Platini

thebaz

I'm no fan of Platini as an administraor , great player , should have stayed in fooball, rather than trying to run it.

I find his comments very anti premiership, he now reckons its ok for the richest club in the world to pursue Ronaldo, in what i'd see as an illegal way.
If it was the other way round , he'd be bad mouthing the english team.

leninbenjamin

he's a hypocrite of the highest order tbh, worse than Blatter at times but more politically correct. I think he feels threatened perhaps by the power of the premiership? but i'm sure a lot of what he says is motivated by pandering to his old chums in Ligue 1 and Serie A and try and give them a boost in their recent decline.

Having said that he is right in trying to address the economics imbalance within European football. but he should also be targeting the likes of Real and Madrid, bankrolled by governments and billionaires and boosted by highly unfair TV deals. and he hasn't a f*cking notion of what he's talking about when it comes to money. no debt! f*cking idiot. if anything that will cripple the smaller clubs further and create a barrier to entry into the Champions League, as those without someone to bankroll them wont be able to invest. Oh and good bye stadium developments.

PHB

He's scared of English football. To be honest, I agree with him on debt. But not for the same reasons. The only reason he's bringing it up now is because England are dominating. Him and the footballing authorities should have been there from the get go in relation to foreign ownership and debt, but they wussed out.

Badabing

I agree with alot of what you have said but surely the imbalance in money distrubution is very bad for English football and needs to be looked at, the top 3 or 4 in the EPL is now so far ahead of the rest it's scary, Everton got 400k last year in tv revenue for the Uefa cup that can't be right so hopefully Platini and co can redress the imbalance in revenue to each club/country.

leninbenjamin

Badabing wrote: »

I agree with alot of what you have said but surely the imbalance in money distrubution is very bad for English football and needs to be looked at, the top 3 or 4 in the EPL is now so far ahead of the rest it's scary, Everton got 400k last year in tv revenue for the Uefa cup that can't be right so hopefully Platini and co can redress the imbalance in revenue to each club/country.

Ironically though the imbalance in the premier league is due to the Champions League as much as anything else. the TV deals in the premiership are probably the fairest of the big leagues. In revenue terms Italy and Spain (and Germany?) are much more distorted than England.

lordgoat

His new idea of banning clubs in 'debt' from the CL in my eyes is just crazy and will simply result in a breakaway european league or other such competition. If clubs are banned from european football they will show Platini where the real power lies.

The man is determined to make a mark and leave his name on european football.
I completely agree with what mike said above.

raido9

It was said here before (can't remember by who), but if he's going to target any clubs for economic reasons, it should be clubs who are operating at a loss (Real Madrid par example), and not top premiership clubs who have huge but managable debt.

PHB

And the English league is the most balanced of all in terms of money. Collective TV rights.

Mr. Presentable

thebaz wrote: »

I'm no fan of Platini as an administraor , great player , should have stayed in fooball, rather than trying to run it.

I find his comments very anti premiership, he now reckons its ok for the richest club in the world to pursue Ronaldo, in what i'd see as an illegal way.
If it was the other way round , he'd be bad mouthing the english team.

What comments? Link?

On the Real Madrid issue, that's how the big clubs all operate, only now when it's Man Utd on the receiving end they cry foul - how'd you think they got their players?

Re other posters comments on balancing the books - in Italy you have to prove before the start of the season that you can manage your finances and debt with certification from your bank. You might recall Inter and Lazio (?) got caught with forged documents of solvency a few years ago.

If we are talking about the comment Platini made a few weeks ago regarding EPL clubs taking on huge debts to buy success in Europe, I cannot see why you'd disagree with him.

thebaz

nipplenuts wrote: »

What comments? Link?

On the Real Madrid issue, that's how the big clubs all operate, only now when it's Man Utd on the receiving end they cry foul - how'd you think they got their players?

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/08/06/28/SOCCER_Platini.html&TEAMHD=soccer

i don't support Man U , but agree what others think of him here, maybe he should concentrate his efforts on rebuilding the French league, instead of attempting to ruin others.

PHB

If we are talking about the comment Platini made a few weeks ago regarding EPL clubs taking on huge debts to buy success in Europe, I cannot see why you'd disagree with him.

Because United won the CL despite their debt, not because of it.

_blank_

PHB wrote: »

Because United won the CL despite their debt, not because of it.

In your red-tinted world, yes.

If United hadn't have spent money on the likes of Rooney, Tevez, Ronaldo, Anderson, Nani, Rio, Carrick and pretty much the rest of their squad, their debt wouldn't be as big. And they would have won nothing.

So, in conclusion, yes, Manchester United's debt contributed to their success.

You are being extremely obtuse, and your loyalty is admirable.

But it is misguided in this instance.

Seaneh

All Platini said is that every club does it when they want a player.

As for Real "pressuring" Ronaldo into signing for him, are you for real, he could have, at any time said "I want to stay at UTD" and this would have ended months ago, UTD did the exact same thing as Real did not too long ago when they repeatedly told every reporter who would listen that they wanted to sign Benzema, and now that some one is doing it about one of their players they throw their dummy out of the pram.

You don't see Arsenal trying to have Milan sanctioned because Milan have said "We know Adebyor want's to sign for us" which is pretty much what Real are saying about Ronaldo, they knew he wants to play for them, they want him, and they are just admiting it.

UTD have done it a million times over the years and now that it's reversed they moan like a ****ing child.

Typical EPL BS.

therecklessone

Platini would be better served overhauling UEFA's punishment system for racism, the association issues desultory fines for some particularly distasteful incidents but hey it's ok, the captains will say no to racism before the SF and finals of the Euros, so that will obviously solve that...:rolleyes:

Meanwhile, Platini has his say on the Ronaldo to Madrid story but did he have his say on Real getting a dig out from the city council when they were on their knees? Or is it only English sides who are guilty of cheating by running up debt?

His old alma mater will compete in next seasons CL only 3 years after Calciopoli, the most disturbing case of corruption in European football. He complains that Porto have been allowed back into the CL by a UEFA appeals body yet did he raise a squeak when Milan were allowed compete in the CL despite their indiscretions in the same scandal? Indeed, there is little to suggest that Italian football has dealt with all of its skeletons and IMO we will hear of another Calciopoli (was anything learned from the Totonero scandal of the early 80s?)

In short, Platini would want to get his own house, and the house of his friends in order before he starts telling others how to conduct their business.

RVN10

I really dont like platini , i think he has something to say always specially when it comes down to the english game. He should of just stuck to managing football and the only reason he is where he is now because he was a good player !! Surely other greats could do a better job than him IMO..

Mr. Presentable

therecklessone wrote: »

His old alma mater will compete in next seasons CL only 3 years after Calciopoli, the most disturbing case of corruption in European football. .

OK. I have done this many times before, but one more time, show me a guilty verdict for Juventus or any of the referees alleged. Just one.

In England:

Match fixing 1915/64/88/2007 (correct the years)
Bungs
A club steals its players pension money to stay afloat (1968-9)
Clubs in administration

My point, let he who is withourt sin cast the first stone, or at least be able to back up an allegation such as yours. Please describe the "disturbing case" and how a penalty of more than 90 points and 500m Euro is appropriate.

Mr. Presentable

PHB wrote: »

Because United won the CL despite their debt, not because of it.

Whichever. It was accomodated by it. But where is your club specified for it's CL win above?

grenache

Platini is French, and as a person who has experienced the Gallic mindset too many times to mention, its not suprising to see his anti-Anglo sentiments coming across. Many French people dislike the English to the point of hatred, its commonplace.

therecklessone

nipplenuts wrote: »

My point, let he who is withourt sin cast the first stone, or at least be able to back up an allegation such as yours. Please describe the "disturbing case" and how a penalty of more than 90 points and 500m Euro is appropriate.

I don't need to back up anything, the original federation investigation handed out severe enough penalties to all four Serie A clubs, and the extent of Moggi's interference and influence is well documented. As with all things judicial in Italy, of course the vast array of appeals watered the original punishments down, and by the time Neapolitan magistrates requested the trial of 48 individuals in 2007 (Including 8 referees, along with Moggi and other administrators) public fatigue had set in. Details from that investigation include Moggi calling a referee 34 tiems before he was to officiate a Roma vs Juve game in 2005.

And if we're totting up past indiscretions...

Juve (among others) and their extensive use of questionable substance during the 90s (and in a typically Italian twist, the Cassation Court's final ruling meant that Juve's president and club doctor were effectively guilty of "sporting fraud" but the statute of limitations meant they could not be tried for it)

Moggi's alleged attempt to influence referees in European competition while working for Torino (with prostitutes)

Ask Brian Glanville about the Golden Fix which casts a long shadow on Italian success in European football.

Bent as fcuk.

leninbenjamin

therecklessone wrote: »

Bent as fcuk.

qft.

therecklessone

Ongoing investigations in Calciopoli II

http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/jun18l.html

Juventus have made a plea bargain worth £240,000 to end the second wave of the Calciopoli trial. “But it is not an admission of guilt.”

The original trial in the summer of 2006 saw the club demoted to Serie B and stripped of two Scudetti after telephone wiretaps discovered director general Luciano Moggi attempting to influence referees.

The second wave of investigations is on-going, but in order to cut short a potentially lengthy legal process, Juve have agreed to pay £240,000 to the Federation.

It will go into the FIGC’s youth and education programmes and in trial terms is split into £80,000 for each year under investigation.

“It is not an admission of guilt, but rather an act of generosity,” insisted Juve lawyer Franzo Grande Stevens.

As part of the same investigation, the FIGC Disciplinary Commission has also handed fines to the other sides involved.

Messina must pay £48,000 with a six-month ban for President Pietro Franza and former director Mario Bonsignore.

Former referee Romeo Paparesta is suspended for 20 minutes and Gianluca Paparesta, who has recently finished a long ban from the 2006 trial, has a two-month suspension with four educational events as civil service.

The trial does continue for others, though, as Moggi, former Messina director Mariano Fabiani and referees Tiziano Pieri, Salvatore Racalbuto, Stefano Cassarà, Antonio Dattilo, Paolo Bertini, Marco Gabriele, Massimo De Santis and Marcello Ambrosino saw their cases adjourned

Not an admission of guilt...:rolleyes:

That 20 minute ban is actually a 20 month ban according to this:

http://www.espnstar.com/football/news/detail/item77767/Juventus-fined/

therecklessone

I'll add I'm a fan of Italian football, but the more I dig and read the more I am disgusted by the activities that surround the game.

heyjude

DesF wrote: »

In your red-tinted world, yes.

If United hadn't have spent money on the likes of Rooney, Tevez, Ronaldo, Anderson, Nani, Rio, Carrick and pretty much the rest of their squad, their debt wouldn't be as big. And they would have won nothing.

So, in conclusion, yes, Manchester United's debt contributed to their success.

You are being extremely obtuse, and your loyalty is admirable.

But it is misguided in this instance.

No, I think you are the misguided one.

Malcolm Glazer gained majority control of Man Utd in May 2005, at the time Man Utd were debt free (see http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_22/b3935065_mz011.htm ). Rio joined Utd in 2002, Ronaldo in 2003 and Rooney in 2004, at a time when the club had no debts and before Glazer took over the club, so the money spent on them didn't make the debt "as big" because their was no debt. As to the other purchases increasing the clubs debt, that also isn't true as the club includes transfer dealings in its accounts and it still makes millions in profits. Where is the evidence that Utd borrow money to buy players and so increase their debt ?

leninbenjamin

therecklessone wrote: »

I'll add I'm a fan of Italian football, but the more I dig and read the more I am disgusted by the activities that surround the game.

the worst part is, this isn't isolated to just Italian football.

does anyone remember the BBC investigation into the fiscal affairs of CONCACAF? (at least i think it was CONCACAF). the one where they basically went down through the allocation of FIFA development funds to the governing body and for almost every project went and found nothing but green field sites even thought the money was supposedly spent? I can't even remember what year it was...

therecklessone

leninbenjamin wrote: »

the worst part is, this isn't isolated to just Italian football.

Of course, but the cynic in me thinks Platini is less likely to draw attention to Italian football because of his links to Juve.

ArmaniJeanss

therecklessone wrote: »

Platini would be better served overhauling UEFA's punishment system for racism, the association issues desultory fines for some particularly distasteful incidents .

The fines often raise an eyebrow alright, $5K or $10K or something like that. Apparently UEFA have a rule that if say RealMadrid are guilty of an offence and so are some backwater Croatian team that the fine must be identical - they can't fine Real $1M just because they can afford it. To do so would be in contravention of loads of EU rules. Hence the fines tend to be on the low side because obviously a $1M fine would bankrupt 99.9% of Eurpean clubs.

therecklessone wrote: »

Meanwhile, Platini has his say on the Ronaldo to Madrid story but did he have his say on Real getting a dig out from the city council when they were on their knees? Or is it only English sides who are guilty of cheating by running up debt?.

In fairness we only hear it when he has a go at English clubs, because we are so exposed to the British media. At the time Real got the digout it was a massive story and I recall UEFAs spokesman (William Gallard i think) expressing his concern. I'm not sure what you think UEFA could have legally done though. If some City Council in Madrid values some bit of land at €XM then how can UEFA argue - they are not experts in land valuation.
Also this story pre-dates Platini, I think.

therecklessone wrote: »

He complains that Porto have been allowed back into the CL by a UEFA appeals body yet did he raise a squeak when Milan were allowed compete in the CL despite their indiscretions in the same scandal?

There was more than a squeak raised here, I recall UEFA calling the Milan situation a disgrace and saying that if there was anything at all in the rulebook to prevent them competing in that seasons Champions League then they would have used it.

therecklessone wrote: »

In short, Platini would want to get his own house, and the house of his friends in order before he starts telling others how to conduct their business.

This is silly, you're saying that he can't turn his attention to English football until such time as Italian and Spanish football are totally clean first. Why should you decide the order?
I think they are trying, and I prefer UEFA (headed by an exfootballer) to be in charge rather than some commitee of G14 chairmen etc.

therecklessone

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

This is silly, you're saying that he can't turn his attention to English football until such time as Italian and Spanish football are totally clean first. Why should you decide the order?

When they deal effectively with racism in the game (more than lip service), deal effectively with corruption and maybe even sort out the diving and associated bulls1t that occurs on the field, then maybe the time will be right to tackle English clubs on their level of indebtedness.

ArmaniJeanss

therecklessone wrote: »

When they deal effectively with racism in the game (more than lip service), deal effectively with corruption and maybe even sort out the diving and associated bulls1t that occurs on the field, then maybe the time will be right to tackle English clubs on their level of indebtedness.

This argument doesn't wash to be honest, its the equivalent of saying a police force shouldn't be bothering with drunken drivers until they get all the drugpushers and murderers of the street.

leninbenjamin

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

This argument doesn't wash to be honest, its the equivalent of saying a police force shouldn't be bothering with drunken drivers until they get all the drugpushers and murderers of the street.

this argument doesn't wash to be honest. it's the equivalent of saying we should change the law to punish law abiding civilians instead of drugpushers and murders of the street.

nothing wrong with manageable debt. it's perfectly acceptable. in fact if it was somehow outlawed the entire economic system would collapse. UEFA should get their priorities straightened. perhaps setting a cap on the ratio of wages to revenue. but removing debt is utter madness.

ArmaniJeanss

leninbenjamin wrote: »

nothing wrong with manageable debt. it's perfectly acceptable. in fact if it was somehow outlawed the entire economic system would collapse.

I obviously agree with you in broad terms that debt by its nature is 'not bad', and that the capitalist society is based on it.

However its worth bearing in mind that sport (particularly club sport like football) has to exist outside the normal rules of economics. e.g., capitalism encourages Tescos to go head to head with Dunnes/Superquinn/Aldi/Lidl/M&S, and if one goes bankrupt thats generally regarded as a good thing as it proves the competitiveness of the system, the survival of the fittest. Capitalism accepts(demands) that roughly 10% of all businesses will go kaput in any given year.
Club Sport however strives to maintain an equilibrium, we don't want for example Spurs to do a hostile takeover of Westham, and then outspend Liverpool until one goes bust etc. The sport won't exist if there is only a few teams left to play it.
So taking on massive debt, even manageable debt and outspending everyone else is more of a threat to football than a lot of people realise.
Just my opinion and its all boring economics, sorry.

leninbenjamin

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Just my opinion and its all boring economics, sorry.

I'm an economics student. I see where you're coming from, and it's an admirable ideology but it's completely unworkable. We're not just talking about Liverpool buying out West Ham, we're talking about non league teams not being able to borrow to fund that stadium expansion they need to enter the league. if anything eliminating debt tomorrow would reinforce the status quo further. Man Utd and Co. will still have the largest revenues, but now you've removed the possibility for a smaller club to invest in order to progress. Arsenal still playing in highbury, Portsmouth being stuck in Fratton park and so on. The only way it could be workable would be a) massive structural and institutional chances from the grassroots clubs up to the governing bodies themselves, an impossible task given the minuscule chance of getting all levels of the game to come to a general consensus. b) the EU law would have to be basically rewritten to accomodate the changes, again a near impossible task. It's not workable in the slightest.

PHB

DesF wrote: »

In your red-tinted world, yes.

If United hadn't have spent money on the likes of Rooney, Tevez, Ronaldo, Anderson, Nani, Rio, Carrick and pretty much the rest of their squad, their debt wouldn't be as big. And they would have won nothing.

So, in conclusion, yes, Manchester United's debt contributed to their success.

You are being extremely obtuse, and your loyalty is admirable.

But it is misguided in this instance.

heyjude wrote: »

No, I think you are the misguided one.

Malcolm Glazer gained majority control of Man Utd in May 2005, at the time Man Utd were debt free (see http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_22/b3935065_mz011.htm ). Rio joined Utd in 2002, Ronaldo in 2003 and Rooney in 2004, at a time when the club had no debts and before Glazer took over the club, so the money spent on them didn't make the debt "as big" because their was no debt.

Some of your post is right.

As to the other purchases increasing the clubs debt, that also isn't true as the club includes transfer dealings in its accounts and it still makes millions in profits. Where is the evidence that Utd borrow money to buy players and so increase their debt ?

It's in the clubs filed accounts. We borrowed to buy our players last year.

The point however is that before the Glaziers came in (something the footballing authorities did nothing about) we were totally debt free and got to where we were by good business.
Then they saddled a **** load of debt on the club. Since that point, our net spend has been about 10 million a year, which is a massive massive drop from our previous points.
Our debt has held us back. Of course it contributed in the sense it has affected the amount of money that was there. But we aren't using our debt like say Chelsea to spend exhorbitantly. It is infact a massive restriction, something that Fergie overcome with some incredibly buying and team planning.

Y2J_MUFC

nipplenuts wrote: »

That's how the big clubs all operate, only now when it's Man Utd on the receiving end they cry foul - how'd you think they got their players?

Clueless.... You haven't a notion. The debt United have is due to the Glazers refinancing, and they then shifted their personal debt to the club, so how you translate that the Glazers buying the club through refinancing = buying players is absolutely beyond me.

Name one player United bought that put them in debt?

And please don't tell me Nani, Anderson and Hargreaves. Assuming the debt wasn't heaped on the club, you're going to argue that one of the two biggest earning clubs on the planet didn't have 50 million to begin with?

Y2J_MUFC

DesF wrote: »

If United hadn't have spent money on the likes of Rooney, Tevez, Ronaldo, Anderson, Nani, Rio, Carrick and pretty much the rest of their squad, their debt wouldn't be as big.

So whens you're first comedy show?

United haven't paid any transfer fee for Tevez. Its an option to buy with 5 million for a two year loan. Not exactly big spending.

United weren't in debt after buying Ronaldo. Spending 12.24 million on him and he's easily worth 3 times that (being conservative). Wouldn't you say that's intelligent business?

United weren't in debt after buying Rio.

United weren't in debt after buying Rooney.

United made a profit of 42 million in 06/07 season. We spent ~50 million on transfers. So overall, down about 8 million for the year. United spent 8 million more than they made in a year. Sure lets relegate them, lets ban them, lets fine them. ffs. So if United hadn't spent big on those players our hundreds of millions of debt due to the Glazers borrowing against the club would be 8 million less. Good spot

Were United in debt before the Glazers? No.
Do we owe a hell of a lot of money? Sure.

We are NOT in debt because of player transfers. We are NOT in any more debt because of player transfers. Its roughly broken which probably isn't good enough when you owe that amount of money, but the revenue generating from winning the Premiership and then the Champions League will start to pay some of that back. United are not in debt due to player transfers, spending big is part and parcel of achieving success but its not the reason why are in debt. Sure, people might argue that United have bought success...but those people haven't a clue. I mean, why in the blue hell would any intelligent person let a team fade in obscurity and settle for mediocrity when you could buy players to help you stay successful? Is that what they would expect, or would like their own club to do??????

So lets look at some other cases instead of the constant anti-United witch-hunt (just for a change, eh?).....

Why isn't there a word about Chelsea who are operating at a loss every year before player purchases and won't be profitable until 2010/11?

What about Le'Arse who have massive loans out to build the Emirates.

What about the Scousers and Shamley Park?

Or Real Madrid who got 300million wrote off by the King of Spain?

What about Man City buying Jo for 19 million? Elano? Petrov? Corluka? Geovanni? Bojinov? Castillo? Garrido? Caicedo? Benjani? That business is easily, easily operating at a loss, no?

In summary, if you're going to criticise United and only United then why bother? Two words, bitterness...jealously.

All the criticism and hatred shows that we are truly the best team in England, and this season, in Europe. Order is restored. ABUs can have their opinions, as long as we have the trophies. Amen.

Unearthly

You are now my favourite boards.ie poster )

quite an honour ill let ya know

OPENROAD

Y2J_MUFC wrote: »

What about Le'Arse who have massive loans out to build the Emirates.

Arsenal debt is in the region of £262m
Arsenals move to the Emirates was for the financial benefit of the club long term.
You also have to take into account the Higbury redelopment and other Hosuing developments at Ashburton which will bring in huge revenues despite the credit crunch. Also you have to take into account that Arsenal refinanced the debt over a much longer term recently-When Arsenal originally went to finance the move they had a 14 year repayment shedule with quite hight interest rates. However I know they were able to go back into the financial markets and now have 25 years to pay off the debt and at a much lower interest rate. I'd much rater be in Arsenals position than utd.

Mr. Presentable

Y2J_MUFC wrote: »

Clueless.... You haven't a notion. The debt United have is due to the Glazers refinancing, and they then shifted their personal debt to the club, so how you translate that the Glazers buying the club through refinancing = buying players is absolutely beyond me.

Name one player United bought that put them in debt?

And please don't tell me Nani, Anderson and Hargreaves. Assuming the debt wasn't heaped on the club, you're going to argue that one of the two biggest earning clubs on the planet didn't have 50 million to begin with?

You need to go back and read the post you selectively quoted. Again. And again until you actually understand it. The quoted selection refers the contact or destabilising of players at contract with other clubs by Manchester United, and their squealing like pigs on a honeymoon when they are on the receiving end. Nothing to do with their debt. Now do you see?

tdv

Great player. I don't like the man but I do like his anti-premiership approach about things.