Could this be the end of the Sugar Daddies at Chelsea and Man City

citytillidie

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/8709871.stm

Uefa are bringing in a rule that clubs can only spend what they make.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Hope so, tbh.

I'm not trying to get a reaction out of this but City wil be fooked if it comes in and it's very possible that Chelsea will follow suit.

dreamers75

6 year anmesty, its come in and is now the rules but yeah 6 year amnesty.


Will be good for football tbh

flahavaj

United's debt could be problematic too.

Outkast_IRE

But i suppose clubs can still take out loans to build stadiums etc ?

Pepe LeFrits

The system is being phased in and bans would not be able to be imposed theoretically until the 2014-15 season at the earliest.

What's their basis for this, anyone know?

SpodoKamodo

Surely there will be ways around this. What's to stop abramovich or The owners at city simply paying 200 million to name the stadium, or sponsor the jerseys?

It will certainly have an effect on teams like Portsmouth from spending more than they earn, but it won't stop wealthy owners putting money into clubs like city and Chelsea.

ShamoBuc

Where there is a will theres a way!
Money talks, always has always will.

The Muppet

flahavaj wrote: »

United's debt could be problematic too.

United say not.

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/10/05/26/manual_163015.html&TEAMHD=soccer


What's the legality of these new rules, are they enforcable?

jesus_thats_gre

Well I imagine that that puts Liverpool and United in big trouble. Neither club will break even without selling players if things stay as they are.

PHB

The phasing in is to stop United potentially being out of the CL, something which would be very bad for both United but also the CL as a whole. It also allows Perez to go on a bender for 2-3 more years, meaning Madrid get what they want. But fundamentally, if you are going ot make such massive changes, its only fair to give people notice. I hope that once they are in place, they will get stricter aswell. With any luck, this will deter what has happened at United and Liverpool happening in the next boom, which in itself is a good start.

m@cc@

citytillidie wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/8709871.stm

Uefa are bringing in a rule that clubs can only spend what they make.

Can be easily side-stepped - renaming stadium, sponsorship, paying millions to play a game in Dubai.

mayordenis

I read that as part of it sponsorship deals well in excess of the market worth were prohibited to stop that sort of thing.

m@cc@

mayordenis wrote: »

I read that as part of it sponsorship deals well in excess of the market worth were prohibited to stop that sort of thing.

Yeah, good luck with enforcing that one. Litigation all over the shop.

DazMarz

Money talks at the end of the day. For clubs like Chelsea and Man City, it's just a bit of an added inconvenience in skirting around how to get money to the club coffers. But it will not end the era of money, no way. UEFA and FIFA are always too spineless and incompetant anyway to make much of a change that would actually matter. Blatter and his lapdog Platini will rattle their sabre on this issue for a while longer, then file it under 'X' and it'll never be heard of again.

jesus_thats_gre

The wages should be linked to turnover. After that, owners should be allowed to give as much to the club for whatever purpose as they, once the club isn't obliged to pay it back or assume it as debt.

JimsAlterEgo

mayordenis wrote: »

I read that as part of it sponsorship deals well in excess of the market worth were prohibited to stop that sort of thing.

in theory yes but any good legal person culd argue Rela or Man United should be a premium wll in excess of the market.

Good in theory but not practical.

therecklessone

m@cc@ wrote: »

Can be easily side-stepped - renaming stadium, sponsorship, paying millions to play a game in Dubai.

Chelsea already have:

The recent equity swap at Stamford Bridge which was supposed to convert Roman's £700m+ interest free loan into equity did indeed happen, only the equity was transferred to a holding company, and the holding company now owes Roman the £700m+ :rolleyes:

This link speaks volumes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/european/6103375/Chelsea-owner-Roman-Abramovich-backs-Michel-Platinis-bid-for-financial-fair-play.html

Speaking in Monaco ahead of yesterday's Champions League draw, Platini identified Abramovich and AC Milan's Silvio Berlucsoni as prime examples of club owners wanting rules to be implemented to control the rising inflation on transfer fees, wages and debt within football.

Platini said Abramovich's complaints stem from the spending habits of clubs like Manchester City who have spent £120 million in this transfer window alone compared to Chelsea's £23 million.

The Frenchman explained that under the 'financial fair play' mantra, clubs like City would be welcome to spend such large sums on the condition that it represents the same figure as what the club brings in from television rights, sponsorship deals and competition prize money.

Failure to break even he said, would result in clubs being expelled from European competition.

"It's mainly the owners that asked us to do something. Roman Abramovich, Silvio Berlusconi at AC Milan and Massimo Moratti at Inter," Platini said. "They do not want to fork out any more.

ROFL.

PHB

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

in theory yes but any good legal person culd argue Rela or Man United should be a premium wll in excess of the market.

Good in theory but not practical.

Eh, it is practical. Rules like this are enforced on an extremely regular basis by competition authorities. It's extremely common and very enforceable.

MementoMori

I expect Man City to start selling a gazillion jersies in Dubai.

Would be shocked if the richer clubs's accountants/financial planners don't find a myriad of ways around this.

I think it's a poorish response and could have gone further - should have banned new owners from using debt to buy clubs.

greendom

Fair play to Platini on this one - he said he would do something and he has. Clubs wanting to play in Europe will have to live within their means


http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/may/26/michel-platini-uefa-club-finances

Savman

I'd say Roman and the City Shieks are trembling in their wee boots. Sensationalist thread of the day tbh.

I didn't know UEFA were the NAMA for football clubs, sure the Pompey-esque clubs need tighter controls and that will be universally welcomed. But he who has the gold makes the rules, and they haven't a hope of taking on the mega-rich.

It'll no doubt a major inconvenience to Abramovich et al (like when the traffic lights turn red and they are momentarily delayed).

Cypher_sounds

Don't worry they can keep their sugar daddies, it will only buy them 1, 2 or 3 at the most like chelsea, but city will never buy a title like chelsea have, and remember folks true class always shines through so say hello to liverpool on yer way down chelsea

Scuba Ste

Cypher_sounds wrote: »

Don't worry they can keep their sugar daddies, it will only buy them 1 title 2 at the most like chelsea, but city will never buy a title like chelsea have, and remember folks true class always shines through so say hello to liverpool on yer way down chelsea

Only one of those clubs look to be on the way down and it aint Chelsea.

Bad rule imo. Looking forward to betting on the final league positions in the future. All you need to do is check the revenue figures for each club.

greendom

Scuba Ste wrote: »

Only one of those clubs look to be on the way down and it aint Chelsea.

Bad rule imo. Looking forward to betting on the final league positions in the future. All you need to do is check the revenue figures for each club.

You may be right but at least those figures were honestly earned by the club, not provided by a rich benefactor.

Cypher_sounds

Scuba Ste wrote: »

Only one of those clubs look to be on the way down and it aint Chelsea.

Bad rule imo. Looking forward to betting on the final league positions in the future. All you need to do is check the revenue figures for each club.

Even if you were to do that for the season gone you would see that chelsea isnt even in the top 2 rightly so, United are top, only reason they werent top of the league is because chelsea bought the league with russian billions but when that runs dry for them, they will be back where they were when the good itialian Gianluca Vialli used to manage them but even he was sacked after just 5 games into the start of a league campaign shocking way to treat a legend of a player, just shows how fickle the chelsea fans are.

2010 Rich List - English clubs that made the top 20


3 Man United 278.5m pounds


5 Arsenal 224.0m pounds
6 Chelsea 206.4m pounds
7 Liverpool 184.8m pounds
15 Tottenham 113.0m pounds
19 Man City 87.0m pounds
20 Newcastle 86.0m pounds (ANI)

Trampas

Loopholes will be found.

Uefa need the big clubs to generate money for them.

LuckyLloyd

I love that this issue will receive a minute amount of coverage this summer relative to that afforded to ridiculous transfer rumours of the "Rooney to Real" variety.

Scuba Ste

Cypher_sounds wrote: »

Even if you were to do that for the season gone you would see that chelsea isnt even in the top 2 rightly so, United are top, only reason they werent top of the league is because chelsea bought the league with russian billions but when that runs dry for them, they will be back where they were when the good itialian Gianluca Vialli used to manage them but even he was sacked after just 5 games into the start of a league campaign shocking way to treat a legend of a player, just shows how fickle the chelsea fans are.

2010 Rich List - English clubs that made the top 20


3 Man United 278.5m pounds


5 Arsenal 224.0m pounds
6 Chelsea 206.4m pounds
7 Liverpool 184.8m pounds
15 Tottenham 113.0m pounds
19 Man City 87.0m pounds
20 Newcastle 86.0m pounds (ANI)

So your basically agreeing that the league would be based on revenue but think it's a good thing. United fan by any chance.

Helix

Cypher_sounds wrote: »

Don't worry they can keep their sugar daddies, it will only buy them 1 title 2 at the most like chelsea, but city will never buy a title like chelsea have, and remember folks true class always shines through so say hello to liverpool on yer way down chelsea

the chelsea who just won their 3rd?

everdead.ie

If wages are attached to turnover it wouldn't nessicarily stop a. Club from reporting a financial loss if they have debts that are leveraged like united and Liverpool intrest can still criple them

Cypher_sounds

Helix wrote: »

the chelsea who just won their 3rd?

2+1 lol well spotted gonna add maybe 3 at the most to that lol

Cypher_sounds

Scuba Ste wrote: »

So your basically agreeing that the league would be based on revenue but think it's a good thing. United fan by any chance.

I never agreed to anything but going by that list i would be happy with that with city outside the CL spot again and all

Scuba Ste

greendom wrote: »

You may be right but at least those figures were honestly earned by the club, not provided by a rich benefactor.

Damn those evil rich benefactors. Tbh I'd rather see new rich clubs give the top 4 a go than have an untouchable top 4. Another United fan by any chance.

Scuba Ste

going by that list i would be happy with that with city outside the CL spot again and all

Won't be happy next season then

Cypher_sounds

Scuba Ste wrote: »

Won't be happy next season then

Thats the likely hood whereas this year as regard 4th CL spot it was the way it should be,where the non-sugarcoated team showed up the team with the excessive money bags.

Savman

Trampas wrote: »

Loopholes will be found.

Uefa need the big clubs to generate money for them.

.

Lukker-

Cypher_sounds wrote: »

Thats the likely hood whereas this year as regard 4th CL spot it was the way it should be,where the non-sugarcoated team showed up the team with the excessive money bags.

We get it, United are broke. Get over it.