• 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

Premier League Club Accounts

City are set to miss the FFP target by some 65mil (assuming the best case scenario) for the first FFP period (2011-2013). Someone has done an analysis here which does assume a lot of things but looks reasonably credible to a layman like me. I'm not sure how accurate it is but it is interesting. Note that if they breach the rules it is the 2014/2015 season that will be affected.

Actually the 6 min vid on this site explains the FFP rules in short. It's quite good.


Your allowed to fail by 40m ish in the first two years though i thought?

That would mean that they are really not far away from breaking even, they just have to reduce the wage budget and make profit on player sales of 25m..

Which i don't see happening to be perfectly honest..
 
Your allowed to fail by 40m ish in the first two years though i thought?

That would mean that they are really not far away from breaking even, they just have to reduce the wage budget and make profit on player sales of 25m..

Which i don't see happening to be perfectly honest..

If I'm reading it right the figures in that article have already accounted for the €45mil deficit which he has included as 36mil GBP. So it's ?ú65mil past the ?ú36mil deficit point.
 
Football can be and is both a sport and business; I just think the pendulum has swung too far towards the business side of things, and that the people in charge should try and reverse this.

(Although 'business' isn't really the right word; this graph - http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NXzBcaYo0...vdu9gUbVg/s400/5+Tottenham+Profit+League.jpg- shows that the large majority of the clubs make no profit. If fooball is a business, it's a pretty bricky one.)

No doubt that part of United's success has been down to a good youth policy and a great mananger , and it's very difficult to argue which factors are the most important. But United's average first XI this year cost ?ú130m, Spurs' cost ?ú52m. United's wages last season [latest figures available] were ?ú153m, Spurs' were ?ú91m. It can't be denied that this has a significant effect on the clubs' chances of success. (And don't you think the difference in money is disproportionate to the difference between the club's position in the league?)

What is the difference between a different rule and a reward, in practical terms? The rules I'm suggesting wouldn't specifically target Manchester United; they would attempt to reduce the reward of the most successful teams, in the same way that other rules introduced over recent years have increased the reward of the most successful teams.


The people in charge are enjoying this change, they are being paid larger sums of money, they have no reason to want to change it.


I can understand that their squad is worth more, and they pay more on wages, but that is their choice as a club. I really don't see a problem with it. If I owned a company i would be perfectly happy to spend the money the company earned on improving the company. A football club is a company, so i see no issue. Lots of them may lose money, but that is because they are being run badly. It is possible to spend well and stay competitive.

A rule is something you must stick to, a reward is something you get for achieving a goal. You might have rules and bonuses at work, it's basically the same system. If you do well, you get a bonus, not surprising really. If you don't do well enough, you don't get a bonus.


We are managing to stay competitive without spending all that money, as are Arsenal. This shows that the system is fine, up until the point at which your Emirates Marketing Project's and your Chelsea's come in and fudge up everybody's wage and transfer expectations. If they had not, their players would be spread amongst the others in the league who have actually deserved the success they have gained and teams like Aston Villa, us and well, for the moment Saudi Sportswashing Machine would have had a much greater talent pool of players.
 
If I'm reading it right the figures in that article have already accounted for the €45mil deficit which he has included as 36mil GBP. So it's ?ú65mil past the ?ú36mil deficit point.


Ah right, good catch. I missed that line.


So they need to reduce the wage bill or make 65m on transfers...


That is never going to happen. Though i can see them just getting a slap on the wrist and a small fine for the first few years...
 
City are set to miss the FFP target by some 65mil (assuming the best case scenario) for the first FFP period (2011-2013). Someone has done an analysis here which does assume a lot of things but looks reasonably credible to a layman like me. I'm not sure how accurate it is but it is interesting. Note that if they breach the rules it is the 2014/2015 season that will be affected.

Actually the 6 min vid on this site explains the FFP rules in short. It's quite good.

Cheers - that's an interesting read. Of course, some of the assumptions are open to debate but ?ú63m is big gap to close.
 
The people in charge are enjoying this change, they are being paid larger sums of money, they have no reason to want to change it.


I can understand that their squad is worth more, and they pay more on wages, but that is their choice as a club. I really don't see a problem with it. If I owned a company i would be perfectly happy to spend the money the company earned on improving the company. A football club is a company, so i see no issue. Lots of them may lose money, but that is because they are being run badly. It is possible to spend well and stay competitive.

A rule is something you must stick to, a reward is something you get for achieving a goal. You might have rules and bonuses at work, it's basically the same system. If you do well, you get a bonus, not surprising really. If you don't do well enough, you don't get a bonus.


We are managing to stay competitive without spending all that money, as are Arsenal. This shows that the system is fine, up until the point at which your Emirates Marketing Project's and your Chelsea's come in and fudge up everybody's wage and transfer expectations. If they had not, their players would be spread amongst the others in the league who have actually deserved the success they have gained and teams like Aston Villa, us and well, for the moment Saudi Sportswashing Machine would have had a much greater talent pool of players.

I'm just getting angry, so I'll leave it at that!
 
Trev, I can't say I agree with you.

You seem to have this weird view, that football clubs should just be these quaint little play things, like bookclubs at primary school. They're nothing of the sort mate; they're businesses, many of whom have shareholders who've invested in them. Seriously, need to change your mindset on this: they're companies, not cute little charities!

Why be envious of Man Utd anyway? All that they have, they've earned it through good decision-making. Conversely, those that don't have it, have earned their lot through brick decision-making. I don't understand your weird view, that everyone should exist on this falsely level playing field - what planet are you living on??

It is right that success is rewarded, otherwise what's the point? Where's the incentive in taking a risk or being bothered about making good decisions if, at the end of the day, you'll only ever be on a level playing field with everyone else? Sorry mate, but that's just gonads. What you'd end up with, is the most boring and dull league ever, as all sense of competitiveness will simply disappear. Well, you need competition in order to continually raise standards, otherwise you'll become stagnant and decline relative to your contemporaries.

I wish I could see benefit in your ideal, but - sorry - I only see a flawed, out-of-date interpretation. Would we all love it if everything was equal? Yeah - damn right, but that's not reality though is it? It doesn't work like that. If clubs have earned their success, then - in my opinion - you have absolutely no right whatsoever to deny them the fruits of their labour. And as for the other clubs? Well, it's upto them to make better decisions or investments, in order to climb the ladder; you don't go pandering to them, that's simply ridiculous!

On a personal level, I work damn hard and I get paid extremely well for it. But were there not that level of recompense, then - without a shadow of a doubt - I wouldn't work anywhere near as hard, because there'd be no incentive for me to do so. I'm in a competition to maintain that level of pay which I can command, so I'm continually under pressure to maintain my outputs and record - and that forces me to think in a certain mindset; performance-related remuneration. That's the exact same structure which is applied to football clubs, and I cannot see why there is or should be a problem with it.
 
Ah right, good catch. I missed that line.


So they need to reduce the wage bill or make 65m on transfers...


That is never going to happen. Though i can see them just getting a slap on the wrist and a small fine for the first few years...


They probably will make a fair bit in transfers, selling Adebayor and Tevez will most likely get them 30m for starters plus Bridge, Johnson, Savic etc
 
They probably will make a fair bit in transfers, selling Adebayor and Tevez will most likely get them 30m for starters plus Bridge, Johnson, Savic etc

Have to find someone who is willing to take their wages on though?

That's the main problem with Emirates Marketing Project have done; they've falsely inflated the wages of what are - at best - probably fringe or squad players. To get them off the books will require either another club to take on-board these grossly inflated, unsustainable wages or - as we've seen - the parent club subsidising wages, to the tune of 90% in one case (Craig Bellamy) That subsidy still sits on the P&L of Emirates Marketing Project.

Tevez and Adebayor will be on fortunes. Absolute mind-boggling fortunes. There's only a few select few clubs who'll take those commitments on, mindful themselves of the requirements enforced on them through FFP. Bridge, Johnson & Savic? Again, likely to be on sizeable amounts - not astronomical - but tickling the 6-figure mark I would imagine. For that kinda wage, buyers would see better value elsewhere.

Their only hope is to falsely inflate their income streams to offset their overheads, and they're trying that with the recent sponsorship deal. UEFA may have reservations about that particular deal, but having reservations and actually objecting - in Court - is another matter entirely. I don't see the appetite from UEFA to take that sort of battle on, therefore Emirates Marketing Project will get away with it and make FFP perfection.
 
It doesnt matter though because people signed before July 2010 dont have their wages counted towards FFP so they could sell us Adebayor for 15m, pay 100k a week of his wages and they could use the 15m against FFP but the 100k a week wouldnt count against it.
 
All the FFP rules are going to do is maintain the status quo by allowing the established big clubs to use their financial might to continue to dominate the transfer market.

Personally I would like to see squad wage restrictions introduced (at say ?ú100million per year for the the entire 25 man first team squad) in order to level the playing field.

That way billionaires couldn't just come along and buy up all the mercenaries they want on astronomical wages that no normal club can afford, plus it will prevent the likes on ManU from cherry picking the best young players from the rest of the Premier League in order to replace the Class of '92.
 
It doesnt matter though because people signed before July 2010 dont have their wages counted towards FFP so they could sell us Adebayor for 15m, pay 100k a week of his wages and they could use the 15m against FFP but the 100k a week wouldnt count against it.

that stipulation is for 1 year only. So you get one year free wages for players signed before 2010 but the following year counts. So wages paid this football year all count towards FFP

Edit : so city subsidising Ade's wages this year hurts their FFP and so it is unlikely to happen.
 
Last edited:
Trev, I can't say I agree with you.

You seem to have this weird view, that football clubs should just be these quaint little play things, like bookclubs at primary school. They're nothing of the sort mate; they're businesses, many of whom have shareholders who've invested in them. Seriously, need to change your mindset on this: they're companies, not cute little charities!

Why be envious of Man Utd anyway? All that they have, they've earned it through good decision-making. Conversely, those that don't have it, have earned their lot through brick decision-making. I don't understand your weird view, that everyone should exist on this falsely level playing field - what planet are you living on??

It is right that success is rewarded, otherwise what's the point? Where's the incentive in taking a risk or being bothered about making good decisions if, at the end of the day, you'll only ever be on a level playing field with everyone else? Sorry mate, but that's just gonads. What you'd end up with, is the most boring and dull league ever, as all sense of competitiveness will simply disappear. Well, you need competition in order to continually raise standards, otherwise you'll become stagnant and decline relative to your contemporaries.

I wish I could see benefit in your ideal, but - sorry - I only see a flawed, out-of-date interpretation. Would we all love it if everything was equal? Yeah - damn right, but that's not reality though is it? It doesn't work like that. If clubs have earned their success, then - in my opinion - you have absolutely no right whatsoever to deny them the fruits of their labour. And as for the other clubs? Well, it's upto them to make better decisions or investments, in order to climb the ladder; you don't go pandering to them, that's simply ridiculous!

On a personal level, I work damn hard and I get paid extremely well for it. But were there not that level of recompense, then - without a shadow of a doubt - I wouldn't work anywhere near as hard, because there'd be no incentive for me to do so. I'm in a competition to maintain that level of pay which I can command, so I'm continually under pressure to maintain my outputs and record - and that forces me to think in a certain mindset; performance-related remuneration. That's the exact same structure which is applied to football clubs, and I cannot see why there is or should be a problem with it.

Again, I'm arguing what I think football and its clubs should be, not what they are. The 'primary school bookclub' or 'cute little charities' comparisons are just hyperbole so I'll ignore them.

And again, I'm not talking about a level playing field. I'm talking about a less ridiculously unlevel one. This is what it currently is: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ar278ojCb...imS6kD8/s1600/10+Liverpool+Revenue+League.jpg. From Wigan to Villa is not a level playing field; revenue gradually increases from ?ú51m to ?ú92m - an 80% increase spread pretty evenly over 14 teams (?ú41m). My issue is what happens next - the huge leap from Villa to Emirates Marketing Project of ?ú61m, and the disparities that get bigger and bigger between each club from that point on.

In today's globalised game, the Champions League has created a 2-tier system whereby the teams who qualify for the Champions League are in a league of their own. This becomes a vicious circle because once you have those extra funds from qualifying and getting the increased exposure and popularity that comes with it, you have a disproportionate advantage over all the other teams in the league which makes it very easy to finish above them again, and thus entrench your financial advantage even more.

What is the point if success isn't rewarded you ask? In football, success in and of itself is the reward. That's the point of sport. Competing on a fair playing field and trying to win. And again, I'm not talking about a level playing field; I'm talking about reducing the disproportionate financial advantage that the Champions League teams have over the ther other clubs in the league.

How would such a league be boring and dull? How would all sense of competitiveness disappear? The point would be to increase the competitiveness! If it wasn't for Chelsea and City getting billionnaire owners, which everyone agrees is wrong, there would have been TWO league winners in the last 14 years. How is that competitive? In that same period, 88% of Champions League spots have been taken by the same four clubs. Again, how is that competitive?

Again, you're talking about what the situation is, whereas I'm talking about what I think it should be. And again, the top clubs have only earned their success because after a little bit of success, the reward is so disproportionate to the rest of the league that it becomes pretty easy to maintain that success and thus get rewarded even more.

As for other clubs needing to make better decisions or investments in order to climb the ladder, it's pretty difficult to do that when the top teams have such a gigantic financial advantage over you.

And again as I've already said, when it comes to economics I understand people who value incentive over equality. So your example of yourself at work is irrelevant IMO. As I said before, in football success should be an incentive in itself; that's what sport is about. And I'm not against some financial reward; I'm just against the disproportionate reward that the Champions League teams get, because it creates a self-fulfilling 2-tier system that reduces competitiveness in the league.
 
Last edited:
Have to find someone who is willing to take their wages on though?

That's the main problem with Emirates Marketing Project have done; they've falsely inflated the wages of what are - at best - probably fringe or squad players. To get them off the books will require either another club to take on-board these grossly inflated, unsustainable wages or - as we've seen - the parent club subsidising wages, to the tune of 90% in one case (Craig Bellamy) That subsidy still sits on the P&L of Emirates Marketing Project.

Tevez and Adebayor will be on fortunes. Absolute mind-boggling fortunes. There's only a few select few clubs who'll take those commitments on, mindful themselves of the requirements enforced on them through FFP. Bridge, Johnson & Savic? Again, likely to be on sizeable amounts - not astronomical - but tickling the 6-figure mark I would imagine. For that kinda wage, buyers would see better value elsewhere.

Their only hope is to falsely inflate their income streams to offset their overheads, and they're trying that with the recent sponsorship deal. UEFA may have reservations about that particular deal, but having reservations and actually objecting - in Court - is another matter entirely. I don't see the appetite from UEFA to take that sort of battle on, therefore Emirates Marketing Project will get away with it and make FFP perfection.

Therein is the rub. FFP will work if this is somehow enforced correctly otherwise it is pointless.

They have a panel/committee to look at this one thing, and everyone and their dog knows that Emirates Marketing Project's sponsorship deal with Eithad is exactly the type of transaction that should be targeted. The sale of the Real Madrid training ground to the city is another obvious one. These two are the acid test for me. If they let them pass then FFP should be scrapped.

The one thing that gives me some hope is the vested interest of some of the G14 clubs have to see this implemented correctly. We'll see.
 
City are set to miss the FFP target by some 65mil (assuming the best case scenario) for the first FFP period (2011-2013). Someone has done an analysis here which does assume a lot of things but looks reasonably credible to a layman like me. I'm not sure how accurate it is but it is interesting. Note that if they breach the rules it is the 2014/2015 season that will be affected.

Actually the 6 min vid on this site explains the FFP rules in short. It's quite good.


There are plenty varying types of analysis with different outcomes. Only time will tell really. Heres one: http://reality-facts.blogspot.co.uk/ ; Here there are assumptions that City will spend ?ú80m this summer and the wage bill will increase ?ú450,000 a week with new players, alongside various other assumptions which are highlighted in the analysis. I actually think these rules are ridiculous, not because of what they aim to stop, but simply because they way they have decided to stop it, they quite simply keep the big clubs big and the challenging clubs trailing behind. How is anybody outside of Man United, Emirates Marketing Project, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs and Liverpool ever expected to mount a serious challenge against these clubs in the league once the rules are in place. Consider that this is actually quite a fair league in TV deals too in comparison to other leagues, where the gap between the elite and the rest is even greater.
 
Oh a city fan talking about fair eh, I'm sure your heart bleeds.

Tell you what heres an idea, why dont you double your fake sponsorship to 800m and then give 400m away to the other clubs.
 
Oh a city fan talking about fair eh, I'm sure your heart bleeds.

Tell you what heres an idea, why dont you double your fake sponsorship to 800m and then give 400m away to the other clubs.

If you're referring to Coop, I think he makes a fair point. Living within your means isn't actually very fair if 6 clubs' means are astronomically and disproportionately higher than the other 14 clubs'.
 
If you're referring to Coop, I think he makes a fair point. Living within your means isn't actually very fair if 6 clubs' means are astronomically and disproportionately higher than the other 14 clubs'.

The point Coop is indirectly making is that these rules are too late, which is true in my opinion. The horse has bolted so to speak but at least the FFP rules are intended to stop financial doping of clubs to further exacerbate the problem.
 
Back