Dameerto wrote:This was the logic I didnt understand the last time it was an issue on here - they seem to want to discriminate against investment but have no problems with debt-ridden clubs
I'm not sure. I read a very good article yesterday somewhere that made it pretty clear that Platini's main aim is not to target the clubs per se, but to try and regulate the disparity between the "haves" and "have nots", but without going to the extreme of the US NFL route of drafts, or Rugby League's salary caps.
My perception of this is that it is GOOD for football, regardless of each team's individual interest. By limiting the spending of the clubs, it means that this should regulate transfer fees and wages. However I can easily see where a wealthy sponsor could sponsor a number of players on high salaries. For example in League 2 where they already have a cap of sorts, i understand that Gary Neville sponsors the wages of Andy Bishop at Bury which is off Bury's balance sheet.
My biggest concern about exploiting the potential loopholes though, is that we see a situation where an incredibly ambitious club like ourselves pushes the envelope too far, and end up with points deductions for breaching rules (like happens annually in Rugby league), or even relegation or a ban from European competition to set an example.
The clubs that will always struggle will be the Uniteds, Barcelonas, Real Madrids, etc because they will take forever to pay down their debts, and servicing the liability will automatically reduce their ability to compete in the transfer markets and pay top dollar wages. Until a benefactor takes them over, they will remain in this circle of debt and will struggle to move forwards. As the transfer market becomes more normalised, the clubs without debt, eg us, Chelsea, will be able to exploit this, and still sign the top players on greatly reduced terms than would be the case today.
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 12:57 pm