-
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
Good. UEFA should kick them out of their domestic leagues and ban any player signing for those break away clubs from participating in any of their tournaments. Get FIFA in on it too, no more World Cups. Can't see the fans going along with a super league either. Where's the fun in playing the exact same teams every season? Promotions, relegations, going to new places, that's what keeps it interesting.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I would love it if UEFA actually put their foot down and both Chelski and City got banned from European competitions next season. I mean I doubt it would happen and if it did we would likely see a two horse race for the league with those two being free from the constraints of mid week journeys, but imagine the UCL with Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton and us next year with UTD, Southampton and Saudi Sportswashing Machine in the Europa league. Would make a nice change
Being banned from European competition is the ultimate sanction, there are a load of smaller punishments that will be used first.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Yeah I'm sure fines will be the first step. Ironic really.
I actually think we should get rid of UEFA & FIFA, really see no value in either at this stage, corrupt organizations that do little to further the game, put their own agenda against even basic player safety (our game going ahead in Ukraine being perfect example).
Local FA's can manage their own needs, with some kind of board with representation from each handling regional approaches.
If big clubs want to do a breakaway league, let them, let the fans decide what/who they want to support, in what format, by how they spend their money.
chicken_badge
Gudni Bergsson
This might be bad news though. If it were one or two clubs then UEFA could make an example of them. But the owners of PSG, Chelski and City can surely just sue and challenge and appeal for loss of income etc until they wear UEFA down.
Was a nice idea , shame it was implemented by UEFA.
Was a nice idea , shame it was implemented by UEFA.
chicken_badge
Gudni Bergsson
UEFA and FIFA are so bad and corrupt a breakaway league etc is inevitable.
SteveAWOL
Chris Jones
Twitter / SwissRamble: #LFC 2013 loss before tax £49.8m, similar to 2012 loss of £40.5m (which covered only 10 months).
Twitter / SwissRamble: #LFC 2013 £50m loss about the same as Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea.
Twitter / SwissRamble: #LFC 2013 £206m revenue still far behind Man Utd £363m, Emirates Marketing Project £271m, Chelsea £260m & Arsenal £243m.
Twitter / SwissRamble: #LFC 2013 impressive commercial revenue, match day suffers from stadium, media due to no Champions League
Twitter / SwissRamble: #LFC 2013 £131m wages far below Emirates Marketing Project £233m, Man Utd £181m, Chelsea £173m & Arsenal £155m
Twitter / SwissRamble: #LFC 2013 £50m loss about the same as Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea.
Twitter / SwissRamble: #LFC 2013 £206m revenue still far behind Man Utd £363m, Emirates Marketing Project £271m, Chelsea £260m & Arsenal £243m.
Twitter / SwissRamble: #LFC 2013 impressive commercial revenue, match day suffers from stadium, media due to no Champions League
Twitter / SwissRamble: #LFC 2013 £131m wages far below Emirates Marketing Project £233m, Man Utd £181m, Chelsea £173m & Arsenal £155m
Bullet
Andy Thompson
An interesting article about the Cheats down the road
http://whatculture.com/sport/gazprom-and-financial-fair-play-a-russian-affair.php
Neither Gazprom nor Chelsea have revealed the details involved, which has led many to believe this is their way around FFP. With the estimated £48 million prize they were awarded for winning the Champions League and the plethora of new deals which have subsequently been sealed the Stamford Bridge side should avoid any queries over how their financial security.
http://whatculture.com/sport/gazprom-and-financial-fair-play-a-russian-affair.php
Neither Gazprom nor Chelsea have revealed the details involved, which has led many to believe this is their way around FFP. With the estimated £48 million prize they were awarded for winning the Champions League and the plethora of new deals which have subsequently been sealed the Stamford Bridge side should avoid any queries over how their financial security.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Conflicts of interest up the wazoo. Sponsorship of the clubs and the competitions they play in, and also the governing body of the same sport. FFS. The sooner these clubs **** off to their own 'super league' the better.
Fundamentally football is no different to any other sport in that it’s about the athletes. Like any other sport, the big crowds want to see the best athletes compete against one another.
As diehard football and Spurs fans, we may think football is all about supporting our (local) clubs. But the reality is that this isn’t really true. Look at Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea. They keep winning, and there global fanbase is increasing exponentially. Leeds Utd on the other hand do not get anywhere near the attendance levels that they got when they were an elite English side. Therefore showing that people want to watch the best athletes. And do not really have loyalties to specific clubs (international football being an exception).
The big mistake UEFA would be making is if they think that the “glory” is about their own competition. And thinking that people want to watch the UEFA Champions League because the glory lies within the competition itself. It does not. All the glamour of the UCL comes from the fact that it is the stage whereby the best compete against one another. If they lose that, the UCL will no longer be the crème de la crème of football.
This is why the FA Cup has lost its prestige to some English fans. The structure of the Cup itself is no different fundamentally to what it has been over the past 100 years. But now, it isn’t the stage that offers the most money to its top competitors, and therefore the top competitors are no longer giving it the same level of priority as other higher paying competitions.
By banning clubs like Chelsea, City, PSG UEFA would be doing more harm to themselves than anyone else. The owners of those clubs bring more money into football than anyone else, and if you deprive them of the “glory” and “public stage” that they are paying all this money for, they will just go somewhere else, where they will be given that platform.
At the end of the day tho, a breakaway by the top European clubs is inevitable, regardless of FFP. Groups like UEFA and FIFA offer little. They just take money out of football in return for their “administrative services”. The fact of the matter is, the clubs will get together and organise their own competition and take the middle man (UEFA) out.
When this does happen, the competition will be created from scratch. And will be a lot more efficient than the UCL, which carries some vestigial features due to its evolution from the European Cup. As I have mentioned above, people do not want to watch the champions of Estonia play against the champions of Scotland. They would much rather watch us vs Valencia for example.
In addition, why are people watching Stoke vs Arsenal? When they could be watching Barcelona vs Arsenal every week. From a financial point of view it makes no sense that the UCL takes a massive hiatus’ throughout the season. These games between the elites of Europe are the big money makers (and what everyone wants to watch), and therefore it is inevitable that one day the elite clubs will get together and ensure that these fixtures are being played every week.
As a result, when a breakaway league is created, it will include only the richest (and therefore, best) teams in Europe. It will be what everyone wants watch, it will be what every TV channel want to broadcast, and be the stage where every player wants to play. Every other domestic league will suffer. The elite clubs will either pull of out them, or just use them as developmental leagues.
All we can hope for is when the breakaway happens, we are part of it. For what it’s worth, when such a breakaway happens, if we can maintain our status quo, I think we will be a part of this elite group of teams.
As diehard football and Spurs fans, we may think football is all about supporting our (local) clubs. But the reality is that this isn’t really true. Look at Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea. They keep winning, and there global fanbase is increasing exponentially. Leeds Utd on the other hand do not get anywhere near the attendance levels that they got when they were an elite English side. Therefore showing that people want to watch the best athletes. And do not really have loyalties to specific clubs (international football being an exception).
The big mistake UEFA would be making is if they think that the “glory” is about their own competition. And thinking that people want to watch the UEFA Champions League because the glory lies within the competition itself. It does not. All the glamour of the UCL comes from the fact that it is the stage whereby the best compete against one another. If they lose that, the UCL will no longer be the crème de la crème of football.
This is why the FA Cup has lost its prestige to some English fans. The structure of the Cup itself is no different fundamentally to what it has been over the past 100 years. But now, it isn’t the stage that offers the most money to its top competitors, and therefore the top competitors are no longer giving it the same level of priority as other higher paying competitions.
By banning clubs like Chelsea, City, PSG UEFA would be doing more harm to themselves than anyone else. The owners of those clubs bring more money into football than anyone else, and if you deprive them of the “glory” and “public stage” that they are paying all this money for, they will just go somewhere else, where they will be given that platform.
At the end of the day tho, a breakaway by the top European clubs is inevitable, regardless of FFP. Groups like UEFA and FIFA offer little. They just take money out of football in return for their “administrative services”. The fact of the matter is, the clubs will get together and organise their own competition and take the middle man (UEFA) out.
When this does happen, the competition will be created from scratch. And will be a lot more efficient than the UCL, which carries some vestigial features due to its evolution from the European Cup. As I have mentioned above, people do not want to watch the champions of Estonia play against the champions of Scotland. They would much rather watch us vs Valencia for example.
In addition, why are people watching Stoke vs Arsenal? When they could be watching Barcelona vs Arsenal every week. From a financial point of view it makes no sense that the UCL takes a massive hiatus’ throughout the season. These games between the elites of Europe are the big money makers (and what everyone wants to watch), and therefore it is inevitable that one day the elite clubs will get together and ensure that these fixtures are being played every week.
As a result, when a breakaway league is created, it will include only the richest (and therefore, best) teams in Europe. It will be what everyone wants watch, it will be what every TV channel want to broadcast, and be the stage where every player wants to play. Every other domestic league will suffer. The elite clubs will either pull of out them, or just use them as developmental leagues.
All we can hope for is when the breakaway happens, we are part of it. For what it’s worth, when such a breakaway happens, if we can maintain our status quo, I think we will be a part of this elite group of teams.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Arsenal do spend lots on players at the youth level. But they also spend lots at senior level too. In terms of their spending at youth level, i'd assume they spend more than most of the other premier league teams, but less than the likes of Chelsea. Which is really no different to what they do at senior level.
Arsenal do spend lots on players at the youth level. But they also spend lots at senior level too. In terms of their spending at youth level, i'd assume they spend more than most of the other premier league teams, but less than the likes of Chelsea. Which is really no different to what they do at senior level.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
There is an argument that the Sheikh's and Oligarch's have been great for football (and its fans). These guys lose millions every year. That effectively means that they are subsidising the ticket prices for their fans. ie. If these clubs were to be run profitably, to watch the likes of Aguero and Toure, ticket prices would be much higher than they actually are. But the likes of Mansour are eating up the difference between the ticket price and the total cost of having a team with that many superstars.
People talk about how great it is that Arsenal run the club "properly". But what does that actually mean? All it means is that they are making a profit. And profit is just money that goes from the fan's pocket to the shareholders. So what I would ask is; are the likes of Kroenke really that good for football? and aren't owners like Abramovic the guys that are actually giving value to the fans?
I also think this is why a breakaway league is inevitable.
For owners of teams like Arsenal, they will not have to worry about missing out on top 4 etc. A breakaway league will ensure that they are always part of Europe's Elite. In a locked-in-league, Arsenal will be like one of those NFL clubs that don't really ever spend big to chase the title, but just look to be a part of the league as they can continue to make massive profits without having the risk of falling out of this elite group. The risk of falling out of the top 4 and thus the UCL is the worry for them, and why they want to pull up the drawbridge.
For City, Chelsea, PSG etc, pulling up the drawbridge ensures that no-one else can come in and challenge their quest for glory. In addition, being in a breakaway league will benefit them as they will not have to put up with the "nonsense" and limitations that UEFA sets on them. UEFA have to accommodate a whole host of European teams. Hence the introduction of FFP. What is really needed for these elite teams however is an organisation that just serves them. A breakaway league is the only and inevitable solution.
A breakaway league is the only logical solution to the current problems of unfairness that FFP proclaims to address. In essence, FFP tries to solve the inherent advantage that some clubs have due to their almost limitless spending power. The owners with the limitless spending potential feel it's unfair that they are not allowed to spend their own money in whatever way they wish to do so. They argue that there should be a free market. Therefore the obvious solution is to separate these two groups, by introducing a breakaway league. And ultimately, the clubs that FFP, UEFA (and the Football League’s Financial Fair Play) were trying to protect, will be the only ones worse off.
On a side note, this is why when people argue that the likes of Arsenal (or any other team that plays weakened teams) should be banned from the FA Cup, their arguments will never be genuinely considered by the FA. If you do ban these clubs, all that will happen is the FA Cup will lose even more glamour and prestige. If you take the top clubs out of the FA Cup, you might as well call it the FA Trophy. And on that same note, if you take the top clubs out of the Premier League, it really will be no different to The Championship.
There is an argument that the Sheikh's and Oligarch's have been great for football (and its fans). These guys lose millions every year. That effectively means that they are subsidising the ticket prices for their fans. ie. If these clubs were to be run profitably, to watch the likes of Aguero and Toure, ticket prices would be much higher than they actually are. But the likes of Mansour are eating up the difference between the ticket price and the total cost of having a team with that many superstars.
People talk about how great it is that Arsenal run the club "properly". But what does that actually mean? All it means is that they are making a profit. And profit is just money that goes from the fan's pocket to the shareholders. So what I would ask is; are the likes of Kroenke really that good for football? and aren't owners like Abramovic the guys that are actually giving value to the fans?
I also think this is why a breakaway league is inevitable.
For owners of teams like Arsenal, they will not have to worry about missing out on top 4 etc. A breakaway league will ensure that they are always part of Europe's Elite. In a locked-in-league, Arsenal will be like one of those NFL clubs that don't really ever spend big to chase the title, but just look to be a part of the league as they can continue to make massive profits without having the risk of falling out of this elite group. The risk of falling out of the top 4 and thus the UCL is the worry for them, and why they want to pull up the drawbridge.
For City, Chelsea, PSG etc, pulling up the drawbridge ensures that no-one else can come in and challenge their quest for glory. In addition, being in a breakaway league will benefit them as they will not have to put up with the "nonsense" and limitations that UEFA sets on them. UEFA have to accommodate a whole host of European teams. Hence the introduction of FFP. What is really needed for these elite teams however is an organisation that just serves them. A breakaway league is the only and inevitable solution.
A breakaway league is the only logical solution to the current problems of unfairness that FFP proclaims to address. In essence, FFP tries to solve the inherent advantage that some clubs have due to their almost limitless spending power. The owners with the limitless spending potential feel it's unfair that they are not allowed to spend their own money in whatever way they wish to do so. They argue that there should be a free market. Therefore the obvious solution is to separate these two groups, by introducing a breakaway league. And ultimately, the clubs that FFP, UEFA (and the Football League’s Financial Fair Play) were trying to protect, will be the only ones worse off.
On a side note, this is why when people argue that the likes of Arsenal (or any other team that plays weakened teams) should be banned from the FA Cup, their arguments will never be genuinely considered by the FA. If you do ban these clubs, all that will happen is the FA Cup will lose even more glamour and prestige. If you take the top clubs out of the FA Cup, you might as well call it the FA Trophy. And on that same note, if you take the top clubs out of the Premier League, it really will be no different to The Championship.
Denmark Spur
Michael Carrick
Emirates Marketing Project to be made to pay a high price for spending spree under Uefa Financial Fair Play rules
Uefa to make Emirates Marketing Project pay the price for spending spree
Emirates Marketing Project were facing a huge Financial Fair Play sanction on Monday night as Uefa prepared to rule that the spending spree that transformed them into a superpower of the game breached its much-vaunted cost-control regulations.
Telegraph Sport has learnt that City, whose billionaire owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan, has bankrolled the most successful period in the club’s history, will this week be found guilty of failing to comply with FFP rules – barring an improbable 11th-hour reprieve.
Paris St-Germain are also poised to be punished by Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body, which was created to police “greed, reckless spending and financial insanity” in European football and will meet on Tuesday and Wednesday to make its first decisions on which clubs will be prosecuted.
City and PSG are understood to be among fewer than 20 teams under threat of a sanction and, unless dramatic new evidence emerges in the next 48 hours to support their claims they have played by the rules, they are on course to be hit hardest of all.
The nature and degree of any punishment will be determined in the coming days but it is understood neither team will be faced with expulsion from the Champions League.
The sanction is far more likely to be either a heavy fine or transfer embargo to prevent their mega-rich owners adding to two of the most expensive squads in history.
Such a punishment could hardly come at a worse time for City, who remain at the centre of one of the most thrilling three-horse title races English football has seen and will be desperate to avoid any distractions in their final six games of the season.
They declined to comment on Monday night on the status of the CFCB’s probe into their finances, PSG did not respond to requests for comment, while Uefa refused to comment on the identities of any team in danger of being punished.
Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea all confirmed they were not under investigation from European football’s governing body, having complied with its rule forbidding clubs making losses in excess of €45 million (£37.2 million) during the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons after certain exceptions are taken into account.
Having posted losses of £149 million over that period after buying the likes of Sergio Agüero, Samir Nasri, Gaël Clichy, Javi Garcia and Matija Nastasic, City were always likely to be under heavy scrutiny.
It is their attempts to balance their books which have been most closely examined, particularly their 10-year, £350 million sponsorship deal with Etihad, the official airline of Abu Dhabi.
FFP rules prohibit transactions with companies which have ties to a club or its owners being used in this way unless they can be shown to represent fair market value. Designed to prevent wealthy owners artificially inflating the value of such deals, their validity is judged on three criteria.
If it is shown to be a related-party transaction, Uefa’s auditors calculate how much equivalent media exposure would have cost through the company advertising in other ways, how the tie-up compares with those struck by similar clubs, and what independent marketing experts think of the agreement.
City have always insisted the deal is no more unfair when measured on a like-for-like basis against those struck by its closest rivals, including United.
PSG have also argued that their much larger €200 million-a-year (£167 million) commercial arrangement with the Qatar Tourism Authority is above board but it emerged last month that Uefa had serious doubts over its validity and the French champions’ attitude to scrutiny of it.
Tuesday and Wednesday’s meeting of the eight-strong CFCB investigatory chamber, which includes former Celtic chairman Brian Quinn, could consider new data before making a final decision on each club’s innocence or guilt.
Those prosecuted will then either be offered the opportunity to settle the case by accepting a predetermined sanction, or the matter could be referred straight to the CFCB’s five-strong adjudicatory chamber.
Uefa introduced the ‘settlement’ option into its FFP regulations in an effort to avoid lengthy disciplinary hearings and the clubs involved will have 10 days to respond to the investigatory chamber’s approach.
If they reject settlement, the adjudicatory chamber will determine their case, which could result in a more severe, as well as more lenient, sanction.
Clubs guilty of FFP breaches will not be named and shamed until around May 5, after which there is a further right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
PSG are understood to have threatened already that they will fight any attempt to punish them.
Also woven into FFP rules is the opportunity for rival clubs directly affected by any sanction to contest it on the basis it is too lenient.
Were City found guilty and still allowed to enter next season’s Champions League, Everton or Arsenal could challenge their punishment.
Uefa revealed six weeks ago that it was investigating 76 teams involved in its club competitions this season for possible FFP breaches, with more than 50 subsequently cleared.
It said in a statement on Monday: “Uefa will only communicate once decisions have been taken by the CFCB investigatory chamber, which we anticipate will happen at the beginning of May.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ree-under-Uefa-Financial-Fair-Play-rules.html
Uefa to make Emirates Marketing Project pay the price for spending spree
Emirates Marketing Project were facing a huge Financial Fair Play sanction on Monday night as Uefa prepared to rule that the spending spree that transformed them into a superpower of the game breached its much-vaunted cost-control regulations.
Telegraph Sport has learnt that City, whose billionaire owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan, has bankrolled the most successful period in the club’s history, will this week be found guilty of failing to comply with FFP rules – barring an improbable 11th-hour reprieve.
Paris St-Germain are also poised to be punished by Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body, which was created to police “greed, reckless spending and financial insanity” in European football and will meet on Tuesday and Wednesday to make its first decisions on which clubs will be prosecuted.
City and PSG are understood to be among fewer than 20 teams under threat of a sanction and, unless dramatic new evidence emerges in the next 48 hours to support their claims they have played by the rules, they are on course to be hit hardest of all.
The nature and degree of any punishment will be determined in the coming days but it is understood neither team will be faced with expulsion from the Champions League.
The sanction is far more likely to be either a heavy fine or transfer embargo to prevent their mega-rich owners adding to two of the most expensive squads in history.
Such a punishment could hardly come at a worse time for City, who remain at the centre of one of the most thrilling three-horse title races English football has seen and will be desperate to avoid any distractions in their final six games of the season.
They declined to comment on Monday night on the status of the CFCB’s probe into their finances, PSG did not respond to requests for comment, while Uefa refused to comment on the identities of any team in danger of being punished.
Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea all confirmed they were not under investigation from European football’s governing body, having complied with its rule forbidding clubs making losses in excess of €45 million (£37.2 million) during the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons after certain exceptions are taken into account.
Having posted losses of £149 million over that period after buying the likes of Sergio Agüero, Samir Nasri, Gaël Clichy, Javi Garcia and Matija Nastasic, City were always likely to be under heavy scrutiny.
It is their attempts to balance their books which have been most closely examined, particularly their 10-year, £350 million sponsorship deal with Etihad, the official airline of Abu Dhabi.
FFP rules prohibit transactions with companies which have ties to a club or its owners being used in this way unless they can be shown to represent fair market value. Designed to prevent wealthy owners artificially inflating the value of such deals, their validity is judged on three criteria.
If it is shown to be a related-party transaction, Uefa’s auditors calculate how much equivalent media exposure would have cost through the company advertising in other ways, how the tie-up compares with those struck by similar clubs, and what independent marketing experts think of the agreement.
City have always insisted the deal is no more unfair when measured on a like-for-like basis against those struck by its closest rivals, including United.
PSG have also argued that their much larger €200 million-a-year (£167 million) commercial arrangement with the Qatar Tourism Authority is above board but it emerged last month that Uefa had serious doubts over its validity and the French champions’ attitude to scrutiny of it.
Tuesday and Wednesday’s meeting of the eight-strong CFCB investigatory chamber, which includes former Celtic chairman Brian Quinn, could consider new data before making a final decision on each club’s innocence or guilt.
Those prosecuted will then either be offered the opportunity to settle the case by accepting a predetermined sanction, or the matter could be referred straight to the CFCB’s five-strong adjudicatory chamber.
Uefa introduced the ‘settlement’ option into its FFP regulations in an effort to avoid lengthy disciplinary hearings and the clubs involved will have 10 days to respond to the investigatory chamber’s approach.
If they reject settlement, the adjudicatory chamber will determine their case, which could result in a more severe, as well as more lenient, sanction.
Clubs guilty of FFP breaches will not be named and shamed until around May 5, after which there is a further right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
PSG are understood to have threatened already that they will fight any attempt to punish them.
Also woven into FFP rules is the opportunity for rival clubs directly affected by any sanction to contest it on the basis it is too lenient.
Were City found guilty and still allowed to enter next season’s Champions League, Everton or Arsenal could challenge their punishment.
Uefa revealed six weeks ago that it was investigating 76 teams involved in its club competitions this season for possible FFP breaches, with more than 50 subsequently cleared.
It said in a statement on Monday: “Uefa will only communicate once decisions have been taken by the CFCB investigatory chamber, which we anticipate will happen at the beginning of May.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ree-under-Uefa-Financial-Fair-Play-rules.html