The Takeover Thread - Recon Group - NOW WITH NEW POLL

[warleyboy]

How about he does not sell?

I'd go with that. If he wants to spend responsibly and within the existing revenue streams there's no reason why we can't go back to spending accordingly. I wouldn't expect us lashing out a net £50m, but £25-30m well spent can go a very long way. If he only harbours the appetite to spend a net £10m then he may as well stand aside to someone with greater ambition.

Agree that 25-30mil could go along way + 30-40mil of Tekkers money possibly ?

[LeeB]

Well that was easy enough. As new owner of Villa Park my first acts will be rename the Witton Road Stand The Tony Barton Stand, slash ticket prices and to sign Gareth Bale from Real Madrid for a knock-down price.

no no no

i'd build the ground up to 80 000 and rename the Witton into the Devey Stand or something. maybe Athersmith. I'd buy as many of the top players as I could and then just pay off the FFP fine. prices would double. You wanna watch the best? You pay for it. There'd be a standing bit for amfy and Witton End, or whatever his name is. I'd sell crack pipes at half time and have a chill out zone at the pack of the trinity. replace the seats with sofas. We'd sell mars bars, Yops, and doritos. We'd also have the sofas angled at each other with ripped rizlas on the floor and Future sound of london playing in the background.

I'd also have a giant picture of my face on the badge. There'd also be 10 minutes of homage to me at the start of each game and I would lead the team out. Everyone would then have to applaud me. Those not will be ejected and unlikely to be heard of again. Villa park is nice an' shit but the name doesn't do me enough credit. Pete's Parlour has a wonderful ring to it.

the ground would also be full because I'd fly lots of homeless people in to shout, make noise, and sit on the seats. or I'd just pluck Filipino workers from the streets and dump then into the ground to pay more homage to me, I mean support Aston Villa.

The turf would also cleverly have my face woven into the fabric.

I think i'd be a great owner.

No objections from me

I'm in. I'll get close to you anyway, and then eventually topple you in a coup.

[cheltenhamlion]

Fox made it very clear at the Trust AGM that Lerner thought better of flogging us pretty rapidly after announcing we were for sale.

Now I have heard tale that this was because a deal that was roughly in place fell on its arse and he thought better of being done with it after hiring Fox and letting him run the show (Faulkner never had such autonomy).

I would be amazed if we were sold this summer.

[LTA]

I wouldn't have trusted Faulkner to run a bath, let alone a Premier League club.

[Quiet Lion]

With FFP being eased this could make us a lot more attractive for certain buyers

[Legion]

I'd rather stay with the better devil we know at the moment.

[cdbearsfan]

I'm sure that however the rules are changed, it won't be to our advantage.

They'll probably bring in a "buying Belgian strikers doesn't count against FFP but trying to replace them does" type rule.

Or a rule that all clubs who finish below seventh in their respective league have to give a hundred million to Chelsea.

[Percy McCarthy]

It's been eased because if clubs can only spend what they earn very few will be able to compete with English clubs.

[LeeB]

It's been eased because if clubs can only spend what they earn very few will be able to compete with English clubs.

Yeah, it's basically Bayern Munich saying that this no longer works for them, so it needs to be changed again.

[DB]

...and that UEFA have been legally challenged a number of timeson they probably think it is too much hassle.But yeah, I heard today that once the new TV deal kicks in, all 20 PL clubs will be in the top 40 richest clubs..even B-mouth & Watford.

[Percy McCarthy]

...and that UEFA have been legally challenged a number of timeson they probably think it is too much hassle.But yeah, I heard today that once the new TV deal kicks in, all 20 PL clubs will be in the top 40 richest clubs..even B-mouth & Watford.

And after the 2019 TV deal kicks in it will probably be 20 out of the top 26/28. Eventually it will probably end up that the PL will automatically be the twenty richest clubs in the world.

[David_Nab]

The FFP being challenged is the UEFA version not the Prem League one.As mentioned above the issue now is with the new TV deal the English clubs can out spend the rest so its not ''fair'' so they are willing to allow some changes.

Good write up here

http://www.espnfc.co.uk/blog/marcotti-musings/62/post/2456828/financial-fair-play-and-understanding-platini-changes

Q: What's this? UEFA President Michel Platini says they're relaxing financial fair play restrictions? So they're getting rid of those pesky spending limits?

A: Not quite. They're going to consult with clubs and leagues and then vote on a proposal, most likely at the UEFA Executive Committee meeting in late June. Beyond that, as I understand it, the limits -- which this year will be €45 million over three years -- will still be there. And if anything, they're going to tighten, as next year they're due to fall even further. What they are hoping to do is to allow a little more flexibility if somebody comes to them beforehand.

Q: What do you mean?

A: So bear in mind this is just a concept; the details need to be worked out. But the idea is that if someone comes to them and says, "Look, I'm willing to put x amount of my own money into my club this year and it will mean we'll be in breach this season, but I have a three-year plan to get us back into compliance," then they'll consider it. And they may give the green light.

Q: What's the logic there?

A: They think of it something like this: Imagine you buy a house and it's a real fixer-upper, like on those home improvement shows on TV. The house costs, say, $200,000 but there's a law that says you can't spend more than $5,000 a year on home improvement. That doesn't do you much good, does it? You want to chuck in, say $100,000 to fix the roof, reglaze the windows, build a swimming pool and paint the darn thing. And if you do that, you know your house will be worth $400,000. But if all you can spend is $5,000 a year, then it will take you forever to fix it up and you may decide it's not worth your time to buy it.

Q: Enough with the house. What does this have to do with football clubs?

A: Well, there are some clubs who are basically decrepit houses but have plenty of potential. And they either have owners who are willing to invest big in them but can't -- because of the FFP restrictions -- or investors who would buy a club but are reluctant to do so because they don't want to wait around for decades for the kind of "organic growth" -- through infrastructure and youth development -- that current FFP allows.

Q: OK. So I can buy, say, Everton or Fiorentina or Sevilla, and spend $200m on players, turn into a powerhouse overnight and compete with Chelsea, Juventus and Barcelona? All I need to show is that by spending that money I'll win the Champions League, double revenue and UEFA will allow it? Cool.

A: No, you can't. It has to be a plan that UEFA thinks is plausible. You can spend a little more, but it has to be realistic investment. So maybe you beef up your commercial operation. Or if, say, you're a new investor and you've inherited reams of debt, maybe some of that debt servicing won't count towards the total and you'll get some wiggle room there. But it has to be credible and business-led and it has to have the clear goal of reaching the parameters within a couple of years. And at every step you need to hit certain targets, otherwise you'll be in breach. So it can't just be about doubling your transfer spend and your wage bill in the hopes of earning it back via prize money.


UEFA President Michel Platini is trying to even the playing field, while still keeping the big, wealthy clubs happy.
Q: Shame. But how does UEFA know what's credible and what's not? Why do they get to judge clubs' business plans?

A: They would probably say that it's pretty much what they do now with clubs who are in breach of existing regulations. Remember how Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain got those huge fines last year? Well, two-thirds of that withheld prize money will be returned to them if they meet certain agreed-upon financial targets. This is sort of the same thing. Except rather than being forced to hit certain stricter goals after you overspend, you ask permission to overspend and, if it's granted, you have to meet those strict goals.

Q: Wait a minute ... PSG and City aren't going to like this. If these rules had been in force a few years ago, they wouldn't have been in breach of FFP...

A: If the rules had been around and if they had submitted a credible business plan and obtained pre-approval from UEFA, then sure, they might not have been in breach, or their breaches might not have been punished as much as they were. Yeah, I'd be a little annoyed. It's like getting a citation for smoking medicinal marijuana shortly before the law changes and you can get a permit for it. Then again, those were the rules at the time. And they were pretty clear to all.

Q: So why are UEFA doing this? Is FFP not working?

A: I think the FFP part is working in the sense that it is achieving its main goal: to limit club losses. Since 2011, overall losses in Europe have gone down by some 75 percent and that's pretty huge. That's what everyone wanted. The problem is the unwanted side effect, what UEFA call "ossification." Basically, it means the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. The biggest, wealthiest clubs also make the most money so they can sign the best players. And that then means they win the most silverware and get the most prize money and the most new fans, because, let's face it, many who are new to the sport want to root for the big clubs they see winning things on TV. So it basically creates an unbreakable cycle where the gap between a tiny elite number of super-clubs and everyone else continues to grow.

Q: And all this is down to FFP?

A: Not just FFP. There have been other factors too. Like the boom in media and commercial rights which, logically, have gone to the biggest clubs. I mean, when Chevrolet decided to sign a shirt sponsorship deal with a club, they did it with Manchester United, not some mid-table club or even a top club in a less-popular league. This new revenue has gone almost exclusively to the top. That's not down to FFP, but, coupled with the FFP restrictions, it has exacerbated the problem.

Q: So UEFA has finally noticed this?

A: I think they noticed it a while ago. And they know it's not great for business. Look around Europe. Barcelona or Real Madrid have won 10 of the last 11 Liga titles. Bayern, 7 of the last 11 in Germany, including three straight. Juventus have four straight in Serie A, PSG, three straight in France. It's further down the food chain too. Benfica or Porto have won 13 straight in Portugal; Olympiacos 10 of 11 in Greece. In the Champions League, Bayern and Real Madrid reached five consecutive semifinals; Barcelona made it four times in the past five seasons.

Q: OK, I get your drift.

A: So this is one way to address that. Allow clubs with a coherent business plan to invest a little beyond the usual parameters where there is a clear plan on how to make the money back. It's not the only thing they're doing. They've also reduced the market pool (the portion of competition prize money that is allocated based on the value of a country's TV deal, rather than performance) and seeded the top seven national champions in the Champions League group stage. I wouldn't be surprised if they also increase the home-grown player requirement, just to spread the talent around a little more.

Q: Yeah, but these are baby steps ...

A: True, it's not exactly sweeping reform. You're not getting an NFL-style equal distribution of revenue or a salary cap or anything like that. But that's not realistic either. They're looking for little tweaks that will ultimately amount to sustainable growth. They don't want to penalize the big, wealthy clubs but they realize that a closed shop at the top is bad for business. So the idea is to grow the pie so the big clubs are happy, while also growing the number of clubs who can compete by attracting investment of the right kind.

Q: What does that mean, the "right kind"?

A: Investment that brings sustainable growth. They don't want some guy who saddles the club with $300 million worth of debt thinking he'll win everything and then walks away. Or even someone who puts in $300 million of his own money and then decides to stop spending, leaving the club with a bunch of hefty contracts. All it does is drive up costs and create an "arms race" of the kind that ultimately bankrupts clubs.

Q: So is this good for football?

A: Well, it's good that they realize there's a problem and are doing something about it. Until we have more details, it's hard to judge the individual measures but it should attract more investors and, likely, better ones too. Whether it will work remains to be seen.

[ciggiesnbeer]

Thanks David_Nab, useful info. Its still a broken and unfair system but it is good UEFA are making baby steps to fix it. The "ossification" issue is terrible and getting worse. Does anyone really want that? Even plastics must get sick of the same teams winning again and again and again?

Q: So UEFA has finally noticed this?

A: I think they noticed it a while ago. And they know it's not great for business. Look around Europe. Barcelona or Real Madrid have won 10 of the last 11 Liga titles. Bayern, 7 of the last 11 in Germany, including three straight. Juventus have four straight in Serie A, PSG, three straight in France. It's further down the food chain too. Benfica or Porto have won 13 straight in Portugal; Olympiacos 10 of 11 in Greece. In the Champions League, Bayern and Real Madrid reached five consecutive semifinals; Barcelona made it four times in the past five seasons.

[Malandro]

Interesting thing on back page of times...

[Malandro]

Can't link as always