Sour Grapes.....

Manchester United want to bring financial fair play rules into the Premier League, similar to regulations set to govern European competitions run by Uefa, to help them compete on a more equal footing with Manchester City.

=======================

Someone ought to point out that ManUre have been using their financial muscle for years to win various cups and trophies.... now the show is on the other foot they really ought to just shut up...

I know what you mean - and the thought of Sir Alex asking for fair-play from the authorities does cause some amusement - BUT I think there is a difference between the "financial muscle" that ManU have enjoyed over the years and that being flexed by the suddenly-rich clubs today (i.e ManC, Chelsea).
ManU have always had a level of sustainability in their financial dealings, they are a rich club because they have enjoyed success over many years and have used that success to earn money on a global basis but I doubt they've ever gone way above their means to sign players.
Chelsea, ManC are not earning their money, they are receiving it from seemingly bottomless coffers and spending it freely on players. If the current benefactors of the two clubs were to suddenly stop their "generosity" both clubs would have a problem to meet their respective weekly salary commitments - look at what has happened/is happening at Malaga today.
A year or so ago a rich sheik acquired the club, money was thrown at new players (e.g. Cazorla, due to join Arsenal from Villarreal suddenly found he'd be earning twice his prospective salary and could stay in his homeland) - now, money is no longer available, all players are being sold off - I don't know what happened but "rich sheik" couldn't/didn't want to maintain his interest.
I hate to see what has happened to clubs where the financial side has been allowed to be mis-managed - Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers - and I certainly don't want to see the likes of Chelsea and ManC suddenly in crisis (any more than I like to see that today they can buy their way to success) so I would welcome some control, if only to provide a level of moderation in the daily life of English football.

All this chat of financial fairplay is utter bobbins as far as I'm concerned. Especially funny coming from Man U, a club hundreds of millions in debt and also one of the English clubs that has used the Premiership/CL years to its maximum advantage. Frankly, them and Arsenal were happy to have no competition, build their big stadiums and reap the benefits of the boom years and now they have competition for the top players. BOLLOX SAYS I

villainies wrote:All this chat of financial fairplay is utter bobbins as far as I'm concerned. Especially funny coming from Man U, a club hundreds of millions in debt and also one of the English clubs that has used the Premiership/CL years to its maximum advantage. Frankly, them and Arsenal were happy to have no competition, build their big stadiums and reap the benefits of the boom years and now they have competition for the top players. BOLLOX SAYS I

Which either means you're brainless (which I doubt) or don't have the best interest of English football at heart.
ManU are in debt because their new owners dumped it onto them, knowing that the club is a going concern and will manage to overcome the debt over time (i.e. ManU make money on their business year-in, year-out).
Arsenal built their stadium by following a well-laid plan of action which included relatively low interest rates on money borrowed and restricted availability of cash - the stadium provides a healthy flow of income and will continure to do so for years to come. That's called good business management, not "reaping the benefits of the boom years" and will enable the club to be a going concern.
The Chelsea's and ManC's may find a way to keep tipping money into the hole, then again something might occur which stops the flow - what then for them? Meanwhile the cost of obtaining players and paying players has been pushed through the ceiling, based on their "How much do you want?" approach. That's been bad for business, football business and will continue to be until they step away or are forced to follow reasonable rules of running a business i.e. how much does the business make = how much you have to spend.

I 'm bored with the lack of competition in English football. The Champions League is the worst thing that ever happened. To even get close to United clubs need to spend hundreds of millions. If a rich benefactor wants to pump a load of money into a club then good luck to them and most importantly their fans. Arsenal and Man Utd weren't worrying about it when they were paying the biggest fees and highest wages. Fcuk em i say

QBVILLA wrote:I 'm bored with the lack of competition in English football. The Champions League is the worst thing that ever happened. To even get close to United clubs need to spend hundreds of millions. If a rich benefactor wants to pump a load of money into a club then good luck to them and most importantly their fans. Arsenal and Man Utd weren't worrying about it when they were paying the biggest fees and highest wages. Fcuk em i say

spot on slap head

As much as we all hate City, every single football fan would be splurging in their pants if Sheik El-Moneybanks invested hundreds of millions in our clubs. The FFP just protects the club who already have the money and strangle competition from those that don't. It's alright saying clubs could be self-sufficient but the only clubs who can afford to be both self-sufficient AND compete for trophies are those that rake in the Champions League millions. Just pushes the big clubs closer to towards a European super league.

Ezekiel 25:17 wrote:As much as we all hate City, every single football fan would be splurging in their pants if Sheik El-Moneybanks invested hundreds of millions in our clubs. The FFP just protects the club who already have the money and strangle competition from those that don't. It's alright saying clubs could be self-sufficient but the only clubs who can afford to be both self-sufficient AND compete for trophies are those that rake in the Champions League millions. Just pushes the big clubs closer to towards a European super league.

i dont think i would be splurging in my pants as you put it , If a so called rich bastard came and brought west ham....wh is reknown for doing things the hard way...

In all fairness it hasn't been that long ago when the Icelandics turned up along with Tevez and Mascherano resulting in Tony Cottee predicting Champions League football at Upton Park. Us Villa fans were equally excited when Ellis sold up to billionaire Randy Lerner. You'll never see me slag City off for buying the title, for the past twenty years it's been the richest clubs which have won the title. Man Utd made Roy Keane the first £50k. A week player then Arsenal lured Campbell across London with a £100k a week contract. How many English clubs were in the position to spend over £12m on two players in 1995 like Arsenal did with Platt and Bergkamp?
I'd love the chance to watch the likes of Hazard, Aguero, Kompany and co playing for Villa. However, unless a rich Sheik turns up or a Russian Oligarch then it aint gonna happen

It must be a generation thing. I love my club - I've watched'em through thick'n thin and loved'em the same. Didn't win anything for ten years (during which time they were nowhere near winning anything)? Still loved 'em. Won the Fairs Cup. Brilliant. Won The Double - unbelievable - tears, the lot. Throughout those early years there were "big" clubs lording it over the rest, signing the top players (Tottingham - no, really, ManU) - it was the way it was. I wasn't envious - we came up with a few clever players ourselves.
Switch to today. We haven't won anything for seven years (although we came pretty damned close), still love'em. Can't afford to sign Ronaldo, Torres - course not, that's the way it is. We've brought through a few brilliant players ourselves though and we can compete on the field of play. Fantastic the way the club have put together a top-class stadium and given us top-class football to watch. The "big" clubs are now the super-rich clubs i.e. they can pay what and when they want to whoever they want - which means there's a larger-than-ever gap between what an "average" club can do to compete in terms of finance.
In the "old" days Everton could sign a top player, Blackburn could also - now a top player wants what the Chelsea's and ManC's are paying. I would hate to have unlimited amounts of cash at my club - I love my club, not the money.
It's the future of football, which might include the future of todays Chelseas and ManCs that is at stake.

QBVILLA wrote:In all fairness it hasn't been that long ago when the Icelandics turned up along with Tevez and Mascherano resulting in Tony Cottee predicting Champions League football at Upton Park. Us Villa fans were equally excited when Ellis sold up to billionaire Randy Lerner. You'll never see me slag City off for buying the title, for the past twenty years it's been the richest clubs which have won the title. Man Utd made Roy Keane the first £50k. A week player then Arsenal lured Campbell across London with a £100k a week contract. How many English clubs were in the position to spend over £12m on two players in 1995 like Arsenal did with Platt and Bergkamp?
I'd love the chance to watch the likes of Hazard, Aguero, Kompany and co playing for Villa. However, unless a rich Sheik turns up or a Russian Oligarch then it aint gonna happen

the icelandics where not exactly flowing with mega millions , and allt he money those idiots did spend was off the back of gate receipt money ...in other words they left wh in even bigger shit than when they took over..they brought in to many players with stupid wages, lucas ozzy bastard neil....and that ex le'arse player, kerron fecking sick note dyer...the list is endless...so in a nutshell yep they brought in some brillaint signings did'nt they and the tosspot is for the icelandics

Billy Bonds wrote:

QBVILLA wrote:In all fairness it hasn't been that long ago when the Icelandics turned up along with Tevez and Mascherano resulting in Tony Cottee predicting Champions League football at Upton Park. Us Villa fans were equally excited when Ellis sold up to billionaire Randy Lerner. You'll never see me slag City off for buying the title, for the past twenty years it's been the richest clubs which have won the title. Man Utd made Roy Keane the first £50k. A week player then Arsenal lured Campbell across London with a £100k a week contract. How many English clubs were in the position to spend over £12m on two players in 1995 like Arsenal did with Platt and Bergkamp?
I'd love the chance to watch the likes of Hazard, Aguero, Kompany and co playing for Villa. However, unless a rich Sheik turns up or a Russian Oligarch then it aint gonna happen

the icelandics where not exactly flowing with mega millions , and allt he money those idiots did spend was off the back of gate receipt money ...in other words they left wh in even bigger shit than when they took over..they brought in to many players with stupid wages, lucas ozzy bastard neil....and that ex le'arse player, kerron fecking sick note dyer...the list is endless...so in a nutshell yep they brought in some brillaint signings did'nt they and the tosspot is for the icelandics

Yes i know that but when they turned up everyone thought they were loaded and got excited same as we did at Villa when Lerner took over.





And JPR, that is a very noble view but why don't you ever acknowledge that by paying a centre half Campbell £100k a week the best part of 10 yrs ago means that Arsenal are at the hub of the problem. Top players know how much their compatriots are earning and want parity. In 2012 how many English clubs can afford the contract Campbell was given? Man U, Man City, Chelsea,Arsenal and at a push Liverpool. The likes of Everton, Villa and Spurs still can't pay that and as such are feeder clubs for the rich boys. If Kroenke and or Gazidis suddenly make the funds available for Arsenal to compete for the players the Mancs and Chelsea are in for i doubt there'd be many complaints from the Arsenal fans

QBVILLA wrote:In all fairness it hasn't been that long ago when the Icelandics turned up along with Tevez and Mascherano resulting in Tony Cottee predicting Champions League football at Upton Park. Us Villa fans were equally excited when Ellis sold up to billionaire Randy Lerner. You'll never see me slag City off for buying the title, for the past twenty years it's been the richest clubs which have won the title. Man Utd made Roy Keane the first £50k. A week player then Arsenal lured Campbell across London with a £100k a week contract. How many English clubs were in the position to spend over £12m on two players in 1995 like Arsenal did with Platt and Bergkamp?
I'd love the chance to watch the likes of Hazard, Aguero, Kompany and co playing for Villa. However, unless a rich Sheik turns up or a Russian Oligarch then it aint gonna happen

Cunty boy Brown signed the Argentines.

QBVILLA wrote:

Billy Bonds wrote:

QBVILLA wrote:In all fairness it hasn't been that long ago when the Icelandics turned up along with Tevez and Mascherano resulting in Tony Cottee predicting Champions League football at Upton Park. Us Villa fans were equally excited when Ellis sold up to billionaire Randy Lerner. You'll never see me slag City off for buying the title, for the past twenty years it's been the richest clubs which have won the title. Man Utd made Roy Keane the first £50k. A week player then Arsenal lured Campbell across London with a £100k a week contract. How many English clubs were in the position to spend over £12m on two players in 1995 like Arsenal did with Platt and Bergkamp?
I'd love the chance to watch the likes of Hazard, Aguero, Kompany and co playing for Villa. However, unless a rich Sheik turns up or a Russian Oligarch then it aint gonna happen

the icelandics where not exactly flowing with mega millions , and allt he money those idiots did spend was off the back of gate receipt money ...in other words they left wh in even bigger shit than when they took over..they brought in to many players with stupid wages, lucas ozzy bastard neil....and that ex le'arse player, kerron fecking sick note dyer...the list is endless...so in a nutshell yep they brought in some brillaint signings did'nt they and the tosspot is for the icelandics

Yes i know that but when they turned up everyone thought they were loaded and got excited same as we did at Villa when Lerner took over.





And JPR, that is a very noble view but why don't you ever acknowledge that by paying a centre half Campbell £100k a week the best part of 10 yrs ago means that Arsenal are at the hub of the problem. Top players know how much their compatriots are earning and want parity. In 2012 how many English clubs can afford the contract Campbell was given? Man U, Man City, Chelsea,Arsenal and at a push Liverpool. The likes of Everton, Villa and Spurs still can't pay that and as such are feeder clubs for the rich boys. If Kroenke and or Gazidis suddenly make the funds available for Arsenal to compete for the players the Mancs and Chelsea are in for i doubt there'd be many complaints from the Arsenal fans

i
some might have i did'nt i looked him up on wiki,,,,,he was not exactly loaded.....and i knew he was'nt going to invest hundreds of millions ....

Ezekiel 25:17 wrote:

QBVILLA wrote:In all fairness it hasn't been that long ago when the Icelandics turned up along with Tevez and Mascherano resulting in Tony Cottee predicting Champions League football at Upton Park. Us Villa fans were equally excited when Ellis sold up to billionaire Randy Lerner. You'll never see me slag City off for buying the title, for the past twenty years it's been the richest clubs which have won the title. Man Utd made Roy Keane the first £50k. A week player then Arsenal lured Campbell across London with a £100k a week contract. How many English clubs were in the position to spend over £12m on two players in 1995 like Arsenal did with Platt and Bergkamp?
I'd love the chance to watch the likes of Hazard, Aguero, Kompany and co playing for Villa. However, unless a rich Sheik turns up or a Russian Oligarch then it aint gonna happen

Cunty boy Brown signed the Argentines.

yes , Just before he was fecked of with a big cheque in his hand for over 100 mill....100 times more than he had invested...plus of course those extra big brown evelopes of money from jaba the hut

QBVILLA wrote:And JPR, that is a very noble view but why don't you ever acknowledge that by paying a centre half Campbell £100k a week the best part of 10 yrs ago means that Arsenal are at the hub of the problem. Top players know how much their compatriots are earning and want parity. In 2012 how many English clubs can afford the contract Campbell was given? Man U, Man City, Chelsea,Arsenal and at a push Liverpool. The likes of Everton, Villa and Spurs still can't pay that and as such are feeder clubs for the rich boys. If Kroenke and or Gazidis suddenly make the funds available for Arsenal to compete for the players the Mancs and Chelsea are in for i doubt there'd be many complaints from the Arsenal fans

I'm sure you realise that the Campbell deal was only possible because we didn't have to pay a transfer fee for him. He would not have earned half that amount had we had to fork out the several millions he would normally have cost. The net effect is that we gave the player something like £3m extra per year whilst having paid out nothing for him. I don't think you can compare that with e.g. ManC offering to double Nasri's salary, whatever Arsenal were offering in their new deal and then having to pay Arsenal a (relatively reduced) transfer fee as he only had a year left on his contract.
If Arsenal's owners started throwing money around like the ManCs and Chelsea I'd be worried sick - for the future of the club. Right now I'm worried for the future of English football as we know it.

And had they not paid Campbell £100k a week the other top centre halves of the time wouldn't have had that as a benchmark salary when negotiating their contracts. I agree with your sentiment but i think you are being hypocritical. I can't see how a club playing at Highbury could realistically give one player a £20m contract was being financially sound. Live by the sword die by the sword

QBVILLA wrote:And had they not paid Campbell £100k a week the other top centre halves of the time wouldn't have had that as a benchmark salary when negotiating their contracts. I agree with your sentiment but i think you are being hypocritical. I can't see how a club playing at Highbury could realistically give one player a £20m contract was being financially sound. Live by the sword die by the sword

Your argument would be sound if we had been paying all our players the £100k a week that Campbell was able to negotiate. When Bergkamp joined Arsenal he was on £30k a week (which I thought, at the time to be ridiculously high) - we don't have a history of paying players over-the-odds hence it's rare when a "top", already established player joins us.
The likes of Chelsea and ManC only deal in established players, that's the difference.

While Arsenal have benefitted from CL money since the inception of the competition Man City and Chelsea have not. Therefore to catch then surpass they bought established players for big cash in a short amount of time. Re the wage discussion. Once one player gets a big wage it gives his team mates a bar when they are re negotiating their deals. Campbell's deal was the catalyst.

And that's the whole point - the modus operandi of the Chelseas & ManCs is splash the cash to get the top players. They may have had to play catch-up with the likes of ManU & Arsenal who had been earning their income through continuous participation in the CL but they continue to spend like there's no tomorrow. If the Big Money tap suddenly gets turned off at these clubs, for whatever reason, there will be no tomorrow for them.
My feeling is that it would be better for the stability of English football if every club had to curb its expenditure on signing and paying players to within its actual business earnings (and I don't include Rich Uncle Arab donatng £Xm for stadium naming rights as earnings). What we've got today is a short-term hit for a couple of clubs whilst the future looks anything but secure. I'm sure the most partisan fans would swap massive success today followed by abject failure tomorrow for their clubs longevity in the top league, on a more-or-less even playing field where every club gets to work for success depending on good management, players, luck etc.
Oh yes - I doubt there are many players getting £100k at Arsenal today so I doubt the Campbell deal was taken as anything other than what it actually was, paying the same (or less) for a top player when the value plus wage of the player combined is taken into account.

23 teams have had prize money withheld by UEFA over FFP breaches, I wonder which clubs that would be then...