****face..... We have more fans and therefore more reach so it makes sense that we have the biggest deals. What doesnt make sense is a club with a fanbase about 2% of ours getting a sponsorship deal substantially larger than United.
So all Man Utd and Barcelona need to do is deliberately keep sponsorship deals down to prevent others getting a better deal??
That would be this one: "a club will fail the "related party" test if money comes in from a "close member" of the club owner's family who "has significant influence over the [club]"." http://www.ffw.com/pdf/Financial-Fair-Play-Regs.pdf
I shall laugh so hard when FFP blows up in Platinis face..... It will never be properly enforced when they realise that most of the big clubs wont meet the regulations either. I worry that if they dont they will just bend the rules to keep them in yet throw the book at anyone else.
Did someone think PSG would get away with it because Platini is a PSG man or that the russian club would get away with what it wanted because they have the same sponsors as Uefa? Nope
All clubs have what is known as a room for improvement. The better they are and what they have as their ''face'' dictates how marketable they are, the better the face, the more marketable the club is. Everything revolves around competition. Clubs that sell their brand better will make the most money. There is no rule in place that suggests that Manchester United have to have the biggest sponsorship deals.
People can have higher sponsorship deals then Man Utd not stupidly higher then them. Lets say Man Utd receive 100mill in sponsorship I am sure UEFA would accept if we got a sponsorship deal for £120 Million they would not accept it if it was £200million.
Well done, you've found the bit where he supported the PL implementing its own rules Please provide a quote from someone at Utd that says "United are campaigning to have the FFP implemented" Checkmate FFP won't block investment - owners can invest all they like in their infrastructure, stadia, training and youth development and all the other stuff that makes a difference in the long term. If anything, it will force the owners to invest - if they want success then they will only be able to provide money that will make a long term difference to the club, rather than just buying a player who will only stick around for three or four years.
Just to make you aware, Newcastle would benefit MASSIVELY from FFP as they pretty much work to the model right now. As much as I would like City, Chelsea and to a certain extend Liverpool?? to spend within there means I hate the idea that its all been arranged to protect the likes of Man Utd from dropping into the football abyss.
It's fair because Utd generate that. It's fair because leading on the pitch is only part of the modern game. The competition continues off the pitch and the decision makers at Utd have earned the club this extra income through they're management. Liverpool are the next biggest club in the premier league and are using the same model to generate more income. Same morals - same ethics - just years behind! Football is a business too, like it or not. Shame on Utd for embracing that before everyone else!!
Whats to stop City building a 200,000 seater stadium and city flying over 1000s of fans from the middle east every week?? It could happen and it would circumvent FFP. They might not even have to, if they continue to be successful they will hoover up all the glory hunters from Man Utd and Liverpool. You know the ones!
Its not going to protect Manchester United, its actually going to hamstring them. The rules in place will dictate that they earn x, their expenditure is x and their owners cannot supplement what is left even if they make a loss. If they make a slight loss, then they can spend nothing or face a European football ban.
