If they do go into administration, then they should be docked. It will be a good test of whether these rules only apply to likes of Pompey or not.

The difference, I suppose, is that 'Pool will find some way, most likely nefarious, to avoid 'proper' administration.

I was not fully aware of ManU's losses. I hope a paper runs with it like they did for ManC(ini).

A nine point penalty really would put them in a relegation battle. That'd provide so much entertainment.

it would be hilarious, esp since hicks and gillett blocking the sale is completely pointless - once 15 oct passes, RBS can simply foreclose and sell to NESV anyway. i guess hicks is calling RBS' bluff that they won't risk the 9 pts, but i don't see liverpool making europe (or being relegated) anyway and the club is bleeding cash. the 9 point docking would just be the last flaming turd left by hicks on liverpool's doorstep

from what i've read, £60m of united's £80m loss is comprised of one-off payments related to their bond issue and other crap, but the point remains that they're not making money and the glazers (or their lenders, rather) are milking the club dry.

city's spending might also be over due to uefa's financial restrictions. but somehow, i think city, madrid and barcelona will get away it despite their massive losses. what a sham.

I don't think Liverpool will be docked, as the FA seem to be quite cushy with NESV and Broughton over the sale plan. They've obviously given it an informal rubber stamp, and I'm sure that's with the understanding that they'll do what's possible to avert additional consequences.

I'm more optimistic about an example being made of City under the FFP rules. You would think that they might be able to slide out of their difficulties, but Platini has his reputation on the line and City are probably the most egregious example ever of a "doped" club - if anyone gets a punishment surely they will.

In a way, if they're forced to rein in their future spending the FFP rules are already doing their job well.

United really messed up by selling to the Glazers. Without those idiots, that team would comfortably be able to buy the best player in the world every season. They should have a squad that still includes Tevez and has guys like David Villa and de Rossi. I'm glad though, it's bad enough we have two other rich boy teams to deal with. One more in United would be unbearable.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jvjKdScZbtFMNkIj5BcdKK46X4zw?docId=N0115721286355162002A

Our Usmanov is the 3rd richest man in football, ahead of Abramovich, and far, far ahead of Kroenke. I wonder who he was betting against during the recession. He more than quadrupled his wealth in the last couple of years.

If he were to shake things up, I wouldn't mind seeing him take over. We need some kind of shake-up and status-quo ain't gon make it happen.

Don't see the point if he can't just throw money at us.

What someone like Usmanov could do is give us a small injection, say around 50 million pounds to buy 2 'super quality' players this summer. Thereafter, the club would be able to support said players within its operations. We have some playing capital already. We're not like Citeh who had to start from zero.

Thing is, we've got the needful to put that money in the market without an intervention from Usmanov. Putting the club under the control of a sole interest seems a rather high price to pay for a measly £50m, not that that slice wouldn't be nice.

If anything we're likely to have trouble spending our surplus this summer due to Fabregas' departure and Wenger's general loathing for any player that isn't at least 25% discounted for some reason.

i'm with bw, i'm strongly against anyone taking over the club. it's probably the strongest arsenal-related opinion i have, and i really hate denilson. we have the best board and ownership structure in the premier league, why would we give that up?

i posted this on the main board, but united's situation is ideal for us. the glazers have loaded just enough debt to bleed united but not kill it like hicks and gillett did to liverpool. eventually, the combination of relative lack of investment in the club and ferguson's retirement will take their toll. i could see us fighting with city for the league in a few years, after chelsea's core is done.

Hahaha. We are in an ideal position with regards to ownership of the club, and should find the playing ground a little more even in 4 to 5 years time when teams have limitations on them vis-a-vis spending. I do not want us to fall into the bizarre situations of United and Liverpool. Chelsea will struggle to replenish their squad in coming years, and Citeh can just about make it if they sell a few of their older players each year and keep hold of the younger guys.

The real issue, as it has become clearer over time, is Wenger's transfer policy - not necessarily how much he spends, but who he spends on. Changes to our fortunes are mainly going to arise to some sort of revision of our transfer policy, whether its by order of a tyrant or by appointment of a new coach. The status quo has persisted long enough that I cannot foresee any changes in that regards. It's very frustrating because we do have the basis for a good squad, we just need to tweak it to add strength and speed in vital areas.

If we're discussing a hypothetical 4 to 5 year frame on the assumption that success on the pitch remains elusive, I'd suggest Wenger's final curtain would fall within that period, given the parameters under which he is operating now.

The question we have to ask ourselves, and this might be worth discussing elsewhere on this board, is whether our squad itself is improving on a year-by-year basis. As hard as it is, forget Chelsea, United, and Citeh, and focus on us, the Arsenal. Are we getting better all over the pitch each season? I find it difficult to believe that we have been on an upward trajectory overall in the last 3 to 4 seasons. Basically look at our playing staff from, eg 3 years ago, and our strengths and weaknesses at the time versus what we have on board today.

I think that Chelsea will continue to be the best for the next 2 seasons, after which Citeh and Spurs will edge upwards. Once they have found an ideal team, Citeh can prune the hasbeens, promote from within and operate within UEFA's financial guidelines. Spurs are just a well-run club that keeps making smart acquisitions. The best hope is that they would be temporarily choked by stadium development expenses. Chelsea will struggle to replace the core of Drogba, Cole, Lampard, Terry in about 3 years. It would be easy to replace one or two, but not all of the above. United are knee-deep in shit. Unless they sell or refinance again, they're going to be in the same position as Liverpool in about 2 to 3 seasons when their interest payments balloon. So our traditional rivals will eliminate themselves. The question is if we can stay ahead of Citeh and Spurs?

In citeh's case I can't see how they won't be successful at least in the short term, but hopefuly the new rulings will put constraints on the way they run the club, limiting them again to rely on core fan base long term, which will be ultimately unsustainable.

'pool are in a mess, and to a lesser extent so are man u, but there is much to be said about their global following and how long term they will always bounce back, unfortunately...the major loser from the top 4 will be chelski in my opinion, for as strong as their squad seems now there is evidence to suggest that they can no longer rely on the sugar daddy's money, and with an aging squad, unreliable global profile and smallish stadium, times are changing for them, thank God.

So where does that leave us? Strong, as ever, really...the new rules could just coincide with the emergence of some of the best crop of youngsters ever to come through the club, and this seems to be on going for the next few seasons...we can already witness Wilshere showing quality of being a real star, add Theo, Ramsey, Gibbs etc to this then, again, even short term we have an impressive bunch to add to the more "grown up" contingent of Denilson, Diaby, Nasri Nik etc, who may or may not prove to be successful. However, I think it's the slightly younger crop that will prove to be "the ones" ultimately: Afobe, Aneke, Lansbury, Silva added to the forementioned JW, Gibbs, Theo and we have a great squad set for a decade...and we can't forget that we are a massive "brand" with a sizeable fan base and traditional profile. We're pretty sexy, in short.

Just need a 'keeper, defence coach, dm...same old story I know, but if we're speaking of sustainable business models for the next decade+ I'm glad that ours looks so achievable compared to our rivals both here and in Europe. Patience.

It's all well and good saying we look good for the long term, but couldn't Kroenke or Usmanov come in once all the debt is paid off, and ultimately leave us in the shit just like our rivals?

Anything involving a leveraged buyout could screw us, yeah. And I think we will be valued at a level that will make it difficult to buy us outright.

Swiss Ramble has another pretty good post up today about United's revenue and loss, including discussion of the PIK loans and associated interest payments that aren't officially factored into their statements. All I can say is, glad I'm not a United fan.

United are way ahead of every other PL club in terms of current revenue, because they have the commercial side sewn up nicely, and they're a huge brand. However their losses after accounting for amortisation, and obviously their interest payments and bond issues etc. are screwing them completely.

James wrote:

It's all well and good saying we look good for the long term, but couldn't Kroenke or Usmanov come in once all the debt is paid off, and ultimately leave us in the shit just like our rivals?

Yes.

Anything could happen, anytime, but based on what we know about them, the rest of the board and the way we are set up, unlikely.

Should Liverpool fall into Adminsitration it's quite likely they would be docked 9 points as contrary to previous reports, it doesn't matter if the entity going into admin is a holding company. Per Prem League rules, if said holding company is 100% involved in the running of the club, it still counts towards the deduction. West Ham to my knowledge didn't suffer a deduction as their holdings company was also involved in non-football related activities.

Have to say I am quite happy with how the club is ran off the pitch. Sure it's conservative in some ways (in that we don't take unnecessary risks) but that suits me fine. It's all very well to say that 'I want my kids to see a successful Arsenal', which is a valid point, but before that you have to think I want there to be an Arsenal in the Prem for my kid to watch full stop. The Glazers won over alot of reluctant fans initially by investing heavily in the playing side, and sure enough success followed. Given the state of their finances now though - even with the massive revenue stream they have - that short-medium term gain may have consequences which make that success taste a little more bitter.

Generally I'm not a fan of Platini the administrator (as opposed to the footballer) but his stance on ensuring clubs are ran in a way that makes them financially self sufficient can only be a good thing for the game.

United could run fourth this season quite easily.

Just stop to imagine that. United. Fourth.

One year later. United. Sixth.

I like the sound of it to be honest.

Zico wrote:

What someone like Usmanov could do is give us a small injection, say around 50 million pounds to buy 2 'super quality' players this summer. Thereafter, the club would be able to support said players within its operations. We have some playing capital already. We're not like Citeh who had to start from zero.

But money is not really the problem Zico (we've got plenty of money thats been proved beyond doubt), Wenger is.