Financial Fair Play Discussion

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.

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.