Platini rants against Man U and Chelsea

KurtBevacqua · 06-07-2008, 04:05 AM

UEFA President Platini, who has a history of trying to diminish EPL influence in Europe, is now accusing Chelsea and Man U of being cheats for running up large debts to win games. I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Man U and Chelsea spend 100-200M pounds on players and they are cheats. Arsenal spends 200M on a new stadium and they are not. What's the difference? Whether it be players or a stadium it's still a financial investment. Businesses run up debts all the time to make investments. I don't get the whole cheating accusation. If Abramovich wants to be financially stupid in the running of his team then that is between him and his accountant. At least with a team like Arsenal they have to be somewhat responsible because they have shareholders to make happy.

Uefa president Michael Platini attacks 'cheating' English clubs | Premier League - Times Online

Quote:

“Club football and that of national teams aren’t the same thing,” he said. “It bothers me. We need to find the means, with the European Club Association, to help clubs to solve their problems. Defeat should not be a financial disaster. The goal is not to win titles but [to make] money to pay off debts. Look at the debts of Chelsea and Manchester United. Fifa and Uefa owe it to themselves to fight this. Because today it’s those who cheat who win.

“We are going to need to find a solution. We’re starting to work on it, but I am very concerned by clubs being bought by foreigners. I don’t see why Americans come to invest in these clubs, if not to turn them into products. It’s a never-ending gold rush and then you get to this proposal of a 39th game abroad.”

bababui · 06-07-2008, 04:09 AM

I agree. It ruins the competitive balance of leagues and leads to a lot of irresponsible short term planing that while it works occasionally will lead more than a few teams into receivership.

Skipaway · 06-07-2008, 04:16 AM

Stadiums and players are surely different, since stadium is a much better collateral.

Debt should be a concern because it means risk. Raising too much debt means the team would be too highly leverage and that would create financial stress. If anything goes wrong, with a stadium collateral at least it's something more of a sure thing. With players it's risk on top of risk, since if something goes wrong, it generally means the investment on players went bad.

MLB has a debt rule that limits the amount of debt a team can raise.

Skipaway · 06-07-2008, 04:19 AM

It's like Bear Stearns. You raise a lot of debt and make the company extremely leveraged.

Bear Stearns bet on housing, while Man U and Chelsea bet on players.

Due to the high leverage, the equity holders are bound to make huge returns if everything goes well. On the other hand, the company/teams might just go poof in no time.

Melo · 06-09-2008, 09:54 AM

Personally, I hope each of the top four gets bit in the ass. When you look at the guys that they don't dress and a few of them could start for your team...well...it highlights the lack of competitive balance. Keegan spoke about it boldly after losing to Chelsea and some of the other managers have spoken out as well. Now, Man City is going to throw an amazing amount of cash (ill gotten cash, at that) as well. What's going to be intersting to see is what will happen to some of these teams fail to qualify for Euro Cup and Champions League games.

Even worse, some of the teams with low payrolls are running at 80%+ wage bill to turnover ratio in an effort to keep up. The shadow of Leeds has to hovering as that kind of spending cannot be sustainable. The Yankees come to mind with their 200M payroll which at one point was nearly double the next highest team. However, the Yankees had the benefit of their own network to generate funds. The last few years has also shown that the Yankees do not have a bottomless pit of cash and even they have had to say no to big ticket players they used to gobble up. I'll also be interested to see what happens if the 6+5 rule gets instituted.

06-07-2008, 04:16 AM	#3
Skipaway Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Where you live Posts: 11,017	Stadiums and players are surely different, since stadium is a much better collateral. Debt should be a concern because it means risk. Raising too much debt means the team would be too highly leverage and that would create financial stress. If anything goes wrong, with a stadium collateral at least it's something more of a sure thing. With players it's risk on top of risk, since if something goes wrong, it generally means the investment on players went bad. MLB has a debt rule that limits the amount of debt a team can raise. __________________ Jonathan Haidt: Moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.

06-07-2008, 04:19 AM	#4
Skipaway Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Where you live Posts: 11,017	It's like Bear Stearns. You raise a lot of debt and make the company extremely leveraged. Bear Stearns bet on housing, while Man U and Chelsea bet on players. Due to the high leverage, the equity holders are bound to make huge returns if everything goes well. On the other hand, the company/teams might just go poof in no time. __________________ Jonathan Haidt: Moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.

06-09-2008, 09:54 AM	#5
Melo All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Where the baned reside Posts: 1,428	Personally, I hope each of the top four gets bit in the ass. When you look at the guys that they don't dress and a few of them could start for your team...well...it highlights the lack of competitive balance. Keegan spoke about it boldly after losing to Chelsea and some of the other managers have spoken out as well. Now, Man City is going to throw an amazing amount of cash (ill gotten cash, at that) as well. What's going to be intersting to see is what will happen to some of these teams fail to qualify for Euro Cup and Champions League games. Even worse, some of the teams with low payrolls are running at 80%+ wage bill to turnover ratio in an effort to keep up. The shadow of Leeds has to hovering as that kind of spending cannot be sustainable. The Yankees come to mind with their 200M payroll which at one point was nearly double the next highest team. However, the Yankees had the benefit of their own network to generate funds. The last few years has also shown that the Yankees do not have a bottomless pit of cash and even they have had to say no to big ticket players they used to gobble up. I'll also be interested to see what happens if the 6+5 rule gets instituted.