I will be the happiest man in the press box the day Ronaldo re-signs in England… and how dare Arsenal and United try to deny your team a chance of success



Fair play? To the Premier League's gang of four, that means a ban on dreamers like Jack Walker

Read Martin's original column on Financial Fair Play, which inspired over 40,000 words in response

First of all, thanks. Having written about financial fair play for years and been told variously that I’m obsessed, it’s a dry subject and nobody’s interested, it was slightly gratifying to press the word count button on the replies to the column and see the figure 41,438.

Gratifying and daunting because I’ve then got to read them all and then decide which ones to answer. Apologies if you’re not included here, but if you print each one of 40,000 plus words and reply in kind, well you know. We’ve all got jobs to go to. I’ve done my best. You’re not absent because we didn’t agree. As you will see, I’ve tried to include many of the dissenting arguments.



Strap yourselves in folks. We’re going to be here a while. Martin.



I hope the market remains open to investment with a limited level of protectionism aimed at stopping clubs like Portsmouth going into meltdown. Daddywoodland, Leeds.

Ah, the sweet voice of reason. It’s too late for that mate, I think you’ll find.

'And the modern era’s greatest achievement would never have happened?’ Really? Blackburn Rovers winning the league in 1995 was the greatest achievement? Arsene Wenger building a side for less than £40m and going an entire season unbeaten, a feat which had not been done for over 100 years previously, when there were about 12 teams instead of 20? Get a grip. Inzagi, Dublin.

Don’t they do arithmetic in Ireland any more? Thierry Henry £11m, Dennis Bergkamp £7.5m, Sylvain Wiltord £13m, Jose Reyes £10.5m, so that’s £42m right there and we’re only through the forward line. Having watched Arsenal for much of that wonderful season, I’m pretty sure they had a defence, a midfield and a goalkeeper too, and that the best player was Robert Pires, who cost a further £6m. Lauren was £7.2m, Gilberto Silva £4.5m, so let’s leave it there, shall we? Every team, to some extent, buys the title, including lovely Arsenal. The moment they could not buy at the same level, success dried up. Blackburn’s season was exceptional because they also overcame all the disadvantages of being a smaller club, something Arsenal have never known.



Didn't come cheap: Arsenal's Invincibles are not exempt from the theory that all clubs buy the title

Do you think Apple are told to curb their spending because Microsoft and Samsung aren't happy about it? How is anyone allowed to dictate how a company spends its money? Blueknight, Manchester.



But football owners are suckers for this stuff. When the buying and selling of players is one of the core components of the business, how did they allow it to be restricted to two periods in the season? This has done as much to force transfer prices and wages up because many clubs shop in a state of desperation and panic, certainly in winter.



Surely these new rules help small clubs? They will destroy the illusion that being bankrolled has any benefits in the long term. Where are Blackburn now? They are where Manchester City and Chelsea will probably be when the money taps close. JR1994, Hastings.



And if so, so what? Is that what you want, a league in which nobody can ever fail and get relegated? Why does it matter where Blackburn are now? That was nothing to do with Jack Walker. The company was sold to poor owners who made a series of key management mistakes. It happens. Most relegated clubs have got either the football or the finance wrong at some time, and often both. So clubs move up and down the league, which is why if Cardiff City are promoted they will be the 46th club of the Premier League era. And what help to a small club is it to be expected to compete with Manchester United but to have a fraction of their budget available?

The idea of financial fair play is to stop another Portsmouth or Leeds United happening. Just because City and Chelsea are in rude financial health at the moment, it doesn't mean they won't go the same way if their owners get bored, pull out, and saddle both clubs with unsustainable debt. Arsenal, Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur and Liverpool all have sustainable business models regardless of whether the top man pulls the plug. Surely that's a good thing? Peahair, Stoke.

City have no debt and neither do Chelsea because the owners have given them the investment, rather than loaned it (Portsmouth) or borrowed it (Leeds). The four you mention are financially stable to an extent, but if the Fenway group lost interest in Liverpool, or Joe Lewis in Tottenham, they would have to decline and jettison players just the same. Arsenal have been doing that already, despite being owned by Stan Kroenke, and until Robin van Persie came along Manchester United were up in arms about the Glazers' lack of investment. So, yes, Chelsea and Manchester City would have to cut their cloth accordingly without their wealthy owners. No harm in that. It is only what is happening at Aston Villa, where Randy Lerner has decided to change direction and is no longer buying big, so the club has fallen down the league. It hasn’t ceased to exist, merely altered. This movement, these changes of direction keep football interesting. But if Lerner suddenly decided to have a go again, suddenly rules would prevent it. How does that make for a better league? You can move: but only backwards.



Successful teams like Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool have been built up on the back of support of their fans. Decades of loyally supporting their clubs, watching the club grow and the stadium improved, are suddenly turned over by a rival having a foreign dictator spending hundreds of millions of in ill-gotten gains on their latest plaything. This repellent injection of money bypasses decades of development undergone by other clubs. Only one word for it: cheating. Brianconwy, Conwy.

Oh, cut the sanctimony mate. There is not a single elite club that did not at one time invest to the very limit of its means, and in some cases beyond, as a way of growing the business. Just because that happened before you were alive or took an interest in football does not make it any less significant. And why does it matter whether the owner is foreign? Aren’t they foreign at Liverpool, United and Arsenal, too?



I am all for financial fair play, if it were being done to keep clubs in existence and avoid another Portsmouth or Leeds. That is not what this is for. This will keep the status quo and stop any club from ever challenging for a place in the elite. The Premier League will be a closed shop. Bladesam, Sheffield.

Take your club, Sam. Great club, Sheffield United, in a great football city. At this moment in time, however, both Sheffield clubs are outside the Premier League. Suppose an owner came in who wanted to invest to get them back up there? Why should he be told how much of his money he can spend on the project? As long as he is giving the club his money, not loaning it or borrowing it, why should his business plan be governed by his rivals?



And don’t give me this growing organically nonsense. It is impossible to grow organically to the size of the elite clubs, because they will steal all your best young players (see Everton) and indeed are trying to pass rules to as good as ensure it.



Snapped up: Manchester United quickly bought Wayne Rooney after he was developed by Everton

Although the story about Jack Walker is touching, Blackburn are a small club and to date have not even come close to winning the Premiership title after their success in 1995. This is simply because without a sugar daddy to continually pump cash into the club it could not sustain continued high salaries and transfers. The club was so reliant on Walker it has been in steady decline of the club since his death. The article fails to point out the disastrous attempts by multi-millionaires who have tried and failed to bring artificial success to football clubs: Crystal Palace, Birmingham City, Portsmouth and Malaga are but a few. TNCharles, London.

And again: so what? Nobody is guaranteed success in perpetuity. The chaos at Portsmouth and most of the clubs you cited should and could have been prevented with stronger regulation regarding owner loans. As for the rest: rich man comes in, has a go, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, life moves on. The alternative is football plods along, everything in its right place, no-one goes up, no-one goes down. Sport as run by mediocre accountants. How fascinating.



The success of Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool was founded on visionary football people like Sir Matt Busby, Herbert Chapman and Bill Shankly and their current financial power is a result of that. Over the years, they have built up the fan base and infrastructure to make them the leading clubs in the country. Chelsea and City's recent success is entirely the result of a foreign owner spending an obscene amount of money. Apparently Martin Samuel prefers the latter but he knows it is difficult to defend so he pulls out Jack Walker as an example instead. Presumably even he knows that it was at least 10 years since a local millionaire could afford to buy the title for his club. Today it takes a multi-billionaire with money to burn which you will only find in countries where they don't have the mechanisms for redistributing the wealth that we have in western democracies. I'm struggling to see why turning the Premier League into a fantasy football league for those kind of people is a good thing. Hans, London.

Where are they now? Jack Walker's cash helped Blackburn win the Premier League in 1995

If Sir Matt Busby’s vision was so enduringly successful, how come Manchester United went from 1967 to 1993 without winning the league, and were relegated in that time? Sir Alex Ferguson built the modern Manchester United and his success coincided with a financial sea change in English football, making one club disproportionately powerful and advantaged. We can only hope that, when he goes, the next guy really messes up, because if he doesn’t, with Michel Platini’s rules in place, one club will keep getting stronger and stronger. Why this is unfair is that the elite position of the clubs you mention is a moment in time but it is a moment that they are seizing to alter football irrevocably and ensure their superiority through the ages. It is the richest clubs, in league with UEFA, who have ensured that the money required to succeed in football these days is beyond the average local businessman. They made the top of the table a territory for only the wealthy, and now they bleat that wealthy people are buying their way in. And don’t tell me what I prefer, Hans. I prefer room for all. And change. Because it’s interesting.



If Chelsea and Manchester City didn't jump the queue, the likes of Spurs, Liverpool, Everton, even Aston Villa and Newcastle United would all be getting Champions League football and be able to attract players, not simply by offering five times as much as anyone else. It's really quite simple. KV10, United Kingdom.

No, they wouldn’t. Manchester United and Arsenal would command two places, with two left, so three of the clubs you mention would miss out. And guess which ones? In all likelihood, those spending the least money. And there is no queue. It’s called a league table. You don’t get a ticket and a turn.

Some very dopey people on here. Lordbergkamp, United Kingdom.

Tell me about it. Fortunately, here’s Zak.



This is going to affect the small clubs. If, in future, a Premier League club came in for a player like Wilfried Zaha at Crystal Palace, his club would not be able to hold out for a large transfer fee as the buyer will only be allowed to spend so much. If the £12m Palace would currently get for Zaha became £4m, to make up the difference would cost the fans an extra £21 per ticket at every game. Zak Adams, The Elephant.

This is, of course, what the clubs are hoping, that financial regulation depresses the market and cuts costs. Somehow, like Zak, I don’t see the benefit of that being passed on to the consumer. Also, while most clubs would be limited in what they could offer for Zaha, a few wouldn’t. You can guess which ones.



Trickle down: Crystal Palace would be forced to accept a smaller transfer fee for Wilfred Zaha under FFP

What's the difference between financial and chemical doping, Martin? Czerwonadupa, Wembley.

Well, one is a process for cheating by the consumption of performance-enhancing drugs, which is illegal, the other is a catchphrase made up by idiots to explain the process of investing in a business to enable it to grow. Glad to be of assistance.

Totally disagree with the article. Anybody defending these salaries must be totally stupid. Who will be the first journalist brave enough to campaign for a return to a one league body for all 92 clubs, with a pro rata distribution of TV and European competition monies? I have no doubt other countries would follow. DaveS, Morecambe.

That would be old stupid here, Dave. The fair distribution of European money part, certainly. Been writing about that for years actually. The Champions League money has inflated the league, and then the new owners have to spend hundreds of millions to compete. If a far higher percentage of Champions League revenue was split between all 20 teams in the top division, rather than being the preserve of a tiny group, the competition would be more even. You can see David Gill advocating that one at his next UEFA meeting, though, can’t you? And by the way, Dave, you are deluded if you think other countries would follow. Spain’s TV contract, for instance, is completely carved up by Real Madrid and Barcelona. They won’t let that arrangement go without a fight.



Blackburn bought the title, they didn't win it. Clubs that buy it don't win it and are remembered in a different way to the others. Everyone will feel the same about the success that Manchester City and Chelsea have had. It is as hollow as you can get, with a big fat # by every trophy. Stephen, London.

So there will be a # next to Manchester United this year, to indicate the difference was Robin van Persie. And a # next to the titles that were down to Cristiano Ronaldo. And a # next to Arsenal’s Invincibles for the signing of Thierry Henry. And next to the Double because of Dennis Bergkamp. And one next to Liverpool’s achievements for Kenny Dalglish, yes? Grow up.

No doubt if West Ham United were in Tottenham's shoes missing out on Champions League Football year after year because of a rich man’s plaything, I assure you this article would be lauding Manchester United. Football isn't just about events on the pitch but off it too. You say a club will never be able to overcome those at the top, well one is already doing a fine job, with only a stadium of 36,000, but luckily a mastermind magician at the helm in chairman Daniel Levy. Stephen, London.

I don’t know if this is the same Stephen from London but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and presume coincidence, because it would be hard for a chap to be so wrong twice. To begin with, West Ham are in favour of the FFP rules, and I’m not, so how does that tally with your conspiracy theory? And how exactly have Tottenham overcome Manchester United or Arsenal? They last finished above Arsenal in 1995 and above Manchester United in 1990, when United came 13th. That's right, 13th. And then soon after they won the league, which coincided precisely with the wealth of the Premier League era and this happy accident now gives them the right to preach to the rest because somehow it means they grew organically. As for Levy, some magician. Isn’t your club actually owned by billionaire tax exile Joe Lewis? And for my next trick…



Remember the good old days? Spurs last finished above Arsenal when Klinsmann and co were in the team

The last time I checked Nottingham Forest didn’t have a rich sugar daddy and it didn’t stop them winning the European Cup twice or Ipswich Town having a top side. Before the likes of Jack Walker and the others arrived, clubs could come up and challenge without the money. Now you need to invest a billion over three years. And you reckon that is not the problem? Eddy, Cork, Ireland.

Forest, Ipswich, and Derby County didn't stop competing when Walker, Abramovich, and Sheik Mansour pitched up. They were squeezed out when the big five of Manchester United, Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal and Spurs selfishly carved up the TV rights to leave them with most of the revenue and the others with next to nothing. The situation has been further perpetuated with UEFA's cosy cartel of elite clubs, leaving heavy investment as the only realistic way in. Simon, Manchester.

Well, Simon has done much of my work here – he was all over the comments, actually, he could have had his own section – and it only leaves me to point out that the first £1m footballer in Britain was Trevor Francis and he was signed by Nottingham Forest to help them win the European Cup.



When exactly was this era when Arsenal had class? Arsenal are like a mock Tudor mansion built on the spoils of a petty thief. They are a non-League club that financially doped itself into the big time long after other clubs put in the hard graft. The clubs with genuine tradition and class are Aston Villa, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Everton, West Bromwich Albion and so on, the original league clubs that built this great game. The London media ignores these truly great clubs of tradition while building nonsensical mythologies about London clubs. Macca, Czech Republic.

I do love this idea of the London Media, as if we all hang around the Groucho Club conspiring over ways to stick it to Aston Villa. My point about Arsenal concerned the way they were perceived by other clubs, rather than a personal opinion. One chairman said to me that Arsenal were up to all kinds of schemes and strokes behind the scenes but whenever the other clubs got wind of it, they would wheel out Peter Hill-Wood with his posh old boy accent and everyone in the room would be taken in.



Come back, Cristiano! Ronaldo's return to Manchester United would be a transfer to celebrate

Arsenal's history is founded upon money. Worse, it is founded on using that money to bribe their way into the top division. They did not earn their way in as they were not good enough to finish in the promotion places. But hey, they are in a nice position, so let's just pull up the drawbridge and make sure nobody else can join. An Observer, United Kingdom.

And now, some history. In 1910, Henry Norris became the majority shareholder of Woolwich Arsenal, after the club had gone into voluntary liquidation, becoming club chairman two years later. He tried to merge Arsenal with Fulham and when this was blocked moved them to a new stadium at Highbury. In the final season before the Great War, 1914-15, Arsenal finished fifth in the Second Division but when the league reconvened in 1919, John McKenna, league chairman and owner of Liverpool, made a speech recommending Arsenal's promotion ahead of Tottenham, because they had been a league club for longer. This overlooked the fact that Wolves, who also finished above Arsenal, were among the founding members of the league in 1888. As a result there has always been speculation that Norris bribed McKenna, although he might simply have threatened to expose the final match of the season between Liverpool and Manchester United, which was believed to have been fixed. Norris later left football having made under the counter payments to Charlie Buchan of Sunderland as an incentive to join Arsenal. One of his final decisions was the appointment of Herbert Chapman. And this may seem ancient to you, but it was only a moment in time, just like Manchester City and Chelsea’s resurgence now. Arsenal only grew organically once an act of larceny had placed them in the top division. No elite club is unblemished.

Glaziers? Johndee, Bugibba.

Try UK Glassforce on 0844 3571601. But John, this really isn’t the Yellow Pages, you know.



In an ideal world, I agree with the ideological people who say a club should grow organically through youth. Yet what happens to the good young players that smaller teams develop: they get poached by the bigger clubs for more money. Financial fair play would fix football so that the big clubs stay big. MCFC OK, Manchester.

This is one of the big FFP lies. The idea that once the rules are in, small clubs will be free to develop through youth and compete with the elite. The annual raid on Everton by Manchester United, Arsenal and Manchester City disproves that theory. All that will changes is that the number of clubs able to take Everton’s best youth players will decrease.



I am an Arsenal fan. Financial fair play will benefit Manchester United, not us, and make second the best we can hope for. If spending is only linked to revenue no-one can live with United. Maybe if Ivan Gazidis did his job properly instead of just preaching about financial austerity, while earning £2.1m a year, we might be able to challenge United without these new flawed regulations. Also, it is a bit rich of us to complain about Manchester City's money but accept their inflated transfer fees. We've pocketed £70m from them since 2008, more than we've made from Emirates. Maybe City should be our shirt sponsors. KennyA87, London.

I love letters like this, when a person is not swayed by club self-interest. The day after I wrote this piece I got a text from an international footballer, a legend at one of the four elite clubs mentioned, agreeing with the anti-FFP stance. On so many subjects, club allegiances shine through, so when someone goes against the grain, it stands out. You’re spot on, Kenny. Why sign up to be second fiddle to Manchester United? How dare Gazidis lecture on financial sobriety while drawing £2.1m for selling Arsenal’s best player every season? And if Arsenal don’t like Manchester City’s methods, don’t take Manchester City’s money. That would be more of a principled stand than some elite club coup. And now, the radicals.

Dirty cash I want you: If Arsenal don't like Manchester City's money, why did they accept it for Samir Nasri?

To be truly fair all clubs should be restricted to the percentages of the club with the smallest turnover. That way there will be a level playing field and all executives would be restricted to paying the basic wage of the smallest club. Restrict everything to the finances of the smallest. Ghostrider, Fareham .

The first thing that needs to be agreed is that no club can be in debt other than a stadium-related mortgage via bank or bond financing. Also, the merchandising needs to be shared if not bought through official club channels. Set a fair ticket price for visiting fans, say £40. And UEFA should stop clubs selling individual TV rights, so Real Madrid and Barcelona won’t be so powerful in Spain. PJ, London.

Communists! But that’s what I would call FFP. More initiatives to boost the competitiveness of those at the bottom, rather than limiting the capability to challenge the elite. Spread the Champions League wealth through the league, divide commercial earnings more fairly as happens in America. Insist Barcelona and Madrid treat their rivals fairly. Honestly, lads, there is more chance of being hit by a meteorite. While riding a unicorn.



I'm just looking forward to the day when Abramovich gets bored with his little hobby and leaves Chelsea as the new Leeds. Manchester United, Arsenal, Tottenham and Liverpool are the four biggest clubs in the league in terms of fanbase; if Spurs and Liverpool were to expand their stadiums with these rules enforced then they would dominate the top four. Fact. Mike Ryan, Essex.

And that would be good, why? I don’t know what point you thought you were arguing there, Mike, but you seem to have proved mine rather conclusively. It’s about a cosy carve-up, not financial fair play.

I am a Manchester City fan and would like other clubs to enjoy the possibility of experiencing what we have over the past three years. Fans need that hope. Steve, Howden.

I agree. Not even a rich Sheik or an oligarch, just the opportunity to gamble by adding to a good youth team. Say Aston Villa produced the best crop of youngsters in their history, a Beckham, Giggs, Scholes, Nevilles, Butt generation. And if they could add two or three, expensive top quality signings to the team, they might have the best team in the country. How dare Manchester United or Arsenal prevent that happening?

Be careful what you wish for. I don't want to watch another La Liga. Zhaffri, Ipoh, Malaysia.

Keep saying it, Zhaffri. They might listen to you. You’re the market they want, after all.

I don't like the idea of a handful of clubs with the largest revenues cementing themselves at the top ad infinitum, but I don't much like the idea of a club needing to be taken over by one of the richest men in the world and for them to rapidly pump in £500m in order to win the league. Perhaps greater wealth distribution would be a start. Ricky M, London.

(Sings) Oh sit down, oh sit down, oh sit down, sit down next to me. Although if we’re talking James, my favourite was always the Weatherall remix of Come Home. And as we’re roughly halfway, time for a song.

VIDEO: Come Home (Weatherall Remix) by James







Financial fair play allows for expansion of facilities, which is inherently flawed. Say West Bromwich Albion found a new owner with £500m, he could spend this on a 70,000-seater stadium, which he could not fill, but not on a £10m striker who could help West Brom challenge for European places and gain financial prizes. NineDeuce, UK.

…And then enjoy the success required to fill a big new stadium. I get it NineDeuce, but I think you’ll find it makes much more sense the other way around: a 70,000 capacity stadium and a team in 14th place.

‘If the proposal is agreed, teams like Roman Abramovich's Chelsea and Manchester City would be punished.’ What is wrong with that? How can prudent clubs like Arsenal compete with oil money clubs who spend billions? Pat Bateman, London.

Selling your best players to your closest rivals isn’t prudent, Pat. It’s suicidal.

Excellent idea, Mr Samuel. While we are at it let us scrap any idea of FFP completely and allow the entire Premier League to be bought up by oligarchs and Sheiks. Then we can watch teams of extravagantly expensive foreign imports and the competition for their services will drive salaries and transfer fees ever higher. This will really encourage clubs to invest in domestic talent. The four signatories of the letter to Richard Scudamore are all clubs which grew organically over years or decades: they were not suddenly presented with hundreds of millions like Chelsea or Manchester City. GzzzaEsq, London.

Is this the moment for the Manchester United history lesson? John H Davies is the man who formed Manchester United from Newton Heath in 1902, when the club was burdened with a debt of £2,670 and faced liquidation. For the time, his investment was immense, buying players and improving the ground. James Gibson was another chairman whose investment was disproportionate. He spent £40,000 during the Great Depression and rebuilt Old Trafford after the war. These seem trifling amounts now but equate to millions, in real terms. Nobody is advocating a whole league of billionaire owners, but the point is that every club has needed to make a great leap at some point in its history. In the days of Davies and Gibson the finance required for these moves was more realistic. Chelsea and Manchester City did not create the circumstances in which only £500m was good enough; the organisations and clubs that now seek to judge them did. So there is no moral difference. As for inflated salaries, look at the progression of record transfers. You’ll find Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool did as much to inflate the market as Chelsea and Manchester City.



The idea that we should be careful with financial regulation because your team might have its own Jack Walker, Sheik Mansour or Roman Abramovich to catapult it to the top, is completely delusional. It is like listening to the people who say you shouldn't tax the rich because one day you could be rich too. Jimosai, Canada.

Except I’ve never met anyone who advocates not taxing the rich for those reasons. You can’t just invent logic to argue against.

Hardly financial fair play: But the Glazers continue to get away with their running of Old Trafford

Financial fair play means that a wealthy owner cannot put his own money into a club, but the Glazers can put Manchester United in hock to the banks for millions without penalty. How on earth is that financially sound? Of course it isn't. It's just an anti-competitive scheme to maintain the status quo dreamt up by Bayern, United, Real Madrid and Barçelona. It is no coincidence that the very lines of income that are OK under FFP are the ones where the established clubs fare best. There are lots of major companies that make losses. As long as those losses are sustainable because they have a strong balance sheet, nobody in financial circles is the least bit worried. Paris Saint-Germain seem to be ignoring it. I can only think that they have taken sound legal advice and have resolved to take the whole thing to EU competition authorities as soon as Michel Platini and his mates try to enforce it. Big Blue, Manchester.

Randy Lerner, the chairman of Aston Villa, said pretty much the same to me earlier in the season. He said the FFP rules focus on one specific part of the balance sheet as if it is the whole picture. One wonders why.

A simpler, fairer way would be to allow all clubs to spend an equal amount each season. Mark, Ashton under Lyne.

I wouldn’t be in favour of that either, Mark. But it would be fairer than this.

The FFP rules will be enough if implemented properly, which they aren't so far because Manchester City, Paris Saint-Germain and Chelsea have basically sponsored themselves with absurd amounts of money to get around the rules. For example, City get £40m plus each year from Etihad for their stadium name rights. Sain, Munich.

No, so much more of level playing field to have your ground paid for by public money as happens throughout Germany and in much of Europe. Maybe we could stick the bill for the Allianz Arena on to anything Bayern Munich are showing right now and see how healthy their figures look.

What do you say to that, Franz? Bayern might not be so smug were they forced to pay for their own stadium...

Why should other teams get a cut of shirts with Manchester United’s badge on? TriggRNC, Barrow-in-Furness.

Nobody is saying they should. But if Manchester United are so interested in the health of the league, it seems germane to point out the way that health is achieved in other countries.



What you are saying is the only way to challenge the established elite is through excessive over-spending and that natural progression via youth, intelligent buying and living within your means is not a viable strategy. I’m sure the Arsenal Invincibles side would have something to say about that, considering it was built on a combination of youth and cheap intelligent buys. It is perfectly possible for any decent sized club to build their way up and challenge for a top four place like Everton. Spending billions is just a quick fix, lazy method. Peas, London.

Oh please, Peas. We’ve already exposed the lie of the cheaply assembled Invincibles team but to claim that Everton are proof of the way a club can build slowly. How many times have they finished top four in this modern Champions League era? Once. What happened? Because they didn’t have a high UEFA co-efficient ranking they were drawn against a good Spanish team, Villarreal, and eliminated in the qualifying round. And, throughout, their best players have been taken by other clubs: Wayne Rooney, Jack Rodwell, Mikel Arteta, Joleon Lescott. What do you reckon will become of Leighton Baines this summer? Everton are the argument against FFP, the proof that any attempt to build organically will be systematically undermined. That is why Everton are against it.



I’m all for the stopping rich owners funding a business by operating at a loss, but if Arsenal don’t succeed in the implementation of this, they need to accept defeat, get Alisher Usmanov on board, and start using the money he is willing to spend. Bambamwoohoo, United States.

So just to recap. Down with owner investment, until it suits us. These are my principles and if you don’t like them, I’ve got others, as Marx said. Groucho, not Karl. Reminds me of a chap on the Daily Telegraph who accused me of unsound reasoning on FFP having fallen all over Usmanov on a trip out to Uzbekistan a few years back. At least I’m consistent.

Utter nonsense. Financial fair play should be bought in ASAP to bring a more level playing field. Martin Samuel fails to address the point that Man City and Chelsea have contributed hugely to the inflation of players wages, which in turn is fed through to fans by increasing ticket prices: simple economics. If you look back to the Eighties and Nineties there were many teams competing and winning trophies, such as Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest. FFP properly implemented would allow managers of clubs outside the top four to mount a challenge, particularly if player wages were reduced or even capped. Jay1200, Sydney, Australia.

So let’s go back to Jay’s golden Eighties and Nineties. A few highlights. Stan Collymore (Nottingham Forest to Liverpool), £8.5m, British transfer record. Dennis Bergkamp (Inter Milan to Arsenal), £7.5m, British transfer record. Andy Cole (Newcastle United to Manchester United), £7m, British transfer record. Jaap Stam (PSV Eindhoven to Manchester United), £10.75m, record for a defender, record foreign signing. Sander Westerveld (Vitesse Arnhem to Liverpool), £4m, record for a goalkeeper. Marc Overmars (Ajax to Arsenal), £7m, record for a winger. Dean Saunders (Derby County to Liverpool), £2.9m, British transfer record. Bryan Robson (West Bromwich Albion to Manchester United), £1.5m, British transfer record. But you’re right, it is only Manchester City and Chelsea that have been forcing prices up.



Inflation: Andy Cole's £7m move to Manchester United was a British transfer record in 1995

Will people please stop using Germany as an example of how football should be in this country? The game is part-nationalised, with national and local governments paying for stadia. Of course it would be cheaper to watch Arsenal if the council had paid for Ashburton Grove. But they didn't, so it isn't. Bill, Barnsley.

Every club should earn what they get, not buy it. Look at Borussia Dortmund, they've done it and believe it or not that could happen in England if the playing field was fairer. Thatguyoverthere, Galway.

Dortmund were kept afloat by a loan from Bayern Munich that was so above board it wasn’t disclosed for 10 years. Before that, they were in a financial black hole every bit as disastrous as Leeds. This is their resurgence, not the way it has always been. Bill makes a very valid point about the way stadiums are financed on the continent. We have tied ourselves in knots over the City of Manchester Stadium and the London Olympic Stadium here, yet German or French governments offer direct assistance to clubs on infrastructure, rebuilding and relocation.



This is a really bad move from Manchester United and David Gill especially. If you exclude Chelsea and Manchester City, the Premier League would become even more boring than La Liga with United winning every season and no hope for the other clubs. Chester, London.

To Gill’s credit he has always resisted any suggestion that United should negotiate an independent television deal on the grounds such an advantage would make the league uncompetitive and less appealing commercially. Quite why he thinks this will work out differently, heaven knows. With Platini replacing Blatter someday soon, maybe he’s got his eyes on the prize.



The financial doping at Manchester City and Chelsea has gone so far out of control, that the game is now devalued and achievements are hollow. I know because in my younger days I was a City fan and watching, with excitement and passion, Colin Bell, Francis Lee and Mike Summerbee from the Platt Lane End and the Kippax. I cannot connect with the current bunch of mercenaries regardless of their talent. The sad reality is there was no enjoyment in winning the Premier League. The bottomless pot of money made it a formality at some point. Cityrule, Paignton.

OK, I get it. Roughly 40 years ago you liked football, now you don’t. Fair enough, mind your own business, and leave it to those of us who still do.



So what you're saying is that, rather than earn success like Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur, and Everton, clubs should just be able to flourish for no reason other than money pumped in by some random rich guy who just wants to play a real life version of Football Manager? And what if no rich guy likes the idea of owning a club in Norfolk, Middlesbrough or Sheffield? Where does it end, Martin? People waffle on for years about football being simply about money, and when something is done about it, these same people start moaning. The Manxman, Douglas, Isle Of Man.

I never moaned about some rich guy wanting to spend his fortune because it usually meant I saw better matches, better players and better football. I wish Manchester United had wanted to pay £80m for Cristiano Ronaldo rather than sell him for that amount and the day he comes back I’ll be the happiest guy in the press box. I noticed you added Everton to your list to make it appear inclusive but what have Everton won since money ruled the game? Bill Kenwright opposes FFP because he knows it is Everton’s last chance gone for good. Your previous posts referred to Manchester United as ‘we’. Don’t pretend you give a stuff about Everton.



Unless FFP is delivered in full, and with an added clause about Fair Play to Fans - a maximum ticket price for example - there will be no end to this madness. Peter, Dundee.

Oh don’t be so naïve. Fair play to fans? This isn’t about you, don’t you get that?

This article is arguing that the only way to compete is by bringing in a billionaire owner, but what about the teams without? They are truly in trouble. A decade ago Spurs would have had a realistic shot at the League, bringing in good young players like Gareth Bale and spending money wisely. What hope have they of getting ahead of moneybags Manchester City though? None and they never will as things stand. So what are you arguing for? A world where the team that spends the most wins and everyone else just worries about finding a new investor? Crazy. And in what world can Arsenal be the bad guys for opposing billionaire owners and focusing on organic growth. How did Arsenal become such a big club in the first place? On the training pitch, and that's a lesson for every club. Taiwo Temilade, London.

No, my argument is that the elite clubs have made it so wealth is all that matters and are now horrified that billionaires want to play their game. Don’t you see that just as Manchester City and Chelsea are said to be thwarting Tottenham, so Tottenham thwarted Southampton by buying Gareth Bale. Some clubs will always be bigger, just don’t enshrine it in law. As for how Arsenal became such a big club, where do want to start? The dubious process by which they entered the top division, the day they poached Huddersfield Town’s manager, breaking the British transfer record for Dennis Bergkamp, or that training field stuff. Because I’m sure they have trained every day through their history, they just haven’t always won the league. So it might not be that alone.

Food chain: Tottenham took advatnage of Southampton and bought a young Gareth Bale

So, in other words, if a club owner invested heavily in the 20th century, that's perfectly acceptable. But if they've invested in the 21st century then that's not financially fair? Harry, Newcastle.



Got it in one, H.

Manchester City fans complain because they can’t afford to buy tickets to see Arsenal, without thinking for a second that their inflationary wages and transfer activity could possibly be in any way to blame for this. Keith, Chorley.

Just as away fans will have the hump when ticket prices at City go through the roof because FFP outlaws subsidised football. Cuts both ways, Keith.

Yes, Manchester United borrowed bond money at a cost, and will pay this back via income from the fans, sponsors and television. At Manchester City, the money comes from an outside source, without cost, because it is being injected free every year to support massive losses, without interest or repayment. If the cash the Sheik has injected carried an interest or coupon cost like a bond, then fine, they are on the same playing field as everyone else. Salford Red, Salford.

Or they are Portsmouth. Money as a loan rather than a gift is what crippled Portsmouth and nearly sent Leeds to the wall. It should be the first thing to go.



The only club run in a good, proper and fair way in the top five is Spurs. Londonli, London.

The lot embroiled in the Olympic Stadium hacking scandal, due in court later this year, yes?

Generous owners have made the Premier League a competitive league. Over the years almost all of Manchester United’s rivals have relied on money from owners: Blackburn, Newcastle, Chelsea, Manchester City. Without these owners the Premier League would be a one team competition. Moe, London.

Great point, Moe. Take the ability to invest out and it would have been United all the way.

It will never work, it is restraint of trade and against the law. Owners of companies have a legal right to bankroll the company if they make a loss. Blamethebanks, London.

It would certainly be interesting to see a legal challenge.

Gain the advantage, then change the rules so others can't do the same. Mike, Bournemouth.



You’ve got to admit it’s a plan, Mike.

Enjoy the next three or four years because Manchester United will soon be debt free and making huge profits rather than paying the banks off. The holiday period for Manchester City and Chelsea will be over and United will be dining at the top table again. Only difference being, United will be operating within the rules because of the money they generate. Tick tock.... Rooney Van Hernandez, Manchester.

So it’s not about the health of the league, then, but about United using their wealth and power – forcing clubs to abide by the rules they make up for instance – to crush the competition like ants? Sounds fair.

I really do hope they put a stop to owners being able to fund operating losses and get back to basics. Since these rich owners have come in, football has lost its soul, become plastic and less exciting to watch. Before these rich owners came in, football was less predictable with smaller teams like Blackburn, Derby, Nottingham Forest and Wolves winning the title. Football fans today have become zombies and glory hunters and do not know what they are missing. Merlin, Kent.

Wolves last won the league in 1959 Merlin, which predates Sheik Mansour by half a century, but that aside I think you are deluded if you believe FFP is going to usher in some golden age of equality. It will make the rise of the small club less likely as they will be pegged so far behind the elite few as to be irrelevant. Wealth redistribution is the only way to return to the day of the semi-level playing field and that simply won’t happen.

Revealed: The letter with the Arsenal header which says the proposed FFP regulations do not go far enough, exposed by Martin Samuel in Sportsmail

How did you get a copy when the letter says private and confidential? Reuzil, Glasgow.

It’s called journalism, mate. While we’re still permitted some of us intend practising it.

The problem the others have is that Manchester City already have a very good squad and it only needs topping up each year. With the introduction of the new training facility and infrastructure investment the horse is already safe in the stable, but other clubs won’t be able to follow. KL, Manchester.

True. City insist they will be all right but Everton, for instance, could be made unsellable.

From former Arsenal captain, Tony Adams: 'I think that a significant factor, 90 per cent, in why we achieved so much is that Danny Fiszman invested £50m in the club and we were able to go to the next level. I got my first decent contract at the club, so did David Seaman, we were able to bring in Dennis Bergkamp and that was before Arsène Wenger arrived. David Platt, Patrick Vieira, Nicolas Anelka came, and we were able to pay top players from around the world.' Simon, Manchester.

And there it is, from the mouth of Arsenal’s great captain and from Simon, who appeared to take every pro FFP post as a personal slight. Every club, at some time, needs to invest, to expand, to take that next step. The hypocrisy over attitudes to Manchester City and Chelsea rankles because it is the judgemental elite that have made this so financially prohibitive in the first place. You may think Arsenal rose to prominence organically but I’d say Tony knows the truth.

This article pays no heed to any opposing views. HParsons39, United Kingdom.

See that photograph at the top of the page. That’s me. If you see a picture of you, and a 48 point logo that reads ‘The HParsons39 Column’, you’re on and good luck with it. 41,000 words remember. If you’re reading this, you’ve just ploughed through roughly one sixth of them and have my thanks and admiration. But you probably should get back to work. As should I. Until next time…



