PDA

View Full Version : Financial Fair Play (FFP) Discussion Thread.



Pages : [1] 2

tonylet
1-2-11, 18:13
When are these new rules introduced? Is there anything more on this or just a speculation for now? If this is being introduced how are clubs like Chelsea and Man City going to cope knowing their wage bil. Yaya Toure 200k weekly :eek: Torres 150k or whatever it is :rolleyes:

CorkDork
1-2-11, 18:17
It begins after this season. The summer transfer window will be counted toward the 2011/12 accounting, which is the first one to require clubs to spend within their means. This is why the Chavs wanted Torres so badly now - so they wouldn't have a 50 million pound purchase on their books for that.

tonylet
1-2-11, 18:19
We are a bit screwed then, even if owners want to spend they may be restricted?

smokintony
1-2-11, 18:21
We are a bit screwed then, even if owners want to spend they may be restricted?

Nice excuse for em init

blaze31
1-2-11, 18:23
We are a bit screwed then, even if owners want to spend they may be restricted?

no not at all! we turn over 30m a season pure profit where as teams like Chavski, Manchity will struggle!

from what i gather owners are alowed to stump up 15m for the first few seasons then that will be lowered to 10m for future seasons.

rafathehut
1-2-11, 18:24
if dont qualify for europe you can spend what you want in the summer window

Rikin23
1-2-11, 18:26
We havent had any expenditures so far so we will start with a clean slate as the owners wiped out all debt when they came in. The sales of babel and torres pretty much levelled out Carroll and Suarez so we should be able to spend willingly! Teams like Chelse and Man City will suffer!
SSN also reported that Owners of clubs will only be allowed to use 15million of their own money every season, the rest has to be directly from the club!

Chelsea and City's days are over!
Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal will only prosper from this!

djskuff
1-2-11, 18:27
We are a bit screwed then, even if owners want to spend they may be restricted?

No because we operate at a huge profit, I think the wage bill is 57% of the income of a reported 220m+ a year

Where as Chelsea still reportedly running at a loss..

As for Man city....

While these rules were brought in to help level out the playing field, they are infact flawed, as the biggest well run clubs will still have more money than most, because of the huge fan bases

zoso1
1-2-11, 18:27
if dont qualify for europe you can spend what you want in the summer window

so thats what its all been about then! We'll be ok then

CorkDork
1-2-11, 18:28
We are a bit screwed then, even if owners want to spend they may be restricted?

Not really - LFC can count on 30-40 million in profits each year, as now we have no debt to service. With the emphasis on youth development, new players may be very cheap to us, or sold on at a massive profit. A new Stanley Park/Anfield (the cost of which does not count against the fair play rules) will generate another 25-35 million a year.

Its City and Chavs that need to worry. Between them they have LOST over half a billion pounds in the last three years. They won't be able to bring anyone in until they cull their herd considerably

ChairmanOfTheBored
1-2-11, 18:30
LFC profits of 30 Million and there is still a certain amount of sugar daddying allowed under the rules, between 30 and 40 million.

Give us a heft budget when almost nobody else will have any!

Stadium Development and Youth Development costs are not counted also!

tonylet
1-2-11, 18:31
Sounds good to me. I don't know what the exact rules are, but I'm sure we'll be on the up. We make profit and we are a big club. Once we get that new stadium or expand Anfield, we gonna be back big time.

Exciting times ahead.

Just a shame we couldn't buy Adam and Young (the latter a speculation only). They could have really pushed us this season. Adam has great delivery and Young gives us width. I'm still worried about giving service to Carroll. I still have hopes for this season. Maybe not 4th, but 5th is definitely within our grasps.

phuzz
1-2-11, 18:33
What happens if man united can't clear their debt. Does that mean they're screwed until they do?

smokintony
1-2-11, 18:33
LFC profits of 30 Million and there is still a certain amount of sugar daddying allowed under the rules, between 30 and 40 million.

Give us a heft budget when almost nobody else will have any!

Stadium Development and Youth Development costs are not counted also!

We need new stadium/Develop Anfield ASAP then

tonylet
1-2-11, 18:34
What happens if man united can't clear their debt. Does that mean they're screwed until they do?

Yea, what happens with clubs with massive debt?

djskuff
1-2-11, 18:38
What happens if man united can't clear their debt. Does that mean they're screwed until they do?

If they operate at a loss I believe they cannot play in Europe.. But I think utd still make a profit, so unfortunately they'll be ok

ChairmanOfTheBored
1-2-11, 18:40
We need new stadium/Develop Anfield ASAP then

Its almost as if they were written to benefit us... now!

I think FSG had a big focus on this when they took over the club.

Clubs must now make money, for their owners.

How much of it is up to them, but I think Chelsea needed more than Torres to solve their ills. They have an aging squad and the youth in place isnt of a good enough standard.

City can live off selling players and almost inevitable champions league money.

The beloved arsenal model, that Henry kept harping on about is even clearer now. Imagine, having a new stadium with its boost in profits, a whole comercial and residential development on the site of anfield, community and area development (much needed in anfield) all bringing in the money.... and being able to write the cost of the stadium payments off the amount we have to spend. Its millions and millions extra on top of the already hefty amount we can spend!

tonylet
1-2-11, 18:41
If they operate at a loss I believe they cannot play in Europe.. But I think utd still make a profit, so unfortunately they'll be ok

They operate at a profit, but they'd still find it hard under their current situation to compete on the transfer market.

rcsc1
1-2-11, 18:42
this surely will drive the cost of players down, I know we have just spent but all players everywhere could be at a much more realistic price.

tonylet
1-2-11, 18:43
And how on earth are Spurs going to cope when they miss out on CL. 40m for Aguero? :D

Gareth Bale in the summer please :IN:

HuytonHuyton
1-2-11, 18:43
Did anybody tell Torres about this? :D

KopiteSpartan
1-2-11, 18:46
My concern is that the clubs will find their way around it by playing with their books. Like Roman could buy ad space at Chelsea for 100m and then it would count as their revenue? Or he could get other businesses to do it and later reimburse them?

CorkDork
1-2-11, 18:46
What happens if man united can't clear their debt. Does that mean they're screwed until they do?

As long as their service costs for the debt can be covered by their revenue - they'll be fine.

johnnymomo1
1-2-11, 18:48
We are a bit screwed then, even if owners want to spend they may be restricted?

Far from it, as we have one of the biggest turnovers in europe we will benefit, add a new or increased capacity stadium and the worldwide fan base our bitter cousins across the park constantly tease us about...then the future is bright....in fact the financial fair play rules are one of the reasons the yanks wanted us in the first place..as it puts us firmly at the forefront of europe again

tonylet
1-2-11, 18:49
My concern is that the clubs will find their way around it by playing with their books. Like Roman could buy ad space at Chelsea for 100m and then it would count as their revenue? Or he could get other businesses to do it and later reimburse them?

You sure this is gonna be that easy? :rolleyes:

johnnymomo1
1-2-11, 18:49
My concern is that the clubs will find their way around it by playing with their books. Like Roman could buy ad space at Chelsea for 100m and then it would count as their revenue? Or he could get other businesses to do it and later reimburse them?

I think it has been thought through a bit more than you suspect m8....

KopiteSpartan
1-2-11, 18:50
Rich people who own clubs are clever at avoiding things that's all I'm saying. If it works out like it should do though, happy days :scarf

johnnymomo1
1-2-11, 18:51
Sounds good to me. I don't know what the exact rules are, but I'm sure we'll be on the up. We make profit and we are a big club. Once we get that new stadium or expand Anfield, we gonna be back big time.

Exciting times ahead.

Just a shame we couldn't buy Adam and Young (the latter a speculation only). They could have really pushed us this season. Adam has great delivery and Young gives us width. I'm still worried about giving service to Carroll. I still have hopes for this season. Maybe not 4th, but 5th is definitely within our grasps.

The latter was not speculation m8, only villa didnt want to do it...will happen in the summer

tonylet
1-2-11, 18:53
The latter was not speculation m8, only villa didnt want to do it...will happen in the summer

Yup. Him and Adam on 1 year left in their contracts if they don't sign a new one. About time we get some British players, who can actually play.

ChairmanOfTheBored
1-2-11, 18:54
Rich people who own clubs are clever at avoiding things that's all I'm saying. If it works out like it should do though, happy days :scarf

Be a beautiful piece of accounting if you can numbers that size! You deserve to play in europe if you can magic that amount of from nowhere.

There is a rule about owner sponsorship too, companies that the owner is affiliated with or owns cant put in more than a certain amount.

tonylet
1-2-11, 18:55
So, there's two parts of the Torres story. We could have said 'no' and Chelsea wouldn't have bought him in the summer due to new rules. At the same time we had to sell, cos nobody was gonna give us 50m next season.

KingLuisNo7
1-2-11, 18:55
According to ITV news. Out of the top 6 richest clubs in England. Only Spurs and Arsenal would fit these new rules. :confused:

tonylet
1-2-11, 18:56
According to ITV news. Out of the top 6 richest clubs in England. Only Spurs and Arsenal would fit these new rules. :confused:

Did they hear we changed ownership?! :D

ITV mate. What can I say :IN:

KingLuisNo7
1-2-11, 18:58
Did they hear we changed ownership?! :D

ITV mate. What can I say :IN:

Idiots!

ChairmanOfTheBored
1-2-11, 19:02
Did they hear we changed ownership?! :D

ITV mate. What can I say :IN:

IIRC The rules themselves arent due till 2014/15 but they apply for 3 years previous, hence the need for control now. Given our years before NESV or FSG or whoever they are this week then ITV technically speaking arent wrong.

If the rules came in tomorrow and said that for the past 3 years you have been only able spend what you make then we would fail

david05111
1-2-11, 19:14
Well, if I were Chelsea, I'd do what I could to make more money. The most obvious is to raise ticket prices. Chelsea is an affluent neighborhood, yes? Smaller stadium, large demand, repeat sellouts...sounds like a recipe for raising the prices to the max level they can continue to fill the stadium for. That would raise profits...

biggiemal
1-2-11, 19:24
According to ITV news. Out of the top 6 richest clubs in England. Only Spurs and Arsenal would fit these new rules. :confused:

The fact that they have omitted us aside...how in God's name do Spurs qualify :confused::confused::confused:

TheRattlesnake
1-2-11, 19:30
I like to cheer myself up by thinking of it this way.....

Picture the scenario.....

The 2010/11 season is over and Carroll and Suarez are growing into their new club well. Liverpool have a team that Gerrard and Carra aside is full of players with many years ahead of them at the top level. We could easily afford 2 top class players within the new rules given we have almost certainly got money already banked, add this seasons turnover and the 15m the owners are allowed to invest and you could easily see 2/3 top signings coming in whilst remaining in the new rules....

Lets say for arguments sake....Young (15m), Hazard (15m) and Richards (15m). That would be 45m. I have based the fees on the fact that fees will have to lower under the new rules and that these players will all most likely want moves from their current clubs. That 345m would be covered by our turnover and the 15m from FSG. Add to that any money already in our seperate transfer account and you may be able to add Adam to that list for 10m.

Now with a spend of say 55m you could them take off ANY funds raised from players going out. We are due to sell Aqualani to Juve. We have Konchesky and Poulsen that could be moved on as well as Kyriakos. Lets just say even if we only raised 15m in sales (Aqualani being 12m of that) that would bring our net spend down to 40m well within the guidelines.

SO we have spent (net) 40m and say have this squad....

Reina, Jones, Carra, Skrtl, Agger, Wilson, Richards, Kelly, Ayala, Aurelio, Johnson, Lucas, Adam, Gerrard, Meirleless, Young, Hazard, Maxi, Cole, Shelvey, Spearing, Jovanovic, Kuyt, Ngog, Carroll, Suarez

Now that is a massively improved squad with a lot of young players and players yet to peak..A squad whilst still having room for improvement....the following summer you do the same again....couple of fringe players out 2 top class players in......staying within fair play rules.

OKAY you still with me.....here is the other side of my scenario.....:)

At the same time, chelsea, having just reported 68m losses have most likely won nowt. Their squad is FULL of players 27 and older, many even over 30. Torres will be 27 or nearing it. Drogba, Cole, Terry and Anelka will ALL be over 30. This is a squad in major need of overhaul and with a squad making ZERO actual profit how do they fund this overhaul?

I think short term I will allow chelsea fans to enjoy their transfer record signing and the fact we are where we are...but we are turning the corner and as they say you should treat people well on the way up as they are the people you will pass on the way back down.

I for one, whilst sorry Torres left us am very very excited by everything that has gone on in recent weeks at LFC. King Kenny back in charge, Pass and move football returning slowly but surely, Backroom staff strengthened with Clarke, Good Signings in Suarez and Carroll as well as the good young talent in Shelvey, Wilson, Pacheco. Add to that the players we are linked with now, players like Young, Adam, Richards....young British players with premiership experience and the odd european player with proven ability.

All we need now is a world class stadium and its looking VERY VERY rosy

tonylet
1-2-11, 19:32
The fact that they have omitted us aside...how in God's name do Spurs qualify :confused::confused::confused:

They don't have debt and they have not a bad fan base and 40k+ stadium possibly.

Andyfagan
1-2-11, 19:57
They don't have debt and they have not a bad fan base and 40k+ stadium possibly.

But they blow an insane amount of cash on players, they couldn't possibly be making that amount of profit.





Regarding our owners putting no money in next window: We have players coming back from loan who we can sell for a lot of money (Aqua, Konch, Insua, Poulsen would generate 20-25m) and I imagine that if the owners injected cash NOW so we operated at a profit then we could spend that cash in the summer with no problems and break even, if you get me...

TAFFYFROG
1-2-11, 20:26
So based on what others are saying on here we could spend whatever we get from players sales, plus our profits of 30m to 40m per year plus an additional 15m from the owners

Big difference between us and City or Chavs is that we could invest that every year. They do not have our revenue streams, and if they fail to qualify for Champions League they are screwed

This summer is crucial for us because our youngsters still are not quite ready and we have a few older players and others who are not good enough to contribute much to a Premiership title challenge

We may need as many as 8-10 players out (including some on the peripherary or currently on loan) and bring in as many as 4-5 into the first team, and another 3-4 top quality back ups into the squad

Jamezzz
1-2-11, 22:03
Even without the introduction of a new stadium, our profits will increase beyond the 30 mil or so that is being quoted.

NESV/FSG have stated that they are looking to really exploit our name in the Far East and other places around the world, as they feel, although we are a massive brand outside of the UK, (along side cough cough, Man U, cough, and Madrid) there is definite room for improvement/expansion in terms of merchandising and commercial power.

That figure of 30 mil is only likely to be inflated further when the money from partnership agreements with 188BET, Lucozade and the 80m four-year shirt sponsorship deal with Standard Chartered are factored in for the last financial year.

After researching the Red Sox venture, I've found out that in 2002, when NESV took over, Red Sox had 40 sponsors, since then this had been bumped up to 100!

Now if you are to throw in the issue of the stadium, then we all know how that can boost figures eg The Emirates.

Our owners are extremely astute business men and they won't operate on a loss regardless of these fair play rules. However their approach will be of massive advantage to us in the coming years.

At the end of the storm is a golden sky. :scarf

bburgstriker
1-2-11, 22:11
I've heard that Spurs' finances are actually really poor right now and soon enough they're going to be in real trouble and will be just another club that 'Arry has gone to and destroyed with his spending obsession (ask any Pompey fan about it)

TheBestIsLFC
1-2-11, 22:19
How will united do so if they in debt :confused:

Jamezzz
1-2-11, 22:23
Spurs are a strange club to analyse really, in one season and a Bale hat-trick at the San Siro, (a game they still lost) they have gone mad.
There is every chance Spurs won't qualify for the CL this season, so what happens then?

With no CL and very fickle fans, how does this effect their plans for a new stadium.

There is every chance Harry will do the off when England come calling, a good manager, but very little loyalty, which he has shown several times, most noticeable his spells between Pompey and the Saints, then what for Spurs?

So they'll have a crazy wage bill, not much in terms of global marketing appeal, and potentially 'Arry-less. There are a lot of players at that club that are there because they saw an opportunity to grab a nice wage packet and play champions league football.

IamTheWalrus83
1-2-11, 22:46
My concern is that the clubs will find their way around it by playing with their books. Like Roman could buy ad space at Chelsea for 100m and then it would count as their revenue? Or he could get other businesses to do it and later reimburse them?

My understanding is that any sponsorship deals agreed for shirt sponsorship, stadium naming rights etc will come under scrutiny to make sure they are inline with market value. In all likelihood they will be put under greater scrutiny if owners other business interests are offered stadium sponsorship opportunities.

So if Abramovich were to buy 100m of his own advertising space
1) He would have to prove it was inline with market value
2) It would be his own money he was wasting.

The most successful clubs commercially (arsenal and liverpool) have always enjoyed long and steady relationships with key commercial partners and this will be to our benefit.

Also imo we would be hard pushed to find a better commercial director than Ian Ayre.

Blazt3roidz
2-2-11, 00:57
I like to cheer myself up by thinking of it this way.....

Picture the scenario.....

The 2010/11 season is over and Carroll and Suarez are growing into their new club well. Liverpool have a team that Gerrard and Carra aside is full of players with many years ahead of them at the top level. We could easily afford 2 top class players within the new rules given we have almost certainly got money already banked, add this seasons turnover and the 15m the owners are allowed to invest and you could easily see 2/3 top signings coming in whilst remaining in the new rules....

Lets say for arguments sake....Young (15m), Hazard (15m) and Richards (15m). That would be 45m. I have based the fees on the fact that fees will have to lower under the new rules and that these players will all most likely want moves from their current clubs. That 345m would be covered by our turnover and the 15m from FSG. Add to that any money already in our seperate transfer account and you may be able to add Adam to that list for 10m.

Now with a spend of say 55m you could them take off ANY funds raised from players going out. We are due to sell Aqualani to Juve. We have Konchesky and Poulsen that could be moved on as well as Kyriakos. Lets just say even if we only raised 15m in sales (Aqualani being 12m of that) that would bring our net spend down to 40m well within the guidelines.

SO we have spent (net) 40m and say have this squad....

Reina, Jones, Carra, Skrtl, Agger, Wilson, Richards, Kelly, Ayala, Aurelio, Johnson, Lucas, Adam, Gerrard, Meirleless, Young, Hazard, Maxi, Cole, Shelvey, Spearing, Jovanovic, Kuyt, Ngog, Carroll, Suarez

Now that is a massively improved squad with a lot of young players and players yet to peak..A squad whilst still having room for improvement....the following summer you do the same again....couple of fringe players out 2 top class players in......staying within fair play rules.

OKAY you still with me.....here is the other side of my scenario.....:)

At the same time, chelsea, having just reported 68m losses have most likely won nowt. Their squad is FULL of players 27 and older, many even over 30. Torres will be 27 or nearing it. Drogba, Cole, Terry and Anelka will ALL be over 30. This is a squad in major need of overhaul and with a squad making ZERO actual profit how do they fund this overhaul?

I think short term I will allow chelsea fans to enjoy their transfer record signing and the fact we are where we are...but we are turning the corner and as they say you should treat people well on the way up as they are the people you will pass on the way back down.

I for one, whilst sorry Torres left us am very very excited by everything that has gone on in recent weeks at LFC. King Kenny back in charge, Pass and move football returning slowly but surely, Backroom staff strengthened with Clarke, Good Signings in Suarez and Carroll as well as the good young talent in Shelvey, Wilson, Pacheco. Add to that the players we are linked with now, players like Young, Adam, Richards....young British players with premiership experience and the odd european player with proven ability.

All we need now is a world class stadium and its looking VERY VERY rosy

:D :D Mate, I can't stop grinning at this thought.

All of a sudden, i feel EVIL muahahah *rubs hands together - mr burns style*

Most Excellent :D :D

RedFirefly
2-2-11, 01:06
the Man city's, chelski's, Real Madrid's of this world will TWIST their earnings like Tax returns. Man City plan's on building hotels etc which WON'T come from City but the earnings count towards it. Football will just become ever bigger corporations to compenate!

Pete_lad2014
2-2-11, 01:29
Im sure Clubs like City and Chelski willfind loopholes in this rule but as i understand it Owners can put up to 25m in falling to 20m on top of what the club earns. We should be fine, as ive said before all the money we make from sales can be spent so this summer assuming NESV stump up 20m for us i could see us selling about 30m worth of players giving us a potential warchest of about 50m to spend.

Also i do agree the money in todays game is wild especially the wages and in my view they should be capped, ut UEFA are making it out that the Premiersship is at fault, but am i write in saying Napoli spent 7m on Maradona in 1984 and what is that in todays market also im sure Milan spent 14m on Papin in 92

TeenageMutantNinJaSkrtel
2-2-11, 01:58
the Man city's, chelski's, Real Madrid's of this world will TWIST their earnings like Tax returns. Man City plan's on building hotels etc which WON'T come from City but the earnings count towards it. Football will just become ever bigger corporations to compenate!

Yep, City are planning building a theme park, drive in cinema's, the full works.

They can spend what they want on development, it doesn't count to the fair play rules.

Spurs are also trying to get funding for their new stadium from the Olympic committee or something like that.

WALKONLFC
2-2-11, 02:04
http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf

If you can stomach it

WALKONLFC
2-2-11, 02:06
http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/protectingthegame/financialfairplay/news/newsid=1520059.html

again, if you can stomach it.

Restecpa
2-2-11, 02:25
the Man city's, chelski's, Real Madrid's of this world will TWIST their earnings like Tax returns. Man City plan's on building hotels etc which WON'T come from City but the earnings count towards it. Football will just become ever bigger corporations to compenate!

Sourced from the Break Even Requirement of the UEFA Regs (http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf):

Relevant income is defined as revenue from gate receipts, broadcasting rights, sponsorship and advertising, commercial activities and other operating income, plus either profit on disposal of player registrations or income from disposal of player registrations, excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets and finance income. It does not include any non-monetary items or certain income from non-football operations.

Relevant expenses is defined as cost of sales, employee benefits expenses and other operating expenses, plus either amortisation or costs of acquiring player registrations, finance costs and dividends. It does not include depreciation/impairment of tangible fixed assets, amortisation/impairment of intangible fixed assets (other than player registrations), expenditure on youth development activities, expenditure on community development activities, any other non-monetary items, finance costs directly attributable to the construction of tangible fixed assets, tax expenses or certain expenses from non-football operations


So from my limited reading and limited knowledge of this stuff. ManC could build a hotel but the revenue it generates cannot be counted as 'Relevant Income'. Similarly it appears that the construction of a hotel would also not be counted as a relevant expense, therefore it would be a bad business decision for a football club to build a hotel, unless the revenue is directed towards the youth development ;) (a discussion for another day)

If my understanding of this is incorrect can someone please right my wrong.

MircKing
2-2-11, 02:28
All we need is a new stadium...we should be looking at 100.000 seater. I recon we could fill that no problem. With the King in charge playing the Pass & Move and Owner that are showing us they mean business. Its just want we need.

SUPERLFCMANFORUMHERO
2-2-11, 02:31
It begins after this season. The summer transfer window will be counted toward the 2011/12 accounting, which is the first one to require clubs to spend within their means. This is why the Chavs wanted Torres so badly now - so they wouldn't have a 50 million pound purchase on their books for that.

and why Torres was so desperate to leave too perhaps?

He knew it was his last chance at a massive paycheck.

Restecpa
2-2-11, 02:33
and why Torres was so desperate to leave too perhaps?

He knew it was his last chance at a massive paycheck.

Surely 50K per week is enough for any player! I hear he may be on upwards of 150-170k!!:eek:

koomen84
2-2-11, 02:46
To be honest if a new stadium is to be built Liverpool should share it with Everton.

The cost of building a brand new 100,000 seat stadium is always lower if two clubs can share it. In addition, you can have twice the number of sponsors, two sets of supporters keeping the seats occupied and you can also re-develop the old stadium ground into something else.

And don't forget since Liverpool wage bill is 109mil while Everton wage bill is 49mil both clubs will benefit enormously having a larger stadium with a lower running cost.

Its a win-win for both clubs.

cravenz
2-2-11, 03:06
Report: Chelsea's 58.5 Million Move For Fernando Torres A Worrying Sign For UEFA (http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/85/england/2011/02/01/2333026/report-chelseas-585-million-move-for-fernando-torres-a)
UEFA watched with surprise as Chelsea signed Fernando Torres from Liverpool for 58.5 million.
By Stefan Coerts
Feb 1, 2011 6:24:00 AM

According to a report in the Guardian, UEFA has reacted with surprise to Chelsea's capture of Liverpool attacker Fernando Torres for a reported fee of 58.5 million on deadline day of the January transfer window.

Chelsea revealed losses of 83m over the 2009-10 campaign on Monday and the club's decision to spend close to 60m on Torres despite the worrying financial situation didn't go down too well with Europe's football governing body.

An UEFA insider supposedly described the willingness to bid 58.5m for a single player as "a worrying sign". UEFA reportedly consider Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich to be a key component of its financial fair play regulations. The aforementioned regulations seek to limit clubs' losses to 45m over a three-year period beginning this season.

UEFA president Michel Platini recently warned that clubs that don't comply with the fair play regulations face being banned from Europe.

"It will be time for them to face the music if there is a club that doesn't fall in line," Platini was quoted as saying.

----

I wonder how ironic or funny it would be if Chelski get banned from Europe next season? :IN: Probably won't happen, but :D

Darrren1
6-2-11, 04:11
Just trying to think about ways that teams will get around the new fair play rules. How would UEFA be able to stop the following scenario?

Chelsea want to sign Aguero for 40m, so Roman gives Barnet 40m as a gift (pretty sure its ok for anyone to give a club a donation) and gets them to buy him on a 1 week contract. A week later Aguero is a free agent and can leave Barnet and go to Chelsea on a free.

Even if there is a sticking point about giving players a 1 week contract, they could give him a normal 3 year contract and still sell him to Chelsea for a nominal fee - say 0.5m. Obviously there would need to be some trust that Barnet wouldn't just keep Aguero there for 3 years! But assuming they play along, Barnet would get a nice 500k out of it and wouldn't have to worry about being banned from Europe for making a big loss.

Muller2001
6-2-11, 04:20
Just trying to think about ways that teams will get around the new fair play rules. How would UEFA be able to stop the following scenario?

Chelsea want to sign Aguero for 40m, so Roman gives Barnet 40m as a gift (pretty sure its ok for anyone to give a club a donation) and gets them to buy him on a 1 week contract. A week later Aguero is a free agent and can leave Barnet and go to Chelsea on a free.

Even if there is a sticking point about giving players a 1 week contract, they could give him a normal 3 year contract and still sell him to Chelsea for a nominal fee - say 0.5m. Obviously there would need to be some trust that Barnet wouldn't just keep Aguero there for 3 years! But assuming they play along, Barnet would get a nice 500k out of it and wouldn't have to worry about being banned from Europe for making a big loss.

If he wanted to join chelsea, which they shouldn't be able to know until they can talk to him after a fee is agreed

Darrren1
6-2-11, 05:19
If he wanted to join chelsea, which they shouldn't be able to know until they can talk to him after a fee is agreed

Well if Torres feels he has more chance of winning things at Chelsea, Im pretty sure a Barnet striker would feel the same!

Seriously though, of course teams will talk to players privately. Or they could even make it look legit and go through the correct chanels. Agree a fee of 39m with Atletico, talk to Aguero and sort out the personal terms, and then at the last moment they could be 'outbid' by Barnet with their 40m offer. The official line would be that Aguero was all set to join Chelsea, but when Barnet came in for him he found the challenge of helping them climb up the leagues too much to resist! And then the following week..... 'nah, I'm bored of this league 2 idea - Im off to Chelsea after all'.

What can UEFA do?

SixStringLuke
6-2-11, 07:17
Well if Torres feels he has more chance of winning things at Chelsea, Im pretty sure a Barnet striker would feel the same!

Seriously though, of course teams will talk to players privately. Or they could even make it look legit and go through the correct chanels. Agree a fee of 39m with Atletico, talk to Aguero and sort out the personal terms, and then at the last moment they could be 'outbid' by Barnet with their 40m offer. The official line would be that Aguero was all set to join Chelsea, but when Barnet came in for him he found the challenge of helping them climb up the leagues too much to resist! And then the following week..... 'nah, I'm bored of this league 2 idea - Im off to Chelsea after all'.

What can UEFA do?

I believe UEFA doesn't allow a player to play for 3 different clubs in a calendar year.

Darrren1
6-2-11, 07:22
I believe UEFA doesn't allow a player to play for 3 different clubs in a calendar year.

Just for a second there I thought you'd nailed it. But I think the rule applies to a season rather than a calendar year. Otherwise Konchesky would have been free to join anyone in January (instead it needed some sort of emergency loan to allow him to go to Forest). So in the summer, a player can move to a new club and then move again to a 2nd club during that same season.

SixStringLuke
6-2-11, 07:29
Just for a second there I thought you'd nailed it. But I think the rule applies to a season rather than a calendar year. Otherwise Konchesky would have been free to join anyone in January (instead it needed some sort of emergency loan to allow him to go to Forest). So in the summer, a player can move to a new club and then move again to a 2nd club during that same season.

I don't think they can. Konchesky was allowed to go on emergency loan precisely because it was an emergency and I believe UEFA had to sign off on the move.

If you think about it, I believe we are both right. If a player moves to a new club in the summer window, he can only move to another club in the next SUMMER window. So the player would have to stay at that club for a full season before making a move.

Darrren1
6-2-11, 07:37
I don't think they can. Konchesky was allowed to go on emergency loan precisely because it was an emergency and I believe UEFA had to sign off on the move.

If you think about it, I believe we are both right. If a player moves to a new club in the summer window, he can only move to another club in the next SUMMER window. So the player would have to stay at that club for a full season before making a move.

But if what you were saying was right, then there would have been no problem in Konchesky moving in January as it was a new calendar year. Surely the fact that there was an issue with it proves that the rule applies to a season and not a calendar year?

I would imagine that if Aguero moved from Atletico to Barnet in the summer then Barnet would count as his first club for the new season. That would leave him free to move to Chelsea at some point during the season (be it a week later, or in January).

SixStringLuke
6-2-11, 07:45
But if what you were saying was right, then there would have been no problem in Konchesky moving in January as it was a new calendar year. Surely the fact that there was an issue with it proves that the rule applies to a season and not a calendar year?

I would imagine that if Aguero moved from Atletico to Barnet in the summer then Barnet would count as his first club for the new season. That would leave him free to move to Chelsea at some point during the season (be it a week later, or in January).

I thought calendar year means from say July 2010 to July 2011....I thought I read that in the Uefa website. So if a player is signed in the January transfer window, he can only move the next january window. I think that rule applies to either a full season or a full calendar year, whichever comes first

Darrren1
6-2-11, 08:01
I thought calendar year means from say July 2010 to July 2011....I thought I read that in the Uefa website. So if a player is signed in the January transfer window, he can only move the next january window. I think that rule applies to either a full season or a full calendar year, whichever comes first

From FIFA rules:

Article 5.3

Players may be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one season. During this period, the
player is only eligible to play official matches for two clubs. As an exception to this rule, a player moving
between two clubs belonging to associations with overlapping seasons (i.e. start of season in summer/
autumn as opposed to winter/spring) may be eligible to play in official matches for a third club during
the relevant season, provided he has fully complied with his contractual obligations towards his previous
clubs. Equally, the provisions relating to the registration periods (article 6) as well as the minimum length
of contract (article 18 paragraph 2) must be respected.

So he can play for 2 clubs in a season. Atletico would count as last season. Of course if he doesnt actually play a match for Barnet, they wouldnt count anyway. Although it does mention something about minimum length of contract there, so perhaps that scuppers the 1 week contract plan.

wavdeep
6-2-11, 08:57
In theory roman could just buy aguero to scrub the deck on his yacht and then sell him to Chelsea for 1

HelloHelloHereWeGo
6-2-11, 09:01
What a week that would be for Barnet!!

Benny-Noons-Ghost
6-2-11, 09:16
Would never work in a million years.

Warbi
6-2-11, 09:20
In theory roman could just buy aguero to scrub the deck on his yacht and then sell him to Chelsea for 1

Hmmm. Is it against the rules now for an agent to buy the contract of a player, similar to when Mascherano and Tevez went to WH?

wavdeep
6-2-11, 09:26
Hmmm. Is it against the rules now for an agent to buy the contract of a player, similar to when Mascherano and Tevez went to WH?

That was only against the rules while joorabchian owned tevez while he was actually playing for west ham. Once his contract was sold to united it complied with regulations

wavdeep
6-2-11, 09:29
Maybe Henry could buy aguero as a pitcher for the red sox and then sell him on to us on the cheap!

Darrren1
6-2-11, 10:05
Would never work in a million years.

For what reasons?

Red-And-Proud
6-2-11, 10:23
Wether this is technically a loophole or not, uefa would come down hard on them for making a mockery of their new ruling.Its why the top clubs have had a very low net spend this window except chelski and citeh who will suffer for it in the summer.

Benny-Noons-Ghost
6-2-11, 10:23
For what reasons?

1. It is illegal by the Prem rules for the owner of one club to give another club money to buy a player (or any other reason for that matter)
2. The Financial Fair Play rules prevent clubs from spending more than their turnover for 3 years. Now, I could be wrong, but I really don't think Barnet will make a 40mil profit over 3 years, do you?

Darrren1
6-2-11, 10:26
Wether this is technically a loophole or not, uefa would come down hard on them for making a mockery of their new ruling.Its why the top clubs have had a very low net spend this window except chelski and citeh who will suffer for it in the summer.

But if they haven't broken any rules, what could they charge them with?

This was the last window before the rules begin - surely that would mean the top clubs should have looked to spend as much as possible before the new rules kick in?

Darrren1
6-2-11, 10:28
1. It is illegal by the Prem rules for the owner of one club to give another club money to buy a player (or any other reason for that matter)
2. The Financial Fair Play rules prevent clubs from spending more than their turnover for 3 years. Now, I could be wrong, but I really don't think Barnet will make a 40mil profit over 3 years, do you?

So what if Roman gives the money to his friend Dave. And then Dave gives it to Barnet?

So ok, Barnet will be kicked out of Europe. I dont think that will harm them too much will it?! Thats the only punishment as far as Im aware. Clubs like Bolton can still have sugar-daddies if they're not in Europe.

wavdeep
6-2-11, 10:28
1. It is illegal by the Prem rules for the owner of one club to give another club money to buy a player (or any other reason for that matter)
2. The Financial Fair Play rules prevent clubs from spending more than their turnover for 3 years. Now, I could be wrong, but I really don't think Barnet will make a 40mil profit over 3 years, do you?

These are uefa rules and only apply to clubs playing in uefa competitions. Unlikely to include barnet.

They will need to find a way to close loopholes though, the more likely one is the selling of sponsorship

Darrren1
6-2-11, 10:30
These are uefa rules and only apply to clubs playing in uefa competitions. Unlikely to include barnet.

They will need to find a way to close loopholes though, the more likely one is the selling of sponsorship

Havent they already addressed that though, by saying all sponsorship must be done at market value?

Red-And-Proud
6-2-11, 10:40
But if they haven't broken any rules, what could they charge them with?

This was the last window before the rules begin - surely that would mean the top clubs should have looked to spend as much as possible before the new rules kick in?

im sure it would be illegal and if not im sure uefa would find thier own loophole to ban them from europe afterall they make the rules and as for thier profit it would be -50m at least coming into the more valuable summer market.im sure they would have to sell players to even break even this year again thats why we have been shrewd having a low net spend and why arse and utd have done the same, although man ure are in lots of debt you can expect us and arse to be in the strongest position, spending wise.

Andyfagan
6-2-11, 10:41
These are uefa rules and only apply to clubs playing in uefa competitions. Unlikely to include barnet.

They will need to find a way to close loopholes though, the more likely one is the selling of sponsorship

The first one is a PREMIERSHIP rule.

Clubs can't give money to other clubs, even as a gift. It'd be seen as match fixing.

Darrren1
6-2-11, 10:44
im sure it would be illegal and if not im sure uefa would find thier own loophole to ban them from europe afterall they make the rules and as for thier profit it would be -50m at least coming into the more valuable summer market.im sure they would have to sell players to even break even this year again thats why we have been shrewd having a low net spend and why arse and utd have done the same, although man ure are in lots of debt you can expect us and arse to be in the strongest position, spending wise.

If the 3 year accounting period doesnt start until this summer, how can they be -50m down already? The figures from this window won't count.

Darrren1
6-2-11, 10:50
The first one is a PREMIERSHIP rule.

Clubs can't give money to other clubs, even as a gift. It'd be seen as match fixing.

Can some bloke called Dave give money to another club?

REDULATE
6-2-11, 10:52
Roman will probably go and buy 10 million Chelsea shirts which gives his team an extra 40 million to spend, stuff like that will happen

Darrren1
6-2-11, 10:53
Roman will probably go and buy 10 million Chelsea shirts which gives his team an extra 40 million to spend, stuff like that will happen

4 a shirt? Ah, staff discount, I see...

Andyfagan
6-2-11, 10:57
Can some bloke called Dave give money to another club?

I'd have doubts, and if they managed to trace it back to an owner of this or any other club then it'd have SERIOUS implications.

Red-And-Proud
6-2-11, 10:58
If the 3 year accounting period doesnt start until this summer, how can they be -50m down already? The figures from this window won't count.

fair enough i wont pretend to know about finance in football but what i do know is you dont **** around those who make the rules, my mother taught me that and surely your parole officer did to you (joke :p)

Darrren1
6-2-11, 11:01
I'd have doubts, and if they managed to trace it back to an owner of this or any other club then it'd have SERIOUS implications.

It's all legit. Roman, Dave and a few other mates had a late night poker game and Dave got lucky... to the tune of 40m. Dave happens to be a big Barnet fan and thought he would generously help them out with a big donation. Nothing suspicious about that at all.

Darrren1
6-2-11, 11:03
fair enough i wont pretend to know about finance in football but what i do know is you dont **** around those who make the rules, my mother taught me that and surely your parole officer did to you (joke :p)

:D

I think it was generally accepted that this window was the last chance to go out and spend big, without the figures counting against you. So any big clubs that didnt do this, weren't doing it to be shrewd.

Benny-Noons-Ghost
6-2-11, 11:32
So what if Roman gives the money to his friend Dave. And then Dave gives it to Barnet?

So ok, Barnet will be kicked out of Europe. I dont think that will harm them too much will it?! Thats the only punishment as far as Im aware. Clubs like Bolton can still have sugar-daddies if they're not in Europe.

It will affect all clubs as far as I'm aware.

Can't happen though, trust me mate.

Benny-Noons-Ghost
6-2-11, 11:34
It's all legit. Roman, Dave and a few other mates had a late night poker game and Dave got lucky... to the tune of 40m. Dave happens to be a big Barnet fan and thought he would generously help them out with a big donation. Nothing suspicious about that at all.

There is. Because Aguero wouldn't go to Barnet, UNLESS he was aware that he'd be instantly transferred to Chelsea. So it wouldn't be legit, as he and his agent would have to be made aware that Chelsea will be buying him straight away when he signed for Barnet.

Trust me mate, it';ll never work and never even be attempted.

REDULATE
6-2-11, 11:35
4 a shirt? Ah, staff discount, I see...

I just got up giz' a break will you :D.. But seriously that is a loophole in the system, owners will just buy their own merchandise and as such have more 'revenue money' to spend.

But seriously, I'd say 4 is too dear for a Chavski shirt anyway... :IN: :scarf

wavdeep
6-2-11, 11:50
The first one is a PREMIERSHIP rule.

Clubs can't give money to other clubs, even as a gift. It'd be seen as match fixing.

But barnet aren't in the premier league...

Thishi
6-2-11, 13:14
You can't just take a donation of 40m. You would have to pay tax on the capital or profit gained: at 20% or whatever that's 8m which Barnet don't have. Or he loans it to them interest-free- but they would still have to pay it back.

Or they would have to give Roman a share of the club.

Interestingly, Abramovich is still owed over 700m in loans by the holding company which owns Chelsea: loans which he can call back at 18 months notice. If he decided to ****** off and call in his loans, Chelsea would be in DEEP trouble:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/may/19/roman-abramovich-chelsea-loan-debt

That would be great.:D

mikesmith
6-2-11, 14:41
4 a shirt? Ah, staff discount, I see...

haha, brilliant

Cannyjiggit
6-2-11, 15:13
The "scam" you are talking about could be construed as money laundering and is illegal under British law. If found guilty of it, Abramovich could spend a lengthy period at Her Majesty's pleasure as a result.

Now that would make me :D:D:D

direwolf
6-2-11, 15:21
What a week that would be for Barnet!!

Sorry to go off topic but this made me laugh :D

Repped.

ssscorchio
6-2-11, 16:40
if its ok to give donations, then why doesn't he get someone to give a 40mil donation to chelsea?

timhill
6-2-11, 16:54
I believe UEFA doesn't allow a player to play for 3 different clubs in a calendar year.

Who says Barnet have to play him? It only applies to players who play a game for the team - the player could technically be registered for as many teams as he likes but could only walk on the pitch for two during the season.

sfsanj
6-2-11, 17:25
Just trying to think about ways that teams will get around the new fair play rules. How would UEFA be able to stop the following scenario?

Chelsea want to sign Aguero for 40m, so Roman gives Barnet 40m as a gift (pretty sure its ok for anyone to give a club a donation) and gets them to buy him on a 1 week contract. A week later Aguero is a free agent and can leave Barnet and go to Chelsea on a free.

Even if there is a sticking point about giving players a 1 week contract, they could give him a normal 3 year contract and still sell him to Chelsea for a nominal fee - say 0.5m. Obviously there would need to be some trust that Barnet wouldn't just keep Aguero there for 3 years! But assuming they play along, Barnet would get a nice 500k out of it and wouldn't have to worry about being banned from Europe for making a big loss.


there is a limit on the cash investment owner or 3rd parties can make to a team..either % based or overall amount. So this scenario is not possible.

Darrren1
7-2-11, 18:38
there is a limit on the cash investment owner or 3rd parties can make to a team..either % based or overall amount. So this scenario is not possible.

Really? So if I was a wealthy billionaire and had wanted to give Liverpool 200m last month, I wouldnt have been allowed to?

Anyway, I have been speaking to someone who knows about these new rules and it seems I've been getting it all wrong. Yes, there are lots of ways of getting around them, but the point is all 20 owners have signed up and agreed to them. They actually want these new rules and no-one is more behind them than Roman himself. He's sick of spending 170m a year on wages. So its not really a question of how can they get round them, but more a case of being glad that they can stop trying to outspend each other.

50P-WSTB-Head
7-2-11, 19:00
Clubs have spent money on getting people in to find loopholes, so far they have come up with nothing. Many of people saying these news rules are watertight.

Clarered
7-2-11, 22:01
Roman will probably go and buy 10 million Chelsea shirts which gives his team an extra 40 million to spend, stuff like that will happen

I thought something like this or that Chelsea will charge Roman 40 million for his seat in the executive box.

FCStevo
9-2-11, 07:29
http://www.ourkop.com/2011/02/09/financial-fair-play-cant-come-soon-enough-for-liverpool/

Interesting article on the financial fair play rules.

I won't pretend to understand the in's and out's of these rules, but from the sound of this article LFC stands to benefit from these rules more than most.

For the first time in a long time, history, not money, could determine how successful a club is, and Liverpool are well placed with our new owners to take full advantage.

With King Kenny as our manager, there is no limit to what we can acheive.

Pete_lad2014
9-2-11, 13:29
Does anybody have any concrete financial info on are finances and does the impending financial fair play rules have any affect on us?

I heard Ballague saying while asked about how will it affect Real and Barca, he said it wont affect them that much but it will have a big affect on Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea and LFC who have big debts and financial problems.

I thought we are virtually debt free:confused:

Japlin
9-2-11, 13:34
I thought we'd be OK too... Didn't MB or CP say, before they left, that we generate one of the highest revenues in the league or something?

charmac
9-2-11, 13:34
I doubt if we are anyway near as bad as the Mancs and Chavs

Andyfagan
9-2-11, 13:36
I think we'll be fine. FSG have said themselves that we'll only spend what we earn and if you bear in mind that we were afloat despite paying 30m a year in interest, we should be fine.

IamTheWalrus83
9-2-11, 13:37
I can't see it having that much affect on us or man utd.

City and Chelsea are different, last year City spent more on wages alone than their entire annual turnover, and Chelsea haven't broken even since Abramovich bought them.

Man u, Barca, Real and the like have such a huge turnover due to their commcercial set-up that it won't affect them too much even though they may have to service debt.

The FFP rules will also have wider implications on the transfer value and wages of players going forward as clubs try to work within their means which will affect the market as a whole.

Alon1
9-2-11, 13:38
Does anybody have any concrete financial info on are finances and does the impending financial fair play rules have any affect on us?

I heard Ballague saying while asked about how will it affect Real and Barca, he said it wont affect them that much but it will have a big affect on Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea and LFC who have big debts and financial problems.

I thought we are virtually debt free:confused:

the difference between Real, Barca and the PL clubs is that the first 2 are owned by the fans, while the others are privately owned, and the new rules apply to the investment the owners (privated) are able to make into the club for transfer purposes.


It will have a huge impact in City and Chelsea as both are basically relying on their owners to put up with the cash to survive, as for UTD it will probably makes not much difference as their owners are not spending any money anyway but their chances to avoid the decline will be slimmer.

As for us, we don't know yet, if Henry plans work probably we will be in a better position than most of them.

Pete_lad2014
9-2-11, 13:39
I thought we'd be OK too... Didn't MB or CP say, before they left, that we generate one of the highest revenues in the league or something?

Yeah i agree we were told by Purslow that we would be the most profitable club in the Premiership, which means we should be one of the strongest clubs in the market

T34
9-2-11, 13:42
I know a lot of us are happy with this rule because it stops City and Chelsea going crazy with their sugar Daddies, but I think it will hit the smallest clubs the hardest. The smaller clubs in the league who do not earn much money through revenue (if the system works correctly) will have very little chance of ever being more than what they are now. Without having outside cash injection they will struggle to keep up with the top teams. I feel this rule could actually cement the top teams at the top and leave the rest without much hope of challenging them. You have to remember that wihtout these buyers coming, Chelsea would have gone into admin and City would probably be fihgting religation. By making it so you can only spend what you earn, a club who only earns 5m, would never challenge a team like us, which I feel is bad for the league. Personally I think spending should be capped. You can do what you wish with the cap, but once you've spent that you've spent it.

Stevie Jesus
9-2-11, 13:45
I can't see it having that much affect on us or man utd.

City and Chelsea are different, last year City spent more on wages alone than their entire annual turnover, and Chelsea haven't broken even since Abramovich bought them.

Man u, Barca, Real and the like have such a huge turnover due to their commcercial set-up that it won't affect them too much even though they may have to service debt.

The FFP rules will also have wider implications on the transfer value and wages of players going forward as clubs try to work within their means which will affect the market as a whole.

not true, they made a profit last year I believe

Danumbered1
9-2-11, 13:48
City and Chelsea will find a way around it.. It's not that difficult. I wouldnt be surprised if City for instance, sign a massive sponsorship deal once it comes in with one of the owners other groups as a vehicle to inject cash in and call it income.

Pete_lad2014
9-2-11, 13:56
not true, they made a profit last year I believe

They didnt they lost 70.9m and that is after winning the double and before the sgnings of Benayoun, Ramires, Torres and Luiz, and the sales of players like Cole and Ballack

Darrren1
9-2-11, 14:24
Everyone seems to think Man.City will be screwed with the new rules, but from what I hear this is far from being the case. The owners have spent/are spending about 1b redeveloping the area around the ground - making it into some sort of Man.City village. There will be hotels and shops which are expected to make over 100m a year - and these revenues are allowed to be spent on the club. They are also setting up a huge scouting network and academy, with the aim of getting the worlds best youngsters for the future. Again, the new rules allow for spending on academies. So it looks like City will be around for a long while yet...

jambags
9-2-11, 14:32
not true, they made a profit last year I believe

they did not!

tehy announced a loss of 70m on 31st january, then spent another 70m 6 hours later!!

Japlin
9-2-11, 14:34
they did not!

tehy announced a loss of 70m on 31st january, then spent another 70m 6 hours later!!

Didnt Abramovich use his own money on Torres and Luiz because of the loss?

Andyfagan
9-2-11, 14:37
Didnt Abramovich use his own money on Torres and Luiz because of the loss?

His own money?

You can bet your bottom dollar that he "loaned" the club that money.

Anyway, FFP will stop that from happening altogether with owners only being able to inject 10m of equity into the club.

jambags
9-2-11, 14:40
Didnt Abramovich use his own money on Torres and Luiz because of the loss?

thats the point of the FFP rule, owners cannot do this.

if he has, that means he personally owns these players, and they should not be registered to play for chelsea as we are not allowed third party ownership!!

Silverthorn
9-2-11, 14:43
I know a lot of us are happy with this rule because it stops City and Chelsea going crazy with their sugar Daddies, but I think it will hit the smallest clubs the hardest. The smaller clubs in the league who do not earn much money through revenue (if the system works correctly) will have very little chance of ever being more than what they are now. Without having outside cash injection they will struggle to keep up with the top teams. I feel this rule could actually cement the top teams at the top and leave the rest without much hope of challenging them. You have to remember that wihtout these buyers coming, Chelsea would have gone into admin and City would probably be fihgting religation. By making it so you can only spend what you earn, a club who only earns 5m, would never challenge a team like us, which I feel is bad for the league. Personally I think spending should be capped. You can do what you wish with the cap, but once you've spent that you've spent it.

It'll only hurt the smaller clubs if they get into Europe. If you dont have to worry about European qualification it doesnt matter how mucg the sugar daddies put into the club

As for Ballague-of-wind...well just shows how little he knows of anything to make such a statement

challinor89
9-2-11, 14:46
apparently the only team that will really suffer in england is ASTON VILLA!

Andyfagan
9-2-11, 14:46
apparently the only team that will really suffer in england is ASTON VILLA!

How so? United, Chelsea and City are all in mountains of debt.

Japlin
9-2-11, 14:48
thats the point of the FFP rule, owners cannot do this.

if he has, that means he personally owns these players, and they should not be registered to play for chelsea as we are not allowed third party ownership!!

Probably why he did it. Don't the rules kick in on 1st of June or something? He knew they won't able to afford that amount of spending in the summer so he chucked a load of his personal cash into the club so they could push the deals through.

And like Andyfagan said, he didnt buy the players, he just put the money into Chelsea so they bought them.

challinor89
9-2-11, 14:48
Villa have no money coming in but Man U, Chelsea, City still generate money

Andyfagan
9-2-11, 14:51
Probably why he did it. Don't the rules kick in on 1st of June or something? He knew they won't able to afford that amount of spending in the summer so he chucked a load of his personal cash into the club so they could push the deals through.

And like Andyfagan said, he didnt buy the players, he just put the money into Chelsea so they bought them.

It'll be a loan though, it won't be his own personal fortune, he'll have just increased Chelsea's debt to him by 70m that will be payable the moment the club is sold, not to mention the interest payments.

It's basically the same scenario as with us and Hicks/Gillett. The only difference is that Abramovic has money.

Andyfagan
9-2-11, 14:52
Villa have no money coming in but Man U, Chelsea, City still generate money

Not enough.

There's no way in hell that City generate enough money, their wages are 105% of their turnover (turnover, not profit :D)

koptonite
9-2-11, 14:53
Take a look at this. It doesn't cover us, but does cover the other clubs:
http://andersred.blogspot.com/2011/02/chelsea-200910-results-spin-and-red-ink.html

cbetofop
9-2-11, 14:55
I think the whole thing is another poorly thought out scheme by UEFA to support their idea of a Euro League.

It won't work. No one would bother watching Tottenham v Lokomitv Moscow, but crowds would turn up for Newcastle v Sunderland or Liverpool v Everton regardless fo the teams form or league position.

I'd like to see the English FA decouple from Uefa and Fifa - both seriously dodgy if not corrupt organisations and go it alone, perhaps picking up an alliance with some other FA's around the world who also have problems with these bodies with their dubious rules and world cup destinations

Pete_lad2014
9-2-11, 15:49
One thing for certain is, if we get an expanded stadium of say 62,000 we will be raking in the cash, and would be very strong in the Market, Arsenal Im sure will be a big force. At the moment say on average we sell 41,000 tickets pw at say 40 that means we bring in 1.6m per match and over a premier league season that is 30.4m but if we were to get the new stadium and sell out 60,000 pw and the average price is say 50 pw per game we will be making 3m and over a season that will be 57m which is almost 27m more per season and that is not taking into account what we make from other games and the big money spinners the executive boxes which I am sure we will have a lot more of if we expand the stadium

jm291
9-2-11, 15:50
Its simply.

Everyone has their price even Platini.

koptonite
9-2-11, 16:20
Does anyone seriously think EUFA will ever suspend Barca, Man Ure or Real from the Champions league given the money involved these days? I think not.

Pete_lad2014
9-2-11, 16:28
Does anyone seriously think EUFA will ever suspend Barca, Man Ure or Real from the Champions league given the money involved these days? I think not.

Yeah I agree Fiorentino Perez has drawn up plans to start a super League the 12-20 biggest clubs in Europe competing in a league format, Arsene Wenger actually thinks it will happen within the next 10 years

ceredred
9-2-11, 16:33
Barca have debts of 400 million so had to take on a shirt sponsor and Real always get bailed out by the big banks in Madrid and Balague is wrong in regards to us as we don't have any debts unless the new owners are telling fibs.

WhenJaviMetXabi
9-2-11, 16:51
Yeah, I thought our debts were wiped clean when we were bought? Cos FSG paid the price of the debt to buy us out didn't they - that's why Hicks and Gillett were cross cos they walked away without a cent profit!!

jambags
9-2-11, 16:56
Probably why he did it. Don't the rules kick in on 1st of June or something? He knew they won't able to afford that amount of spending in the summer so he chucked a load of his personal cash into the club so they could push the deals through.

And like Andyfagan said, he didnt buy the players, he just put the money into Chelsea so they bought them.

nope, they announced last week that the window just gone counts towards it!! not sure if anyone knew that, but they defo said something about being worried taht chelsea spent so much at the start of this FFP!

koptonite
9-2-11, 17:14
We're ok then as we made money when you include salary savings!

Pete_lad2014
9-2-11, 17:56
Yeah, I thought our debts were wiped clean when we were bought? Cos FSG paid the price of the debt to buy us out didn't they - that's why Hicks and Gillett were cross cos they walked away without a cent profit!!

Yeah something like working caapital debt which is around 2-3m per year

calandkarl
9-2-11, 18:48
I don't see it affecting many clubs to be honest, even Chelsea with their huge losses, think about it, if Abramovitch buys a player with his own cash and then gives them to Chelsea, how does the new ruling stop this, this is what will happen.

koptonite
9-2-11, 18:52
I don't see it affecting many clubs to be honest, even Chelsea with their huge losses, think about it, if Abramovitch buys a player with his own cash and then gives them to Chelsea, how does the new ruling stop this, this is what will happen.

owners are only allowed to dip in 15-30m a year under the new rules.

Restecpa
9-2-11, 20:48
Everyone seems to think Man.City will be screwed with the new rules, but from what I hear this is far from being the case. The owners have spent/are spending about 1b redeveloping the area around the ground - making it into some sort of Man.City village. There will be hotels and shops which are expected to make over 100m a year - and these revenues are allowed to be spent on the club. They are also setting up a huge scouting network and academy, with the aim of getting the worlds best youngsters for the future. Again, the new rules allow for spending on academies. So it looks like City will be around for a long while yet...

I posted this on one of the other financial fair play threads:

Sourced from the Break Even Requirement of the UEFA Regs (http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/...DOWNLOAD.pdf):

Relevant income is defined as revenue from gate receipts, broadcasting rights, sponsorship and advertising, commercial activities and other operating income, plus either profit on disposal of player registrations or income from disposal of player registrations, excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets and finance income. It does not include any non-monetary items or certain income from non-football operations.

Relevant expenses is defined as cost of sales, employee benefits expenses and other operating expenses, plus either amortisation or costs of acquiring player registrations, finance costs and dividends. It does not include depreciation/impairment of tangible fixed assets, amortisation/impairment of intangible fixed assets (other than player registrations), expenditure on youth development activities, expenditure on community development activities, any other non-monetary items, finance costs directly attributable to the construction of tangible fixed assets, tax expenses or certain expenses from non-football operations


So from my limited reading and limited knowledge of this stuff. ManC could build a hotel but the revenue it generates cannot be counted as 'Relevant Income'. Similarly it appears that the construction of a hotel would also not be counted as a relevant expense, therefore it would be a bad business decision for a football club to build a hotel, unless the revenue is directed towards the youth development (a discussion for another day)

If my understanding of this is incorrect can someone please right my wrong.

Dave00
9-2-11, 21:06
I know a lot of us are happy with this rule because it stops City and Chelsea going crazy with their sugar Daddies, but I think it will hit the smallest clubs the hardest. The smaller clubs in the league who do not earn much money through revenue (if the system works correctly) will have very little chance of ever being more than what they are now. Without having outside cash injection they will struggle to keep up with the top teams. I feel this rule could actually cement the top teams at the top and leave the rest without much hope of challenging them. You have to remember that wihtout these buyers coming, Chelsea would have gone into admin and City would probably be fihgting religation. By making it so you can only spend what you earn, a club who only earns 5m, would never challenge a team like us, which I feel is bad for the league. Personally I think spending should be capped. You can do what you wish with the cap, but once you've spent that you've spent it.


There is still nothing to stop someone coming in and buying a club at the lower end of the premiership and spending their own money in rebuilding it. Or have i got that wrong?

Darrren1
10-2-11, 00:34
I posted this on one of the other financial fair play threads:

Sourced from the Break Even Requirement of the UEFA Regs (http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/...DOWNLOAD.pdf):

Relevant income is defined as revenue from gate receipts, broadcasting rights, sponsorship and advertising, commercial activities and other operating income, plus either profit on disposal of player registrations or income from disposal of player registrations, excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets and finance income. It does not include any non-monetary items or certain income from non-football operations.

Relevant expenses is defined as cost of sales, employee benefits expenses and other operating expenses, plus either amortisation or costs of acquiring player registrations, finance costs and dividends. It does not include depreciation/impairment of tangible fixed assets, amortisation/impairment of intangible fixed assets (other than player registrations), expenditure on youth development activities, expenditure on community development activities, any other non-monetary items, finance costs directly attributable to the construction of tangible fixed assets, tax expenses or certain expenses from non-football operations


So from my limited reading and limited knowledge of this stuff. ManC could build a hotel but the revenue it generates cannot be counted as 'Relevant Income'. Similarly it appears that the construction of a hotel would also not be counted as a relevant expense, therefore it would be a bad business decision for a football club to build a hotel, unless the revenue is directed towards the youth development (a discussion for another day)

If my understanding of this is incorrect can someone please right my wrong.

Apparently the hotels they're building will count as relevant income as they're 'Man.City hotels' ie built in the new delopment around the ground and part of the match-day package. Same as any shops, which will be Man.City themed.

robertretford
10-2-11, 02:06
City and Chelsea will find a way around it.. It's not that difficult. I wouldnt be surprised if City for instance, sign a massive sponsorship deal once it comes in with one of the owners other groups as a vehicle to inject cash in and call it income.


^^^

this

Darrren1
10-2-11, 04:41
They wont, as all sponsorship deals are monitored to make sure they are at market value. And more to the point, Chelsea and Man.City are actually in favour of the new rules. All the club owners have agreed to get behind this scheme, and no-one more so than Chelsea and City. Roman is sick of paying 170m a year in wages and they're happy to adopt new guidelines that will put an end to the ridiculous, spiralling costs.

Bim
10-2-11, 05:36
This is where the huge liverpool fan base come into play.... we are all around the world. I spend 60 pounds to post in this forum every year and I live in Australia.... I also get merchandise from LFC online shop.... and there are millions like me all aorund the world... If 1 million overseas fans spend 60 pounds every year, then we make 60m for LFC each year.... that buys LFC 2 world-class players!!

OriginalJebus
10-2-11, 05:44
It will be criminal for us not to be able to survive this ruling given our fan base.

crabmiller
10-2-11, 10:09
nesv bought the club in the knowlege that we would be able to compete more evenly with the big boys once the ffp rules start, they have mentioned it in a couple of interviews, once the new ground is built or anfield redeveloped we will be more competitive than most.

i cant for one minute think john henry bought this club and is going to hamstring himself from competing i.e with debt on the club or whatever.

id like ballague to actually answer questions from somebody within the club who will be able to challenge him rather than just release a statment saying what he did, without anything to back it up

OLI1879
10-2-11, 10:45
This is where the huge liverpool fan base come into play.... we are all around the world. I spend 60 pounds to post in this forum every year and I live in Australia.... I also get merchandise from LFC online shop.... and there are millions like me all aorund the world... If 1 million overseas fans spend 60 pounds every year, then we make 60m for LFC each year.... that buys LFC 2 world-class players!!

Ah, If only it were that simple.

-Chris-
10-2-11, 10:57
Surely though its possible that if the sheik wants to buy a player for 40 million it would be easy for him to just buy 40 million pounds worth of city shirts and then use that money to buy a player. What in the rules stops you doing that?

Clarered
10-2-11, 11:49
Deloitte released its annual survey of the top-earning football clubs today and the Guardian and Telegraph both have articles about it. The survey is of revenue only, not profits. We've slipped a place from 7th to 8th, which I think is disappointing but understandable as it is largely a reflection of the disastrous Hicks and Gilette years. It will be interesting to see what FSG do to "grow" revenue. Here are the links:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/feb/10/manchester-city-tottenham-hotspur-deloitte

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/8314698/English-clubs-defy-the-economic-recession-to-retain-elite-status-in-European-money-league.html

wavdeep
10-2-11, 11:50
To answer a few points raised, as best I understand it:

These are UEFA rules, so only apply to clubs qualifying for UEFA competitions. Therefore there is nothing to stop billionaires buying lower league clubs and developing them, though obviously they'll be subject to the fair play rules if they want to play in the Europa or Champion's League at some stage.

Selling sponsorship to your owners - sponsorship can only be sold at a fair market price, so Abramovich can't put his name on the chelsea stadium for 1bn. Obviously there's a bit of a grey area here with who decides what's a fair market price, but in theory it stops people cheating.

The rules take into account company accounts going back 3 years, starting from this June, which means as long as you net out relatively even over a 3 year period, you can accrue in-year losses. I believe special dispensation is available for clubs wanting to - for example - invest in new stadia or other strategies which will pay off over future years.

There are loads of other potential tricks including the buying of loads of shirts, but the rules should be policed to identify and put a stop to such obvious money laundering behaviour.

Having said all that, UEFA's record of punishing big clubs who provide them with all of their revenue is not exactly rigourous, and there are inevitably going to be grey areas which people exploit. Would UEFA chuck out Real Madrid, arguably it's biggest asset, when the Spanish Government buy their training ground for hundreds of millions of Euros and then loan it back to them for free, as happened a few years back? I'm not convinced...

Pete_lad2014
10-2-11, 12:07
Am I right i'n saying are last accounts showed, we made a 13m profit and consider we were paying 25-30m interest payments. I think it was a champions league year but also was before are new sponsorship deals etc so we should be making at least 30mprofits even Now without Champions League football

CharlieManson
10-2-11, 12:42
Same as it will affect everyone else....

OMGTheyKingedKenny
10-2-11, 13:04
I doubt if we are anyway near as bad as the Mancs and Chavs

Man City, Man United and Chelsea all own casinos so some stooge can just go in and lose a few million when ever they need to buy a player.

Nayos
10-2-11, 14:06
Am I right i'n saying are last accounts showed, we made a 13m profit and consider we were paying 25-30m interest payments. I think it was a champions league year but also was before are new sponsorship deals etc so we should be making at least 30mprofits even Now without Champions League football

Our ≠ Are

19-UNDER-[B-ROD]
10-2-11, 14:07
Our ≠ Are

Such a pedant you.

TAFFYFROG
10-2-11, 16:13
This was covered in detail on a post a few weeks ago, and the details are contained in a 90 page consultation document from UEFA (UEFA Club Licensing & Financial Fair Play Regulations)

The Fair Play rules effectively require a club to achieve a financial break even position, although they are allowed to make a small loss of up to 5 million Euros

This is taking account of income which includes TV fees, sponsorship, prize money, commercial revenues including hospitality and food & drink sales, and player sales.

Expenditure must include transfer fees, player and other employee wages, taxes, etc. Clubs are not supposed to be in debt with their country's tax authorities and must have no outstanding debts to other clubs in relation to transfers

The first year that clubs have to submit their records for inspection is the end of the 2012 season, but this will cover the 2011 transfer window

Owners & equity stakeholders can also invest up to 45 million Euros for each of the next 2 seasons, falling to 30 million Euros over the next 2 seasons. This must be money invested into the club and not just a promise or guarantee of investment

Liverpool's reported profit for last year was 42.5 million, remembering that last season we were in the Champions League. If we assume that we have made 30m / 35m this year, plus any unspent money from transfers of Babel and Torres - that money is available to invest in transfers this summer, along with any money from further player sales

Not sure if FSG invested their own money to purchase Suarez or if this came from income. Worst case scenario is that Suarez and Carroll were purchased from money from sales of Babel and Torres and that in the summer we have money from player sales and money from trading profits. This could still be in the region of 60m to 80m and FSG could invest up to a further 38 million (45million Euros) of their own money

Target-Man
9-4-11, 15:09
Just saw someone ask in another post, when the Financial Fair Play rules will come into force, and I must admit that this brought out a rather cynical smile. While there may be a deadline for when they will be introduced, I must admit that I doubt they will ever be enforced - at least against the big clubs.

The question is to what extent UEFA is really willing to take a financial hit to end the irresponsible financial dealings of pro football. There is little doubt that the Champions League is a major cash cow for UEFA, and just like the revenue from that tournament is major source of income for the clubs taking part, the TV revenue is a big source of income for UEFA.

There are several parties that really have no interest in enforcing the Financial Fair Play rules. Many of the big clubs have no interest in it, because it puts them at risk, although financially healthy but otherwise less competitive clubs might be more interested. The TV networks have absolutely no interest in Financial Fair Play. To them, it matters little what the budgets of Real Madrid and Chelsea look like; they want Christiano Ronaldo and Fernando Torres to play and attract attention to their broadcasts.

That leaves UEFA with a dilemma, because while the organization may show a token interest in curbing the power play of big clubs flexing their financial muscle, they also have TV rights to sell, and they will be worth a lot less to TV networks if too many of the star players are not playing. To TV viewers, the Champions League is about bringing the biggest team up against each other. Neither they nor the the networks will be pleased with the thought that the best team may not be playing just because their budgets are a mess.

So the cynic in me expects that UEFA will be more than willing to listen to appeals from the game's elite clubs. This season has already given us an interesting example. While some of the big clubs have huge debts that are growing every year, the club that was actually excluded from European football was RCD Mallorca, who were excluded from the Europa League - ironically robbing a debt-ridden club of a significant source of revenue.

That raises another question, which might prove very interesting. Let's say that Liverpool comply with the Financial Fair Play rules to the letter, while Man City and Chelsea continue their current pattern of overspending. Then imagine that Liverpool finish 5th next season (oh, horror:FP:), and Man City and Chelsea qualify for the Champions League while violating the Financial Fair Play rules - and are still allowed in on a dispensation.

In this case, Liverpool would probably be justified in suing, because other teams got a competitive advantage by breaking the rules and were not punished. That seems to me to be a realistic scenario.

Just like the invasion of big money interests in football moved the genuine decisions off the pitch and into executive offices, the Financial Fair Play rules might move the decision of who gains access to Europe's premier competition into the courtroom.

Off the pitch, there are interesting times ahead.

One final remark: I think UEFA made a mistake in talking about Financial Fair Play. Fair play is a gentlemanly concept and a fine one, but we all know how soon fair play goes out the window when the stakes are high. Fair play is and will always a concept that seems expendable when push comes to shove.

A much better name would be Financial Eligibility Rules. In a cutthroat competition, you can choose to dispense with the niceties of fair play, but you cannot make decide for yourself whether you are eligible.

LLS
9-4-11, 15:40
These new "rules" certainly will open up a huge can if worms.

The overspenders don't seem to be too worried, whereas a financially stable club like ours (feels great saying that) are making noises about how they hope UEFA will enforce these laws.

I'm not too optimistic to be honest, and I really hope FSG's whole plan for the club isn't reliant on these rules being enforced.

StevieBaros17
9-4-11, 15:45
What if chav or city hired huge group of people and say, " heres 100m. Spend on anything you want at the clubs store. "

YesGirl
9-4-11, 15:49
Well thought out post. Isn't there also a law that teams cannot take UEFA to an outside court though?

Target-Man
9-4-11, 15:50
What if chav or city hired huge group of people and say, " heres 100m. Spend on anything you want at the clubs store. "

If the clubs did it, the money would still be an expenditure in the club budgets. It would have to be the owners themselves. And I doubt that it would be legal anyway.

bondred
9-4-11, 15:50
I really hope UEFA do enforce the rules strictly, but you're right, I can't see them risk losing big money.

Target-Man
9-4-11, 15:52
Well thought out post. Isn't there also a law that teams cannot take UEFA to an outside court though?

I think UEFA could be taken to the EU courts if necessary. The Bosman verdict and the rules on EU nationals not counting as foreign players are examples of EU rules and decisions that UEFA have had to follow.

StevieBaros17
9-4-11, 15:53
If the clubs did it, the money would still be an expenditure in the club budgets. It would have to be the owners themselves. And I doubt that it would be legal anyway.

Yes. But the money will come from the owners directly. I'm not sure if the League is allowed to inspect the owners book since its a separate one from the club's books.

Im no pro in business. Do correct me where im wronf

Target-Man
9-4-11, 15:58
Yes. But the money will come from the owners directly. I'm not sure if the League is allowed to inspect the owners book since its a separate one from the club's books.

Im no pro in business. Do correct me where im wronf

To get people to spend 100m at the club stores, they would have to transfer and extraordinary amount of money to a large amount of people, who would have to report the income for taxation. It would not go unnoticed. Transferring 1000 to 100,000 is not that small and simple an operation.

YesGirl
9-4-11, 17:07
I think UEFA could be taken to the EU courts if necessary. The Bosman verdict and the rules on EU nationals not counting as foreign players are examples of EU rules and decisions that UEFA have had to follow.
That was as individuals though, there is a law stopping teams from going to court, arbitration is OK but court brings another penalty.

Target-Man
9-4-11, 17:40
That was as individuals though, there is a law stopping teams from going to court, arbitration is OK but court brings another penalty.

The question is whether the owners could take the issue to court as individuals, given that they could argue that they have made a business investment based on this set of rules being enforced rigorously, and lax enforcement is threatening their investment. They would be representing themselves as business people, not the club.

TeenageMutantNinJaSkrtel
9-4-11, 17:43
The "money" teams will end up in court.

I believe we are not far off clubs buying their own rights to broadcast their own games, thus rendering the likes of Sky and the rest of them out of the loop.

Chelsea/city offer BIG money for the sole rights to their own games to sell on to which ever provider wants them and/or show their own subscription/PPV TV channels/website.

UEFA not selling because they want to sell as a 'package'.

Chelsea/City suing them for not accepting their bid, plus suing them again for not letting them be in the League due to not playing financially fair, which comes back to UEFA because they wouldn't sell them sole rights, which means they couldn't make bigger profits from the resale value of their own games and turn enough profit to be valid for the CL.

It is either not going to be enforced properly, or enforced selectively, or its going to end up in lengthy courtroom battles.

At the end of the day, if Roman or the Sheiks want to blow their own money on the team, and not be worried about turning a profit, that's their prerogative to do so.

The Sheiks can inject 100 million quid into City and right it off as losses against their parent companies taxes. It could actually be argued by any half decent lawyer, that limiting the amount of money they can inject into the club as a 'gift' is not financially fair to them as a business. Financial fair play then becomes financial unfair.

Liddelwomen
9-4-11, 17:43
Just saw someone ask in another post, when the Financial Fair Play rules will come into force, and I must admit that this brought out a rather cynical smile. While there may be a deadline for when they will be introduced, I must admit that I doubt they will ever be enforced - at least against the big clubs.

The question is to what extent UEFA is really willing to take a financial hit to end the irresponsible financial dealings of pro football. There is little doubt that the Champions League is a major cash cow for UEFA, and just like the revenue from that tournament is major source of income for the clubs taking part, the TV revenue is a big source of income for UEFA.

There are several parties that really have no interest in enforcing the Financial Fair Play rules. Many of the big clubs have no interest in it, because it puts them at risk, although financially healthy but otherwise less competitive clubs might be more interested. The TV networks have absolutely no interest in Financial Fair Play. To them, it matters little what the budgets of Real Madrid and Chelsea look like; they want Christiano Ronaldo and Fernando Torres to play and attract attention to their broadcasts.

That leaves UEFA with a dilemma, because while the organization may show a token interest in curbing the power play of big clubs flexing their financial muscle, they also have TV rights to sell, and they will be worth a lot less to TV networks if too many of the star players are not playing. To TV viewers, the Champions League is about bringing the biggest team up against each other. Neither they nor the the networks will be pleased with the thought that the best team may not be playing just because their budgets are a mess.

So the cynic in me expects that UEFA will be more than willing to listen to appeals from the game's elite clubs. This season has already given us an interesting example. While some of the big clubs have huge debts that are growing every year, the club that was actually excluded from European football was RCD Mallorca, who were excluded from the Europa League - ironically robbing a debt-ridden club of a significant source of revenue.

That raises another question, which might prove very interesting. Let's say that Liverpool comply with the Financial Fair Play rules to the letter, while Man City and Chelsea continue their current pattern of overspending. Then imagine that Liverpool finish 5th next season (oh, horror:FP:), and Man City and Chelsea qualify for the Champions League while violating the Financial Fair Play rules - and are still allowed in on a dispensation.

In this case, Liverpool would probably be justified in suing, because other teams got a competitive advantage by breaking the rules and were not punished. That seems to me to be a realistic scenario.

Just like the invasion of big money interests in football moved the genuine decisions off the pitch and into executive offices, the Financial Fair Play rules might move the decision of who gains access to Europe's premier competition into the courtroom.

Off the pitch, there are interesting times ahead.

One final remark: I think UEFA made a mistake in talking about Financial Fair Play. Fair play is a gentlemanly concept and a fine one, but we all know how soon fair play goes out the window when the stakes are high. Fair play is and will always a concept that seems expendable when push comes to shove.

A much better name would be Financial Eligibility Rules. In a cutthroat competition, you can choose to dispense with the niceties of fair play, but you cannot make decide for yourself whether you are eligible.

Excellent post.

paul143
9-4-11, 17:57
Doesn't it state that cash injections will be ignored when deciding if a club has made a profit over the three year period? So if the cities and chelseas are struggling to make that profit then a Mansour or Abramovich can't give them another 50 million to reach that threshold.

It was reported though that it will be the member associations that will be making that determination which does lead to disparity between countries if they decide to enforce it differently.

biggiemal
9-4-11, 18:16
I was wondering at one point if this would be the 'tipping point' in the forming of the much fabled (and disparaged) 'European Super League'...

If the major players finally called for this because of sanction, would a new entity such as this still have to be governed by UEFA?

Just musing like....:confused:

BaJazusNavas
9-4-11, 18:28
If they are found guilty of breaching the rules, they'll lose Champions League football?

If true the likes of City could just spend 200 million one season and forget about the Champions League for a year. Qualify again the next year and romp home with 200 Mil worth the talent.

biggiemal
9-4-11, 18:38
If they are found guilty of breaching the rules, they'll lose Champions League football?

If true the likes of City could just spend 200 million one season and forget about the Champions League for a year. Qualify again the next year and romp home with 200 Mil worth the talent.

Its based over a number of previous years though...isn't it?:confused:

paul143
9-4-11, 18:57
Its based over a number of previous years though...isn't it?:confused:

yes it is. I think 3 year rolling average so there is nothing to stop city operating at a 200 million loss one season however for the four seasons either side that loss making season they have to have at least 100 million profit or they will lose the right to enter European football if the rules are enforced.

Super-Mac-and-Fries
10-4-11, 00:11
Excellent post Target.

I think uefa's determination to enforce the rules will be dependant on how many teams take them seriously in the first place. If, three years down the line, only Man City and Chelsea are operating outside of the rules it'll be much easier for Uefa to make a stand and all of the other teams that have gone through the trouble of abiding will be ****** off too. If most teams don't even try, then banning orders will never happen.

For me, I hope the whole thing is taken very seriously. Everyone should be able to see how insane it is to run clubs/companies without them being anywhere near self sufficient. All fans want their team to win trophies, but not to compromise their futures for it.

Luises-Finger
10-4-11, 01:32
UEFA surely must have thought this through - musn't they?

The big clubs will ignore it. The not big clubs will scream for it's enforcement.

If it is enforced, then the big clubs will look for ways round it and I assume eventually, UEFA will accept the ways round the rules and european football will continue as normal.

Basically, if we can forsee this then so can they. They ain't that stupid. UNLESS - they really mean it. If you don't believe that then what are their real motives? What's Platini really after?

Tactically, you'd make the rules lenient to start so there's no opposition. Then once they're in you'd tighten them.

dixielee
10-4-11, 12:29
Financial Fair Play rules will force us to build a 70.000 seat stadium .Without the money from a big stadium we will never have the money to build a great team under the new rules..

Super-Mac-and-Fries
10-4-11, 12:47
UEFA surely must have thought this through - musn't they?

The big clubs will ignore it. The not big clubs will scream for it's enforcement.

If it is enforced, then the big clubs will look for ways round it and I assume eventually, UEFA will accept the ways round the rules and european football will continue as normal.

Basically, if we can forsee this then so can they. They ain't that stupid. UNLESS - they really mean it. If you don't believe that then what are their real motives? What's Platini really after?

Tactically, you'd make the rules lenient to start so there's no opposition. Then once they're in you'd tighten them.

Could get interesting though because Arsenal are within the rules, our new owners are obviously planning to be and didn't I see it on the boards the other day that Man Utd will also be? If that's the case, I can't see the teams that are complying being happy with others that aren't.

If a lot of big teams across Europe are also within the rules then there will surely be a lot of pressure from them against the obvious flouters. They're not going to be happy with others having an advantage like that.

graham-47
10-4-11, 12:53
for the premier league
it is not uefa that sell the tv rights to sky/bbc or anyone else its the premier league.

graham-47
10-4-11, 12:56
Financial Fair Play rules will force us to build a 70.000 seat stadium .Without the money from a big stadium we will never have the money to build a great team under the new rules..

its not the size of your stadium its the amount of income coming in form all sources, shirt sale ect.
its too simple saying it the size of the stadium but it certainly helps.

Darrren1
10-4-11, 12:57
I think people are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Yes, there are ways round theses rules should teams which to use them, but the point is the teams have all agreed to these rules and are actually behind them. Apparently, none more so than the likes of Chelsea and City who have put their weight firmly behind the new proposals.

Roman Abramovich, for example, is sick of having to lay out huge sums of money ie 100m a year on wages and was keen for these new rules to be introduced.

Man City are also happy to see these new rules as they too dont want to throw endless supplies of money at the club. They are looking to make Man City sustainable in their own right by a) setting up the world's biggest academy to produce their own future stars and b) spending 1b on developing the area around the ground with hotels, shops etc which will bring in about 100m a year, all of which is allowed to be invested in the club without counting against them under these rules.

Super-Mac-and-Fries
10-4-11, 13:20
I think people are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Yes, there are ways round theses rules should teams which to use them, but the point is the teams have all agreed to these rules and are actually behind them. Apparently, none more so than the likes of Chelsea and City who have put their weight firmly behind the new proposals.

Roman Abramovich, for example, is sick of having to lay out huge sums of money ie 100m a year on wages and was keen for these new rules to be introduced.

Man City are also happy to see these new rules as they too dont want to throw endless supplies of money at the club. They are looking to make Man City sustainable in their own right by a) setting up the world's biggest academy to produce their own future stars and b) spending 1b on developing the area around the ground with hotels, shops etc which will bring in about 100m a year, all of which is allowed to be invested in the club without counting against them under these rules.

You're right mate, but it's very hard to see how Man City (in particular) will be able to stay within the requirements even if they stop paying massive transfer fees as their wage costs alone are huge. It will be a massive ask for them to find the additional income over the next few years to do that. I would guess they'd at least have to thin the squad down and that will be tough with players having to take a massive pay cut given the huge ridiculous amounts they've been handing out.

To me there's an inevitability about teams failing it, the question is whether Uefa have the power or desire to do much about it.

Tuta
10-4-11, 13:28
I think people are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Yes, there are ways round theses rules should teams which to use them, but the point is the teams have all agreed to these rules and are actually behind them. Apparently, none more so than the likes of Chelsea and City who have put their weight firmly behind the new proposals.

Roman Abramovich, for example, is sick of having to lay out huge sums of money ie 100m a year on wages and was keen for these new rules to be introduced.

Man City are also happy to see these new rules as they too dont want to throw endless supplies of money at the club. They are looking to make Man City sustainable in their own right by a) setting up the world's biggest academy to produce their own future stars and b) spending 1b on developing the area around the ground with hotels, shops etc which will bring in about 100m a year, all of which is allowed to be invested in the club without counting against them under these rules.

That kind of income will not be taken into consideration under these rules. Only football realated like tickets, player sales, shirts , club related souveniers etc.

Darrren1
10-4-11, 16:24
That kind of income will not be taken into consideration under these rules. Only football realated like tickets, player sales, shirts , club related souveniers etc.

I think it will be included. I've been told by someone who's been following this very closely that any income from shops, hotels etc around the ground will count as commercial revenue connected to the club - ie no different from selling shirts in the club shop or selling corportate boxes inside the stadium.

It would be different if their owners set up a new business somewhere else ie if they started selling cars in Grimsby - they couldnt just switch that revenue into the club. But these would be Man.City related hotels etc. and based in the proximity of the stadium - so thats considered to be fine.

Tuta
10-4-11, 16:30
I think it will be included. I've been told by someone who's been following this very closely that any income from shops, hotels etc around the ground will count as commercial revenue connected to the club - ie no different from selling shirts in the club shop or selling corportate boxes inside the stadium.

It would be different if their owners set up a new business somewhere else ie if they started selling cars in Grimsby - they couldnt just switch that revenue into the club. But these would be Man.City related hotels etc. and based in the proximity of the stadium - so thats considered to be fine.

Fair enough, you could be right. That will surely make space for manipulation on what is close proximity to the stadium (club base). Bigger city - bigger distance allowed?

Darrren1
10-4-11, 16:38
Fair enough, you could be right. That will surely make space for manipulation on what is close proximity to the stadium (club base). Bigger city - bigger distance allowed?

Yeah Im sure there will be lots of grey areas and disputes along the way. I think it might just be the fact that City own all that land around the stadium which at the moment is just wasteland. By turning it into a mini-village, City are entitled to claim all revenue from it as club revenue.

Remember, these rules are not being introduced to stop clubs from spending big money, but just to make sure they are living within their means. Therefore if Man.City are generating their own income on land that the club own, there's nothing wrong with them spending it.

biggiemal
10-4-11, 16:46
I think it will be included. I've been told by someone who's been following this very closely that any income from shops, hotels etc around the ground will count as commercial revenue connected to the club - ie no different from selling shirts in the club shop or selling corportate boxes inside the stadium.

It would be different if their owners set up a new business somewhere else ie if they started selling cars in Grimsby - they couldnt just switch that revenue into the club. But these would be Man.City related hotels etc. and based in the proximity of the stadium - so thats considered to be fine.

But surely by that logic, it will have to be the business side of Manchester City FC putting the money INTO producing such grounds and infra-structure...

Of course it would bring the money in eventually but how does the expenditure in making it happen not directly affect this overall FFP in the short term?
Wouldn't it blow themselves to smithereens for years to come?

Darrren1
10-4-11, 16:53
But surely by that logic, it will have to be the business side of Manchester City FC putting the money INTO producing such grounds and infra-structure...

Of course it would bring the money in eventually but how does the expenditure in making it happen not directly affect this overall FFP in the short term?
Wouldn't it blow themselves to smithereens for years to come?

There are certain things you can invest in that wont count towards your 3 year profit figures - acadamies and stadium development being 2 of them. Perhaps developing the land around the stadium comes under this category too.

biggiemal
10-4-11, 17:04
There are certain things you can invest in that wont count towards your 3 year profit figures - acadamies and stadium development being 2 of them. Perhaps developing the land around the stadium comes under this category too.

Guess it just proves how much of a minefield...and to what extent...the whole thing will have to be watched/policed...

I can (vaguely) remember when it used to be about 'kicking the ball around a park'...:(

paul143
10-4-11, 17:05
I am not sure about the hotels etc especially on non-match days/close season.


I. BREAK-EVEN REQUIREMENT
Article 58 – Notion of relevant income and expenses
1 Relevant income is defined as revenue from gate receipts, broadcasting rights, sponsorship and advertising, commercial activities and other operating income, plus either profit on disposal of player registrations or income from disposal of player registrations, excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets and finance income. It does not include any non-monetary items or certain income from non-football operations.

2 Relevant expenses is defined as cost of sales, employee benefits expenses and other operating expenses, plus either amortisation or costs of acquiring player registrations, finance costs and dividends. It does not include depreciation/impairment of tangible fixed assets, amortisation/impairment of intangible fixed assets (other than player registrations), expenditure on youth development activities, expenditure on community development activities, any other non-monetary items, finance costs directly attributable to the construction of tangible fixed assets, tax expenses or certain expenses from non-football operations.

3 Relevant income and expenses must be calculated and reconciled by the licensee to the annual financial statements and/or underlying accounting records, i.e. historic, current or future financial information as appropriate.

4 Relevant income and expenses from related parties must be adjusted to reflect the fair value of any such transactions.

5 Relevant income and expenses are further defined in Annex X.

Source (http://en.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf)

Darrren1
10-4-11, 17:31
I am not sure about the hotels etc especially on non-match days/close season.



Source (http://en.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf)

Well, I really hope you're right. The thought of Man.City being able to legitimately spend 100m a year forever more from this extra income is a pretty depressing one.

Target-Man
10-4-11, 18:15
I think people are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Yes, there are ways round theses rules should teams which to use them, but the point is the teams have all agreed to these rules and are actually behind them. Apparently, none more so than the likes of Chelsea and City who have put their weight firmly behind the new proposals.

Roman Abramovich, for example, is sick of having to lay out huge sums of money ie 100m a year on wages and was keen for these new rules to be introduced.

Man City are also happy to see these new rules as they too dont want to throw endless supplies of money at the club. They are looking to make Man City sustainable in their own right by a) setting up the world's biggest academy to produce their own future stars and b) spending 1b on developing the area around the ground with hotels, shops etc which will bring in about 100m a year, all of which is allowed to be invested in the club without counting against them under these rules.

I can see people like Abramovich being interested in the new rules, but I can also see them being rather ambivalent about it. Their teams have made it to the top of the game through outside investment, but that outside investment has also outpaced the development of other sources of revenue, which means that Chelsea and Man City, the two most obvious examples, are saddled with wage bills that seem unlikely to be supported by the revenue the clubs are able to generate on their own.

The thing is, that even without the huge transfer sums paid, a club like Chelsea is operating at a deficit, and the big transfers only add to already very sizeable wage bills. One would suspect that they would either have to stop buying big name players or sell a numbers of wage heavy names in order to stay within the limits. Or try to dare UEFA to stop them continuing their current practice.

Chelsea's experience shows the problems of spending big to get to a higher level and then trying to break even. People like Frank Arnesen were brought in to build up a group of talented youngsters, who could mature under the shelter of first team success to take over when the star names started fading, but the 70m of spending the January transfer window says all there is to say about the success of that strategy.

I would expect City to face similar problems. Having reached the top by spending big, you are often faced with the choice of continuing to spend big - or lower your ambitions.

If Chelsea and City are to live up to the rules for financial eligibility, I suspect they will find it hard to maintain that edge in quality that currently put them in the top four. And once they slide out of the top four, the lack of a solid revenue base in terms of worldwide support and merchandise sales, will hurt all the more.

smokintony
10-4-11, 20:00
Surly IF they back down on it every club that followed them rules could sue

Target-Man
10-4-11, 20:13
Surly IF they back down on it every club that followed them rules could sue

We're in for some interesting times.

RCD Mallorca were excluded from the Europa League, of course. I wonder if some of the big teams could not have been excluded as well, had UEFA wanted to do so.

paul143
10-4-11, 22:59
We're in for some interesting times.

RCD Mallorca were excluded from the Europa League, of course. I wonder if some of the big teams could not have been excluded as well, had UEFA wanted to do so.

Wasn't pompey excluded as well - yes I know they are not a big team but that is two of the three top leagues in UEFA.

An FA will be allowed to apply for a special license if a club has not been licensed by UEFA However that will be for a set of exceptional circumstances that is a club like cardiff or tranmere lift one of the cups. That special license is only valid for that team and for one year only.

-SilkySkills-
11-4-11, 02:37
ok say we put a liverpool top for sale at 25 million pounds would our owner be able to buy this making it balance the books because it counts as profit and then go out and buy sanchez ? :D

taffykopite53
11-4-11, 02:51
cant see the money men at city and chelski, sweatin on this, when you are used to dealing with mega money deals, there is always loopholes to deal with rules, they will find ways around these ideas,.ynwa jft96 :D

Meek
11-4-11, 13:22
Just pay the players a wage that is within the fair play rules, i.e. 20k a week then sign them up as a cleaner on 80k a week in one of the owners other businesses.

So pay Gerrard 20k a week and 80k a week as an overseas Baseball scout for the Red Soxs

Or pay Tevez 20k a week and 80k a week to work as cleaner for one of the owners middle east based businesses

jm291
11-4-11, 13:39
No club can be not be forced to play in the Champs. League next season by UEFA. UEFA have said that clubs will only be not entered for the Champs. League if their books don't add up or they are reducing their expenditures down upto the years of 2014-2015 season.

Up until then, clubs from the start of next season that is 2011-12, have to start reducing their debts and expenditures, season upon season or if they have one season in which the club expenditure goes up, then they are pretty much screwed.

In regards to the OP, the post noted that it could happen next season, which it won't because they enforcement of who plays or not won't happen til as said above. But I also agree that Im sure their are going to be ways around it for certain clubs because as you have mentioned the financial benefits for TV companies who would like to see the best clubs from Europe take on each other and not clubs from somewhere like Moldavia or Estonia. Looking at that way shows that there will be dodgy dealings behind the scenes. But one good thing, if that does happen and is thought of to happened, the clubs could have there accounts opened by requests under the Freedom of Information Act. This could render any dodgy dealings dead.

lfcstlouis
5-5-11, 15:51
I'm sure a lot of us are confused by the new Financial Fair Play rules going into effect in the next 2 years.

Here's an article which helps to 'clarify' a bit more of some of the rules put out. Also has a link in it which goes to a PDF of the actual legal issues.

It's from Sports Illustrated and the word 'soccer' is used, so just a heads up.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/gabriele_marcotti/05/05/ffp/index.html?sct=sc_t11_a1
Hope it helps.

Klopportunity
5-5-11, 15:57
The first paragraph says it all:


UEFA's Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules are a bit like parenting. You can tell your eight year old that if he doesn't tidy his room by the end of the day you'll take his bike away. But if dinner rolls around and it's not quite neat, but still not the absolute mess it was that morning and you believe he made a genuine effort to clean things up, you may let him keep the bike. Especially if you were really looking forward to that father-son bike ride the next day.

lfcstlouis
5-5-11, 16:19
The first paragraph says it all:

Pretty much. It all seems a bit murky and there plenty of loopholes and ways lawyers can make a claim to spend X amount of money to keep things rolling along the same way. Hopefully it will become more strict in the future, and curb some of the audacious spending habits of some teams.

Clarered
5-5-11, 20:38
Thanks for posting this. It will be interesting to see how it pans out and if UEFA would actually deny, say, Chelsea or Real Madrid a CL licence. Hmmm.

Bombay Money Lender
5-5-11, 22:06
What I hope is that it will at least act as a fishing net cast far and wide then slowly dragged in. There will be plenty of holes to escape through initially but as the net is closed there becomes less and less wriggle room and those trapped inside will eventually be smoked

redjonn
5-5-11, 22:23
Sad as it may be but I just watched a repeat of the Parliment Select Committe in Football Governance. On it was a representive from UEFA and what is said above is more or less what he said in response to questions on the FFP.

a) That they have tried to think through the possibilities (loopholes) but where they pop up they [UEFA] will have to keep moving quickly to keep closing them down in the early implementation stage.

b)They have a range of sanctions and hence may not have to use the ultimate of preventing team from playing in competition. For example he agreed to a suggestion that if club had not met the rules but showed they were moving in right direction they could as an example - use a lesser sanction of the club getting no prize money or some other sanction.

c)He also mentioned the 100M "sponsorship" Gazporm money to Schalke as an example of monies that may be an example of loophole. I guess meaning it wasn't really a sponsership deal as such but as this was not further discussed I have no clue what he was referring to.

He was a Mr Gaillard - Senior Advisor to the President of UEFA (Platini)

Redhead
9-6-11, 14:50
Afternoon all,

I would like to offer a couple of ideas on this and hopefully learn somemore on the matter from yourselves. The issue of Financial Fair Play (FFP) seems to still be a rather grey area for fans as to the implications on how it affects the running of the club, however I believe the way tranfers are now being carried out will change football in this Country forever.

From what I can gather FFP is about clubs only being able to spend what they bring in. Therefore the 'asset' value of the player is more important now that it ever has been.

For this reason, is that why the top teams in the league are now turning to young talented players who, if nurtured properly, will only increase in their asset value? The current examples being Phil Jones and Jordan Henderson (somewhere in the region of 16mil each), if they develop their potential after three years into the contracts they will still be worth the initial outlay the club made and hopefully more, thus balancing the books in the eyes of the FFP rulings.

I also noticed that contracts to new younger players are increasing in their timescale. We are now seeing six year deals as opposed to the old standard four. Is this because the FFP rules are over the course of the contract and not one lump sum? If my reading of the situation is correct, say Liverpool buy five new players this window at the total cost of 100 millions pounds all on five year deals, it doesn't mean that Liverpool would have to find an extra 100 million revenue in the 2011-2012 season, but revenue needs to remain stable over 20 million a season for the next five years through extra income and player sales etc. Thus the asset value of a player is now more important than ever.

Finally are we about to see the end of older players moving for massive transfer fees? My reasoning being would a club lay out 30 million pounds for a 29 year old player in this FFA climate who would have an asset value of zero (or minimal value) in four years time? Will we now see more established older players now running down their contracts and moving on a free to help their new perspective clubs balance the books?

I realise at this point I am probably talking rubbish, but I cannot help but notice a total different approach and strategy in the transfer markets. Are the days of expensive established players now being minimalised in favour of young potential talent who will retain their asset value for longer?

One final final point as well is the value of the manager now will really be tested in these new times. The importance of a manager who can nurture youth and potential will be paramount, as opposed to a managerial strategy that relies on buying players at the end of their careers to keep the club in the top flight?

I'm really interested to gather peoples thoughts on this matter because as fans I don't think we've yet to grasp how important these FFP regulations will help change the way football is run in this Country.

Toredo
9-6-11, 15:27
You are spot on. The emphasis will be on signing young players with older players going on free transfers more often.

SerRenely
9-6-11, 16:58
I just thinking player prices have to drop after this as teams can't afford to shell out this much money.

koptonite
9-6-11, 18:44
Does the fact we are not in Europe mean we get an extra year without being under these controls?

Redhead
9-6-11, 18:59
Does the fact we are not in Europe mean we get an extra year without being under these controls?

I'm not sure kop but will look into it. Is that your understanding of the ruling?

RedGedinLA
9-6-11, 19:46
Your assessment is right. Platini and his Gaullist cronies came up with this political device to benefit nations like France, whose clubs have little cash and have become mere talent incubators for richer leagues.
They wanted to drive up the value of those assets, while diminishing the value of older, established players at richer clubs. At the same time they restricted spending, which also assists French and other smaller leagues to compete in Europe and maintain independence.

Redhead
9-6-11, 21:46
Your assessment is right. Platini and his Gaullist cronies came up with this political device to benefit nations like France, whose clubs have little cash and have become mere talent incubators for richer leagues.
They wanted to drive up the value of those assets, while diminishing the value of older, established players at richer clubs. At the same time they restricted spending, which also assists French and other smaller leagues to compete in Europe and maintain independence.

It was only my thoughts RedGed how I see it. I could be well off the mark, but it does appear that the way we became used to seeing transfers happen could start to be a thing of the past as the top clubs look to invest large sums in potential rather than established players

bigjez
9-6-11, 21:57
Afternoon all,

I would like to offer a couple of ideas on this and hopefully learn somemore on the matter from yourselves. The issue of Financial Fair Play (FFP) seems to still be a rather grey area for fans as to the implications on how it affects the running of the club, however I believe the way tranfers are now being carried out will change football in this Country forever.

From what I can gather FFP is about clubs only being able to spend what they bring in. Therefore the 'asset' value of the player is more important now that it ever has been.

For this reason, is that why the top teams in the league are now turning to young talented players who, if nurtured properly, will only increase in their asset value? The current examples being Phil Jones and Jordan Henderson (somewhere in the region of 16mil each), if they develop their potential after three years into the contracts they will still be worth the initial outlay the club made and hopefully more, thus balancing the books in the eyes of the FFP rulings.

I also noticed that contracts to new younger players are increasing in their timescale. We are now seeing six year deals as opposed to the old standard four. Is this because the FFP rules are over the course of the contract and not one lump sum? If my reading of the situation is correct, say Liverpool buy five new players this window at the total cost of 100 millions pounds all on five year deals, it doesn't mean that Liverpool would have to find an extra 100 million revenue in the 2011-2012 season, but revenue needs to remain stable over 20 million a season for the next five years through extra income and player sales etc. Thus the asset value of a player is now more important than ever.

Finally are we about to see the end of older players moving for massive transfer fees? My reasoning being would a club lay out 30 million pounds for a 29 year old player in this FFA climate who would have an asset value of zero (or minimal value) in four years time? Will we now see more established older players now running down their contracts and moving on a free to help their new perspective clubs balance the books?

I realise at this point I am probably talking rubbish, but I cannot help but notice a total different approach and strategy in the transfer markets. Are the days of expensive established players now being minimalised in favour of young potential talent who will retain their asset value for longer?

One final final point as well is the value of the manager now will really be tested in these new times. The importance of a manager who can nurture youth and potential will be paramount, as opposed to a managerial strategy that relies on buying players at the end of their careers to keep the club in the top flight?

I'm really interested to gather peoples thoughts on this matter because as fans I don't think we've yet to grasp how important these FFP regulations will help change the way football is run in this Country.

Great post but I'd like to know how these rules are financially fair. It seems to me that the big clubs will just get bigger. This could be like winning the premier league in it's 1st year(bigger money). If you get the jump now and spend you could cement the club as let's say top four for a few years generating even more money to spend. This could stop clubs like Spurs (ha) ever getting into champions league again. Spend spend spend I say and worry about it in year 4 or 5

Redhead
9-6-11, 22:09
Great post but I'd like to know how these rules are financially fair. It seems to me that the big clubs will just get bigger. This could be like winning the premier league in it's 1st year(bigger money). If you get the jump now and spend you could cement the club as let's say top four for a few years generating even more money to spend. This could stop clubs like Spurs (ha) ever getting into champions league again. Spend spend spend I say and worry about it in year 4 or 5

I agree totally with what you say jez. Because the big clubs have bigger income then naturally they will be able to spend more. I think these new rulings are designed more to stop the concept of multi billionaires buying up clubs and throwing money at them. Hypothetically, under the old regime Man City could bid 250 million for Messi with the spare change in the Sheiks back pocket, but that kind of activity now could jeopardise their Champions League place. It has its benefits, like preventing the just mentioned scenario, but I feel it is also flawed in some aspects.

smokintony
9-6-11, 22:14
This is why we need a decision on what we are doing about the stadium ASAP

Lizboy10
9-6-11, 22:17
I agree totally with what you say jez. Because the big clubs have bigger income then naturally they will be able to spend more. I think these new rulings are designed more to stop the concept of multi billionaires buying up clubs and throwing money at them. Hypothetically, under the old regime Man City could bid 250 million for Messi with the spare change in the Sheiks back pocket, but that kind of activity now could jeopardise their Champions League place. It has its benefits, like preventing the just mentioned scenario, but I feel it is also flawed in some aspects.

Red give me a minute I will pull one of my threads from a while ago in.

Will explain a lot for you mate

Lizboy10
9-6-11, 22:20
Good afternoon all. So today is the day Deloitte release their annual "Rich List" for euopean football clubs. This year these figures are more anticipated than ever before due to the new UEFA financial rules that come into force this year.

The figures released by Deloitte are interesting reading to say the least and I believe it is important we analyse these figures.
This isnt a thread directly discussing the UEFA financial rules, more over a thread to compare our growth and revenues based on other British Clubs and how we stand against them.

Firstly lets look at the revenue figures for British clubs based on 2009/2010. It is important to bear in mind Liverpool FC figures do include a Champions League season.

Rvenues (In Euro's):

Manchester United $349.80
Arsenal $274.10
Chelsea $255.90
Liverpool $225.30
Man City $152.80
Spurs $132.70

As a caviat I want to add that Arsenal also made $162 Million on sale of property at The Emirtates.

Firstly as you can all see we sit 4th in the revenues, $30 million behind Chelsea. We have spoken about Chelsea not being a bigger club than us history wise but there is no doubt they are competing in actual revenues.

For me the indicator of who the biggest clubs are, are the monies made via commercial gain, ie through shirt sales etc.
These figures make interesting reading.

Manchester United: $97.95 Million
Liverpool $76.60 Million
Chelsea $69.10 Million
Man City $56.53 Million
Arsenal $54.87 Million
Spurs $34.50 Million

Yes Man Utd are top but we are 2nd in this table with decent commercial revenues. For me and I know NESV are prioritising this area we should be making more than this however when you equate in we havent won anything in the last few years these figures are not too bad.
I was also surprised to see Chelsea hot on heels in the commercial revenue and also very surprised that Man City are making more on commercial revenue than Arsenal!

Final point in this is a quick note for Spurs fans! A big club!!??? With commercial revenues of 34.50 Million!? I dont think so, now jump back in your box small club!

When disecting the figures the most startling statistic is our match day revenue!! It is terrible for a club of our stature.

Match Day Revenue Figures
Here they are:

Manchester Utd: $122.43
Arsenal $115.12
Chelsea $81.88
Liverpool $51.82
Spurs $41.13
Man City $30.56

One thing in particular jumps out at me here.

1) How can Chelsea have $30 Million more revenue than us on matchdays when their stadium is smaller than ours and thus get less people watching their games!! This needs to be addressed obviously as soon as possible, when you look at Man Utd and Arsenal more than doubling our figures for match days!

THE MAIN AREA OF CONCERN!

This season now will be a very bad year for us revenue wise after missing out on Champions league football and the broadcasting figures are going to drop dramatically this year!

The 4 Champions League sides' revenue was as follows:

Man Utd : $129.42 Millon
Chelsea : $104.92 Million
Arsenal : $104.16 Million
Liverpool : $96.88 Million

These figures are staggering compared to the next best:

Man City :$65.70 Million
Spurs :$57.06 Million

As you can see our broadcasting revenue for this season will fall from $97 Million to around the $65 Million mark. This figure has also been estimated by Deloitte and assumes a minimum of a semi final UEFA cup appearance. We can take our figure for this year as being roughly Man City's figure for last season.

So this time mext year we will drop significantly from 225 Million revenues to approximately $190 Million which is a significant drop.

I think these figures actually highlight the impact of not making it into the Champions League make. It costs us $30 Million every season we are not in it so please no one get confused with a good UEFA cup run as helping us because it doesnt as City did well in the Uefa cup last season and Fulham who got to the final didnt make a great deal, several million at best.

These figures are excellent in seeing where we need to go.

Champions League is vital and so is the grounds. Everyone knows this anyway as a given but when seeing the stats in front of you it makes you realise just how quickly we need both to comoete and to sustain.

Without either we are easily 100 million down and that is a lot to make up.

Well there you are guys, thought I would spend an hour or so putting this together for you all.

Look forward to your thought.

Redhead
9-6-11, 22:21
This is why we need a decision on what we are doing about the stadium ASAP

Part of the reason I've been looking into it tony. The thing is FSG are well aware of this too so the choice of whether to redevelop or rebuild is now even more important than it was 3-4 years ago.

smokintony
9-6-11, 22:22
I agree totally with what you say jez. Because the big clubs have bigger income then naturally they will be able to spend more. I think these new rulings are designed more to stop the concept of multi billionaires buying up clubs and throwing money at them. Hypothetically, under the old regime Man City could bid 250 million for Messi with the spare change in the Sheiks back pocket, but that kind of activity now could jeopardise their Champions League place. It has its benefits, like preventing the just mentioned scenario, but I feel it is also flawed in some aspects.

Would it bother City IF they win the league in the next 3 seasons IF they miss one or 2 CL tournaments?

Lizboy10
9-6-11, 22:25
k...Good afternoon all. So today is the day Deloitte release their annual "Rich List" for euopean football clubs. This year these figures are more anticipated than ever before due to the new UEFA financial rules that come into force this year.

The figures released by Deloitte are interesting reading to say the least and I believe it is important we analyse these figures.
This isnt a thread directly discussing the UEFA financial rules, more over a thread to compare our growth and revenues based on other British Clubs and how we stand against them.

Firstly lets look at the revenue figures for British clubs based on 2009/2010. It is important to bear in mind Liverpool FC figures do include a Champions League season.

Rvenues (In Euro's):

Manchester United $349.80
Arsenal $274.10
Chelsea $255.90
Liverpool $225.30
Man City $152.80
Spurs $132.70

As a caviat I want to add that Arsenal also made $162 Million on sale of property at The Emirtates.

Firstly as you can all see we sit 4th in the revenues, $30 million behind Chelsea. We have spoken about Chelsea not being a bigger club than us history wise but there is no doubt they are competing in actual revenues.

For me the indicator of who the biggest clubs are, are the monies made via commercial gain, ie through shirt sales etc.
These figures make interesting reading.

Manchester United: $97.95 Million
Liverpool $76.60 Million
Chelsea $69.10 Million
Man City $56.53 Million
Arsenal $54.87 Million
Spurs $34.50 Million

Yes Man Utd are top but we are 2nd in this table with decent commercial revenues. For me and I know NESV are prioritising this area we should be making more than this however when you equate in we havent won anything in the last few years these figures are not too bad.
I was also surprised to see Chelsea hot on heels in the commercial revenue and also very surprised that Man City are making more on commercial revenue than Arsenal!

Final point in this is a quick note for Spurs fans! A big club!!??? With commercial revenues of 34.50 Million!? I dont think so, now jump back in your box small club!

When disecting the figures the most startling statistic is our match day revenue!! It is terrible for a club of our stature.

Match Day Revenue Figures
Here they are:

Manchester Utd: $122.43
Arsenal $115.12
Chelsea $81.88
Liverpool $51.82
Spurs $41.13
Man City $30.56

One thing in particular jumps out at me here.

1) How can Chelsea have $30 Million more revenue than us on matchdays when their stadium is smaller than ours and thus get less people watching their games!! This needs to be addressed obviously as soon as possible, when you look at Man Utd and Arsenal more than doubling our figures for match days!

THE MAIN AREA OF CONCERN!

This season now will be a very bad year for us revenue wise after missing out on Champions league football and the broadcasting figures are going to drop dramatically this year!

The 4 Champions League sides' revenue was as follows:

Man Utd : $129.42 Millon
Chelsea : $104.92 Million
Arsenal : $104.16 Million
Liverpool : $96.88 Million

These figures are staggering compared to the next best:

Man City :$65.70 Million
Spurs :$57.06 Million

As you can see our broadcasting revenue for this season will fall from $97 Million to around the $65 Million mark. This figure has also been estimated by Deloitte and assumes a minimum of a semi final UEFA cup appearance. We can take our figure for this year as being roughly Man City's figure for last season.

So this time mext year we will drop significantly from 225 Million revenues to approximately $190 Million which is a significant drop.

I think these figures actually highlight the impact of not making it into the Champions League make. It costs us $30 Million every season we are not in it so please no one get confused with a good UEFA cup run as helping us because it doesnt as City did well in the Uefa cup last season and Fulham who got to the final didnt make a great deal, several million at best.

These figures are excellent in seeing where we need to go.

Champions League is vital and so is the grounds. Everyone knows this anyway as a given but when seeing the stats in front of you it makes you realise just how quickly we need both to comoete and to sustain.

Without either we are easily 100 million down and that is a lot to make up.

Well there you are guys, thought I would spend an hour or so putting this together for you all.

Look forward to your thought.


22:21

Lizboy10
9-6-11, 22:27
[B][/B

Morning all.

I have read and heard several so called "experts" talk abput the potential Anfield redevelopment effecting the clubs buying power over the next 3 years.

This is absolute nonsense. The problem with these rules that are being brought in in 2012 is that people dont spend time to dissect them and actually understand them.

Yes from 2012 revenue is vital, however what people fail to realise is that any losses in revenue can be offset over a 3 year period.

A club can not make a loss of more than 45 Million over 3 years. Therefore the 33% loss (approximate) we would receive on redeveloping Anfield over 12 months will be replaced with an approximate 30% increase in match day revenue over 2 years which will actually increase proportional revenue over the 3 years based on a mean average profit and loss forecast.

In my opinion as I have stated in the past, the key is the timing of development and I believe it will be as soon as the last ball is kicked at Anfield at the end of the 2011/2012 season.

When we look at Anfield itself. Where do we feel that the expansion will occur? Within what parts of the ground do we feel expansion is possible?

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/tickets/anfield-seating-plan

I am intrigued to view a blueprint of any proposed expansion as we all know, Anfield as it stands is very compact and does pack the 45000 seats in as it is, so where and how can this expansion be done.

These financial rules are going to provide Spurs and Man City with horrendous problems in relation to buying players in the future.

Spurs

Total Revenue - 119 Million

Wages - 94 Million (79% of turnover!!!!)

Man City

125 Million - Wages

141 Million - (112% of revenue!! )

If you take a rough average of 40 million to also run a football club of this size you see the huge problems these guys have.

In comparison our figures

Revenue - 184 Million

Wages - 103 Million (56% of revenue)

These figures put things in perspective and show how viable we are even with the drop in revenue we will see in the next 2 years.

http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/showthread.php?t=235510

Interesting stuff guys.

Your thoughts??

Jonny-Blaze
9-6-11, 23:34
Very insightful OP, I for one have advocated a mix to the transfer policy, i.e. buying both younger and more established players partly because of the importance I place on next season for us, but also mainly due to the inspiring youth set up we have at the moment and my preference to not 'kill the dreams' of some of our young guns to coin Wengers phrase. However you've given me a new perpspective with the OP, and it makes very sound logic.

It also seems to be for the good of the game, firstly so that the focus will more than ever be on developping youth, and that is just exciting for football, it's what brings in new paradigms and evolution, and also it makes the situation fairer, without making it the same. For example, Man U, although it pains me to say it, have earnt there success, likewise ourselves and Arsenal are legacy club with a tradition respected worldwide which has facilitated our huge fanbase (us more than Arsenal) but teams loke Citeh and CFC, take waway their owners, they are only average size clubs, infact Chealsea were, support wise, a small club before RA came along. so now they will have to earn there weight and not just 'sugar daddy' it

Redhead
10-6-11, 10:09
It also seems to be for the good of the game, firstly so that the focus will more than ever be on developping youth, and that is just exciting for football, it's what brings in new paradigms and evolution, and also it makes the situation fairer, without making it the same. For example, Man U, although it pains me to say it, have earnt there success, likewise ourselves and Arsenal are legacy club with a tradition respected worldwide which has facilitated our huge fanbase (us more than Arsenal) but teams loke Citeh and CFC, take waway their owners, they are only average size clubs, infact Chealsea were, support wise, a small club before RA came along. so now they will have to earn there weight and not just 'sugar daddy' it

I think it will definetly be good for the game in this perspective that it will help promote youth which is good for the team in developing players, and good for the club in retaining assets.

I was reading last night how clubs may try and exploit loopholes in the system. For example Manchester City accepting a naming rights bid from a 'company' in the Middle East for 1 billion pounds. Now how UEFA are going to police this kind of potential activity is probably for a different thread.

I think the problem with many issues in football is clubs just not accepting new rules and regulations. Instead multi-billionaire led clubs just look to expolit regulations and the governing bodies in football are too weak to enforce the rules.

robbieflowerpot
1-7-11, 08:57
Mentioned herein by the Guvnor

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2011/07/01/2555569/liverpool-owner-warns-clubs-they-will-not-spend-over-the-odds-as-

but what does it mean in terms of spending and how come the likes of City and Chelsea don't seem to be giving them due consideration?

Are they mandatory and what does it mean for our spending both in the future and for the here and now if our owners are planning to meet the rules from this point on?

OLI1879
1-7-11, 09:01
Not sure but I'm sure there will be loopholes.

There is a good thread here (http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/showthread.php?t=250536)

OLI1879
1-7-11, 09:02
Oh and they aren't mandatory, the rules are only if you want to compete in a Euro competition. I'm not sure how rigidly they will uphold the rules top be honest.

robbieflowerpot
1-7-11, 09:02
Not sure but I'm sure there will be loopholes.

There is a good thread here (http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/showthread.php?t=250536)

Good shout, thanks.

red6
1-7-11, 10:10
Doesnt become full effective until 2015

SixYardBoxer
1-7-11, 12:33
Doesnt become full effective until 2015

....But the impact will be immediate and must be taken into account by clubs making transfers this summer. This is from a UEFA statement dated Feb 2011|

"There is no doubt that transfers made now will impact on the break-even results of the financial years ending 2012 and 2013 the first financial years to be assessed under the break-even rule. The clubs know the rules and also know that UEFA is fully committed to implementing them with rigour. For example, as from this summer all payments due on transfers and to employees will be assessed by the Club Financial Control Panel (CFC Panel) as part of the "enhanced overdue payables" rule."

calandkarl
1-7-11, 12:45
Not sure but I'm sure there will be loopholes.

There is a good thread here (http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/showthread.php?t=250536)

The loophole will be that they cannot possibly apply to a club like Chelsea, which does not exsist as a business as it is owned by one man, and therefore is not run as a business, more as a rich man's hobby.

The ffotball bodies have got to be careful cos Chelseas and City can afford very good lawyers who will pull apart anything that stops them speniding ther way to the top, would not surprise me if FIFA moved on one onf them for breach of these rules it ended up in court.

KOPGIRL1971
1-7-11, 12:57
Here's the official uefa document, it's long, so have patience :)

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/protectingthegame/financialfairplay/news/newsid=1500331.html

A phased implementation period will be undertaken over three years, and the main component of the regulations – the 'break-even' requirement – will come into force for financial statements in the reporting period ending 2012, to be assessed during the 2013/14 UEFA club competition season. Initial sanctions against clubs who do not fulfil the break-even requirement can be taken in the 2013/14 season, on the basis of financial information from the two previous campaigns.

SixYardBoxer
1-7-11, 12:59
The loophole will be that they cannot possibly apply to a club like Chelsea, which does not exsist as a business as it is owned by one man, and therefore is not run as a business, more as a rich man's hobby.

.

What difference does this make? Abramovich is sole shareholder but CFC is still a business. That's how UEFA will attempt to assess it, by looking at income, direct costs, overhead and the resultant profit or loss in a 12 month period.

What Abramovich does now is loan the company money and then not bother to recall the debt (although he could in theory - if he got bored and left he could do this and Chelsea would implode).

These type of financial 'gifts' will (apparently) not be allowed under the new rules.

If he tries to get round this by sponsoring Stamford Bridge for 500m for example, he'll haveto prove that this is a reasonable "Market rate" of sponsorship, which clearly it isn't.

Interesting times...

I predict a riot!

paul143
1-7-11, 13:40
There will be clubs than will be exempt. However they will be either those clubs that have a turnover under a specific amount or the FA can apply for an extraordinary licence for one year only on behalf of clubs.

The extraordinary license will apply to those clubs that qualify from the lower divisions via the cup.

I am not sure if it considers what should happen if a lower division side gets promoted to the premier league and qualifies within two seasons qualify for the CL or EL via their league placing.

koptonite
4-7-11, 13:10
Anyone know what happens if you are inside the rules and then fail to qualify for the CL and have a 40m drop in income as a result so are now outside of the rules? Seems like it will be hard to get back into compliance without a player sell off?

paul143
4-7-11, 13:19
The smart clubs (i.e. not Leeds) would not assume they will qualify for the CL year in/year out and budget accordingly.

If it is for a season then they will be able to cope with the down turn in finance.

Target-Man
4-7-11, 13:46
I have one big problem with the Financial Fair Play rules, and that is the name.

Basically, everyone can agree that fair play is as, well, fair and decent thing. However, we also know that when push comes to shove, getting what you want counts more than fair play. Indeed, if clubs had actually cared about fairness, we would not have needed any rules for it.

The real name ought to be Financial Eligibility Rules. That would the question of fairness from the equation - thus removing the implication that this is something clubs do out of a gentlemanly conviction that it is inappropriate to use their full financial muscle.

Calling them "Financial Eligibility Rules" would be a signal that this is something you will have to qualify for, and if you can't, you don't belong in this league.

koptonite
4-7-11, 14:17
Calling them "Financial Eligibility Rules" would be a signal that this is something you will have to qualify for, and if you can't, you don't belong in this league.

Good point. You should work for UEFA, although perhaps your morals are too good.

I also don't like the following.

Initial sanctions against clubs who do not fulfil the break-even requirement can be taken in the 2013/14 season, on the basis of financial information from the two previous campaigns.
By using the word "can", leaves it open to corruption and the option of doing nothing at all to clubs with the ear of UEFA.

paul143
4-7-11, 14:33
Good point. You should work for UEFA, although perhaps your morals are too good.

I also don't like the following.

By using the word "can", leaves it open to corruption and the option of doing nothing at all to clubs with the ear of UEFA.

Didn't they learn anything from the 05/06 season. When the relevant passage that meant we qualified instead of Everton included the word "MAY". :rolleyes: I guess if you are a good corporate/sports lawyer you do not work for UEFA or FIFA.

Target-Man
4-7-11, 16:18
Didn't they learn anything from the 05/06 season. When the relevant passage that meant we qualified instead of Everton included the word "MAY". :rolleyes: I guess if you are a good corporate/sports lawyer you do not work for UEFA or FIFA.

I think the point is that they want to make the rules a little more like guidelines, so that they can still favour the big teams, should they not qualify.

koptonite
4-7-11, 16:27
I think the point is that they want to make the rules a little more like guidelines, so that they can still favour the big teams, should they not qualify.

Well that's alright then, if you're a big team. Fair play my ar_e:FP:

scousertommy-86
4-7-11, 22:42
Mentioned herein by the Guvnor

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2011/07/01/2555569/liverpool-owner-warns-clubs-they-will-not-spend-over-the-odds-as-

but what does it mean in terms of spending and how come the likes of City and Chelsea don't seem to be giving them due consideration?

Are they mandatory and what does it mean for our spending both in the future and for the here and now if our owners are planning to meet the rules from this point on?

Don't worry if you don't know them.

Manchester Cheif Exec Garry Cook doesn't understand them either....

Fizzle
5-7-11, 00:04
Anyone know what happens if you are inside the rules and then fail to qualify for the CL and have a 40m drop in income as a result so are now outside of the rules? Seems like it will be hard to get back into compliance without a player sell off?

Hopefully we have already planned for this situation and will bewnefit in the long run.
I believe Henry and Co anticipate this and thats why they mention 2 to three seasons. They don't want to say what they will do but maybe they have planned for total dominance in European football for LFC:scarf

redeyes77
5-7-11, 19:04
y are we the only ones who seem to be concerned with the financial fair play rules??????


anyone help?

-Rianaldo-
5-7-11, 19:07
Are we?

Paullfc1976
5-7-11, 19:07
y are we the only ones who seem to be concerned with the financial fair play rules??????


anyone help?

Are your W & H keys stuck?

or maybe I should say: r ** w n h keys stuck?

redeyes77
5-7-11, 19:09
cheers thats great :FP:

Spearmint16
5-7-11, 19:09
Are your W & H keys stuck?

or maybe I should say: r ** w n h keys stuck?

Knew it wouldn't be long before someone pointed out the text speech.. :rolleyes: