Ahh I see... but it is to the owner (if true) at 0% interest rate. Sorry but that is not real debt, as Chealski will never have to pay that back.
And then let me ask.. how much does Man City in reality owe its owners... that must be all the money they have pumped into the club over the last few years no?
Of course the clubs need the money, the difference between them is how they get it. You seem happier for the likes of ManU and Arsenal to rip off their fans with exorbitant ticket prices and merchandise than for other teams to dip into the resources of their owners. It would appear that UEFA agrees with you, but perhaps not everyone does.
No you miss-understand me. I dont like Man U and Arsenal ripping off their fans one bit, but the reality of the situation is that football is a business and the business is playing football and selling stuff to fans. That is the business... not being a loss making part of a larger conglomerate.
Listen what I want FIFA and UEFA to do, is to put in rules and regulations that promote sustainable business models at football clubs, from top to bottom. Right now it is simply not working since there is a handful of clubs that have pressed up prices of players and especially player wages to insane levels. No offence but Yaya is not worth the 150+k a week wage that he gets.. no footballer (yes even Messi) is worth that much a freaking week. Its beyond disgusting, especially during these times. An average PL player gets 1.1 million in wages and before bonuses a year.. come on,.. that is 22 k a WEEK. These average footballers earn in 2 weeks more than the average Brit... how on earth can that be justified?
My suggestions would to be put a cap in % on how much wages can be of your yearly revenue. Set it at 70% for all I care, point is that a club should have the revenue to pay all its basic bills like wages. How they spend their wage pool is totally up to them, but I suspect throwing most of it at one or two players will not happen. It would also mean that situations like Leeds or Napoli would never happen, since they would not have the ability to get into so much debt because of high wages and so on. But this would also require a clear definition on what revenue actually is, as the PSG of the world can have massive revenues if they want... the owners could just buy a t-shirt at the shop for 100 million... for example. That of course should not be allowed.
Another suggestion is clear rules on how a team can be funded. This wussy ruleset on funding from rich owners is bull****. Either they should be allowed to pump in millions or they should be totally banned. Having loopholes that are exploitable like with City is... frustrating. But pumping in millions to a team, should not be considered revenue. Sure Man city owners can spend 100 million on players, but they cant use the money to pay their wages or running costs of the club. Sure they can use it to build a new stadium, but not fund the running costs of that stadium. There should be a clear wall between investment money and running the business money. Dunno if that is clear enough.
There should also be some rules on transfers.. that is where it gets complicated tbh... and I dont have any easy solutions at the moment on limiting massive transfer fees. But often big transfer fees are not the main problem for clubs. Sure they can loan money to pay for it, and pay it off over years like anyone else. But as long as they have the revenue to pay wages and the debt servicing then it aint a problem. So maybe a rule that 70% of revenue for wages, 20% for debt servicing.. for example. I mean it is not a problem that a club like Real Madrid has debts of 500 million, because they also have revenue of 500+ million a year, with profits. As long as the club is profitable then there is not a problem having high debts. The problem is a club with 200 million in debt, but only a 100 million in yearly revenue.. and running a deficit.. that is a problem.
And then there is subsidies from government or big business. The transparency here must be clear. You can not come and be critical of Real Madrid and its stadium issues with local government, or Barca and its tax issues, and not be equally as critical against Bayern and its funny business with its corporate friends over the last 2 decades and how their new stadium was funded and the tax breaks and local government deals that was involved to get where they are today. How can you be critical of Real, when Man City got a brand new stadium for pretty much no money.. or the Olympic stadium going to a football club for next to nothing (compared to how much it cost to build). How is that any different? But I do agree there must be full transparency with links between local government and teams, and all fees agreed and taxes owed must be paid.