• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Financial Fair Play

P.D. said:
Its more because we all know UEFA will do nothing
Click to expand...

This, really. They've failed on important issues so many times in the past, that it's now up to UEFA/FIFA to prove that they are not simply a bunch of corrupt tossers who care nothing about football and only about money. I'll be the first to applaud if they do something really significant to improve the game, though.
 
Robbo said:
This, really. They've failed on important issues so many times in the past, that it's now up to UEFA/FIFA to prove that they are not simply a bunch of corrupt tossers who care nothing about football and only about money. I'll be the first to applaud if they do something really significant to improve the game, though.
Click to expand...

They got rid of snoods. That's enough for me.
 
Charlie said:
Can't believe the negativity in this thread. UEFA has to start from somewhere. And, in my book, this is a good start.
Click to expand...

Sweet of you. Are you over 25? The world is as bent as Michael Barrymore, and football is bent more than Uri Geller in a washing machine.
 
Charlie said:
Can't believe the negativity in this thread. UEFA has to start from somewhere. And, in my book, this is a good start.
Click to expand...

Are you having a laugh?

Nothing will happen, and no-one will get points deducted except the tinkle poor clubs who are going bust anyway......just like it is now
 
totman said:
Are you having a laugh?

Nothing will happen, and no-one will get points deducted except the tinkle poor clubs who are going bust anyway......just like it is now
Click to expand...

The logic in this FFP set of rules is very perculier.. You lose to much money over a season, or period of three seasons, so we will fine you. Increasing your loses even further.

Just like if Emirates Marketing Project or any other big team gets banned from the champions league, the loss of the tv revenue along would leave clubs struggling to meet the required cutbacks to get a european license the next year..

If enforced these rules could destroy a football club, but if not then whats the point in having them at all?
 
To me it's just hot air, until they prove otherwise. Can you really see Barca, Man U or City being kicked out of the CL, or having points deducted?
No, but I can see the next Pompey, or Plymouth being thumped out of existance.
 
There is absolutely no chance in hell that they would ever chuck Barcelona out of the champions league. I imagine they are one of the affected clubs as well, in massive debt and had to get a loan last year to pay their players salaries.
 
Chelsea have announced a total loss of ?ú67.7million for the financial year ending June 30th 2011.

The club revealed its operating loss had reduced from a figure of ?ú70.9million as it aims to fall in line with UEFA's new financial fair play rules.

Transfer fees were a main contributor to the loss, while the club was able to declare a record group turnover of ?ú222.3million.

The figure stood at ?ú205.8million last year, and increased thanks to higher receipts from the UEFA Champions League together with a rise in income from the central Premier League television contract relating to overseas broadcasting.

Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck told the club's official website: "The club is focused on complying with the requirements of UEFA's financial fair play regulations while maintaining its ability to challenge for major trophies.

"We would expect this to be reflected in our results for the current financial year."

Chelsea chief executive Ron Gourlay added: "Achieving a record level of turnover is satisfying given the economic background against which we are operating."

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11668/7468511/Blues-announce-big-loss

Well on course aren't they?
 
Manchester United and Emirates Marketing Project are on opposite sides of a new divide in the Premier League: whether the competition should introduce its own Uefa-style financial fair play regulations.

At the League’s annual meeting the idea of tighter financial controls being imposed on clubs was advanced by Liverpool. It gained the support of a number of their rivals, including United’s chief executive, David Gill, who had previously helped shape Uefa’s ground-breaking Financial Fair Play rules.

The delegation from Arsenal is believed to have spoken up in favour. The club’s owner, Stan Kroenke is, like Liverpool’s John W Henry and United’s Glazer family, familiar with restrictive financial regulations through the US sports franchises they own. West Ham United’s joint chairman David Gold also gave his approval.

Gold told The Daily Telegraph: “I was involved in bringing in the FFP rules in the Championship and at the time I thought should I get to the Premier League, I’ll lobby for it. I made it abundantly clear we shouldn’t be doing nothing. David Gill was marvellous. He made lots of sense. Even the big clubs now are saying we have to get to grips with costs.”

But the subject was not unanimously supported. Emirates Marketing Project, whose owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan , subsidised spending with £43.3million in cash between June 1, 2009, and the end of May 2011, are believed to have cautioned that they would prefer to manage their business as they see fit.
Fulham, whose rise through the leagues was financed by ‘soft’ loans from the chairman, Mohamed Fayed, have also historically expressed the view that they would not endorse a system that “kills the dreams” of others. However, this time they did not push back against Liverpool’s proposal.

It all meant the Premier League executive staff have been tasked with drawing up a report on what proposals could be introduced. One option would be to adopt wholesale the Uefa FFP regulations.

Both Chelsea and United were instrumental in developing these, which require clubs to break even within a margin of “acceptable deviation” of €45 million (£35.5 million) over the first two years of their formal implementation – next season and the following.

Chelsea and United are confident of meeting Uefa’s rules despite their inclusion not just of cash expenditure but accounting charges relating to historical spending under “amortisation”. However, City will find that particularly challenging.

Their Premier League champions’ operating loss in the 2010-11 season alone – the most recent for which accounts are available – was £194.9 million. Even though some areas of this spending will be discounted as allowable, the discounts are unlikely to bring operating losses under FFP to within the £35.5 million cushion over two years.

David Gill, Manchester United’s chief executive, has told Parliament: “We were involved through the European Club Association, as were other clubs, such as Chelsea, who were on the working group to develop those proposals with Uefa.
“It made sense and was for the benefit of football clubs could operate within their own resources and it would bring about a limiting effect on player cost, in terms of transfers and wages.

“We are comfortable with it. The critical issue will be around implementation and the sanctions around that, and making sure that it is appropriately applied. But I do not think anyone can criticise the objective of ensuring that clubs operate within their own resources.”

How to guarantee compliance would be one of the biggest challenges of a new Premier League regulatory regime and this month Henry expressed his concerns about Uefa’s will to impose its own FFP regulations. But that view contrasts with recent Uefa actions.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport has upheld Uefa’s expulsion under financial fair play rules of Besiktas. The Turkish club will be banned from the next two European competitions for which it qualifies over the next five years.
The English top flight is the only league in the country not to have its own cost-restraint framework. Leagues One and Two have both implemented salary capping while the Championship has introduced a financial fair play system for this season based on the Uefa model. Championship clubs flouting Football League rules will be hit with a transfer embargo.
 
shouldn't it be just cast to a vote since every EPL member has equal right in the organization? views and options have been provided, what is there else to discuss?
 
Leeds Spur said:
Once they built their castle they are happy to pull up the draw bridge.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's what its all about. Imagine, Chelsea supporting FFP rules now they have made the move from the have-nots to the haves.

The thing I find strange about the FFP rules is how they affect money coming into and leaving football. They have no problem with the Glazers taking £500m out of football and transferring it to bankers and other financial institutions. That is £500m that could be paid to football players, managers, coaches and others in the football business. Yet when faced with Sheikh Monsoor injecting £1000m into football, money that would be paid to football players, managers, coaches and others in the football business, they raise the red flag.

Now I realise that there is a fair play issue in terms of competitiveness, but the clubs at the top have not shown interest in that before. They abolished gate sharing, introduced the PL, championed the non-champions league, and took all the benefits that entailed. Now someone threatens their position they want new rules stifling competition.

One thing the PL has done well is the collective bargaining of the TV money and the relatively equitable distribution within the PL (the divide is to those outside). The owners proposing the current moves will be the same ones who will want changes to the collective bargaining
 
Support City on this one. At present, FFP is theoretically a good thing because all it does is ban clubs from Europe if they're making undue losses, not impose penalties on the domestic leagues. Ergo, 'the dream' for what it's grubbily worth, could still be kept alive; i.e, a team being bankrolled from obscurity to the title. (Not sure what that says about football fans, but that's a discussion for another day). This, however, will perpetually set the top four, maybe five teams as the top five for all eternity, since they can buy the best players and pay the best wages while still making a good amount of money due to their large sponsorship deals, large traditional fanbases and generally large stadiums. Thus, they wouldn't suffer at all, and they'd even probably pass FFP and so widen the gap. The small teams, however ,would be directly penalized by the Premier League itself by trying to break the monopoly.

Unless I've got the wrong end of the wedge here, this would combine with the FFP to create a new, utterly unbreakable Top-Four style chokehold on the league. Not a good thing.
 
DubaiSpur said:
Support City on this one. At present, FFP is theoretically a good thing because all it does is ban clubs from Europe if they're making undue losses, not impose penalties on the domestic leagues. Ergo, 'the dream' for what it's grubbily worth, could still be kept alive; i.e, a team being bankrolled from obscurity to the title. (Not sure what that says about football fans, but that's a discussion for another day). This, however, will perpetually set the top four, maybe five teams as the top five for all eternity, since they can buy the best players and pay the best wages while still making a good amount of money due to their large sponsorship deals, large traditional fanbases and generally large stadiums. Thus, they wouldn't suffer at all, and they'd even probably pass FFP and so widen the gap. The small teams, however ,would be directly penalized by the Premier League itself by trying to break the monopoly.

Unless I've got the wrong end of the wedge here, this would combine with the FFP to create a new, utterly unbreakable Top-Four style chokehold on the league. Not a good thing.
Click to expand...

Anyone is allowed to bankroll a team's stadium though. So Stoke and Swansea could both have huge stadiums built for them by a new owner, Swansea would (assuming prices are reasonable) fill the new stadium whereas Stoke would probably struggle to get more than they do now - I'd rather cut out my own eyeballs than watch Stoke play.

That's fair isn't it?
 
scaramanga said:
Anyone is allowed to bankroll a team's stadium though. So Stoke and Swansea could both have huge stadiums built for them by a new owner, Swansea would (assuming prices are reasonable) fill the new stadium whereas Stoke would probably struggle to get more than they do now - I'd rather cut out my own eyeballs than watch Stoke play.

That's fair isn't it?
Click to expand...

Not really. Take a provincial team like, say, Blackburn. They were funded by Jack Walker and stormed to their first and only PL title.Now, if Walker's trustees take over Blackburn and decide to build a new stadium, that would probably take at least three - five years to plan/get built, by which time someone in the 'established' top four will have probably won a title or two, maybe a cup or two, and will have increased their fanbases in Asia and Africa. Ergo, when Blackburn's new stadium is finally complete, they probably won't fill it unless they reduce ticket prices. While one of the established top teams can both boast full stadiums (due to high demand) at high prices and massive commercial/overseas revenue from the overseas fanbases. Even a team with a new stadium like Blackburn will struggle to compete against the rapidly increasing revenue margins.
 
Major League Baseball in the US does not have salary cap. But there are still new champions every few years. The way they make it works, IMO, is through making players honor their contracts. This allows for teams to plan and build without fearing much that their best players can just be bought off . I think that is the way to go and will most likely be held as not restricting trade. Players sign the contract with free-will so legally they must honor the contract.
 
Agree with all the critical comments in this thread, but for me the answer isn't therefore not to go ahead with FPP; it's to go ahead with it IN TANDEM with an attempt to reduce the dispairty in revenues between the top 6 and everyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back