• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Barcelona and Real Madrid face removal of their privileges

And that's horse****. Wimbledon moved because no place could be found to build a stadium based on the Taylor Report.

No.. they could not afford to redevelop Plough Lane... big difference.

Sharing a stadium with Crystal Palace for 12 years isn't ideal for a top league team so FA gave them permission to move.

No it aint, but still they moved the team far away, and renamed it.

Coventry's problems comes from British HQed SISU and a deal that wasn't "fair" for all parties.

The owners refuse to pay to stay at the Ricoh Arena.

American owners don't move clubs.

Never said that they moved English football clubs.

NFL:
When the Cleveland Brown moved to Baltimore to become the Ravens, a deal was made to expand the NFL. The "Browns" became the Ravens and new team would become the Browns. It worked out for everybody.

Hardly the only ones.. 18 direct moves, many more semi-moves (your example), and some mergers. Quite impressive considering the few teams there are in the NFL.

And considering the second biggest city in the US has not had a NFL team for donkey years.. shows how loyal to the fans the money grubbing system is.. **** the fans!

MLB:
When the Montreal Expos were bringing in fans of less then 10,000 (minor league teams bring that in on a regular basis), MLB for the sake of baseball was planning to close down the club with the Minnesota Twins. But that didn't happen, rather MLB bought the Expos from Jeffrey Loria and relocated them at a later date to Washington and they became the Nationals. While John Henry (owner of Liverpool) bought the Red Soxs. Jeffrey Loria bought the Marlins from John Henry. The main issue with the Expos was they were stuck in 1.1 billion euro (so you understand the cost) stadium built for the 1976 Olympics.

There has been at least 12 moves the last 70 years.

NBA:
I'll first start of by saying Basketball has always had financial problems in small markets but putting teams in Canada was just dumb.

There has been a lot in the NBA..

At the end of the day teams in the US move because they are losing money.

Yes, money money money.. screw the fans!
 
I wasn't mentioning Government and Bank contracts, even though Bara and Real haven't paid taxes in a while. 48 million euros in backed taxes. Rangers FC were shut down over 93 million pounds in backed taxes. ;) But what I am talking about is Barca getting a 140 million tv deal every year while all the other big teams around Europe share tv deals with the rest of the league.

So they can defer tax payments into the future.. like other companies can do.. big deal? And are you jealous that Barca can get 140 million on a tv deal? That is how the system works and unless you are for forcing clubs into revenue sharing.. then well not much we can do about it is there.. Like it or not, football is not an American sport that is highly regulated, closed off and full of government subsidies.
 
Your numbers.. 197 plus 99. Remember break even over 3 years.

You think these figures are cumulative? :lol: City has a nett debt of £57m, not £300m. That's less than ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool and it's just 6.4% of Chelsea's 878m debt. Of course that's due to the commercial activities of the club, particularly from sponsorship from UAE companies. You see that as a bad thing. I look at the price of tickets and merchandise and see a club that a supporter can still support without being wealthy. Working class football fans have effectively been priced out of the sport that they created. Someone earning the national average wage couldn't dream of being able to support Arsenal, Chelsea or ManU. That is the up-side of rich-but-not-greedy owners.

Check it out, you can buy a City season ticket for £299. The cheapest at Arsenal is £985.
 
No.. they could not afford to redevelop Plough Lane... big difference.

No difference. They sought other ideas such as a new stadium in Merton. Nothing made it pass the drawing board because of funds.

No it aint, but still they moved the team far away, and renamed it.

And? They moved the club and renamed it.. you aren't gonna call the club Wimbledon when it's sitting in Milton Keynes are you? The fans started their own club AFC Wimbledon. Wimbledon is sitting in League Two and MK dons are in League one. Big deal, it happens.

The owners refuse to pay to stay at the Ricoh Arena.

Why? Because Coventry is in the process of building a new stadium and paying 1.2 million pounds to stay in Ricoh Arena while in administration is stupid. Then throw in Fair play rules.. and you need to own your own stadium. As explained by Coventry chief executive Tim Fisher.
Coventry City agree terms on a potential new stadium site | Coventry City News, Fixtures, Results, Transfers | Sky Sports



Hardly the only ones.. 18 direct moves, many more semi-moves (your example), and some mergers. Quite impressive considering the few teams there are in the NFL.

Did you miss the part in the last 30 years? No NFL team has moved since 1997. The most hurtful move ever done in the NFL was the Baltimore Colts, now I don't remember it but my parents certainly do and while they weren't fans of Baltimore Colts even though we lived near Baltimore.. it had a lasting effect. But it was a decade (1972) in the making. Memorial Stadium was built during the era of one size fits all. Oakland Coliseum is that type of stadium. Colts wanted a new stadium and brought the Baltimore Orioles in on the idea. It was supported by the mayor and city council but the State legislature wasn't on board. So for a better part of 10 years it was mentioned over and over. By the late 70's they were fixing that stadium at the tune of $5 million a year. By 1980 Orioles had a new owner and the Colts demanded $25 million dollar in renovations to Memorial Stadium. Orioles rejected the proposed upgrades from the Colts and the rest was history. Orioles were the dominate team in Baltimore.

Now that proposed stadium from 1972 I mentioned? Baltimore Orioles built in the same proposed location (Camden Yards) starting in 1988. Orioles didn't demand it, they were "given it". Baltimore Ravens also had their stadium built there as well. So it literally took almost 30 years for the same plan proposed in 1972.


And considering the second biggest city in the US has not had a NFL team for donkey years.. shows how loyal to the fans the money grubbing system is.. **** the fans!

St. Louis Rams and Oakland Raiders have mentioned moving back LA but that would screw the fans. ;)



There has been at least 12 moves the last 70 years.

These happened during the 1950s and 1970s when TV viewership grew and when the NL and AL had their own offices and presidencies which lasted until 2000. Each league did basically as it pleased during that period. Marlins and Rockies exist because of it.



There has been a lot in the NBA..

I don't dispute that.. it's a broken league.




Yes, money money money.. screw the fans!

Go bankrupt or keep a team that is the question..
 
So they can defer tax payments into the future.. like other companies can do.. big deal? And are you jealous that Barca can get 140 million on a tv deal? That is how the system works and unless you are for forcing clubs into revenue sharing.. then well not much we can do about it is there.. Like it or not, football is not an American sport that is highly regulated, closed off and full of government subsidies.

You can't defer tax payments on income or social taxes and you can ask Messi or any company. Big deal is Spanish Government got a bailout from other European countries and they aren't even collecting the taxes owed by the Barca or any other of its football clubs because they are owned by members.. well send the bill to the members. I'd like you to open a letter saying you owe 10,000 euros and see how fast you change your opinion on how much control members should have.

There are 18 other teams in La Liga who play against Barca and Real Madrid but 50% of all tv money goes to Barca and Real Madrid. Giving a balloon payment upfront and the rest of payment based on end of season results is not revenue sharing. It's a membership payment and payment on results. La Liga is ran like MLB with TV rights and it's horrible.

Btw, If you don't collect taxes, you are subsidizing. :cool:
 
And that's horse****. Wimbledon moved because no place could be found to build a stadium based on the Taylor Report. Sharing a stadium with Crystal Palace for 12 years isn't ideal for a top league team so FA gave them permission to move. Coventry's problems comes from British HQed SISU and a deal that wasn't "fair" for all parties.

American owners don't move clubs. Derby, Man U, Arsenal, Fulham, Liverpool, and Sunderland still in their respected cities. Hell there are only very few circumstances in the US of it happening as well and most of them in the previous 30 years or more. Here are recent cases..where they actually left the metro area.

NFL:
When the Cleveland Brown moved to Baltimore to become the Ravens, a deal was made to expand the NFL. The "Browns" became the Ravens and new team would become the Browns. It worked out for everybody.

MLB:
When the Montreal Expos were bringing in fans of less then 10,000 (minor league teams bring that in on a regular basis), MLB for the sake of baseball was planning to close down the club with the Minnesota Twins. But that didn't happen, rather MLB bought the Expos from Jeffrey Loria and relocated them at a later date to Washington and they became the Nationals. While John Henry (owner of Liverpool) bought the Red Soxs. Jeffrey Loria bought the Marlins from John Henry. The main issue with the Expos was they were stuck in 1.1 billion euro (so you understand the cost) stadium built for the 1976 Olympics.


NBA:
I'll first start of by saying Basketball has always had financial problems in small markets but putting teams in Canada was just dumb.

At the end of the day teams in the US move because they are losing money.


It didn't work out for Baltimore for a long time after their owner moved the team to Indy in the dead of night!


However I am happy to see AFC Wimbledon catching up to the MK Don's as I happen to agree with Pete EU on this one, I mean the NFL is heading towards giving London a franchise team, how ridiculous is that?
 
You can't defer tax payments on income or social taxes and you can ask Messi or any company.

Actually you can, not forever, but you can.

Big deal is Spanish Government got a bailout from other European countries and they aren't even collecting the taxes owed by the Barca or any other of its football clubs because they are owned by members.. well send the bill to the members. I'd like you to open a letter saying you owe 10,000 euros and see how fast you change your opinion on how much control members should have.

First off, the Spanish Government did not get a bailout. It got money to bail out some banks. Big freaking difference. And come back to me when American corporations start paying their taxes... and instead receive billions in government subsidies.

There are 18 other teams in La Liga who play against Barca and Real Madrid but 50% of all tv money goes to Barca and Real Madrid. Giving a balloon payment upfront and the rest of payment based on end of season results is not revenue sharing. It's a membership payment and payment on results. La Liga is ran like MLB with TV rights and it's horrible.

And I dont disagree, but that is how it is. As long as the Spanish football federation, La Liga and the clubs cant agree on a method of collecting and distributing the tv money, then that is how it is. Why are you against the free market? And MLB? Really... a league exempt for a number of laws.. just because it is the national passtime?

Btw, If you don't collect taxes, you are subsidizing. :cool:

Yes, just like most big American companies... /clap.
 
You think these figures are cumulative? :lol:

They are.

City has a nett debt of £57m, not £300m.
That's less than ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool and it's just 6.4% of Chelsea's 878m debt.

Hmm something wrong with those numbers.. since the Chelsea number is wrong. Chelsea is pretty much debt free after Abramovic wiped its debts a few years back.

Of course that's due to the commercial activities of the club, particularly from sponsorship from UAE companies. You see that as a bad thing.

No you miss-understand me. I have no problem with legit commercial activities. Sell t-shirts, sponsorships and so on, I dont care. I do have a problem calling it "commercial activities" when the money in reality comes from the owner via family and friends in an attempt to prop up the club against the rules.

Lets put it this way.. if the Glazers sons owned a company in the US, with few links to Europe or outside the world. And then they got a sponsorship deal with daddy's English football team, who needs money to stay afloat... worth say 500 million. Err okay! nothing wrong with that is there? That is what has happened with City and that is what I am against..It is corruption at a grand scale that no one but people like City's owners can do.

I look at the price of tickets and merchandise and see a club that a supporter can still support without being wealthy. Working class football fans have effectively been priced out of the sport that they created. Someone earning the national average wage couldn't dream of being able to support Arsenal, Chelsea or ManU. That is the up-side of rich-but-not-greedy owners.

Check it out, you can buy a City season ticket for £299. The cheapest at Arsenal is £985.

I agree fully on this point. Tickets and merchandize is getting too expensive.. but in the end, who's fault is that? The clubs need income to pay for the insane wages that have entered the game after teams like Chealski, Man City, Monaco, Anzi, PSG have entered the game pushing up transfer prices and wages. No one is worth 200k pounds a week.. not even Messi or Ronaldo.
 
It didn't work out for Baltimore for a long time after their owner moved the team to Indy in the dead of night!

But it did. It forced Baltimore and Maryland to review it's position on Stadiums. Then when the new team came they got a winning team and haven't looked back.


However I am happy to see AFC Wimbledon catching up to the MK Don's as I happen to agree with Pete EU on this one, I mean the NFL is heading towards giving London a franchise team, how ridiculous is that?

NFL has no choice but to look elsewhere. The market has peaked here. But there won't be an NFL team in London within the next 5 years. We are looking at a time table of 2018 - 2020. But even then it might be a nightmare the NFL didn't think it would be with logistics, time differences and such. So who knows if it goes through or even viable.
 
Actually you can, not forever, but you can.

Uh, no you can't. You have to pay your taxes every year or it's consider tax evasion and you go to jail. Messi could still be charged (but won't cause he plays for Barca).

First off, the Spanish Government did not get a bailout. It got money to bail out some banks. Big freaking difference. And come back to me when American corporations start paying their taxes... and instead receive billions in government subsidies.

There is no difference. It's the job of the Spanish Government to bail out it's own banks. Spain couldn't afford to do it. So they had to go to the EU for the bailout. So Spain was bailed out. American corporations do pay their taxes for money made in the United States. Money made in a foreign country is a different deal as it's non-taxable under US law until it hits American banks (shores) due to tax agreements. I.E. US-Ireland tax agreement, UK-US tax agreement and the EU-US tax agreement which all state earned income made in each respective country is theirs to tax.



And I dont disagree, but that is how it is. As long as the Spanish football federation, La Liga and the clubs cant agree on a method of collecting and distributing the tv money, then that is how it is. Why are you against the free market? And MLB? Really... a league exempt for a number of laws.. just because it is the national passtime?

I am not against the free market, I am against unfair competition and bias in Government applying the law. Trust me, MLB is the La Liga of the US. ;)



Yes, just like most big American companies... /clap.

And I have no problem going after them and haven't defended one single one.. yet here you are defending your club, Barca. Hmm, go figure.
 
Hmm something wrong with those numbers.. since the Chelsea number is wrong. Chelsea is pretty much debt free after Abramovic wiped its debts a few years back.
No, you and everyone else were misled...

Premier League - Chelsea owe Abramovich £726m - Yahoo! Eurosport

The clubs need income to pay for the insane wages that have entered the game after teams like Chealski, Man City, Monaco, Anzi, PSG have entered the game pushing up transfer prices and wages. No one is worth 200k pounds a week.. not even Messi or Ronaldo.
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.
 
But it did. It forced Baltimore and Maryland to review it's position on Stadiums. Then when the new team came they got a winning team and haven't looked back.




NFL has no choice but to look elsewhere. The market has peaked here. But there won't be an NFL team in London within the next 5 years. We are looking at a time table of 2018 - 2020. But even then it might be a nightmare the NFL didn't think it would be with logistics, time differences and such. So who knows if it goes through or even viable.


speaking of the Baltimore colts move have you ever watched a documentary " the band the wont die" it was on ESPN a few years ago and its was heartbreaking lol. It was about how the team left suddenley and all that was left was the marching band who continued to play without a team for years. Really struck home how its always the fan who gets hit the most in modern day sport.
 
No, you and everyone else were misled...

Premier League - Chelsea owe Abramovich £726m - Yahoo! Eurosport

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.

My freinds who supported United no longer watch them because of the ticket prices they all started watching FC United instead.
 

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom