• Current Donation Goals

Martin1905

Conte, stay or go?

Recommended Posts

Ham   
47 minutes ago, East Lower said:

It would be so easy for UEFA to ensure FFP was enforceable, as DWMH states they do not have the will (or balls) to do so. 

Man City's main sponsor - ETIHAD Airways consistently lose a lot of of money, so much so that most 'real' commercial business's could not sustain them and would go out of business very quickly. They lost $1.87billion on a turnover of $8.36billion in their financial year ending 2016 and expected that position to not improve the next year. They have been accused of massaging their accounts for years and up to recently would not release them for scrutiny. They are continually bankrolled by their nation.

Most other football clubs main sponsors have to operate in the real commercial world of profit & loss and have shareholders or private boards of directors to pacify. All UEFA need do is put constraints on sponsors based on profitability of their business and rate of sponsorship based on turnover and profit.

Since the FFP rules have been put into place, Chelsea have attempted to operate within these rules, Christian Purslow was interviewed within the last 6 months and stated that RA no longer wanted to keep having to write cheques to cover the financial gaps and hasn't done so for the last threes seasons. Until the oil rich Emerati are made to play by the same rules, there will be the disparity in spending power we see currently. 

In the real world, and if a company lost nearly £2bn in one financial year they'd surely ask themselves "Are our sponsorships working/helping us?" and the obvious conclusion would be that it wasn't.  If that isn't reason enough for UEFA to be suspicious of this nepotistic scam I don't know what is.

 What's even more unusual is that the press refuse to question the source of their "income".  They either believe it to be genuine, which is unlikely, or they're afraid to say it. 

Similar to the Madeline McCann case or Hillsborough. 

Try the Daily Mail comments section on any one of those subjects and your comment won't appear unless it's positive. 

I received a warning email from them stating that questioning the legitimacy of their sponsorships had drawn a number of complaints and it was removed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Ham said:

Similar to the Madeline McCann case or Hillsborough. 

Try the Daily Mail comments section on any one of those subjects and your comment won't appear unless it's positive. 

I received a warning email from them stating that questioning the legitimacy of their sponsorships had drawn a number of complaints and it was removed.

No idea about McCann, but yes like Hillsborough.

But to be fair to the DM, they are one of the few sites still to have comment sections open on controversial issues.  Most just don't open for comments on any topic which either might need some moderation or where there is likely to be criticism of reporting on the topic.

(plus full marks to them if they told you your comment was removed, I suspect that is quite unusual).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kev61   
7 hours ago, Droy was my hero said:

I wish - but he'll turn us down until we get the squad sorted first.

You wish him back again!!.Would you say things are going very nicely for utd at the moment?.They are without doubt the most boring team that have held a top two spot for a very long time.

Imo Utd have overachieved this season they will decline in the near future(next 3 years) and Mourhino will be in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons - money spent - entertaining football and league position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kev61 said:

You wish him back again!!.Would you say things are going very nicely for utd at the moment?.They are without doubt the most boring team that have held a top two spot for a very long time.

I'd love him back, but we really aren't good enough for him right now.  Man U have just had their first decent year since SAF left.  He has achieved a great deal there and his reputation has risen yet again.

Oh I do love these posts where you can simply state the undebatable and obvious truth and still wind up people watch people wind themselves up enormously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kev61   

Mourinho reminds me of David blaine - when you see him for the first time you are impressed  - however when you see the same thing over and over again the "magic" wears off and you see someone that has been found out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

I'd love him back, but we really aren't good enough for him right now. 

Quick! Pass the sick bag......

36 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

and his reputation has risen yet again.

No. It hasn't - not with the United faithful.

36 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

Oh I do love these posts where you can simply state the undebatable and obvious truth and still wind up people watch people wind themselves up enormously.

You're way too clever for the rest of us here - but then you always knew that, didn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Tucker said:

You're way too clever for the rest of us here - but then you always knew that, didn't you?


Please do not feed the ego... even in jest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JaneB said:

Me neither although I definitely don't want Sarri.

I mean, does anyone actually know where Conte is atm? He might be planning for the new season with the club for all we know.

And it's not just him they'd have to sack but all the back room staff as well. Surely they all need to know where they stand don't they?

Well seeing as he is our head coach (and no one has said otherwise) and is still taking an extraordinary large wage packet from us every week, I'm assuming he is in Russia looking at players that he can recommend to the board. Whether he feels it will be him in charge or not in the future, that is his job and it would imo be a dereliction of duty if he wasn't there . If he's there I'm sure Roman is making sure he's well looked after and has an access all areas pass.That's the advantage of a Russian owner I suppose. Sadly I expect he's lying on a beach somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, paulw66 said:

Which is false.......as described hereunder:

There is no "think" about it. They spend ludicrous amounts (far more than we ever have) on transfers and wages. Players leave City on free transfers, they generate nothing in sales. We buy Morata, and sell Costa. They buy £130m on full backs after tossing aside Clichy, Kolorav, Zabaleta and Sagna. The maths just don't add up. The biggest revenue comes from TV money, and that is evenly distributed. 

False? The turnover they register is the turnover they have recieved. Surely you are not claiming that they do not register all their turnover? That would be wuite a serious beach and may lead to prison sentences. 

The Deloitte Money League for 2018 had the following to say;

5. Man C EUR 528m

8. Chelsea EUR 428m 

The EUR 100m difference can be found in the following;

Matchday income:

Chelsea: EUR 76,2m

Man C: EUR 60.4m

Commercial: 

Chelsea: EUR 162.7m

Man C: EUR 230.5m

TV:

Chelsea: EUR 189.1m

Man C: EUR 236.8m

Now, my point is this. How can Man C only make EUR 100m more than us, but spend so much more on players (and wages, seriously their starting XI are all on massive money - we're talking Hazard money). Sterling rumoured to be on 250k/week for example. What you think Aguero, De Bruyne, Silva etc are on? 

Something is amiss like Bob said. Unless Man C are guilty of serious accounting fraud, instead of only recieving sponsorships that are far above market value from related parties, I'm leaning towards us not doing very well when it comes to growing our revenue base/controlling our cost base. I'm struggling to see how they can spend so much more than us and still post small profits while we don't spend anywhere near what they do and post small to rather large losses. Their wages are higher than ours. What cost do we have that is crippling us to that extent?  

18 hours ago, Droy was my hero said:

It is not the TV money - it is purely commercial revenue and of course it is a fix - a bluff that UEFA have chosen not to call.  
FFP is over - UEFA doesn't have the balls to enforce it (or knows it is probably against EU law).

What we have at Chelsea is self-chosen FFP, or simply RA no longer feels he should be throwing more money at the club.   Given how far we are ahead of City and PSG in terms of recent achievements, surely that is right.

(see Mark and Paul)

See above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, The_Ghost said:

Now, my point is this. How can Man C only make EUR 100m more than us, but spend so much more on players (and wages, seriously their starting XI are all on massive money - we're talking Hazard money). ...

There are different ways of asking that question so:

1.  How can they spend so much? - they are borrowing money from their parent (same as we did in noughties)

2.  How can they stay within FFP? - they can't.  FFP is a simple set of rules.  It is not possible to stay within FFPP.

3.  How can they not get punished by UEFA?  2 answers (in practice probably some of both)

A.  UEFA are scared of punishing PSG and City properly.  There is a great deal of scope withiin FFP to not punish or to assert that short term losses will only be short term and so can ignored.  So City have called UEFAs bluff completely.  (Some might guess at some corruption here, but simple cowardice and lack of pressure from other clubs might explain this)

B.  There are strong EU & UK laws against distorting competition.  FFP punishments (if implemented in full) very clearly break the rules.  If UEFA punished City or PSG they could find the whole FFP thing destroyed at in the courts, and it would be UEFA under threat of large fines and potentially imprisonment for their key staff.  Not City or PSG.  
(I see the earlier squad limitations for City and PSG as a compromise - a punishment the clubs could accept without challenging FFP in court, and thus allowing FFP to continue a bit longer).

In the long run FFP has always been illegal and doomed.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now