Football Focus

[Mick Mac]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I forgot, you're back on on the sauce today Mick.

Yep - give me a wide berth if you see me on the lane tonight. :))

[sakwhita]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dylen McGeouch - I know of his name but that's

> about it Declan. He's supposedly a bit of a wonder

> kid. Celtic do have a good youth system which is

> paying dividends.

>

Didn't you just sign him from Rangers?

[Bluerevolution]

No he was on books for Rangers and Celtic but is a lifelong Celtic fan, used to be a ballboy at Celtic.

[Atticus]

BR, will you seriously hold your head high should you be crowned champions this season? Hollow hysteria? My team are in serious trouble financially, would I take the City way out? No.

[Jah Lush]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> City will be pleased with the United result.

> Hopefully they'll be up for dropping some points

> tomorrow now!

And Tottenham too. Breathing down Man United's neck now and still with a game in hand. COYS!

[Otta]

Atticus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BR, will you seriously hold your head high should

> you be crowned champions this season? Hollow

> hysteria? My team are in serious trouble

> financially, would I take the City way out? No.

Don't believe that for a second.

[Atticus]

If that's unfathomable, care to explain why? Are you a mind-reader?

[sakwhita]

Bluerevolution Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No he was on books for Rangers and Celtic but is a

> lifelong Celtic fan, used to be a ballboy at

> Celtic.

I know he's a Celtic fan... but he has only just signed back for Celtic from Rangers... early this year I think.

[Bluerevolution]

A few months ago I was disheartened with the amount of money being pumped in. Sheikh Mansour is a wise man and has fully understood the context of Platinis FFPR about to come in next season. We made a ?194m loss due to wages/players bought/ EDS infrastructure. However, unlike Utd, we are not in debt- they are ?590m+ in debt.

Our owner is putting money in and not creaming it off like the Glazers.

Biggest problem with the FFPR ruling is that if you are not in the elite by the end of the season, you never will be. Akin to the creation of the Premier League, if you didn't have money, you never will.

No team has ever won the league/trophies by not forking out- remember the shock that went through football in 1979 when Trevor Francis was bought by Forest for ?1m ?

Silly money yes but in the grand scheme of things ????

How many teams can say they won anything with a side of homegrown talent brought through the ranks?

It doesn't sit easy but, unfortunately, it's the nature of the beast in football nowadays.

[Atticus]

Sounds like a well rehearsed argument to me BR. As much as I detest them, MU built on success from within, as have Liverpool and Arsenal in the past. Easy to dismiss all as 'that's the way it is now, get used to it'. Fair enough, perhaps you are right but I will never hold a candle to the likes of Man City or Chelsea.

[Otta]

Atticus, I believe you might have your doubts, but after a season or so, I suspect you'd be loving it.

Of course, you might be a bigger person than that, but I admit, I wouldn't.

[Bluerevolution]

How did MU build from within? Scholes and Neville brothers are about it.

[StraferJack]

I genuinely believe atticus. And admire him for it

[Atticus]

Butt, Giggs, Sharpe, Beckham all started from v young age. My point wasn't Manchester born, it was from success built on a side from within, without, spending millions.

Dress it up how you like. You are bad for the game.

[Atticus]

Thanks Otta for the forewarning of what success might bring. I do actually remember success and what it meant, no amount of success fuelled by wealth alone could replace that.

[Bluerevolution]

Nicky Butt, ok. Giggs was an MCFC youth player. Not sure on Sharpe and Beckham Spurs School of Excellence, where he made his debut for Tottenham Hotspur.

[Atticus]

As I said, not where they came from but the fact they came cheap and young and didn't cost millions, did they?

[Bluerevolution]

Young, cheap and unproven. I can't argue as the money being paid is ridiculous, we didn't start it though.

[Atticus]

Big of you to admit that, think humility could play a big part in city's future.

[Otta]

Bluerevolution Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Young, cheap and unproven. I can't argue as the

> money being paid is ridiculous, we didn't start it

> though.

Exactly!!!

I'm not for a second saying it's a good thing, but it is the way things have gone.

Talking about success in the 80s, or even that great Man U youth team, is talking about a different game.

Please don't think that pleases me, because it doesn't, but it is the way it is.

Hats off to anyone who would tut and complain if their team came in to stupid money...

... I'm more of a whore.

[Bluerevolution]

Times article

When the phrase ?financial fair play? was first mentioned in Uefa circles in the autumn of 2008, there was no doubt about the kind of foul play it was designed to outlaw. As David Taylor, the Uefa general secretary, put it, it was all about tackling ?a problem with clubs that secure debt . . . in order to compete at a higher level than their resources would allow?. Hear that? It was about debt. Not expenditure, not curtailing the excesses of those clubs who are suddenly bought by a wealthy individual with the resources to spend beyond their wildest dreams. It was an initiative reinforced by Uefa?s discomfort at that year?s Champions League final, which was contested between Chelsea (?736 million in debt) and Manchester United (?764 million in debt).

Funnily enough, ?financial fair play? ended up being something completely different. By the time it began to crystalise, Europe?s most powerful clubs ? United, Inter Milan, Real Madrid and others ? had pointed out to Uefa that debt was not the problem. The problem was those clubs such as Manchester City, who were intent on challenging and upsetting European football?s established order.

Last week City announced a ?194.9 million loss in the financial year ending May 31. The wage bill alone was ?174 million, which, absurdly, was ?22 million more than turnover. Approximately ?26 million was spent on wages for a group of players such as Wayne Bridge, Craig Bellamy, Emmanuel Adebayor, Roque Santa Cruz and J?, who even by the start of last season were surplus to the club?s needs (and in the case of Bridge, remain an unwanted burden).

That kind of spending is unsustainable on all kinds of levels. It is a model in extravagance, no matter that it is at last beginning to bear impressive fruit on the pitch. But such extravagance, permitted by a multibillionaire sheikh from Abu Dhabi, was not what Financial Fair Play was designed to guard against. The City model is artificial and unhealthy for all but City. But, then, for as long as Sheikh Mansour is willing to put money into the game ? and yes, far too much these days goes in the pockets of players and agents and from there to their various commercial, property or leisure pursuits, rather than trickling down the football pyramid ? that is far less unhealthy than a model where huge sums are paid to banks or hedge funds in return for no investment.

Also last week, United declared a 16.5 per cent year-on-year increase in turnover for the three months to September 30. They also announced a reduction in gross debt to ?433.2 million and that they paid just under ?21 million to service that debt.

To repeat: United paid ?21 million to service their (admittedly slowly diminishing) debt over a three-month period. That equates to ?1.62 million a week to the banks, purely to finance the Glazer family?s purchase of the club. In all, taking into account bank interest, bond buybacks, ?management fees? and everything else, sustaining the Glazer regime has cost a stomach-churning ?578 million since 2005 ? ?578 million to prop up a regime whose only goal, in the eyes of many, is to make money out of United.

Certainly this is not ?financial doping?, as Ars?ne Wenger describes it; if anything, it would seem akin to administering morphine, rather than a performance-enhancing substance, which makes it a remarkable testament to Sir Alex Ferguson that United have remained English football?s dominant force. But could ?578 million not have been better used, whether by investing in Ferguson?s squad ? which has continued to flourish in spite of the ownership model rather than because of it ? or by subsidising, rather than raising, ticket prices?

And what about Real Madrid? They borrowed extensively in 2009 to finance the signings of players such as Xabi Alonso, Cristiano Ronaldo, Kak? and Karim Benzema. That debt was reduced in the last financial year from ?209 million to ?145 million, but this, far more than the leveraged United model, is precisely the kind of approach that Taylor and Uefa were so determined to combat three years ago.

The problem for City, Paris Saint-Germain and others, though, is that European football is run by an elite concerned seemingly with its own preservation. Financial Fair Play is only fair if you are part of the elite or are subservient enough to know your place.

[Atticus]

So by whore, you mean success at all costs? Great.

[Atticus]

Sorry BR, I've had a glass, if you could paraphrase pls?

[Otta]

Atticus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So by whore, you mean success at all costs? Great.

Not at any cost. Poisoning the opposition could be pushing it.

Football now a horrid big money business, and soon enough, the richest teams will be playing in some sort of global super league... Mark my words.

And no, that isn't what I want.

[Atticus]

Yep, buying success to poisoning the oppo. Trivialising just suggests how weak your original argument was.