Financial Fair Play

[elltrev]

Emirates Marketing Project's punishment is a ****ing joke. They've knowlingly broken the rules despite years of being able to avoid doing so - just ban the ****s from the CL.

With the extreme financial inequality and the constant diving, football really is a **** sport (aside from the game itself...)

 

[milo]

Emirates Marketing Project's punishment is a ****ing joke. They've knowlingly broken the rules despite years of being able to avoid doing so - just ban the ****s from the CL.

With the extreme financial inequality and the constant diving, football really is a **** sport (aside from the game itself...)

It was always clear in the FFP rules that banning clubs from European competition was the ultimate punishment and that there were a number of smaller sanctions that would be used first.

I think that we should be pleased that UEFA are taking action and see how it affects clubs' behaviour. There were plenty on here who were convinced that no action would ever be taken.

 

[jts1882]

It does seem that UEFA are more serious than many feared. However, what they have done is raise the drawbridge and allowed a few late-comers to jump the gap.

What it looks like ensuring is that we won't be overtaken by other clubs taking the sugar-daddy route like Chelsea and City. What it also ensures that we won't get that route either. It seems inherently unfair that say Lewis or Usmanov can't now spend their money the way Abramovich and Mansour have. The way the rules have been implemented have allowed new entrants to buy their way in, which rather takes the fairness out of financial fair play.

 

[Baleforce]

good post jts1882, there is nothing fair about it

 

[braineclipse]

It does seem that UEFA are more serious than many feared. However, what they have done is raise the drawbridge and allowed a few late-comers to jump the gap.

What it looks like ensuring is that we won't be overtaken by other clubs taking the sugar-daddy route like Chelsea and City. What it also ensures that we won't get that route either. It seems inherently unfair that say Lewis or Usmanov can't now spend their money the way Abramovich and Mansour have. The way the rules have been implemented have allowed new entrants to buy their way in, which rather takes the fairness out of financial fair play.

If you work from the point that the kind of financial doping City and Chelsea did is unfair what's more unfair, stopping others from doing the same or allowing others to do the same?

I agree though that FFP probably further polarizes football. However I also think that stopping clubs like City and Chelsea was only a part of what UEFA wanted with FFP. I think the main goal was to curb spending at clubs that didn't have owners injecting money into their clubs.

 

[Superhudd]

I don't think that will help. For FFP the income from the sponsor was cut to market value for a club their size and that market value was generous.

No way a non-related party will sponsor them for that much.

I thought I read that the dodgy sponsorship was something like 100m a year and that the market rate for a club like City should be nearer 50m a year. So you could argue that City just makes that sponsorship 50m or 60m, the market rate, then because the cash injection of some 40m from the EPL rights this year then that black hole would have been filled, therefore from next year, they will pass.

But are they reducing the big deficit spend every year. I don't know what that figure is!

 

[scaramanga]

I thought I read that the dodgy sponsorship was something like 100m a year and that the market rate for a club like City should be nearer 50m a year. So you could argue that City just makes that sponsorship 50m or 60m, the market rate, then because the cash injection of some 40m from the EPL rights this year then that black hole would have been filled, therefore from next year, they will pass.

But are they reducing the big deficit spend every year. I don't know what that figure is!

That hole would be filled, but everyone else in the PL has the extra £40m (or something close to that) to spend too. So relatively they're not gaining.

 

[Baleforce]

That hole would be filled, but everyone else in the PL has the extra £40m (or something close to that) to spend too. So relatively they're not gaining.

they have lower turnover though so their ffp ceiling is lower

 

[scaramanga]

they have lower turnover though so their ffp ceiling is lower

That depends. Utd have a massive turnover as none of it would be reduced by FFP regs - I'd expect Arsenal and Liverpool to be the next in that list all above City/Chelsea.

I think people often miss the point of these regulations. Nobody has ever said that they will even things out for teams, only that income has to be earned the right way (Utd) rather than money just being thrown at a club (Chelsea).

 

[braineclipse]

That depends. Utd have a massive turnover as none of it would be reduced by FFP regs - I'd expect Arsenal and Liverpool to be the next in that list all above City/Chelsea.

I think people often miss the point of these regulations. Nobody has ever said that they will even things out for teams, only that income has to be earned the right way (Utd) rather than money just being thrown at a club (Chelsea).

And it keeps owners from gambling with a club's future by placing the club in massive debt in the hope of getting regular CL football.

Haven't seen an informed opinion on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the FFP regulations could have stopped the Leeds financial collapse for example if the regulations had been in place at the time.

 

[Baleforce]

it'll be rightly lauded if it succeeds as a check on such risk taking

i'm not sure its right to stop genuine investors improving a club though, there's nothing fair about saying chelsea can have their oligarch, city their sheikh, united and liverpool their hedge funds, but the rest of you are ****ed, there's no place at the table for you

 

[jts1882]

Yes, i think the dodgy third party deals on player purchases for Leeds would have been stopped. Possibly Portsmouth too.

My biggest problem with FFP is it does nothing to stop the leveraged takeovers. The Glazers and H&G took a billion out of football and UEFA does nothing, yet blocks people putting in two billion from doing so again. United survived because they are a financial giant, while Liverpool - our most successful club - were lucky not to go under. Even with United, the past season shows the damage done and how they needed Fergie's football genius and money-grubbing self-interest to stay on top. If Fergie had been less willing to play the "no value in the market" card and left then United might have been exposed before they got the debt under control. When the two biggest clubs in England are vulnerable, what protection is there for the rest?

 

[braineclipse]

it'll be rightly lauded if it succeeds as a check on such risk taking

i'm not sure its right to stop genuine investors improving a club though, there's nothing fair about saying chelsea can have their oligarch, city their sheikh, united and liverpool their hedge funds, but the rest of you are ****ed, there's no place at the table for you

Investments in stadiums, training facilities etc are still allowed though.

I don't think anyone can say that it's fair that Chelsea and City got to buy a seat at the big table and others can't, but regulation will always lag behind on issues like these I think. Honestly I'm not even sure stopping investors like that was a goal for UEFA all along, seems a bit contradictory to what they're usually all about.

Yes, i think the dodgy third party deals on player purchases for Leeds would have been stopped. Possibly Portsmouth too.

My biggest problem with FFP is it does nothing to stop the leveraged takeovers. The Glazers and H&G took a billion out of football and UEFA does nothing, yet blocks people putting in two billion from doing so again. United survived because they are a financial giant, while Liverpool - our most successful club - were lucky not to go under. Even with United, the past season shows the damage done and how they needed Fergie's football genius and money-grubbing self-interest to stay on top. If Fergie had been less willing to play the "no value in the market" card and left then United might have been exposed before they got the debt under control. When the two biggest clubs in England are vulnerable, what protection is there for the rest?

True, it's a weakness. But I think that's more a result of what can realistically be done by an association like UEFA.

I wonder if it would be easier for the PL for example to keep that from happening within a single association and the financial regulations of one country. I'm no economist, but I imagine putting something like that in place across all UEFA member nation would be a rather big pain in the ****.

 

[Superhudd]

I cannot wait for the premier league to go into city's stadium (which was raped from all taxpayers) during a match to get them to show the person sitting in a chair when they announce the attendance as full. If they say person payed but didn't turn up they then ask for name and addresses, phone numbers of said person.

This is how deep and strict everything should be.. no turning a blind eye ever

 

[Rorschach]

Spotted this on the BBC football page

Emirates Marketing Project's Champions League hopes next season have been given a boost after Uefa relaxed the terms of their squad restriction meaning they only need to include five home-grown players in their squad, reports the Manchester Evening News.
The Blues will only be able to name a 21-man squad for next season's competition rather than the usual 25, as part of their punishment for breaches of financial fair play rules.
Uefa regulations state that eight of the squad have to be home-grown - that would have meant they could only include 13 foreign stars, and with 14 already on their books and three more expected this summer, it would have left manager Manuel Pellegrini with a major headache.
But the Manchester Evening News reports that the Blues have got a concession out of Uefa and will be allowed 16 'free' players and just five 'home-grown'.

 

[Superhudd]

I can see a **** storm with that from other clubs

 

[jaysea67]

Premier League clubs could receive money from Emirates Marketing Project's £50m FFP fine

Uefa draws up plans on how to redistribute money from fines imposed on Emirates Marketing Project, with every Premier League club in line to benefit

Every Premier League club would get a slice of Emirates Marketing Project’s world-record fine for breaching Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations under plans being drawn up by European football’s governing body.

Even relegated Norwich City, Fulham and Cardiff City would receive their cut of what could end up being £50 million surrendered by the Premier League champions after their £1 billion spending spree under Sheik Manour bin Zayed al Nahyan fell foul of FFP rules.

The Daily Telegraph has learnt that Uefa president Michel Platini and general secretary Gianni Infantino plan talks with the chairman of the European Club Association, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, to discuss precisely how to redistribute the fines levied from the FFP sanctions announced last week.

Platini and Infantino want what is a pot worth up to £114.5m to be shared not only among all 237 clubs competing in Europe this season and next but also teams in domestic leagues affected by their rivals’ overspending.

That would apply to five countries, including England, meaning a total of around 300 clubs stand to benefit from the transgressions of City, Paris St Germain and seven other sides.

If the money is distributed evenly, the most any team could hope to receive is approximately £380,000, although it may be as little as £138,000 if those guilty of FFP breaches avoid paying their whole fine by fulfilling certain obligations.

Uefa is hoping the prospect of such solidarity payments will reduce the threat of clubs appealing the settlements agreed with those who broke the rules.

It is understood no team has yet mounted a formal challenge ahead of Monday’s deadline for doing so. The Telegraph has learnt that Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United have no plans to appeal City’s penalty. Everton, who stand most to gain if the Manchester club are expelled from the Champions League after finishing fifth in the Premier League, are thought to have little appetite to do so either.

Speaking for the first time since City were found guilty, chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak defended the spending which landed the club in trouble. In what could be perceived as a subtle dig at debt-laden United, Al Mubarak claimed FFP preserved the wrong type of financial model. He told City’s website: “We don’t pay a penny to service any debts. For me, that’s a sustainable model. However, our friends in Uefa seem to believe otherwise. They have their view, we have ours.

“I disagree with their views but we are pragmatic. If it means sometimes to take a pinch, we’ll take a pinch.” The biggest current threat to FFP will be removed in the coming weeks after the Europe Commission indicated it would snub a legal challenge to the cost-control measures led by the man who helped bring about the Bosman ruling.

The EC has formally notified European football’s governing body that it intends to reject the complaint filed by Italian agent Daniel Striani, who claimed FFP broke European Union competition laws.

Striani, represented by Bosman lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont, has also been sent a letter making it clear the EC “does not intend to conduct a further investigation” into his allegation.

In its preliminary conclusion after more than a year considering Striani’s complaint, the Commission ruled he had no “legitimate interest” to bring it in the first place.

It noted any effects of FFP on the activities of player’s agents were “indirect and speculative” and said claims the measures would result in a decrease of transfer activities or transfer fees were “not substantiated”.

A final decision formally rejecting the complaint is expected in a few weeks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/10844986/Premier-League-clubs-could-receive-money-from-Manchester-Citys-50m-FFP-fine.html#source=refresh

 

[SpursLodge]

I think we all know that FFP isn't designed to stop Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project from spending the oil money, it's purely to stop crap teams from ruining the Champions league by qualifying and stopping one of the big European teams from being in it. We all know that they simply want Real Madrid, Barca, UTD, Bayern etc etc in every year and not some lesser teams who've spent a few quid to get there.

All this does is make sure the big clubs that already have money can spend more than those smaller clubs that aren't already well established can't spend to get there.


Also, I don't get how fining a team that's overspent is supposed to stop them from getting into financial trouble. Another thing, do UEFA have any rights to fine a team that's not competing in any of it's competitions? I get that they could withhold prize money or fine a team that's played in one of it's competitions whilst breaking the rules but if a club like West Ham over spent surely that's up to the FA or the premierleague to deal with not uefa?

 

[jts1882]

UEFA only evaluate teams in their competitions. So, for instance, Liverpool were not evaluated this time. Of course, they must comply if they want to compete in Europe as this years accounts will be used to evaluate FFP.

If a club has no aspirations to play in Europe they can ignore FFP. However, isn't there a variant in the PL or talk of one?

 

[Neymar]

UEFA only evaluate teams in their competitions. So, for instance, Liverpool were not evaluated this time. Of course, they must comply if they want to compete in Europe as this years accounts will be used to evaluate FFP.

If a club has no aspirations to play in Europe they can ignore FFP. However, isn't there a variant in the PL or talk of one?

yh i think the premier league is planning on brining something in. the rest of the football league have their own financial fair play rules tho. personally, i think all these rules are rubbish. they should let everyone spend their own money how they want to. and if a club is at risk of going bust, let it. once one or two clubs go bust, it should be a signal to other fans to stop demanding that their own clubs "spend, spend, spend". instead, when their club is spending like leeds or portsmouth, the chants should be "stop spending some f***ing money".


at the end of the day, when a club/business like arsenal, worth over $1 billion, is only making £25m worth of profit (in a good year), it shows that every single club is spending too much money. and its the fan's fault.