When Brooks Mileson died (the bloke that bankrolled Gretna through the Scottish leagues) they went under almost immedietely, as even though the players they had weren't great, they were certainly higher than the budget of what they could've otherwise afforded.

Saw that the other day. Some have said it was a decision made simply by the people who work at the shop, as it's a highly requested shirt. Still, it doesn't promote the right image at all and using that as a sales technique is insensitive and dumb.

The death of a genuinely wealthy owner would be a blow, but should not be catastrophic for a Premiership club. Whoever inherited the cash would still have a strong financial incentive to dispose of the club in an orderly manner as a competitive going concern (assuming they didnt share the previous owners interest in football).

The dodgy owners that have their assets frozen are a different matter. But I dont see how UEFA's proposed solvency rules will prevent existing owners from making bad decisions as to who they sell their club to.

The only reason for UEFA's rules are because whining clubs, Bayern Munich being the most vocal, cried to Platini because clubs with rich benefactors had the ability to outbid them for players.

It's got FA to do with protecting clubs from implosion because of spending too much money. They didn't care when Leeds United did it, the didn't care when Newcastle United did it and they don't care now that Pompey are going through it.

As a Chelsea fan I'd say that if Abramovich pulled out of Chelsea we would be screwed because of the huge wages we pay. But that would be our problem if it happened. The rest of football would laugh at us and UEFA would do FA to help us. So they can FO with the notion that these rules are being brought in to protect clubs from themselves.

The ultimate example of just how stupid these rules are would be if Villa finally managed to break into the top 4, but were excluded because they had spent so much. The CL revenues they'd earned by the league position could help the club expand and make Villa a bigger and better club, but UEFA would refuse them entry and put the viability of the club in question. So much for competition in the PL. The message to clubs is clear - don't strive to compete with the established CL because you're not wanted.

The huge wages would be reflected in the selling price, Abramovich would take the hit. Chelsea would have to adjust their wage structure to reflect their ongoing income, but that it would probably still be higher than in the Ken Bates era. I doubt that Chelsea would be screwed, they'd just drop back to their natural level, probably on a par with Spurs, Villa etc

Beckford signs for Everton. That's been on the cards since January so it doesn't come as any surprise.

Not sure how they'll play him, are Saha and Yakubu tied down to long term deals?

Where did you get that pic from?

The lad who took the pic has contacted the club but the reason given was a load of tosh and wasn't what the manager said to him at the time in the shop.

Why would he need to take it to court? UEFA can have whatever qualification requirements they like for their competitions. They'll clearly put some safeguards in to stop people artificially creating turnover, like your example.

Promoting financial prudence is a great idea but it's far too late unfortunately.

UEFA found in the 90's, when they had to drop their restrictions on foreign players, that they cant have whatever qualification requirements they like.

I'm not sure why some types of turnover are necessarily better or worse than others. If Club A signs a 1 year shirt sponsorship deal for £25m pa, is that necessarily better (from the a financial prudence perspective) than Club B signing a 5 year £50m pa deal with a company that is part owned by the owner's relative?

I can see that it might be undesireable if the owner is comparable to, say, some of the people that have owned Portsmouth recently, but that's a slightly different issue. That's a case of people blagging their way into owning a football club when they dont really have the resources they claim. Its different to the case where the owner genuinely has the money. I dont really see how UEFA's proposed solvency rules solves the problem of dodgy owners.

I can see the case for banning "artificial" turnover on the grounds of creating a level playing field, but not on the grounds of financial prudence.

I think a couple of clubs will test the water in relation to turnover Man city being one the other probably Real. Would need some very astute Lawyers to take a club on that decided to spend money it had and was solvent unlike a couple of clubs already in the champions league who are far from solvent.