(05-11-2011, 11:12 AM)Gabriel426 Wrote: More comments on the FFP. I think we will see more players from all over the world. A place like Japan will be gold for a lot of teams.
I certainly see a lot of smaller teams becoming feeder clubs for major teams as that's how these small clubs can balance its sheet. As for the big clubs, the owner/s will eventually pump in more money to buy SHARES. Clubs will get tons of sponsorship money from companies that had no need for marketing on a Football team.
Team Kits will become a walking billboard.
There is actually a movie call Big Shot's Funeral. Starting Donald Sutherland as like a huge Director but apparently is going to die in China soon(but thats not really the case). Sutherland somehow thought planning his funeral can make huge money and it started with bidding for his funeral board casting rights, then bidding for commercials slots, areas, clothes, musics...sponsorship from everyone and anyone..... I really see that happening to clubs after the FFP kicks in.
I see the opposite happening. This age of Big Corporate States, marketing, fake commercialism will die fast. There will be less big spending, of course, but more quality overall ...
(05-11-2011, 03:54 PM)ElMago99 Wrote: (05-11-2011, 11:12 AM)Gabriel426 Wrote: More comments on the FFP. I think we will see more players from all over the world. A place like Japan will be gold for a lot of teams.
I certainly see a lot of smaller teams becoming feeder clubs for major teams as that's how these small clubs can balance its sheet. As for the big clubs, the owner/s will eventually pump in more money to buy SHARES. Clubs will get tons of sponsorship money from companies that had no need for marketing on a Football team.
Team Kits will become a walking billboard.
There is actually a movie call Big Shot's Funeral. Starting Donald Sutherland as like a huge Director but apparently is going to die in China soon(but thats not really the case). Sutherland somehow thought planning his funeral can make huge money and it started with bidding for his funeral board casting rights, then bidding for commercials slots, areas, clothes, musics...sponsorship from everyone and anyone..... I really see that happening to clubs after the FFP kicks in.
I see the opposite happening. This age of Big Corporate States, marketing, fake commercialism will die fast. There will be less big spending, of course, but more quality overall ...
His point is that big clubs will still draw the ratings. As these big clubs need to worry about their bottom line, an alternative to cutting wages would be to increase revenue and that could be done with more advertising on football kits. The smaller clubs won't be able to do the same since advertisers won't sponsor them with the same lucrative deals that Barca or ManU would get. As a result, the smaller clubs will be forced to sell players to meet FFP requirements.
This FFP is not meant to make parity in world football, it's just meant to protect the sport from bankruptcy. You won't be seeing a UCL final between Derby County and Bari anytime soon.
05-11-2011, 04:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-11-2011, 04:44 PM by Gabriel426.)
Dev, I can't believe even you said that Pirlo is not needed.
Anyhow, my point about the FFP is that, it will help and ensure there won't be another Portsmouth, but to think that it is a fair play to all clubs is fantasy. As I really see e rich gets richer and poor gets to be poor.
U can mark m words, sooner of later, clubs will sell the name of the stadium for 5 ys or so. Let's say New Castle sell the stadium name for 5 years. Thus, during home match, commentators will say New Castle is hosting ManU in St. James Park, he/she will say New Castle is hosting ManU in Coca Cola Stadium. That's a great way to generate money.
The only real good point about the FFP is the requirement that owners can't just lend huge sums of money to clubs, but instead must make a capital investment in the club.
What's the difference? In both cases, clubs still get an infusion of funds that they can spend on players, but when the money is received from a loan, the club has to pay that money back, thereby increasing the debt of the club. The risk for someone like Roman is significantly cut if he lends money as opposed to buying shares because should the club ever go under, whatever assets are available must go to the lenders first.
In other words, let's say 100 of us have 1 million each and we all pool our money together and buy a club for 100 million. We each have equal shares in the company. Now let's say I'm extremely rich and decide I want Messi and you all want him too, so I'll put in 100 million more of my money to get him. But instead of buying 100 more shares, I simply lend the money to the club. We then buy Messi. Now all of a sudden, we realize we can't afford all the expenses of running a club. Nobody has any money left - so we go bankrupt. We sell Messi and stadium and all other assets, and after everything is sold, we have 101 million left. Guess what - I'm getting 100 million and we all get to share that last million.
Forcing owners like Roman to actually invest in equity vs debt will decrease outlandish spending since the investment will be so much riskier.
At the end of the day, the owner/s can still use their money to force spending. Then where is the FairPlay in at?
05-11-2011, 05:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-11-2011, 05:17 PM by russo-neri.)
(05-11-2011, 05:07 PM)Gabriel426 Wrote: At the end of the day, the owner/s can still use their money to force spending. Then where is the FairPlay in at?
See my post about equity vs debt. Owners can still spend as much money as they want, but it would need to be invested directly into the club. Owners actually have to commit to investment and not just be an open wallet of money that the club can use when it wants to.
(05-11-2011, 04:40 PM)Gabriel426 Wrote: U can mark m words, sooner of later, clubs will sell the name of the stadium for 5 ys or so. Let's say New Castle sell the stadium name for 5 years. Thus, during home match, commentators will say New Castle is hosting ManU in St. James Park, he/she will say New Castle is hosting ManU in Coca Cola Stadium. That's a great way to generate money.
Thats what we have in the states. Most arenas and stadiums are named after coporations. Staples Center in LA, Citi Field in NY. Minute Maid park in Houston (formerly Enron). Only certain venues have refrained from taking corporate names like Madison Square Garden. Even Yankee Stadium, which keeps its name sans sponsorship because of traditiion has sold naming rights for their stairwells!
It is a smart way to get extra revenue. This may sound strange outside the US, but note - the US still hasn't gone the way of seeling advertising on player jerseys/kits. You won't see any Samsung lable on a Laker or Yankee jersey, but it's only a matter of time before you do.
(05-11-2011, 04:58 PM)russo-neri Wrote: The only real good point about the FFP is the requirement that owners can't just lend huge sums of money to clubs, but instead must make a capital investment in the club.
What's the difference? In both cases, clubs still get an infusion of funds that they can spend on players, but when the money is received from a loan, the club has to pay that money back, thereby increasing the debt of the club. The risk for someone like Roman is significantly cut if he lends money as opposed to buying shares because should the club ever go under, whatever assets are available must go to the lenders first.
In other words, let's say 100 of us have 1 million each and we all pool our money together and buy a club for 100 million. We each have equal shares in the company. Now let's say I'm extremely rich and decide I want Messi and you all want him too, so I'll put in 100 million more of my money to get him. But instead of buying 100 more shares, I simply lend the money to the club. We then buy Messi. Now all of a sudden, we realize we can't afford all the expenses of running a club. Nobody has any money left - so we go bankrupt. We sell Messi and stadium and all other assets, and after everything is sold, we have 101 million left. Guess what - I'm getting 100 million and we all get to share that last million.
Forcing owners like Roman to actually invest in equity vs debt will decrease outlandish spending since the investment will be so much riskier.
i thought the FFP was something that would curb borrowing of money and allow clubs to spend only from the revenues that we generate after each season and if that includes the players salary i dont really know. Coz i remember reading this article somewhere bout Galliani complaining of how bad the FFP would be for clubs generating smaller revenues and he gave Real and MU as examples coz they sort of generate twice as much as we do.
05-11-2011, 06:56 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-11-2011, 07:05 PM by Hasan Rossonero.)
(05-11-2011, 06:13 PM)tim_milan Wrote: (05-11-2011, 04:58 PM)russo-neri Wrote: The only real good point about the FFP is the requirement that owners can't just lend huge sums of money to clubs, but instead must make a capital investment in the club.
What's the difference? In both cases, clubs still get an infusion of funds that they can spend on players, but when the money is received from a loan, the club has to pay that money back, thereby increasing the debt of the club. The risk for someone like Roman is significantly cut if he lends money as opposed to buying shares because should the club ever go under, whatever assets are available must go to the lenders first.
In other words, let's say 100 of us have 1 million each and we all pool our money together and buy a club for 100 million. We each have equal shares in the company. Now let's say I'm extremely rich and decide I want Messi and you all want him too, so I'll put in 100 million more of my money to get him. But instead of buying 100 more shares, I simply lend the money to the club. We then buy Messi. Now all of a sudden, we realize we can't afford all the expenses of running a club. Nobody has any money left - so we go bankrupt. We sell Messi and stadium and all other assets, and after everything is sold, we have 101 million left. Guess what - I'm getting 100 million and we all get to share that last million.
Forcing owners like Roman to actually invest in equity vs debt will decrease outlandish spending since the investment will be so much riskier.
i thought the FFP was something that would curb borrowing of money and allow clubs to spend only from the revenues that we generate after each season and if that includes the players salary i dont really know. Coz i remember reading this article somewhere bout Galliani complaining of how bad the FFP would be for clubs generating smaller revenues and he gave Real and MU as examples coz they sort of generate twice as much as we do.
This is my understanding of it too. Russo-neri excellent posts btw.
The trick is to increase revenue, and this is where we fall short. Now, of course I think that owners can get around this by using tricks (which have been discussed several days ago on these forums), but I see Italian football losing out with this new legislation.
We have a deal with the city council that ties us to the San Siro until 2016. That means a huge loss in terms of revenue because we won't even get to own our stadium until then (and indeed, if then, because it is certainly not clear-cut whether we have any real plans to build; plus there are other limitations on us building). Juve, meanwhile, are doing the right thing. Their stadium will be ready next year, and they will start earning a lot more than other clubs in Italy in terms of gate receipts etc. Or so is the theory.
(05-11-2011, 06:56 PM)Hasan Rossonero Wrote: This is my understanding of it too. Russo-neri excellent posts btw.
The trick is to increase revenue, and this is where we fall short. Now, of course I think that owners can get around this by using tricks (which have been discussed several days ago on these forums), but I see Italian football losing out with this new legislation.
We have a deal with the city council that ties us to the San Siro until 2016. That means a huge loss in terms of revenue because we won't even get to own our stadium until then (and indeed, if then, because it is certainly not clear-cut whether we have any real plans to build; plus there are other limitations on us building). Juve, meanwhile, are doing the right thing. Their stadium will be ready next year, and they will start earning a lot more than other clubs in Italy in terms of gate receipts etc. Or so is the theory.
Absolutely right. N let me add that our influence in the Asian markets is a factor as a well. Italian clubs are not being marketed as well as compared to Real, MU or as a matter of fact any club in the EPL. We need a to extend our influence in Asia much more considering the Asian economy is definitely something that would help boost our revenues.
05-11-2011, 08:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-11-2011, 08:24 PM by Hitman.)
(05-11-2011, 11:38 AM)Siregar Wrote: (05-11-2011, 11:00 AM)Hitman Wrote: can we sell pato for 45m, let pirlo go, and sign in ganso and neymar instead of the two? Just saying.... fed up of Pato's inconsistency. Can't depend on the kid... He's a total different player than the 17 year old we signed.. that kid was so strong mentally and was ready to carry us even when we had Kaka and Ronaldo in the team... now he's just a tall muscular chicken that can't handle pressure... yeah he's going to be a great, but we aren't arsenal, we want great players nowww not in 3 years.... Pato's problem is not talent, but he is weak mentally... reminds me of Gilardino these days.
No, we can't. 
Neymar compare to Pato? No way. Neymar is still unproven while Pato has showed that he is capable scorer in Serie A.
a tall muscular chicken that can't handle pressure? only cos of last game? how many chances actually he got? he didn't play well last night but so were the team.
pato inconsistent, so who is consistent? ibrahimovic? robinho? cassano? none of our strikers are consistent. i can name games where they showed inconsistency.
give me information please player similar age (or younger) BETTER than pato who are consistent?
my god dude you have a head made of brick, READ what I said, I did not say just because of one game, but he's been this bad for most of the season..
and actually Robinho has been one of the most consistent strikers in Serie A, he has hardly ever had a bad game... he only misses many easy chances but he adds so much to the team play... despite him being weak, he always distributes the play properly, holds the ball when, makes the team tick..... Pato on the other hand, when he isn't playing well (80% of the season) he is not even in the game, every pass he gets, he wastes it by a stupid pass, or tries to dribble and loses it........ this Pato is not the same Pato from 3 years ago.... this pato is not good enough for Milan.
and about other 21 year old consistent strikers in the world? you see, I don't think you understand what the word consistent means, anyway this is not an english class so look it up... players that are MORE consistent than Pato at his age and perform at a good level:
Messi, Cristiano (when they were at his age), G.Rossi, Hulk, Chicharito, Pastore (not a striker though), Neymar (much better than Pato if you actually took time to watch a full game of him, and he's only 18).... you see that's just off the top of my head, but the thing is - NONE of these players were bought for 20m at 18 years old... I really liked Pato in his first two years at Milan, but now he is so frustrating because he is hardly in form... when he plays good he truly is a joy and can easily be one of the best, but we can't wait forever for this kid to mature up and find consistency...
|
