Financial Fair Play [Archive]

BonnieShels

21/12/2012, 2:16 PM

It begins lads...

Málaga CF (ESP): The club is excluded from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next four seasons (i.e. 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17). In addition, Málaga will be excluded from a subsequent UEFA competition for which it would otherwise qualify (in the next four seasons) if it does not prove, by 31 March 2013, that it has no overdue payables towards football clubs or towards employees and/or social/tax authorities, in accordance with the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.

Málaga has also been fined €300,000. The prize money withheld on 11 September 2012 (as a conservatory measure) will be released.

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/protectingthegame/financialfairplay/news/newsid=1908817.html

pineapple stu

21/12/2012, 2:29 PM

Wow. Some big clubs in there (historically anyway). Let's see if the bans are upheld (they're all pending amounts being paid by a set date for the moment).

Could be the start of a very interesting period.

Dodge

21/12/2012, 2:31 PM

pineapple stu has a google alert set up for everytime the word financial is used on foot.ie

Charlie Darwin

21/12/2012, 3:20 PM

ArdeeBhoy

21/12/2012, 3:29 PM

All smoke and mirrors IMO.

The clubs will be hiding money everywhere...

BonnieShels

21/12/2012, 3:46 PM

So far it seems to be dealing only with cases where money is owed to other clubs or tax authorities. The real test will be if they are prepared to deal with billionaire backers who gives non-refundable loans to their clubs.

Correct. But FFP has to start somewhere.

Hopefully PSG, Man City and do I dare say, Barcelona are in their sights...

Stuttgart88

21/12/2012, 6:19 PM

A lot of English right-wingers including EPL apologist-in-chief Martin Samuel see Platini and FFP as a Johnny Foreigner figure intent on pursuing an anti-English agenda, but I have been told by people in the know that Spain is the prime focus of concern.

I think FFP is well-intentioned and reasonably well thought out, but run the risk of various unintended consequences such as hoarding of talented kids (youth development is exempt from the expenditure calculation) and will probably also discourage any move towards collective media right selling in Spain. Many say that it will only entrench the status of big clubs but I think it'll help level the playing field and reward responsible ownership.

geysir

21/12/2012, 7:18 PM

Basically, Malaga and the other clubs have been found guilty and sanctioned, unless they can prove their innocence before the end of March.
I think the first port of call for the 'guilty until proven innocent' should be PSG, Man City and Chelsea, unless UEFA are refining their methods of attack with the 'small fry' first.
As it stands now, I'm not convinced - yet.

NeverFeltBetter

21/12/2012, 8:31 PM

Aren't Man City aiming to be profitable in the next few years (without the Shiekh's help I mean)? I know they had a huge loss this year, but from what I read it seemed like they were on course to be within FFP rules over the next few years. There are so many little loopholes. Even Man Utd, so heavily in debt, aren't that far from FFP compliance with their annual losses. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/14/manchester-united-increases-revenue-debt-falls)

osarusan

22/12/2012, 12:04 AM

Slightly linked to financial fair play, who can tell me the top 10 players onthe list of the highest accumulated transfer fees?

Answers on this link (http://www.thehardtackle.com/2012/zlatan-ibrahimovic-to-zinedine-zidane-top-10-accumulated-transfer-fee/), in reverse order (an is, No. 1 has the 10th highest accumulated transfer fees) - I've no idea if it's accurate or not. Some of the numbers seem much higher than I remember. Be careful, as even hovering over the link will give you some answers.

Don't quote the link so others can guess too.

DannyInvincible

22/12/2012, 12:07 AM

Our Robbie's surely up there?

osarusan

22/12/2012, 12:20 AM

6th, I think.

Stuttgart88

22/12/2012, 9:07 AM

Man City and Chelsea aren't in breach of any rules yet. The break-even calculation period is a rolling 3 year period and last season was the first season where the clock started ticking. I think Malaga et al were guilty of non-compliance with the clause that states all tax bills must be up to date.

There are carve outs and loopholes. Infrastructure, community outreach and youth development costs are all taken off the expenditure total. In the first few years any losses up to euro 45mm (then reducing) are allowed as long as an equity cheque is written by the owner. This can not be a loan. Also, if the failure to meet UEFA's break-even calculation is down to losses in the 2011/12 season and due to wages set by contracts signed pre-2010 (?) then this is overlooked.

On the income side clubs must prove that sponsorship deals are set at proper market value. UEFA has the right, for example, to insist that Man City's stadium rights income be recorded at a lower amount than they actually received because it's clear that it was a deal not struck at arm's length from its owner. As one guy asked "what was the second highest offer?".

I'm slightly cynical of the huge amounts City is spending on community outreach. My suspicion is by creating such a large pot of money that can be deducted from the expenditure calculation they'll cut player wages but offer them huge sums for making hospital visits. That kind of thing.

There's a brilliant blog (linked in the post below this one) that details FFP very thoroughly and suggests that City and Chelsea could well meet the criteria because of the carve outs, despite the big headline losses. He suggests that PSG has little chance in a separate blog specific to PSG.

I understand UEFA is very intent on making this work but for me the biggest disappointments are that exclusion from UEFA competition is only a possible sanction, not mandatory, and that even breaches will be allowed if the losses are trending the right way. How woolly is that?

Another interesting part is that clubs exceeding a certain wage to income level (70pc I think) must consult with UEFA about taking remedial action.

Expect a bonanza for lawyers and accountants.

Stuttgart88

22/12/2012, 9:11 AM

I forgot to say that 'non football revenues' are excluded from the revenue calculation. This poses the question of whether Arsenal's property sales and concert and exhibition revenues are allowed to make positive contributions to their FFP calculation. I suspect they are but it's a grey area.

This is essential reading in my opinion - it should even be a sticky at the top of this thread:

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/uefas-ffp-regulations-play-to-win.html?utm_source=BP_recent

Anyone who asks dumb questions about FFP can be directed above from now on!

peadar1987

22/12/2012, 10:10 AM

Glad to hear infrastructure and youth development have been taken off the total, I was worried that FFP might work the opposite way to the intention, by making it very hard for aspiring clubs to make the investment needed to catch up to the big boys, effectively locking the pecking order the way it is for years to come.

Stuttgart88

17/01/2013, 1:31 PM

Another good piece on Man City's likely compliance with FFP

http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/

OwlsFan

18/01/2013, 1:37 PM

BonnieShels

18/01/2013, 1:54 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if the day came when the mega rich or famous clubs formed their own league, something like the NFL, with no promotion or relegation and ignored UEFA, FIFA and any other FA for that matter.

Real Madrid
Barcelona,
Man U
Man C
Arsenal
Bayern M
Chelsea
Juve
Inter Milan
AC Milan
2 French and another German and
Shamrock Rovers

And what an interminably boring league that would be. I would love it to happen and for everyone of them to inadvertantly kill the goose and for them all to collapse.

peadar1987

18/01/2013, 3:39 PM

And what an interminably boring league that would be. I would love it to happen and for everyone of them to inadvertantly kill the goose and for them all to collapse.

It would be a horrible league! And I don't think it would work anyway. Any players associating themselves with it would be banned from all FIFA competitions (like the World Cup), so you'd have a struggle getting a the top players to come to you.

More than than, proper football fans wouldn't be interested in supporting such a blatant commercial entity, they'd be reliant on the barstool armies of the Far East for most of their money. How many of the bandwagon jumpers who say they "support" Manyoo are going to have any interest in watching them finish 7th? They want success, they want it constantly, and they want it immediately.

geysir

18/01/2013, 6:53 PM

UEFA step up their anti-terrorism campaign
Uefa fines Ajax (£10K) over fan banners critical of money at Man City game (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/jan/18/uefa-fines-ajax-banners)

Banner showing the sheikh (moneybags) : 'Against Modern Football'
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Football/Pix/pictures/2013/1/18/1358516098018/Ajax-fans-show-the-banner-008.jpg

Another slogan read "€80 for the away section is ridiculous"

http://admin.radiocms.net/content/000/images/000002/2620_60_news_hub_multi_630x0.jpg

NeverFeltBetter

18/01/2013, 9:00 PM

And what an interminably boring league that would be. I would love it to happen and for everyone of them to inadvertantly kill the goose and for them all to collapse.

I would agree, but it seems to work for American sports.

osarusan

18/01/2013, 10:57 PM

geysir

19/01/2013, 10:38 AM

Didn't Man City fans return some away tickets to Arsenal over ticket prices which were cheaper than they made Ajax fans pay?
But the Man City away fans didn't set the ticket prices for the Ajax fans, did they?
I suppose what it means is that sections of the Man City away support are in agreement with the Ajax away support over the away ticket price structure for the respective competitions, the EPL and the CL.

BonnieShels

19/01/2013, 11:21 AM

I would agree, but it seems to work for American sports.

No way you can compare them.

30 odd teams in each of the big 4. Hockey and Basketball play 80 odd games a season to make cash. Baseball have 162 games in a regular season.
NFL play 16 regular season games but the sponsorship and advertising revenue are on another planet.

geysir

05/02/2013, 10:08 AM

There's an interview in today's Guardian with UEFA's general secretary, Gianni Infantino,
Manchester City and PSG cannot 'cheat' financial fair play, Uefa warns (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/feb/04/manchester-city-financial-fair-play)

Sounds like he's firing a warning shot over the bows at PSG in particular.

"PSG have to respect the rules, they want to respect the rules. They are telling us they want to respect the rules. The FFP rules are there to help the clubs. Uefa doesn't want to sanction the clubs, we want to help them. But sometimes we have to sanction someone to help the clubs."

Clubs that exhibit "warning signs" will be investigated by a panel headed by the former Belgian prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene and sanctions handed down by a separate independent panel.

Uefa's team of 15 accountants will begin analysing figures next spring for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the first period to be monitored under the new break-even regime. Clubs will be allowed an acceptable deviation of up to €45m over those two years, as long as it is met by a benefactor

A benefactor??

BonnieShels

05/02/2013, 10:37 AM

Ah there's the fudge.

Charlie Darwin

16/04/2013, 2:53 PM

Dodge

16/04/2013, 3:06 PM

Yeah, thought the approach Sky sports took with Allardyce was weird. Not a single question to him on does he think its right that spending be linked to turnover?

Charlie Darwin

16/04/2013, 3:09 PM

Surely one of the main reasons backing FFP is that it will stop clubs who can't afford to buying Andy Carroll (et al)?

Stuttgart88

16/04/2013, 6:22 PM

Exactly. Duh.

It might also make the likes of Andy Carroll less expensive.

Stuttgart88

16/04/2013, 6:29 PM

In FFP news, Sam Allardyce fears (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22160271) the new rules could unfairly prevents small working-class clubs like West Ham spending £20 million on Andy Carroll.

Clubs relegated from the English Premier League will now receive £60 million in parachute payments (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22171365) over four years, as opposed to the current £48 million.

And finally, Ken Early has exposed the German football renaissance for the industry-backed sham that it is (http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/bundesliga-%C3%BCber-alles-german-industry-bankrolls-club-success-1.1360134), slating clubs like Bayern Munich for taking the "easy" route and unearthing a network of wealthy sponsors steeped in the local community rather than doing things the correct way and finding a billionaire mullah to bankroll the club from afar.
Dem pesky Germans. Imagine actually having successful businesses spread around the whole country and rooted in their community, as well as well-run football clubs also rooted in their community. Utter tosh. Give me a Thatcherite Devil-take-the-hindmost, spendthrift, short-term focused model of foreign oligarch ownership any day of the week. It's a free market, innit? Mark my words, UEFA will return us to communism before we know it. Our liberties are at risk.

BonnieShels

16/04/2013, 6:56 PM

That article by Early is tosh and not fit for publication.

On the parachute payments which I think are beyond insane...

It's always trumpeted that you need to spend to stay in the EPL and that you need these payments to make the transition to the championship to ensure you don't go bankrupt without your Sky money; but the question has to be asked why are they rewarding over-spending clubs with more money? It beggars belief and makes me wish for the English football explosion to come ever nearer.

Interesting point to note:

For coming bottom of the EPL you will receive £15m; if you win League One you will get £25k as it stands and then the next season you both are in the same division, namely the Championship. MADNESS!

Stuttgart88

16/04/2013, 7:14 PM

Surely the answer is for clubs contract their players on X per week if they're in the EPL but they automatically get reduced to Y per week if they're in the Championship? Or a basic salary with a bonus contingent on staying in the EPL?

Post-Bosman payers hold all the bargaining power with the clubs. It used to be the other way around but it needs to be reversed a bit.

BonnieShels

16/04/2013, 7:15 PM

geysir

16/04/2013, 7:26 PM

That article by Early is tosh and not fit for publication.
Why is it tosh? What points of 'fact' do you dispute?
It's well known that the German clubs have lucrative sponsorship deals with German corporations. Indeed the status quo were crying foul play when Hoffenheim broke into the Bundesliga, not to mention Bayer Leverkusen and their sponsor Bayer AG (the ones who are killing all the bees).

BonnieShels

16/04/2013, 7:42 PM

Why is it tosh? What points of 'fact' do you dispute?
It's well known that the German clubs have lucrative sponsorship deals with German corporations. Indeed the status quo were crying foul play when Hoffenheim broke into the Bundesliga, not to mention Bayer Leverkusen and their sponsor Bayer AG (the ones who are killing all the bees).

It's tosh because Ken is approaching it from the angle of "big bad German clubs will kill our precious La Liga and EPL".

It's not fit for publication because it is a horrible read.

Did I have an issue with facts?

geysir

16/04/2013, 8:55 PM

It's tosh because Ken is approaching it from the angle of "big bad German clubs will kill our precious La Liga and EPL".

It's not fit for publication because it is a horrible read.
That doesn't quite cut the mustard.
Approaching the article earlier today from my usual ... objective ,,,, non agenda perspective, I didn't get that he was implying big bad Germans, precious victims elsewhere. I didn't even get that it was anti- Bundesliga.
He pretty much states that German football progress also has it's financial edge, which just happens to a substantial cutting edge.
It's not all down to football talent, good coaching, loud drunk fans who can get cheap tickets, stand up and follow orders in perfect synch from a megaphone conductor, but there is considerable corporate sponsorship in the mix.

Did I have an issue with facts?
Yes, do you have an issue with the 'facts'?

Stuttgart88

16/04/2013, 8:56 PM

Maybe Early isn't responsible for the sub-editor's headline but there's a clear tone of disapproval of German clubs benefitting from the fact that their clubs and businesses work closely together. Its the way it should be, and at all levels. What Early appears to be saying is that you can scoff all you like at sugar daddy-funded clubs in England but German clubs get a helping hand too. Well, maybe if German clubs weren't mainly community rooted and seen as important local assets (rather than a brand to be tarted out to foreign oligarchs) then their local businesses wouldn't support them as much. Wolfsburg and Bayer are exceptions, having been founded by their businesses, similar to PSV in Holland. These companies presumably have shareholders to report to so won't be spending money frivolously. There's got to be some perceived benefit or CSR angle. Unless you're Milton Friedman, CSR is generally seen as a good thing.

Germany has strong businesses the length and breadth of the country. They also have strong football clubs. It's not a coincidence. Their structures and institutions beat England, Spain and Italy's hands down.

Stuttgart88

16/04/2013, 8:57 PM

Personally I thought bonnie was taking issue with opinions and the way they were presented. I didn't see him complaining about any facts or alleged facts.

Anyway, as I alluded to in the McClean thread when it diverted into political philosophy and fascism etc., I said I had become very interested in "ordoliberalism"', a liberal economic approach that competes with laissez faire but is not a full on shift to interventionism. In both business and football the Germans have designed structures that recognise the downside to ultra liberal marketism so set rules and structures that seek to achieve the desired outcomes of markets but which explicitly curtail the worst tendencies. The Germans have long since recognised the football clubs don't always act rationally and will compete with each other in a financial arms race to buy success, which they can't all achieve.

Sure, there have been many cases of mismanagement and there have been failures and near failures, but there is an acceptance of regulations there that is opposed by many factions in England.

BonnieShels

16/04/2013, 10:12 PM

That doesn't quite cut the mustard.
Approaching the article earlier today from my usual ... objective ,,,, non agenda perspective, I didn't get that he was implying big bad Germans, precious victims elsewhere. I didn't even get that it was anti- Bundesliga.
He pretty much states that German football progress also has it's financial edge, which just happens to a substantial cutting edge.
It's not all down to football talent, good coaching, loud drunk fans who can get cheap tickets, stand up and follow orders in perfect synch from a megaphone conductor, but there is considerable corporate sponsorship in the mix.

Are you now implying that I have an agenda and am not objective the same way you inferred I had an issue with the 'facts' as Ken Early presented them?

There is a clear tone that I, CD, and Stutts and I'm sure many others have picked on that was my main criticism. There is a decent article in there waiting to jump out and in fact if Ken chose to write from the POV of "Look the Germans have loadsa corporate cashmoney as well and they are spending it wisely" then maybe it would warrant more consideration as an article.

The money and the systems bring through the talent and so on and the cycle will repeat itself, no one on here ever assumed it was all down to one or 2 variables that puts the Bundesliga above everything else.

Yes, do you have an issue with the 'facts'?

No, I do not have issue with the facts. Where did I ever say I did or accuse Ken of falsehoods.

POSH, get in here.

Personally I thought bonnie was taking issue with opinions and the way they were presented. I didn't see him complaining about any facts or alleged facts.

Yip, that was my issue.

And you correctly didn't see me complain about facts.

geysir

16/04/2013, 10:16 PM

Personally I thought bonnie was taking issue with opinions and the way they were presented. I didn't see him complaining about any facts or alleged facts.
I have read the article again and I find the perceptions here are off the mark.
What Early doesn't appreciate fully is the return on the investment in coaching structures and the value of such a bountiful return.
Efficiency on the use and distribution of financial resources by some German clubs is way ahead of other models but it's incredibly naive to ignore the role of corporate sponsorship in that. It's not as if Germans have suddenly developed efficiency, but the recent upsurge in corporate sponsorship of clubs like Dortmund and B Munich is phenomenal and is a major factor. Early is not saying that the rise in profile German football is down to the increase in money in their game, he outlines that it's happening. He doesn't go into the important detail of the better use of those considerable financial resources and the fact that the books balance with Bayern and Dortmund.

geysir

16/04/2013, 10:32 PM

Are you now implying that I have an agenda and am not objective the same way you inferred I had an issue with the 'facts' as Ken Early presented them?

There is a clear tone that I, CD, and Stutts and I'm sure many others have picked on that was my main criticism. There is a decent article in there waiting to jump out and in fact if Ken chose to write from the POV of "Look the Germans have loadsa corporate cashmoney as well and they are spending it wisely" then maybe it would warrant more consideration as an article.

The money and the systems bring through the talent and so on and the cycle will repeat itself, no one on here ever assumed it was all down to one or 2 variables that puts the Bundesliga above everything else.

No, I do not have issue with the facts. Where did I ever say I did or accuse Ken of falsehoods.

POSH, get in here.

Yip, that was my issue.

And you correctly didn't see me complain about facts.
Yes Bonnie, facts, once you have your facts, then it's just a matter of the quality of opinions about those facts.
Early got it spot on Bonnie, Dortmund and Bayern in particular are being front loaded by corporate cash, but it's not from shifty foreigners or fly by night betting scammers. It's local and it's stable.
But it's still just lip stick on a pig :)

BonnieShels

16/04/2013, 10:40 PM

Yes Bonnie, facts, once you have your facts, then it's just a matter of the quality of opinions about those facts.
Early got it spot on Bonnie, Dortmund and Bayern in particular are being front loaded by corporate cash, but it's not from shifty foreigners or fly by night betting scammers. It's local and it's stable.
But it's still just lip stick on a pig :)

You still singularly fail to grasp what my main issue was. It is a horribly written article not fit for publication. That Early said nothing wrong is irrelevant.

Who ever doubted that German football wasn't awash with corporate cash?

Stuttgart88

17/04/2013, 7:21 AM

Geysir, my point was that Early appeared to be saying that those who scoff at the EPL model but hold up the Bundesliga are missing the point, because BL clubs also have an unfair subsidy, from their local companies. I did say that maybe the headline contributed to the tone, and headlines are often written by sub-editor not the journalist.

I think there's a chicken and egg element though. If German football wasn't doing the right thing on so many levels maybe corporate sponsorship would be less forthcoming. It's a very attractive brand to be associated with, with good brand values. The EPL brand is much more bling and in your face, and in any event I think the whole German model of how they organise their society deserves success.

geysir

19/04/2013, 12:41 PM

There's a lot to appreciate about the functionality of the whole German social system but I will beg to differ on how they go about the organising of such efficiency.
One day I will tell you the story of how I nearly brought down the German postal system in the late 1970's because I placed my stamps some mm away from the proper location on the envelope and not always straight.

Stuttgart88

20/04/2013, 5:08 PM

Save that one for when I'm next in Reykjavik!

I think Germany has played the euro crisis well for its own ends and has managed to escape a lot of deserved blame for how things panned out, and for how austerity is being rammed down the throats of the club med countries. None of that is anything I support.

That said, I just think their broader economic model is very commendable. In the week that much scrutiny has been applied to Maggie Thatcher's record I think it's worth noting that the German model of, for example, industrial relations was a path she could have chosen. Instead she chose to slash and burn. I don't think Germany would ever have squandered its natural resource assets to fund tax cuts for the rich and influential.

Stuttgart88

16/05/2013, 11:57 AM

I can't post links to the Guardian - my browser and the Guardian website have issues. There'sa bug that means my internet connection closes. Either that our I'm being censored at work against looking at anything left wing.

David Conn was interesting this morning: Scudamore and the FL arguing over financial affairs, parachute payments and interference.

With regard to the whole issue of parachute payments etc., why has the idea of "contingent contracts" never been discussed seriously (or has it?)?

Quite simply, as I see it, football clubs have two buckets of revenue: self-generated (matchday & commercial) and externally-generated (basically anything that is centrally distributed, be it TV money, prize money etc.).

A player signing a contract can be told that his remuneration can contain a fixed amount, budgeted by his club in line with expected self-generated income. The effect of relegation is presumably less draconian on gate receipts than TV money. I'm told that in several cases, such as Southampton, season-ticket sales even rose after relegation as fans grasped the financial reality threatening their club.

A club can then commit to paying an additional amount, taking estimated total comp to the flat figure a player would be offered today. However, this contingent part can be subject to an "adjustment factor":

"New" central distributions / "Old" central distributions

Obviously the devil is in the detail and there'd be a thrust towards maximising the fixed part of the player's comp, but a simple FFP-style cap on self-generated income being spent on wages isn't beyond the wit of man.

I can't see any labour law or EU impediment to this, as there is wrt nationality quotas for example. If the players' lobby argues against it, well tough - and the same clause can be applied to lower division clubs: get promoted, earn MORE money. This symmetry ought to curry favour with those outside the elite. The EPL / FA / FL / UEFA can just say it's for the systemic good and force it through.

Clubs satisfied in their ability to retain their current status have nothing to fear, it assists those with cause for concern over relegation or Champs League non-qualification (it might even allow them to take more risk in player acquisition), and assists those seeking promotion who are threatened by parachute clubs having more financial muscle. Financial stability and competitive integrity are all enhanced.

I can see Scudamore complaining that it'd curtail bottom-half EPL clubs' ability to attract talent, but I'd argue that point. It would even make players more keen to embrace the FA Cup, League Cup and Europa League - the more they progress, the more they'll get paid (existing bonus agreements notwithstanding). It would 100% protect clubs from an ITV Digital / Setanta scenario, or even a Karen Murphy-style "shock" to the whole way rights are sold.

Anyone got any views?

Stuttgart88

16/05/2013, 12:10 PM

That said, I just think Germany's broader economic model is very commendable. In the week that much scrutiny has been applied to Maggie Thatcher's record I think it's worth noting that the German model of, for example, industrial relations was a path she could have chosen. Instead she chose to slash and burn. I don't think Germany would ever have squandered its natural resource assets to fund tax cuts for the rich and influential.

Sorry to quote myself(!) but an article I read in today's Guardian uses German football (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/15/britons-obsess-about-immigration-germans-education) as an analogy in explaining the superiority of their broader economic and social model over Britain's. "While we obsess about the EU, Germany focusses on Education".

Once I open the link my web connection crashes though, so I can't post any quotes but maybe someone can post the bit about German football?

BonnieShels

16/05/2013, 12:34 PM

Here you go Stutts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/may/16/premier-league-championship-parachute-payments

Stuttgart88

16/05/2013, 12:43 PM

Thanks. I was thinking you'd be interested in the German article posted in post 48 above. Basically it's saying that German football is reaping the rewards of long-term strategic thinking, focus on owership models and youth development instead of relying on oligarch funding and an instant gratification culture. This applies to Germany at large too, whereas Britian leaves everything to markets, lets its industry fall prey to big M&A deals, neglects skills and spends its whole time moaning about Europe and welfare spongers (I added that last bit myself).