Oh Arsene stop crying

its a fact.. so **** off

No it s not. Mr Excuses will take his spending to 40 million when he signs the spanish lad. Will Wigan,Norwich,Swansea Aston Villa etc managers moan if Arsenal beat them? No they wont. Just get on with it dont be such a chump

but its our money you lamp!!! from our club... made by US!!!!!!! not some little rich guy who has a better addition of football manager..

take note, city, chelsea..

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/andy-mitten/malaga-lurching-boom-bust-152742713.html

Chelsea made 50 million alone from teh Champions league last year YOU LAMP

well thats paid for 30% of your wages... wheres the rest coming from? you lose £70 million per year... very sustainable...

LOL give it up. You had your turn now get off and push

sj, it's not merely a question of 'our turn to be a big club' etc., there's a wider picture to consider, ie that of the crisis in the whole European economic system, which is bound to affect the 'little world' of football, even if clubs and fans choose to bury their heads in the sand and imagine themselves in some fantasy world, immune from the effects of the big, bad outside world.

But it seems many football fans are so consumed by emotion,ie their precious fantasies, that they can't or won't grasp this reality.

Thankfully, there are some influential football people, like Wenger (who, btw, has a degree in economics)that have enough sense to grasp wider issues and point to the dangers facing the game, which could mean its virtual self-destruction through greed.





Wenger takes swipe at rivals



Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger says "football suffers" when teams like Man City and Chelsea keep spending big transfer fees.


The Gunners have been linked with a £16million move for Malaga's Santi Cazorla despite the club claiming they will not sell for less than £20million.

Such a deal would take Wenger's summer spending to £39million after the arrivals of Olivier Giroud and Lukas Podolski.

But despite his recent activity, Wenger insists the club are still not operating on the same level as the Premier League and Champions League winners, Man City and Chelsea, who are bankrolled by incredibly wealthy individuals.

City have been quiet in the transfer market this summer by their standards but are trying to lure Robin van Persie away from the Gunners and have spent big since the arrival of owner Sheikh Mansour in 2008.

Chelsea, however, have already splashed out a reported £32million on Eden Hazard and £25million on teenager Oscar in the last few weeks.

And they have been joined in the high-spending stakes by Paris St Germain, backed by new Qatari owners, who have just spent around £50million on Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Thiago Silva to add to their other new faces.

Wenger, a long-time advocate of financial fair play, fears the worst if it continues.

"We consider ourselves in a privileged position because we have a massive income," Wenger told The Sun. "But overall we are not mega-rich because we do not have unlimited resources.

"A club can buy players like PSG has done or Manchester City or Chelsea, with unlimited resources, but overall football suffers.

"Look at the activity on the transfer market since the start of the summer. PSG are ambitious and they have resources and that's it. We talk always about the same things.

"Europe at the moment is like the Titanic but we live in football like nothing matters.

"More than ever we have to run our club in a strict way because it looks like everybody suffers in Europe. I would be surprised if football is not touched by it at some stage.

"If you look at debt in football across Europe at the moment it is quite massive and we have to be responsible. We have to be ambitious but also make sure we are not getting in trouble financially.

"It is difficult for us because the wages in some other clubs are very high. But of course our players quite rightly compare themselves to the players of the other clubs."

Yeah, I mean as I've already said it will be alright for Arsene to spend 40 million plus this summer. But anyone outside the top 5 clubs isnt able to do that. Is that fair on the rest of the league? Chelsea generate plenty of cash dont worry about that.
As said before it was fine when Arsenal were making Ball the highest paid player in Britain and Chelsea couldnt sign a player. Who are you or Arsene to stop a owner spending what he like's on his team to make them better?
Still now that you've got your 60,000 stadium we've got to only spend what you earn eh United and yourself's miles ahead in terms of stadia plus the Champions league very year, oh yes it s defienately a level palying field for the rest isnt it

you talk complete cobblers... my 7 year old knows more than you...

poor Arsene, I will send him a tissue

Your 7 yr old will want a Chelsea shirt soon, what name and number will you get him?

fat frank no 8

"If you look at debt in football across Europe at the moment it is quite massive and we have to be responsible"

How much did Arsenal borrow for the new stadium please?

£260million

which is ring fenced by the way..

Borrowing money to increase income for future sustainability and competitiveness makes a lot more sense then splashing millions on a few players for immediate response, no?

Aug 2, 2012 -- 11:44AM, kingmax wrote:

which is ring fenced by the way..

what do you mean it's ring-fenced?

All I'm saying is that Arsenal have spent a huge amount on a stadium in order to generate income. That is no different to clubs, like Man City, spending huge amounts on players to generate income.

it is, because its our bloody money!! its payed for by us from our future sponsorship & tv money, we just asked the bank if we could borrow it in advance.. the money is ours OURS!!!!!!

if i go to the bank and ask for 100k to buy a car, and ill pay it back with my money from the next 2 years.. this is my money that im asking for in advance..

you borrowing 100k from your mum and have no income to repay that is completely different.

if you think its not your stupid...

oh I see. So because Arsenal had an existing income they should be allowed to borrow against it and invest huge amounts but any club that didn't have this income shouldn't even though they have an owner willing to invest the money in the club? Is that what is meant by Financial Fair play?

anyways forrest... im off...your boring

ok, good luck this season. Hope Arsenal do well despite their limited resources (£40 mill in the transfer window to date )

Arsene of course won't be encouraging these huge transfer amounts because overall football suffers in his opinion.....

how much do you want for RVP again?

themover
02 Aug 12 11:34
Joined:
25 Apr 03
| Topic/replies: 8,068 | Blogger: themover's blog
"If you look at debt in football across Europe at the moment it is quite massive and we have to be responsible"

How much did Arsenal borrow for the new stadium please?

And thats the game. Kingmax think you wanna go away and read up how your club bribed it s way into the top division. OH WAIT thats alright cos Arsenal done it

Aug 2, 2012 -- 11:45AM, RMB © wrote:

Borrowing money to increase income for future sustainability and competitiveness makes a lot more sense then splashing millions on a few players for immediate response, no?

sj doesn't get the difference between long term spending for sustainability over splashing on a few players Chelsea style, embarrassing to say the least.

Of course he doesn't, still bangs the same old drum.  Keeps referring back to the old days, if in 90 years Chelsea are winning stuff of their own back i'd like to think no-one would be banging on about this bought success they'd had in recent years even if it marked an upturn in their history

sj doesn't get the difference between long term spending for sustainability over splashing on a few players Chelsea style, embarrassing to say the least.

+1 A world of difference.

No proof anyone was ever bribed, but lets compare a promotion to the top division to a bloke pumping billion into a club to buy success

a club having money put into by an owner. Whatever next..man landing on moon?

all clubs at the top of the premiership are rich
they would not be there otherwise
personally I think Arsene should spend more money
especially on good defenders

without owners putting their hand in their pocket
the premiership would be between Man U and Arsenal...every year
even more boring than it is now

I preferred it when money was not the be and end all
but that is the way it is now now
and as A Chelsea fan
we have not done too bad out of it

sj:
Kingmax think you wanna go away and read up how your club bribed it s way into the top division. OH WAIT thats alright cos Arsenal done it


sj, holding on so tenaciously to long-passed grievances, utterly irrelevant to now, is a characteristic of prejudice-based disputes, feuds, conflicts, persecution, ultimately even wars, for territory, resources, even genocide.

In other words, coming from a mind-set that generates total and utter stupidity, all manner of hell.

You must be desperate if you insist on dragging up that rubbish. But the real point is whether you can see how foolish it is, sj....

Woolwich Arsenal - history

  Note the club is from Woolwich - There is no place called Arsenal.

  Were orignally from Woolwich South London ,but could not compete with Charlton Athletic with fanbase.

  Were owned by Henry Norris who bribed his way into the league and moved to North London .

  Were then later bought by the Hill - Woods, rich cotton mill owners who bankrolled the club to success, Arsene really does need to check the History of his club !!!!

i don't think there are any grievances, held long term or otherwise.

what is apparent though is the complete hypocracy of a club like arsenal
, who may or may not have bribed their way into the league.
who may or may not have been known to have the fattest brown envelopes[boot money i believe it was called] in the forties and fifties and fifties when the maximum wage was in place and they were known as " the bank of england" club.
who definately were in the vangaurd of riding a coach and horses through the wage agreements in their pursuit of george eastham.

they now apparently want to stop well heeled individuals legally spending their own money to make their own teams better because they say it aint fair on them??????????

you really couldn't make it up.

mike why is it irrelevent now? is it because the shoe is on the other foot and the big boys dont like it?

again i put it to you,back in the days you had the money and we didn't us(mex,sj hunter and alike) would not be drivelling on about net spending and oh its not fair.

But i am sure that is irrelevent nowdays,but that would suit your lot

quite right sj.

when arsenal were legally[or maybe even illegally] were paying players more than our team could afford we used to moan about it, and get on with it.

whereas this lot want to change the rules now that they can't [or wont] compete.

Does make you laugh when Bergkamp cost more at 7.5mil

than the whole starting Chelsea X1 in the 1996 FA Cup Semi Final with 1.8mil to spare.

Did we cry?Did we Bitch? Did we moan? Did we go on about net spend?

Did we balls

Which richman bankrolled the Bergkamp transfer then?

usual rubbish from ignorant fans about Arsenal's promotion in 1919.
the 1914/15 season was a nonsense and should not have been started (you know, with a war going on) and many players disappearing to enlist.  Arsenal were third in 1913/14, the last proper pre-was season, outside the two promotion places, but with the top division expanding in 1919 it was only right that they were offered one of the extra places.

if you want to talk about dodgy history, how about a club with no players, no manager and no playing record being granted a place in Division 2 in 1905 after being rejected by the Southern League.  who could that be?

and of course Arsenal rebuff the opinions of their 30% billionaire shareholder Alisher Usmanov who says this :

In his open letter to Arsenal's board on Thursday, Usmanov was scathing about the self-financing model, arguing it was, in effect, engineered by the former English shareholders, including Hill-Wood, to make personal fortunes. The owners' policy of not investing their own money in the club, Usmanov argued, meant Arsenal borrowed to build the Emirates Stadium (£260m), charge supporters very expensive ticket prices, yet still leave Wenger short of money to retain and sign star players.

"The self-financing model … allowed the major shareholders of the time … to benefit from [an] increase in the value of their holdings," the letter said. "All of these shareholders and board directors sold 100% of their holdings and cashed out at vast profits."

for reference

Alongside Hill-Wood pocketing £5.5m, the longstanding shareholder Richard Carr made more than £40m selling to Kroenke in 2009. Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith, who also inherited her Arsenal shares, made £116m selling them to Kroenke last year. Danny Fiszman, who bought into Arsenal in the 1990s, first with a portion of the former vice-chairman's David Dein's stake, made £160m, the final sale to Kroenke made just before Fiszman died last year.

Usmanov, with whom Kroenke does not communicate, is also critical of the executive team, who brought in £33m commercial income last year, £70m less than Manchester United.

What you advocates of mega-rich ownership fail to acknowledge is firstly, the risks involved: look no further than Liverpool and Man United, for example. Secondly, that if left unchecked there's a real possibility of top level football destroying itself through sheer greed and selfishness, by unregulated inflation of transfer fees and wages, amidst a wider condition of not only economic recession but also of possible destruction of the whole European economic set-up.

You seem to mistakenly believe football exists in a sort of 'bubble', separate from the rest of the world. You really should listen to people with a grasp of economic realities. And I certainly don't mean amoral semi-criminal chancers like Usmanov.

"destruction of the whole European economic set-up"

walofs

I suggest you catch up with the news, mover. And then bother to look into what many experts are forecasting.

Maybe you prefer to bury your head in the sand though, like many football fans, who seem to want to exist in a fantasy land that has nothbing to do with the realities of life outside. Which I guess is only to be expected as football is just another form of escapist enertainment.

mike you'rw sounding like one of those chaps that reads an item in the Guardian and goes that must be the case because this bloke is an expert. I will however stand to be corrected if there is a "destruction of the whole European economic set-up" during my lifetime. Let's not let this digress from the topic of this thread though.

You have cited a couple of examples of mega-rich ownership, one being Liverpool the other Manchester United. Both of which have owners more interested in taking money out of their respective football clubs (arguable in the same way Arsenal shareholders did). City and Chelsea on the other hand have owners that want to invest in their clubs. Arsenal have a mega-rich owner (or at least one with considerable wealth) but go down the path of self-finance, against this owners wishes, or so it would appear.

Silent Stan and the board are milking the mug gooners and they are swallowing ,I would not want Usmanov at my club though ,he has done some bird hasn't he?    Mind you it would be a bit like having Norris back and a return to the days when Norris was bribing for Arsanal's benefit.  The Hill Woods used to be the lords of the manor throwing their cash around but now they are small fry,so I guess Gooners will continue to have to fork out for expensive season tickets and hot dogs while Silent Stan does a yankee job on them ,like Utd and Liverpool .

  Meanwhile enjoy life ...........


  It is good .

magic picture,has it been on the yid thread this week they must be missing it!! only one big club in town

The Arsanal board are always saying they have plenty to spend anyway ,so what is it?

  Malcolm McDonald,Alan Ball ,Paul Marriner etc would not be signing for Arsanal today ,would they .

  I reckon they were better off in a smaller ground with the Hill Woods buying everything they fancied.

This silent Stan bloke and Usmanov sound like a right pair to me ,wouldnt want them at my club.

But as long as both sets of fans are happy with the way their respective clubs are operating ,lets all be happy.

Ar5e Hole Hunter: Live is good.

He says from him bedsit feeling giddy as fook as the Diamond White soaks in. Just let me know son and I'll buy you a ticket to the Bridge this season, I know how much you've wanted to go for a while now

mower, fyi it so happens I rarely read the Guardian. While we're on stereotypes, you sound like a typically complacently lazy 'I'm ok thanks' sort of character, believing absolutely in how things appear to be in your little world, one of those who's going to wonder what's hit them when the crunch comes.

But even if our economic system somehow manages to stagger on, the obviously ever-worsening crisis self-evidently has implications for the little world of football. If you can't see that then you're really in dreamland.

The artificial inflation of transfer fees and wages, ever spiralling upwards, is on course to ruin top-level football. It's so blindingly obvious yet since when have many football fans ever been capable of seeing beyond the self-interest of the clubs they identify themselves with, blinded as they are by selfish emotion?

And btw, a basic point to correct: the main owner of Arsenal, Kroenke, totally supports the self-sustaining financial model.

I live in Spain so I think it's safe to say the crunch has already come here. It's been outrageous a beer is now 1 euro 30 and a paella has gone up to well over 10 euros.

What happened was the Spanish government borrowed a lot of money to build stuff (lets call it a stadium) and then they found out that they didn't have enough income to pay it off (let's call it commercial revenue). Eventually everything came to a stand-still and they had to tighten the belt (lets call it selling the crown jewels). Meanwhile it's competitors (lets call them Man City) didn't have such financial constraints so they had to go to them and ask them for more money (lets call it Robin Van Persie).

Getting rid of Dein was Arsanal's biggest mistake and the fans know it .

  The club has lost it's purpose ever since.

Arsene has never cried, because he is not a poof like John Terry Crying like a little bitch on national tv

  Yes but he has other issues ,allegedly .

A very flawed analogy there, mower. A fair attempt, I suppose, but you'll have to do it again for your weekend homework I'm afraid.

He will not be the first to put you right on here nicholls .

Unfortunately though, Hunter, his attempt, as I've just said, was fundamentally flawed. So he needs to try again...

Pity you haven't the sense to understand such weighty issues...

(But what to expect, really, of a fourteen year-old?).

Well I agree he tried to make it simple for you , but basically he was saying you pay too much and you get no trophies,investment is needed and you are seething.

No, Hunter, the point is investment is not needed at all, the club is creating a self-sustaining financial set-up which will come to fruition in around 18 months, when the stadium debt will have been repaid.

Meanwhile, excellent business has been done recently, three top players, with another due shortly, all for just 40m. And - overlooked, of course, by those who claim Arsenal are 'spending big'(and are therefore 'hypocrites' for attacking clubs that do likewise) - that 40m will be recovered by the sale of several players surplus to requirements, including RVP.

Nice to see Arsenal doing that after all those years when they could attract investment from the Hill Woods .

  But if you have a product that can attract investment dont you think you should take it?

  That is how Arsenal came to be ,while others with much bigger grounds and gates tried to compete with the Hill Woods on the self sustaining route,things go in circles ,mate.  Is that 18 months a rolling one?

No, I think the investment route these days is a road that threatens to bring top-level football to its knees, as the few mega-rich clubs frantically compete by paying ludicrous wages and transfer fees.

In other words, a totally unedifying circus, driven by greed and selfishness.

And all this in a larger context of widespread economic crisis with real prospects of meltdown. (Note, I'm not just talking about a 'few more years' of austerity).

It's utter madness. Anyone with a vestige of common sense can see that, but try to get that through to a selfishly self-centred football fan, drunk on his mega-rich club's prospects of 'glory'...No chance, apparently.

Mike, what is going to happen when football has its "meltdown" or whatever?

Chelsea and Man City are financed by cash-rich billionaires. They finance the clubs with 0% interest loans. If they get bored, they could pull their money out, and then there would be a firesale of players as the clubs could no longer pay the wages. So then the clubs would obviously slip down the league, as they'd have to make do with worse players while the better ones left.

But so what? City have won the league. Chelsea have titles, cups and a Champions League to their name. You think their fans will care if the owners sod off and they become sh1t for a few years? Why should they? They have the glory right now. Especially in the case of Man City, where having some of the top talent in the world doesn't cost their fans any extra, as the owners aren't asking the fans to subsidise the wage bill, but they are doing it out of their own pocket.

A rich owner is win-win for the fans. Better players, without the ticket prices that "self-sustaining" (re. mugging the fan's off) clubs like Arsenal and Spurs charge.

Arab and Russian billions just aren't going to be affected by the EU economy going into the toilet, not in any meaningful way where they can't have their football club play things. Often, these types get richer when the world at large gets poorer.

If football is brought to it's knees, it will affect the clubs without rich owners much more than the clubs who have them.

There is no long game to be played here, no grand plan. The clubs with the most financial muscle will continue to win. The others have to try to find a way to beat them. And if the money leaves the game, it leaves it for everybody, but the rich owners will still have their fortune and can still subsidise their clubs with it.

I wish Roman would have bought Spurs and blown Chelsea and Arsenal out of the water. If he left and they turned to sh1t, at least they have had their day in the sun.

Thank you for your comments about my slightly tongue-in-cheek analogy Mike. I guess at the end of the day everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Arsenal like to appear that they are taking the high-ground here. The fact of the matter is that they created a huge debt on the club which is finally coming to an end (as you say maybe 18 months). Other clubs have not put themselves in this position because they have (or have found) owners prepared to invest in the club. Whilst this investment was going on Arsenal shareholders were cashing in on their investments leaving a club in-debt from their own decisions. This self-sustaining model is all well and good but there are clubs (Chelsea and City spring to mind) that are meeting the FFP rules but have done so on the back of considerable investment from their owners, I see no problem in this.

Financial Fair Play rules are now in place for all clubs to adhere to i.e :

• 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.

Prior to the implementation of FFP there were many clubs "behind" the so called power-houses, for example Man City were behind Man United. Investment of the size that has occurred was needed to simply catch-up with the bigger clubs. That has been achieved by investment in the club which would never have been possible if it had to do it through a self-sustaining model. Would it have been good for football at the high-level if the top clubs had been ring-fenced by the FFP rules making it impossible for any other club to ever be in a position to compete with them? I think not. With regards to the salaries and transfer fees, which I guess is the main section of debate within the FFP, as soon as Chelsea or Man City come in for a player the said club rubs their hands together with glee and whoosh up goes the price. For example with RVP three clubs have put a valuation on RVP and made offers, Arsenal have replied that they will hold out for their valuation - where does this fit in with the "decrease pressure on transfer fees" section of the FFP ?

mower, thanks for your reasoned response.

FFP could prevent the game from descending into little more than the plaything of obscenely rich men, and anyone with the best interests of football at heart will surely hope it's properly implemented.

But I and many others have grave doubts about whether this will actually be the case. Haven't you heard, for example, that Man City will simply use so-called 'sponsors' money - coming from companies owned by its ownners! - to maintain its overwhelming financial advantage?

And that's just one loophole. These people know exactly how to twist things to further their own ends, it would be naive to think otherwise, in a world run by the rich and powerful. Do you really believe UEFA has the will to regulate them? At present, I don't.

the dza:


If football is brought to its knees, it will affect the clubs without rich owners much more than the clubs who have them.

There is no long game to be played here, no grand plan. The clubs with the most financial muscle will continue to win. The others have to try to find a way to beat them. And if the money leaves the game, it leaves it for everybody, but the rich owners will still have their fortune and can still subsidise their clubs with it.


MN:
That's exactly what I mean by saying that the mega-rich are likely to ruin football. In fact, aided by worsening economic conditions, to eventually bring football to its knees.

What's in store? Just a very few exceptionally rich clubs, the rest condemned to poverty? A worthless charade.

But I guess that's part of the price we pay for our utterly selfish greed, we just ruin everything.

Shouldn't UEFA be more concerned with the people who want to take money out of football? as the mover suggests.

  Chelsea were ripe for investment ,why turn it away,Champions League qualified,Cup winners at home and in Europe and positioned in the best part of London,investment was a matter of course.  As we have seen many clubs are attracting bad investors who in fact are looking to profit,do we want more of these?  Would you all be happier if the Glazers were at Chelsea?

  Ken Bates turned down many bad investors before handing over to the one Chelsea had attracted.


  Sadly I think the answer is yes.

Football(and Sport in general now) is now big business it is 'entertainment'
the players are 'entertainers'
..and like other entertainers, singers, actors, etc...
they are 'unique' their talent cannot be replaced..
so they decide where they go and demand what money they want
it is the players/entertainers wages not transfer fees that are getting clubs in trouble

The only fair way would be for all clubs in the premiership to have the same limit on transfer fees and wages
..but of course if that happened some of the best players in the world would not be playing in the premiership
and are own best players would go abroad..it will never happen

I cant see how trying to relate a clubs expenditure to their income would make things fairer
you would still have the rich clubs dominating the premiership every year
by allowing owners to dip into their own pockets... is the only hope some other clubs have

So yes 'Arsene' is being very Hyprocritical
He knows very well take out Chelsea and Man City then Arsenal would be able to cherry pick the best players

just my imo

There are many sports that rely heavily on sponsorship for it's existence (F1 springs to mind as the most obvious) and I don't actually see it as a problem where the money comes from as long as it's "clean" money. It is after-all this money that makes the whole thing tick. City will no doubt have to justify to FIFA at some point their sponsorship deals but in comparison to many other sports it's no so out of the ordinary a deal. I agree I don't think UEFA have the will to regulate them but I do think many good things will come from their doings. For example the new City Academy is fantastic and will no doubt contribute greatly to youth sector and infrastructure in the future.

I don't actually really agree on the transfer fees limitations to be honest. Out of interest I decided not long ago to follow the money trail from the purchase of Kun Aguero from Atletico. This money filtered it's way down to many small clubs that actually need the money to stay in existence and have a "business" model of generating young players from their area and selling them on at a later stage enabling them to continue developing their local youth systems. So I guess what I'm saying is that the wealth coming into football from these owners isn't always a bad thing. I can't, off the top of my head, think of a sport that actually wants to limit or restrict the amount of money put into.

mower, do you really believe that all the wealth of the mega-rich has been and continues to be obtained in "clean" ways?

Is all Abramovitch's money, for example, "clean money"?

I think it's exceptionally naive to think so.

I recommend looking more deeply into how such people have operated, if you really care, that is.

It's all tainted, with overwhelming greed, utter selfishness (not to mention theft and blood).

Arsewype had better start buying some decent players then, how much has he wasted on utter trash, THAT is the real scandal

No I don't believe it is mike, and I think that is an area that has started to improve because of some of the new measures put in place on club ownership. I also think it should be applied to sponsorship deals as well to ensure that funding from that is from a "clean" source. The problem I guess is in determining what is actually classed as clean and what isn't and if a decision was made that it wasn't clean then being able to prove substantiating evidence to back that up.

Unfortunately nowadays any bank funding can not be counted as clean money

Mike you are a very sour guy.

  Was every penny the Hill Woods made clean,do you know they sent children out to harvest the cotton on barely living wages and financed Arsenal on the back of it ,Arsenal were the original small club and probably were the first to benefit from very wealthy owners .

I don't doubt what you say, Hunter. Very often amassing a huge fortune is achieved at the expense of humanity. Look no further than our very own country's colonial history, for example.

Problem is, that as I see it, football finance has now  degenerated to a ludicrously unbalanced degree. Players have become 'mercenaries', touting themselves to the highest bidder, their 'loyalty' determined by the size of their monthly salaries. All this operating in an ever more depressed economic environment - insanity!

I ask you, can you possibly put aside your personal considerations and see whether the game would be far better all round if success was far less dependent upon money?

Also, of course, if the FFP rules were strictly implemented, including avoiding so-called 'sponsors' who were nothing more than another business run by a club's owners?

Mike you make it sound like the FFP rules make football a more even playing field. It doesn't and never will. It ring-fences the existing "big clubs" into a bubble where only they will be able to compete at the top-level of football, and I will include Arsenal in that group. Chelsea and Man City succeeded getting into that group by massive investment prior to FFP coming into play, it may not be possible again. If FIFA want clubs run as business' you end up with the same scenario as in corporate land where the best staff are bought up by those corporations prepared to pay the most for them. I don't see RVP accepting a massive salary reduction and returning to his hometown club do you? Would Fabregas have gone to Barcelona for £30000 a week despite it being his home club?

I assume you are referring to the City sponsorship deal in your comment regarding sponsorship...Etihad are owned by the Abu Dhabi government, Sheikh Mansour is a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family.

In many respects it was Arsenal that started the ball rolling on sponsorship deals with what was hailed at the time (2006) as the biggest deal ever undertaken in English soccer. A few years on we have the likes of Tim Payton (Arsenal Trust spokesman) arguing City's deal "stretches credulity to the limit"

The reason being that it's not 'sponsorship' at all, it's simply a convenient front to hide behind, allowing the owners to pour in yet more of their almost infinite resources!

the mover:

Mike you make it sound like the FFP rules make football a more even playing field. It doesn't and never will.


MN:

But of course they will, simply because clubs wouldn't be allowed to spend more than they earn. So the likes of Chelsea and Man City would have to drastically curb their outlays. That adds up to a more level field, doesn't it?

Being an Evertonian, I think I am well qualified to have a moan. Wenger has a point of course, but I am not sure that the governing bodies can do anything about it. I hanker for the good old days when at least half the teams in the top division had a genuine chance of winning a trophy and a team from the second division could win a cup. I think the fans have somehow got to take football back from the mega rich.

Exactly, school marm. It's not about individual clubs, it's about the overall health of the competition.

Mike, you may be right in that eventually, the game will become so radically unequal due to the difference in wealth that the sporting contest might be ruined.

However, if that happens, then it will be a tipping point and something will change. I can guess at this because a similar thing has already happened in the game. The rich owners coming in is what happened when the game reached a tipping point in the recent past, whereby Arsenal and Man Utd (especially Man Utd) were the dominant forces in the game. Look at the sides who have managed to upset that apple cart; Blackburn (mega bucks for their time), Chelsea (the first really mega mega bucks) and now Man City (who have taken it to yet another level it seems).

This, recent, wall of money is a result of the football wealth of the recent past becomming concentrated amongst teams who could qualify for the Champions League and the biggest share of sky money each and every season, closing the shop.

If the new shop becomes close, then something will change (probably along the lines of the NFL, where the league is deemed as important as the clubs). I'm not sure FFP is the answer, as others have said, I think that's just pulling the ladder up at best.

On the other hand, hasn't football always been dominated by a very few clubs? Real/Barca in Spain, Rangers/Celtic Scotland, Bayern in Germany, Ajax/Feyenoord in Holland, Milan/Juve/Inter in Italy and Liverpool/Man Utd in England etc. etc. Outside of that group of teams, there aren't that many pots to go around imo.

"The self-financing model … allowed the major shareholders of the time … to benefit from [an] increase in the value of their holdings," the letter said. "All of these shareholders and board directors sold 100% of their holdings and cashed out at vast profits."

Alongside Hill-Wood pocketing £5.5m, the longstanding shareholder Richard Carr made more than £40m selling to Kroenke in 2009...


mikenichols • August 3, 2012 1:14 PM BST
And btw, a basic point to correct: the main owner of Arsenal, Kroenke, totally supports the self-sustaining financial model.



This bit made me laugh, I think it's quite understandable given the information themover posted that Kroenke might be supportive of this model...

FFP is not taken seriously,it is a free world ,if somebody wants to buy 10 billion raffle tickets for a clubs christmas raffle ,you think UEFA can stop them? it is a non runner and all the clubs know it.

Below is the latest Premier League debt list. Most will know which of those clubs do genuinely have financial difficulties and for the likes of Chelsea, for example, club debt can be/will be transferred into equity as in other cases.


Premier League debt   
Chelsea    £734m
Manchester United    £439m
Fulham    £190m
Newcastle United    £150m
Liverpool    £123m
Aston Villa    £110m
Arsenal    £97.8m
Bolton Wanderers    £93m
Tottenham    £78.6m
Wigan Athletic    £73m
Sunderland    £66m
QPR    £56.1m
Everton    £45m
Manchester City    £41m
Blackburn Rovers    £21m
Norwich    £16.8m
Stoke City    £8m
West Bromwich    £2m
Swansea    £0m
Wolves    £0m

the ffp will benefit Man U and Arsenal , no one else imo
Blackburn,Chelsea and Man City all won the premiership because owners put their hand in their own pocket
if they had not...all those years Man U would have won the premiership
what possible use is that to football...none imo

I think this so called self sustaining model
benefits share holders no one else..
what about the Arsenal fans
maybe they would like to win something for a change

There is a parallel here with Horse Racing
without rich Arab owners we would not be seeing top class trained horses trained in this country
the prize money is too low

Blocking rich owners will not let teams like Norwich, Swansea , etc win the premiership

it is not rich owners are the problem
they can afford to lose the money
it is when clubs themselves run into debt
yes they should run within their means
else they go bust
and people lose money

themover
04 Aug 12 19:42
Joined:
25 Apr 03
| Topic/replies: 8,191 | Blogger: themover's blog
Below is the latest Premier League debt list. Most will know which of those clubs do genuinely have financial difficulties and for the likes of Chelsea, for example, club debt can be/will be transferred into equity as in other cases.


Premier League debt   
Chelsea    £734m
Manchester United    £439m
Fulham    £190m
Newcastle United    £150m
Liverpool    £123m
Aston Villa    £110m
Arsenal    £97.8m
Bolton Wanderers    £93m
Tottenham    £78.6m
Wigan Athletic    £73m
Sunderland    £66m
QPR    £56.1m
Everton    £45m
Manchester City    £41m
Blackburn Rovers    £21m
Norwich    £16.8m
Stoke City    £8m
West Bromwich    £2m
Swansea    £0m
Wolves    £0m


Where is this from? How do you get the "debt" figures. As somebody said Roman has made Chelsea debt free, he wiped it out when he came in, they might make a loss but as as far as I know there is no "debt"

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/

may well have changed somewhat since that list depending if clubs have transferred some debt into equity

Doesn't all this in a way come down to pure common sense, ie that investment by rich owners is fine - but within limits, so that things don't become overwhelmingly biased in favour of the very richest clubs?

How about a limit on the size of transfer fees and of wages (and perhaps even of the number of players a club can buy)?

Doesn't the NBA in the States operate under such rules? (Or is it their baseball or 'football' leagues?).

Btw, I'm not coming primarily from the standpoint of a supporter of a certain club, but from a concern for the overall health of the Premier league.

The difficulty in that mike is where do you set the figure? It would effect different countries in different ways. Let's say for example it was set at £20 million and £50000 a week. You would still find that the best players from the worlds "poorer" leagues would hot foot it to England (or other "wealthy" leagues) and to those clubs that can afford the £20 million transfer fee and the £50000 a week salary, so essentially no different to how it is now other than it saving the wealthy clubs some money (more for shareholders!). Also not all of the poorer clubs would benefit from this...some rely on being able to get large transfer fees for their players (Brazil springs to mind). Reducing the transfer fees they can receive for players takes money out of their game where the wealthy are less interested in investing. Also I don't think the likes of Barcelona would like to see their asset of Lionel Messi suddenly reduced to a value of £20 million! potentially creating even more debt than currently exists at Barcelona.

you can't really compare the US systems, its much easier to control when you have a single nation.  their sports are built on a draft system with a complex system of contracts, arbitrations and waivers made pre-season and franchises that can't be relegated who have stratified reserve teams in other towns who play at a fixed level in perpituity.

I can't see an enforcable European wide/world wide limit on anything being more than a cosmetic dressing.  Unless there are catch-all rules that penalise clubs for going against the spirit of the rules, there will always be loopholes that will be exploited.  the PL could try doing something unilaterally, but what the French found, when they required clubs not to carry debt, is that everyone comes and buys your best players at prices you cannot compete with.

Thanks for this, sugarfoot and mower, you've clarified a few things here.

English football could end up with all our top clubs owned by foreign billionaires, or oil rich Arabs, paying greedy little tarts like Cashley two hundred grand a week.

The flip side to this is clubs like Arsanal and Spurs asking sky high prices for the likes of Modric and Van Persie ,40 million for Modric and 20 for Van ,why should the likes of Chelsea pay for your new stadiums ,if you are self financing just put the season tickets up and charge more for hot dogs and ask realistic prices for players.  And any new model of fair play should involve clubs not nicking other clubs young players on the cheap.

Wenger is a truly loathsome figure who has lost his marbles and ability

The sooner the game is rid of this guesser the better , his whining and moaning make this seething mug a laughing stock along with those that worship him

7 years