Financial Fair Play

[jts1882]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

They have a pet emeritus professor who writes the anti-global warming stuff, which is different from what he publishes in the scientific journals. If they can pay a distinguished scientist to promote a position, a lawyer is even easier. It's part of their job to argue positions that they may not totally believe in.

 

[mudshark]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

It does appear to me that, inasmuch as the FFP rules relate to entry criteria for UEFA's own cup competitions, which clubs take part in by invitation, they ought to be able to sidestep antitrust/competition rules. After all, UEFA aren't trying to arrogate to themselves a right to dictate what clubs can and can't spend in any absolute sense; they are just saying that if they don't meet the FFP standard, they won't be invited to take part in the CL or Europa League competitions. I think it might be difficult for clubs to argue their entitlement to be included. If I have understood Bedfordspurs correctly, that would seem to be his argument, and I think it may bear some weight.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

It does appear to me that, inasmuch as the FFP rules relate to entry criteria for UEFA's own cup competitions, which clubs take part in by invitation, they ought to be able to sidestep antitrust/competition rules. After all, UEFA aren't trying to arrogate to themselves a right to dictate what clubs can and can't spend in any absolute sense; they are just saying that if they don't meet the FFP standard, they won't be invited to take part in the CL or Europa League competitions. I think it might be difficult for clubs to argue their entitlement to be included. If I have understood Bedfordspurs correctly, that would seem to be his argument, and I think it may bear some weight.

That's the logic I've applied. You can't argue restriction of trade when you don't have the right to trade in that situation or the market so to speak

In effect " I'm having a party and your not invited".... There is no one to complain to other than me or the missus ) and were currently stick at Kuala Lumpur airport so there!! But that's the gist if it from my knowledge if it all

Another way to look at it is the lotterys that are run in some countries where you can't take the money out by law or in some cases can't win if your kit from there.

 

[jts1882]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

I don't think it is so simple. There are several potential problems with the private competition argument.

One, the premier league are bring in similar regulations. The league pyramid is very much the bread and butter of the clubs, so it would be hard to argue that the PL is a private competition the clubs don't need to join.

Two, the CL has become a substantial part of the big club business models. So as with the domestic leagues, I don't think the private competition argument totally bypasses the anti-competitive argument

Three, football clubs are not just clubs. In most cases they are private or public companies and they are competing not only in a sporting competition, but also in business.

Four, in some cases the owners bought the clubs knowing they were competing in a competition. UEFA has changed the rules and that harms their business interests.

Against that, the Football League has some financial regulations and there is a wage cap in the rugby's PL.

I think both the private competition and anti-competitive business arguments have some merit. I suspect UEFA have lawyers backing their system, just like the lawyer writing in the WSJ takes the opposite view. This can only be settled in court or by negotiation.

 

[mudshark]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

Well, I think whatever the Premier League (which really means the 20 clubs) decide to do, if anything, will be a matter for them. I agree that they would probably be on less sure ground in that respect in terms of restraint of trade, but I don't really think it has much bearing on UEFA's position, so that sounds a bit of a red herring to me. Once again, I think it might be difficult for clubs to argue they are entitled to an invitation to take part in European competition, however they might have understood the position to be in the past.

 

[Rorschach]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

You'd have to assume that UEFA consulted a few lawyers before rolling this out so they must be relatively certain that the whole thing won't come crumbling down at the first challenge.

 

[Jordinho]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Manchester United have sold the naming rights to their training ground as part of a sponsorship deal with the insurance firm Aon, the club's current shirt sponsors, estimated to be worth $230m (£150m).

The eight-year agreement with Aon starts in July – from when Carrington will be known as the "Aon Training Complex" – and is a further sign of the club's off-field money-making abilities.

However, United have said that they will never sell the naming rights to Old Trafford. "Old Trafford will not be sold," United's executive vice-chairman, Ed Woodward, said on Sunday.

Aon's name currently appears on United's main match kit in a $130m, four-year deal but General Motors' Chevrolet division takes over that sponsorship in a $559m, seven-year deal from the 2014-15 season.

Financial details of the new Aon deal were not publicly disclosed but it is estimated to be worth $230m over eight years and will also see the company provide United with business expertise.

United bought out their previous training kit sponsorship deal with the express delivery and freight firm DHL early in a bid to secure more cash, with that agreement having been worth around $65m over four years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/apr/08/manchester-united-sell-naming-rights

 

[Superhudd]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

That's a £50m a year shirt deal. fudge a duck!!

8 year deal on its fricken training ground and add ons worth £18.75m a year

Hell I'd love that deal on our stadium and first team shirts let alone the training ground and training shirts. Ridiculous figures.

Must surely mean that our figures will rise too, and the stadium naming rights must reach over 150m.

 

[Wriggly]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

We punch above our weight with shirt deals etc. We'll get another record breaking deal next time round for us and we'll do really well with the stadium.

 

[Jordinho]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

That's a £50m a year shirt deal. fudge a duck!!

8 year deal on its fricken training ground and add ons worth £18.75m a year

Hell I'd love that deal on our stadium and first team shirts let alone the training ground and training shirts. Ridiculous figures.

Must surely mean that our figures will rise too, and the stadium naming rights must reach over 150m.

The General Motors executive who agreed a record shirt sponsorship deal with Manchester United worth a staggering £175million has been sacked.

Global marketing chief Joel Ewanick was axed less than 48 hours after it was announced the Chevrolet badge would be emblazoned on the United shirt from next season.

The agreement will net the Reds £25million a year for the duration of the seven-year contract.

But GM executives were furious when they learned their company would be paying £6m a year more than United’s current shirt sponsors Aon.

It has also been claimed Ewanick failed to give his bosses the full details of the sponsorship before signing the deal.

GM have assured the Old Trafford club that they will not renege on the agreement.

But Ewanick’s removal is still a huge embarrassment for United.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/general-motors-exec-who-agreed-1218826

 

[Baleforce]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

hows that embarrassing for united?

 

[elltrev]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

*Sigh* Financial play will only be 'fair' when some sort of redistributive system is brought into play to reduce the giant differences in the revenues of the elite and the non-elite, but I can't see that ever happening. Especially when even many fans seem not to think that would be fair or desirable or necessary.

 

[indianspur]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Man utd are simply on another financial planet now....

if they come knocking for Bale, the price has gone up. 120 mill and not a penny less.

Fcuk 'em,

 

[Bullet]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Selling the rights to the training ground? What a con.

What's next, sell the rights to the hotdog vendor's cart outside the ground for a billion?

This lot are worse than Emirates Marketing Project.

 

[Baleforce]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Selling the rights to the training ground? What a con.

What's next, sell the rights to the hotdog vendor's cart outside the ground for a billion?

This lot are worse than Emirates Marketing Project.

like selling the rights to the bar to carlsberg...

 

[jimmyb]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

*Sigh* Financial play will only be 'fair' when some sort of redistributive system is brought into play to reduce the giant differences in the revenues of the elite and the non-elite, but I can't see that ever happening. Especially when even many fans seem not to think that would be fair or desirable or necessary.

Exactly.

I've been banging this drum for a while now.

But some people refuse to see the inevitable consequence of UEFA's and the Premier League's so called Financial Fair Play rules.

It will mean only one thing - that the really big clubs will only get bigger and leave the rest ever further behind. FFP will, in fact, apply the final coup de grace to genuine financial fair play.

United can sign such a deal because they are already so huge. Other than Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea, I can't believe that many other clubs would be able to persuade a commercial partner to sponsor their training ground and training gear at all. The few that can will earn peanuts by comparison.

Spurs will do well to get £10 million per annum for their stadium naming rights! And we get a maximum of £15 million per annum for our proper shirt sponsorship. We are so far behind the likes of Man Utd in this respect, it is laughable. And we are far, far better off than the majority of clubs.

And make no mistake, Utd have barely scratched the surface of their commercial potential. Along with the remainder of European football's elite, they are laughing their arses off at having persuaded UEFA (and the Premier League) to adopt rules that will prevent their hegemony from ever again being threatened by upstart clubs with wealthy and ambitious owners.

 

[jimmyb]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Selling the rights to the training ground? What a con.

What's next, sell the rights to the hotdog vendor's cart outside the ground for a billion?

This lot are worse than Emirates Marketing Project.

It's not a con.

AON have nothing to do with Man Utd. They have signed this deal because they see genuine value and commercial sense in it.

And, yes, I'm afraid that the hotdog stand (or something like it) could well be next in the pipeline for a major sponsorship deal. This is the way that these kind of commercial partnerships are going. Utd have signed a raft of them recently, earning the club huge money - including a partnership which sees an Indonesian company become their official tyre sponsor!

 

[elltrev]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Exactly.

I've been banging this drum for a while now.

But some people refuse to see the inevitable consequence of UEFA's and the Premier League's so called Financial Fair Play rules.

It will mean only one thing - that the really big clubs will only get bigger and leave the rest ever further behind. FFP will, in fact, apply the final coup de grace to genuine financial fair play.

United can sign such a deal because they are already so huge. Other than Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea, I can't believe that many other clubs would be able to persuade a commercial partner to sponsor their training ground and training gear at all. The few that can will earn peanuts by comparison.

Spurs will do well to get £10 million per annum for their stadium naming rights! And we get a maximum of £15 million per annum for our proper shirt sponsorship. We are so far behind the likes of Man Utd in this respect, it is laughable. And we are far, far better off than the majority of clubs.

And make no mistake, Utd have barely scratched the surface of their commercial potential. Along with the remainder of European football's elite, they are laughing their arses off at having persuaded UEFA (and the Premier League) to adopt rules that will prevent their hegemony from ever again being threatened by upstart clubs with wealthy and ambitious owners.

Agreed, but at the same time I do hate Emirates Marketing Project, Chelsea, PSG etc for the way that they have been allowed to spend obscene amounts of money that the club itself hasn't earned. So for all the problems with FPP, I think the status quo was far from acceptable too. Which is why, in an ideal world, I'd like to see (in combination with the FPP rules) a form of tax on merchandise, sponsorship, gate receipts etc of the elite teams, which could either go towards smaller clubs or to development projects in the local area. It's disgusting how much money is in the game and how much money players get paid, whilst the local areas for some clubs remain poor and undeveloped and ticket and shirt prices continue to rise. I know football clubs already dedicate more of their revenues to this kind of thing than the average business, but football clubs are / should be more a part of their local community than businesses are.

 

[indianspur]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

the financial disparity between the elite teams and the rest is too big......it will ruin the sport. No-one will want to see the same teams year after year contend for the big prizes

 

[Superhudd]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

the financial disparity between the elite teams and the rest is too big......it will ruin the sport. No-one will want to see the same teams year after year contend for the big prizes

So since the war this hasn't been the case then!