UEFA New financial rules

spockety

Helix wrote: »

no it couldnt

they could very easily go for a 20 team european league to replace domestic football for all those teams... although itd probably hammer attendances, the tv revenue would be astronomical

Do you have any idea what would happen if Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal, and Chelsea tried to leave the Premier League and form some sort of European bread and butter league? The fan protests would be absolutely off the scale, and unlike any of the previous ownership issues that LFC or Man U fans have faced down.

It. Is. Never. Going. To. Happen.

I mean, at Liverpool and United alone the fact that the club was suggesting voluntarily walking away from the bi-seasonal derby against Everton and City would be enough I would think to cause a meltdown.

Mr. Presentable

gosplan wrote: »

Well Chelsea and Man City will have spent fortunes and built their income base and now suddenly don't have to worry about someone else coming along and replicating what they did.

It's not just them. Man U had a declared £83m loss in Oct 2010 - which must be hard to stomach as they had a trading profit of c£123m. They need a big buyer and fast.

Revenue is not the measure, profit/loss is, and actual profit/loss, not "trading". You must not spend more than you earn.

It'll be interesting how the rules are applied. In Italy some of the bigger clubs have already been getting their affairs in order, in Germany many are already there. Don't know about France, but Spain and England have been running their clubs like the banks ran the property market here. Someones going to be frigged. Or there will be amnesties all round.

enfant terrible

Would Wenger of had an idea these rules were coming in before he moved Arsenal to their new stadium.

Arsenal will now be able to compete with the sugar daddy clubs financially.

Arsenal could be the team in the best position financially in England thanks to Wenger's forward thinking.

Guy:Incognito

Alani Spicy Scarecrow wrote: »

Some guy on football weekly said a while ago its pretty iron clad and this exact thing was mentioned.He said they wont be able to get around it with ridiculous sponsorship deals from owners.

Ì cant see how they could stop them. If Roman Abramovich wants to rent a pitch side advertising board for £50m at Stamford Brisge to put his name on, whats to stop him?

OhNoYouDidn't

Helix wrote: »

they can, they just wont be able to get into europe

This rule has been in the LoI for 5 years as a test. What happened to Cork, Derry and Shels....

Platini has set out his stall to peg back in certain clubs. Here is it in action.

Helix

spockety wrote: »

Do you have any idea what would happen if Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal, and Chelsea tried to leave the Premier League and form some sort of European bread and butter league? The fan protests would be absolutely off the scale, and unlike any of the previous ownership issues that LFC or Man U fans have faced down.

It. Is. Never. Going. To. Happen.

I mean, at Liverpool and United alone the fact that the club was suggesting voluntarily walking away from the bi-seasonal derby against Everton and City would be enough I would think to cause a meltdown.

id imagine city would be in any super league

but i concede your other points, even if i dont think it's quite as unlikely as you think

spockety

Helix wrote: »

id imagine city would be in any super league

It's another debate entirely I guess, but I'm not sure what would get them into it. It would probably have to be at the expense of another British team, which one? Would City have the international interest in them to justify astronomical TV rights fees? Unlikely. Do they have a history of success that would justify placing them among Europe's elite? Nope.

If they could "do a Chelsea" over the next 3 years and buy themselves a couple of titles and a Champions League final, then maybe just maybe you could contemplate it. But right now I can't see it.

but i concede your other points, even if i dont think it's quite as unlikely as you think

I think it's way more likely that it would/could replace the Champions League for those clubs, but there's just no way it can replace the domestic league. It is the bread and butter for every club, both financially and in the soul of the club. I can't imagine the clubs themselves having an appetite for it.

Lukker-

I don't think a break-away league will ever happen, but I could see a dual league system which replaces the CL with some European super-league.

Helix

spockety wrote: »

but I'm not sure what would get them into it

theyre the richest team in the world, that alone will get them into a money driven superleague

OhNoYouDidn't

Helix wrote: »

theyre the richest team in the world, that alone will get them into a money driven superleague

At the moment they are. Next year it could be any other random mid table side.

People seem to be forgetting these plans have been agreed years ago. If the rebellion were to happen, it would have happened.

PHB

This deal will result in clubs that are well run being rewarded. I think it's an absolute disgrace that Spurs who have done an incredibly good job in terms of developing their team are instantly beaten by some team who gets bought by some random rich Saudi.

Manchester United, pre takeover, were the model every club should follow to success. Building success through proper investment in youth systems and development, and then subsequently building on it. This is how clubs should run.

Beyond that, it'll lead to a much needed reduction in wages and transfer fees, as clubs like City won't be a threat anymore setting absurdly high standards.

Lukker-

The reason I think it won't work is because to many big clubs operate at a loss. If Uefa stopped Barca, Real or United who all have massive losses from entering the CL, then they would lose out big time on viewing figures, which in the end for Uefa, is all it will come down too.

OhNoYouDidn't

Lukker- wrote: »

The reason I think it won't work is ebcause to many big clubs operate at a loss. If Uefa stopped Barca, Real or United who all have massive losses from entering the CL, then they would lose out big time on viewing figures, which in the end foir Uefa, is all it will come down too.

Where does it say you can't operate at a loss?

yahoo_moe

gavredking wrote: »

I wonder if UEFA will "bend" the rules if a Barca, Real, Chelsea, Man Utd, AC, Inter, Bayern etc etc have a bit of trouble with their finances and the new rules.

Their track record on these kind of things isn't great.

I don't see any team, especially a big team, being instantly kicked out of competition. It'll be a suspended sentence maybe which would only take effect after a second offence. But that doesn't mean these rules aren't a step in the right direction. Likewise with loopholes - it might lead to some teething problems but the overall direction is good.

Helix

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Where does it say you can't operate at a loss?

the new uefa money rules

if you operate at a loss you dont get into europe... the first post in the thread

OhNoYouDidn't

Helix wrote: »

the new uefa money rules

if you operate at a loss you dont get into europe... the first post in the thread

Read it again. No it doesn't

flahavaj

enfant terrible wrote: »

Would Wenger of had an idea these rules were coming in before he moved Arsenal to their new stadium.

Arsenal will now be able to compete with the sugar daddy clubs financially.

Arsenal could be the team in the best position financially in England thanks to Wenger's forward thinking.

He still won't buy a goalkeeper though.:pac:

the untitled user

enfant terrible wrote: »

Would Wenger of had an idea these rules were coming in before he moved Arsenal to their new stadium.

Arsenal will now be able to compete with the sugar daddy clubs financially.

Arsenal could be the team in the best position financially in England thanks to Wenger's forward thinking.

He wouldn't have. He would have just looked at the big spenders model for what it is; unsustainable.

ShooterSF

I can understand the restrictions as they protect clubs from themselves and I even understand blocking owners lending to a club but how can it be bad for a club for an owner to put huge sums of money into the club?

the untitled user

ShooterSF wrote: »

I can understand the restrictions as they protect clubs from themselves and I even understand blocking owners lending to a club but how can it be bad for a club for an owner to put huge sums of money into the club?

Because eventually he stops investing and the club goes to ****, potentially pulling down others with them.

No matter how rich you are, you can't keep pissing money down the drain indefinitely.

everdead.ie

ShooterSF wrote: »

I can understand the restrictions as they protect clubs from themselves and I even understand blocking owners lending to a club but how can it be bad for a club for an owner to put huge sums of money into the club?

What if a club say City who have a wage bill greater than their turnover at the moment the sheik decides to plug the hole but then get's bored of it all the club is then left with contracts it can't pay forcing bankruptcy because they can't sell players on because no one else will pay the wages they are currently on and when they do sell one on they don't get the high transfer fee back because of the huge wage the other club is taking on. which means Amortization is still having a negative effect on the club and the asset has been sold at a loss.

eagle eye

Its a couple of years away before this happens and even then clubs will have three years to balance the books. Any club that is in trouble at that stage, well its very bad financial management on their part.

PHB

ShooterSF wrote: »

I can understand the restrictions as they protect clubs from themselves and I even understand blocking owners lending to a club but how can it be bad for a club for an owner to put huge sums of money into the club?

Because it means that every other club can't compete. Part of the reason why so many clubs are making a loss is the intense pressure that clubs like City are putting on the league. Sure the people they buy off are great, but the wages that they pay are astronomical and in no way reflective of any business decision, which has an inflationary effect on wages throughout the league. City and Chelsea have massively pushed up both transfer prices and wages beyond what a club with a normal income could afford. They are forced to compete with these clubs because otherwise they'll just fall off, and eventually make a loss.

Thrill

Adopt Arsenal money model - Uefa

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/9358589.stm

Arsenal have been held up as a shining example by Uefa as European football's governing body prepares to implement tough new financial restrictions.
From the 2011-12 season clubs must break even over a rolling three-year period or risk a possible ban from Uefa European competitions.
Uefa compared Arsenal's approach to that of clubs with super-rich owners.
"What model waits for a knight rider on a horse and then rides away?" said Uefa general secretary Gianni Infantino..................

CiaranC

ShooterSF wrote: »

I can understand the restrictions as they protect clubs from themselves and I even understand blocking owners lending to a club but how can it be bad for a club for an owner to put huge sums of money into the club?

Football is actually more than just a handful of mega rich clubs at the top of the game. The overwhelming majority of football clubs, supporters, leagues and financiers are outside this bunch. How is the real world supposed to compete with these mega-clubs?

Thrill

gavredking wrote: »

I wonder if UEFA will "bend" the rules if a Barca, Real, Chelsea, Man Utd, AC, Inter, Bayern etc etc have a bit of trouble with their finances and the new rules.

It looks to me like they have already put in place a "Special Category" which they can use to help them out, or exempt them until they can sort themselves out. There's no way they're going to let the big clubs get into too much trouble.

Under the new rules, Uefa would place clubs at risk of over-spending in a special category where they are closely monitored.


As it stands, Chelsea and both Manchester clubs would be placed in this bracket, although the Red Devils are insistent they would pass the financial fair play rules now.

I just hope they are equally as concerned when it comes to clubs like Bolton, sunderland etc. should they have the same problem.

Seaneh

yahoo_moe wrote: »

isn't great.

Milan weren't banned by UEFA or from UEFA competition.
They were given a points deduction by lega calcio which meant they were left one place outside the UEFA cupe/Europa League places.
Empoli then failed their licence application and the place in the Europa League was award to the next team in Serie A, which was Milan.

Also, Milan's points deduction was later reduced and they would have placed ahead of Empoli anyway.

eagle eye

PHB wrote: »

Because it means that every other club can't compete. Part of the reason why so many clubs are making a loss is the intense pressure that clubs like City are putting on the league. Sure the people they buy off are great, but the wages that they pay are astronomical and in no way reflective of any business decision, which has an inflationary effect on wages throughout the league. City and Chelsea have massively pushed up both transfer prices and wages beyond what a club with a normal income could afford. They are forced to compete with these clubs because otherwise they'll just fall off, and eventually make a loss.

But they didn't start this whole thing off in England. It started long before that. In England it was United that started it off. But the Italian teams pushed it up before that.

In Premier League times the one that started it all off in England was Andy Cole's transfer to United from Newcastle. It really pushed up prices for every club.

cson

enfant terrible wrote: »

Would Wenger of had an idea these rules were coming in before he moved Arsenal to their new stadium.

Arsenal will now be able to compete with the sugar daddy clubs financially.

Arsenal could be the team in the best position financially in England thanks to Wenger's forward thinking.

Just recognition imo.

He has kept our club competitive on a spend that is less than 5 other clubs in England as far as I know. He's overseen the move to a new stadium and I would hazard has been a chief orchestrator of it. He has also implemented a tactical and youth system in advance of everyone else in the Premiership. AW implemented the dynamic 4-5-1 in the 2005/2006 Champions League run which has been adopted and used as a rough template for many clubs. He also implemented a system focusing on youth development which is again imo in advance of everything in the Premiership in terms of brining players through [you can point to money being spent on youth but it is the taste du jour - Smalling [Utd] Kakuta [Chelsea] Shelvey [Liverpool] just to name but a few.

Arsene has his flaws [GK wise as flahavaj succintly pointed out] but he is imor unrivalled playing under the rules that are proposed.

Arsenal dominance ahoy :pac:

gosplan

cson wrote: »

Arsene has his flaws [GK wise as flahavaj succintly pointed out] but he is imor unrivalled playing under the rules that are proposed.

Arsenal dominance ahoy :pac:

Yeah, along with bringing youth players like Wilshire and Djourou through to the first team squad, another big plus for Arsenal under these rules is their wage structure.

I imagine that Yaya Toure and Tevez won't be resigning at city at the end of their current deals because there's no way I can see that spending about 400K (random guess, could be way off) a week on two players could be sustainable.

Pepe LeFrits

It starts coming in from next season so I really struggle to see how City will meet the rules without some creative accounting. The initial batch of rules allow a loss of what, £45m over the three seasons previous, while City posted double that last year alone.

L'prof

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

It starts coming in from next season so I really struggle to see how City will meet the rules without some creative accounting. The initial batch of rules allow a loss of what, £45m over the three seasons previous, while City posted double that last year alone.

I posted this in the match thread there last week

L'prof wrote: »

Lukker-

L'prof wrote: »

I posted this in the match thread there last week

That already looks dodgy, how did they manage to more than double their commercial revenue within a year? I suspect something fishy there..

It'd be funny if it "doubled" again next year.

L'prof

Lukker- wrote: »

That already looks dodgy, how did they manage to more than double their commercial revenue within a year? I suspect something fishy there..

It'd be funny if it "doubled" again next year.

I suppose it does, Arsenal's commercial income was only £44m last season, money follows money though!

yahoo_moe

Seaneh wrote: »

Milan weren't banned by UEFA or from UEFA competition.

Yes but at the point where the Italian federation put Milan forward as one of their teams, a UEFA board had to review it and approve it, no? At that point, they could have enforced their own ban but chose not to. I'm not saying it would have been usual but they certainly didn't go out of their way looking to make a point.

Also, to all those with the conspiracy theories about owners ploughing in money - it'll have to be pretty creative and I don't see any loopholes lasting too long. See here for an explanation of how UEFA have included the concept of 'fair value' in their regulations. So no owner can pay £100m for shirt sponsorship or jerseys in the club shop if that's way beyond what anyone external would be expected to pay.

eagle eye

yahoo_moe wrote: »

Yes but at the point where the Italian federation put Milan forward as one of their teams, a UEFA board had to review it and approve it, no? At that point, they could have enforced their own ban but chose not to. I'm not saying it would have been usual but they certainly didn't go out of their way looking to make a point.

Also, to all those with the conspiracy theories about owners ploughing in money - it'll have to be pretty creative and I don't see any loopholes lasting too long. See here for an explanation of how UEFA have included the concept of 'fair value' in their regulations. So no owner can pay £100m for shirt sponsorship or jerseys in the club shop if that's way beyond what anyone external would be expected to pay.

Thats excellent and well worth the read.

Ping Chow Chi

yahoo_moe wrote: »

for an explanation of how UEFA have included the concept of 'fair value' in their regulations.

wonder if this would bar some clubs from re-zoning their training grounds to wipe off huge debts as well?

Sgt Pepper 64

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

It starts coming in from next season so I really struggle to see how City will meet the rules without some creative accounting. The initial batch of rules allow a loss of what, £45m over the three seasons previous, while City posted double that last year alone.

heres the original article that I posted

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2010/10/08/qa-on-financial-fair-play-and-the-mountain-manchester-city-have-to-climb/

yahoo_moe

eagle eye wrote: »

Thats excellent and well worth the read.

Swiss Ramble is one of the best football blogs around. He goes pretty deep but he doesn't post that often (esp. during the season) so it balances out.

He's actually an Arsenal fan so I often think it's actually Wenger

IRISHSPORTSGUY

So if implemented properly, this has real potential to halt Man City's rise?

OhNoYouDidn't

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

So if implemented properly, this has real potential to halt Man City's rise?

If implemented in any way, most definitely.