Oil club spending

[JPRouve]

Yes but that went towards paying the clubs debt, it wasn't spent on players. Yes the chairman paid for the construction of a 100,000 capacity Old Trafford but money for investment wasn't unlimited. The club tried to get a rail company to subsidise the costs of construction, when that didn't work out the plans for OT were scaled back to 80,000.

Now I'm not claiming United didn't get some financial help back then, most football clubs that still exist today have had help at one point or another. But my only point is that a few local businessmen investing £500 each at the turn of the 20th century is in no way comparable to Oligarchs and Nation states pumping unlimited billions into clubs in the 21st century.

Clubs were bankrolled by businessmen, it was the model at the time and United benefitted from it greatly and more than most clubs at the time. I don't even see why you try to give mitigating factors that are irrelevant, I'm not making a critic of the situation. But United were an unsustainable club saved and then bankrolled by local businessmen, the club capitalized on that and through great management became a mastodons.
It is absolutely comparable in football the spendings of PSG, City or Chelsea aren't actually that different from the spendings of other big clubs. As much as people want to be outraged they have not spent amounts of money that aren't in the realm of Football.

 

[stevoc]

Clubs were bankrolled by businessmen, it was the model at the time and United benefitted from it greatly and more than most clubs at the time. I don't even see why you try to give mitigating factors that are irrelevant, I'm not making a critic of the situation. But United were an unsustainable club saved and then bankrolled by local businessmen, the club capitalized on that and through great management became a mastodons.
It is absolutely comparable in football the spendings of PSG, City or Chelsea aren't actually that different from the spendings of other big clubs. As much as people want to be outraged they have not spent amounts of money that aren't in the realm of Football.

Sorry mate but I disagree entirely, especially with regards to United in 1902.

Big clubs have been spending more and more in the last 10-15 years trying to keep up with Chelsea, City and PSG's spending in a transfer market inflated primarily by the spending of those 3 clubs, only by that circular reasoning is their spending not that different.

But the big difference between their spending and other clubs (City and PSG especially) is it's unlimited. There is no risk for either club, spend £150-200m on players if they don't work out no problem ship them outa year later. United and other legitimately ran clubs just can't do that. We've only recently got rid of the last of the shit Van Gaal bought the best part of a decade ago in Rojo, Darmian etc.

 

[JPRouve]

Sorry mate but I disagree entirely, especially with regards to United in 1902.

Big clubs have been spending more and more in the last 10-15 years trying to keep up with Chelsea, City and PSG's spending in a transfer market inflated primarily by the spending of those 3 clubs, only by that circular reasoning is their spending not that different.

But the big difference between their spending and other clubs (City and PSG especially) is it's unlimited. There is no risk for either club, spend £150-200m on players if they don't work out no problem ship them outa year later. United and other legitimately ran clubs just can't do that. We've only recently got rid of the last of the shit Van Gaal bought the best part of a decade ago in Rojo, Darmian etc.

The thing is I can't agree with that for the simple reason that in the 90s we had clubs spending the equivalent for their annual revenue or sometime more in the transfermarket, 150-200m isn't close to that. That's the problem for me, for some reason people are overestimating what clubs are spending today and underestimating what used to be the case not so long ago.
And United are a totally different animal, the reason we don't spend more is due to the PLC and then the Glazer ownership. They turned a football club into a business venture that has to manage a debt without input from the owners. We are the exception not the rule, what you call legimitate is a fairly rare situation in football.

 

[croadyman]

Like many on here have already said FFP died when City paid CAS a fortune to get them off the charge

 

[SeeMe]

Donnarumma + Ramos + Messi + Hakimi + Wijnaldum - those 5 players earn more than Uniteds entire squad.

Instead of keep moaning about how those sugar daddy clubs spend, why not just focus on our own club?
If there is a FFP, let them do the job, if there is no FFP, then their sugar daddies have no issue at all.
Do a Liverpool or Lille, steal away their title not so long ago.

 

[stevoc]

The thing is I can't agree with that for the simple reason that in the 90s we had clubs spending the equivalent for their annual revenue or sometime more in the transfermarket, 150-200m isn't close to that. That's the problem for me, for some reason people are overestimating what clubs are spending today and underestimating what used to be the case not so long ago.
And United are a totally different animal, the reason we don't spend more is due to the PLC and then the Glazer ownership. They turned a football club into a business venture that has to manage a debt without input from the owners. We are the exception not the rule, what you call legimitate is a fairly rare situation in football.

That's still happening now mate, which is why FFP was so important.

I actually would have no problem with someone buying a club and matching what United/Liverpool (or whoever the richest clubs in a league are) can spend each year with a view competing with them. But City/PSG especially aren't in football to compete we know these projects have nothing to do with football. These clubs have access to bottomless pits of cash that a football club could never exhaust. If they need more money another fake overvalued sponsorship is drummed up. And their spending is continually inflating the fee/wages markets, the year City were bought pre FFP United's top earners were on £140-120k per week, Real had just signed the best player in the world in Ronaldo and were paying him £180k per week. Meanwhile at City the likes of Barry and Lescott on £100k, Nasri on £150k, Toure £220k and reportedly Tevez was on £280k. That was the beginning of the insane wage inflation in football over the last decade in my opinion.

With FFP rendered useless now we are seeing City and PSG starting to take the piss again and I suspect it won't be long before fees/wages sky rocket to another new level. So UEFA/FIFA will have to come up with something to limit their spending because you can't have a situation where 2 clubs have no budget and can spend whatever they want. If they don't the Super League will rear it's head again.

PS we have no idea what City and PSG's revenue would be without inflated sponsorships, so they may well have been spending more than their legitimate revenue.

 

[CG1010]

If we ignore the issue of the source of funding for a moment(oil clubs, corruption), for me the issue is quite simple:

Funding that raises number of top competitive clubs = good for football
Funding that leads to domination of a few clubs, especially those who have had not been major ones = really bad for football

 

[JPRouve]

That's still happening now mate, which is why FFP was so important.

I actually would have no problem with someone buying a club and matching what United/Liverpool (or whoever the richest clubs in a league are) can spend each year with a view competing with them. But City/PSG especially aren't in football to compete we know these projects have nothing to do with football. These clubs have access to bottomless pits of cash that a football club could never exhaust. If they need more money another fake overvalued sponsorship is drummed up. And their spending is continually inflating the fee/wages markets, the year City were bought pre FFP United's top earners were on £140-120k per week, Real had just signed the best player in the world in Ronaldo and were paying him £180k per week. Meanwhile at City the likes of Barry and Lescott on £100k, Nasri on £150k, Toure £220k and reportedly Tevez was on £280k. That was the beginning of the insane wage inflation in football over the last decade in my opinion.

With FFP rendered useless now we are seeing City and PSG starting to take the piss again and I suspect it won't be long before fees/wages sky rocket to another new level. So UEFA/FIFA will have to come up with something to limit their spending because you can't have a situation where 2 clubs have no budget and can spend whatever they want. If they don't the Super League will rear it's head again.

PS we have no idea what City and PSG's revenue would be without inflated sponsorships, so they may well have been spending more than their legitimate revenue.

The inflation in wages matches with the inflation in TV deals, especially in the PL. It went from 1bn in 2004 to 1.7bn in 2007 to 3bn in 2013 to 5bn in 2016 and current 4.5bn. There is nothing insane with the current wages inflation, there is simply significantly more money in Football between TV right and sponsoring deals that are multiple times higher than before. Surely you didn't expect wages to not increase dramatically when everyone is aware of every commercial and TV deals?

 

[Noodle]

We're not all going to agree but do we all agree this new FFP proposal by UEFA is a joke?

So we're locking revenue in as the variable which dictates how much you can spend, which in turn means that those at the top will remain at the top and those at the bottom have next to no hope. Clubs can spend more than the salary cap but the luxury tax they pay for doing so then goes into a pot to be redistributed to lower down clubs (and the governing body i presume).

As of 2020:

Revenue

 

[TheReligion]

We're not all going to agree but do we all agree this new FFP proposal by UEFA is a joke?

So we're locking revenue in as the variable which dictates how much you can spend, which in turn means that those at the top will remain at the top and those at the bottom have next to no hope. Clubs can spend more than the salary cap but the luxury tax they pay for doing so then goes into a pot to be redistributed to lower down clubs (and the governing body i presume).

As of 2020:

Revenue

It's not ideal but what other suggestions are knocking about? It would encourage teams to seek to increase their revenue legitimately mind. It all depends on what rules they put in.

 

[Ish]

I don't think there's much wrong with getting an outside cash injection to stimulate revenue growth - like a normal business is suppose to function. The bigger issue for me are the related party commercial deals that are inflated between say Etihad and City, as an example. This artificially boosts their revenue and give them the edge over other clubs trying to compete in terms of FFP.

 

[JPRouve]

I don't think there's much wrong with getting an outside cash injection to stimulate revenue growth - like a normal business is suppose to function. The bigger issue for me are the related party commercial deals that are inflated between say Etihad and City, as an example. This artificially boosts their revenue and give them the edge over other clubs trying to compete in terms of FFP.

It's not much but I agree. In terms of protecting clubs from reckless spendings, I also think that all clubs should have their accounts and previsional budgets audited, if needed they should have to use escrows. You could limit the amount of transfers allowed per year and per clubs too.

 

[Ish]

It's not much but I agree. In terms of protecting clubs from reckless spendings, I also think that all clubs should have their accounts and previsional budgets audited, if needed they should have to use escrows. You could limit the amount of transfers allowed per year and per clubs too.

Yeah I agree about the audited bit - that’s the only way you can truly apply FFP. Submit audited accounts with market related adjustments where necessary, and then apply FFP/salary caps in terms of spending. Or else we might also get to the point where there’s just too much regulation and it also becomes a noose/deterrent in the sport.

 

[JPRouve]

Yeah I agree about the audited bit - that’s the only way you can truly apply FFP. Submit audited accounts with market related adjustments where necessary, and then apply FFP/salary caps in terms of spending. Or else we might also get to the point where there’s just too much regulation and it also becomes a noose/deterrent in the sport.

FFP should be scrapped it's a bad idea for the second point that you make and it's mainly midtable clubs that are prevented from growing since they are forced to sell key players on a yearly basis, key players that end up on the benches of top clubs.

 

[lysglimt]

Instead of keep moaning about how those sugar daddy clubs spend, why not just focus on our own club?
If there is a FFP, let them do the job, if there is no FFP, then their sugar daddies have no issue at all.
Do a Liverpool or Lille, steal away their title not so long ago.

I am not moaning - I am stating a fact.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

But the big difference between their spending and other clubs (City and PSG especially) is it's unlimited. There is no risk for either club, spend £150-200m on players if they don't work out no problem ship them outa year later.

Have these clubs actually shipped out 150-200m through tiny transfer fees in a short period of time?

 

[Bestietom]

Upgrading the OT capacity is going to cost more than it costs to build a new stadium due to the stadiums location. The expense is not possible to defend.

I'd love to see our fanbase react to the notion of Glazers moving us away from the very heart of the club, even if its a new and bigger stadium.

Thought this was all agreed on with British Rail some time ago. Did something happen that I didn't hear more about.

 

[Tom Cato]

Thought this was all agreed on with British Rail some time ago. Did something happen that I didn't hear more about.

I must have missed that, I just read the prelimenary cost report re: the expansion of the stadium, forcing relocation of the train tracks and removal of houses to a cost of: a new stadium

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

How anyone can't actually see that the sport is now a big dick swinging contest between the UAE and Qatar is blind.

PSG wallop huge investment into Messi. City goes for Kane. The two owners of the clubs will be sat somewhere, texting each other like two fourteen-year-olds on FIFA, about who they plan to buy next. It's just a pet project that we all just have to sit by and watch.

 

[Hulksmash]

How anyone can't actually see that the sport is now a big dick swinging contest between the UAE and Qatar is blind.

PSG wallop huge investment into Messi. City goes for Kane. The two owners of the clubs will be sat somewhere, texting each other like two fourteen-year-olds on FIFA, about who they plan to buy next. It's just a pet project that we all just have to sit by and watch.

Another soon will appear in Newcastle ( Saudis ). Premier League still stopping the takeover but not sure how long they can suspend it

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Another soon will appear in Newcastle ( Saudis ). Premier League still stopping the takeover but not sure how long they can suspend it

When the Saudis enter football will be the time when I leave I think. A wicked and horrendous little country.

 

[Ish]

FFP should be scrapped it's a bad idea for the second point that you make and it's mainly midtable clubs that are prevented from growing since they are forced to sell key players on a yearly basis, key players that end up on the benches of top clubs.

Yeah, there's good arguments on both sides, but at the end of the day, but maybe free markets should be the objective. i.e. as long as you're complying to legislation (stock exchanges if you're listed), company law etc.), you should be allowed to be run freely.

If your CEO is Bartomeu, and he runs you into the ground, then unlucky (or sue him). These are sort of the same rules applied to other businesses out there (accounting for shareholders/policyholders responsibly and within the laws).

I mean, one club could have a high wage to revenue percentage, but very low operational costs, whilst another might meet your wage to revenue target, but have high operational & head office (other) costs - the latter could be much worse run than the former.

 

[Coops73]

Glazers should put money into upgrading Old Trafford to a 95 thousand capacity.
That would change things regarding top players choosing us ahead of others to come here.
Even more fan growth and Income from tours and sales of merchandise.

Didn’t the Glazers recently say they had some major plans for OT or was that just a ruse to placate angry fans?

 

[stevoc]

The inflation in wages matches with the inflation in TV deals, especially in the PL. It went from 1bn in 2004 to 1.7bn in 2007 to 3bn in 2013 to 5bn in 2016 and current 4.5bn. There is nothing insane with the current wages inflation, there is simply significantly more money in Football between TV right and sponsoring deals that are multiple times higher than before. Surely you didn't expect wages to not increase dramatically when everyone is aware of every commercial and TV deals?

I've no idea what your question has to do with with what I said in my last post mate to be honest.

I said City getting bought out in 2008-09 and handing out crazy wages to average players in comparison to top players (I gave examples) was the beginning of the wage inflation we've seen over the last decade in football. I never claimed it was the only factor.

Also if you think the highest salaries in football going from around £180-200k per week in 2009 to over £1m per week in 2019 isn't insane then fair enough. We must see these things very differently.

 

[Pathwayz]

The only reason the oil clubs are so good is because so many players choose the money. My point is that they will often earn less in clubs like Juventus, Madrid, Munich, Dortmund, Liverpool and United, but many players will still be able to make more money every week, than they can spend in clubs like that, and therefore I do not understand, why they choose to represent an oil club when there are alternativs.

I do not see anything wrong in placing a moral responsibility on the players. After all, it is the players themselves who choose to represent an oil club. It is their choices career-wise, moral choices and sporting choices. Do we not all have a moral responsibility for our choices?

What is this BS you just wrote here?

What the hell is oil club?
And somehow you believe clubs that don't have oil billionaires as sponsors should have a Divine right to good players.
On what basis?

Is Real Madrid morally better than the PsG despite borrowing huge public funds and wasting it on galaticos.
How can somebody be this deluded?

 

[JPRouve]

I've no idea what your question has to do with with what I said in my last post mate to be honest.

I said City getting bought out in 2008-09 and handing out crazy wages to average players in comparison to top players (I gave examples) was the beginning of the wage inflation we've seen over the last decade in football. I never claimed it was the only factor.

Also if you think the highest salaries in football going from around £180-200k per week in 2009 to over £1m per week in 2019 isn't insane then fair enough. We must see these things very differently.

But it's not, it's linked to a large injection of money in the game mainly in the form of TV deals. We are not seeing the same thing because you are not looking at what happened at the time, in fact that increase was predicted a few years before that. And players earning that much in a year is a rarity that started with Messi and Ronaldo competing for the highest paid player in the world, the vast majority of top players aren't earning 500k let alone 1m per week.

 

[LoneStar]

People cry out and a vocal minority bash them on social media and whatnot. But most people (including me) will be tuning into watch PSG games in the CL now. The same is likely to happen with City if they get Kane.

I don't blame the clubs or the fans who want to watch football. This is solely on the governing bodies to control this. And they clearly don't give a feck. I fully expect to see more clubs taken over by billionaires and all the major trophies to be rotated across a handful of rich clubs.

 

[Noodle]

To me it’s not even about ‘oil clubs’ versus non oil clubs anymore. Whatever your stance is on new money coming into clubs vs old money generated by other means. It must be soul destroying to be a fan of any club that isn’t in the big six in England, or the usual suspects abroad.

Football was being monetised well before the oil clubs accelerated the process, the issue is how do we fix it so that all clubs can realistically strive to compete if run well enough.

We can moan about spending by City, Chelsea, PSG but even without those clubs Bayern, Utd, Barca, Real would all still be poaching the best players globally and spending large sums.

It all comes down to governance and Uefa don’t have the backbone or backing to implement something that would truly level the field for everyone. Whatever comes in cannot just maintain the status quo and allow the clubs with more revenue to spend more. Realistically a club like Everton would take a lifetime to build up to being able to spend what Utd can.

Maybe a staged decrease in salary caps to affordable levels for all in the league. Similar to F1 where you end up with almost all teams being able to operate at near to the cap. Some of the additional revenue saved by clubs can go into a sustainability and development pot to benefit grassroots, ticket prices and community projects

 

[Oly Francis]

But it's not, it's linked to a large injection of money in the game mainly in the form of TV deals. We are not seeing the same thing because you are not looking at what happened at the time, in fact that increase was predicted a few years before that. And players earning that much in a year is a rarity that started with Messi and Ronaldo competing for the highest paid player in the world, the vast majority of top players aren't earning 500k let alone 1m per week.

And to be fair, i'd rather see the money go to the players. Otherwise it would open the door to a lot of investors buying clubs to use them as cash cows because the money would go to the shareholders. Are some players overpaid? Probably yeah because some clubs have a hard time paying their wages but for the most part it's consistant with the increase of TV rights. It's been a constant battle in NBA for more than a decade now, players protesting because franchises don't give them enough money compared to what they get from the Association.

 

[MrMarcello]

Didn’t the Glazers recently say they had some major plans for OT or was that just a ruse to placate angry fans?

I wouldn't put much stock into the Glazers doing anything worthwhile to OT, not if it costs them a penny. They supposedly wanted to make changes many years ago but were put off by the cost estimates. If it were in the US they'd be threatening to move the club to a city willing to pay for a stadium.

Tifo posted a vid in May.

 

[WeePat]

I wouldn't put much stock into the Glazers doing anything worthwhile to OT, not if it costs them a penny. They supposedly wanted to make changes many years ago but were put off by the cost estimates. If it were in the US they'd be threatening to move the club to a city willing to pay for a stadium.

Tifo posted a vid in May.

I had no idea it was deteriorating that badly. I've been to OT many times over the years, and apart from the smaller seat area issue which I just put it down to my height, I have trouble fitting my knees into the seat space all the time, I never really noticed a huge problem, other than the crap WIFI. It's a shame that such an iconic stadium has been left to rot like that.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

Imagine still trying to conflate the fact that a few businessmen pumped a few grand into United over a century ago with what is happening with PSG, City and Chelsea.

"Hey mate you are so lucky that you just won the euromillions!"

"Shut up, your nan gave your dad a kitkat when he was 5!! Chocolate was expensive back in the day you know."

 

[Coops73]

I wouldn't put much stock into the Glazers doing anything worthwhile to OT, not if it costs them a penny. They supposedly wanted to make changes many years ago but were put off by the cost estimates. If it were in the US they'd be threatening to move the club to a city willing to pay for a stadium.

Tifo posted a vid in May.

Cheers, I’ve seen that video before and to be fair, I’ve never believed they would sort out old Trafford.

Pretty embarrassing when you see what the likes of Leicester are doing to be honest.

 

[Spoony]

I had no idea it was deteriorating that badly. I've been to OT many times over the years, and apart from the smaller seat area issue which I just put it down to my height, I have trouble fitting my knees into the seat space all the time, I never really noticed a huge problem, other than the crap WIFI. It's a shame that such an iconic stadium has been left to rot like that.

The seats and leg space is amongst the smallest in the country. We basically need to demolish all the stands and start again...but that's not going to go happen. Suppose best we can expect is a lick of paint. I loved your plans for SB, Herzog and de Meuron are great architects.

 

[stevoc]

But it's not, it's linked to a large injection of money in the game mainly in the form of TV deals. We are not seeing the same thing because you are not looking at what happened at the time, in fact that increase was predicted a few years before that. And players earning that much in a year is a rarity that started with Messi and Ronaldo competing for the highest paid player in the world, the vast majority of top players aren't earning 500k let alone 1m per week.

The same way the vast majority of players weren't earning £200k in 2009 either. I did the say the highest salaries in football mate did you catch that part?

And I'm well aware of the main factors as to why the salaries in football have increased, where did I even argue that the increase of TV money wasn't a factor? I can understand why salaries have increased to the levels they have while also thinking it's nuts that they have increased to the levels where some players are earning over £1m a week. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Cloud7]

People cry out and a vocal minority bash them on social media and whatnot. But most people (including me) will be tuning into watch PSG games in the CL now. The same is likely to happen with City if they get Kane.

Come on mate. Kane is an exceptionally productive player but aesthetically pleasing he is not. More people aren't going to tune in to watch City because they get Kane. Agree with your point on watching more of PSG though. I'm looking forward to it.

 

[LoneStar]

Come on mate. Kane is an exceptionally productive player but aesthetically pleasing he is not. More people aren't going to tune in to watch City because they get Kane. Agree with your point on watching more of PSG though. I'm looking forward to it.

I think City will score for fun if Kane joins them. So neutrals are likely to tune in their games.

 

[pratyush_utd]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Pep has to be biggest hypocrite in football right now. Doesn't even see the difference in United/Arsenal/Liverpool spending and the way City is bankrolled

 

[pratyush_utd]

And this net spend nonsense. It seems like someone told him to repeat that everywhere

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Dancfc]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Pep has to be biggest hypocrite in football right now. Doesn't even see the difference in United/Arsenal/Liverpool spending and the way City is bankrolled

We certainly weren't the biggest spenders in 2007, all we signed for a fee was Malouda.