FFP and the like: by SV
Yesterday, I read what I thought was a very well written article by Ozzy AFC, regarding the way the club is run. However, I must admit that I disagreed with a number of his opinions. And, judging by the comments on his post yesterday, it seems that my opinion differs with many of yours’ too. Also, I would like to apologise for the monstrosity (size) of this article, but the issue it’s discussing is pretty big too, so I just wanted to do it justice.
Anyway, on with the show. The first controversial thing I’m about to say is that, wait for it, I do NOT think that it is time for a total revolution at Arsenal, time for us to protest or time for us to start boycotting matches. ‘Why is that?’ I hear you ask. Well, the fact of the matter is that, in all of the past 8 seasons (bar the latest one) we have been very close to winning a trophy. Now, I know that this is not enough for a club of Arsenal’s standing and that we want to be winning silverware, but all I’m pointing out is that we are doing something right at least. In fact – judging by how close we come every year – I would go as far as to say that we are doing MOST of it right, and just need that extra bit of something to push us to that trophy. As I have said in previous articles, I believe that that ‘something’ is mostly belief from everyone (fans, players, coaches, ball boys…everyone) that we WILL win a trophy. I also think that more signings need to be brought in to cover the cracks/precipices in our squad. I also think that there are a couple of other changes to be made, but that’s a whole different article.
Moving on. Every time there’s a debate about how AFC is run, the words Financial Fair Play (or FFP) are mentioned. But what are they exactly? As you would expect, the official detailing of the rules are pretty gruesome, so I searched around on the web and found this video. I recommend that you watch it, as it explains the rules quite well.
In case you didn’t watch the video, I’ll try and boil it down as efficiently as I can. If you did watch the video, just skip this paragraph, as I’ll just be repeating what you already know. Anyway, FFP means that every European club is subject to several Monitoring Periods, the first of which lasts 2 years, with all of the rest being three years. The monitoring periods overlap each other (the second overlaps the first; the third overlaps the second etc.). The first monitoring period has already started. At the end of these Monitoring Periods, the monitored clubs must meet certain criteria (i.e. they must not have made too much loss) or else they will be faced with sanctions. The most serious of these sanctions is exclusion from UEFA competitions, a sanction which no club wants.
For full details, go to the source of the video, which is http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php.
There have been questions raised about the effectiveness of the rules; people think that big-spending clubs will simply find loopholes in the rules à-la Man City. Some people even think that the rules will not come through at all. Well, from what I’ve read (and I’ve read quite a bit), these rules are already in place. As I said earlier, the first Monitoring Period of FFP is already here, all that is left to be decided is which sanctions will be given to which offences. Also, I read that there is a clause in which any club which is deemed to be attempting to bypass the rules will be investigated by a panel, and the clubs actions will be seen as violation of FFP.
As such, with the day of judgement (sanction implementation) in sight, doesn’t it make sense that our policy is as it is? Our policy is actually very simple: we spend pretty much what we earn. And before you say that we don’t, it is a FACT that over the past 20 years, AFC has made a total loss of £4.326m (source: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/24/spending-money-is-not-the-answer-to-arsenals-problems-and-it-never-has-been/). Our policy seems perfectly reasonable to me, it’s what virtually every other business has to do. And yes, we are a business. It confuses me when people say that we shouldn’t be classed as a business; because, though as fans we obviously mainly care about the football side, the football side would crumble without the business side.
Our policy means that we don’t have to rely on a single investor who keeps pouring money into the club and we aren’t solely reliant on one person. Yesterday, Ozzy used Chelsea and City as evidence of why their system is more successful. However, if I may respectfully say, Chelsea and City have been spending as they are now for only a short period of time. If you look at the longer history of football, it is littered with evidence of how stupid spending has led to a ruined football club; Nottingham Forest, Leeds United, Portsmouth and even Liverpool to an extent.
There is a list of reasons why our system is sounder and safer than Chelsea or City’s, but the main one has to be that we are reliant on no one but ourselves. If Stan Kroenke has a sudden change of heart, is arrested or becomes ill, his shares will simply be passed on and we will not be affected. Whereas imagine if Roman Abramovich was put under investigation and found guilty of something, Chelsea would be thrown to the dogs. Not a good scenario.
Though I am saying that Arsenal’s setup is mostly correct, I am not saying that it is perfect, as there are ways in which I think it could improve. For example, I see no reason why Usmanov shouldn’t be allowed on the board. I understand that he is a character which the other board members aren’t keen on, but they’re big boys and should learn to get on. The man clearly loves the club and owns a very large stake in it, so he should be allowed on, end of story.
I also don’t think much of Hill-Woods latest comments, as they were poorly phrased and were obviously going to rile the fans. But, to be fair, people are taking 1 and 1 and making 3 with some of his messages. For example, when he said ‘it’s not like we were relegated’, he clearly didn’t mean that avoiding relegation was the club’s ambition; he was simply saying that the club’s problems had been blown out of proportion. It was still, however, a statement which the club’s chairman should know better than to make.
Right, I think I’ve gone on for quite long enough. To sum up what I was trying to say: though the club’s system does have room for improvement, it is (in my opinion) far sounder, more ethical and safer than the one adopted by Chelsea, City and the likes.
I’d like to finish by apologising again for how long the article is but, like I say, it’s a big issue. Also, as I am sure that there are pretty scathing remarks on the tips of many of your tongues, I would like to request that you refrain from personal abuse, as I am in no mood to take it.
I’ll see you tomorrow with a (hopefully) rather shorter piece.
Till then.
If you liked this article, you can follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/SVGunner.
COMMENTS GUIDELINES: ANY COMMENTS WITH SWEARING OR PERSONAL ABUSE WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT EXCEPTION: PLEASE DISCUSS THE SUBJECT IN A FRIENDLY AND OBJECTIVE MANNER. SERIAL ABUSERS WILL BE BANNED. PLEASE BE NICE TO YOUR FELLOW GOONERS! NEW IDEA!! If A comment is deemed EXTRA SPECIAL I reserve the right to sopy it and use it as an article in its own right. (Edited of course!)
No comments:
Post a Comment