It begins lads...
http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfir...d=1908817.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by UEFA
Printable View
It begins lads...
http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfir...d=1908817.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by UEFA
Wow. Some big clubs in there (historically anyway). Let's see if the bans are upheld (they're all pending amounts being paid by a set date for the moment).
Could be the start of a very interesting period.
pineapple stu has a google alert set up for everytime the word financial is used on foot.ie
So far it seems to be dealing only with cases where money is owed to other clubs or tax authorities. The real test will be if they are prepared to deal with billionaire backers who gives non-refundable loans to their clubs.
All smoke and mirrors IMO.
The clubs will be hiding money everywhere...
Correct. But FFP has to start somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Hopefully PSG, Man City and do I dare say, Barcelona are in their sights...
A lot of English right-wingers including EPL apologist-in-chief Martin Samuel see Platini and FFP as a Johnny Foreigner figure intent on pursuing an anti-English agenda, but I have been told by people in the know that Spain is the prime focus of concern.
I think FFP is well-intentioned and reasonably well thought out, but run the risk of various unintended consequences such as hoarding of talented kids (youth development is exempt from the expenditure calculation) and will probably also discourage any move towards collective media right selling in Spain. Many say that it will only entrench the status of big clubs but I think it'll help level the playing field and reward responsible ownership.
Basically, Malaga and the other clubs have been found guilty and sanctioned, unless they can prove their innocence before the end of March.
I think the first port of call for the 'guilty until proven innocent' should be PSG, Man City and Chelsea, unless UEFA are refining their methods of attack with the 'small fry' first.
As it stands now, I'm not convinced - yet.
Aren't Man City aiming to be profitable in the next few years (without the Shiekh's help I mean)? I know they had a huge loss this year, but from what I read it seemed like they were on course to be within FFP rules over the next few years. There are so many little loopholes. Even Man Utd, so heavily in debt, aren't that far from FFP compliance with their annual losses.
Slightly linked to financial fair play, who can tell me the top 10 players onthe list of the highest accumulated transfer fees?
Answers on this link, in reverse order (an is, No. 1 has the 10th highest accumulated transfer fees) - I've no idea if it's accurate or not. Some of the numbers seem much higher than I remember. Be careful, as even hovering over the link will give you some answers.
Don't quote the link so others can guess too.
Our Robbie's surely up there?
6th, I think.
Man City and Chelsea aren't in breach of any rules yet. The break-even calculation period is a rolling 3 year period and last season was the first season where the clock started ticking. I think Malaga et al were guilty of non-compliance with the clause that states all tax bills must be up to date.
There are carve outs and loopholes. Infrastructure, community outreach and youth development costs are all taken off the expenditure total. In the first few years any losses up to euro 45mm (then reducing) are allowed as long as an equity cheque is written by the owner. This can not be a loan. Also, if the failure to meet UEFA's break-even calculation is down to losses in the 2011/12 season and due to wages set by contracts signed pre-2010 (?) then this is overlooked.
On the income side clubs must prove that sponsorship deals are set at proper market value. UEFA has the right, for example, to insist that Man City's stadium rights income be recorded at a lower amount than they actually received because it's clear that it was a deal not struck at arm's length from its owner. As one guy asked "what was the second highest offer?".
I'm slightly cynical of the huge amounts City is spending on community outreach. My suspicion is by creating such a large pot of money that can be deducted from the expenditure calculation they'll cut player wages but offer them huge sums for making hospital visits. That kind of thing.
There's a brilliant blog (linked in the post below this one) that details FFP very thoroughly and suggests that City and Chelsea could well meet the criteria because of the carve outs, despite the big headline losses. He suggests that PSG has little chance in a separate blog specific to PSG.
I understand UEFA is very intent on making this work but for me the biggest disappointments are that exclusion from UEFA competition is only a possible sanction, not mandatory, and that even breaches will be allowed if the losses are trending the right way. How woolly is that?
Another interesting part is that clubs exceeding a certain wage to income level (70pc I think) must consult with UEFA about taking remedial action.
Expect a bonanza for lawyers and accountants.
I forgot to say that 'non football revenues' are excluded from the revenue calculation. This poses the question of whether Arsenal's property sales and concert and exhibition revenues are allowed to make positive contributions to their FFP calculation. I suspect they are but it's a grey area.
This is essential reading in my opinion - it should even be a sticky at the top of this thread:
http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/20...urce=BP_recent
Anyone who asks dumb questions about FFP can be directed above from now on!
Glad to hear infrastructure and youth development have been taken off the total, I was worried that FFP might work the opposite way to the intention, by making it very hard for aspiring clubs to make the investment needed to catch up to the big boys, effectively locking the pecking order the way it is for years to come.
Another good piece on Man City's likely compliance with FFP
http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/
I wouldn't be surprised if the day came when the mega rich or famous clubs formed their own league, something like the NFL, with no promotion or relegation and ignored UEFA, FIFA and any other FA for that matter.
Real Madrid
Barcelona,
Man U
Man C
Arsenal
Bayern M
Chelsea
Juve
Inter Milan
AC Milan
2 French and another German and
Shamrock Rovers
And what an interminably boring league that would be. I would love it to happen and for everyone of them to inadvertantly kill the goose and for them all to collapse.Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
It would be a horrible league! And I don't think it would work anyway. Any players associating themselves with it would be banned from all FIFA competitions (like the World Cup), so you'd have a struggle getting a the top players to come to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
More than than, proper football fans wouldn't be interested in supporting such a blatant commercial entity, they'd be reliant on the barstool armies of the Far East for most of their money. How many of the bandwagon jumpers who say they "support" Manyoo are going to have any interest in watching them finish 7th? They want success, they want it constantly, and they want it immediately.
UEFA step up their anti-terrorism campaign
Uefa fines Ajax (£10K) over fan banners critical of money at Man City game
Banner showing the sheikh (moneybags) : 'Against Modern Football'
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...banner-008.jpg
Another slogan read "€80 for the away section is ridiculous"
http://admin.radiocms.net/content/00...ulti_630x0.jpg
I would agree, but it seems to work for American sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Didn't Man City fans return some away tickets to Arsenal over ticket prices which were cheaper than they made Ajax fans pay?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
But the Man City away fans didn't set the ticket prices for the Ajax fans, did they?Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
I suppose what it means is that sections of the Man City away support are in agreement with the Ajax away support over the away ticket price structure for the respective competitions, the EPL and the CL.
No way you can compare them.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
30 odd teams in each of the big 4. Hockey and Basketball play 80 odd games a season to make cash. Baseball have 162 games in a regular season.
NFL play 16 regular season games but the sponsorship and advertising revenue are on another planet.
There's an interview in today's Guardian with UEFA's general secretary, Gianni Infantino,
Manchester City and PSG cannot 'cheat' financial fair play, Uefa warns
Sounds like he's firing a warning shot over the bows at PSG in particular.
"PSG have to respect the rules, they want to respect the rules. They are telling us they want to respect the rules. The FFP rules are there to help the clubs. Uefa doesn't want to sanction the clubs, we want to help them. But sometimes we have to sanction someone to help the clubs."
Clubs that exhibit "warning signs" will be investigated by a panel headed by the former Belgian prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene and sanctions handed down by a separate independent panel.
Uefa's team of 15 accountants will begin analysing figures next spring for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the first period to be monitored under the new break-even regime. Clubs will be allowed an acceptable deviation of up to €45m over those two years, as long as it is met by a benefactor
A benefactor??
Ah there's the fudge.
In FFP news, Sam Allardyce fears the new rules could unfairly prevents small working-class clubs like West Ham spending £20 million on Andy Carroll.
Clubs relegated from the English Premier League will now receive £60 million in parachute payments over four years, as opposed to the current £48 million.
And finally, Ken Early has exposed the German football renaissance for the industry-backed sham that it is, slating clubs like Bayern Munich for taking the "easy" route and unearthing a network of wealthy sponsors steeped in the local community rather than doing things the correct way and finding a billionaire mullah to bankroll the club from afar.
Yeah, thought the approach Sky sports took with Allardyce was weird. Not a single question to him on does he think its right that spending be linked to turnover?
Surely one of the main reasons backing FFP is that it will stop clubs who can't afford to buying Andy Carroll (et al)?
Exactly. Duh.
It might also make the likes of Andy Carroll less expensive.
Dem pesky Germans. Imagine actually having successful businesses spread around the whole country and rooted in their community, as well as well-run football clubs also rooted in their community. Utter tosh. Give me a Thatcherite Devil-take-the-hindmost, spendthrift, short-term focused model of foreign oligarch ownership any day of the week. It's a free market, innit? Mark my words, UEFA will return us to communism before we know it. Our liberties are at risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
That article by Early is tosh and not fit for publication.
On the parachute payments which I think are beyond insane...
It's always trumpeted that you need to spend to stay in the EPL and that you need these payments to make the transition to the championship to ensure you don't go bankrupt without your Sky money; but the question has to be asked why are they rewarding over-spending clubs with more money? It beggars belief and makes me wish for the English football explosion to come ever nearer.
Interesting point to note:
For coming bottom of the EPL you will receive £15m; if you win League One you will get £25k as it stands and then the next season you both are in the same division, namely the Championship. MADNESS!
Surely the answer is for clubs contract their players on X per week if they're in the EPL but they automatically get reduced to Y per week if they're in the Championship? Or a basic salary with a bonus contingent on staying in the EPL?
Post-Bosman payers hold all the bargaining power with the clubs. It used to be the other way around but it needs to be reversed a bit.
It'll take clubs to just say no. Unfortunately that will put them at a supreme disadvantage against their Sheikh and Russian funded rivals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Why is it tosh? What points of 'fact' do you dispute?Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
It's well known that the German clubs have lucrative sponsorship deals with German corporations. Indeed the status quo were crying foul play when Hoffenheim broke into the Bundesliga, not to mention Bayer Leverkusen and their sponsor Bayer AG (the ones who are killing all the bees).
It's tosh because Ken is approaching it from the angle of "big bad German clubs will kill our precious La Liga and EPL".Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
It's not fit for publication because it is a horrible read.
Did I have an issue with facts?
That doesn't quite cut the mustard.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Approaching the article earlier today from my usual ... objective ,,,, non agenda perspective, I didn't get that he was implying big bad Germans, precious victims elsewhere. I didn't even get that it was anti- Bundesliga.
He pretty much states that German football progress also has it's financial edge, which just happens to a substantial cutting edge.
It's not all down to football talent, good coaching, loud drunk fans who can get cheap tickets, stand up and follow orders in perfect synch from a megaphone conductor, but there is considerable corporate sponsorship in the mix.
Yes, do you have an issue with the 'facts'?Quote:
Did I have an issue with facts?
Maybe Early isn't responsible for the sub-editor's headline but there's a clear tone of disapproval of German clubs benefitting from the fact that their clubs and businesses work closely together. Its the way it should be, and at all levels. What Early appears to be saying is that you can scoff all you like at sugar daddy-funded clubs in England but German clubs get a helping hand too. Well, maybe if German clubs weren't mainly community rooted and seen as important local assets (rather than a brand to be tarted out to foreign oligarchs) then their local businesses wouldn't support them as much. Wolfsburg and Bayer are exceptions, having been founded by their businesses, similar to PSV in Holland. These companies presumably have shareholders to report to so won't be spending money frivolously. There's got to be some perceived benefit or CSR angle. Unless you're Milton Friedman, CSR is generally seen as a good thing.
Germany has strong businesses the length and breadth of the country. They also have strong football clubs. It's not a coincidence. Their structures and institutions beat England, Spain and Italy's hands down.
Personally I thought bonnie was taking issue with opinions and the way they were presented. I didn't see him complaining about any facts or alleged facts.
Anyway, as I alluded to in the McClean thread when it diverted into political philosophy and fascism etc., I said I had become very interested in "ordoliberalism"', a liberal economic approach that competes with laissez faire but is not a full on shift to interventionism. In both business and football the Germans have designed structures that recognise the downside to ultra liberal marketism so set rules and structures that seek to achieve the desired outcomes of markets but which explicitly curtail the worst tendencies. The Germans have long since recognised the football clubs don't always act rationally and will compete with each other in a financial arms race to buy success, which they can't all achieve.
Sure, there have been many cases of mismanagement and there have been failures and near failures, but there is an acceptance of regulations there that is opposed by many factions in England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Are you now implying that I have an agenda and am not objective the same way you inferred I had an issue with the 'facts' as Ken Early presented them?
There is a clear tone that I, CD, and Stutts and I'm sure many others have picked on that was my main criticism. There is a decent article in there waiting to jump out and in fact if Ken chose to write from the POV of "Look the Germans have loadsa corporate cashmoney as well and they are spending it wisely" then maybe it would warrant more consideration as an article.
The money and the systems bring through the talent and so on and the cycle will repeat itself, no one on here ever assumed it was all down to one or 2 variables that puts the Bundesliga above everything else.
No, I do not have issue with the facts. Where did I ever say I did or accuse Ken of falsehoods.Quote:
Yes, do you have an issue with the 'facts'?
POSH, get in here.
Yip, that was my issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
And you correctly didn't see me complain about facts.