2012/13 Soccer Thread

Surprise surprise...FFP rules are governed by self interest. Highlighting is mine.

From David Conn in the Guardian.

Richard Scudamore, the chief executive of the Premier League, said the regulations his clubs have introduced should not be likened to Uefa's financial fair play, and indeed the most striking first impression was how much more slack the 20 clubs have cut for themselves. Uefa's financial fair play rules restrict clubs in European competitions to making total losses of €45m in 2012-14, while the Premier League's limit, agreed after nine months of discussion, is £105m over three years. That is still a great deal of money to lose between 2013 and 2016, given the £5.5bn bonanza expected to arrive in TV income alone.

The rules, the £105m loss and the measures restricting players' wages increases, are clearly a compromise. A deal has been done to reach a middle ground between clubs such as Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur who wanted a strict implementation of Uefa's €45m limit, and other clubs, including Manchester City, who wanted no restrictions at all.

Scudamore argued that these rules will protect the Premier League clubs financially in advance of this deluge of cash. The £105m is only allowed to be lost if an owner has guaranteed it and paid the money in. Losses not guaranteed by owners will be limited to the much more modest £15m over three years. That, the Premier League said, will prevent "another Portsmouth", the notoriously insolvent club that, in administration again, lurched into another tortured twist, with a new bid made to challenge that of the supporters trust, even as the current top 20 clubs were meeting.

The compromise is also broader, between a vision of football that has clubs living within their means, and one that wants owners buying them and pouring in cash to buy success. The compromise means the English game is still open to that model, but such an owner is limited to £105m over three years, plus investment in youth training and infrastructure. Scudamore specifically acknowledged that the rules will not allow turbo-fuelling like that of Manchester City, where Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan has injected around £1bn since 2008 to elevate City from ninth in the Premier League to champions.

There will be sanctions for breaching the rule, and Scudamore said they will push for it to be severe, a points deduction if the £105m is seriously overspent. The aim is to allow owners to put serious money into clubs, but not quite so serious as Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour have unleashed into their football ventures.

The wage limit is a little odd, and illustrates the greatest frustration with the conduct of these reforms. Most clubs' main aim is to ensure they do not blow the forthcoming vast fortune on ever-inflating players' wages. They have agreed to limit wage bill increases to £4m in 2013, then £8m, then £12m, out of the Premier League's TV income. Clubs, though, can increase wages as much as they like from owners' money up to the £105m overall, or from commercial revenue – or ticket income.

The Premier League says clubs will not be seeking ways to evade the rules because they themselves have introduced them. But this rule builds in an incentive to raise ticket prices – at a time when there is an almighty outcry about the high cost of supporting football.

There lies the missed opportunity. These rules do something to restrain overspending, although it is notable they are aimed at a Manchester City project, which at least sees money going in, rather than the Glazers' milking of Manchester United for £550m to pay the interest and costs of their own takeover. This has been pushed for by the American owners of United, Arsenal and Liverpool, who bought English clubs as investments, and have no intention of spending money on them.

They, and the other Premier League clubs, three of whom will be relegated at the end of the season, have been allowed to introduce these rules with no reference to the wider game and no involvement of the governing body, the Football Association. They are designed to guard against spending the prospective windfall on player wages, but not tied to any broader discussion, perhaps a commitment to reduce ticket prices, or increase investment in the grass roots. There has been no great consideration of wider issues affecting football, and the clubs have voted from their own self-interest or peculiarities of opinion.

Scudamore said they have been on "a journey" from "a fairly low threshold of financial regulation" to a set of rules requiring solvent, non-criminal owners and a reasonably sustainable way to run clubs. Many believe that journey should go a lot further, not just dampen player wages, and the millions owners can spend on the clubs they have bought.

20 businesses joining together and restricting wage increases has to be against European law, no?

I had only seen the short press release on the subject and was going to post here that the existing owners are banding together to protect their profits by restricting their competitors' options. Bonus that the article mentioned the reasoning being to prevent "another Portsmouth". Can't have the cartel franchise system like in North America so best handicap anyone trying to bump the big clubs off their high-revenue perch.

If it was really about "preventing another Portsmouth" you could pretty much do the job by restricting the amount of liabilities on a club's balance sheet.

Mind you, I don't see anything wrong with club's pulling a Portsmouth. Manage your business in an abysmal manner and you get what you deserve. Sucks for the fans of the club but at the end of the day you're cheering for a business.

It's been done in other sports in Europe - Rugby League in the UK runs what is basically a franchise system with a salary cap, but as is common with these sort of things clubs spend inordinate amounts of time trying to get round it, and it still doesn't stop teams going bust (the Welsh team a couple of years ago, Bradford nearly went last year and Salford are up sh*t creek). The removal of relegation also stifles interest...Super League has to run an Aussie-style playoff system where teams play a full season and then 8 of the 14 still end up in the playoffs..no wonder it's dying on its arse.

The problems don't end there. If other countries don't end up adopting a salary cap, then players will gravitate towards those leagues where they can get most money - which can be harder to calculate than might first appear, given the disparity in the top tax rates in various EU nations. Turning again to Rugby as an example, although Rugby Union this time - the English League runs a salary cap, but the French league doesn't, which means that a lot of British players have moved into the French league. I'm not saying this will happen to the Premiership, but it is a possibility. Don't forget, UEFA's version of FFP will only apply to clubs playing in European competitions. The Premiership will have 7 or so in them, so over half the clubs will start a season believing that FFP may apply to them so they might as well get ready. Leagues where this is not the case might not care one way or another.

As for 'doing a Portsmouth' - if any ever manages to sort out the story of what really went on there, between the son of a gun-runner who's banned from the UK (Gaydamak senior), through Chainrai (who owned the club but kept saying he wasn't interested in it) and the transfer dealings between Portsmouth and Spurs, connection being Harry 'Fingers' Redknapp, then there is the making of a series to make Lost look straightforward.

davet010 wrote:

It's been done in other sports in Europe - Rugby League in the UK runs what is basically a franchise system with a salary cap, but as is common with these sort of things clubs spend inordinate amounts of time trying to get round it, and it still doesn't stop teams going bust (the Welsh team a couple of years ago, Bradford nearly went last year and Salford are up sh*t creek). The removal of relegation also stifles interest...Super League has to run an Aussie-style playoff system where teams play a full season and then 8 of the 14 still end up in the playoffs..no wonder it's dying on its arse.

Super League had play offs way before any franchise system. In fact Rugby League has a long history of deciding its champions through playoffs, the franchise system has nothing to do with the playoffs. The reason they went with the franchise system is because it was getting pretty pointless having yo-yo clubs, the same team would almost always go up and then straight back down, with the exception of Hull KR.
Also, unless you know something I don't, not many teams have gone out of their way to break the salary cap. A few have been punished sure but it isn't as if every team in the league is breaking the cap. Oh and both Bradford and Salford have new owners.
Caps are workable, just not in the greed filled world of football while the clubs are owned by a whole host of shady companies and individuals who bankroll their teams with endless loans but when they get bored of the sport, the house of cards will tumble and then Arsenal will rule the world

Related to the tax rates thats partly why Sneijder and Drogba ended up at Galatasary. Apparently the tax rate is only in the 15% range and the club supposedly even covered that to help them.

It happens in all sports and even within the American leagues state to state. Its not a coincident Lebron James and his cronies chose Miami in Florida to all fellatio each other ;P

After reading it over again it looks like a blatant attempt by the English clubs to try and cartel enforce their wages so the owners are guaranteeing a tidy sum to skim off the top of their clubs.

They are assuming with this new TV deal that their financial muscle is going to be so large that they can just capture some of it while staying competitive outside England.

Which is kinda true. The English league as a whole is getting so ahead of the other leagues when it comes to its TV deal that it can compete with other clubs while the owners scoop a nice chunk for themselves.

I think also its a move by the current owners to freeze the current hierarchy somewhat. Because honestly if you own a bigger club who wants some money bags owner swooping in and turning some average team into a top 4 or even title contender and stealing those profits.

So yea its all pretty much horsesh*t. Rich people trying to turn their football clubs into golden gooses. Because god forbid they actually operate and compete with each other and minorities get paid ludicrous wages that they are pretty much entitled to.... you know cause they actually kick the f*cking balls around.

edit: It might stick in the short run but they are one other league away from getting their heads out of their asses and becoming a relative financial force to submarine this.

Bundesliga.

Otherwise yea the mess that is the Italian 'big' clubs, Barca, Real, Bayern, PSG, Shaktar?, and crazy Russian teams might not be enough outside competition for players to make this sink right away.

Biggest laugh of the day from the Sun.

"Chelsea to sack Rafa if they lose today and replace him with Martinez"

1. If Chelsea lost to Wigan at home, Rafa should be more worried about Russian death squads than the sack.
2. For someone always touted as an 'up and coming manager', Martinez's teams don't half spend a lot of time anchored in the bottom 3.

25 mins in. Oh my City.

Arsenal 1-0 with 10 men will get plaudits that they probably dont deserve on the attacking end considering they had so many chances to make it 2-0 even with 10 men.

On another note the match fixing scandal news on this side of the ocean is getting pretty comical. I think the European reaction is pretty fitting along the lines of 'duh'.

You mean when you take bets on 2nd division Scandinavian football a match or two gets 'fixed'. Which is a dubious allegation in itself as you can bet on so many things within a game that arguably don't effect the outcome.

So far there has been no major leagues or important games implicated. Whereas over here the NBA had a crooked ref in the mobs pocket potentially tampering with playoff games. I think Soccer will trade 680 potential games in lower leagues vs 1 marquee game actually getting outright fixed.

Ugh. 0-0. A lucky point, but a point.

It's not that City lost, it's that they looked like they'd pretty much given up for 75 of the 90 minutes.

Glad I didn't venture down to the South Coast for that debacle.

Not sure if I'm more disappointed in Arsenal's or Everton's performance today.

I mean, I'm glad we're still in it, but we don't have a deep enough squad to be tacking on extra games.

Also concerned to see both Anichebe and Pienaar hobble off.

One bright spot: we didn't field Naismith.

I really don't understand Arsenal's team selection. Why not at least start some of their better players and take them off, rather than have them on the bench to laugh at another of Gervinho's abject performances.

Hugo, Tarquin and the rest of the Arsenal faithful didn't sound best pleased. Maybe they are wondering what they are getting for their £1,000 season tickets, other than lining the pockets of Kroenke and Usmanov.

4-0. Fair reflection, could have been a couple more. Tip of the hat to the Leeds fans for turning up in good numbers and good voice, put a number of Premiership clubs to shame (yes Fulham, you are top of the list). Not sure what they were expecting Neil Warnock to do, coming to a Premiership club who were obviously looking to rebound from a poor performance last week, but he doesn't seem to be flavour of the week with them.

Song of the day "You're not that good, we lose every week", at 3-0.

Commentator observation - Craig Burley was a sh*t player, now he's a sh*t pundit. At least Hansen and Lawrenson could play the game, you clueless halfwit. Oh, and Danny Mills...you do realise that Mancini was laughing at you in his Friday press conference, don't you ? Directly at you ?

No, I didn't think you would. I presumed you were still smarting from the fact that you were probably the only international player I can remember at City who was loathed by 99% of the supporters for his entire stay here. Not quite at Alan Ball levels, but that is a pretty tall order.

Say farewell to the "Liverpool haven't beaten a side currently in the top 10" fun fact. Looks like they walloped Swansea.

As for pundits, I'm hard-pressed to name a decent one in any sport I watch. There are more than a few decent play-by-play commentators but punditry is filled with lazy people too busy inventing narratives to do any serious analysis

Walloped a Swansea team who had rested 6 of their first XI. That'll keep the Scouse Delusion of Adequacy going for another week.

Well that'll be the end of Arsenal for the season then.. "Game. Set. Match. Tie. Season. Wenger." seems to be the current thinking.

Why Wenger played Cazorla right to accomodate Ramsey is beyond me, and yet again Wilshire the only one showing real intent.

Scamby wrote:

Well that'll be the end of Arsenal for the season then.. "Game. Set. Match. Tie. Season. Wenger." seems to be the current thinking.

Why Wenger played Cazorla right to accomodate Ramsey is beyond me, and yet again Wilshire the only one showing real intent.

I'm resigned to the fact that Wenger isn't going anywhere (who would they even go get?) so hopefully this season is the eye opener for him that his squad is light years behind the actual big clubs.

He can pretend all he wants but Ramsey and even a guy like Arteta are not in the same class as what Bayern fielded. That was just in midfield.

As for Bayern they looked great. Maybe most importantly well coached and consistent. Just one solid unit of a team that never looked like they were in any real danger.

3-1 was flattering to Arsenal. Which is the scary part. I'm not sure if even with a better squad Wenger can win tactically. Fans can pretty much guess his formation 100% of the time and his starting 11 90% of the time. The 'loop' he threw at us today was starting Walcott upfront in an attempt to use his pace to split the CB's? Yea sure that could work especially with Wilshere going on one of his runs and sliding a ball through. Problem is you then have Podolski and Carzola playing on the wings where they are suspect defensively and Arteta and Ramsey in the middle who are just plain out classed.

I think the pressure especially in this era becomes exponential. Spurs in the league pretty much becomes must win if Wenger wants to deflate all this and breath again. Guy must be aging a week every day during this.

Can we change it to "Arsene, No!" now?

Prederick wrote:

Can we change it to "Arsene, No!" now?

How about Arsene, non!

In other footy discussion I haven't caught much of anything but England or Arsenal this year but if the Guardian podcast is any indication of how Barca is actually going about winning then Bayern sound like the best side in the world right now.

I still rate Real to get the job done vs United but the dressing room seems like some kind of dysfunctional that is beyond fixing for Mourinho. Then again you never know with draws. A result away to United and some favorable draws and they could honestly luck themselves into a finals appearance where anything can happen.

Going back to Arsenal they are pretty much lucky to be here at this point. Its less embarrassing to get thumped by Bayern but assuming they had won the group and were playing Galatasaray I'm not sure they could even beat them. If anything they are cruising on their previous rankings by being such a high seed. Switch City (pot 2) with Arsenal (pot 1) in the group stage and Arsenal are out before the round of 16.... City probably also get thumped by Bayern though ;P Also the way the coefficient works Arsenal are still going to be pot 1 if they qualify next year.

edit: Also if you were to ask Wenger since Arsenal are on the good end of this he would agree the coefficient works properly. Cause you know anytime you can setup a system that sets up a hierarchy that is hard to break up is the best recipe for fair competition. ;p

Aren't City 3rd seeds still? I mean they don't have any history at all in Europe really, which is why the keep ending up in horrible groups, maybe they should have a word with the same gods that Man United seem to pray to to get their easy groups.

Also Barca right up against it in the second leg. And Leeds managed to win a game! unbelieveable. Still off the pace play off wise though but at least we shouldn't be heading back to League 1.

City did get some coefficient points for winning tournaments in England, plus they played in the Europa League 2 or 3 years running and got to the quarters or semis in 07/08, I think. From memory they were in pot 2 this year, but ended up with Ajax from pot 3 and Dortmund from pot 4. I think there was only one combination of teams that City could have gotten at the start which was harder on paper than what they ended up with.

http://www.uefa.com/memberassociatio...

Looks like City currently sit 19th in UEFA coefficient. They'll end up in pot 2 or 3 depending on who else qualifies for the Champions League. They should be fine draw-wise unless they end up in the same group as a nouveau-good club from the 4th pot again.

I woke up this morning thinking it was Thursday and was looking forward to following Newcastle's Europa League match in Ukraine. At least it's tomorrow.

Roke wrote:

http://www.uefa.com/memberassociatio...

Looks like City currently sit 19th in UEFA coefficient. They'll end up in pot 2 or 3 depending on who else qualifies for the Champions League. They should be fine draw-wise unless they end up in the same group as a nouveau-good club from the 4th pot again.

I woke up this morning thinking it was Thursday and was looking forward to following Newcastle's Europa League match in Ukraine. At least it's tomorrow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_UEFA_Champions_League_group_stage

looking at the break down from this year they get pretty much screwed to 3/5 end up with Real, Barca or Bayern every year almost. The rest of the teams are English which cant happen.

Not sure if being in Pot 2 or 3 even really matters as you can see the teams start to really drop off. Being a new team at 4 is pretty much a crapshoot.

More less my point is Arsenal act like yearly qualification for the CL is a great feat and making the round of 16 is also. Problem is the structure helps them along the way. They have taken advantage of England having 4 spots and being in pot 1.

Woof. Milan!

Saw that Barca had just 11 touches inside the Milan penalty area. I think the funniest part, for me, is that both of Milan's goalscorers are ex-Pompey players, although only one joined during 'Appy 'Arry's reign.

Prederick wrote:

Woof. Milan!

Saw that Barca had just 11 touches inside the Milan penalty area. I think the funniest part, for me, is that both of Milan's goalscorers are ex-Pompey players, although only one joined during 'Appy 'Arry's reign.

I caught most of the game.

Apparently Pique before the game dismissed Tito being away for treatment by saying the side can run itself or something. Ooops.

Commentator called the Pompey connection 5 seconds after the second goal went in.

Idiot pundit after the game... "it will be much different at home, they will make sure the pitch runs fast. They will water the pitch, all night even!"
I don't upkeep many football pitches but I'm assuming if you were to water it all night it might actually end up water logged and run slow ;P

Barca looked very average. The book is out on them and has been for a long while. I love it also btw. The arrogance that they play 'proper football' and are 'the best club side ever' bullsh*t just drives me nuts. They employ Sergio Busquets who might be the slimeyest footballer in the game today. Honorable mention or dishonorable goes to Alves and Mascherano also.

Piqué is one of the most overrated players in Europe. All you needed to know about the credibility of the UEFA Team of the Season for last year is that he was in it, despite being dropped for chunks of it by his club side in favour of an out-of-position midfielder. His Missus is probably a better defender than him, after all if you got past her you'd be looking back at her all the time

Busquets is another one whose shine is mainly the reflected light of others. His sly little 'oops, did I leave my boot in ?' act is a bit too frequent for me.

Sour grapes maybe, but it is time that the Bar$a hypocrisy factory was taken down a peg.

Have to say I still think Barcelona will go through. They were very average indeed 1st leg, I can't see that continuing next in the second leg.

Just had a quick look at the odds, £25 pays out £55 if they go through, not bad..

Scamby wrote:

Have to say I still think Barcelona will go through. They were very average indeed 1st leg, I can't see that continuing next in the second leg.

Just had a quick look at the odds, £25 pays out £55 if they go through, not bad..

It sounds plausible until you start thinking about the actual aggregate math needed.

2-0 Barca just means theres overtime. They have to win 3-0... Even if they are cruising dominating 1-0 with plenty of time left 1 away goal on the break and they now need a 4-1 score line.

To say the very least I'll be watching

Also why the United Real return leg is interesting but I doubt Mourinho is sweating. I think Ronaldo is good for 1 away goal which pretty much resets the tie and its game on.

and that brings us to Arsenal. Who are just royally f*cked. Alan Davies podcast I think joked they are now 77:1 to win the tie.

Oh Liverpool, those 'magical European nights' at Anfield are over for another season. Don't worry, there'll be some next year if you count the Europa League.

Interesting stat for those still keen on pushing this myth of the Kop 'sucking the ball into the net'.

Number of times Liverpool have gone back to Anfield with a 2 goal deficit - 12.

Number of times they have overturned said deficit - 1. (Auxerre, 1990's)

BFW.

davet010 wrote:

Oh Liverpool, those 'magical European nights' at Anfield are over for another season. Don't worry, there'll be some next year if you count the Europa League.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/kNBNJJ8.jpg)