ago AVB was saying how teams getting knocked out of the CL should not be allowed into it because you should not be rewarded for failure. Moyes said clubs in England would rather not play in it as it is like the league cup but with air miles etc.

 

Uefa want money, thats how it is. They know the CL is a huge money making machine and the EL is not. It would not surprise me one bit to see sooner rather then later cup winners (the main cup i.e fa cup) be given a CL place.

 

The only idea I have heard that could make the Europa League better is by actually turning it into a sort of League/playoff. There would be regional mini leagues which stops the whole someone in Scotland has to travel to Israel thing. Then the winners of them get a CL spot.

For the tiny teams nobody has heard of they have to play more qualifying rounds just as the CL does now. Then eventually you get to 4 groups of 4 teams. The winners of the groups are then drawn into 1 game against another winner both home and away and the two winners then get a CL spot for the following season. This way it makes clubs take it more seriously. If they take it more seriously then the fans will take it more seriously and thus the tv companies might.

[The Kraken]

I bet chelsea do......

 

Of course they will. There will be ways around FFP for the richer clubs; they'll just have to, in Platini's words "get more creative". Its a nonsense to suggest that any of the top clubs will be excluded, and probably most of them will not even be affected by it to any huge degree. Creative accounting has gone on for years in European football clubs, as high as Real Madrid who a few years back hid an actual multi-million loss as a profit by writing off all transfer fees paid out (though in fairness they were audited a year or two down the line and pulled up on it). So much money at stake will mean more expensive and creative accountants, and it will certainly mean more lobbying of UEFA by the top clubs (hence why I mentioned Platini's son being recently appointed to the directors' table at PSG).

 

We're certainly not going to see some power shift in European football where clubs like Chelsea and Man City are left out in the cold, that's just naive in the extreme.

[Thedelldays]

Of course they will. There will be ways around FFP for the richer clubs; they'll just have to, in Platini's words "get more creative". Its a nonsense to suggest that any of the top clubs will be excluded, and probably most of them will not even be affected by it to any huge degree. Creative accounting has gone on for years in European football clubs, as high as Real Madrid who a few years back hid an actual multi-million loss as a profit by writing off all transfer fees paid out (though in fairness they were audited a year or two down the line and pulled up on it). So much money at stake will mean more expensive and creative accountants, and it will certainly mean more lobbying of UEFA by the top clubs (hence why I mentioned Platini's son being recently appointed to the directors' table at PSG).

 

We're certainly not going to see some power shift in European football where clubs like Chelsea and Man City are left out in the cold, that's just naive in the extreme.

chelsea are not going to spend hundreds of millions to suddenly be kick out of a competition...they will have very smart and very expensive people working on ways around the system.....no doubt about it..

[tajjuk]

These 'Fair play' rules will sweet FA, it will probably ensure the top clubs will remain the top clubs as they are now by preventing anymore Citys and PSGs.

 

If we want real fair play you will have to have a Europe wide salary cap like most USA sports have.

[Dangermouth]

It has been reported that the clubs long term plan is to compete in Europe, particularly the Champions League.

 

We have a wealthy owner but I doubt there will be a glut of new investment long term. Mr Cortese suggests investment in the Academy will bring through future players meaning transfer costs will reduce. But what about player salaries?

 

Everton reported another loss yesterday. Their turnover for 2011-12 season was £80.5m. Their player salary bill was £63.4m. That is 75% of turnover. They are not one of the big 5 (if you include Spurs)

 

It is all well and good bringing great players through the Academy but you are then going to have to pay competitive salaries to avoid their heads turning to the big 5 or even overseas.

 

Will the owners keep their nerve and continue to invest in the hope of rich spoils when we eventually break into the “top group” or will we continue to be a selling club in the lower tier of the Premier or a good Championship side because we cannot afford to pay the sort of salaries needed?

 

Obviously our priority this season is to retain or Premier League status. There is promise that our stadium capacity will increase if we do but that will hardly dent the sort of salary bill we will need to progress at the speed the Owners and Mr Cortese wishes.

 

We have said we are not a selling club and have reportedly rejected an approach from West Ham for Lambert. If they are offering him substantially more in Salary then that must demotivate a player who is reaching the last period of his playing career. It must make Shaw wonder now he is establishing himself as a world class left back.

 

Is it all about money? Massive salary bills out of proportion with turnover suggest it is.

 

In my opinion the dream of future Champions League participation at Southampton is just that, a dream. I will settle for regular mid table with the occasional big wins against the top five.

 

NC said when he came here that's what he wanted. I expect him to get it and unlike Lowe he does actually have a clue about finances so I'm not bothered about that side of things. As Weston and others have said, however, we need to be in the Prem continually from now on for that to happen.

[Frank's cousin]

I will settle for regular mid table with the occasional big wins against the top five.

 

Sorry Weston, have to disagree. Sport is about being competitive and the fact so many clubs would gladly settle for surviveal or mid table and keep suckling at the sky teat for its regular prem cash injestion, is the reason why so many play 'fear' football - and this plays into the hands of the top 4 or 5 clubs. The pre return to the PL seasons should have taught us its much more entertaining and fun to see your club compete, win and improve, and importantly play without fear than be an also ran.

 

I know most will disagree, believing that the status of the the club as a prem club is more important than 'how' we play, but this is an ego thing. We should be wanting the club to be the best it can obviously, but the best it can should not be about status with respect to the league its in, but with respect to the football we play IMHO. We cant say we hate the fact that moeny has destroyed the game, then act as a fanbase and a club, that maintaining that cash is more important than anything else, and being happy to settle for it. Where is the value in knowing that each season we will finish mid table, what is the point of that?

 

Surely, no matter how unrealistic most assume a target is, w eneed to recognise that settling for mid table, is never going to realise it or inspire.

[Turkish]

Not true in all countries - Germnay being the best example of how talented crops of younger players that STAY beyond our usual 17 years - can allow 'unfashionable' clubs a cyclical punt at success. The problem in England is obviously the rediculously stupid wages paid, the greed of the agents and perhaps most telling a cultural thing. namely that young players tend to have their heads turned at 16/17 and leave for the bench of a bigger club and 25k a week, rather than staying at the club that developed them until 22-24 as they mostly do in Germany etc.

 

Money has killed off much of the chance for clubs to break into the top 6 or so, but IF and its a fricken big IF, we could create a culture at Saints that saw us somehow hold on the the Shaw's, Bales, etc until they were 22-23, then it mightbe possible to have a cyclical flirtation with the top 8 - and if you get to that point its not beyond the realms of possiblity to be sneak in in an unusuallly successful season. It needs to start with educating young players and importantly their parents that they should avoid agents like the plague until players are in their 20s. These leaches never have the welfare or best interests of the players at heart, only their own wallets.... but greed is a tough one to crack.

 

If this sort of culture did permiate throughout the top tier, then it would come down to which club ran the best academies, rather than just had the largest budget... but sadly the 'I want it now' generation couple with those ****** agents, has left this an almost impossible expectation.

 

...the irony is that most real fans would much rather see their club win things with local home grown talent, than as a chelskiciteh abomination of bought success.

 

Oh Christ, dont get Frank started about Germany again! We'll be onto dynamic pricing in a minute!

[Turkish]

chelsea are not going to spend hundreds of millions to suddenly be kick out of a competition...they will have very smart and very expensive people working on ways around the system.....no doubt about it..

 

It's hilarious isn't it. On the one hand Cortese is a brillaint businessman who will be able to get us into the champions league with clever investment and strategies. yet the owners of other, bigger clubs who are already in the champions league or far closer to it than we will ever be will throw tens or hundreds of millions of pounds at it, forget they aren't allowed to and get themselves banned. You really couldnt make that sort of logic up.