-
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
braineclipse
Terry Dyson
If they comply with the rules from now on. And if you ignore the CL squad limit as a punishment for some reason.
Rorschach
Ricky Villa
There are a few other restrictions too
It's the maximum losses one I find the most interesting and probably the one which they are most likely to **** up on. If they are not contesting the sponsorship thing does this not mean their revenue going forward is also significantly impacted and in turn their chance of generating a loss that much higher? Any financial gurus out there that could explain the implications of this.
The second one of these is not as bad as it sounds as the wage restrictions don't apply to "performance-based bonuses ". So basically that restriction means almost nothing in reality as does the 50mil fine which when spread over a number of years won't hurt them at all really.
It's the maximum losses one I find the most interesting and probably the one which they are most likely to **** up on. If they are not contesting the sponsorship thing does this not mean their revenue going forward is also significantly impacted and in turn their chance of generating a loss that much higher? Any financial gurus out there that could explain the implications of this.
Superhudd
Simon Davies
Way I read it they need to find a new sponsor to cover the loss of the dodgy sponsor or infact make up the difference from what UEFA feel was the right figure that sponsor should be valued at.
That gap could be filled by the new money from the EPL rights this year.
Not sure if they still need to reduce there overall spending though. I hope so.
That gap could be filled by the new money from the EPL rights this year.
Not sure if they still need to reduce there overall spending though. I hope so.
jts1882
Dean Richards
It's a limited punishment as they will be allowed about the same size quad as that they used this season.
City made this point themselves when announcing their agreement:
braineclipse
Terry Dyson
Interesting.
They're essentially being limited to a smaller loss than other clubs will be allowed in the same period? Or am I misreading that.
Not exactly surprising that City are trying to make themselves look good and content in this situation.
They only used 21 players, but to keep to the same squad next season they will have to find room for one more home grown player amongst those 21 I believe (Boyatta didn't play). In addition any home grown player they ship out has to be replaced by another home grown player. Seeing as many of their squad players that they might want to upgrade on are the players making up their home grown quota that's an issue for them. And this season Jovetic didn't play (primarily because of injury).
Or put in other words, in their 25 man squad they were allowed 17 non-home-grown players. With a 21 man squad they are allowed only 13 non-home-grown players. If you look at their squad the issue seems pretty clear and it will most likely be a limitation for them in the transfer market. Fernandinho, Aguero, Kolarov, Toure, Silva, Zabaleta, Nasri, Navas, Kompany, Dzeko, Nastasic, Demichelis, Negredo, Garcia, Pantilimon and Jovetic. That 16 non-home-grown players already. Garcia and Pantilimon are probably the easiest to get rid of. Say they get rid of one more like Nastasic, that still only leaves them just within. For every non-home grown player they bring in after that they have to drop one.
Of course they could just say "**** it" and leave some of their top players out of their CL squad and place most of their focus on the league. How happy will those players be though? It's not a great situation for them, I do think it's a punishment and I think they're well aware of it.
I don't think that will help. For FFP the income from the sponsor was cut to market value for a club their size and that market value was generous.
No way a non-related party will sponsor them for that much.
I think it's quite easy to judge the financial equivalent size of a non-doped club.
For City, just pretend the oil money isn't there and compare their sponsorship to that of Palace or Southampton.
I think there's a fair market value for everything. You can at least make a reasonable comparison to clubs of a similar size/following.
There are so many football clubs around that only 2 or 3 clubs globally are able to command whatever price they want. Anyone else and there's other clubs the sponsors can go to instead - City are certainly one of them.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I love the sport but it reminds me of cycling in its doping heyday. Couple of cyclists died through over use on the drugs, only hope the same fate befalls certain football clubs.
Emirates Marketing Project's punishment is a ****ing joke. They've knowlingly broken the rules despite years of being able to avoid doing so - just ban the ****s from the CL.
With the extreme financial inequality and the constant diving, football really is a **** sport (aside from the game itself...)
With the extreme financial inequality and the constant diving, football really is a **** sport (aside from the game itself...)
milo
Jack L. Jones
It was always clear in the FFP rules that banning clubs from European competition was the ultimate punishment and that there were a number of smaller sanctions that would be used first.
I think that we should be pleased that UEFA are taking action and see how it affects clubs' behaviour. There were plenty on here who were convinced that no action would ever be taken.
jts1882
Dean Richards
It does seem that UEFA are more serious than many feared. However, what they have done is raise the drawbridge and allowed a few late-comers to jump the gap.
What it looks like ensuring is that we won't be overtaken by other clubs taking the sugar-daddy route like Chelsea and City. What it also ensures that we won't get that route either. It seems inherently unfair that say Lewis or Usmanov can't now spend their money the way Abramovich and Mansour have. The way the rules have been implemented have allowed new entrants to buy their way in, which rather takes the fairness out of financial fair play.
What it looks like ensuring is that we won't be overtaken by other clubs taking the sugar-daddy route like Chelsea and City. What it also ensures that we won't get that route either. It seems inherently unfair that say Lewis or Usmanov can't now spend their money the way Abramovich and Mansour have. The way the rules have been implemented have allowed new entrants to buy their way in, which rather takes the fairness out of financial fair play.
braineclipse
Terry Dyson
If you work from the point that the kind of financial doping City and Chelsea did is unfair what's more unfair, stopping others from doing the same or allowing others to do the same?
I agree though that FFP probably further polarizes football. However I also think that stopping clubs like City and Chelsea was only a part of what UEFA wanted with FFP. I think the main goal was to curb spending at clubs that didn't have owners injecting money into their clubs.
Superhudd
Simon Davies
I thought I read that the dodgy sponsorship was something like 100m a year and that the market rate for a club like City should be nearer 50m a year. So you could argue that City just makes that sponsorship 50m or 60m, the market rate, then because the cash injection of some 40m from the EPL rights this year then that black hole would have been filled, therefore from next year, they will pass.
But are they reducing the big deficit spend every year. I don't know what that figure is!
That hole would be filled, but everyone else in the PL has the extra £40m (or something close to that) to spend too. So relatively they're not gaining.