Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: paul_e on December 18, 2012, 03:41:10 PM
-
BBC report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20773526)
This could be interesting.
Shocking news that Man City were one of the clubs who rejected the idea...
-
Even more shocking that we're also against it, if the Football 365 report is right.
-
It will never happen,all Randy has to do is sponsor the ballboys for £400 million a year.
-
The telling sentence comes at the end:
There have now been six meetings of top-flight chairmen where cost controls have been discussed without any concrete decisions being made
There is an inherent disconnect between those with and those without, and - as in society - it is an almost-intractable issue.
I'm only sorry that I do not have some sort of solution to offer: there are, as Citeh have already found (with a shift of investment-funds from loan to stadium sponsorship), several easy ways to beat the FFP structure.
And as for not paying players and agents so much, which of the seriously-moneyed clubs will be the first to blink?
-
According to tv reports thre were 17 teams in favour and the three against it were man city, aston villa and Fulham.
-
According to tv reports thre were 17 teams in favour and the three against it were man city, aston villa and Fulham.
yes thats because Randys spending £250 million in the summer
-
while I think football needs cost controls before it totally self implodes, this will make it harder for clubs to catch up with those already at the top.
the break even rule will favour those with the biggest income through gate receipts, prize money, sponsorship and tv money.
the capped % increase on wages will favour those already paying the bigger wages.
so the top 4 champions league place gets further away
-
while I think football needs cost controls before it totally self implodes, this will make it harder for clubs to catch up with those already at the top.
the break even rule will favour those with the biggest income through gate receipts, prize money, sponsorship and tv money.
the capped % increase on wages will favour those already paying the bigger wages.
so the top 4 champions league place gets further away
Exactly, which is probably why the Villa were against it.
From reading about it before it seems to be a similar rule to the European FFP rule which again is there to serve the teams already at the top. If the league was serious about limiting the chances of clubs overspending they would introduce a salary cap rule like in the NFL.
But they're not serious about it. This is a corporate social responsibility campaign to try to make the general public think the recession is affecting football too, and a bit of propaganda to try to stop agents and players getting all of the new TV deal.
This is all about maintaining the status quo.
-
The only thing the rules will possibly change is the composition of closed shop at the top of the league. It will still remain the closed shop it has been since the expansion of the chumps league. Over time the PL will resemble a straight list of clubs by turnover even more than it does now.
I'd have preferred something that discouraged clubs from accumulating large squads of expensive players many of whom barely play.
Maybe something like a wage cap whereby at each club, a maximum number of players can be on 'no limit' wages, followed by a number that can be paid up a high, medium and 'standard' threshold.
It would still allow e.g. Manu to bid the earth for Messi should he come on the market, but would discourage the situation where someone like Sturridge hardly gets a game at a top four club but could actually make a telling contribution to an outfit that is trying to get there.
-
Definitely would be more interesting if things went the way of the NFL but they'd never do that. Things are basically going to have break-even "starting now" so clubs like City are surely waaaaay ahead of the game.
-
Are there any other sectors where businesses are not allowed to run at a loss?
-
David Gold was on Skysports saying he was for it.
So that makes me want to be against it.
-
Yes, that made my mind up for certain too.
Similarly, he once made me a confirmed advocate of throwing beer bottles at cars.
-
In my opinion what is also required is some sort of link between the lowest spending club and the ones at the top with huge turnovers. Something like that your expenditure cannot be more than 100% than the club with the lowest expenditure for more than 3 season.
With the break even rules and something like the "link" described above it will ensure economic sustainability and also allow economic mobility.
-
As others have said it's a case of the current elite pulling up the drawbridge behind them. Even if someone tempts the Sultan of Brunei or Bill Gates into taking them over, the new rules will prevent him funding a rise to the top a la Chelsea, Man City, PSG, etc. I suppose the big loss makers like Chelsea and Citeh may have to find a way to break even, but I'm sure they'll wangle it somehow. The closed shop idea was always the intention of that so-called G14 group of clubs back in the 90s and they are pretty much there now. Which makes it surprising that so many "making up the numbers" clubs are in favour. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.
-
Definitely would be more interesting if things went the way of the NFL but they'd never do that. Things are basically going to have break-even "starting now" so clubs like City are surely waaaaay ahead of the game.
NFL is a little different as there no other real leagues in that sport. If the Premier League were to impose a salary cap, the top players would just move to another league. Interest in the Premiership would wane, the money would go out of it and we would be back to how football was in this country in the mid to late 80's.
-
Definitely would be more interesting if things went the way of the NFL but they'd never do that. Things are basically going to have break-even "starting now" so clubs like City are surely waaaaay ahead of the game.
NFL is a little different as there no other real leagues in that sport. If the Premier League were to impose a salary cap, the top players would just move to another league. Interest in the Premiership would wane, the money would go out of it and we would be back to how football was in this country in the mid to late 80's.
I could live with that.
-
Definitely would be more interesting if things went the way of the NFL but they'd never do that. Things are basically going to have break-even "starting now" so clubs like City are surely waaaaay ahead of the game.
NFL is a little different as there no other real leagues in that sport. If the Premier League were to impose a salary cap, the top players would just move to another league. Interest in the Premiership would wane, the money would go out of it and we would be back to how football was in this country in the mid to late 80's.
...and you're saying that like its a bad thing ???
-
As others have said it's a case of the current elite pulling up the drawbridge behind them. Even if someone tempts the Sultan of Brunei or Bill Gates into taking them over, the new rules will prevent him funding a rise to the top a la Chelsea, Man City, PSG, etc. I suppose the big loss makers like Chelsea and Citeh may have to find a way to break even, but I'm sure they'll wangle it somehow. The closed shop idea was always the intention of that so-called G14 group of clubs back in the 90s and they are pretty much there now. Which makes it surprising that so many "making up the numbers" clubs are in favour. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.
I don't think they are voting for Christmas. I think those clubs who will be in the 8 - 16 position range of the Premier League are quite happy to continue the status quo and keep feeding themselves very nicely out of the trough that is filled with Sky and all the other TV income etc.
-
As others have said it's a case of the current elite pulling up the drawbridge behind them. Even if someone tempts the Sultan of Brunei or Bill Gates into taking them over, the new rules will prevent him funding a rise to the top a la Chelsea, Man City, PSG, etc. I suppose the big loss makers like Chelsea and Citeh may have to find a way to break even, but I'm sure they'll wangle it somehow. The closed shop idea was always the intention of that so-called G14 group of clubs back in the 90s and they are pretty much there now. Which makes it surprising that so many "making up the numbers" clubs are in favour. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.
I don't think they are voting for Christmas. I think those clubs who will be in the 8 - 16 position range of the Premier League are quite happy to continue the status quo and keep feeding themselves very nicely out of the trough that is filled with Sky and all the other TV income etc.
Exactly.
Sadly, Premier League football for the majority of clubs stopped being about winning things when finishing 4th was seen as the most important 'achievement' there is.
-
Definitely would be more interesting if things went the way of the NFL but they'd never do that. Things are basically going to have break-even "starting now" so clubs like City are surely waaaaay ahead of the game.
NFL is a little different as there no other real leagues in that sport. If the Premier League were to impose a salary cap, the top players would just move to another league. Interest in the Premiership would wane, the money would go out of it and we would be back to how football was in this country in the mid to late 80's.
Result! I think it could well happen anyway - the current top 4 will be consolidated by the FFP rules and I think the next logical step would be the formation of a breakaway European league. Platini is already talking about a 64 team "Champions" league (4th place qualifying as a 'Champion' is pretty ironic - 7th place is just ridiculous) and scrapping the Europa League - which itself has been modified from the UEFA/Inter-Cities Fairs Cup - smoothing the path for a single European competition as a precursor for an 'elite' European League. The money barons clubs will fuck off to that league and the rest of us can get on with playing football with a pretty even chance of actually winning something.
-
The solution is simple. Clubs can only register a minimum of 18 players, then can only have 3 players under 21 they can call upon. This would stop the player hogging and larger size squads. If Man City turn up to Villa Park with only 13 fit players then even better. They would have to play their Development squad kids to make up the squad.
-
Definitely would be more interesting if things went the way of the NFL but they'd never do that. Things are basically going to have break-even "starting now" so clubs like City are surely waaaaay ahead of the game.
NFL is a little different as there no other real leagues in that sport. If the Premier League were to impose a salary cap, the top players would just move to another league. Interest in the Premiership would wane, the money would go out of it and we would be back to how football was in this country in the mid to late 80's.
Result! I think it could well happen anyway - the current top 4 will be consolidated by the FFP rules and I think the next logical step would be the formation of a breakaway European league. Platini is already talking about a 64 team "Champions" league (4th place qualifying as a 'Champion' is pretty ironic - 7th place is just ridiculous) and scrapping the Europa League - which itself has been modified from the UEFA/Inter-Cities Fairs Cup - smoothing the path for a single European competition as a precursor for an 'elite' European League. The money barons clubs will fuck off to that league and the rest of us can get on with playing football with a pretty even chance of actually winning something.
Don't get me wrong, it is something I wouldn't mind seeing, but I just can't see the Premier League ever agreeing to something that will threaten the current status quo.
I personally wouldn't care less if the two Manchester clubs, Chelsea and Arsenal (maybe even Liverpool) swanned off into some European Super League, as I find the media's infatuation with them increasingly frustrating. If that were to happen, then I think an expanded Champions League would see automatic entry for teams in a new super league with a couple of teams qualifying from each country as well.
-
The problem is, and unfortunately always will be now, that you can't draw a line a in the sand and say 'you can spend this much on fees, wages, etc' because if you set that figure at a level attainable by, for example, reading, then Man utd, Man City, Chelsea, etc will all have a massive surplus of cash (and wage expenditure for them would be far beyond the limit), but setting the bar too high does nothing to close the gap between the top and the bottom. Having it as based on turnover is similar, it does nothing to increase competition.
I guess you could remove club involvement in the academy system and have a 'draft' (which is the main reason american football works) but, given the number of leagues and teams involved, trying to manage a system like that would be next to impossible.
The whole thing has a feel of closing the stable door after the horse has gone, to an extent football needs to implode and be forced to rebuild from scratch but there's too much money and interest for that to happen at the minute.
-
As others have said it's a case of the current elite pulling up the drawbridge behind them. Even if someone tempts the Sultan of Brunei or Bill Gates into taking them over, the new rules will prevent him funding a rise to the top a la Chelsea, Man City, PSG, etc. I suppose the big loss makers like Chelsea and Citeh may have to find a way to break even, but I'm sure they'll wangle it somehow. The closed shop idea was always the intention of that so-called G14 group of clubs back in the 90s and they are pretty much there now. Which makes it surprising that so many "making up the numbers" clubs are in favour. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.
I don't think they are voting for Christmas. I think those clubs who will be in the 8 - 16 position range of the Premier League are quite happy to continue the status quo and keep feeding themselves very nicely out of the trough that is filled with Sky and all the other TV income etc.
Exactly.
Sadly, Premier League football for the majority of clubs stopped being about winning things when finishing 4th was seen as the most important 'achievement' there is.
I'm not so sure. Up to now there was always the hope, however vague, that a sugar daddy might come along and propel a middling club into the top echelons. Or that it could be achieved by persistent good husbandry and clever investment in a mix of established players and younger or lesser know players, as Wenger did initially, and as Spurs have, to an extent, done more recently. I think that hope could be more or less extinguished and the top 3-4 will be even more set in stone than it has been the last 10 years. Without hope of ever reaching the top, I can see real supporters starting to get bored with the sport, even if the clubs are content to count the cash and make up the numbers. And while there is still relegation no club outside that elite can afford to feel comfortable just being in the PL.
-
Definitely would be more interesting if things went the way of the NFL but they'd never do that. Things are basically going to have break-even "starting now" so clubs like City are surely waaaaay ahead of the game.
NFL is a little different as there no other real leagues in that sport. If the Premier League were to impose a salary cap, the top players would just move to another league. Interest in the Premiership would wane, the money would go out of it and we would be back to how football was in this country in the mid to late 80's.
Result! I think it could well happen anyway - the current top 4 will be consolidated by the FFP rules and I think the next logical step would be the formation of a breakaway European league. Platini is already talking about a 64 team "Champions" league (4th place qualifying as a 'Champion' is pretty ironic - 7th place is just ridiculous) and scrapping the Europa League - which itself has been modified from the UEFA/Inter-Cities Fairs Cup - smoothing the path for a single European competition as a precursor for an 'elite' European League. The money barons clubs will fuck off to that league and the rest of us can get on with playing football with a pretty even chance of actually winning something.
Don't get me wrong, it is something I wouldn't mind seeing, but I just can't see the Premier League ever agreeing to something that will threaten the current status quo.
I personally wouldn't care less if the two Manchester clubs, Chelsea and Arsenal (maybe even Liverpool) swanned off into some European Super League, as I find the media's infatuation with them increasingly frustrating. If that were to happen, then I think an expanded Champions League would see automatic entry for teams in a new super league with a couple of teams qualifying from each country as well.
Unfortunately for your theory, I don't think that if those clubs did swan off into a European super league, it would stop the media writing about them. I think they might be ALL they ever wrote about.
-
As others have said it's a case of the current elite pulling up the drawbridge behind them. Even if someone tempts the Sultan of Brunei or Bill Gates into taking them over, the new rules will prevent him funding a rise to the top a la Chelsea, Man City, PSG, etc. I suppose the big loss makers like Chelsea and Citeh may have to find a way to break even, but I'm sure they'll wangle it somehow. The closed shop idea was always the intention of that so-called G14 group of clubs back in the 90s and they are pretty much there now. Which makes it surprising that so many "making up the numbers" clubs are in favour. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.
I don't think they are voting for Christmas. I think those clubs who will be in the 8 - 16 position range of the Premier League are quite happy to continue the status quo and keep feeding themselves very nicely out of the trough that is filled with Sky and all the other TV income etc.
Exactly.
Sadly, Premier League football for the majority of clubs stopped being about winning things when finishing 4th was seen as the most important 'achievement' there is.
I think that hope could be more or less extinguished and the top 3-4 will be even more set in stone than it has been the last 10 years.
I've long thought that the Champions League qualification needs altering to make it less of a closed shop (although I'm not sure if there are any UEFA rules that forbid this). I have no qualms with the top two teams qualifying, but find it slightly irritating that finishing 3rd and 4th is seen as some great achievement. Some sort of play off for the final two places would mix things up a little as would a guaranteed place for the FA Cup winners.
-
Definitely would be more interesting if things went the way of the NFL but they'd never do that. Things are basically going to have break-even "starting now" so clubs like City are surely waaaaay ahead of the game.
NFL is a little different as there no other real leagues in that sport. If the Premier League were to impose a salary cap, the top players would just move to another league. Interest in the Premiership would wane, the money would go out of it and we would be back to how football was in this country in the mid to late 80's.
Result! I think it could well happen anyway - the current top 4 will be consolidated by the FFP rules and I think the next logical step would be the formation of a breakaway European league. Platini is already talking about a 64 team "Champions" league (4th place qualifying as a 'Champion' is pretty ironic - 7th place is just ridiculous) and scrapping the Europa League - which itself has been modified from the UEFA/Inter-Cities Fairs Cup - smoothing the path for a single European competition as a precursor for an 'elite' European League. The money barons clubs will fuck off to that league and the rest of us can get on with playing football with a pretty even chance of actually winning something.
Don't get me wrong, it is something I wouldn't mind seeing, but I just can't see the Premier League ever agreeing to something that will threaten the current status quo.
I personally wouldn't care less if the two Manchester clubs, Chelsea and Arsenal (maybe even Liverpool) swanned off into some European Super League, as I find the media's infatuation with them increasingly frustrating. If that were to happen, then I think an expanded Champions League would see automatic entry for teams in a new super league with a couple of teams qualifying from each country as well.
Unfortunately for your theory, I don't think that if those clubs did swan off into a European super league, it would stop the media writing about them. I think they might be ALL they ever wrote about.
While the media and the likes of Neville and Hansen would be pontificating about "United" and "City", the English league would have its own coverage, maybe even a show featuring Manish and Leroy Rosenoir. On second thoughts!!
-
I personally wouldn't care less if the two Manchester clubs, Chelsea and Arsenal (maybe even Liverpool) swanned off into some European Super League, as I find the media's infatuation with them increasingly frustrating. If that were to happen, then I think an expanded Champions League would see automatic entry for teams in a new super league with a couple of teams qualifying from each country as well.
I think this would have happened a few years ago if the logistics of it weren't so difficult. Those clubs would want to play 40-50 games a year still so it would have to be a full league program, meaning you couldn't really have people qualifying for it.
If it were to happen I think you'd see 2 competitions, a league and a cup, with the cup being the 1 that domestic teams can qualify for and the league being a closed shop, but with maybe an element of the clubs being able to vote sides in and out (but only from within the same domestic league), I think all the power would be with the clubs though.
-
I personally wouldn't care less if the two Manchester clubs, Chelsea and Arsenal (maybe even Liverpool) swanned off into some European Super League, as I find the media's infatuation with them increasingly frustrating. If that were to happen, then I think an expanded Champions League would see automatic entry for teams in a new super league with a couple of teams qualifying from each country as well.
I think this would have happened a few years ago if the logistics of it weren't so difficult. Those clubs would want to play 40-50 games a year still so it would have to be a full league program, meaning you couldn't really have people qualifying for it.
If it were to happen I think you'd see 2 competitions, a league and a cup, with the cup being the 1 that domestic teams can qualify for and the league being a closed shop, but with maybe an element of the clubs being able to vote sides in and out (but only from within the same domestic league), I think all the power would be with the clubs though.
I might not have been very clear in my post, but that is what I meant. A seperate Super League and then the Champions League as a cup competition involving the Super League clubs and clubs from domestic leagues. As for the part about voting teams in and out, teams would be clamouring to join so the League would probably expand over the years with teams being voted in and a few divisions being established.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2261817/Arsenal-Manchester-United-financial-fair-play-plot-ruin-Premier-League--Martin-Samuel.html
This is why we said no.Does not suprise me ,as Samuals said this whole FFP is intended to maintain a status quo keep the same teams always winning.
-
Very good piece that is.
-
'Elite' teams. How I despise that term.
-
Hopefully the other clubs will wise up when they actually relise what this means.Plus I love how Gil makes his point about it despite Man U being brought with a loan with huge interest payments every season.
-
Martin Samuels is wasted on the Mail, but this is a great idea:
Profits from a Manchester United shirt sold beyond their catchment area in the West Country, for instance would be split throughout the 20 Premier League clubs, as happens to New York Yankees merchandise sold outside club shops or the New York metropolitan area.
-
Imagine the extra finance generated for other clubs from 99% of Man Utd's shirt sales.
-
Imagine how much further clubs will push up ticket prices to increase turnover ..Arsenal and Spurs have edge there due to location.Enough fans in London on good salaries who can afford what they charge.
-
This is something I wrote about on a thread some time ago. As A City fan, I've been watching developments very closely for obvious reasons. I can understand why clubs resent City's riches, but that resentment is being used as a stick to batter clubs like Everton, Villa and similar sized clubs to City. People, particularly in the media, mistake rich for "big". If you aren't an established member of the Champions League self-appointed "elite", you are knackered forever by these rules. The whole point of the PL was to give the G14 clubs of which Liverpool and United were the only English members favourable treatment to stop them breaking away. When it became a G18, Arsenal became the third English member. No surprises then for guessing which clubs are behind the current moves to cement the status quo.
City have dispelled forever the myth that success in the Premier League is achieved by anything other than money. The "money doesn't buy success" claim was a lie put around by the rich clubs to support their claim to being more meritorious than the likes of City, Villa, Everton etc.
Leave City out of the equation for the moment and consider where these rules will leave your club. Even if you develop youngsters, united, arsenal and liverpool will still come and buy them. Even if Randy sells all his business interests and decides to help Villa get into the Champions League which is where the real money is, he won't be allowed to.
As for United Liverpool and Arsenal pulling out and going into a European Super League, it has already happened. They, effectively, have two teams. they get exemption from the early rounds of the FA Cup. But they want domestic income too. Do you think that the Premier League will be as marketable without the rich clubs who have achieved worldwide marketability unavailable to clubs not in the Champions League? The time for arguing about this was in 1992, the horse has long since bolted, what we can do is stop it getting worse and keep at least a glimmer of hope alive.
City have bought themselves into that group for now but, mark my words, one team and one team only will be excluded from the Champions League and it won't be PSG. Great schadenfreude for other clubs, I'm sure, but it won't help them one jot.
You should be proud that your club is saying "no" and seeing through this charade.
-
This is something I wrote about on a thread some time ago. As A City fan, I've been watching developments very closely for obvious reasons. I can understand why clubs resent City's riches, but that resentment is being used as a stick to batter clubs like Everton, Villa and similar sized clubs to City. People, particularly in the media, mistake rich for "big". If you aren't an established member of the Champions League self-appointed "elite", you are knackered forever by these rules. The whole point of the PL was to give the G14 clubs of which Liverpool and United were the only English members favourable treatment to stop them breaking away. When it became a G18, Arsenal became the third English member. No surprises then for guessing which clubs are behind the current moves to cement the status quo.
City have dispelled forever the myth that success in the Premier League is achieved by anything other than money. The "money doesn't buy success" claim was a lie put around by the rich clubs to support their claim to being more meritorious than the likes of City, Villa, Everton etc.
Leave City out of the equation for the moment and consider where these rules will leave your club. Even if you develop youngsters, united, arsenal and liverpool will still come and buy them. Even if Randy sells all his business interests and decides to help Villa get into the Champions League which is where the real money is, he won't be allowed to.
As for United Liverpool and Arsenal pulling out and going into a European Super League, it has already happened. They, effectively, have two teams. they get exemption from the early rounds of the FA Cup. But they want domestic income too. Do you think that the Premier League will be as marketable without the rich clubs who have achieved worldwide marketability unavailable to clubs not in the Champions League? The time for arguing about this was in 1992, the horse has long since bolted, what we can do is stop it getting worse and keep at least a glimmer of hope alive.
City have bought themselves into that group for now but, mark my words, one team and one team only will be excluded from the Champions League and it won't be PSG. Great schadenfreude for other clubs, I'm sure, but it won't help them one jot.
You should be proud that your club is saying "no" and seeing through this charade.
Exactly!
But if there wasn't enough wrong with the FFP rules already, in terms of creating a fixed football caste system, these rules are far worse because they actually punish virtue.
So any club which reduces its wages substantially will be trapped at that low level, because even if they increase their income they cannot increase their wages even if the increase still keeps them below the level set by the FFP rules.
All the hype is about saving clubs from bankruptcy but its really only about protecting the football product, which requires a few dominant brands and a majority of losers who can never become winners.
Once these regulations are in place no one can seriously claim that the Premiership is any kind of contest.
The whole scheme is a form of match-fixing where the big clubs allow the minnows a share of the TV money for being the cannon fodder.
-
Imagine how much further clubs will push up ticket prices to increase turnover ..Arsenal and Spurs have edge there due to location.Enough fans in London on good salaries who can afford what they charge.
Plus tourists.
-
I'm surprised that so few clubs are against this as they wouldn't have any hope of rising upwards, such as Everton, Sunderland, Stoke, West Ham etc. unless they are very very happy to be doomed into mediocrity.
-
Imagine how much further clubs will push up ticket prices to increase turnover ..Arsenal and Spurs have edge there due to location.Enough fans in London on good salaries who can afford what they charge.
Plus tourists.
Maybe you should hotfoot it to Stratford on Avon dave and take a few copies of h&v with you and a few villa flags ?
-
I'm surprised that so few clubs are against this as they wouldn't have any hope of rising upwards, such as Everton, Sunderland, Stoke, West Ham etc. unless they are very very happy to be doomed into mediocrity.
Your conclusion seems the most likely.
I think that we have to accept that the Premiership's £5bn TV deal creates an even bigger hurdle for clubs in the Championship, and therefore fixing the contest to guarantee that income amounts to protectionism for the clubs you mention.
The trouble is that protectionism has a poor track-record for every other industry and so we must assume it will eventually the Premiership just the same.
-
Just a snippet from Samual defending his stance
Financial fair play means that a wealthy owner cannot put his own money into a club, but the Glazers can put Manchester United in hock to the banks for millions without penalty. How on earth is that financially sound? Of course it isn't. It's just an anti-competitive scheme to maintain the status quo dreamt up by Bayern, United, Real Madrid and Barçelona. It is no coincidence that the very lines of income that are OK under FFP are the ones where the established clubs fare best. There are lots of major companies that make losses. As long as those losses are sustainable because they have a strong balance sheet, nobody in financial circles is the least bit worried. Paris Saint-Germain seem to be ignoring it. I can only think that they have taken sound legal advice and have resolved to take the whole thing to EU competition authorities as soon as Michel Platini and his mates try to enforce it. Big Blue, Manchester.
Randy Lerner, the chairman of Aston Villa, said pretty much the same to me earlier in the season. He said the FFP rules focus on one specific part of the balance sheet as if it is the whole picture. One wonders why.