-
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
- Thread starter NewmarketYid
- Start date
milo
Jack L. Jones
Emirates Marketing Project and PSG got punished last season. I would expect Liverpool to be punished this year.
jts1882
Dean Richards
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.
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.
jaysea67
Erik Edman
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.
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
Niko Kranjcar
Malaga were banned from playing in europe, thats a penalty, fines to arab owners swimming in money is merely an inconvenience.
milo
Jack L. Jones
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.
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

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

jaysea67
Erik Edman
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rorschach
Ricky Villa
Relaxing the FFP rules will just mean the carbon circle clubs will open up their large wallets and pull further ahead. It's no coincidence that clubs like PSG and City are rowing in behind these latest changes. Maybe as Neymar says Utd would have been favourites to win more often than not if Chelsea and later City had not been finically supported to the extent they have , but IMO this is way more palatable to having two smaller clubs skip the queue and give everyone else the finger on the way past.
Craig_J
Tim Sherwood
Just seen this on SSN. Bloody disgraceful but shouldn't expect anything else really. It suits UEFA to have the clubs in the Champions League in a position to suck up any half decent players from the rest. GHod forbid that clubs outside it think they can get away with competing with them.
I think we feel this way because we are tottenham fans. its easy to say this knowing that we would have directly beneffited had abramovic/mansour not existed. and i thinks its mainly fans of clubs like ours (arsenal, liverpool, lyon, marseille etc) that are coming up with 'moral' arguments in this debate. i dont really think fans of any other club think there is a 'moral' debate here.
i hate to say it, but i think its just sour grapes from us lot. we are just upset that chelsea won the lottery.
Rorschach
Ricky Villa
Not sour grapes at all. Disgust is a more appropriate word. I think you will find that the clubs that you have listed are the ones that have been most affected by the nouveau riche clubs so of course they are the ones that are shouting the most. The clubs a bit further down the ladder would obviously not like it either but the impact on them is not as pronounced I would say.
Whether you believe me or not, I would loose practically all interest in Spurs if we joined that group of clubs. It may be the type of person I am, but I'm in it for the journey as well as the destination. Skipping to the end of the story like these clubs have doesn't interest me. You will probably argue that you would like Spurs to be competing for the league and so we need our own generous benefactor. I would argue that if not for Chelsea and City we would already be doing that.
Am I upset that Chelsea won the lottery? Too fudging right I am. I think Abramovich and his odious club represent everything that is wrong about where football is going.
@Rorschach ,
as a fan, i'm in agreement with a lot of what youve said above. personally, i actually like the fact that we dont have an oligarch, and im content with our position in english and european football. just like you seem to be too. and like you, i probably wouldnt enjoy supporting us as much if we did get bought out by an oligarch.
however, at the same time, im not jealous or envious of chelsea's success tbh. they may be an odious club, but i dont think its anyone else's right to dictate how they should spend their own money. abramovic should be allowed to spend his own money how he likes imo, just as we are allowed to spend ours how we like.
as a fan, i'm in agreement with a lot of what youve said above. personally, i actually like the fact that we dont have an oligarch, and im content with our position in english and european football. just like you seem to be too. and like you, i probably wouldnt enjoy supporting us as much if we did get bought out by an oligarch.
however, at the same time, im not jealous or envious of chelsea's success tbh. they may be an odious club, but i dont think its anyone else's right to dictate how they should spend their own money. abramovic should be allowed to spend his own money how he likes imo, just as we are allowed to spend ours how we like.
Rorschach
Ricky Villa
Well this is where we fundamentally diverge. I am not naive enough to think that money doesn't dictate the pecking order of things. Of course it does, but what I do object to is the source of the money. I draw the line in my support for a club when that club is being used to legitimise the legacy of morally reprehensible characters or as a vanity project for some rich prick who should be doing something more worthwhile with is 'hard earned' wealth. A club that grows because of its on field and resulting commercial success is a model that I am happy Spurs follows, and although the FFP regulations as of now have barred entry to the VIP section I still think through good decisions you can get there.
Baleforce
Vinnie Samways
That's a fair idea Rorschach, but, show me a rich person who isn't a morally reprehensible character,(hell, I'm nowhere near rich and I crossed that line years ago, I'm as morally bankrupt as, well, as everyone else I've ever met), and if people only spent their time and money on "worthwhile" pursuits football wouldn't exist at all.