Financial Fair Play

[SpursLodge]

How is it the fans fault? The fans just want success on the pitch, it's up to the owners of the clubs to manage the finances in such a way that is sustainable and brings success.

I think the only way to get a level playing field would be to have a wage cap but as that's not going to happen you can forget football ever being "fair". The best we can hope for is to get a bigger stadium so that we make more money and can compete with the top wage bills.

 

[braineclipse]

Spotted this on the BBC football page


Emirates Marketing Project's Champions League hopes next season have been given a boost after Uefa relaxed the terms of their squad restriction meaning they only need to include five home-grown players in their squad, reports the Manchester Evening News.
The Blues will only be able to name a 21-man squad for next season's competition rather than the usual 25, as part of their punishment for breaches of financial fair play rules.
Uefa regulations state that eight of the squad have to be home-grown - that would have meant they could only include 13 foreign stars, and with 14 already on their books and three more expected this summer, it would have left manager Manuel Pellegrini with a major headache.
But the Manchester Evening News reports that the Blues have got a concession out of Uefa and will be allowed 16 'free' players and just five 'home-grown'.

Very poor from UEFA if true. More a punishment of players than the club to allow them to shift out almost only home grown players.

Premier League clubs could receive money from Emirates Marketing Project's £50m FFP fine

Uefa draws up plans on how to redistribute money from fines imposed on Emirates Marketing Project, with every Premier League club in line to benefit

Every Premier League club would get a slice of Emirates Marketing Project’s world-record fine for breaching Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations under plans being drawn up by European football’s governing body.

Even relegated Norwich City, Fulham and Cardiff City would receive their cut of what could end up being £50 million surrendered by the Premier League champions after their £1 billion spending spree under Sheik Manour bin Zayed al Nahyan fell foul of FFP rules.

The Daily Telegraph has learnt that Uefa president Michel Platini and general secretary Gianni Infantino plan talks with the chairman of the European Club Association, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, to discuss precisely how to redistribute the fines levied from the FFP sanctions announced last week.

Platini and Infantino want what is a pot worth up to £114.5m to be shared not only among all 237 clubs competing in Europe this season and next but also teams in domestic leagues affected by their rivals’ overspending.

That would apply to five countries, including England, meaning a total of around 300 clubs stand to benefit from the transgressions of City, Paris St Germain and seven other sides.

If the money is distributed evenly, the most any team could hope to receive is approximately £380,000, although it may be as little as £138,000 if those guilty of FFP breaches avoid paying their whole fine by fulfilling certain obligations.

Uefa is hoping the prospect of such solidarity payments will reduce the threat of clubs appealing the settlements agreed with those who broke the rules.

It is understood no team has yet mounted a formal challenge ahead of Monday’s deadline for doing so. The Telegraph has learnt that Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United have no plans to appeal City’s penalty. Everton, who stand most to gain if the Manchester club are expelled from the Champions League after finishing fifth in the Premier League, are thought to have little appetite to do so either.

Speaking for the first time since City were found guilty, chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak defended the spending which landed the club in trouble. In what could be perceived as a subtle dig at debt-laden United, Al Mubarak claimed FFP preserved the wrong type of financial model. He told City’s website: “We don’t pay a penny to service any debts. For me, that’s a sustainable model. However, our friends in Uefa seem to believe otherwise. They have their view, we have ours.

“I disagree with their views but we are pragmatic. If it means sometimes to take a pinch, we’ll take a pinch.” The biggest current threat to FFP will be removed in the coming weeks after the Europe Commission indicated it would snub a legal challenge to the cost-control measures led by the man who helped bring about the Bosman ruling.

The EC has formally notified European football’s governing body that it intends to reject the complaint filed by Italian agent Daniel Striani, who claimed FFP broke European Union competition laws.

Striani, represented by Bosman lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont, has also been sent a letter making it clear the EC “does not intend to conduct a further investigation” into his allegation.

In its preliminary conclusion after more than a year considering Striani’s complaint, the Commission ruled he had no “legitimate interest” to bring it in the first place.

It noted any effects of FFP on the activities of player’s agents were “indirect and speculative” and said claims the measures would result in a decrease of transfer activities or transfer fees were “not substantiated”.

A final decision formally rejecting the complaint is expected in a few weeks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/10844986/Premier-League-clubs-could-receive-money-from-Manchester-Citys-50m-FFP-fine.html#source=refresh

This seems solid enough, kind of what I was expecting.

 

[Neymar]

How is it the fans fault? The fans just want success on the pitch, it's up to the owners of the clubs to manage the finances in such a way that is sustainable and brings success.

I think the only way to get a level playing field would be to have a wage cap but as that's not going to happen you can forget football ever being "fair". The best we can hope for is to get a bigger stadium so that we make more money and can compete with the top wage bills.

its the fans fault because they are the ones who are putting all the pressure on the clubs to spend way beyond their means. just looking at the premier league alone, arsenal are probably the most well run club, in terms of financial sustainability. but like i've mentioned before, even they do not make that much profit considering how big of an organisation they are. they are effectively breaking even. the same applies to us. yet we (as tottenham fans) always moan about the lack of spending and how levy is stingy.

according to the following article (http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201308/only-one-nfl-team-lost-money-2012), in 2012, the average nfl team was worth $1.17 billion (we're worth $500m according to forbes). Only one team/organisation made an operating loss, and well over half of them made a profit in excess of $20m. With some even making over $100m.

When a team is performing below expectations, you always hear fans telling the owners to invest in a new striker or a new creative midfielder. However when leeds were giving massive wages to the likes of harry kewell, i don't remember their fans complaining. for me, the fans have to take more responsiblity. they can't keep forcing their owners to spend like they are currently.

 

[Superhudd]

its the fans fault because they are the ones who are putting all the pressure on the clubs to spend way beyond their means.

Its not, its owners like Abramovic who purposely went around buying everyone by inflating the wages, he did it not for the fans, not for Chelsea FC, he did it to make his name and therefore make it impossible for the dark powers of Russia to doo him in. Not one Chelsea fan asked for that money to be spent, dare I say the same at City, PSG and Monaco too.

If Abramovich and his ilk had not done what they did, the top earners would be on 100k maximum and not 300k.

Abramovich IMO is the reason our ticket prices have doubled over the last decade too.

 

[Neymar]

Abramovich IMO is the reason our ticket prices have doubled over the last decade too.

I disagree. chelsea and mancity's ticket prices are massively subsidised by the likes of abramovic. if anything, they are very good for football fans. these clubs make massive losses every year. that only means one thing: ticket prices to watch 200k p/w players like aguero, hazard, toure, lampard should be a lot higher than they are. but abramovic is willing to make up the difference between what the fans pay, and what the ticket should actually cost (if chelsea were to break even).

the problem is the fans. look at the teams just below the Emirates Marketing Project's and chelsea's. thats us and arsenal. we always seem to be complaining about missing a "superstar striker" or lacking squad depth etc. the thing is we are only lacking a star striker or sqaud depth compared to chelsea and mancity. when you compare our squad to the rest of the league, we are doing absolutely fine. and for some reason, we complain to our owner/chairman because he is not willing to take on losses like abramovic. yet on the other hand, we don't want to pay more for tickets either (to fund better players).

 

[Baleforce]

I kinda agree with Neymar, although I think the fans are facilitators rather than to blame, the fact of the matter is we all love it, we like the way football has changed, we love the champions league, we love sky sports, we love new kits every year

if we didn't we wouldn't be crawling over each other to give them our money, we've all literally bought into "modern football"

 

[braineclipse]

its the fans fault because they are the ones who are putting all the pressure on the clubs to spend way beyond their means. just looking at the premier league alone, arsenal are probably the most well run club, in terms of financial sustainability. but like i've mentioned before, even they do not make that much profit considering how big of an organisation they are. they are effectively breaking even. the same applies to us. yet we (as tottenham fans) always moan about the lack of spending and how levy is stingy.

according to the following article (http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201308/only-one-nfl-team-lost-money-2012), in 2012, the average nfl team was worth $1.17 billion (we're worth $500m according to forbes). Only one team/organisation made an operating loss, and well over half of them made a profit in excess of $20m. With some even making over $100m.

When a team is performing below expectations, you always hear fans telling the owners to invest in a new striker or a new creative midfielder. However when leeds were giving massive wages to the likes of harry kewell, i don't remember their fans complaining. for me, the fans have to take more responsiblity. they can't keep forcing their owners to spend like they are currently.

Not sure how useful a direct comparison of value between sports in different markets is?

Although I suppose it really highlights why a lot of the big clubs would like to move towards a European super league.

Not sure I agree with blaming the fans either. The financial responsibility is on the chairman and the board, they're making the decisions.

 

[Neymar]

Not sure how useful a direct comparison of value between sports in different markets is?

Although I suppose it really highlights why a lot of the big clubs would like to move towards a European super league.

fair enough. i just wanted to show that relative to how much teams like us and arsenal are worth (as an enterprise), owners/chairmen like levy are not actually being that tight. its only when you compare levy to someone like abramovic, does he start to look a bit tight. and for the reasons mentioned above, i dont think its fair to compare levy to the likes of abramovic.

Not sure I agree with blaming the fans either. The financial responsibility is on the chairman and the board, they're making the decisions.

the financial responsibility is with the chairman ultimately. i do agree with this. however, its the fans that drive the directives of the club in reality. ie. arsenal probably signed ozil only because of the vitriol that was building up at the emirates. the board probably thought the risk of fan boycotts was high enough to warrant the purchase of ozil. if the fans were to just support their team without the angst against their club for not spending like chelsea or Emirates Marketing Project, they could probably make safer financial decisions.

 

[Superhudd]

I disagree. chelsea and mancity's ticket prices are massively subsidised by the likes of abramovic. if anything, they are very good for football fans. these clubs make massive losses every year. that only means one thing: ticket prices to watch 200k p/w players like aguero, hazard, toure, lampard should be a lot higher than they are. but abramovic is willing to make up the difference between what the fans pay, and what the ticket should actually cost (if chelsea were to break even).

the problem is the fans. look at the teams just below the Emirates Marketing Project's and chelsea's. thats us and arsenal. we always seem to be complaining about missing a "superstar striker" or lacking squad depth etc. the thing is we are only lacking a star striker or sqaud depth compared to chelsea and mancity. when you compare our squad to the rest of the league, we are doing absolutely fine. and for some reason, we complain to our owner/chairman because he is not willing to take on losses like abramovic. yet on the other hand, we don't want to pay more for tickets either (to fund better players).

Fans have done that for ever, asking for another star player, as have managers. If you did a poll asking what fans wanted at this club the poll would be against doing what City and Cheatski have done.

We do not directly go to our owners demanding certain players, no clubs fans do. They might vent and rant on MBs or to Radio stations but they do not ask there club to spend money which is not there.. well the educated ones don't, school kids might.

 

[Superhudd]

I kinda agree with Neymar, although I think the fans are facilitators rather than to blame, the fact of the matter is we all love it, we like the way football has changed, we love the champions league, we love sky sports, we love new kits every year

if we didn't we wouldn't be crawling over each other to give them our money, we've all literally bought into "modern football"

But that's more a society thing more than anything, the need to have the new, the shiny the next best thing. I personally could get by with a shirt every three years (infact I do). I prefer the Premier League over the over bloated Champions League too. Sky Sports I would love to get rid of but it has too many other sports that I want to watch to get rid, but certainly if terrestrial were to have more sports then Sky would be gone, I only have Sky because I don't have a choice.

 

[Superhudd]

Not sure how useful a direct comparison of value between sports in different markets is?

Although I suppose it really highlights why a lot of the big clubs would like to move towards a European super league.

Not sure I agree with blaming the fans either. The financial responsibility is on the chairman and the board, they're making the decisions.

I think this is wrong, do you honestly think the clubs like Arsenal, Livepool, Milans etc will put up with what is happening in domestic leagues to happen in a Super League. The status quo would remain, the teams that win now by buying success would continue. There is absolutely no real benefit to move to such a league. These clubs would become also rans every season without any chance of success.

 

[Superhudd]

fair enough. i just wanted to show that relative to how much teams like us and arsenal are worth (as an enterprise), owners/chairmen like levy are not actually being that tight. its only when you compare levy to someone like abramovic, does he start to look a bit tight. and for the reasons mentioned above, i dont think its fair to compare levy to the likes of abramovic.



the financial responsibility is with the chairman ultimately. i do agree with this. however, its the fans that drive the directives of the club in reality. ie. arsenal probably signed ozil only because of the vitriol that was building up at the emirates. the board probably thought the risk of fan boycotts was high enough to warrant the purchase of ozil. if the fans were to just support their team without the angst against their club for not spending like chelsea or Emirates Marketing Project, they could probably make safer financial decisions.

LOL, it was the first year they have been free from stadium debt, instead of giving half the profit to he government in tax they have to spend the money to make the balance sheet as close to zero as possible. They were always going to spend that money. Wenger chose wisely and waited to get the man he wanted. Where are there 30m signings before that if fans are in charge of the purse strings.

 

[Neymar]

LOL, it was the first year they have been free from stadium debt, instead of giving half the profit to he government in tax they have to spend the money to make the balance sheet as close to zero as possible. They were always going to spend that money. Wenger chose wisely and waited to get the man he wanted. Where are there 30m signings before that if fans are in charge of the purse strings.

you may be right. but i don't neccessarily agree that they want their balance sheet to be as close to zero as possible. i don't think someone like kroenke is at arsenal to break even every year for sporting success. he wants to make money.

and you ask "where are the 30m signings?". that question just highlights the craziness of football. you are asking for 30m signings like this is a normal thing. when most of the teams in the premier league lose money year in year out, the question should be "why have we bought another £1m player?"

 

[Neymar]

I think this is wrong, do you honestly think the clubs like Arsenal, Livepool, Milans etc will put up with what is happening in domestic leagues to happen in a Super League. The status quo would remain, the teams that win now by buying success would continue. There is absolutely no real benefit to move to such a league. These clubs would become also rans every season without any chance of success.

i don't think the reasons mentioned are the primary reasons behind an inevitable european super league. but, i think it could be valid.

a european super league would garuntee that teams like arsenal and liverpool would be locked into "europe's elite". there will not be a "top 4" to aim for, nor relegation. it'll be exactly like what the owners of arsenal and liverpool are used to back in the usa. the value of their organisation would remain constant and protected. the kudos of being part of the super league alone would be massive. and that alone would be a massive revenue generator. they would not need to be competitve (in terms of challenging for the super league title). that means owners such as kroenke and henry could operate at a financially profitable level, as their teams challenge for mid-bottom league positions.

at the moment, when teams like arsenal try to operate profitably, they are running a massive risk of falling out of the top 4, which would bring further financial losses. if there were to be one or two more abramovic's, arsenal and liverpool would have little chance of finishing in the top 4 again. i think it is this risk that a european super league would eliminate. and thats why "clubs like Arsenal, Livepool, Milans etc will put up with what is happening in domestic leagues to happen in a Super League". ie. kronke/henry/glazers just want profitability, and the european super league would garuntee this. i doubt they really care much about sporting success.

 

[braineclipse]

I think this is wrong, do you honestly think the clubs like Arsenal, Livepool, Milans etc will put up with what is happening in domestic leagues to happen in a Super League. The status quo would remain, the teams that win now by buying success would continue. There is absolutely no real benefit to move to such a league. These clubs would become also rans every season without any chance of success.

The Liverpool owners are in it to make money, I think the same applies to Arsenal. If they had the chance to join a relegation and qualification free super league where they would be guaranteed a significantly higher turnover than they currently have along with a potential wage cap to ensure some competitiveness and the possibility for the owners to pump out a large yearly profit almost risk free I think they would be all over it.

I have no idea about the Milan owners, but with the financial and sporting crisis in the Italian serie A (about to be overtaken by Portugal in the UEFA coefficient) I think a lot of Italian clubs would be very interested too.

 

[Baleforce]

here's a thought, united aren't in Europe next season, therefore ffp is irrelevant for 1 year, can they front load the contracts of new signings (massive signing on fees and decreasing annual earnings, like NFL teams do) to strengthen their position going forward?

 

[Superhudd]

you may be right. but i don't neccessarily agree that they want their balance sheet to be as close to zero as possible. i don't think someone like kroenke is at arsenal to break even every year for sporting success. he wants to make money.

and you ask "where are the 30m signings?". that question just highlights the craziness of football. you are asking for 30m signings like this is a normal thing. when most of the teams in the premier league lose money year in year out, the question should be "why have we bought another £1m player?"

It's the likes of Abramovich and the sheik that have set the market right now of 30m for an above average player. Not the fans, not the clubs like us, arsenal and Liverpool and certainly not me. What these clubs did was separate themselves by inflating player costs and wages. Whereas city and PSG, Chelsea were able to buy 4 or 5 in one window, other clubs would be just the one.. If not with a lot less money.

The owners such as Kroenke are not interested in yearly profits.. They are interested in building a global franchise which has moved from the 500m (don't know exact amount) they paid to a 1.5billion asset. That is what the likes of the Liverpool owners and Lewis and Levy are doing at Tottenham. If they were interested in yearly profits which half would go to the government in tax btw, they would have done what the Glazers have done by using the profits to pay the loans the club took out in order for the Glazers to own the club.

 

[Neymar]

It's the likes of Abramovich and the sheik that have set the market right now of 30m for an above average player. Not the fans, not the clubs like us, arsenal and Liverpool and certainly not me. What these clubs did was separate themselves by inflating player costs and wages. Whereas city and PSG, Chelsea were able to buy 4 or 5 in one window, other clubs would be just the one.. If not with a lot less money.

The owners such as Kroenke are not interested in yearly profits.. They are interested in building a global franchise which has moved from the 500m (don't know exact amount) they paid to a 1.5billion asset. That is what the likes of the Liverpool owners and Lewis and Levy are doing at Tottenham. If they were interested in yearly profits which half would go to the government in tax btw, they would have done what the Glazers have done by using the profits to pay the loans the club took out in order for the Glazers to own the club.

i totally agree re "building a global franchise". and it definitely seems this is where most money can be made by owning an elite football club. which raises a few questions about the arsenal model. ie. is it really worth trying to build a squad at a fraction of the rate of chelsea's or Emirates Marketing Project's, when the big profits are made through building the club name/status (and not by buying a player for 500k and selling him off for 35m). fwiw, this is why i think the glazers would not be too opposed to spending c. £100m on players this window.

but i do get the feeling that someone like kroenke would like to make yearly operating profits. surely this is why he hasnt sacked wenger, or at least told him to change his model of running arsenal.

 

[Superhudd]

The Liverpool owners are in it to make money, I think the same applies to Arsenal. If they had the chance to join a relegation and qualification free super league where they would be guaranteed a significantly higher turnover than they currently have along with a potential wage cap to ensure some competitiveness and the possibility for the owners to pump out a large yearly profit almost risk free I think they would be all over it.

I have no idea about the Milan owners, but with the financial and sporting crisis in the Italian serie A (about to be overtaken by Portugal in the UEFA coefficient) I think a lot of Italian clubs would be very interested too.

I guarentee there customers would not be. Would you be tolerant of such a set up where the status quo remains.

And now you mention a wage cap, that's a different ball game all together which you didn't suggest. That still does not make sense though although would make it competitive, why go to a league that would keep the power with city and Chelsea still... Or do you penalise these two and stay put.

i don't think wage capping is possible, mainly because these people have shown that they want to win at all costs and no doubt, just as Russia and Qatar won World Cup bids, underhand shenanigans will go on with players with payments.

I do not believe for one moment those like UTD, Liverpool, **** and us would want in with Chelsea, City, PSG, Monaco etc.

Infact with making ex UTD chairman martin Edwards part of the FFP process suggests these clubs are doing all they can to stop them.

again, it will be the customers that will have the final say... I think many would walk away.

 

[Superhudd]

here's a thought, united aren't in Europe next season, therefore ffp is irrelevant for 1 year, can they front load the contracts of new signings (massive signing on fees and decreasing annual earnings, like NFL teams do) to strengthen their position going forward?

I thought this a few pages back. In a sense, what Monaco have done.