Khaldoon Interview In The Guardian

[Slim]

So how is Platini going to get the information ? HE simply cannot breach Company laws to get it. It can only be a voluntary action on behalf of the owners.

But he can refuse to allow us into Europe if we don't.

Don't be silly he can do nothing of the sort. Secondly, if he doesn't watch himself, I believe he could be out of a job. He's made enough enemies opening up that mouth of his. Just like his mentor old Seppli, these two are not only disliked in England.

Btw, if you want me to hurl abuse at Sepp - like the crazy psychologist in 'Local Hero' let me know, I can easily run past his office on my way home and give him a good talking too.

You mean the cunt that promised Oceania an automatic spot in the world cup and then once he had our votes and was back in office refused to give it to us so we had to join Asia qualifying just to get into the world cup?

Got a firearm handy?

[Beefymcfc]

Quite simple, if we do not show them the books they don't allow us into Europe!

On another note, I like the way that Khaldoon goes from not really knowing about the new rules but then mentions the business aspect. He states that these regulations will lead to the already major clubs staying in that position with no chance of the smaller clubs having a chance. Then he goes on, slight of hand I suppose (like a Poker Player), and mentions that as it stands, all clubs are a business. So reading between the lines, is he inferring that this is then a 'Monopoly', and does anyone know what happens when businesses have the 'Monopoly' in the market place?

It's good to see that our custodians are wealthy, but it's even better to know that they are Wise in the World of Business. I'm impressed!

Not monopoly: cartel, although the EU are tougher on them. Khaldoon wasn't talking about anything that drastic. He's going to get the little clubs to fight his corner. The rest of the clubs have a lot of power if and when they're forced to act.

This regulation will lower costs for owners, they all want that but everyone know they can't do it unilaterally. They have to compel everyone else to follow suit. But these regulations are designed to let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer until eventually there's a breakaway. But clubs rely on the prospect that they may someday break into the top4. There are a lot of wealthy owners in the prem, if UEFA change the rules to discourage new investors from buying clubs for big money then they've just made a group of very bitter enemies: owners who'd been looking for an exit strategy, especially at a profit. The price of clubs like West Ham, Spurs, Newcastle, Sunderland (us pre-takeover too) etc. will sink like a stone.

The other thing about salary caps is that they have the odd side effect of automatically lowering the wages of non-franchise players who want to play for one of those teams. There's only so much your agent can squeeze the chairman for so eventually you end up with players taking pay cuts to stay at a club that will give them a chance of winning. They couldn't give you more money if they wanted to.

But that same factor is a complete nightmare for anyone wanting to break into the top club. You automatically have a smaller pool of money and it doesn't go as far (worse than now).

Very true mate, very true.

[Somerset Blue]

I'd like to add that I think Khaldoon is the classiest man in the prem by a large distance.

Agree - opposite end of the spectrum to Sulamain Al Fahim at Pompey, who looked a right chav when we played them.

[Slim]

I'd like to add that I think Khaldoon is the classiest man in the prem by a large distance.

Genuine class, sharp dresser and seems to love City. If I was gay for anyone....

[Im_Spartacus]

Platini is also saying that it is ok for the English rich clubs to fund their success on debt.

We do seem to be being pushed onto the outside on this issue. I am sure that the club know the details of any proposals in full and have plans in place to negate this problem.

UEFA would have a problem policing these rules if we get a 100m a year sponsorship deal from Etihad. I can only think that this is the logical way to get round this legitimately.

It would give us a huge advantage, as there are not many clubs owned and sponsored by the same benefactor.

Next rule of course will be that sponsorship from a company controlled by the same owner of the club would constitute a conflict of interest and will not be allowed.

[JonnyAsh]

I really don't see these changes being a benefit to UEFA in the long run. Currently, the best teams in the national leagues qualify for The Champions League, and the winner is arguably the best team in Europe.

Under the new rules, this will not happen. Not necessarily the best teams in the respective leagues will qualify, and therefore the winners cannot be guaranteed to be the best football team. The only thing certain is the winner will have an acceptable set of accounts.

what other competition is decided on anything other than the best team ? It will undermine the whole Champions league, and if for instance there are 8 or 9 teams barred, who are better than those allowed in, the tournament will become a mockery and a laughing stock. It reminds me when Virginia Wade won Wimbledon only because most of the rest were on some some sort of boycott. She would never have won it otherwise, and even though it was nice to see a Brit win, no one can say she was the best Woman player in the world then.

[Blue Since 76]

How are they going to work out our revenue and expenditure? Expenditure will be wages plus transfers, possibly, although the players are assets, so can be offset. Revenue? I assume it's the Sky money, plus tickets, plus sponsorships plus other events where we make money e.g. weddings at the stadium.

If the price of a couple of seats in the Colin Bell stand was £50m a season, surely that's revenue. Might struggle to get many takers, but I bet we could find one if we looked really hard. Similarly, if the Abu Dhabi Tourist Board became an official sponsor at £100m a season, that has to be revenue too. Hence, we are profitable. If we get into the Champions League, we'll be as profitable as anyone else anyway, the only distortion is that we aren't getting the vast amount of income the status quo get for competing in it.

Anyway, if that fails, we just buy UEFA and burn it down.

[TonyM]

I wish someone on here supported what Platini wants so we could find out more of the rational behind it (in between the abuse the poor bugger would get). What annoys me most about the whole thing is that I can't for the life of me understand what Platini is trying to protect and what his ideal end game would be (assuming for now that it truely isn't as ridiculous as protecting just the current top clubs). Maybe some decent journalist out there will try to give us some insight some day..... (who am I kidding).

[TonyM]

To answer my own question with a what if...

What if Platini wanted all clubs to compete on an equal footing, with the same expenditure for players for example, or maybe to some degree the expenditure being relative to the operating costs (excluding staff wage/transfer costs which would have to be equal to be fair) so that those with larger stadiums etc are not at a competitive disadvantage, and all income being capped so that the more "attractive" clubs don't gain an advantage), etc, then I'd be all for it.

Yes we'd loses the advantage we have today but I'd accept it. Basically every season would start as a blank canvass and the game would be way more interesting.

Sky and other TV companies wouldn't give two hoots as the cost for them wouldn't change and the audience should be still there willing to pay to watch the drama unfold anew each season.

Everyone, and perhaps even Platini, would be happy, except for the current elite and perhaps some of the players who'd presumably be capped at a certain wage. Yes United may be able to convince more of the best players to play for them and Hull would find it difficult but I'd accept that.

But if we are not after a truely fair competition then honestly it's tough to think of any other reason for the changes Platini is calling for other than protectionism of the current elite. God, it'd be so nice to think that people within the game of football where interested in fairness and honesty.

[ronk]

I wish someone on here supported what Platini wants so we could find out more of the rational behind it (in between the abuse the poor bugger would get). What annoys me most about the whole thing is that I can't for the life of me understand what Platini is trying to protect and what his ideal end game would be (assuming for now that it truely isn't as ridiculous as protecting just the current top clubs). Maybe some decent journalist out there will try to give us some insight some day..... (who am I kidding).

Platini wants French clubs to be rich enough to be able to afford French players & to do things like compete regularly for the Champions League. Really simple to understand him. He has a populist streak so he doesn't want to have to fight for everything. Then just figure out how it potentially helps French teams or levels the playing field for them.

[TonyM]

I wish someone on here supported what Platini wants so we could find out more of the rational behind it (in between the abuse the poor bugger would get). What annoys me most about the whole thing is that I can't for the life of me understand what Platini is trying to protect and what his ideal end game would be (assuming for now that it truely isn't as ridiculous as protecting just the current top clubs). Maybe some decent journalist out there will try to give us some insight some day..... (who am I kidding).

Platini wants French clubs to be rich enough to be able to afford French players & to do things like compete regularly for the Champions League. Really simple to understand him. He has a populist streak so he doesn't want to have to fight for everything. Then just figure out how it potentially helps French teams or levels the playing field for them.

But does he want the entire league of clubs in France to have an equal chance or just those with the most revenue, i.e. those with the bigger fanbase , stadiums and merchandising departments, in which case PSG will be saved and the teams I can't even think of, as folks in France probably don't know Portsmouth etc, just become feeder clubs to the elite?

[Slim]

Haven't Lyon won everything domestically for the past 7 years? (I think they have missed one domestic cup in that time) If he can't even get ONE team that dominates France up to a competitive level then he has bugger all chance of getting a big four established in europe.

[ThisIsOurCity]

"I could accept the argument if we were artificially building up the club through debt," Khaldoon said. "That produces a destructive end result; we have seen that happen. But in our case, the club will be in the healthiest position because there is no debt. We have funded it through equity [permanent investment], including the signing of the players.

My favourite part of this article, even if our owners walked away tomorrow we would still be debt free, anyway Platini
speaks with forked tongue, as shown in this article by Martin Samuel, "fairness" is the last thing UEFA care about


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1213742/Martin-Samuel-Going-Hungary-despite-feasting-table.html

[john68]

Ronk, I was aware of the statement the Sheik made regarding not knowing the rules, but I think it inconceivable that he isn't fully aware of every aspect of what is going on in UeFA's corridors (or anyone elses) of power.

For those who are looking at why all this is going on and looking for fair play and competition reasons...Forget it. UeFA is the lapdog of the powerful cartel clubs and this is all about money and their greed....no matter how they try to dress it up.

[Socrates]

I really don't see these changes being a benefit to UEFA in the long run. Currently, the best teams in the national leagues qualify for The Champions League, and the winner is arguably the best team in Europe.

Under the new rules, this will not happen. Not necessarily the best teams in the respective leagues will qualify, and therefore the winners cannot be guaranteed to be the best football team. The only thing certain is the winner will have an acceptable set of accounts.

what other competition is decided on anything other than the best team ? It will undermine the whole Champions league, and if for instance there are 8 or 9 teams barred, who are better than those allowed in, the tournament will become a mockery and a laughing stock. It reminds me when Virginia Wade won Wimbledon only because most of the rest were on some some sort of boycott. She would never have won it otherwise, and even though it was nice to see a Brit win, no one can say she was the best Woman player in the world then.

Off topic but your memory needs testing. By far and away the number 1 player in the world in 1977 was Chris Evert, who Wade beat in the Wimbledon Semi that year. It was a year before Navratilova's major breakthrough and was after the decline of Billie Jean King and Margeret Court. A boycott was threatened that year but came to nothing. Evert herself was the WTA President at the time, and was leading the calls for equality of pay, so if there had have been a boycott she definitely wouldn't have been playing! 1973 was the year when there was a boycott and the Ladies Champion that year was Billie Jean King. Difficult to be too critical of her, given that it was her sixth...

[mr_nool]

Quite simple, if we do not show them the books they don't allow us into Europe!

On another note, I like the way that Khaldoon goes from not really knowing about the new rules but then mentions the business aspect. He states that these regulations will lead to the already major clubs staying in that position with no chance of the smaller clubs having a chance. Then he goes on, slight of hand I suppose (like a Poker Player), and mentions that as it stands, all clubs are a business. So reading between the lines, is he inferring that this is then a 'Monopoly', and does anyone know what happens when businesses have the 'Monopoly' in the market place?

It's good to see that our custodians are wealthy, but it's even better to know that they are Wise in the World of Business. I'm impressed!

Not monopoly: cartel, although the EU are tougher on them. Khaldoon wasn't talking about anything that drastic. He's going to get the little clubs to fight his corner. The rest of the clubs have a lot of power if and when they're forced to act.

This regulation will lower costs for owners, they all want that but everyone know they can't do it unilaterally. They have to compel everyone else to follow suit. But these regulations are designed to let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer until eventually there's a breakaway. But clubs rely on the prospect that they may someday break into the top4. There are a lot of wealthy owners in the prem, if UEFA change the rules to discourage new investors from buying clubs for big money then they've just made a group of very bitter enemies: owners who'd been looking for an exit strategy, especially at a profit. The price of clubs like West Ham, Spurs, Newcastle, Sunderland (us pre-takeover too) etc. will sink like a stone.

The other thing about salary caps is that they have the odd side effect of automatically lowering the wages of non-franchise players who want to play for one of those teams. There's only so much your agent can squeeze the chairman for so eventually you end up with players taking pay cuts to stay at a club that will give them a chance of winning. They couldn't give you more money if they wanted to.

But that same factor is a complete nightmare for anyone wanting to break into the top club. You automatically have a smaller pool of money and it doesn't go as far (worse than now).

The chairmen could also offer them 10-15 year contracts, with high pay outs the first years and very small ones at the end of the contract period ... THat's how they get around the wage limit in the NHL. Of course it helps that the wage limit is based on average earnings over the full contract period.

Said that, if there would be a wage limit introduced in European football, I'm quite certain that the UEFA would've learned a lesson from the NHL.

[lets all have a disco]

I wouldnt worry our mate Scudamore has kicked out the proposals for the Premierleague.


QUOTE TIME.

He said that Uefa's proposals would be counter-productive because they would simply mean the biggest clubs getting bigger and leave the rest unable to catch up.

"The biggest clubs are the biggest clubs because 121 years of history has made them that big. But we do not buy into the idea that you chop away the ladder from those who have got a legitimate benefactor who can afford to break into the top group," he said.

"If AFC Wimbledon make it all the way back through the ranks and somebody wanted to attach their money to that club, then why shouldn't they be able to reach the top and get into the Champions League? You have to keep the dream alive."

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

"I could accept the argument if we were artificially building up the club through debt," Khaldoon said. "That produces a destructive end result; we have seen that happen. But in our case, the club will be in the healthiest position because there is no debt. We have funded it through equity [permanent investment], including the signing of the players.

"I believe what we are doing is a fair way to inject competition into football, without debt."

I never believed men could have multiple orgasms. It seems I was wrong.

[bluelingy]

Surely a fair system would be to see what the lowest earning club from every league in Europe can spend and that would be the limit!! so if Luxemburg fc can only afford to spend a thousand pound then that should be Barcelona budget also!! I know it is obsered, but if Twatini is talking financial fair play then that has to be the only solution, everything else is basic protectionism of the clubs who are currently creaming the money! so why don't he just come out and say the truth instead of dressing his corrupt plot up in fair play!!

[Dipstick]

As well as the interview there is a series of three articles - here is the first.

[urlnp=http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/sep/18/manchester-city-abu-dhabi-mubarak]http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/sep/18/manchester-city-abu-dhabi-mubarak[/urlnp]