Yes and I also think they should lower the financial rewards of Champions League to make all leagues across Europe more competetive and more about the sport than the money.
I like Platini, genuine legend of the game and someone who's clearly trying to be progressive.
But, I don't really understand why there's so much hoo-ha about clubs being bought on debt, and yet continue to spend. Purchases of other businesses generally work like this. If you bought a house you probably borrowed money to do it. You probably still think it's OK to go and splash out on a few luxuries.
Let's face it, football has never been entirely funded by gate money. Of course, the Leeds/Lazio/Luton examples of clubs that were spending money that they never had any realistic prospect of generating, shouldn't happen, but I can't see any issues with what the Glazers have done. I love that all those FC United goons sped off claiming that "their club" (the world's biggest glory-hunter repository at least since the 60s), is somehow on the brink - basically because they're too dim to understand the concept of corporate debt. Back to back championships and a European cup kind of suggest otherwise, but never mind...
Real Madrid have lived in the red for over 60+ years.......and are by far and away the worst offenders anywhere in the world.........to this day a nod and a wink goes hand in hand with anything financial in the world of politics and Real Madrid.........stinks to high heaven!
At last guesstimate(I saw this figure a year or two back) they were more that £650,000,000 in the red!
Kind of a special case, though. It's not like they're in any danger of not paying their debts. I can imagine if you support a club in Spain, that you're going to hate them, though.
Was thinking about this the other day. Is it implausible that a group with more money than sense could set up a franchise league someplace - kind of IPL-style? For a number of clubs TV and gate money are dwarfed by what the owners put in - and if the owners aren't from Manchester or Portsmouth or London why do they need to locate over here. Players will go where the bucks are - particularly if enough good players go there to make sure the standard is high.
Interesting comparison, but it didn't really get past stage one because there wasn't a sustainable revenue model in that market and the product wasn't actually good enough to sell it anywhere else so there wasn't the TV or gate money to sustain it. When the prem first started a lot of the "top" foreign players coming over were good pros but near the end of their career or they'd failed elsewhere (Bergkamp, Zola, Vialli, Cantona), which was kind of the Cosmos model, but with an established fanbase. The standard was an improvement, but not brilliant and that was reflected in European competition. But, it then built up from there. If you look at how much the standard has increased in 15 years, it's unbelievable. With a 20 year plan I don't see why it would be impossible to do it someplace else. If Robinho is prepared to go to Citeh I can't see why he'd not go to Qatar if there was a critical mass of other players over there.
He always says these things against English clubs, never the slightest bit of criticism about real spending money the government underwrite to banks, or the grounds built by local councils all over Europe. He cannot abide the English and hates our recent success in Europe. But then he is french and their teams have always done feck all in Europe, even less trophies than the sweats I would imagine, so no wonder he is bitter.
Accept he has a hang up about the success of English teams in Europe - strange really give the handful of english players who actual make up those teams - but the Manc (teams), Liverpool, Chelsea etc living beyond their means ain't good for the English game either. Only a matter of time before the whole thing implodes and the Premiership ends up like the SPL (IMO).
Comments
But, I don't really understand why there's so much hoo-ha about clubs being bought on debt, and yet continue to spend. Purchases of other businesses generally work like this. If you bought a house you probably borrowed money to do it. You probably still think it's OK to go and splash out on a few luxuries.
Let's face it, football has never been entirely funded by gate money. Of course, the Leeds/Lazio/Luton examples of clubs that were spending money that they never had any realistic prospect of generating, shouldn't happen, but I can't see any issues with what the Glazers have done. I love that all those FC United goons sped off claiming that "their club" (the world's biggest glory-hunter repository at least since the 60s), is somehow on the brink - basically because they're too dim to understand the concept of corporate debt. Back to back championships and a European cup kind of suggest otherwise, but never mind...
At last guesstimate(I saw this figure a year or two back) they were more that £650,000,000 in the red!
Was thinking about this the other day. Is it implausible that a group with more money than sense could set up a franchise league someplace - kind of IPL-style? For a number of clubs TV and gate money are dwarfed by what the owners put in - and if the owners aren't from Manchester or Portsmouth or London why do they need to locate over here. Players will go where the bucks are - particularly if enough good players go there to make sure the standard is high.
Platini is right, clubs have to start living closer to their means, but how do you enforce it?
Without a multi-millionaire owner there's no point being in the Premiership.
They would argue they do live within their means.