• 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

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Inspired by Footballers' wages: No cheap points | The Economist and Wage and the Premier League scaled table | Financial Fair Play

[table="width: 600, class: grid"]
[tr]
[td]Team[/td]
[td]Total Points Won (position)[/td]
[td]Annual Wage Bill, £m (rank)[/td]
[td]Difference between League Position and Wage Rank[/td]
[td]Points Per £m[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Swansea[/td]
[td]46 (9th)[/td]
[td]34 (20th)[/td]
[td]+11 [/td]
[td]1.35[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Southampton[/td]
[td]41 (14th)[/td]
[td]37 (17th)[/td]
[td]+3 [/td]
[td]1.11[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Norwich[/td]
[td]44 (11th)[/td]
[td]41 (16th)[/td]
[td]+5 [/td]
[td]1.07[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]West Brom[/td]
[td]49 (8th)[/td]
[td]48 (15th)[/td]
[td]+7[/td]
[td]1.02[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Everton[/td]
[td]63 (6th)[/td]
[td]62 (11th)[/td]
[td]+5 [/td]
[td]1.01[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Wigan[/td]
[td]36 (18th)[/td]
[td]37 (18th)[/td]
[td]= [/td]
[td]0.97[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]West Ham[/td]
[td]46 (10th)[/td]
[td]51 (14th)[/td]
[td]+4 [/td]
[td]0.90[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Reading[/td]
[td]28 (19th)[/td]
[td]34 (19th)[/td]
[td] =[/td]
[td]0.82[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Fulham[/td]
[td]43 (12th)[/td]
[td]55 (13th)[/td]
[td] +1[/td]
[td]0.78[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Tottenham[/td]
[td]72 (5th)[/td]
[td]93 (6th)[/td]
[td]+1 [/td]
[td]0.77[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Stoke City[/td]
[td]42 (13th)[/td]
[td]55 (12th)[/td]
[td]-1 [/td]
[td]0.76[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Saudi Sportswashing Machine[/td]
[td]41 (16th)[/td]
[td]65 (9th)[/td]
[td]-7 [/td]
[td]0.63[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Sunderland[/td]
[td]39 (17th)[/td]
[td]62 (10th)[/td]
[td]-7 [/td]
[td]0.63[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Man Utd[/td]
[td]89 (1st)[/td]
[td]162 (3rd)[/td]
[td]+2[/td]
[td]0.55[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Aston Villa[/td]
[td]41 (15th)[/td]
[td]75 (7th)[/td]
[td]-8 [/td]
[td]0.55[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Arsenal [/td]
[td]73 (4th)[/td]
[td]144 (4th)[/td]
[td]= [/td]
[td]0.51[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Liverpool[/td]
[td]61 (7th)[/td]
[td]127 (5th)[/td]
[td]-2[/td]
[td]0.48[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Chelsea[/td]
[td]75 (3rd)[/td]
[td]172 (2nd)[/td]
[td]-1[/td]
[td]0.44[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Emirates Marketing Project[/td]
[td]78 (2nd)[/td]
[td]200 (1st)[/td]
[td]-1[/td]
[td]0.39[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]QPR[/td]
[td]25 (20th)[/td]
[td]69 (8th)[/td]
[td]-12 [/td]
[td]0.36[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

The UEFA President spoke of the worrying financial situation at certain clubs in Europe. "Financial fair play was established in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of European clubs," he said. "The philosophy of this project can be expressed in one sentence and is, above all, simple good sense: 'Do not spend more money than you make.' It is about the clubs managing their finances in a responsible manner, but it is also about making clubs pay the money they owe to tax authorities, other clubs and all of their employees, both players and coaches.

"UEFA had a duty to step in, and it will be up to the independent bodies to punish the few clubs that have not realised.

"Working for football, we have everything… we need to be happy, but aware also of our responsibilities," Mr Platini concluded. "But if we always remember that it is our duty to protect the game, the players and our values, those of the national associations, we will have right on our side.

"For we should not fool ourselves: protecting the game, the players and our values is essential; protecting the game, the players and our values is our mission; protecting the game, the players and our values should always be what guides our actions. [The associations] do that in a remarkable manner at national level, in conditions that are not always easy. And together – because we are united – we will succeed in doing so at European level, too.

"With you there," the UEFA President told the associations, "I will never walk alone."

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/aboutuefa/organisation/congress/news/newsid=1955930.html#move+forward+looking
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Failure to qualify for the Champions League could be a "financial disaster" for clubs, according to AC Milan director Umberto Gandini.

By finishing fifth, Tottenham missed out on a possible £4.5m from the group stages, with Chelsea receiving a total of £51m for their winning run in 2012.

"Had we not qualified it would have been a financial disaster," Gandini told BBC Sport.

"Such a disaster could affect most clubs."

AC Milan took the third, and last, Champions League berth afforded to Serie A sides on the final day of the season thanks to Philippe Mexes's goal three minutes from time that gave the Rossoneri a 2-1 over Siena.

"We still have to navigate the play-offs," continued Gandini, who was in London at the Uefa Congress.

"Winning that tie is the difference between having an extra 30m euros or not. There's so much at stake - a fifth of our budget."

The winners of this year's Champions League final between Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund will pocket just over £9m
plus all the money accumulated from the previous rounds. The 2012 Europa League champions Atletico Madrid collected only £9m in total for their entire efforts during that season's competition.

Gandini, who is also vice-chairman of the European Club Association - a body that represents European clubs' interests, says he is hopeful that the disparity of the possible earnings from both competitions can be reduced in the future.

"This is something that will be mentioned at the next European Club Association meeting when we start to talk about new financial distribution models for the 2015-18 Uefa cycle," added the Italian.

"We will look to reduce the financial gap in various ways with perhaps a more even distribution of monies between both competitions so that it lessens the impact on the Europa League teams who fail to qualify for the Champions League."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22655994

Finally something sensible, though it's quite obvious why it's coming from the Italians since they've lost a spot and Napoli has ousted one the big 3.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Superhudd said:
Do these rules matter for the top clubs, surely the Uefa rules are more stringent with regards debt.

Am I right in thinking that now that Arsenal have paid of its stadium they cannot raise there wages bill by more than 4million, despite the leap in profits for them next year, and with this it will also mean that despite our new stadium, we too cannot raise our wage bill by more than 4million.

Surely a clubs wage bill should be run within the clubs means. Our new income rise on matchday would cover that 4m in two or three home games.

Shouldn't there be a clause in there where depending on a profit rise due to stadium infrastructure build the wage bill can reflect that move.

Having two sets of rules is barmy and over complicates everything.
Click to expand...

From what I understand the £4m rule only applies to the added tv revenue.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2307471/English-Premier-League-clubs-ratify-Financial-Fair-Play-regulations.html

Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52m will only be allowed to increase their wages by £4m per season for the next three years.

But the restrictions only apply to the income from TV money — so any income from sponsorship deals or tickets sale can still be spent on wages.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...cial-Fair-Play-regulations.html#ixzz2UI1b9scS
Click to expand...

And this is only for the next three years, seems to me most likely that the top clubs were just in a way agreeing to not go into a complete wage-war with the TV money straight away.

-------------------------------------------

Somewhat interesting article: http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/legal-challenge-to-uefa-ffp-rules-by-bosman-lawyer

Short version: Same lawyer that handled the Bosman case trying to challenge the FFP rules with the European commission. If successful then UEFA will be liable for any loss of income resulting from their punishment. Could be massive amounts of money. First sets of punishment set to be announced in December likely to be less harsh.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

^^^

But the main part of Champions League revenue is TV revenue. As this would boost revenues by 20-30% depending on club, not allowing them to spend it on wages would seem to support the closed shop.

Or does it only apply to PL TV money? In which case how are promoted clubs restricted?
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Former Manchester United chief executive David Gill has been handed power by UEFA to recommend bans on clubs such as rivals Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea, who may find themselves in breach of new European Financial Fair Play rules.

Having stepped down from his post at Old Trafford at the end of last season to become a UEFA executive member, Gill has now been appointed chairman of the governing body’s extremely influential Club Licensing Committee.

The committee essentially decides which clubs are entitled to licences to play Champions League and Europa League football. This will become increasingly important as UEFA’s FFP rules shape the landscape of European football in the coming years.

Gill is a known advocate of FFP and one of four Barclays Premier League chiefs who proposed similar rules be implemented in English domestic football back in January.

He said 18 months ago that the new European system would only work if ‘appropriate sanctions’ were imposed on those who missed the targets. Sanctions already discussed by UEFA president Michel Platini have included fines and, for severe offences, competition bans.

Gill’s appointment will certainly raise eyebrows at clubs such as City and Chelsea who are currently striving to ensure their losses are no greater than the 845million (£38m) limit allowed by FFP across last and next season.

Both clubs have been used to viewing Gill as a rival in recent years and it will not have escaped their attention that the 55-year-old is to remain a United director and board member, despite handing over the chief executive baton to Ed Woodward.

On Monday night, a UEFA spokeswoman confirmed that Gill’s committee will have an influence over whether clubs’ finances entitle them to play in major European competition.

This is despite that fact that the Club Financial Control Body will go through individual clubs’ finances initially to see if they meet the targets set by FFP. Gill will play no role in this part of the process.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2343384/UEFA-David-Gill-power-punish-Manchester-Uniteds-rivals-like-Chelsea-Manchester-City.html
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Jordinho said:
Former Manchester United chief executive David Gill has been handed power by UEFA to recommend bans on clubs such as rivals Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea, who may find themselves in breach of new European Financial Fair Play rules.

Having stepped down from his post at Old Trafford at the end of last season to become a UEFA executive member, Gill has now been appointed chairman of the governing body’s extremely influential Club Licensing Committee.

The committee essentially decides which clubs are entitled to licences to play Champions League and Europa League football. This will become increasingly important as UEFA’s FFP rules shape the landscape of European football in the coming years.

Gill is a known advocate of FFP and one of four Barclays Premier League chiefs who proposed similar rules be implemented in English domestic football back in January.

He said 18 months ago that the new European system would only work if ‘appropriate sanctions’ were imposed on those who missed the targets. Sanctions already discussed by UEFA president Michel Platini have included fines and, for severe offences, competition bans.

Gill’s appointment will certainly raise eyebrows at clubs such as City and Chelsea who are currently striving to ensure their losses are no greater than the 845million (£38m) limit allowed by FFP across last and next season.

Both clubs have been used to viewing Gill as a rival in recent years and it will not have escaped their attention that the 55-year-old is to remain a United director and board member, despite handing over the chief executive baton to Ed Woodward.

On Monday night, a UEFA spokeswoman confirmed that Gill’s committee will have an influence over whether clubs’ finances entitle them to play in major European competition.

This is despite that fact that the Club Financial Control Body will go through individual clubs’ finances initially to see if they meet the targets set by FFP. Gill will play no role in this part of the process.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2343384/UEFA-David-Gill-power-punish-Manchester-Uniteds-rivals-like-Chelsea-Manchester-City.html
Click to expand...

Blue moon is going to break the Internet...
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

@FootballLaw: Big day for FFP today. Clubs will submit 11/12 accounts to UEFA for break-even compliance if they want to play in UEFA comp.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Thought that this thread would be the best place to put this... just goes to show the gulf in spending power between the likes of ManU, Emirates Marketing Project and Chavski to ourselves... hopefully that new stadium is up and running before long so that we can narrow the wage gap at least...

https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/393373994595807232/photo/1
BXWLkFwCcAAr91U.jpg:large

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2013/10/24/arsene-wenger-what-is-he-good-for-251001/
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Queens Park Rangers are on course to be hit with the biggest fine in British football history, which, in a worse-case scenario, could top £60 million.

Ironically, it will be imposed because of the amount of money they are losing — believed to be a huge £80m for last season — and will compound their financial troubles, perhaps sparking meltdown.

They have racked up big debts and massive annual losses largely through signing dozens of players on huge contracts in recent seasons, including Chris Samba, Park Ji-Sung, Julio Cesar, Jermaine Jenas, Loic Remy and others, most of whom remain on the club’s books, draining their resources with contracts worth up to £100,000 a week.

If QPR are promoted this season, the fine will be levied in January 2015 by the Football League under their new Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules, which will see overspending clubs ‘taxed’ on their losses. Rangers are currently favourites to go up to the Premier League from the Championship this season. They could avoid a fine — or at least postpone it — if they fail to get promoted. In that case, they will be hit with a lengthy transfer embargo.

The mathematics are complicated, but in broad terms, Championship clubs will pay a £1 fine for every £1 they lose over £18m in the 2013-14 financial year.

Sources familiar with QPR’s financial situation have told The Mail on Sunday that the club will post losses for 2012-13 of about £80m. The club are not obliged to publish those accounts until next spring and have declined to comment.

Rangers are two-thirds owned by Malaysian businessman Tony Fernandes and one-third by the Mittal family. Fernandes’s majority shareholding gives him ultimate power and it is he who sanctioned the hiring of Mark Hughes and then Harry Redknapp, allowing both to sign large groups of players.

It is expected that the club will record another massive deficit for the current season, and it is the losses in 2013-14 that will be measured to calculate any fine.

If QPR’s losses for the season are £80m, the fine will be about £62m. That would equate to roughly all of QPR’s Premier League income (if they are promoted) for next season. Even if 2013-14 losses are as ‘low’ as £60m, a fine of more than £40m would follow.

‘This is the first season in which clubs will ultimately face sanctions [for over-spending],’ a Football League spokesman told The Mail on Sunday. ‘Clubs have to submit their accounts for 2013-14 to us by December 1, 2014, with sanctions levied early in 2015. If a club being sanctioned are in the Premier League by then, the fine will need to be paid.’

QPR’s accounts for 2012-13, in which they were relegated from the Premier League, have not been made public, nor will the club confirm when they will be. Asked to comment on their expected losses last season and this season, and on the potentially destructive fines, a Loftus Road spokesman said: ‘The club will be making no comment on [these] matters at this time.’

The Mail on Sunday can reveal that the Football League plan to donate fines levied under their FFP rules to charity. It had previously been expected that fines paid by overspending clubs would be shared among clubs who stayed within the rules and did not lose huge amounts while trying to ‘buy’ success. But a senior FL source says giving the fines to charity is now the preferred option ‘for a number of political reasons’.

The last publicly available accounts for QPR relate to the 2011-12 season, when they made a loss of £22.6m, had debts of £89m and a wage bill that had almost doubled year-on-year from £29.7m to £58.4m.

That huge wage bill was before they signed high-earning players like Samba, Park, Rob Green, Junior Hoilett, Ryan Nelsen, Jose Bosingwa, Julio Cesar, Stephane Mbia, Remy and Jenas.

The wage bill for QPR’s relegation season is expected to be about £90m, or, by itself, about 150 per cent of the club’s total income of about £65m. A ‘sensible’ wage ratio is closer to 50 per cent of turnover. They have cut some costs since last season, releasing or selling 11 players in the summer including Samba, Bosingwa and Anton Ferdinand.

But they also signed eight new players on permanent deals and loaned three others including Benoit Assou-Ekotto from Tottenham and Niko Kranjcar from Dynamo Kiev.

QPR’s income will also have plunged between last season in the Premier League and this season in the Championship, largely through reduction in TV money.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2508505/QPR-face-record-fine-losing-80million.html
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Jordinho said:
Queens Park Rangers are on course to be hit with the biggest fine in British football history, which, in a worse-case scenario, could top £60 million.

Ironically, it will be imposed because of the amount of money they are losing — believed to be a huge £80m for last season — and will compound their financial troubles, perhaps sparking meltdown.

They have racked up big debts and massive annual losses largely through signing dozens of players on huge contracts in recent seasons, including Chris Samba, Park Ji-Sung, Julio Cesar, Jermaine Jenas, Loic Remy and others, most of whom remain on the club’s books, draining their resources with contracts worth up to £100,000 a week.

If QPR are promoted this season, the fine will be levied in January 2015 by the Football League under their new Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules, which will see overspending clubs ‘taxed’ on their losses. Rangers are currently favourites to go up to the Premier League from the Championship this season. They could avoid a fine — or at least postpone it — if they fail to get promoted. In that case, they will be hit with a lengthy transfer embargo.

The mathematics are complicated, but in broad terms, Championship clubs will pay a £1 fine for every £1 they lose over £18m in the 2013-14 financial year.

Sources familiar with QPR’s financial situation have told The Mail on Sunday that the club will post losses for 2012-13 of about £80m. The club are not obliged to publish those accounts until next spring and have declined to comment.

Rangers are two-thirds owned by Malaysian businessman Tony Fernandes and one-third by the Mittal family. Fernandes’s majority shareholding gives him ultimate power and it is he who sanctioned the hiring of Mark Hughes and then Harry Redknapp, allowing both to sign large groups of players.

It is expected that the club will record another massive deficit for the current season, and it is the losses in 2013-14 that will be measured to calculate any fine.

If QPR’s losses for the season are £80m, the fine will be about £62m. That would equate to roughly all of QPR’s Premier League income (if they are promoted) for next season. Even if 2013-14 losses are as ‘low’ as £60m, a fine of more than £40m would follow.

‘This is the first season in which clubs will ultimately face sanctions [for over-spending],’ a Football League spokesman told The Mail on Sunday. ‘Clubs have to submit their accounts for 2013-14 to us by December 1, 2014, with sanctions levied early in 2015. If a club being sanctioned are in the Premier League by then, the fine will need to be paid.’

QPR’s accounts for 2012-13, in which they were relegated from the Premier League, have not been made public, nor will the club confirm when they will be. Asked to comment on their expected losses last season and this season, and on the potentially destructive fines, a Loftus Road spokesman said: ‘The club will be making no comment on [these] matters at this time.’

The Mail on Sunday can reveal that the Football League plan to donate fines levied under their FFP rules to charity. It had previously been expected that fines paid by overspending clubs would be shared among clubs who stayed within the rules and did not lose huge amounts while trying to ‘buy’ success. But a senior FL source says giving the fines to charity is now the preferred option ‘for a number of political reasons’.

The last publicly available accounts for QPR relate to the 2011-12 season, when they made a loss of £22.6m, had debts of £89m and a wage bill that had almost doubled year-on-year from £29.7m to £58.4m.

That huge wage bill was before they signed high-earning players like Samba, Park, Rob Green, Junior Hoilett, Ryan Nelsen, Jose Bosingwa, Julio Cesar, Stephane Mbia, Remy and Jenas.

The wage bill for QPR’s relegation season is expected to be about £90m, or, by itself, about 150 per cent of the club’s total income of about £65m. A ‘sensible’ wage ratio is closer to 50 per cent of turnover. They have cut some costs since last season, releasing or selling 11 players in the summer including Samba, Bosingwa and Anton Ferdinand.

But they also signed eight new players on permanent deals and loaned three others including Benoit Assou-Ekotto from Tottenham and Niko Kranjcar from Dynamo Kiev.

QPR’s income will also have plunged between last season in the Premier League and this season in the Championship, largely through reduction in TV money.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2508505/QPR-face-record-fine-losing-80million.html
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the situation at Portsmouth, what the link i wonder ;)
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

parklane1 said:
Funny that three clubs have been put in money problems and the link is the same manager.
Click to expand...


The manager can only spend the money if the chairman allows it, it is up to the chairman to run the club properly. If I owned a company and a manager said we need to take on x more staff to increase productivity but I knew that we couldn't afford it and was risking the future of the business then I would say no. Why do you think Spurs are ok after Redknapp has been our manager? Daniel levy is a good chairman who knows how to run a company properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back