Where did you hear/read that? That would be amazing. So it could be the case that a banning does not take place til 2029?! Of course we'll also have to see what happens in the intervening period when this rule gets tested in the courts to see if it is even legal. At least once. Yeah - not holding my breath on this one...
I believe that there's actually two monitoring periods within the first three years. The first is two years in length, relating to the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons, in which clubs have to post no more than 45m euro losses over the two years, failure to do so resulting in the possibility of the licence for competing in European competition in the 2014-15 season not being granted. The second monitoring period is essentially a one-year extension on the first - so it relates to the 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 seasons, in which clubs have to post no more than 45m euro losses over this three year period. The possibility being that the licence for competing in European competition in the 2015-16 season isn't granted if clubs fall outside of this figure. From the third monitoring period onwards (there being 5 monitoring periods in total, the last four each lasting 3 years, and each one overlapping) clubs can post losses of up to 30m euros over each 3 year period. The final monitoring period ending in 2016-17, which will relate to the licence for competing in competition for the 2018-19 season.
Thanks for the link, Boss. So how do UEFA (if they really have a mind to) prove that £300 million to rename Manufactured City's stadium is against the fair play rules? OK it seems to be 10x more than anyone else can get, it was handed to Citeh by another company of the same group etc, but how can the FP rules be written to stop that? And how do they stop the rules being challenged in court? I'm thinking that even if they wanted to rule against such action, it would take so long to enforce (even if possible) that the team in question will have already benefited hugely from such dodgy practice. In other words, the FP rules will take so long to establish themselves that the clubs they need to target will have created an unbreakable grip on the top of European football by then, if they haven't already.
Nothing too important, obviously. Otherwise your accountants wouldn't be able to produce such a hideous distortion of the truth!
I think that after the end of the final monitoring period, clubs are then required to (at least) break even. I believe that clubs will then be assessed on a year by year basis.
Thanks, that would make sense to me, but that doesn't mean it would to UEFA. I wouldn't put it past them to have this whole build up period to 2019 and then forget to monitor from then on
Wouldn't surprise me. It could be that the monitoring period is intended to work both ways - both to give clubs time to get their houses in order, and also to see whether FFP itself is a viable exercise. The problem with making losses doesn't so much lie with the clubs who can afford to turn those losses into equity, but rather with clubs who can't afford to cover any losses that it makes. That's what distinguishes the likes of City and Chelsea from the likes of Leeds and Portsmouth (at least as long as the owners stick around). But then I do agree with the FFP in principle - no football club, irrespective of the wealth of its owner, shouldn't not try to become a self-sustainable one. That's imperative for the long term future of any club. However, I don't see a problem with investment either, for it is often required to enable a club - or any business - to grow. In that respect, at least UEFA are not trying to stifle investment altogether, with the FFP rules allowing for investment into areas such as stadium development and youth development.
I read a really good article defending the ethiad deal shortly after the deal was made, I cannot find it anymore but the basis of it was: Arsenal signed a deal with Emirates, a 15 year deal worth £100mill which included naming the stadium and shirt sponsorship. At the time that might seem like a good deal to get their stadium built (and make the ethiad deal seem over the top) but in actual fact, as its a longterm deal (signed in 2004), Arsenal currently receive less than Aston Villa do in shirt sponsorship (and are tied to that for another 6 years). If you look at Liverpool's recent shirt sponsorship of a rumoured £80mill over 4 years (£20mill a year) the Man City deal no longer looks so unreasonable (at £35mill a year) considering that the Man City deal covers a whole lot more than just shirt sponsorship. In 2021 (when the deal runs out) you would imagine, given how these deals have been increasing in cost (with Man Utd even pimping out their training gear to DHL for £10mill a season for 4 years), that Ethiad will get more than their monies worth. Their is no question that Abu Dhabi (with Ethiad being its national airline) gets much, much more coverage from its association with Man City. There are constant references to the country and to ethiad itself (when talking about the stadium) in prity much every game in which they play (and a high proportion of the articles / media about them), much more than say Standard Chartered or Aon are mentioned in reference to Liverpool or Man Utd. Im actually not so sure that FFP is exactly how it reads, fair. It seems to me it is to protect the big boys, I see nothing wrong with the idea of Man City, PSG or Chelsea spending if it is backed by guarantees by the owners and it is not borrowed money.
Something has to be done unless the various football authorities are willing to stand by and allow a super elite of super rich clubs to develop, mostly funded by oil money. These clubs will eventually buy success in every competition they enter, both domestic and European. They will come to dominate football by dint of their wealth. If the governing bodies stand by and do nothing, their own power will diminish even further as these super rich clubs tighten their grip on the game. Eventually, the authorities will be toothless, and unable to resist the combined power of the cartel that will develop.
I somehow doubt that UEFA has a team of accountants auditing the books of every Premier division European club..son.
I think I read something about it being illegal to have another company owned by the owners of the club sponsor said club. Since Etihad is owned by Sheik Mansour it would be a violation of FFP rules to use that money in the annual income in the way a shirt sponsor would. I personally think the FFP won't do much. I believe it was implemented just to scare clubs that are just billionare's playthings, but won't actually have an effect on football.
If they're stupid enough to take the word of you Chavs, then I suppose they deserve what they get. I don't they would be that stupid, however, as Moscow was littered with the bodies of people who were stupid enough to take your owners' " word for it"
As i've said on another thread on this subject, Luke, my view is that the authorities have two choices- they can stand up and enforce the rules without fear or favour, as you say - or they will rapidly become irrelevant as a cartel of super rich clubs funded by oil money gradually gains more and more power and influence. If left unchecked, these clubs will, in a few short years, be claiming all the major trophies, along with all the top players. They will then be in such a powerful position that nobody will be in a position to challenge them. Here in Spain, I'm just wondering how long it will be before Malaga are challenging Barca and Real for the title. They've already bought their way into the CL!
You just don't get it do you. If UEFA were to start banning clubs it would be all the big clubs,all the clubs that bring in the money. Do you really think tv companies and sponsors will let that happen? Of course they won't.This was never about banning teams but keeping the same big clubs at the top.
