Abromovic/Platini

The cheeky bastard. He is petitioning UEFA to stop sugar daddy's being able to buy players for clubs - because he doesn't want to spend anymore he doesn't think anyone else should. He didn't mind when he had no competition but now City have money it's a problem.

Platini says that the clubs won't be allowed to enter the UEFA competitions. It won't apply to Real Madrid or us, as long as there is enough revenue from the clubs to pay the debts they don't care how much the debt is. So in short it will sting City but not us. If it ever comes in.

ROMAN ABRAMOVICH is backing UEFA to crack down on Manchester City's spending power - because he does not want to flash any more cash himself.
UEFA president Michel Platini has vowed that any club which does not break even in the next three years will be kicked out of European competitions.

And he is being spurred on by Chelsea's billionaire owner Abramovich, who has spent £700m on the Blues in six years but no longer wants to pour his fortune into the club.

And he does not want anyone to forge ahead of Chelsea either. City have spent £120m in this transfer window alone in a bid to gatecrash Europe's top table compared to Chelsea's £23m.

But UEFA has adopted the mantra of 'financial fair-play' in a bid to make the European game a more level playing field.

Platini is proposing clubs can only spend what they earn in football revenues. He said: "It's mainly the owners that asked us to do something. Roman Abramovich, Silvio Berlusconi at AC Milan and Massimo Moratti at Inter. They do not want to fork out any more.

"Manchester City can spend £300m if they want to but if they are not breaking even in three years then they cannot play in European competition.

"I have met with Abramovich, who is a football person and passionate about the game. He said that we must do something about this.

"It doesn't matter if one team doesn't agree, because this is what the clubs want.

"Under the new system, you will get more investors in the future because they will be able to make money. At the moment you don't get these businessmen because clubs are losing money.

"If a club can get loans from a bank to buy players and is able to pay back bank loans, then it is not a problem. But if a club gets a lot of money or subsidies from a big backer and is still in deficit in two years, then it is a problem and we don't like that."

UEFA deputy general secretary Gianni Infantino insisted: "A rich sugar daddy coming in and throwing money around is unhealthy in the medium and long-term.

"For the club to be healthy it has to live on its own means and generate income. Clubs have generated revenues by investing in things like stadiums, otherwise it is an artificial bubble which inflates the system and is unhealthy and unsustainable."

Platini's bid to curb clubs' spending comes at a time when Real Madrid and Manchester United are also coming under fire for their mounting debts.

Real's deficit is over £550m and projected to rise to a mind-boggling £900m. United's debt is expected to reach £600m by 2017 when it has to be repaid.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...-spending.html

Originally Posted by Spiffy

The cheeky bastard. He is petitioning UEFA to stop sugar daddy's being able to buy players for clubs - because he doesn't want to spend anymore he doesn't think anyone else should. He didn't mind when he had no competition but now City have money it's a problem.

Platini says that the clubs won't be allowed to enter the UEFA competitions. It won't apply to Real Madrid or us, as long as there is enough revenue from the clubs to pay the debts they don't care how much the debt is. So in short it will sting City but not us. If it ever comes in.



http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...-spending.html

Might force the Glazers to sell, or shift the debt off United, at the least.

Originally Posted by dunk

Might force the Glazers to sell, or shift the debt off United, at the least.

Why exactly?, the UEFA proposals wont affect United in the slightest.

Originally Posted by carlosartorial

Why exactly?, the UEFA proposals wont affect United in the slightest.

I was thinking along the lines of us being banned from entering the CL whilst operating with such a debt tbh, I would imagine being in the CL is a major part of the Business Plan with regards to servicing the debt, so not being in the competition would be a catastrophe and would enforce a re-think.

Originally Posted by dunk

I was thinking along the lines of us being banned from entering the CL whilst operating with such a debt tbh, I would imagine being in the CL is a major part of the Business Plan with regards to servicing the debt, so not being in the competition would be a catastrophe and would enforce a re-think.

But the club can cover the debt. One thing the Glazer's aren't is sugar daddies. If we couldn't repay the debt, we'd have started selling our best players and not replacing them by now.

Originally Posted by dunk

I was thinking along the lines of us being banned from entering the CL whilst operating with such a debt tbh, I would imagine being in the CL is a major part of the Business Plan with regards to servicing the debt, so not being in the competition would be a catastrophe and would enforce a re-think.

Read the article. United wouldn't be banned from anything.

Anyways, expecting the Glazers to remove debt from the club off the back of some UEFA chit-chat is hopelessly optimistic.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

But the club can cover the debt. One thing the Glazer's aren't is sugar daddies. If we couldn't repay the debt, we'd have started selling our best players and not replacing them by now.

I see what you did there

According to that article as long as we trade at a profit we should be in the clear.
I'm no expert on business accounting but if £699 million of debt is on the balance sheet we can't ever be trading at a profit can we? I don't doubt there's a way round it.

This will affect smaller clubs more in the long run. Blackburn or Wigan will be booted out of the Europa one year after paying a large police bill or something.

Originally Posted by dodger

According to that article as long as we trade at a profit we should be in the clear.
I'm no expert on business accounting but if £699 million of debt is on the balance sheet we can't ever be trading at a profit can we? I don't doubt there's a way round it.

This will affect smaller clubs more in the long run. Blackburn or Wigan will be booted out of the Europa one year after paying a large police bill or something.

If we owe £699M and the club is valued at £700M then yes but even that's not what they want. They want interest payments + all other costs + transfers to not exceed revenue. Abromovic would just make up any shortfall, as City are now doing. That will be banned. You can spend £1bn on players under this scheme as long as you can afford to pay the interest from your revenues.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

But the club can cover the debt. One thing the Glazer's aren't is sugar daddies. If we couldn't repay the debt, we'd have started selling our best players and not replacing them by now.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

If we owe £699M and the club is valued at £700M then yes but even that's not what they want. They want interest payments + all other costs + transfers to not exceed revenue. Abromovic would just make up any shortfall, as City are now doing. That will be banned. You can spend £1bn on players under this scheme as long as you can afford to pay the interest from your revenues.

any business (or household) can easily maintain a debt level greater than its current total value, provided the payments are structured appropriately and future income adequate (and certain).

the important thing is the payments, not the ratio of debt to value.

Originally Posted by borsuk

any business (or household) can easily maintain a debt level greater than its current total value, provided the payments are structured appropriately and future income adequate (and certain).

the important thing is the payments, not the ratio of debt to value.

Yeranno. That's what I said. I was merely explaining why the total debt anyway wouldn't have been an issue to them anyway. All they care about is total costs being less than total revenue. As long as we are taking in £1 more each season than we pay out then they're happy.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

But the club can cover the debt. One thing the Glazer's aren't is sugar daddies. If we couldn't repay the debt, we'd have started selling our best players and not replacing them by now.

Best player, arguably.

Players though?

Tevez was and is shite.

Originally Posted by borsuk

any business (or household) can easily maintain a debt level greater than its current total value, provided the payments are structured appropriately and future income adequate (and certain).

the important thing is the payments, not the ratio of debt to value.

Maybe, but it's not allowed to. If a companies debts are greater than it's net worth then it is technically insolvent. Basically at any time a company must be able to pay off all it's debts either with cash or bay sale of it's assets.

That's my understanding anyway, I am prepared to be corrected, by someone who actually knows better.

it's easy to get misled on this subject if you don't understand how a football team is run - or if you read too much into the views of what some of the cranks on here say about how it should be run

luckily for us we have a manager at United who knows very well how to run the team



as far as Ambramovich goes, it has been widely reported for at least a couple of years that his business plan was to have Chelsea balancing its books so to speak by this stage. I suppose City should be given a couple of years to start doing the same, although then again, Chelsea were already a CL semi-final standard team and regular winners of silverware before Abramovich took over.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

Yeranno. That's what I said. I was merely explaining why the total debt anyway wouldn't have been an issue to them anyway. All they care about is total costs being less than total revenue. As long as we are taking in £1 more each season than we pay out then they're happy.

Indeedly, which is where my Wigan/Blackburn thing comes in

The most disheartening thing for me at least is that when you think of the astronomical sums of money we must have raked in during the last 3 seasons (3 titles, European cup, league cup, world club cup, prices going through the roof, new shirts every 5 mins). We must have made shitloads.

Yet we haven't even made a £#%&!ing dent in that debt.

Unbelievable.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

The most disheartening thing for me at least is that when you think of the astronomical sums of money we must have raked in during the last 3 seasons (3 titles, European cup, league cup, world club cup, prices going through the roof, new shirts every 5 mins). We must have made shitloads.

Yet we haven't even made a £#%&!ing dent in that debt.

Unbelievable.

That's the cold reality. Imagine the money this club would have been spending without the Glazers debt being on us.

Once the club stops winning, is when people will start making noise again.

Originally Posted by Aloe Blacc

That's the cold reality. Imagine the money this club would have been spending without the Glazers debt being on us.

Once the club stops winning, is when people will start making noise again.

Probably about the same as we have spent tbh, given the squad and success and all.

It's not all about buying players Aloe, ffs.

Originally Posted by Aloe Blacc

That's the cold reality. Imagine the money this club would have been spending without the Glazers debt being on us.

Once the club stops winning, is when people will start making noise again.

Well we'll be £#%&!ed, basically.

A couple of seasons without champions league football and the cracks would start to appear.