Survival of the fittest.

More/better regulations is the main thing:

• Financial Fair Play (or perhaps a superior system that still encourages clubs to gain more revenue, avoid benefactor cash, and not go into debt).
• Club licencing.
• Prevention of asset stripping by non-league club chairmen.
• Et cetera, Et cetera.

The English FA are dragging their heels as much as possible in this regard. It's going to take leadership at the continental level to fix the major problems.

It's been just 10 years since the collapse of ITV Digital (and the resulting financial crisis that affected the entire continent), and yet the silly spending on salaries and transfer fees is back with a vengeance.

If football is ultimately about the fans, then the German model is likely the best fit - but even that requires some fixes.

seathanaich said: In a perfect world? Salary caps. But the top leagues compete with each other, so that will never happen. Fin Fair Play is the next best option.

I agree that a single European league implementing a salary cap isn't feasible because its "competition" would have a competitive advantage... but surely the solution is for the salary cap to be implemented at a larger level (continental or international).

Financial Fair Play prevents the poor from bringing in benefactor cash, but it doesn't preventing them from generating revenue through more natural means.

Does Financial Fair Play prevent a club from building a new stadium that is funded by a loan?

Surely the root of the problem are the skewed TV deals that put the majority of the cash into the hands of the few "top" clubs.

teams wax and wane - over the course of the history of 130+ years of the football league. In the UK rarely does a team fold completely, so it's just part of the game. Trying to protect them from themselves isn't the way to go. Leeds and Man City are recent examples of big teams that imploded and then clawed their way back.

Any team in any top tier should consider those times halcyon rather than an entitlement. Manchester United and their "fans" should keep this in mind as they continue their downward trajectory.

Blue_and_White_Army said: The Glazers have a great plan - sell ManUtd shares to gullible investors... but with reduced voting rights and no dividend. Oh, and register the company in the Cayman Islands.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/jul/04/manchester-united-glazers-shares-debt

The share offer has very little to do with investors. The $100m in shared are very much targeted at fans who want to own a piece of the club.

Blue_and_White_Army said: Does Financial Fair Play prevent a club from building a new stadium that is funded by a loan?

Nope, but from what I have read loan repayments on that stadium would count towards their operating cost under FFP. I would imagine the rate on that loan would be higher than what the glazers are paying, 5.2%, so for a 'cheap' $500m stadium thats intrest of $26m a year, for ballpark $40m in payments a year. So to pay the loan teams would need an additional $1.5-2m a match.

Are you advocating that smaller clubs should be required to take on this kind of dept to stay competitive? Because to me this is more problematic than over spending on players.

piltdownman said: Nope, but from what I have read loan repayments on that stadium would count towards their operating cost under FFP. I would imagine the rate on that loan would be higher than what the glazers are paying, 5.2%, so for a 'cheap' $500m stadium thats intrest of $26m a year, for ballpark $40m in payments a year. So to pay the loan teams would need an additional $1.5-2m a match.

**Are you advocating that smaller clubs should be required to take on this kind of dept to stay competitive? ** Because to me this is more problematic than over spending on players.

I don't follow. Financial Fair Play (FFP) would allow a club to take on debt from an infrastructure loan, but would then require that loan payments be considered operating costs (which are capped, based upon earned revenue). So rather than saddling the club with debt, wouldn't FFP rules instead decrease the amount of remaining available cash that the club would be allowed to spend on other operating costs (such as player salaries)? Surely that the preferred option.

FFP aside, I personally have no issue with a benefactor paying for infrastructure (as opposed to mercenary players)... but the club, not the benefactor chairman, should become the owner of such infrastructure. And, the chairman shouldn't be able to dump his company's debts onto the club's books (like the Glazers have done to ManUtd).

Revenue sharing is how it will have to go, eventually, but it's going to take some epic club failures before it happens. Rangers are too small to have the impact needed, because everyone's just shaking their head and chortling at the SPL. It'll need a Chelsea to fall, or one of the mancs, before people really wrap their heads around it.

Chris, how many lower-division clubs sell out their stadiums and require additional capacity?

Blue_and_White_Army said:

piltdownman said: Nope, but from what I have read loan repayments on that stadium would count towards their operating cost under FFP. I would imagine the rate on that loan would be higher than what the glazers are paying, 5.2%, so for a 'cheap' $500m stadium thats intrest of $26m a year, for ballpark $40m in payments a year. So to pay the loan teams would need an additional $1.5-2m a match.

**Are you advocating that smaller clubs should be required to take on this kind of dept to stay competitive? ** Because to me this is more problematic than over spending on players.

I don't follow. Financial Fair Play (FFP) would allow a club to take on debt from an infrastructure loan, but would then require that loan payments be considered operating costs (which are capped, based upon earned revenue). So rather than saddling the club with debt, wouldn't FFP rules instead decrease the amount of remaining available cash that the club would be allowed to spend on other operating costs (such as player salaries)? Surely that the preferred option.

Thats exactly correct. Both ways the team is spending money on gamble that they will be better. Spending too much on players is only temporary as if the team makes bad gamble they simply drop down and are forced to live within their means. Where as with a massive stadium loan they are stuck with that massive loan payment for the next 25-30 years.

How does FFP affect lower division clubs anyways? How does a perennial premier-league mid-table club take the next step? Or even a BPL also-ran?

Suppose Norwich manage to avoid the drop next year (unlikely, I know), how do you envision them being able to take a step up? They sell out Carrow Road pretty consistently, but won't be able to expand to bring in more revenue. They won't be able to skyrocket to popularity the way Citeh or Chelsea did, by having rich owners throw money at people. They won't be able to do it the way Arsenal, Liverpool or United did, by actually winning.

I don't see FFP doing much more than enshrining the status quo.

Chris said: How does a perennial premier-league mid-table club take the next step? Or even a BPL also-ran?

Probably only through a degree of revenue sharing that existing giants aren't going to agree to.

Many advocates of FFP believe it should eventually cover the entire pyramid.

piltdownman said:

Blue_and_White_Army said: Chris, how many lower-division clubs sell out their stadiums and require additional capacity?

So again as I keep saying FFP means that small club will never be anything but a small club. Or at the very least makes it extremely difficult.

First of all, a small club building a big stadium doesn't necessarily equate to either growth or success. Surely Darlington and their massive white-elephant stadium is proof of that. (Capacity of 25K, but only 10K allowed inside at any time... a truly tragic tale of incompetence).

Second, if FFP isn't the panacea for European football's financial ills, why has UEFA adopted it? Did they rush for a solution without enough due diligence? Do you feel that FFP can be improved, or (in your opinion) should it be scrapped and replaced entirely with a salary cap and/or revenue-sharing agreement?

I agree that the $100m number makes very little sense. Unless they are are just testing the water to see if they could cover their $663 million in debt or there is some tax loophole that is possible from being a publicly traded company based in the Caymans.

Not much is known about the shares they will issues. But with the Glazers Class B shares having 10-1 voting and no dividends I still see this as a way get a $100m cash injection now from the fans who will buy them no matter how bad the value is.

I like the German model for TV revenues with the 80-20 split between D1 & D2. Balance is essential and that seems to work for them. I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of FFP.

Wow, thats bad, thy didn't refuse to play Greece and they are in the same fix. :-))

Neeskens1974 said: So those greedy bastards launched on the NYSE with a far smaller than anticipated flotation and flat results. I foresee further tanking of the share price. But hey, as long as the Glazers can fill their fucking pockets. I think MUFC may well be heading towards a meltdown in the next few years and the Glazers will just be able to walk away.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/aug/10/manchester-united-shares-stock-market

Unfortunately it won't happen, they're too big. But its sure fun to think about.

But what you always have to bear in mind with that is that Charles Green is a prize knob.

Consider the venue for the statement. Green is clearly just pumping the stock. Tell everyone that Rangers will join the Premier Lucre League and that Rangers will make a fortune from the media money thus the shares of Rangers PLC (or whatever they are called) go up in value. Beyond that I wouldn't pay any attention to what he is saying.

Yeah I loved that bit. Hilarious =))

This is too funny. The longer green stays at the rangers the better.