• 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

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

milo said:
I don't think that Chelsea would have sold Mata this week if it wasn't for FFP. It is being phased in over a number of seasons and it is also judged over a period of time rather than on one set of results. I think that it is still too early to judge how it will be enforced and whether it is effective.
Click to expand...

I just can't ever see them following through and banning a club like Emirates Marketing Project or Real Madrid from the Champions League. UEFA won't get as much revenue if the big boys are not in the competition.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Jurgen the German said:
I just can't ever see them following through and banning a club like Emirates Marketing Project or Real Madrid from the Champions League. UEFA won't get as much revenue if the big boys are not in the competition.
Click to expand...

Banning a club from European competition is the ultimate sanction though, there are lots of smaller penalties.

Emirates Marketing Project aren't a big boy in terms of global following. I doubt UEFA or the broadcasters give two hoots whether they are in the CL or not.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

braineclipse said:
I will continue to believe that FFP was put in place primarily to stop clubs from going into debt they cannot handle putting their future at serious risk and that UEFA isn't motivated to stop rich people who want to inject large sums of money into football.
Click to expand...

The stated motivation (e.g. from Platini) was to stop unfair injection of money as at Chelsea and now City, PSG, etc. The rules seemed designed to maintain the status quo and prevent such spending (if enforced strictly).

At the same time the rules do nothing to stop the likes of the Glazers or Hicks-Gillett making a leveraged takeover and putting the club in heavily debt. While you can argue United can afford it, Liverpool couldn't and had to be saved with a takeover aided by a friendly judge.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

jts1882 said:
The stated motivation (e.g. from Platini) was to stop unfair injection of money as at Chelsea and now City, PSG, etc. The rules seemed designed to maintain the status quo and prevent such spending (if enforced strictly).

At the same time the rules do nothing to stop the likes of the Glazers or Hicks-Gillett making a leveraged takeover and putting the club in heavily debt. While you can argue United can afford it, Liverpool couldn't and had to be saved with a takeover aided by a friendly judge.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Financial_Fair_Play_Regulations

On announcing the new legislation, UEFA President Michel Platini said,

Fifty per cent of clubs are losing money and this is an increasing trend. We needed to stop this downward spiral. They have spent more than they have earned in the past and haven't paid their debts. We don't want to kill or hurt the clubs; on the contrary, we want to help them in the market. The teams who play in our tournaments have unanimously agreed to our principles…living within your means is the basis of accounting but it hasn't been the basis of football for years now. The owners are asking for rules because they can't implement them themselves - many of them have had it with shovelling money into clubs and the more money you put into clubs, the harder it is to sell at a profit.[1]
Click to expand...

Although he talks about money being shoveled into clubs he mentions that in the context of owners not wanting to do that any more, owners being prevented from selling the clubs and making a profit by the previous system. This is essentially the opposite of Chelsea/City/PSG. He specifically talks about clubs losing money, spending more than they earn, not paying their debt and living within your means. Possibly the behaviour of clubs like Chelsea was mentioned elsewhere, but statements like these indicate quite strongly that the target at the very least included the poorly run clubs. Possibly in addition to stopping unfair injections of money like at Chelsea, although I don't personally remember that.

There were reports of 60+ clubs in large and medium sized European leagues with debt that could potentially cripple them and force them out of business, I think the vast majority of these examples weren't from debt being piled on clubs like the Glazers did when buying United, but debt accumulated over time from transfers and wages - essentially clubs spending more than they earned.

Edit: Feel free to post any contradicting quotes from Platini or UEFA where they say what you claimed.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Most of the clubs in debt and in trouble are not in European competition.

Platini has regularly made is position clear on clubs with an unfair advantage. To him unacceptable debt was clubs like Chelsea.

E.g. from 2008 ...

Uefa is to launch an investigation into the major financial challenges facing European football, including club debts and the inequality between rich and poor teams. A panel of legal and financial experts will carry out the inquiry, announced in Monaco yesterday, and make recommendations on how to create what Michel Platini, Uefa's president, described as "a level playing field" between clubs.

Platini said his major concern is the high level of debt carried by some clubs, reiterating his opinion that clubs are "cheating" when they buy players they cannot afford. He insisted he was not referring to English clubs alone - Manchester United and Chelsea owe a combined total of £1.5bn according to their most recent accounts - pointing to clubs elsewhere in Europe, including Celta Vigo in Spain, which have over-reached themselves financially and collapsed, as Leeds United did five years ago. "European football must be clean and transparent and we do not want clubs buying success on credit," Platini said.


More: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/aug/29/europeanfootball
Click to expand...

United's debt has nothing to do with unfair playing field (quite the opposite) so possibly this reveals his main agenda.
 
Last edited:
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

JTS:

Many of the clubs in debt and in trouble got into that by aiming for European football and (sooner or later) failing. Like Leeds, budgeting for CL football every season. But putting a potential glass ceiling for how far clubs can get by overspending at only domestic success UEFA limit the motivation for that overspending significantly. It becomes much less appealing for a chairman or owner to gamble with the club's future by taking big loans because even if they succeed they won't break that glass ceiling. Thus the kind of gamble that Leeds made has less of a reward and is at least theoretically less likely to happen.

Once again in your quote he's talking about debt, the potential for a collapse, buying success on credit. Not straight up cash injections.

Besides that, talk is relatively cheap from Platini and the associations. We will see what they end up doing with clubs like PSG when the time comes, but personally I don't think the FFP regulations are set up to stop teams like Chelsea and City at least. (PSG are a different beast at the moment, like I said - we'll see.) On the other hand the regulations are set up to prevent Leeds style overspending if UEFA want to enforce it.

Which agenda is it you're hinting to about Manchester United? Did any of Platini's quotes include anything about United? Seems to me that the United part was added for information by the journalist...
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Sorry, was a little misled on my 'facts' yesterday. Instead of just ticket revenue, its match day income which has nearly doubled. Not quite as impressive considering how low it is in proportion to our league position, but still.

I don't think UEFA would have any worries expelling us from European football. We aren't a massive club at all, we have only just qualified past the group stages for the first time. I would say the same for PSG, but Platini won't kick them out because of the familial ties which have been curiously overlooked whenever a UEFA executive has spoken out...
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

SWP29 said:
Sorry, was a little misled on my 'facts' yesterday. Instead of just ticket revenue, its match day income which has nearly doubled. Not quite as impressive considering how low it is in proportion to our league position, but still.
Click to expand...

How did it happen if attendances stayed similar? Did they increase the price of hot dogs or beer, or increase the cost of certain corporate boxes for Middle Eastern gentlemen, or just because you got further in the cups, or Europe?
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Bullet said:
How did it happen if attendances stayed similar? Did they increase the price of hot dogs or beer, or increase the cost of certain corporate boxes for Middle Eastern gentlemen, or just because you got further in the cups, or Europe?
Click to expand...

A lot of it has been because of increased participation in competitions, but even in a lot of these games we sold more tickets. It was well publicised among a few posters on here that we weren't selling out (for want of a better phrase ;)) for Champions League games, and rightly so. We weren't even getting close, even against teams like Dortmund and Madrid. But I believe we sold out for the first time, against Bayern this season. This combined with higher prices in more desirable places, and a better experience here (things like padded seats are in these seats for regular season ticket holders).

In terms of food and drink, it's a hot dog and a beer for £4.50. I don't get to many away games so I don't know how that compares, but it's always been too high for me anyway.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

SWP29 said:
Sorry, was a little misled on my 'facts' yesterday. Instead of just ticket revenue, its match day income which has nearly doubled. Not quite as impressive considering how low it is in proportion to our league position, but still.
Click to expand...

Comparing the year on year figures in Deloitte's reports shows:


Revenue
Matchday
Broadcasting
Commercial
TOTAL
2013
£m
39.6
88.4
143.0
271.0
2012
£m
30.8
88.2
112.1
231.1
Most of the £40m increase has come from greater commercial income; although the exact nature of this additional income seems rather mysterious. Matchday income only accounts for £8.8m of the increase. I suspect that when Emirates Marketing Project eventually release their annual report we will see that most of the extra matchday income has come from hospitality, catering, etc. and very little from gate receipts.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

its funny isn't it, for clubs like city gate receipts are less and less important each season, its almost at the point where they could play in an empty stadium every other week without impacting on the bottom line
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

SWP29 said:
In terms of food and drink, it's a hot dog and a beer for £4.50. I don't get to many away games so I don't know how that compares, but it's always been too high for me anyway.
Click to expand...

very favourably, in my experience its nearly double that at most places
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

jts1882 said:
The idea that anyone at UEFA or FIFA was going to stop people with large amounts of money to throw at football was always far-fetched.

They will find a few suitable targets to show their "seriousness". Which was the Spanish team fined for not paying debts or players ... Malaga? Or possibly Anzhi now they seem to have lost their benefactor. They can punish them.
Click to expand...

This. They will make statements by punishing smaller clubs, while their cash cows keep on ruining football. But money talks, I guess. Such a shame.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

jaysea67 said:
Comparing the year on year figures in Deloitte's reports shows:


Revenue
Matchday
Broadcasting
Commercial
TOTAL
2013
£m
39.6
88.4
143.0
271.0
2012
£m
30.8
88.2
112.1
231.1
Most of the £40m increase has come from greater commercial income; although the exact nature of this additional income seems rather mysterious. Matchday income only accounts for £8.8m of the increase. I suspect that when Emirates Marketing Project eventually release their annual report we will see that most of the extra matchday income has come from hospitality, catering, etc. and very little from gate receipts.
Click to expand...

My guess is that the extra matchday is a mix of improved attendances and extra games. The latter is important (as spurs' magna carter has recently demonstrated in the NDP thread). Cups runs can take the number of home games from the PL 19 to over 30. An extra six home games could explain the difference on equal attendances.
 
Last edited:
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Remember though the extra revene from games in cups are split 50/50.. so an extra 6 home games, would probably mean 3 home premiership games at a lower category.

EDIT - Of course it would mean a 50/50 split from away games too. So my point was infact pointless. haha
 
Last edited:
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Superhudd said:
Remember though the extra revene from games in cups are split 50/50.. so an extra 6 home games, would probably mean 3 home premiership games at a lower category.

EDIT - Of course it would mean a 50/50 split from away games too. So my point was infact pointless. haha
Click to expand...

Except that cup games are usually priced much cheaper, which means your original point still stands - sort of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back