• 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

?ú930,000,000 to be Champions...

Sheikh Ma Nuggets said:
Well, quite.

My understanding is that that ?ú400m contract sits with a company which is given non-football related status and ergo is out-of-scope of FFP. The company does though, include that company within its consolidated group accounts. Now, anyone who knows about group accounts knows that it's very easy to - legally - funnel funds from one to the other, and to - essentially - 'lose it'. There's a large element of CIP involved within the ?ú400m deal, so - again - more room for manoeuvre in terms of moving money around within the accounting structure; for instance, the holding company could be used as a fronting quasi bank, against which funds are drawn down against in order to offset expenditure which is incurred on the CS of the parent company. Emirates Marketing Project would - rightly - argue that it's all entirely above board and legal, and FIFA/UEFA would have one hell of a job to back-trace all revenue/expenditure to its point of source.

FFP is unworkable; an impotent gesture, and one which will disintegrate within a couple of years. To carry out a full forensic of Emirates Marketing Project's accounts would cost somewhere in the order of ?ú10m, if you used an ivory-league accounting house: do anyone seriously think FIFA/UEFA would pay for that!? Not a chance.
Click to expand...

I thought it would be easier than that ?

Q: How can City afford to buy anyone when their wages alone is not covered by their full years income.
A: They cant, so you dont meet FFP.
 
Sheikh Ma Nuggets said:
Well, quite.

My understanding is that that ?ú400m contract sits with a company which is given non-football related status and ergo is out-of-scope of FFP. The company does though, include that company within its consolidated group accounts. Now, anyone who knows about group accounts knows that it's very easy to - legally - funnel funds from one to the other, and to - essentially - 'lose it'. There's a large element of CIP involved within the ?ú400m deal, so - again - more room for manoeuvre in terms of moving money around within the accounting structure; for instance, the holding company could be used as a fronting quasi bank, against which funds are drawn down against in order to offset expenditure which is incurred on the CS of the parent company. Emirates Marketing Project would - rightly - argue that it's all entirely above board and legal, and FIFA/UEFA would have one hell of a job to back-trace all revenue/expenditure to its point of source.

FFP is unworkable; an impotent gesture, and one which will disintegrate within a couple of years. To carry out a full forensic of Emirates Marketing Project's accounts would cost somewhere in the order of ?ú10m, if you used an ivory-league accounting house: do anyone seriously think FIFA/UEFA would pay for that!? Not a chance.
Click to expand...

I'm not an accountant, so I have no argument with anything that you say, and I'm sure its quite correct. But does it have to be that convoluted?

Surely sponsorship money, is money earned by the club and is considered to be part of the overall revenue stream that the club earns, therefore goes into the pot, to fund whatever activities are necessary to function (ie whether they be ground improvements, salaries or transfers.) The issue here is whether the revenue from Etihad airways can be considered a real sponsorship deal, or just a simple front for mansour to pour more money into the club.
I don't think it takes Sherlock Holmes to work out what the sponsorship really is.
 
My understanding is the ?ú930M would be conservative, not sure if I missed it, but is that squad only?

I believe at the start of the season, the figure including stadium expenses/upgrades was over ?ú1B, closer to ?ú1.3B

I still laugh at the naivety of people who think that football is going to govern itself. The only way that situations like City/Cheat$ki would ever be addressed is by Governments looking at it from an unfair business practice perspective, not by UEFA/FIFA doing anything.
 
Indeed the rules aren't there for complicated accountancy methods they are there to establish outgoings vs incomings and whether those incomings qualify under their definition of income.

Also don't under estimate the tide of not only public option but heavy lobbying from some of the other clubs.

I think they are banking on UEFA being lenient initially and just issuing a fine, official warning and that will give them another 2/3 years to sort things out.

Additionally FFP makes allowances for clubs who miss the rules but have demonstrated that they are reducing their annual deficit, whilst this is also a joke as we know they are probably able to demonstrate that their income is rising whilst they arent making as many big signings. Finally wages of players who signed a contract pre July 2010 dont have to count in the deficit figures so they could for instance not include Adebayors wages in their calculations.
 
P.D. said:
Indeed the rules aren't there for complicated accountancy methods they are there to establish outgoings vs incomings and whether those incomings qualify under their definition of income.

Also don't under estimate the tide of not only public option but heavy lobbying from some of the other clubs.
I think they are banking on UEFA being lenient initially and just issuing a fine, official warning and that will give them another 2/3 years to sort things out.

Additionally FFP makes allowances for clubs who miss the rules but have demonstrated that they are reducing their annual deficit, whilst this is also a joke as we know they are probably able to demonstrate that their income is rising whilst they arent making as many big signings. Finally wages of players who signed a contract pre July 2010 dont have to count in the deficit figures so they could for instance not include Adebayors wages in their calculations.
Click to expand...

What other clubs? Barca/Real/Cheat$ki all have the same issues, Manure and the ITalian clubs probably questionable as well.

UEFA/FIFA bend to public opinion? in what lifetime, proven corruption is dismissed with a wave of the hand and you think "fair play" will cause them to bend?
 
WV1YID80 said:
Their fans won't give two bricks how much they've spent.
Click to expand...

Too many people focusing on how much they have spent, its not what they spend that gripes me, its that the money didnt come from them as a business. That's the problem with city.
 
mick cooper said:
I'm not an accountant, so I have no argument with anything that you say, and I'm sure its quite correct. But does it have to be that convoluted?

Surely sponsorship money, is money earned by the club and is considered to be part of the overall revenue stream that the club earns, therefore goes into the pot, to fund whatever activities are necessary to function (ie whether they be ground improvements, salaries or transfers.) The issue here is whether the revenue from Etihad airways can be considered a real sponsorship deal, or just a simple front for mansour to pour more money into the club.
I don't think it takes Sherlock Holmes to work out what the sponsorship really is.
Click to expand...

It's about what treatment you give the revenue, in terms of your accounting.

Under FFP, you are allowed certain activities to be ring-fenced and thus out-of-scope from consideration. The sponsorship deal is, in fact, split between revenue which could be booked as bone fide licence receipts, and other revenue which can be offset/invested as CIP (capital) against projects which are getting off the ground in and around the stadium. Often (or, at least I do) you'll set-up a front company to place title against such developments, as it safeguards them against any creditors should the parent company ever become insolvent. However, you can incorporate the company within your consolidated group accounts, for reporting purposes. The ambiguity here, will be whether it's explicitly expressed within the contract as to the split ratio between licence revenue and that which is apportioned for construction costs. If it isn't, then - basically - Emirates Marketing Project could just book a figurative amount to the accounts, and there's not a lot UEFA/FIFA could ever say about it; it's merely an accounting entry.

Of course, everyone knows its slight-of-hand on Sheikh Mansour's part - that isn't in question, but it's one thing knowing that, and another thing being able to prove it, in light of the tenuous narrative and tests which FFP apply; put it this way, it's not very stringent. There are many different accounting tricks which I can see being applied going forward with the onset of FFP, and UEFA/FIFA will forever be the dog chasing its tail. Put it this way: even if UEFA/FIFA took exceptional action in terms of expulsion - highly, highly unlikely, there would be years and millions of pounds worth of commercial litigation involved. What purpose would that serve to UEFA/FIFA; how would they benefit from it? They wouldn't. This is lame duck regulation and it'll never stand the test at all; token gesture nod to 'cleaning up football finance' but, in the end, there'll be no dramatic scenes as - basically - neither UEFA nor FIFA have enough of a vested interest. Ironically, it's actually the other way around: it better serves their interests, if 'football' grows' and - at least over the last 20 years - money has gone hand-in-hand to furthering that.
 
If Emirates Marketing Project, or any club, spend say ?ú100M on transfers every summer, pay ridiculous wages and make it blatantly clear that they will be reporting a huge loss the next time their accounts are published, how can they get away with it? Surely it would be massively obvious that they are flouting the rules and therefore the FFP regulators either have to do something about it or drop it all together? How could it carry on if this precise situation occurs from right off the bat and nothing is done?

Haven't there been stories of Emirates Marketing Project planning to reign in their spending from now on so that they can comply?
 
What about a general wage capin football, at let's say ?ú50k a week? A limit on sign-on fees?
And a limit on how many senior players each club is allowed to have in the squad (25), and on loan (3).

That would prevent rich clubs from stockpiling the best players. It would spread the best players on more clubs, creating a more level playing field for all. It would limit the impact of money and greed on football, while still maintaining high enough wages for top footballers to be able to live more than comfortably.

It should be simple, really.
 
Robbo said:
What about a general wage capin football, at let's say ?ú50k a week? A limit on sign-on fees?
And a limit on how many senior players each club is allowed to have in the squad (25), and on loan (3).

That would prevent rich clubs from stockpiling the best players. It would spread the best players on more clubs, creating a more level playing field for all. It would limit the impact of money and greed on football, while still maintaining high enough wages for top footballers to be able to live more than comfortably.

It should be simple, really.
Click to expand...


i think it should be set up something like this :

every player in the league get's an equal basic wage - they then get a bonus for any number of things - starting, coming on a sub, being named in the match day squad, scoring, MoM etc etc - then at the end of the season they get a further bonus depending on where their team finishes in the league - therefore playing for the top sides gets its reward but also so does playing at the bottom sides compared to being a bench warmer at say Chelsea or City - think you'd then see the talent more evenly spread over the league and less clubs being able to collect all the talent, leaving the smaller sides fighting over the scraps

only draw back is this would need to be implemented by FiFa or Uefa world wide / all over Europe for it to work as players would just move to a league without these ristrictions

also have a theory im working on where the league owns the players and each club buys the right to play them, but it's all a bit of a mess atm :D
 
Robbo said:
What about a general wage capin football, at let's say ?ú50k a week? A limit on sign-on fees?
And a limit on how many senior players each club is allowed to have in the squad (25), and on loan (3).

That would prevent rich clubs from stockpiling the best players. It would spread the best players on more clubs, creating a more level playing field for all. It would limit the impact of money and greed on football, while still maintaining high enough wages for top footballers to be able to live more than comfortably.

It should be simple, really.
Click to expand...

But Man United pay high wages because they make huge amounts of money through TV, sponsorship, merchandise and gate receipts. If they were banned from paying wages higher than ?ú50k, where would all that money go instead?

For me, there are two problems with the PL:

a) City and Chelsea spending insane amounts of money that they haven't earned.

Sheik's analysis of the FPP stuff is over my head, but surely it can't be that difficult to stop clubs spending more than they earn with a bit of common sense?

b) The financial benefit of qualifying for the Champions League.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ar278ojCb...imS6kD8/s1600/10+Liverpool+Revenue+League.jpg - the revenue of last season's PL teams. From Wigan to Villa it's ideal I would say - a mixture of smaller and bigger clubs with no one big jump between any of them. But from City upwards - i.e. the 6 teams that have recently been involved in the CL - things just get out of hand.

I would argue that ALL Champions League money should get distributed 100% equally between the 20 PL teams (and maybe even some for the lower divisions).
A tax of some sort on gate receipt money over a certain amount would be nice, with all the revenue going to community projects in the local area.
A limit on the value of Sponsorship deals would be nice too.

Whilst the whole Financial Fair play thing is good, it only really affects City heavily at this point (Chelsea will suffer too, but they still have a very high revenue to fall back on).
 
elltrev said:
But Man United pay high wages because they make huge amounts of money through TV, sponsorship, merchandise and gate receipts. If they were banned from paying wages higher than ?ú50k, where would all that money go instead?
Click to expand...

i think a whole re working of football as a business is needed - the league or the FA/Uefa/Fifa - should be the business and the clubs are divisions of that company - the money generated by tv revenue etc filtered down making the sport as a whole more healthy and competitive, sports centers/institutes set up with the profits so everyone benefits and not just the owners of successful clubs and also cheaper tickets for those who go to games
 
Last edited:
billyiddo said:
i think a whole re working of football as a business is needed - the league or the FA/Uefa/Fifa - should be the business and the clubs are divisions of that company - the money generated by tv revenue etc filtered down making the sport as a whole more healthy and competitive, sports centers/institutes set up with the profits so everyone benefits and not just the owners of successful clubs and also cheaper tickets for those who go to games
Click to expand...

Nice idea, hadn't thought about it like that before.

Can't ever see how it would be possible to get the clubs to give up that sort of sovereignty though.
 
elltrev said:
Nice idea, hadn't thought about it like that before.

Can't ever see how it would be possible to get the clubs to give up that sort of sovereignty though.
Click to expand...


yeah of course, it is all just a pipe dream unfortunately

often thought a good idea for a thread would be one discussing the ways in which we would improve football as a whole, be interesting to see what ideas people came up with - how realistic they are etc
 
Last edited:
Sheikh Ma Nuggets said:
As unpalatable as the figure of Sheikh Mansour's expenditure is prima facie, by the same token he's investing a serious amount of 'private' money into an area which has, for a long time, been devoid of any such investment. To that end, I'd seriously doubt whether the authorities would necessarily welcome any undue attention or sanction being placed upon Emirates Marketing Project under the auspices of 'FFP'.

I've read through some of the financial tests which FFP would seek to apply to commercial contracts and, with respect, they're going to have an awful job of enforcement. Almost by design, FFP allows for proxy ownership of title - which, in the commercial arena, introduces ambiguity. There is also the issue of dissolved beneficiaries, whereby any subsidiary of the parent could be assigned title of an asset, derive benefit from, yet be prescribed from inclusion into the ToR of the FFP. Once placed into liquidation, it would take a team of forensic accountants years to prove the two entities acted in coexistence.

FFP is going to be a lame duck; it means well, but the lengths to which you'd have to go to in order to gather evidence will, in the end, be too prohibitive. The narrative is, as I said, by design ambiguous and it relies upon a bond of trust, more than a threat of enforcement. In the commercial arena, the former carries absolutely no weight whatever, and therein FFP will be circumvented at every single opportunity.
Click to expand...

Come again?

Their stadium is the site of teh commonwealth games and what is there currently has been built and paid for by public money?
 
Premier League Solvency Index 2011

TEAMINDEX (?úM)


Manchester United70.332
Tottenham66.388
Arsenal35.922
Chelsea29.035
Wolves17.888
Saudi Sportswashing Machine14.923
Liverpool11.540
Blackpool9.859
Wigan7.028
Stoke City6.837
Aston Villa3.386
Sunderland3.251
Fulham2.996
West Ham United2.914
Everton-2.216
West Bromwich Albion-2.944
Bolton Wanderers-3.912
Blackburn Rovers-4.577
Emirates Marketing Project-22.026

 
Leeds Spur said:
Just bring in a wage cap.

50% of turnover.

Done
Click to expand...

Not really; that would just reinforce the status quo. In fact it would make things worse. United would be able to spend ?ú165m a year on wages (actually MORE than they did last season), whilst Wigan would only be able to spend ?ú25m on wages (they spent ?ú40m last season). Limiting one team's wages to 15% of another team's wages in the same league is not a solution to the disparity that we currently see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back