Baleforce
Vinnie Samways
they have lower turnover though so their ffp ceiling is lower
-
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
they have lower turnover though so their ffp ceiling is lower
That depends. Utd have a massive turnover as none of it would be reduced by FFP regs - I'd expect Arsenal and Liverpool to be the next in that list all above City/Chelsea.
I think people often miss the point of these regulations. Nobody has ever said that they will even things out for teams, only that income has to be earned the right way (Utd) rather than money just being thrown at a club (Chelsea).
braineclipse
Terry Dyson
And it keeps owners from gambling with a club's future by placing the club in massive debt in the hope of getting regular CL football.
Haven't seen an informed opinion on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the FFP regulations could have stopped the Leeds financial collapse for example if the regulations had been in place at the time.
Baleforce
Vinnie Samways
it'll be rightly lauded if it succeeds as a check on such risk taking
i'm not sure its right to stop genuine investors improving a club though, there's nothing fair about saying chelsea can have their oligarch, city their sheikh, united and liverpool their hedge funds, but the rest of you are ****ed, there's no place at the table for you
i'm not sure its right to stop genuine investors improving a club though, there's nothing fair about saying chelsea can have their oligarch, city their sheikh, united and liverpool their hedge funds, but the rest of you are ****ed, there's no place at the table for you
jts1882
Dean Richards
Yes, i think the dodgy third party deals on player purchases for Leeds would have been stopped. Possibly Portsmouth too.
My biggest problem with FFP is it does nothing to stop the leveraged takeovers. The Glazers and H&G took a billion out of football and UEFA does nothing, yet blocks people putting in two billion from doing so again. United survived because they are a financial giant, while Liverpool - our most successful club - were lucky not to go under. Even with United, the past season shows the damage done and how they needed Fergie's football genius and money-grubbing self-interest to stay on top. If Fergie had been less willing to play the "no value in the market" card and left then United might have been exposed before they got the debt under control. When the two biggest clubs in England are vulnerable, what protection is there for the rest?
My biggest problem with FFP is it does nothing to stop the leveraged takeovers. The Glazers and H&G took a billion out of football and UEFA does nothing, yet blocks people putting in two billion from doing so again. United survived because they are a financial giant, while Liverpool - our most successful club - were lucky not to go under. Even with United, the past season shows the damage done and how they needed Fergie's football genius and money-grubbing self-interest to stay on top. If Fergie had been less willing to play the "no value in the market" card and left then United might have been exposed before they got the debt under control. When the two biggest clubs in England are vulnerable, what protection is there for the rest?
braineclipse
Terry Dyson
Investments in stadiums, training facilities etc are still allowed though.
I don't think anyone can say that it's fair that Chelsea and City got to buy a seat at the big table and others can't, but regulation will always lag behind on issues like these I think. Honestly I'm not even sure stopping investors like that was a goal for UEFA all along, seems a bit contradictory to what they're usually all about.
True, it's a weakness. But I think that's more a result of what can realistically be done by an association like UEFA.
I wonder if it would be easier for the PL for example to keep that from happening within a single association and the financial regulations of one country. I'm no economist, but I imagine putting something like that in place across all UEFA member nation would be a rather big pain in the ****.
Superhudd
Simon Davies
I cannot wait for the premier league to go into city's stadium (which was raped from all taxpayers) during a match to get them to show the person sitting in a chair when they announce the attendance as full. If they say person payed but didn't turn up they then ask for name and addresses, phone numbers of said person.
This is how deep and strict everything should be.. no turning a blind eye ever
This is how deep and strict everything should be.. no turning a blind eye ever
jaysea67
Erik Edman
Premier League clubs could receive money from Emirates Marketing Project's £50m FFP fine
Uefa draws up plans on how to redistribute money from fines imposed on Emirates Marketing Project, with every Premier League club in line to benefit
Every Premier League club would get a slice of Emirates Marketing Project’s world-record fine for breaching Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations under plans being drawn up by European football’s governing body.
Even relegated Norwich City, Fulham and Cardiff City would receive their cut of what could end up being £50 million surrendered by the Premier League champions after their £1 billion spending spree under Sheik Manour bin Zayed al Nahyan fell foul of FFP rules.
The Daily Telegraph has learnt that Uefa president Michel Platini and general secretary Gianni Infantino plan talks with the chairman of the European Club Association, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, to discuss precisely how to redistribute the fines levied from the FFP sanctions announced last week.
Platini and Infantino want what is a pot worth up to £114.5m to be shared not only among all 237 clubs competing in Europe this season and next but also teams in domestic leagues affected by their rivals’ overspending.
That would apply to five countries, including England, meaning a total of around 300 clubs stand to benefit from the transgressions of City, Paris St Germain and seven other sides.
If the money is distributed evenly, the most any team could hope to receive is approximately £380,000, although it may be as little as £138,000 if those guilty of FFP breaches avoid paying their whole fine by fulfilling certain obligations.
Uefa is hoping the prospect of such solidarity payments will reduce the threat of clubs appealing the settlements agreed with those who broke the rules.
It is understood no team has yet mounted a formal challenge ahead of Monday’s deadline for doing so. The Telegraph has learnt that Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United have no plans to appeal City’s penalty. Everton, who stand most to gain if the Manchester club are expelled from the Champions League after finishing fifth in the Premier League, are thought to have little appetite to do so either.
Speaking for the first time since City were found guilty, chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak defended the spending which landed the club in trouble. In what could be perceived as a subtle dig at debt-laden United, Al Mubarak claimed FFP preserved the wrong type of financial model. He told City’s website: “We don’t pay a penny to service any debts. For me, that’s a sustainable model. However, our friends in Uefa seem to believe otherwise. They have their view, we have ours.
“I disagree with their views but we are pragmatic. If it means sometimes to take a pinch, we’ll take a pinch.” The biggest current threat to FFP will be removed in the coming weeks after the Europe Commission indicated it would snub a legal challenge to the cost-control measures led by the man who helped bring about the Bosman ruling.
The EC has formally notified European football’s governing body that it intends to reject the complaint filed by Italian agent Daniel Striani, who claimed FFP broke European Union competition laws.
Striani, represented by Bosman lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont, has also been sent a letter making it clear the EC “does not intend to conduct a further investigation” into his allegation.
In its preliminary conclusion after more than a year considering Striani’s complaint, the Commission ruled he had no “legitimate interest” to bring it in the first place.
It noted any effects of FFP on the activities of player’s agents were “indirect and speculative” and said claims the measures would result in a decrease of transfer activities or transfer fees were “not substantiated”.
A final decision formally rejecting the complaint is expected in a few weeks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/10844986/Premier-League-clubs-could-receive-money-from-Manchester-Citys-50m-FFP-fine.html#source=refresh
Uefa draws up plans on how to redistribute money from fines imposed on Emirates Marketing Project, with every Premier League club in line to benefit
Every Premier League club would get a slice of Emirates Marketing Project’s world-record fine for breaching Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations under plans being drawn up by European football’s governing body.
Even relegated Norwich City, Fulham and Cardiff City would receive their cut of what could end up being £50 million surrendered by the Premier League champions after their £1 billion spending spree under Sheik Manour bin Zayed al Nahyan fell foul of FFP rules.
The Daily Telegraph has learnt that Uefa president Michel Platini and general secretary Gianni Infantino plan talks with the chairman of the European Club Association, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, to discuss precisely how to redistribute the fines levied from the FFP sanctions announced last week.
Platini and Infantino want what is a pot worth up to £114.5m to be shared not only among all 237 clubs competing in Europe this season and next but also teams in domestic leagues affected by their rivals’ overspending.
That would apply to five countries, including England, meaning a total of around 300 clubs stand to benefit from the transgressions of City, Paris St Germain and seven other sides.
If the money is distributed evenly, the most any team could hope to receive is approximately £380,000, although it may be as little as £138,000 if those guilty of FFP breaches avoid paying their whole fine by fulfilling certain obligations.
Uefa is hoping the prospect of such solidarity payments will reduce the threat of clubs appealing the settlements agreed with those who broke the rules.
It is understood no team has yet mounted a formal challenge ahead of Monday’s deadline for doing so. The Telegraph has learnt that Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United have no plans to appeal City’s penalty. Everton, who stand most to gain if the Manchester club are expelled from the Champions League after finishing fifth in the Premier League, are thought to have little appetite to do so either.
Speaking for the first time since City were found guilty, chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak defended the spending which landed the club in trouble. In what could be perceived as a subtle dig at debt-laden United, Al Mubarak claimed FFP preserved the wrong type of financial model. He told City’s website: “We don’t pay a penny to service any debts. For me, that’s a sustainable model. However, our friends in Uefa seem to believe otherwise. They have their view, we have ours.
“I disagree with their views but we are pragmatic. If it means sometimes to take a pinch, we’ll take a pinch.” The biggest current threat to FFP will be removed in the coming weeks after the Europe Commission indicated it would snub a legal challenge to the cost-control measures led by the man who helped bring about the Bosman ruling.
The EC has formally notified European football’s governing body that it intends to reject the complaint filed by Italian agent Daniel Striani, who claimed FFP broke European Union competition laws.
Striani, represented by Bosman lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont, has also been sent a letter making it clear the EC “does not intend to conduct a further investigation” into his allegation.
In its preliminary conclusion after more than a year considering Striani’s complaint, the Commission ruled he had no “legitimate interest” to bring it in the first place.
It noted any effects of FFP on the activities of player’s agents were “indirect and speculative” and said claims the measures would result in a decrease of transfer activities or transfer fees were “not substantiated”.
A final decision formally rejecting the complaint is expected in a few weeks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/10844986/Premier-League-clubs-could-receive-money-from-Manchester-Citys-50m-FFP-fine.html#source=refresh
SpursLodge
Nicola Berti
I think we all know that FFP isn't designed to stop Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project from spending the oil money, it's purely to stop crap teams from ruining the Champions league by qualifying and stopping one of the big European teams from being in it. We all know that they simply want Real Madrid, Barca, UTD, Bayern etc etc in every year and not some lesser teams who've spent a few quid to get there.
All this does is make sure the big clubs that already have money can spend more than those smaller clubs that aren't already well established can't spend to get there.
Also, I don't get how fining a team that's overspent is supposed to stop them from getting into financial trouble. Another thing, do UEFA have any rights to fine a team that's not competing in any of it's competitions? I get that they could withhold prize money or fine a team that's played in one of it's competitions whilst breaking the rules but if a club like West Ham over spent surely that's up to the FA or the premierleague to deal with not uefa?
All this does is make sure the big clubs that already have money can spend more than those smaller clubs that aren't already well established can't spend to get there.
Also, I don't get how fining a team that's overspent is supposed to stop them from getting into financial trouble. Another thing, do UEFA have any rights to fine a team that's not competing in any of it's competitions? I get that they could withhold prize money or fine a team that's played in one of it's competitions whilst breaking the rules but if a club like West Ham over spent surely that's up to the FA or the premierleague to deal with not uefa?
jts1882
Dean Richards
UEFA only evaluate teams in their competitions. So, for instance, Liverpool were not evaluated this time. Of course, they must comply if they want to compete in Europe as this years accounts will be used to evaluate FFP.
If a club has no aspirations to play in Europe they can ignore FFP. However, isn't there a variant in the PL or talk of one?
If a club has no aspirations to play in Europe they can ignore FFP. However, isn't there a variant in the PL or talk of one?
yh i think the premier league is planning on brining something in. the rest of the football league have their own financial fair play rules tho. personally, i think all these rules are rubbish. they should let everyone spend their own money how they want to. and if a club is at risk of going bust, let it. once one or two clubs go bust, it should be a signal to other fans to stop demanding that their own clubs "spend, spend, spend". instead, when their club is spending like leeds or portsmouth, the chants should be "stop spending some f***ing money".
at the end of the day, when a club/business like arsenal, worth over $1 billion, is only making £25m worth of profit (in a good year), it shows that every single club is spending too much money. and its the fan's fault.
Last edited:
SpursLodge
Nicola Berti
How is it the fans fault? The fans just want success on the pitch, it's up to the owners of the clubs to manage the finances in such a way that is sustainable and brings success.
I think the only way to get a level playing field would be to have a wage cap but as that's not going to happen you can forget football ever being "fair". The best we can hope for is to get a bigger stadium so that we make more money and can compete with the top wage bills.
I think the only way to get a level playing field would be to have a wage cap but as that's not going to happen you can forget football ever being "fair". The best we can hope for is to get a bigger stadium so that we make more money and can compete with the top wage bills.
braineclipse
Terry Dyson
Very poor from UEFA if true. More a punishment of players than the club to allow them to shift out almost only home grown players.
This seems solid enough, kind of what I was expecting.
its the fans fault because they are the ones who are putting all the pressure on the clubs to spend way beyond their means. just looking at the premier league alone, arsenal are probably the most well run club, in terms of financial sustainability. but like i've mentioned before, even they do not make that much profit considering how big of an organisation they are. they are effectively breaking even. the same applies to us. yet we (as tottenham fans) always moan about the lack of spending and how levy is stingy.
according to the following article (http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201308/only-one-nfl-team-lost-money-2012), in 2012, the average nfl team was worth $1.17 billion (we're worth $500m according to forbes). Only one team/organisation made an operating loss, and well over half of them made a profit in excess of $20m. With some even making over $100m.
When a team is performing below expectations, you always hear fans telling the owners to invest in a new striker or a new creative midfielder. However when leeds were giving massive wages to the likes of harry kewell, i don't remember their fans complaining. for me, the fans have to take more responsiblity. they can't keep forcing their owners to spend like they are currently.
Superhudd
Simon Davies
Its not, its owners like Abramovic who purposely went around buying everyone by inflating the wages, he did it not for the fans, not for Chelsea FC, he did it to make his name and therefore make it impossible for the dark powers of Russia to doo him in. Not one Chelsea fan asked for that money to be spent, dare I say the same at City, PSG and Monaco too.
If Abramovich and his ilk had not done what they did, the top earners would be on 100k maximum and not 300k.
Abramovich IMO is the reason our ticket prices have doubled over the last decade too.
I disagree. chelsea and mancity's ticket prices are massively subsidised by the likes of abramovic. if anything, they are very good for football fans. these clubs make massive losses every year. that only means one thing: ticket prices to watch 200k p/w players like aguero, hazard, toure, lampard should be a lot higher than they are. but abramovic is willing to make up the difference between what the fans pay, and what the ticket should actually cost (if chelsea were to break even).
the problem is the fans. look at the teams just below the Emirates Marketing Project's and chelsea's. thats us and arsenal. we always seem to be complaining about missing a "superstar striker" or lacking squad depth etc. the thing is we are only lacking a star striker or sqaud depth compared to chelsea and mancity. when you compare our squad to the rest of the league, we are doing absolutely fine. and for some reason, we complain to our owner/chairman because he is not willing to take on losses like abramovic. yet on the other hand, we don't want to pay more for tickets either (to fund better players).
Baleforce
Vinnie Samways
I kinda agree with Neymar, although I think the fans are facilitators rather than to blame, the fact of the matter is we all love it, we like the way football has changed, we love the champions league, we love sky sports, we love new kits every year
if we didn't we wouldn't be crawling over each other to give them our money, we've all literally bought into "modern football"
if we didn't we wouldn't be crawling over each other to give them our money, we've all literally bought into "modern football"
braineclipse
Terry Dyson
Not sure how useful a direct comparison of value between sports in different markets is?
Although I suppose it really highlights why a lot of the big clubs would like to move towards a European super league.
Not sure I agree with blaming the fans either. The financial responsibility is on the chairman and the board, they're making the decisions.