Drugs in other sports and the media.

1188189190192194

Posts

  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 9,430
    Right... well I know this is a cycling forum, but I'm going to have to chip in on the football side anyway, seeing as we're apparently doing that now.

    Firstly - does FFP effectively equal the rich, established "big clubs" raising the drawbridge to prevent others joining them? Yes, there's a fair amount of truth to that. In reality FFP came too late, it's shutting the barn door after several horses (City, Chelsea, PSG...) had already bolted. And while we'd already seen the rich benefactor football model many times before (Blackburn in the early 90s come to mind) it was orders of magnitude below what the oligarchs and petro-states have been doing since then.

    The influx of this cash - coupled with the massive disparity between Champions League clubs and everyone else - caused runaway inflation in player wages and transfer fees. This in turn was crippling many clubs, that after a hundred or more years of playing football were going to the wall.

    FFP, by insisting clubs operate within a fixed level of operating deficit (note - not debt) has managed to turn this around. Rich benefactors were prohibited from bankrolling defecit because it isn't sustainable - not for the club they bankroll nor football in general. We still need massive reform of the CL (won't happen, at least not in the right direction, it's shaping up to further ring-fence cash for the big clubs) but FFP is a step in the right direction. If FFP had been in place a couple of decades earlier then Leeds would probably still be in the premier league, and not fighting to come back up after more than a decade in the lower leagues.

    As for ManUtd's debt, their gross debt hasn't increased, their net debt has. In essence, they didn't borrow to buy players, they used their cash reserves (or similar). I don't know how sustainable this is in the long run, but they pay around £25mill a year to service their debt and *also* pay out about the same in dividends. That suggests to me that their operating margins are well within the margins of good housekeeping, even if the leveraged buyout that is the source of the debt was far from desirable.

    And Man City? It should be remembered, they aren't being smashed for breaking FFP rules. They're being smashed for lying about it - that's fraud.

    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • awaveyawavey Posts: 2,368
    but I didnt think other than a handful of clubs at the top of the Premier league any football club was actually "profitable" anymore in the sense their income actually meets their out goings on paper.

    they are all financial basket cases because theyve been dragged into this crazy world where you agree to pay someone 60k a week for x many years on the basis you hope never to have to complete the pay out because actually you dont have the money to do it.

    ffp was supposed to force clubs to stop doing that and stop going on crazy spending sprees with money they didnt have.

    Im sure there was a lower league chairman who was highlighting he's expected every season to find 10million pounds just to break even and then his club is competing with other clubs who are doing things like setting up companies selling their assets at vastly inflated amounts to these companies who let them back to these clubs to use them for free or lower than market rate values.

    it will take a premier league club to go bankrupt before its taken seriously but theyll have set up some Euro super league by then
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 45,071 Lives Here
    Isn’t the real surprise that the ban has been slapped on? I don’t think anyone thought City were actually adhering to FFP?
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,764
    edited 16 February
    awavey said:

    but I didnt think other than a handful of clubs at the top of the Premier league any football club was actually "profitable" anymore in the sense their income actually meets their out goings on paper.


    But the growth in the value of the company is a lot greater that the losses. Most major companies don't make a profit in their early days. Amazon for example didn't make a profit for 14 years. But it's value kept growing so people kept investing. FFP would have prevented the investment that allowed for that growth.


    I don't dispute that Man City broke the rules, I just think the intention of the rules is not to prevent what Man City did, unless the intention is actually to maintain the status quo for the established clubs.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 8,653
    Money spent on infrastructure, training and youth players is not included.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,764
    edited 16 February

    Money spent on infrastructure, training and youth players is not included.


    They don't win matches though. The exemptions just make the rule make less sense. So Arsenal & Spurs can spend huge amounts on a new stadium, but those who already have a good enough stadium can't spend it on improvements elsewhere?
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,764
    Anyway. Back to cycling. TUEs are still being abused with nine being issued by the UCI in 2019
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 8,653
    RichN95. said:

    Money spent on infrastructure, training and youth players is not included.


    They don't win matches though. The exemptions just make the rule make less sense. So Arsenal & Spurs can spend huge amounts on a new stadium, but those who already have a good enough stadium can't spend it on improvements elsewhere?
    Capex and opex are different things. It's hard to argue spending lots on players is capex.
  • Mad_MalxMad_Malx Posts: 3,912
    9 being abused or 9 issued?
    Or do you think there is no case for TUE? Don’t all of Novo Nordisk need them?
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,764
    edited 16 February
    Mad_Malx said:

    9 being abused or 9 issued?
    Or do you think there is no case for TUE? Don’t all of Novo Nordisk need them?


    Issued. The 'abused' bit was a joke as some think TUEs are huge problem..

    Novo will probably have long term TUEs lasting for several years. New riders will have their existing TUEs converted to UCI ones. So they probably don't show up in the data.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Mad_MalxMad_Malx Posts: 3,912
    Ah right, didn’t spot the sarcasm (I should have thought about who posted).
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 9,430
    RichN95. said:

    Money spent on infrastructure, training and youth players is not included.


    They don't win matches though. The exemptions just make the rule make less sense. So Arsenal & Spurs can spend huge amounts on a new stadium, but those who already have a good enough stadium can't spend it on improvements elsewhere?
    Hold on, Arsenal built their new stadium with their own money, not some billionaire gift. They didn't get it as a freebie from the local council / Olympic committee either.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • RichN95. said:

    Money spent on infrastructure, training and youth players is not included.


    They don't win matches though. The exemptions just make the rule make less sense. So Arsenal & Spurs can spend huge amounts on a new stadium, but those who already have a good enough stadium can't spend it on improvements elsewhere?
    Hold on, Arsenal built their new stadium with their own money, not some billionaire gift. They didn't get it as a freebie from the local council / Olympic committee either.
    Yup.

    If any sport should have a level playing field it surely must be football. o:)
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,764
    edited 16 February



    Hold on, Arsenal built their new stadium with their own money, not some billionaire gift. They didn't get it as a freebie from the local council / Olympic committee either.


    An owner investing in his club isn't a gift.

    But that's not my point. It's still money. I don't see why some expenditure should be excused if the aim of the rule is to make clubs financially more stable.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 9,430
    RichN95. said:



    Hold on, Arsenal built their new stadium with their own money, not some billionaire gift. They didn't get it as a freebie from the local council / Olympic committee either.


    An owner investing in his club isn't a gift.

    But that's not my point. It's still money. I don't see why some expenditure should be excused if the aim of the rule is to make clubs financially more stable.
    Well, because investing in improving infrastructure doesn't significantly increase operating costs. Owner buys you a new training ground, you've got a new training ground. Owner buys you a load of expensive players, you've got a wage bill that isn't sustainable unless your owner carries on chucking the cash in.

    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,764



    Well, because investing in improving infrastructure doesn't significantly increase operating costs. Owner buys you a new training ground, you've got a new training ground. Owner buys you a load of expensive players, you've got a wage bill that isn't sustainable unless your owner carries on chucking the cash in.

    But ultimately they probably will become sustainable once they have established themselves fully and won the Champions League. Just like Chelsea did. The owner has the money to pay, the club isn't in hock to the bank, there's no financial peril. Any losses are offset by the growth of the value of the team. The owner honouring his wages is more likely than many teams that have borrowed on the expectation of CL qualification. The FFS rule, introduced by a man later banned from football for corruption, was to protect that expectation.

    It's the same with salary caps, especially in the US. It's just a cartel of rich people protecting their bottom line.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 9,430
    I truly doubt Platini had much at all to do with the FFP regulations, just some grandstanding on his part. Chelsea had a £500million "loan" with no expectation of repaying - which *should* have been covered by FFP.

    I've said before that I have sympathy with the "pulling up the drawbridge" argument, but the knock-on effects throughout football needed addressing. That there are other things that need addressing (share of income from CL to lower clubs, share of income from Premier league to other divisions) doesn't mean that's not the case.

    Whether or not City eventually become sustainable is entirely at the whim of the billionaire owners. They could pull out tomorrow for whatever their reasons and the club would be dead in a fortnight. That's not sustainable, and it's not right.

    As an aside, you know I'm an Arsenal fan, and I've consistently argued against my club adopting the rich benefactor model. I didn't want my club financed by Usmanov, as I didn't want it to be a billionaire's full-sized Subbuteo team. I'd rather they f****ed off and bought a bigger yacht than the other billionaires if they want to get into a willy waving contest. I despise billionaire football as practised by Chelsea, City, PSG and others.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • bobmcstuffbobmcstuff Posts: 7,873
    According to the FT:

    "The club is now considering an explosive legal strategy in which it will not only argue that it did not breach the regulations but that these rules should not exist at all."

    https://www.ft.com/content/c8e25054-519a-11ea-8841-482eed0038b1
  • larkimlarkim Posts: 2,259
    RichN95. said:

    Mad_Malx said:

    9 being abused or 9 issued?
    Or do you think there is no case for TUE? Don’t all of Novo Nordisk need them?


    Issued. The 'abused' bit was a joke as some think TUEs are huge problem..

    Novo will probably have long term TUEs lasting for several years. New riders will have their existing TUEs converted to UCI ones. So they probably don't show up in the data.
    I've been banging this drum for years. The *actual* volume of TUEs is very low, yet the usual suspects in the press / blogs will have their readers believe that TUEs are so widely issued and in force that they are ten a penny. The reality is that they are low, and they have always been low (though perhaps they are even lower now due to adverse publicity).

    That's not to say that *some* TUEs may have been questionable. But, for example, ask anyone whether Mo Farah has had an TUEs and they'll say he's on them for asthma, thyroid meds, you name it. In reality when Fancy Bears leaked their stuff he'd had one in 2008 (triamconolione, before he moved to NOP and long before he was a world beater) and then 3 in 2014 because he was hospitalised with a tooth infection (IV saline, morphine and vicodin).

    If you were operating a doping programme, you'd be delighted at all the attention that TUEs get, because it provides a distraction for journalists who are simply asking the wrong questions. Beyond rapid emergency TUEs (e.g. morphine administration following a serious accident etc), TUEs and their administration is quite strict and challenging - and they are mostly very shortlived.

    Yet your average man on the Clapham omnibus will read that TUEs are prevalent and are at the root of lots of doping.
    2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
    2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #3s)
    2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
    2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
    2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
    2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 45,071 Lives Here
    Think it's fair to say, journalists asking questions hasn't really had much of an effect on doping apart from acting as a nice reminder to athletes that the public don't like dopers.

    All the genuine advances that have been made in the fight have been a combination of better testing (think all the CERA busts!) and police work.
  • Think it's fair to say, journalists asking questions hasn't really had much of an effect on doping apart from acting as a nice reminder to athletes that the public don't like dopers.

    All the genuine advances that have been made in the fight have been a combination of better testing (think all the CERA busts!) and police work.

    And that guy trying to ride the Haute Route and accidentally ending up banning Russia from sport.
    and then the next thing you know
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 45,071 Lives Here
    I thought the issue there was more the Russian police were *helping* athletes dope.
  • m.r.m.m.r.m. Posts: 1,636

    According to the FT:

    "The club is now considering an explosive legal strategy in which it will not only argue that it did not breach the regulations but that these rules should not exist at all."

    https://www.ft.com/content/c8e25054-519a-11ea-8841-482eed0038b1

    I see it the same way regarding my speeding tickets.
    PTP Champion 2019
  • gsk82gsk82 Posts: 2,390
    The BBC are sticking the boot in to Farah again. I don't particularly like the guy, but think this again seems to be over playing something that isn't illegal.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/51591701
    "Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 45,071 Lives Here
    gsk82 said:

    The BBC are sticking the boot in to Farah again. I don't particularly like the guy, but think this again seems to be over playing something that isn't illegal.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/51591701

    I'd suggest, like with various riders in cycling, if sensible journos are really banging the drum loudly, it's often because they know something they can't say....
  • david37david37 Posts: 77

    gsk82 said:

    The BBC are sticking the boot in to Farah again. I don't particularly like the guy, but think this again seems to be over playing something that isn't illegal.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/51591701

    I'd suggest, like with various riders in cycling, if sensible journos are really banging the drum loudly, it's often because they know something they can't say....
    And there's no use asking the doctor because he forgot to keep records..........
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,764

    gsk82 said:

    The BBC are sticking the boot in to Farah again. I don't particularly like the guy, but think this again seems to be over playing something that isn't illegal.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/51591701

    I'd suggest, like with various riders in cycling, if sensible journos are really banging the drum loudly, it's often because they know something they can't say....

    Or alternatively they spent a lot of time and money chasing a story which didn't materialise and are now exaggerating what small things they did find.

    Twitter: @RichN95
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 45,071 Lives Here
    RichN95. said:

    gsk82 said:

    The BBC are sticking the boot in to Farah again. I don't particularly like the guy, but think this again seems to be over playing something that isn't illegal.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/51591701

    I'd suggest, like with various riders in cycling, if sensible journos are really banging the drum loudly, it's often because they know something they can't say....

    Or alternatively they spent a lot of time and money chasing a story which didn't materialise and are now exaggerating what small things they did find.

    Then why spend all that money on another panorama doc?
  • larkimlarkim Posts: 2,259
    RichN95. said:

    gsk82 said:

    The BBC are sticking the boot in to Farah again. I don't particularly like the guy, but think this again seems to be over playing something that isn't illegal.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/51591701

    I'd suggest, like with various riders in cycling, if sensible journos are really banging the drum loudly, it's often because they know something they can't say....

    Or alternatively they spent a lot of time and money chasing a story which didn't materialise and are now exaggerating what small things they did find.

    Yep, somewhere between those two truths. Though who we consider to be a "sensible" journo or not is a moot point. Clearly the BBC think Roan is a sensible journo, otherwise they wouldn't employ him. It'd be a brave journalist to say to their editor "Look, you know those £'000s you've allowed me to spend chasing this story which I said was dynamite and rock solid - well, it turns out there's nothing there."
    2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
    2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #3s)
    2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
    2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
    2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
    2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)
  • david37david37 Posts: 77
    RichN95. said:

    gsk82 said:

    The BBC are sticking the boot in to Farah again. I don't particularly like the guy, but think this again seems to be over playing something that isn't illegal.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/51591701

    I'd suggest, like with various riders in cycling, if sensible journos are really banging the drum loudly, it's often because they know something they can't say....

    Or alternatively they spent a lot of time and money chasing a story which didn't materialise and are now exaggerating what small things they did find.

    well they found that uk athletics and Farah were trying to hide what they were doing. They found another sports doctor forgot on just one occasion to keep records. that is not the behaviour of professionals with nothing to hide, any more than British Cycling and Freeman had nothing to hide.
Sign In or Register to comment.