What took UEFA 18+ years?

Alivey · by **Alivey** » 20 Sep 2009 18:34

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/footbal ... 256279.stm

Seems to be that Platini is helping out the English clubs in Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and United by making it even more impossible to compete, without City's wealth no teams will really be able to compete against the Top Four and we will go back to golf clapping Everton, Villa, etc into being weak challengers to make it feel like there is some form of competition going on. The Sheiks at City have done alot for City fans, and if it came down to Reading being taken over by an owner I would much rather have them than the Glazers. City ticket prices went down, they are building new areas around the stadium that needed to be updated and genuinely want to form a connection with the supporters and their money really exists. Surely people like Roman and Sheikh actually have their money in the hands, which seems a more secure way to have money than the Liverpool/Glazers that just seem to be borrowing and other means. The drawbridge into the Big Four will truly be raised and that is the future of football. RIP.

prostak · by **prostak** » 21 Sep 2009 01:38

Have you followed the takeovers of United or Liverpool at all? Neither would've passed the criteria being outlined in this proposal. If anything, I think this forcing of teams to live within their means can only be beneficial to the likes of Everton and Villa, who have been at least attempting to do just that for some time now. I think your ire is misplaced.

Alivey · by **Alivey** » 21 Sep 2009 02:54

prostak wrote:Have you followed the takeovers of United or Liverpool at all? Neither would've passed the criteria being outlined in this proposal. If anything, I think this forcing of teams to live within their means can only be beneficial to the likes of Everton and Villa, who have been at least attempting to do just that for some time now. I think your ire is misplaced.

Why would United and Liverpool agree with something they are not included in?

Dirk Gently · by **Dirk Gently** » 21 Sep 2009 08:04

I think what you're trying to say, in a rambling and fairly incoherent way, is that it's much better to be given lots of money by a new owners than to be taken over with a massive amount of debt - so as long as money given to you is donated with no strings attached that's OK.

As it happens, the current wording of the Football League's salary capping rules agree with you - Notts County are able to pay Sol Campbell massive sums because the money their Arab is giving them is a gift, so counts as income for the salary cap rules - if the same rules applied in the PL then the money that Abramovich has lent to Chelsea (i.e. it appears on the balance sheet as "debt") wouldn't be allowed.

prostak · by **prostak** » 22 Sep 2009 03:15

Alivey wrote: Why would United and Liverpool agree with something they are not included in?

I'm sorry, I've read this a few times now and I still don't understand your question. Are you suggesting these two clubs are supportive of this proposal, because I can't see where it mentions that in your linked article?

Barry the bird boggler · by **Barry the bird boggler** » 22 Sep 2009 08:11

prostak wrote:
Alivey wrote: Why would United and Liverpool agree with something they are not included in?
I'm sorry, I've read this a few times now and I still don't understand your question. Are you suggesting these two clubs are supportive of this proposal, because I can't see where it mentions that in your linked article?

It says - "The teams who play in our tournaments have unanimously agreed to our principles"