Burnwinter wrote:

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.

This is the thing, Arsenal have been so Conservative in the past few seasons {pretty much always} we never really overstretch to achieve that bit extra, while others sell their soul to be/keep up there...although their fan base and global merchandising is huge, Utd have a very real prospect of fighting for 4th in my opinion, and from there, blink and you drop out altogether. It will take some doing for 'pool to get back in the top 4 now, for instance.

So, is it better to do what we appear to be doing, establishing our top 4 position every year with anything else a bonus, or win loads and spend the next few seasons trying to get back up to the top 4 again? Hypothetical in a sense, but it's somewhat a reality of what is happening now in the pl.

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?

that's my nightmare scenario. more than anything else involving the club, this must not happen.

re: our squad, i feel like we've been treading water since 05/06. we get better some years, worse in others, but our squad has never really been complete. we've always had weaknesses in our first 11 due to lack of quality or injuries. that's the problem, wenger thinks he can win with this amount of quality - most objective observers would say we need a bit more quality in the first team. and that doesn't mean another attacking mid.

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

Barca aren't exactly showing great financial results either.

"Austerity will be a pillar in our day-to-day management," Rosell said, adding that banks had extended 155 million euros in credit. "The club has sufficient cash to meet its short and medium term obligations."

Hmm if its true and not a lot of hot air, well they won't be bidding 40M for Fabregas any time soon. :o

I've been thinking that Biggus. The FFP rules will also put a brake on their enthusiasm to spend. And on that of any club thinking of shelling out a massive wad of cash for Rooney.

We seem to be entering a brave new era: one in which many clubs are financially crippled, and of those that have money, many have no incentive to spend it. The artificial recession we had to have. The one thing that it's surely going to do is swing the emphasis firmly back in favour of working with what you've got as opposed to horse trading superstars.

But the superstars will have to play somewhere, whoever pays the highest wages certainly.
And that won't be us under present management.

Let's suppose that hypothetically the FFP rules are actually enforced / enforceable. Then wages are ultimately going to be capped by (footballing revenue - net transfer spend).

In the new environment unencumbered revenue from legitimate club-managed business operations will rule. That puts us in a good spot so long as we can avoid the imposition of external debts. United, if they clear their books, will be very comfortably placed.

By limiting large cash injections from random tycoons, it seems to me the FFP rules will tend to buttress a everything-old-is-new-again hegemony of clubs with the largest brand and support base, as opposed to with the richest backers.

Lagos: tend to agree, the effect may be to lodge a few elite big name clubs (among which Arsenal will probably be included) semi-permanently in the upper echelons, even more firmly than with unfettered spending in place.

But I don't consider paying players twice as much to be "adding" to the game, which is basically all City are doing. They're just inflating, not adding anything substantial.

Yes, I believe economists call that the "torrent down effect"

I get what you're saying about sugar daddies but the trouble is that the unconstrained flow of cash into the game does just end up with inflation of player payments, and it's the size of top players' fees and wages relative to turnover that is the basic threat to smaller clubs' financial welfare.

There's no effective way to control player payments without regulation, that I can see, when money into football itself would certainly benefit the game more in England. Imagine, comrade, if every extra pound spent on a players' wage was spent on churning out accredited coaches instead.

Sugar daddies and under the table payments to players are as old as football itself and will continue.

@ Pepes, I don't understand, Leeds not in the top flight is a bad thing?

I think they're something like £50m in debt, they were saying on the radio yesterday.

They are in huge shit Peps, they are about €50m in debt as James said and if they don't manage to pay it off in time they might lose their license. Apart from that their performances on the pitch have been shocking as well. If they get relegated they are pretty much done for. The only way out for them in that case would be to liquidate and take over the license from Excelsior (their satellite club), who, ironically, are doing much better than they are.

You can have satellite clubs in the same division as your own team in Holland? How does that work?

i think i agree with lagos. no one's putting a gun to someone's head forcing them to overspend and go bankrupt. wage caps are just a scheme by the owners to try to artificially limit their expenses and thereby guarantee themselves handsome profits. they've worked in the US because americans are morons, but i'd hope you lot can see through it.

maybe well-drafted rules limiting expenditures to a portion of revenue are a good idea - but it only makes sense where all the teams share media and tv revenue. and certain types of debt should be excluded, eg debt for stadium expansion or development, otherwise you're just condemning small teams to be small forever.

And yet Cook claims they are "confident" they will be allowed to compete in Europe under the FFP. You would hope that if ever an example was begging to be made, this would be it.

Klaus wrote:

You can have satellite clubs in the same division as your own team in Holland? How does that work?

Just like that. They have an agreement, Feyenoord sends players to Excelsior that are not needed and gets the best players from them. They are also setting up a joint academy.

There is no conflict of interest really. Excelsior beat Feyenoord earlier this season.