Financial Fair Play Discussion

batistuta9

On the squad list for the CL, no.

17 Johnny foreigners
+ 4 home grown
& then the B list


Also theres no rule that there has to be 8 home grown, the rule really is 17 non HG

Pepe LeFrits

batistuta9 wrote: »

On the squad list for the CL, no.

17 Johnny foreigners
+ 4 home grown
& then the B list


Also theres no rule that there has to be 8 home grown, the rule really is 17 non HG

Are you sure? Reading this, it's 8 home grown players + up to 17 non HG.

GavRedKing

greendom wrote: »

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

I think its regards the loans the club own him. AFAIK psg and city owe their owners nothing.

So roman has written them off in way the club dont have to pay him back.

anything else he puts in will be captail investment and wont be seen as loans.

Thats the way i see it but i could be way off

DoctorGonzo08

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

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

Likely Garcia/Demi, AK and a Striker.

Amirani

Beefy78 wrote: »

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.

Nothing illegal about UEFA choosing to exclude clubs from European competition. If clubs try to sue UEFA, I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen.

greendom

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

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

And I suppose the loans were written of before FFP came into effect. It's like they got in before the barriers were put up. Pretty much how RA made all his money in the first place.

Beefy78

Hyzepher wrote: »

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

Footballers agreed pre-Bosman to sign a contract giving up all of their rights to have a say over their careers even after that contract had expired. It didn't stop the Courts deeming that illegal.

The Clubs could easily argue that they were agreed under threat of being expelled from UEFA competitions (whcih they were).

GavRedKing

greendom wrote: »

And I suppose the loans were written of before FFP came into effect. It's like they got in before the barriers were put up. Pretty much how RA made all his money in the first place.

Brilliant business decision really

Beefy78

Agueroooo wrote: »

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

GavRedKing wrote: »

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.

He can still loan money if he chooses to but whether he loans it or invests it as capital it doesn't make any difference to FFP. Roman capitalised his previous investment which boosted Chelsea's balance sheet. But, because it is a mental piece of legislation which isn't designed to actually deal with the problem in hand, FFP ignores the balance sheet and only concentrates on the P&L.

Drexel

I am surprised to see figures of 60million being quoted as the fine. When I seen UEFA were planning on fining clubs for FFP breaches I really thought it would be a token fine < 1million. While 60million is pocket change for these guys it is still a lot of money.

More importantly are the CL sanctions. No one really thought clubs would be kicked out of the CL but haivng sanctions could do the trick.

greendom

GavRedKing wrote: »

Brilliant business decision really

Let's be honest yes its clever but he got very lucky with the timing

AdamD

Beefy78 wrote: »

Footballers agreed pre-Bosman to sign a contract giving up all of their rights to have a say over their careers even after that contract had expired. It didn't stop the Courts deeming that illegal.

The Clubs could easily argue that they were agreed under threat of being expelled from UEFA competitions (whcih they were).

And if that happened couldn't UEFA just kick them out of the competition entirely? Which would be far worse than a fine and a player limit.

City didn't just break the rules, they laughed at them. Their entire annual report didn't mention FFP once, it'll be nice to see them punished for it.

user2011

All this EU rules thing is funny when if you consider who is backing PSG the state of Qatar, state backing is against EU law/competition law.

pistolpetes11

greendom wrote: »

Let's be honest yes its clever but he got very lucky with the timing

No luck about it , seen it coming down the tracks and implemented the write down before it became an issue .

On capital investment I see him building a new stadium without much hoo haa also

GavRedKing

greendom wrote: »

Let's be honest yes its clever but he got very lucky with the timing

The FFP deadline and enforcing periods were known to all so Id assume that was taken into consideration when it was done.

We may fall foul of it in future but gettong past the initial period of investigation is a good start.

batistuta9

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Are you sure? Reading this, it's 8 home grown players + up to 17 non HG.

Yeah. Same as the PL list its only 8 if you want 25.
The CL list has the additional condition about club trained for the HG players though

GavRedKing

pistolpetes11 wrote: »

No luck about it , seen it coming down the tracks and implemented the write down before it became an issue .

On capital investment I see him building a new stadium without much hoo haa also

On the stadium, looks dead in the water we cant expand and theres no sites available and then you have the CPO and pitch/naming issues. Had we got Battersea we'd be into a stadium development plan now.

Sgt Pepper 64

cant stand all these new money clubs coming in and spoiling it for the others

Anyway where is the fine money going?
Should be distributed to struggling lower league clubs , but will go to making UEFA richer no doubt

GavRedKing

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

cant stand all these new money clubs coming in and spoiling it for the others

Anyway where is the fine money going?
Should be distributed to struggling lower league clubs , but will go to making UEFA richer no doubt

Investing the fine money at grass root levels would be the best and most rewarding place for it to go but will it make it that far? Probably not.

greendom

pistolpetes11 wrote: »

No luck about it , seen it coming down the tracks and implemented the write down before it became an issue .

On capital investment I see him building a new stadium without much hoo haa also

FFP puts no restriction on Capital projects so no issue there.

Still he got lucky in that when he bought the club he was able to buy players and pay them wages far in excess of the club's actual ability to pay them building a huge amount of debt payable to him. He then was able to write off that debt before it would come under the FFP accounting system. Now you may see no luck involved but I certainly do .

Gringo180

Who would be the most healthiest club in England regarding financial fair play?

DoctorGonzo08

jonny666 wrote: »

I am surprised to see figures of 60million being quoted as the fine. When I seen UEFA were planning on fining clubs for FFP breaches I really thought it would be a token fine < 1million. While 60million is pocket change for these guys it is still a lot of money.

More importantly are the CL sanctions. No one really thought clubs would be kicked out of the CL but haivng sanctions could do the trick.

60m isn't pocket change for anybody! If your running a business that's a fooking massive pocket to hold that!

mike65

Gringo180 wrote: »

Who would be the most healthiest club in England regarding financial fair play?

Arsenal its always Arsenal

Gringo180

mike65 wrote: »

Arsenal its always Arsenal

Wenger is some man, he gets an awful lot of stick off the media but my god does he know how to run a football club.

AdamD

I'm sure United are equally if not more healthy

mike65

Utd are not in Europe though

Pepe LeFrits

Even with their debts I'd say United are by far the healthiest club financially in England.

jane82

With 8 players in cl squad having to be homegrown for city are there any first team homegrown players? Seems its alot tougher sanction than it appears

Sheepy99

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.

At the end of the day it's UEFA's competition, if FFP did turn out to be illegal and then challenged, UEFA could simply revoke the invitation to the champions league that comes with finishing wherever in the league

DoctorGonzo08

Sheepy99 wrote: »

At the end of the day it's UEFA's competition, if FFP did turn out to be illegal and then challenged, UEFA could simply revoke the invitation to the champions league that comes with finishing wherever in the league

Yes, it's within their rights to suspend the team from the competition, but they then would have a case from media contracts, from say UK and France who would have paid for the rights on the basis they would be televising national clubs that have now been suspended. PLus Platini himself said UEFA had no intention of suspending teams based on breach of the ffp rules.

Sheepy99

user2011 wrote: »

All this EU rules thing is funny when if you consider who is backing PSG the state of Qatar, state backing is against EU law/competition law.

Although I hope you're right, we should all know at this stage not to believe everything we read on the internet, so any links ?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Yes, it's within their rights to suspend the team from the competition, but they then would have a case from media contracts, from say UK and France who would have paid for the rights on the basis they would be televising national clubs that have now been suspended. PLus Platini himself said UEFA had no intention of suspending teams based on breach of the ffp rules.

I'd imagine there's a clause in the contracts to deal with this.
there would have to be - in case one of the top clubs did somethign seriously over the top.

In any case, I think the law-case scenario would be easily gotten around by dropping the fine and stiffening the other non-finanacial sactions on the grounds that, no matter what the club's business side, they all still have to play by the same rules.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

By what date do the affected clubs have to formaly accept or appeal the sanctions?

gandalf

According to the bbc they have until Friday to agree a "settlement".

Sheepy99

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Yes, it's within their rights to suspend the team from the competition, but they then would have a case from media contracts, from say UK and France who would have paid for the rights on the basis they would be televising national clubs that have now been suspended. PLus Platini himself said UEFA had no intention of suspending teams based on breach of the ffp rules.

Fair point, I think that those media contracts are agreed for a few years, not on an annual basis so there's no way to know that City/PSG for example are guaranteed to qualify every year, so it's not like UEFA are cheating them out of anything as another national side will take their place.

DoctorGonzo08

Sheepy99 wrote: »

Fair point, I think that those media contracts are agreed for a few years, not on an annual basis so there's no way to know that City/PSG for example are guaranteed to qualify every year, so it's not like UEFA are cheating them out of anything as another national side will take their place.

If they replaced them with another national side though, which I can' imagine many other country's would be happy with.

user2011

Sheepy99 wrote: »

Although I hope you're right, we should all know at this stage not to believe everything we read on the internet, so any links ?

PSG's former owners, the American group Colony Capital, revealed back in December 2010 that they were looking for new investors and that search has reportedly led them to Qatar Investment Authority, an investment arm of the Qatari government.

http://www.espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/924844/qatari-group-takes-control-of-psg?cc=5739

.[13] Qatar Investment Authority became the club's majority owner in 2011 and sole shareholder in 2012.[14] The takeover made PSG the richest club in France and one of the richest in the world.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Saint-Germain_F.C.

pistolpetes11

Here is a great breakdown of last season finances

http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/fascinating-financial-blogger-swissramble-breaks-down-premier-league-1213-finances/

Arguably the finest mind on the planet when it comes to football finances is blogger @SwissRamble.

One of the “must follow” accounts on Twitter, Swiss Ramble has today broken down all the figures from the 2012/2013 season after all the records from each Premier League club were released.

Many of the graphs could prove invaluable to those of you intrigued by football finance.

Just eight of the 20 Premier League clubs last season made a profit before tax.

And, you can see why some clubs are able to pay more wages than others and how the Premier League table is often fairly easy to predict.

Enjoy!































Continued in next post if it comes out correctly

pistolpetes11

Sheepy99

user2011 wrote: »

http://www.espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/924844/qatari-group-takes-control-of-psg?cc=5739



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Saint-Germain_F.C.

Sorry user2011, I meant in relation to it being against uefa rules to be backed by a state

user2011

Sheepy99 wrote: »

Sorry user2011, I meant in relation to it being against uefa rules to be backed by a state

Never said it was..

People were discussing that the clubs being hit with sanctions could take UEFA to the EU courts (because they find UEFA's rules to harsh) but at the same time they are breaking EU rules by being backed by government/s (not sure about City)

So I found it funny that it was Ok to use one EU law to try lessen the blow but at the same time they are breaking another.

If the clubs take UEFA to court what would stop UEFA then taking them to court to put a stop to the over backing by governments/really rich people of clubs which the UEFA rules are there for in the first place.

Pepe LeFrits

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/may/06/manchestercity-uefa

Interesting. All the clubs bar City have seemingly accepted their punishments.

DoctorGonzo08

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/may/06/manchestercity-uefa

Interesting. All the clubs bar City have seemingly accepted their punishments.

Sounds like City do have a case based on that article though. By the sounds of it UEFA have deemed the Stadium Investment, which was investigated and found to be OK, is now being subtracted along with other investments agreed to be written off. If this is what tips City over the allowance, it does seem like they have a case for appeal to be fair.

mike65

Newsnight did about 15 minutes on this last night, recorded it and will have a look. Might well be on youtube or other places by now.

Sheepy99

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Sounds like City do have a case based on that article though. By the sounds of it UEFA have deemed the Stadium Investment, which was investigated and found to be OK, is now being subtracted along with other investments agreed to be written off. If this is what tips City over the allowance, it does seem like they have a case for appeal to be fair.

It clearly isn't though, clubs should kick up a fuss, if enough fo them are it then it'll make things interesting.

Sheepy99

Is the FA's FFP not similar enough to UEFA's ?
City shouldn't be allowed to win a dishonest title, bit of a joke really.

Iang87

Sheepy99 wrote: »

It clearly isn't though, clubs should kick up a fuss, if enough fo them are it then it'll make things interesting.

why isnt it

greendom

Sheepy99 wrote: »

Is the FA's FFP not similar enough to UEFA's ?
City shouldn't be allowed to win a dishonest title, bit of a joke really.

This makes no sense. They haven't been banned from competing in the Champions League have they?

EuropeanSon

Sheepy99 wrote: »

Is the FA's FFP not similar enough to UEFA's ?
City shouldn't be allowed to win a dishonest title, bit of a joke really.

I agree. No club should be allowed to waste hundreds of millions on transfers.

#arsenalrealeplwinners #moralvictory :P

DoctorGonzo08

Sheepy99 wrote: »

It clearly isn't though, clubs should kick up a fuss, if enough fo them are it then it'll make things interesting.

It clearly is, as it was investigated. Utd could easily blow City's stadium valuation out of the water if they were to look to sell the rights to Old Trafford. Similarily Stamford Bridge and Anfield would easily come in on par if they were to sell the rights.