It begins lads...
http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfir...d=1908817.htmlOriginally Posted by UEFA
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
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
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
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...
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.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
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.
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.
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 22/12/2012 at 3:37 PM.
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!
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 22/12/2012 at 9:47 AM.
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
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
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.
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'
Another slogan read "€80 for the away section is ridiculous"
Bookmarks