Financial Fair Play Discussion

Dempsey

This punishment has very little impact on ManC tbh considering they dont have to spend big this summer and they only played 21 registered players last season.

Dempsey

Dempsey wrote: »

This punishment has very little impact on ManC tbh considering they dont have to spend big this summer and they only played 21 registered players last season.

True but if they step out of line again I'd guess it will be a lot harsher.

Did anyone really expect more than a slap on the wrist for first offence? This is Uefa/Fifa we are talking about

batistuta9

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

It's not really clear either way, that document specifically says 8 spots are reserved for the List A, so it's something UEFA will have to clarify.

in the case of a 25 man squad they're reserved, because they can't be anything else. did you look at ANNEX VIII?
it's clear as day. look at arsenals squad for it and you'll see

mike65

Here what the Mail say

Dempsey

Ah Mike, daily ****ing mail?

mike65

Its a handy graphic!

batistuta9

if that is true then it probably is the harshest for them, though it's only for 1 season if they comply

story on sky today saying they're going to let richards, rodwell & scott sinclair leave anyway
& say on the squad restriction
UEFA's Champions League squad restriction includes a stipulation that between four and eight players named are 'homegrown', meaning they have to be English or have spent at least three years in an English academy.


what happened the others involved

Seven other clubs, Galatasaray, Trabzonspor and Bursaspor from Turkey, Russian sides Zenit St Petersburg, Anzhi Makhachkala and Rubin Kazan, plus Levski Sofia from Bulgaria also failed FFP.

Their punishments ranged from Zenit's 12m euro fine, 6m suspended, and European competitions' squad reduction to 22 players, Rubin (6m, 3m suspended, squad 21 players), Anzhi (2m, 1m susp, squad restricted to 21) to Bursaspor, Galatasaray and Sofia's 200,000 euro fines.

DoctorGonzo08

I'm glad it's over now. And being objective I see it as generally a good thing. Limiting transfer spend is in line with what FFP have set out to do to protect the club from falling further into debt. The squad restriction is a punishment that clubs will have to take heed from as it could become important during the year if injuries hit. Once off payment has become more uniform as well so overall, it's been a good thing.

However, I can't help but feel there has been little to no attention drawn to the biggest offenders, PSG, who made no attempt to comly like the other clubs. They recieve a once off payment, no transfer limit or squad restriction. If the other 8 clubs all were adjudicated with a scaled version of the same sanctions, why have PSG being excluded? If the rule doesn't apply to everyone, why impose it at all?

batistuta9

Psg have restrictions like man city & their sponsorship deal was valued as half

DoctorGonzo08

batistuta9 wrote: »

Psg have restrictions like man city & their sponsorship deal was valued as half

Have you got any links to what PSG were actually sanctioned with? Everywhere I look it's a whole article about City with off reference to PSG.

I thought they ccepted the initial sanctions which were to do with a fine and set out plan to comply with FFP by the start of 15/16. I wasn't aware if they had revieved any squad or transfer restrictions.

batistuta9

Can't get a direct piece on it now but These are the chairmans recent comments but they mention the ffp stuff

http://m.france24.com/en/20140518-khelaifi-psg-uefa-sanctions-interview/

http://www.marca.com/2014/05/18/en/football/international_football/1400438147.html

Try searching with site:.fr after psg and it should return French sites which likely have it instead of Man city

DoctorGonzo08

batistuta9 wrote: »

Can't get a direct piece on it now but These are the chairmans recent comments but they mention the ffp stuff

http://m.france24.com/en/20140518-khelaifi-psg-uefa-sanctions-interview/

http://www.marca.com/2014/05/18/en/football/international_football/1400438147.html

Try searching with site:.fr after psg and it should return French sites which likely have it instead of Man city

By the sounds of it, it looks like identical sanctions, so nobody can complain, and have to admit FFP have stood up, which is a good thing. Good chance for it to be embedded after this.

Funny responses from the PSG owner, but his words could easily have been taken out of context, as it usually is with journalism. But if he is saying that the club will just pay whatever fine and do whatever they want, it could face a backlash from UEFA for repeat offence.

Hopefully City focus on turning a profit by the end of next year and stay within the regulations.

Agent Coulson

The Monaco owner also lost half his wealth in a divorce yesterday 3.2 billion.

I'd say that might be the end of them as big spenders in France and know need for them to worry about FFP.

greendom

Agent Coulson wrote: »

The Monaco owner also lost half his wealth in a divorce yesterday 3.2 billion.

I'd say that might be the end of them as big spenders in France and know need for them to worry about FFP.

Women, eh ??!!

Harry Palmr

As you'll know UEFA are tweaking FFP as they see its enforced a two tier structure as the side effect cost of reducing losses.

This comes from ESPN, I'm going to quote it almost in full as its easier to discuss that way

Q: What's this? UEFA President Michel Platini says they're relaxing Financial Fair Play restrictions? So they're getting rid of those pesky spending limits?

A: Not quite. They're going to consult with clubs and leagues and then vote on a proposal, most likely at the UEFA Executive Committee meeting in late June. Beyond that, as I understand it, the limits -- which this year will be €45 million over three years -- will still be there. And, if anything, they're going to tighten, as next year they're due to fall even further. What they are hoping to do is to allow a little more flexibility if somebody comes to them beforehand.

Q: What do you mean?

A: So bear in mind this is just a concept, the details need to be worked out. But the idea is that if someone comes to them and says "Look, I'm willing to put x amount of my own money into my club this year and it will mean we'll be in breach this season, but I have a three year plan to get us back into compliance" then they'll consider it. And they may give the green light.

Q: What's the logic there?

A: They think of it something like this: Imagine you buy a house and it's a real fixer-upper, like on those home improvement shows on TV. The house costs, say, $200,000 but there's a law that says you can't spend more than $5000 a year on home improvement. That doesn't do you much good, does it? You want to chuck in, say $100,000 to fix the roof, glaze the windows, build a swimming pool and paint the darn thing. And if you do that, you know your house will be worth $400,000. But if all you can spend is $5000 a year, then it will take you forever to fix it up and you may decide it's not worth your time to buy it.

Q: Enough with the house. What does this have to do with football clubs?

A: Well, there are some clubs who are basically decrepit houses but have plenty of potential. And they either have owners who are willing to invest big in them but can't -- because of the FFP restrictions -- or investors who would buy a club but are reluctant to do so because they don't want to wait around for decades for the kind of "organic growth" -- through infrastructure and youth development -- that current FFP allows.

Q: OK. So I can buy, say, Everton or Fiorentina or Sevilla, and spend $200m on players, turn into a powerhouse overnight and compete with Chelsea, Juventus and Barcelona? All I need to show is that by spending that money I'll win the Champions' League, double revenue and UEFA will allow it? Cool.

A: No, you can't. It has to be a plan that UEFA thinks is plausible. You can spend a little more, but it has to be realistic investment. So maybe you beef up your commercial operation. Or if, say, you're a new investor and you've inherited reams of debt, maybe some of that debt servicing won't count towards the total and you'll get some wiggle room there. But it has to be credible and business-led and it has to have the clear goal of reaching the parameters within a couple of years. And at every step you need to hit certain targets otherwise you'll be in breach. So it can't just be about doubling your transfer spend and your wage bill in the hopes of earning it back via prize money.

Q: Shame. But how does UEFA know what's credible and what's not? Why do they get to judge clubs' business plans?

A: They would probably say that it's pretty much what they do now with clubs who are in breach of existing regulations. Remember how Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain got those huge fines last year? Well, two-thirds of that withheld prize money will be returned to them if they meet certain agreed upon financial targets. This is sort of the same thing. Except rather than being forced to hit certain stricter goals after you overspend, you ask permission to overspend and, if it's granted, you have to meet those strict goals.

Q: Wait a minute... PSG and City aren't going to like this. If these rules had been in force a few years ago, they wouldn't have been in breach of FFP...


A: If the rules had been around and if they had submitted a credible business plan and obtained pre-approval from UEFA then, sure, they might not have been in breach or their breaches might not have been punished as much as they were. Yeah, I'd be a little annoyed. It's like getting a citation for smoking medicinal marijuana shortly before the law changes and you can get a permit for it. Then again, those were the rules at the time. And they were pretty clear to all.

Q: So why are UEFA doing this? Is FFP not working?

A: I think the FFP part is working in the sense that it is achieving it's main goal: to limit club losses. Since 2011, overall losses in Europe have gone down by some 75 percent and that's pretty huge. That's what everyone wanted. The problem is the unwanted side-effect, what UEFA call "ossification". Basically, it means the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. The biggest, wealthiest clubs also make the most money and so they can sign the best players. And that then means they win the most silverware and get the most prize money and the most new fans, because, let's face it, many who are new to the sport want to root for the big clubs they see winning things on TV. So it basically creates an unbreakable cycle where the gap between a tiny elite number of super-clubs and everyone else continues to grow.

Q: And all this is down to FFP?

A: Not just FFP. There have been other factors too. Like the boom in media and commercial rights which, logically, have gone to the biggest clubs. I mean, when Chevrolet decided to sign a shirt sponsorship deal with a club, they did it with Manchester United, not some mid-table club or even a top club in a less popular league. This new revenue has gone almost exclusively to the top. That's not down to FFP, but, coupled with the FFP restrictions, it has exacerbated the problem.

Q: So UEFA has finally noticed this?

A: I think they noticed it a while ago. And they know it's not great for business. Look around Europe. Barcelona or Real Madrid have won 10 of the last 11 Liga titles. Bayern, 7 of the last 11 in Germany, including three straight. Juventus have four straight in Serie A, PSG, three straight in France. It's further down the food chain too. Benfica or Porto have won 13 straight in Portugal, Olympiacos 10 of 11 in Greece. In the Champions League, Bayern and Real Madrid reached five consecutive semifinals, Barcelona made it four times in the past five seasons.

Q: OK, I get your drift.

A: So this is one way to address that. Allow clubs with a coherent business plan to invest a little beyond the usual parameters where there is a clear plan on how make the money back. It's not the only thing they're doing. They've also reduced the market pool (the portion of competition prize money that is allocated based on the value of a country's TV deal, rather than performance) and seeded the top seven national champions in the Champions' League group stage. I wouldn't be surprised if they also increase the home-grown player requirement, just to spread the talent around a little more.

Q: Yeah, but these are baby steps...

A: True, it's not exactly sweeping reform. You're not getting an NFL-style equal distribution of revenue or a salary cap or anything like that. But that's not realistic either. They're looking for little tweaks that will ultimately amount to sustainable growth. They don't want to penalize the big, wealthy clubs but they realize that a closed shop at the top is bad for business. So the idea is to grow the pie so the big clubs are happy, while also growing the number of clubs who can compete by attracting investment of the right kind.

Q: What does that mean, the "right kind"?

A: Investment that brings sustainable growth. They don't want some guy who saddles the club with $300 million worth of debt thinking he'll win everything and then walks away. Or even someone who puts in $300 million of his own money and then decides to stop spending, leaving the club with a bunch of hefty contracts. All it does is drive up costs and create an "arms race" of the kind that ultimately bankrupts clubs.

Q: So is this good for football?

A: Well, it's good that they realize there's a problem and are doing something about it. Until we have more details, it's hard to judge the individual measures but it should attract more investors and, likely, better ones too. Whether it will work or not, remains to be seen.

derm0j073

Happy that UFEA have copped on that FFP isn't working , the gap between rich and poor is getting wider . Never understood why they didn't push for a team salary cap but I suppose the big clubs just wouldn't play ball .

EuropeanSon

derm0j073 wrote: »

Happy that UFEA have copped on that FFP isn't working , the gap between rich and poor is getting wider . Never understood why they didn't push for a team salary cap but I suppose the big clubs just wouldn't play ball .

I think the players would be the ones most unwilling to play ball in that situation.

LuckyLloyd

Nothing in that FAQ about legal challenges I see.

Iang87

Not surprised with this backtracking at all. The original stance was so obviously geared at the top 5 or 6 in europe that there was always going to be some bit of noise eventually. Hopefully they get rid of these ridiculous restrictions altogether. Absolute shambles of a setup from day 1