Financial Fair Play

[Robbo]

he's right, people will start calling pot & and kettle but these rules didn't exist when he first joined Chelsea

He's a bloody hy-po-crite, that's what he is. Probably just his usual media games, but the fact remains there's a big chance Chelski FC wouldn't have excisted today if it wasn't for Abromawich's oil money. They certainly wouldn't have won as many (if any) trophies without the Russian and his wealth.

Yes these rules weren't in place back then, but Chelski are as bad as anyone when it comes to financial doping and buying success. In my eyes, they're the worst.


Edit: Why is the word h y p o c r i t e replaced with hypocrite??

 

[SteveAWOL]

No doubt UEFA will ensure that any new rules avoid penalising their beloved Real Madrid for being almost £500 million in debt though...

Manchester United could face Uefa Financial Fair Play sanction for £350m debt - Telegraph

Manchester United could become the next target of Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations after the governing body confirmed it would consider making debt reduction part of any change to the rules.

United have sailed through Uefa’s existing FFP tests, which focus exclusively on preventing clubs recording annual losses. But European football’s governing body has arranged a meeting on Monday to discuss potential tweaks to the regulations, amid criticisms it punishes over-investment but not the accumulation of debt.

United are £350 million in debt, having been saddled with a £790 million burden by the Glazers when they took over the club in 2005.

Gianni Infantino, Uefa’s general secretary, said: “We’re now focused on losses and to repay the debt is part of the loss that the club can make at the end of the season. But, certainly, the question of debt is something that can be put on the table.”

 

[Denmark Spur]

The court case that might see FFP scrapped starts today in Brussels.


Financial Fair Play under threat: Brussels court case could potentially lead to rules being scrapped

Emirates Marketing Project’s hopes that Financial Fair Play (FFP) might be ruled illegal rest on a potentially hugely significant court case which opens in Brussels on Thursday.

The challenge to Uefa’s regime – which City fell foul of last year – has been brought by football agent Daniel Striani, and supporters of both City and Paris Saint-Germain, and will be heard over the next two days at the Court of First Instance in the Belgian capital.

Striani and the fans are being represented by Jean-Louis Dupont, one of the lawyers who secured the landmark Bosman ruling 20 years ago, with Dupont preparing to argue that FFP infringes competition law and should therefore be declared illegal.

European football’s governing body, Uefa – which will have its own legal representation in court – insists it has support for FFP from the European Commission, which in October decided not to investigate Striani’s case further. Legal opinion suggests that it may be more than a year before the case is resolved.

The case of Karen Murphy, the Portsmouth landlady who took on the Premier League, underlines how drawn out decisions can be. Ms Murphy went to court to fight for her right to use satellite decoders to show live football intended for transmission abroad.

The legal argument in the Striani case is that the break-even requirement of FFP is in breach of article 101.2 of the EU Treaty. This article prohibits cartels and other agreements that could disrupt free competition and, therefore, have an impact on consumer protection.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ly-lead-to-rules-being-scrapped-10070581.html

 

[Raziel]

at its base, FPP protects the people who have already done financial doping.

It may be a long drawn out case, but likely to see FPP thrown out once serious scrutiny happens.

 

[jts1882]

If it gets a final decision, I find it hard to believe that FFP wouldn't be declared illegal because of competition law.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if they reach a settlement involving the clubs, UEFA and the European Commission. Perhaps something introducing an altered FFP more slowly so that City and PSG find themselves on the inside. Then they can back it the cause of fairness, just as Chelsea support FFP now.

 

[Jordinho]

Sports have all kinds of rules, it's not a normal business. Limited spending could be one.

The competition comparison to normal business would be two different sports trying to draw customers.

 

[milo]

at its base, FPP protects the people who have already done financial doping.

It may be a long drawn out case, but likely to see FPP thrown out once serious scrutiny happens.

Whist the challenge has substance, I doubt that it will be successful

 

[Mr_B]

FFP - like turkeys voting for xmas, its only clubs like Malaga who get punished, move on

 

[milo]

FFP - like turkeys voting for xmas, its only clubs like Malaga who get punished, move on

Emirates Marketing Project and PSG got punished last season. I would expect Liverpool to be punished this year.

 

[jts1882]

Looks like Liverpool will be OK:

Liverpool are expected to be cleared of any financial fair play breaches on Friday but Hull City will be handed a small fine by UEFA.

The Reds have been one of several clubs absent from European competition last season who have been under investigation by the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB).

The CFCB will meet on Friday and is expected to announce that investigations into Liverpool have ended without any sanctions to be brought against the Merseyside club.

It is understood that Hull, who played in the qualifying rounds of the Europa League, have agreed to settle for a small fine for FFP breaches.

Last year Levski Sofia and three Turkish clubs each received a 200,000 euro (£145,529) fine and Hull's sanction is thought to be of a similar level.

The CFCB is also expected to announce that investigations into Monaco, Inter Milan, Sporting Lisbon and Roma are to continue.

Liverpool made a loss of £49.8million for the 2012-13 season, and £40.5m for the 10-month period before that but have been able to write off a big chunk of losses as allowable stadium expenditure - the 2011-12 accounts reported that £49.6m was associated with Liverpool's stadium costs, £35m coming from former co-owner Tom Hick's aborted plan to build a new stadium on StanleyPark which new owners Fenway Sports Group had to scrap.

Emirates Marketing Project and Paris St Germain were the clubs hit hardest by UEFA last season for breaching FFP rules - they were each fined £49m and handed restrictions on transfer spending and a reduction in Champions League squad size.

UEFA is continuing to monitor the two clubs this season and auditors are due to visit City next week.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...fair-flay-sanctions-Hull-City-fined-UEFA.html

​

But it's good to see FFP starting to bite. Hull and Levski Sofia will think twice next time they try and gain an unfair advantage.

 

[Baleforce]

stadium costs, what a load of gonads

 

[jaysea67]

It's being widely reported that Liverpool are going to escape punishment - so it does seem likely.

But the explanation that they were allowed to ignore £49.6m as allowable stadium expenditure cannot be correct. The first year to be considered under FFP rules was 2011-12. The £49.6m write-off was reported in their 2010-11 accounts.

 

[Mr_B]

Emirates Marketing Project and PSG got punished last season. I would expect Liverpool to be punished this year.

Malaga were banned from playing in europe, thats a penalty, fines to arab owners swimming in money is merely an inconvenience.

 

[milo]

Malaga were banned from playing in europe, thats a penalty, fines to arab owners swimming in money is merely an inconvenience.

Malaga were not banned under FFP though.

It was clear from the beginning that FFP would have a sliding scale of punishments for not meeting it with more severe penalties for repeat offenders. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

 

[Jordinho]

Emirates Marketing Project are about to strike it rich with a new £80million-a-year sponsorship deal with Etihad.

The Premier League champions, who are four years into a 10-year agreement worth £400million with the national airline of Abu Dhabi, are in the process of renegotiating the terms of the package.

The current deal is worth £40million-a-year to City, but includes sponsorship of the shirt, training kit and naming rights to the club’s expanding stadium and Academy complex.

With City paying the local council around £2million annually for the right to rebrand the stadium, it means they are currently earning less than most other top clubs get for shirt sponsorship alone.

Manchester United bank £47million a year from their agreement with Chevrolet, while Chelsea have just announced a deal with Japanese tyre manufacturer Yokohama Rubber that will net them £200million over five years.

With the worldwide interest in the Premier League showing no sign of slowing down following the new £5billion TV deal, City want to cash in on a sponsorship package that could double their current arrangement with Etihad.

UEFA have already ruled that City’s business relationship with Etihad is not a ‘related party’ arrangement, despite their Abu Dhabi connection, and therefore it does not break their Financial Fair Play Regulations.

City failed FFP last year and were fined £49million and ordered to operate under a restricted transfer budget as well as having their squad reduced for the Champions League.

www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-citys-new-80million-per-year-sponsorship-5290985


 

[Baleforce]

ha ha, thats like me moving a £20 note from my right pocket to my left

 

[jaysea67]

Inter Milan, Roma & Monaco are among the 10 latest clubs to have reached settlement agreements with UEFA for breaches of FFP rules.

The penalties vary in each case but may include fines, reduced squad sizes for UEFA competitions and wage restrictions.

Inter would be allowed only 21 players on their A list if they qualify for European competition next season and Roma would be allowed 22.


http://www.uefa.org/mediaservices/mediareleases/newsid=2244670.html

The Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) Investigatory Chamber today announced that ten clubs, for which investigations were opened following non-compliance with Financial Fair Play (FFP) break-even regulations, have individually agreed to settlement agreements.

The clubs are AS Monaco FC, AS Roma, Beşiktaş JK, FC Internazionale Milano, FC Krasnodar, FC Lokomotiv Moskva and Sporting Clube de Portugal and, for minor breaches, FC Rostov, Kardemir Karabükspor and PFC CSKA Sofia.

The CFCB Investigatory Chamber also announced that VfL Wolsburg have been found (following the submission of additional financial information) to have satisfied the break-even requirement and are no longer under investigation.

 

[P.D.]

So the rules are to be watered down then by the sounds of it? Can see both sides as it preserves status quo and I guess if an owner puts the money up then why not invest if it incurs no debt and is put into a holding account or something but then again it will allow clubs like City to go nuts again.

 

[Jordinho]

The worst argument is how it's unfair to prevent other clubs from becoming lottery winners. No, what's unfair is running a sound business, growing organically, then not getting any reward as someone has spunked 2 billion on a no mark club as a vanity project.

 

[Neymar]

No, what's unfair is running a sound business, growing organically, then not getting any reward as someone has spunked 2 billion on a no mark club as a vanity project.

Why is that unfair though? and the 'reward' that most organically grown clubs get is pretty much the same whether there are clubs with oil money or not. in a world without oil money, man utd win the league, whilst in a world with oil money, Emirates Marketing Project win the league. doesnt affect the other clubs too much.

anyway, i dont think ffp is/was about what is fair or unfair, despite what some of the proponents of the rule argued. officially ffp was mainly about keeping clubs financially more stable. however, the method via which the ffp rule went about ensuring this is/was illegal and anti-competitive, so its good that it got challenged imo.