Biggus wrote:

You're 34 Burnsy?
Thats a sad age, as you realise that you'll never have a career as a successful player.

On my birthday recently I realised that I should be peaking as a player and that my dreams of playing at the highest level were gone. However I am concocting a plan to become the best player in the world over the next few years.
You may well laugh but seeing as though I didn't start playing football until I was 18, my footballing age (calculated using the age that Messi started playing) is actually 14.
Secondly, striving in the face of futility makes this a suitably absurd philosophical exercise.

Knucklehead, remember the name.

Knucklehead wrote:

Knucklehead, remember the name.

I look forward to the day the commentators mispronounce it.

Knuckleed

Pratt ... Pratt back to Pratt ... Pratt guides it out onto the right for the run of Pratt. And Pratt's through ball to, er "Kuh-nuck La Heed" is swept up by the nuggety veteran whose grizzled, muscular frame jinks past Bloggs, now he's taking Bloggs on, and he's through one-on-one with Bloggs, IT'S UP FOR GRABS NOW! KUUH-NUCK LAAAAAAA HEEEEEEEEEED!

exactly.

Further to previous discussion about the motives for external investment in the Premier League by wealthy, geopolitically precarious investors:

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jul/30/manchester-city-human-rights-accusations

Mubarak is the chairman of the Executive Affairs Authority, a strategic government body responsible for advising on Abu Dhabi's international image. He was deputed from his duties for Sheikh Mohammed to run City shortly after Mansour bought the club, to shape a more dignified direction after the initial frenzy of media coverage which was all about money and considered detrimental by the Abu Dhabi establishment.

PSG revenues rose by 180% in the last year

Timothy wrote:

PSG revenues rose by 180% in the last year

What about their costs?

A new deal will see the Qatar Tourism Authority (QTA) pay (PSG) a reported £570 million over four years

These imaginary deals will make or break the FFP; if UEFA accepts them, then it is over before it has really started. I seem to remember they have incorporated rules for this exact scenario; the hope here for me is that it would be a massive blow to the credibility of Platini and the other UEFA bosses who have worked for years for the FFP should it be a complete flop.

Yep, these deals City and PSG have signed are completely unrealistic and should be against the rules.

Yeah, and the two examples you mention are exactly the ones which will decide whether FFP is real or not. These are two big clubs, but not elite, doing shady deals. It will set the standard.

My understanding is that Man City's deal with Etihad is likely to stand as is while PSG's deals are pure funny business.

Here's a post from Swiss Ramble about City's deal with Etihad: http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/07/manchester-citys-incredible-deal-know.html

Here's the big takeaway that a lot of people are ignoring about the deal:

Actually, I tell a lie, as City’s deal includes one unique element, the Etihad Campus, which is perhaps the cleverest and certainly the most innovative part of the agreement. This is a gigantic redevelopment project on 80 acres of land adjacent to the stadium, including a relocated training ground, youth academy, a sports science facility, office space, a call centre and City Square retail outlets. The academy will be seriously impressive, catering for up to 400 young players, with 16 football pitches, a 7,000 capacity stadium for youth matches and on-site accommodation.

Such a development will not only benefit the community, but will bring a raft of sponsorship opportunities. Nothing like this has been done before, so it will be very difficult for UEFA to assess and almost impossible to deem unfair. In fact, this is exactly the type of expenditure that UEFA is trying to encourage with direct youth and community development costs being totally excluded from the FFP break-even calculation. For someone with pockets as deep as Sheikh Mansour, this is effectively “free” money, at least in terms of FFP.

On top of that, Annex X allows any profits from non-football operations to be included in the calculation, so long as the operations are: (a) based at, or in close proximity to, a club’s stadium and training facilities, such as a hotel, restaurant, conference centre, business premises (for rental), health-care centre, other sports teams; and (b) clearly using the name/brand of a club as part of their operations.

That sounds very familiar, so it’s a double whammy for City: the costs for this development are excluded, while the profits from the business located there are included. Not only that, but UEFA should be positively delighted, as it’s very much in the spirit of the stated objectives of FFP. Given those factors, the temptation must be to load up the sponsorship on this part of the agreement, so the deal split might be more like £10 million on shirt sponsorship, £5 million on naming rights and £25 million on the campus. We shall see.

Volante wrote:

A new deal will see the Qatar Tourism Authority (QTA) pay (PSG) a reported £570 million over four years

Isn't that the deal this thread started with, posted in 2012?
That article said that PSG would be paid €600 million over four years. That was more than a year ago. What's the news?

In fairness though, how much revenue do these doping clubs earn relative to Barcelona and Madrid? They make so much more money than anyone else that it's actually seemingly unfair to not let clubs like PSG and City catch up with their spending. If we block them, then we just institutionalize Spanish dominance of football transfer markets. Barca evades people's attention because they sell all this Masia crap, but once you look at their salaries, you realize that nobody can take their players away. Same with Madrid.

I actually sympathize with clubs like Citeh, and hope the opportunities they have taken can be available to teams like Everton, Newcastle, etc

"the costs for this development are excluded, while the profits from the business located there are included"

Sure, but it sounds like they are channelling a vast amount of cash into establishing a relatively marginally profitable side business that's also good for football.

To my mind if they're being forced to spend 10:1 to get a return on their first team by FFP it's working very well.

PSG make a totally joke of FFP. They have no chance of doing it legitametly a their league is pony so it is fake deals all the way.

This mad cap investment isn't good for football in france long term and is bad for the game in general.

Evoh, how are PSG supposed to compete with Madrid and Barca?
You have two options - give them the leeway to make as much money as Madrid and Barca; or cut Madrid/Barca's ability to make money

I've just re-read most of this thread and the spirit is quite different to more recent discussion.
Sure there was lots of banter flying around but it seemed good natured and no one was crying or calling people trolls.
Perhaps it's because philosophically we're all in agreement, none of us want to see the likes of Garath Bale poncing about in his sisters panties after being bought for 90m none of us want to see clubs buy trophies and we all want more fairness and competition, we also all hate Platini and mistrust his motives.
Our only disagreement seems to be will it even partially achieve its supposed aims.

Its always been a sliding scale - if it throttles the spending of the billionaires to any extent it's basically doing its job.

From an Arsenal perspective it's an overwhelming positive if Mansour has to funnel X hundred million into his club by building a vast academy that will eventually post a financial return over several years, rather than just, well, giving the money to them directly.

Looking back I think I'd say exactly the same as I did in the fifth post of this thread.