Platini needs to pull that stick out of his ass

seek

seek

K-League
1 August 2005
Seoul
Liverpool FC
Platini not bothered about England
European chief cares 'nothing' about England's absence

Uefa president Michel Platini has said he could not care less about England missing out on Euro 2008.

The Three Lions came within a whisker of qualifying for Austria and Switzerland before losing their final group match against Croatia to fall at the final hurdle.

The loss, which cost Steve McClaren his job and led to Fabio Capello's appointment, meant England failed to qualify for a major finals for the first time since the 1994 World Cup in USA.

However, Platini refused to express a belief that the tournament would be worse off without England after revealing their absence meant 'nothing' to him.

Nothing

"What does England's absence mean to me? Nothing," Platini told the Daily Mail.

"They had only to qualify on the pitch. I do not wish to say that we miss England.

"If England are not capable of finishing in the first two teams from a group of six, that is their problem.

"Their clubs have done well in the Champions League, but club football has nothing to do with the international game."

-Skysports-


I'm not from England, as such, I don't really care about the demise of the English national team...but why does this guy always go out of his way to express his feelings about English football? It does my head in seeing him bitch about England this England that all the time--is there something I missed? Can't stand his bitching!
 
I think it is related to his recent moan about English clubs. The bribery and corruption that is rife throughout Europe is of no consequence to him, he (and UEFA in general) are only concerned with what goes on over here.

Cocks, the lot of them.
 
it's a fact... i dont miss england at euro2008.

1. The hooligan problem is lower
2. Englands football isnt pretty, its totally unsuccesful an overrated.

England count themselves every tournament as a favorit, but they never are. As an example, we germans were the only nation wich is in every tournament (world cup, european champ.) since 1934.

So if you compare for example Germany with England you see: 3x World Champion, 4x Second Place and 3x thrid place in World Cup.
3x European Champion, 2x Second place, 1x half final.

in 18 Fifa Worldcups since 1934, germany is in 7 Worldcups Finalists... and 11 Times (over 50% from all world cups) germany stays in half final.

and England? 1966 WC winners against germany. And then? nothing.

Same thing at the european championship:

England greatest is one third place in 7 euros.
Germany plays 9 euros with 3 titles, 2 second places and one half final.

Same compare is possible with france, italy, netherlands.

England never counts to the big 5 in european football. Nowadays the English premierleague is the top of the world, because they have people who give clubs like chelsea billions of pounds for foreign players.

I think that is platinis reason why he dont care about englands absence on euro08. If italy, netherlands, france or germany miss - he would care about this miss.
 
He's the head of UEFA though - the diplomatic thing to do is to say it's a shame blah blah. Whether or not he means it would be irrelevant.
 
I prefer him to say whats on his mind then saying "Its a shame they are not in the euro, they would make the tournament a lot more competitive" crap they all say, its starting to look like a cliche just to look good on camera.
I'm not that into Platini but i admire him for declaring this to the press.
 
It's called Diplomacy! He's the head of an organisation of which we are a member, and he openly says he couldn't give a shit about us. It is the beginning of hostility and totally unnecessary.
 
It's called Diplomacy! He's the head of an organisation of which we are a member, and he openly says he couldn't give a shit about us. It is the beginning of hostility and totally unnecessary.
Click to expand...

1 - before saying that "he openly said he coudln't give a shit" we should check the sources, check who was the reporter who asked the question and wich was "litterally" his reply.

2 - Being the leader of uefa, platini has to do exactly the opposite of what u suggested, mate. Saying that a team (no matter wich team) will be missed would mean showing an absolute lack of respect towards those team who were able to reach the qualification.
that's what diplomacy implies, that's what fair play implies.... showing respect for the results of the competitions, and giving credit to those who get an achievement. that's it.
if italy or germany or whatever would have missed the qualification, platini would have said the same thing about them.... because if they didn't make it, it means that someone else proved to be better than them.... and saying that those teams which didn't make it would be missed would be insulting for those other teams who proved to deserve the qualification.

there's really nothing to be upset for.
u know how they say... there's something else on the other side of the english channel.
let's try to reverse the reply. if platini would have replied " oh yes they're an important team of an important country, definitely they will be missed"..... then how should a croatian or a russian feel???

and btw, FFS, it's the daily mail we're talking about. a stupid chauvinist journalist asked a stupid chauvinist question to platini.... and michel gave him the reply he deserved.
 
Last edited:
I think lo zio is right with his take on diplomacy..BUT instead of highlighting the negatives while keeping such impartiality, he should concentrate on the positives. It's obvious, his blatant bias against all things English, and it just looks silly coming from such an "important" figure. This isn't the first time I've heard him moan about England either.
 
His words have probably been taken out of context. I mean realistically what could he say "No the tournament it worse without England" ?

The bottom line is, as he stated correctly, England had to finish in the top 2 of a group of 6, they didn't and so they don't deserve to be there. Now it's time to focus on Euro 2008 and the teams that made it.

No team has a devine right to make it to any competition (ask Holland about WC2002, or Brazil who just made it to WC2002 by 3 points) you know what you have to do, and the group was not as hard as say Romania / Holland / Bulgaria or France / Italy / Ukraine / Scotland...

England were not good enough, and you can debate the causes of this as long as you want (nationalistic policy of employing a hopeless English manager after getting rid of a better Swedish one, even though the last decent English manager was in 1990; overhyped players; technically deficient players; overexpectant media and fans etc etc). Russia and Croatia deserved it more, they were better teams over the 2 years.
 
cfdh_edmundo said:
His words have probably been taken out of context. I mean realistically what could he say "No the tournament it worse without England" ?
Click to expand...

The context was that he was bemoaning the fact that Chelsea and Manchester United have spent big money the last few years (but not bemoaning Real Madrid, Juventus AC Milan etc.) Then he was asked about the English National Team and you get the above strop.

This wasn't an innocent shrug of the shoulders, he has an axe to grind.
 
T Butcher fan said:
The context was that he was bemoaning the fact that Chelsea and Manchester United have spent big money the last few years (but not bemoaning Real Madrid, Juventus AC Milan etc.) Then he was asked about the English National Team and you get the above strop.

This wasn't an innocent shrug of the shoulders, he has an axe to grind.
Click to expand...

it's not about spending big money... it's about feeding the clubs with debts.... and that's not an italian issue, neither a spanish issue. that's an english issue.

platini is trying push for a "sustainable development" idea of football. and anybody who knows football, anybody who knows the financial situation of many italian clubs (Milan, inter, roma and lazio used to do exactly the same thing english clubs are doing now, 10 years ago), cannot disagree with him on this point.

almost all the top clubs in europe today (except barca, inter and almost all the top english clubs) try to sustain themselves with just a share of their own incomes.... and some of them also achieved brilliant results (sevilla, lyon, roma, fiorentina, vilareal, juventus, etc..).

it's much easier for top clubs to get financial credit from merchant banks... even when they offer less security (warranty) than little clubs.
this in long term, nullifies the competition in a league and increase the gap between the "rich" and the "poors" clubs.

that's what michel is moaning about.... and it's not about grinding an axe.... he is right.

the other issue michel moaned about is the tendency of british clubs to steal kids from italian and spanish youth teams, getting around the european laws and fifa rules with some dirty tricks.

now, once again, u can pretend this issue doesn't exists and call michel a biased anti-english cunt......
but it's a fact this problem exist.... and it's not a spanish problem, not an italian or german problem.... nobody steals kids from our youth teams, except british teams......and they didn't just steal italian kids, also spanish and french kids... rossi, pique, lupoli, fabregas, mannone... your club, chelsea, stole fabio borini from bologna, last season... and the other 2 youngsters from reggina this season.

now we might pretend this isn't true, that it doesn't happens, that everybody hates england (for some weird reasons) and that everybody just wanna bash england and english clubs with axes or whatever.......

or we might open our eyes, take a look at the facts, and start to consider premier league issues.
 
Last edited:
No, I'm not buying this. Everything Platini has said in the last few months has smacked of protectionism. English clubs are run on the rules of the free market and UEFA don't like it. But we don't have a safety net like Spanish and Italian clubs. No council is going to helpfully buy our training ground to clear our debts (where was Platini when that happened?)

Platini constantly ignores bribery and corruption within UEFA's leagues and it's own organisation. 3 teams already kicked out of the CL this summer!!! - It'd be really nice if UEFA turned their attention to the integrity of the game as a whole, not one specific league.

I agree with you about English clubs signing foreign kids - it is immoral, and an indictment of our coaching standards, but it is legal.

If Platini wants to change the way we English clubs operate, then step 1 is not to rant about them every time he opens his mouth.
 
mate, u talk like that, coz, living in england u just hear platini's comments about premiership.

i can tell u platini also remarked the many problems we have in serie a aswell (just a couple of weeks ago he was blaming inter management and suggesting them to follow fiorentina, udinese, juve and roma path).

and he also blamed the spanish authorities for the unfair advantage spanish clubs get from their "soft fiscal treatment".

u don't hear about this coz the english media aren't interested in it.

and talking about corruption, well if 3 teams have already been kicked off the competition, then it must mean that he actually didn't ignore the problem at all.

Michel is a very smart man. he has a project. a great project ....actually, maybe too great, hence i can't see him making it come true.... but still he deserves credit for his ambition, for his will and determination.

talking about his personality, he's the kind of person who always tells u what he really thinks, but he never cross the line of rudeness.


and concerning those "safety nets" u mentioned, trust me mate, they're not a big deal.... the property of italian training facilities and stadia is one of the biggests problems of serie a..... the fact that our couincils own them isn't helpful at all.
and however no council bought italian clubs facilities to clear clubs debts.... they just own them from the very beginning.... since they were built.
and now the italian clubs are desperately trying to buying them (or to build their own new stadia and facilities), because theese facilities are an important financial asset, and right now, the italian clubs aren't getting a penny from them.

the only leagues in europe which are providing an healthy financial system today are bundesliga and ligue un. all the other ones have their issues. Platini is just remarking them all, trying to do something to change ours systems (the italian, the english, the spanish one). :))


EDIT:
as for the foreign kids signing, well, that's not really legal.
u see, under 18 kids can't sign a professional contract (of course) so to protect them (their growth) and to protect the clubs (who spend a lot of energies and money to help them growing) fifa established that under 18 kids must stay in the club wich "raised them".

there is only 1 exception: if the parents get a job abroad, then the kid can leave the club to follow his family.
so english clubs took advantage of this rule by offering "fake jobs", to get around the rules.

now, if those jobs were real, than this policy would still be immoral (as u fairly pointed out) but at least it would be legal.

but most of the times, it's just a cover up, so it can't be considered strictly "legal" (hence parma, lecce, udinese, atalanta, lazio, bologna sued many british clubs).
 
Last edited:
T Butcher fan said:
English clubs are run on the rules of the free market and UEFA don't like it. But we don't have a safety net like Spanish and Italian clubs.
Click to expand...

No safety net? How come ManU and Chelsea are the clubs with the highest amount of debts in the whole business and can still operate "wonderfully" with it?
That's because of those billionaire investors and is indeed a fact to moan about.

ManU has over a billion €uros of debts and they will continue to grow ... (as will those of most of the Prem clubs)
 
Rentalkid said:
No safety net? How come ManU and Chelsea are the clubs with the highest amount of debts in the whole business and can still operate "wonderfully" with it?
That's because of those billionaire investors and is indeed a fact to moan about.

ManU has over a billion €uros of debts and they will continue to grow ... (as will those of most of the Prem clubs)
Click to expand...

Borrowing money from banks is not a safety net. When it all goes wrong, getting bailed out by the government is a safety net. It happens to European football clubs and it happens to European companies (Alstom, SocGen etc). It's an alien principal in the UK - if it goes wrong, you go bust. End of....

Borrowing money is standard practice - companies do it, banks do it, football clubs do it.
 
They keep showing Platini during some of the matches and it really looks like he hates to be there, miserable French cunt
 
As for the debts discussion:
So you say the good thing about English clubs and their horrendous debts is that if it all goes wrong they would bust?
I mean, yes, that certainly would be "fair", I guess, but nothing I'd be too happy about as an English fan ... it could happen ... especially since tt does not look like ManU or Chelsea would give two cents about their critical financial situation. Not exactly economic behavior.


CW said:
They keep showing Platini during some of the matches and it really looks like he hates to be there, miserable French cunt
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder: How in the blue hell did someone like you get your "Admin" status?
 
Rentalkid said:
As for the debts discussion:
So you say the good thing about English clubs and their horrendous debts is that if it all goes wrong they would bust?
I mean, yes, that certainly would be "fair", I guess, but nothing I'd be too happy about as an English fan ... it could happen ... especially since tt does not look like ManU or Chelsea would give two cents about their critical financial situation. Not exactly economic behavior.
Click to expand...

While I agree that borrowing money in today's climate is hazardous, it is by no means extraordinary. I don't think you can comment on how critical a clubs financial situation is, and nor can Platini. Would he listen to the head of Deutsche Bank on football tactics?

And you can quite easily go bust without borrowing any money at all. ;))
 
I think Platini is right in a sense, but he's also being a bit of a git about it. Having clubs massively in debt screams of a leeds-esque disaster, adn isn't sustainable.

However. His citing of United and Chelsea are two completely different beasts.

United are run at a profit, a pretty handy one. Plus, they were purchased at fair market value, literally as it was a stock buyout. The logic would be that if the Glazers got into trouble, they would be forced to sell United to pay back the loan, however as long as United's market value has not declined considerably (and given recent successes, I wouldn't wager it has) then United would then be bought by new shareholders, and the Glazers would use the sum to pay off the debt. Happy days.

Chelsea are completely different. They operate at a massive operating loss, which is fine because their money comes from an endless pot of gold. Kenyon has repeatedly said they'd be running at profit by 2010, but if that happens I'll eat my hat, so to speak. Plus it's recently come out that Roman didn't actually just 'give' them the £550 odd he's pumped in, he 'loaned' it. Now personally I believe he'd never ask for it back, but regardless, what has happened to Chelsea is that they don't make enough money from footballing to pay their wages, hence big potential uh oh. Platini is correct in saying this is absolutely not a good thing.

For the record, my understanding of Villa, Pool etc is that it's similar to the United case - they still make an operating profit, but are 'owned' by debt. As long as that is the case, adn they're fairly valued, they could sell up and settle the debt.

Out of interest, how do AC Milan make all their dosh? Real? Inter? Are you seriuosly telling me none of the other big European clubs have shady finances?
 
beachryan said:
However. His citing of United and Chelsea are two completely different beasts.

United are run at a profit, a pretty handy one. Plus, they were purchased at fair market value, literally as it was a stock buyout. The logic would be that if the Glazers got into trouble, they would be forced to sell United to pay back the loan, however as long as United's market value has not declined considerably (and given recent successes, I wouldn't wager it has) then United would then be bought by new shareholders, and the Glazers would use the sum to pay off the debt. Happy days.
Click to expand...

How nice to buy a football club but not all the icky debt that comes with it! The new owners would have to take on the debt because it was Utd that borrowed the money, not Glazer (and using Utds cash as collateral). And the new owners would be fined for paying the debt back in full because the lender loses out on millions in interest, so will either continue to pay it back or look to restructure. Either way, that debt is tied to Utd for many years to come (unless a mental billionaire buys the club).

Chelsea don't owe any banks money, just Roman. If Roman does 'get bored' as the mantra goes, he has to sell the club along with the debt. He could 'walk away', but given that entails 'walking away' from £700m, it's not very likely is it?

There is the possibility that he might meet with an untimely end, in which case the club reverts to his eldest son. It is possible a 10yr old would walk away from £700m but once again, very unlikely.

So yes, the two are different. But Utd's future is not necessarily rosey any more than Chelsea's is grim.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the United purchase was just like any other business buyout:
United are worth, say, £500m in terms of 10m £50 shares.
Glazers come in, say I want to buy this, I'll buy it for £550m.
Shareholders go, alright, cool, I'll take my £55 per share, thank you.
Glazer goes to banks/others, borrows £550m, pays shareholders.
He then owns the club, so anything they make/lose are his issue. And he also has to pay back interest and principal from the loan.
If he gets in trouble, then United are his asset, and presuming someone else wants to buy them at the same value, he could then sell them for £550m again. And as long as he has paid interest up to current year, the club should still be fine.

As long as there is someone out there willing to pay more than the £550m that he paid for the club.

On a yearly basis, United make some revenue, say £100m, and pay out players at, say, £50m, then the £50m left is for debt repayments or their own collection of stamps.

Your point re: Chelsea is all fine and dandy as long as the great big pot of gold remains a super rich pot of gold, as you say. Problem would be if the pot of gold dried up, they'd have to offload all the players as they don't make enough money to pay them.
 
It's not a very simple process - Glazer borrowed the 600m using Utd as guarantee for at least half of it. He didn't actually use any of his own money, it was all borrowed. This is what the fuss was about in the first place.

Whoever wants to buy Manchester Utd must pay the asset value (stadium, player contracts, equipment, future earnings) tempered by the outstanding debt. There is the likely possibility that Glazer would demand a premium on top of that (like Hicks and Gillett).

Once you own the club, you own the debt.

But my point is that you are £600m in debt and we are about the same. But you have to pay back interest and we don't. Why you think you'd be ok but not us is wishful thinking.

I'm not saying either club is in trouble, but with big debt comes big risk - regardless of how it is structured or who you owe. The same applies to Arsenal and Liverpool.
 
Last edited:
Interesting stuff...never knew about all this! Glad to know LFC is at least safe in this sense. Wish we were safe from those Texans too.
 
seek said:
Interesting stuff...never knew about all this! Glad to know LFC is at least safe in this sense. Wish we were safe from those Texans too.
Click to expand...

a) beware of any knowledge you get off a message board! :LOL:

b) Liverpool are in the most danger. Already re-financed once, and trying to again in an incredibly bad financial period. No danger of going bust, but it will cost Liverpool FC a lot of money, but not the Texans.
 
oNeberlin said:
it's a fact... i dont miss england at euro2008.

1. The hooligan problem is lower
Click to expand...

Seems the same to me....

"Austrian police arrested more than 150 people last night during incidents surrounding the Euro 2008 clash between bitter rivals Germany and Poland.
A total of 157 people were detained in Klagenfurt during what police have described as skirmishes and fist-fights.

The vast majority of the detainees were German, many of them from a group who were chanting Nazi slogans and who included known hooligans."
 
T Butcher fan said:
Seems the same to me....

"Austrian police arrested more than 150 people last night during incidents surrounding the Euro 2008 clash between bitter rivals Germany and Poland.
A total of 157 people were detained in Klagenfurt during what police have described as skirmishes and fist-fights.

The vast majority of the detainees were German, many of them from a group who were chanting Nazi slogans and who included known hooligans."
Click to expand...

yes, thats correct. but if you have england at this tournament, you have the german idiots and the english ones.

I'm still waiting for poland - croatia. I think at germany - austria the police has no problems.
 
England didn't qualify and that's there own fault, so why should Platini be expected to say 'oh it's such a shame'. If he says that, surely he has to say that about every other nation that didn't quaify for the tournament. I mean, we didn't qualify but we're not sitting here moaning about someone saying he's not that too bothered if we qualified. We don't deserve to be there, no matter how hard a group or how close we were, neither do England because of the same reasons. Diplomacy up to a point, but saying something like that would actually be very undiplomatic.
 
No one is saying that he has to be upset about it, but as head of UEFA he should at least be impartial.

While it is possible to misconstrue his comments (and I admit I may well be doing it), just a few moments earlier he was moaning about English clubs 'cheating' by borrowing money. Over the last couple of months he has had numerous pops at English clubs and it is getting very boring.

It is not this specific comment as such, though it would have been easy for him to give a non-committal answer, it's more that this is the 4th or 5th pop he's had at us, all as head of UEFA. It doesn't bode well for a good relationship.
 
It might well be a growing sense of resentment perhaps, that it seems England are dominating the club scene. It might be because of the amount of money floating around the English game. Now, that's no ones fault really. It's just the way it works given how popular the game is down south and the population down there. I for one don't begrudge the English the amount of money in their game. Just compare it to Scotland... A population ten times the size of ours is always going to generate a silly amount more of income. It's just fact really. Platini should probably recognise that. If they wanted to make it fairer then a wage cap or something similair could be introduced as it has been in Rugby League but untill then yes, he should shut his noise.

As for a decent answer he could have said 'it's a shame so many countries have had to miss out on this great tournament, but such is football'. That'd have been the right answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom