Financial Fair Play Discussion

FatherTed

It's all just smoke and mirrors by UEFA and FIFA. Much like the Barca transfer "ban", this will be repealed and the sentence reduced or eliminated. UEFA/FIFA are never really serious about FPP, Transfer rules, racism. See the NBA yesterday gave a lifetime ban to the owner of the LA Clippers, fined $2.5m and will be forced to sell the team over his racist comments. UEFA/FIFA would never do anything like that because it would hurt their back pocket deals.

pickarooney

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Of course they will plead guilty. They don't care and the fine is peanuts. We're not talking some guy whos name will be all over the papers for running someone over drink driving. Theres no downside to a club to just throw a few quid at a problem and its probably cheaper than fighting it anyway.

The first thing I said when the FFp thing came up here is that rich owners will find a way to get the money in to the club by "sponsorship" deals etc . Turns out that's the case. If an Abramovich owned business wants to put their name on an advertising board in Stamford Bridge for £100m a season, whats to stop them?

Is there not anti-laundering laws about this kind of thing? If the advertising boards either side of it cost 500 grand or whatever they couldn't very well rent it for 100 million. They'd have to rent them all I guess.

Dickerty

mike65 wrote: »

Every club wants a sugar daddy, the question is whether the said golden tit is sustainable, as many in Portsmouth discovered when its a botched job hundreds are left high and dry.

Same can be said of any business, though. So what are UEFA really worried about? A small number of players going unpaid? Or clubs actually disappearing?
Because that rarely happens in any real way. Look at Rangers - they were pushed to the very brink, but the fanbase and infrastructure means they can always start again.

So who lost out? The banks & businessmen who extended them credit...

Beefy78

M5 wrote: »

The crucial difference between football and any other business is that a monopoly or near monopoly is not going to affect sales outside football. A league with literally one team would not be much fun, whereas in business the small fish are taken over or go out of business and that does not effect the over all sales/demand as the larger company fills the void

That said if you look at football clubs as businesses, historically very very few have gone out of business which is in stark contrast to other non sporting businesses. There is a few chapters dedicated to the business aspects of football in soccernomics, well worth a read

I don't understand your point. I'm sorry (not being flippant).

My point is that in the last 20 years UEFA have been running scared of a number of top clubs and every major structural change that has been put in place has been with the intention of appeasing those top clubs. The change in Champions League qualification to the top three and then top four in the major leagues ensured that those small group of clubs were almost guaranteed to come into a level of income which would make it almost impossible for smaller clubs to challenge them.

This created a situation whereby the only way for a club to break through to challenge for trophies in England, Spain, Italy and Germany was to be bankrolled to them by outside investment.

Having ensured that that group of clubs have more money coming in than anyone else UEFA follows up with Financial Fair Play. FFP enforces the status quo by attempting to prevent clubs from spending more money than they earn. This effectively fixes clubs in positions in the footballing hierarchy out of which it is unlikely that they're going to be able to break. How can Southampton or Sunderland ever be expected to compete with Manchester United if they're only allowed to spend a percentage of what Man United can spend? It isn't possible.

UEFA's big issue is that they know that FFP is illegal and wouldn't stand up to any legal challenge. They've said that any club taking them to Court over it would be banned from entry into all UEFA-sanctioned competition but that itself is unlikely to be a threat which they could enforce hence at the first opportunity to enforce their own rules they've handed out such pathetic sanctions.

The sad thing is that all this is happening at a time in which football is crying out for genuine leadership and legislation to deal with the genuine financial problems in football. But those financial problems have never been Chelsea or Manchester City. It is the dozens of other clubs - mine included - in England and elsewhere spending money trying to keep up with the Jonesies and with no hopes of ever paying the bills which they're constantly writing. Currently the only force keeping English football honest is HMRC who now slap winding up petitions on clubs if they're a day late with their payments.

NTMK

pickarooney wrote: »

Is there not anti-laundering laws about this kind of thing? If the advertising boards either side of it cost 500 grand or whatever they couldn't very well rent it for 100 million. They'd have to rent them all I guess.

not really unless it can be proven the money was illegaly obtained

City's stadium was sponsored for £400M back in 2011 when it was never worth anywhere near that

It would be nice if FFP actually did anything but football is too far gone for any american style caps to come into place imo

Beefy78

NTMK wrote: »

not really unless it can be proven the money was illegaly obtained

City's stadium was sponsored for £400M back in 2011 when it was never worth anywhere near that

It would be nice if FFP actually did anything but football is too far gone for any american style caps to come into place imo

Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour should be free to put as much money into Chelsea and Manchester City as they choose to - so long as it goes in as capital instead of debt (which both have done). It is a sham that they have to come up with bogus advertising and sponsership deals to justify putting money into their own companies.

NTMK

Beefy78 wrote: »

UEFA's big issue is that they know that FFP is illegal and wouldn't stand up to any legal challenge. They've said that any club taking them to Court over it would be banned from entry into all UEFA-sanctioned competition but that itself is unlikely to be a threat which they could enforce hence at the first opportunity to enforce their own rules they've handed out such pathetic sanctions.

had it been set up properly they would have been fine if it was "you must comply with certain financial criteria to qualify" but they created a wishy washy rule to allow them to protect the profit of the tournament

NTMK

Beefy78 wrote: »

Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour should be free to put as much money into Chelsea and Manchester City as they choose to - so long as it goes in as capital instead of debt (which both have done). It is a sham that they have to come up with bogus advertising and sponsership deals to justify putting money into their own companies.

Investment they should be allow to plogh as much money into the club as the see fit imo be it players, stadia, academies (altough i feel large clubs should be required to invest in these).

wages i feel that the club though their own funding (not from the owner) should be able to cover their own running costs.

If city's owners went bankrupt tomorrow (ridiculous i know but using an example) the club would be bankrupt in a year trying to stand on its own funding

Iang87

NTMK wrote: »

not really unless it can be proven the money was illegaly obtained

City's stadium was sponsored for £400M back in 2011 when it was never worth anywhere near that

It would be nice if FFP actually did anything but football is too far gone for any american style caps to come into place imo

This I think is going to be the main flaw and why it'll never work. UEFA say they'll have sposnsorship deals independently assessed to check if they feel they are an unrealistic valuation.

That to me reads as City cant get a sponsorship deal for £400m because it wont be worth it however United/Barca/Real will be able to have those because they're massive global brands and an independent company would factor that in.

So in effect the very idea of fair play and everyone on a level is gone before we start.

I read the independent assessment part in an article someone posted in the united thread. Really interesting read but very long. This was pre moyes sacking too so good luck finding it

Agueroooo

According to this the action against PSG and City is more just a shot across the bows and future breaches will result in proper sanctions.


http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/man-city-failure-of-ffp-test-a-matter-of-choice

So, now we know that Man City (and PSG) failed the FFP Break Even test. However, this was no accident. Man City didn't fail the test because of an oversight - they failed because they chose to fail. The following analogy is helpful:

I recently handed my son £5 to buy some sweets, telling him to spend no more than £1. Inevitably, he came back with quite a lot of sweets having spent about the £1.50. He didn't exceed the budget because he wasn't able to count - he just evaluated the pros and cons and viewed that the extra sweets were worth the telling-off he was likely to get. It was a conscious and rather calculated decision to overspend and take the punishment. He also made a conscious decision not to go massively over the budget - that would be taking the mickey and the telling-off would be fairly harsh.

This brings me nicely onto Manchester City.

We shouldn't be under any illusions - City exceeded the FFP threshold by choice.The rules were agreed in 2009 and the club has had plenty of time to adjust to the new rules. City are a sophisticated multi-million pound business and will have had their accountancy team working on interactive finance models to understand exactly where they would be by the time the shutters came down. The club will have weighed up the merits of complying with rules against the likely punishments and the benefits of spending heavily to compete in the Premier League and in Europe. Reining in the spending to meet the FFP limits would have reduced their ability to compete.

The fact that they chose to overspend is best illustrated by their decision to sack Mancini in May 2013, less than three-weeks before their account-period end (the cut-off date for their first FFP Break Even test). If City had waited another three weeks before sacking him, their accounts wouldn't have had to include his sizeable pay-off. Rather than wait a few weeks and risk missing out on their chosen manager and delaying preparation for the next season, the club simply decided to push ahead with their overspend. City made a deliberate choice.

What has happened this week should come as no surprise - heaven knows, I have been banging on about it for a couple of years. People might think that that as City appear to have come fairly close to hitting the target that it doesn't matter. Surely, they would argue, City have tried to comply but simply failed by just a few million. However, this is where the sweetshop analogy is effective; City knew the rules and could have complied if they had wanted to - their failure was a conscious decision. They didn't have to spend £38m on Aguero but felt the merits of on-the field success were more important than complying with the rules. Sitting here today, those extra goals might well be enough to secure a second Premier League title - money well spent it seems.

City have used a number of techniques to window-dress their accounts to help them get close to passing the test. As soon as the new FFP rules were introduced, City acquired the services of the very same Deloittes accountants who drew up the rules. The rationale was clear - these chaps would know the loopholes in the rules. Without this crack team City might-well have adopted a similarly simplistic approach as PSG and used a single overstated deal to balance their books. It has clearly been more effective to use a variety of contentious deals than rely on a single, clearly overstated, deal.

Lots has been written about the Etihad deal and we don't yet know if the deal has been adjusted downwards. However readers should ask themselves this simple question: at the time the deal was struck, could Etihad could have got the same deal for less if they had really wanted? A suspicion remains that the company deliberately and knowingly paid over the odds for the deal. In the absence of a whistle-blower or a 'smoking gun' it would be almost impossible to prove - however just because it is a hard point to prove, wouldn't avoid the immorality of any deception.

So what happens now?

Manchester City have clearly been offered a 'plea-bargain' and it seem likely that they would accept the punishment rather than risk something more serious. It seems likely that they will agree a punishment that will probably result in a reduction in their spend for their Champions League squad next season, or perhaps prevent any new recruits taking part in next season's Champions League. Along with PSG they will also probably be required to demonstrate true Break-Even compliance in 2015/16.

Assuming City accept the 'plea-bargain', any club that feels it has lost out as a result of City not being banned from UEFA competition is able to appeal. Assuming Arsenal finish 4th, this would apply to both Everton and Man Utd. The position gets a little more murky when you consider that Arsenal may also have grounds to appeal as they would have to take part in an irksome qualifying round before the Group Stages. Also, Liverpool and Chelsea might also have a grievance if the City finish above them and claim a greater share of the Champions League Marketing Pool. However, I would be surprised if any English club (other than perhaps Everton) feel that a probably fruitless appeal is worth the trouble.

Irrespective of whether any club lodges an appeal, the rules require that all 'plea-bargains' punishment must be referred to the independent CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber. During June, this Chamber will decide on the appropriate punishment for all the clubs that failed the test (including clubs that accepted a plea-bargain). It is therefore still technically possible for Man City to be banned from the Champions League next season even if they have agreed a plea-bargain. However that looks extremely unlikely and I don't expect it to happen.

So what is the point of a plea-bargain concept if it has to be referred to the Adjudicatory Chamber in any event? Crucially, any club accepting a plea-bargain has voluntarily agreed to be bound by the terms of the deal - if PSG and City were to commit to getting back to genuine equilibrium during 2015/15, they would face significant punishment (even an outright ban) if they simply ignored the terms of the deal.

Finally, It is worth pointing out that although Platini was recently quoted as saying that no clubs would be banned this season. UEFA quickly confirmed that this was a misquote and that Platini had only said that he didn't think any clubs would be banned. UEFA were also quick to point out that Platini does not have any say in the CFCB process and any decision is in no way up to him. However it is inconceivable that he is not aware of the 'plea-bargains' being discussed and their likely acceptance by the clubs - clearly he expects all impacted clubs to accept their plea-bargains.

mike65

Dickerty wrote: »

Same can be said of any business, though. So what are UEFA really worried about? A small number of players going unpaid? Or clubs actually disappearing?
Because that rarely happens in any real way. Look at Rangers - they were pushed to the very brink, but the fanbase and infrastructure means they can always start again.

So who lost out? The banks & businessmen who extended them credit...

Everyone who supplied the club with any number of services from lawnmowers to flowers. Some examples

St John Ambulance – owed £2,702.

South Central Ambulance Service – owed £19,535.

Portsmouth Students’ Union – owed £2,955.

Cowplain Community School – owed £14,743.

Priory Community Sports Centre – owed £11,000.

King Edward School – owed £41,714.

Carol Moore (a local florist) – owed £995.

Solent Cleaners – owed £585.

Boy Scouts – owed £697.


Glen Johnson was owed £235,000 dunno if he got paid but he can take the loss with a shrug, ditto Peter Crouch.

NTMK

Iang87 wrote: »

This I think is going to be the main flaw and why it'll never work. UEFA say they'll have sposnsorship deals independently assessed to check if they feel they are an unrealistic valuation.

That to me reads as City cant get a sponsorship deal for £400m because it wont be worth it however United/Barca/Real will be able to have those because they're massive global brands and an independent company would factor that in.

So in effect the very idea of fair play and everyone on a level is gone before we start.

its a tricky thing to investigate i agree when i say its not worth it im going off deals outside of football Madison square garden got sponsor by morgan chase for 178mill over ten years and its a world famous arena

FFP wont work it anyway

I read the independent assessment part in an article someone posted in the united thread. Really interesting read but very long. This was pre moyes sacking too so good luck finding it

Im not reading that thread again:pac: its far too miserable

Neil3030

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Challenged, by who? If Everton become a big player it's all good. Would be great for their fans and great for the EPL to have another strong big spending club in the mix.

I've always laughed at the notion that spending money somehow invalidates a victory in football. It's bull**** stemming from warped nationalism ('British clubs should be British owned') and a desire from fans of already successful clubs to see the status quo maintained ('Utd and Liverpool have what they have naturally, City and Chelsea are artificial'). If an owner wants to make the financial commitment, get the best manager / players / director of football / scouting network / etc money can buy and stick with it until the footballing world is conquered then more power to them, they've earned their success.

It's not. It's a genuine concern that fans have less and less involvement and, ultimately, control over the destiny of their club. Where before the balance of power was determined by stadium attendance and merchandising sales (areas where fans can feel a sense of involvement), this has shifted to who has the most spend-happy owner. The relevance of fans is being increasingly diluted by such a model, and the ensuing alienation would certainly be my main gripe at least.

Also, to say characters like Abramovic and Arab royals "earned" their success is a bit of a stretch. A situation like John Henry at Liverpool is acceptable, as he appears to have indeed earned his success and wants to operate a sustainable business. However, channeling state resources into vanity projects is morally repulsive, particularly when poverty and civil rights abuses are so rife in the territories in question.

And finally, it simply can't go on. The bubble will eventually burst should proper political reform take place in territories like Russia and the Middle-East; or failing that, should another context emerge, which would offer oligarchic egos a greater emotional return. The repercussions for the clubs in questions will be fatal (not that I care about that), and the footballing ecosystem could be damaged for some time.

So this has nothing to do with nationalism or conservatism. Fans are losing control on the organisations they built, football is operating on a bubble swaying ever closer to a knife-edge, and the whole thing reeks of moral and political repugnance.

Knex*

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I think a salary cap and theoretical level playing field would be a great thing for the sport. In its absence however, let the chaos of the free market reign. If a multi billionaire wants to try and buy the Champions League, let him. There is certainly no law against such a practise and rightly so.

Would love for it to happen. It would add far more than it would take, too, IMO.

Agueroooo

Neil3030 wrote: »

It's not. It's a genuine concern that fans have less and less involvement and, ultimately, control over the destiny of their club. Where before the balance of power was determined by stadium attendance and merchandising sales (areas where fans can feel a sense of involvement), this has shifted to who has the most spend-happy owner. The relevance of fans is being increasingly diluted by such a model, and the ensuing alienation would certainly be my main gripe at least.

Also, to say characters like Abramovic and Arab royals "earned" their success is a bit of a stretch. A situation like John Henry at Liverpool is acceptable, as he appears to have indeed earned his success and wants to operate a sustainable business. However, channeling state resources into vanity projects is morally repulsive, particularly when poverty and civil rights abuses are so rife in the territories in question.

And finally, it simply can't go on. The bubble will eventually burst should proper political reform take place in territories like Russia and the Middle-East; or failing that, should another context emerge, which would offer oligarchic egos a greater emotional return. The repercussions for the clubs in questions will be fatal (not that I care about that), and the footballing ecosystem could be damaged for some time.

So this has nothing to do with nationalism or conservatism. Fans are losing control on the organisations they built, football is operating on a bubble swaying ever closer to a knife-edge, and the whole thing reeks of moral and political repugnance.

hard to argue with any of that.

well played sir!

Knex*

Give Neil's post its own thread and bloody sticky it.

M5

Beefy78 wrote: »

I don't understand your point. I'm sorry (not being flippant).

My point is that in the last 20 years UEFA have been running scared of a number of top clubs and every major structural change that has been put in place has been with the intention of appeasing those top clubs. The change in Champions League qualification to the top three and then top four in the major leagues ensured that those small group of clubs were almost guaranteed to come into a level of income which would make it almost impossible for smaller clubs to challenge them.

This created a situation whereby the only way for a club to break through to challenge for trophies in England, Spain, Italy and Germany was to be bankrolled to them by outside investment.

Having ensured that that group of clubs have more money coming in than anyone else UEFA follows up with Financial Fair Play. FFP enforces the status quo by attempting to prevent clubs from spending more money than they earn. This effectively fixes clubs in positions in the footballing hierarchy out of which it is unlikely that they're going to be able to break. How can Southampton or Sunderland ever be expected to compete with Manchester United if they're only allowed to spend a percentage of what Man United can spend? It isn't possible.

UEFA's big issue is that they know that FFP is illegal and wouldn't stand up to any legal challenge. They've said that any club taking them to Court over it would be banned from entry into all UEFA-sanctioned competition but that itself is unlikely to be a threat which they could enforce hence at the first opportunity to enforce their own rules they've handed out such pathetic sanctions.

The sad thing is that all this is happening at a time in which football is crying out for genuine leadership and legislation to deal with the genuine financial problems in football. But those financial problems have never been Chelsea or Manchester City. It is the dozens of other clubs - mine included - in England and elsewhere spending money trying to keep up with the Jonesies and with no hopes of ever paying the bills which they're constantly writing. Currently the only force keeping English football honest is HMRC who now slap winding up petitions on clubs if they're a day late with their payments.

Right, figured you were leaning another way with your previous post. My post was merely that you cant really compare football as a business to any other business. Survival of all is crucial or you no longer have a game

Pepe LeFrits

The Telegraph are claiming that Man City have been offered a fine and a squad-size reduction penalty for their failure to comply with FFP:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/10797048/Manchester-City-hit-by-Uefa-with-Champions-League-squad-size-cut-and-fine-for-breaching-financial-rules.html

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

So when does this become public knowledge?

googled eyes

Martyn Ziegler ‏@martynziegler 25m
Man City's FFP sanctions: 21-man CL squad instead of 25; 60m euro fine over 3 years; no rise in CL squad wage bill allowed. Same as for PSG.

.

Gringo180

^^^^

This is great news.

mike65

Well even 60m quid isn't much to either club in theory but presumably the 20 m PA will also be part of the future accounts so that's effectively the price of one decent player.

The squad size is the bigger thing.

I presume they can appeal this, anyone know?

googled eyes

mike65 wrote: »

Well even 60m quid isn't much to either club in theory but presumably the 20 m PA will also be part of the future accounts so that's effectively the price of one decent player.

The squad size is the bigger thing.

I presume they can appeal this, anyone know?

I'd say (hope) appealing could also carry harsher ramifications if it fails.

Gringo180

mike65 wrote: »

Well even 60m quid isn't much to either club in theory but presumably the 20 m PA will also be part of the future accounts so that's effectively the price of one decent player.

The squad size is the bigger thing.

I presume they can appeal this, anyone know?

60 million is a lot of money to be fair, it will deter other rich clubs from breaking the rules I think. Lets hope if they do appeal it they lose there case.

DoctorGonzo08

googled eyes wrote: »

I'd say (hope) appealing could also carry harsher ramifications if it fails.

This. I don't see how you can appeal it. The rules are straight forward, and as was said ealier in the thread, this 'offer' should encourage teams to accept first sanction rather than encourage an appeal, which could add sanctions such as a transfer ban and suspension from European Competition.

I, for one, welcome the decision and think it's important for the club to accept it, as what happens after this will make precendent and should allow for stabilization within the top clubs.

Will be interesting what will be done to other teams with outstanding 'issues' though.

user2011

mike65 wrote: »

Well even 60m quid isn't much to either club in theory but presumably the 20 m PA will also be part of the future accounts so that's effectively the price of one decent player.

The squad size is the bigger thing.

I presume they can appeal this, anyone know?

The way I've read a few pieces on this, this is the lesser of the options available to City/PSG. So they need to take it while they can.

Hopefully they don't

The club have until the end of the week to agree to the sanctions or face the case being handed to a panel for a non-negotiable decision.

The risk, however, is that if they are unable to agree a deal with UEFA then they could face even stiffer sanctions from UEFA's club financial control board's adjudicatory panel.

Abu Dhabi-owned City have a £40 million-a-year deal with Etihad Airways, while Qatar-owned PSG have a back-dated deal with the Qatar Tourist Authority which is worth up to £165 million a year.

:pac:

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/football-city-uefa-remain-apart-penalty-165016339--sow.html

Marty McFly

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

This. I don't see how you can appeal it. The rules are straight forward, and as was said ealier in the thread, this 'offer' should encourage teams to accept first sanction rather than encourage an appeal, which could add sanctions such as a transfer ban and suspension from European Competition.

I, for one, welcome the decision and think it's important for the club to accept it, as what happens after this will make precendent and should allow for stabilization within the top clubs.

Will be interesting what will be done to other teams with outstanding 'issues' though.

What other clubs have breached sanctions? I'm guessing City and PSG were the worst offenders.

mike65

Martyn Ziegler ‏@martynziegler · 6m
Also: any FFP fines will not count as part of losses for future FFP calculations, so can be paid directly by owners.

Pfffffft! No point in doing it then. Just cap the squad harshly.

DoctorGonzo08

Marty McFly wrote: »

What other clubs have breached sanctions? I'm guessing City and PSG were the worst offenders.

Following the period in which the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) Investigatory Chamber monitored the compliance of clubs with Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations, UEFA can confirm that of the 237 clubs which entered the 2013/14 UEFA club competitions (and were thus subject to this season's break-even requirements), 76 were requested to submit additional information.

'From that group, the examination as regards 67 clubs has come to an end and continues only in relation to the nine remaining clubs.

PSG and City are obviously the high profile, and most likely worse offenders, but there are 7 more clubs invovled also.

I was also offering a throw away comment to the outstanding UEFA sanctions/investigation with regards to the Neymar Transfer & Barca. Seems to have all gone very quiet in the midst of things.

Wegner's comment's quite interesting and pragmatic when he said that Champions League suspension would never be sanctioned due to media rights. Giving the example that if UEFA sells the TV rights for the CL to France, and then ban the country's best team, it will have adverse affects and possible claims.

EuropeanSon

mike65 wrote: »

Pfffffft! No point in doing it then. Just cap the squad harshly.

£60 million over 3 years, with potentially even bigger fines in future, isn't nothing, even to those guys. If they're being fined £50+ million a season in future that's going to hurt severely.

EuropeanSon

I imagine they're going to sue, though. Hard to see them taking this lying down.

Agueroooo

EuropeanSon wrote: »

£60 million over 3 years, with potentially even bigger fines in future, isn't nothing, even to those guys. If they're being fined £50+ million a season in future that's going to hurt severely.

I wont believe it until I see something more substantial than a tweet.

but if true then the punishment in a very harsh shot across the bow of both clubs.
It will make everyone sit up and pay attention in the future, but again I wont believe it til I see it.

Beefy78

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

This. I don't see how you can appeal it.

Because it is illegal under competition, business and (I strongly suspect) EU law.

UEFA are attempting to punish two business owners for financially supporting their businesses with capital injections.

I'm suprised that the sanctions are this strong because PSG and City could well go the legal route and that could bring the whole house of cards down.

Dolph Starbeam

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

I was also offering a throw away comment to the outstanding UEFA sanctions/investigation with regards to the Neymar Transfer & Barca. Seems to have all gone very quiet in the midst of things.

That investigation has been finished and there was found to be nothing wrong afaik.

Knex*

EuropeanSon wrote: »

£60 million over 3 years, with potentially even bigger fines in future, isn't nothing, even to those guys. If they're being fined £50+ million a season in future that's going to hurt severely.

You'd still like it to be taken as expenditure with regards to future FFP calculations, etc.

Mickeroo

Are Chelsea in any danger of this happening to them?

DoctorGonzo08

Beefy78 wrote: »

Because it is illegal under competition, business and (I strongly suspect) EU law.

UEFA are attempting to punish two business owners for financially supporting their businesses with capital injections.

I'm suprised that the sanctions are this strong because PSG and City could well go the legal route and that could bring the whole house of cards down.

But in relation to addressing the ffp rules alone I think it's open and shut. If the appeal goes ahead you could recieve a transfer ban which will rightly buckle the team's effectivness the season ahead.

True, though if City and PSG go the Business route the whole system could be brought down, bu that could go on for a while, with both clubs suffering in the short term as a result. Risky either way. You would want an Iron Cld case against the Business breaches if they planned to appeal.

EDIT: Scrap that, City are appealing it apparently!

Agueroooo

Beefy78 wrote: »

Because it is illegal under competition, business and (I strongly suspect) EU law.

UEFA are attempting to punish two business owners for financially supporting their businesses with capital injections.

I'm suprised that the sanctions are this strong because PSG and City could well go the legal route and that could bring the whole house of cards down.

not if all clubs involved signed up to this new FFP regulation. then its an open and shut case

pistolpetes11

Mickeroo wrote: »

Are Chelsea in any danger of this happening to them?

Nope miles ahead of most due to Roman writing off all his debts about a year before this came into play so there is no interest being paid on debts

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/chelsea-announce-50million-loss-still-2975877

This is last years state of play , getting to the Semi of the UCL this will nicely add to the kitty

This is the best part :

CFC wrote:

We are pleased therefore that we will meet the stipulations set down by UEFA in their first assessment period, and by our own analysis we are progressing from a commercial viewpoint as well as continuing to add trophies to our collection, which we never lose sight of as our most important goal

Beefy78

Agueroooo wrote: »

not if all clubs involved signed up to this new FFP regulation. then its an open and shut case

Open and shut as far as UEFA are concerned, certainly. And they have been clear that they are going to be very heavy-handed about their defence of FFP with talks of total sanctions against any club going Legal.

But, they need to act that way because they know that it would never stand up in an actual court. It is a bit of a balancing act really because ultimately if they push City, PSG or anyone else too far they may well decide to fight back. And as we saw with Bosman, at the end of the day football's laws have to be secondary to the actual laws.

greendom

pistolpetes11 wrote: »

Nope miles ahead of most due to Roman writing off all his debts about a year before this came into play so there is no interest being paid on debts

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/chelsea-announce-50million-loss-still-2975877

This is last years state of play , getting to the Semi of the UCL this will nicely add to the kitty

This is the best part :

Not this year ;-)

GavRedKing

Mickeroo wrote: »

Are Chelsea in any danger of this happening to them?

No, our revenue streams are higher than both City and PSG nad as Pistol has stated Roman wrote off the loans.

We've being moving towards complying with FFP for awhile now so its good to see in that period UEFa are ounsihing PSG and CIty, we've managed to stay in the right side of FFP.

I still dont think it'll work long term, not under EU law

Agueroooo

GavRedKing wrote: »

No, our revenue streams are higher than both City and PSG nad as Pistol has stated Roman wrote off the loans.

does that mean he can no longer 'loan' to the club?

Hyzepher

The thing is that it probably will stand up in court if the teams had agreed to the program beforehand.

Also, UEFA isn't a business. it's a administrative body of FIFA who are a Registered Charity. They govern across Europe and registration probably requires conditions one of them being FFP

Any court case would probably be a bad thing for any club

GavRedKing

Agueroooo wrote: »

does that mean he can no longer 'loan' to the club?

Not 100% really, I suppose if they want to get around it they could try the PSG and City method of investing from within, as long as the deal isnt like Romans company ploughing in 500 million over a 5 year period, the deal would have to be evaluated fairly, something that PSG must have fallen foul of with their 200million deal out of the blue.

NTMK

GavRedKing wrote: »

I still dont think it'll work long term, not under EU law

there is nothing stopping it apart from uefa being half arsed all they would have do to be EU compliant is say if you dont meet the criteria you're not allowed to enter Uefa european tournaments. no team is entitled to european football and must meet various criteria not related to league position

Its this half arsed approach that will land uefa in trouble

Pepe LeFrits

What would that squad reduction mean in practical terms to City? Given they need to register 8 players as homegrown, based on their current squad, does it mean they'd have to leave out 3 of the following players?

Pantilimon
Kompany
Zabaleta
Kolarov
Demichelis
Nastasic
Nasri
Garcia
Navas
Silva
Fernandinho
Toure
Negredo
Dzeko
Aguero
Jovetic

Pepe LeFrits

The Guardian has an article up on this by the way, so it's not just twitter hearsay:

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/06/manchester-city-face-49m-fine-wage-cap-financial-fair-play

greendom

Wrote off the loans ? If it's that easy to get round FFP why don't they all do it ?

Pepe LeFrits

greendom wrote: »

Wrote off the loans ? If it's that easy to get round FFP why don't they all do it ?

A combination of Chelsea winning the CL and the new TV deals helped their revenue catch up with their spending.