UEFA to ease FFP in June

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Don't think it directly affects us but if the UEFA rules are changed the Football League will presumably be under more pressure to do something similar going forward. Won't hold my breath though.
 
Sutfol said:
Not sure if this affects us or not - surely must make some difference

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32784375
Click to expand...
I read somewhere else that the last thing the FA want to do is get into long legal/court battles over this. I reckon we will get a slap on the wrist and a small fine by FA (as not to lose face). It's once again all being blown up by the press like 'Faurlingate'. The rules keep changing and other clubs bend them so i wouldn't worry. Tony and Co seemed pretty confident, besides Boris wants Oak Common to get sorted and he is good mates with the mittals and nothing will stand in their way to make money.
 
Last edited:
The FFP in the Football league are already due to be changed from the 2016/17 season which could be taken as an admission that the current rules are flawed.
 
The writing has been on the wall for some time. FFP won't hold up in court. European laws trumps various football associations laws and their invented FFP.

Like Frankie says, RELAX.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kingdom hoop
NorwayRanger said:
The writing has been on the wall for some time. FFP won't hold up in court. European laws trumps various football associations laws and their invented FFP.

Like Frankie says, RELAX.
Click to expand...

I think we can relax about it. As my memory, our Accounts were approved with just over a £1.8 loss over the FL's limit which gives a max fine £6 million, and the fine will be less than that maximum.

If the Club want to fight it theirs plenty of stuff going on in the background to use. We may need to ensure that accepting a small fine doesn't imply acceptable of questionable laws in future seasons.
 
Relaxing the UEFA FFP regultions could see a new burst of billionaire buy outs of clubs. If they can't use their billions to challenge the old order there is little point at the moement, which is why City and PSG are so pissed off, but a looser regime opens the doors agin. Berlusconi is probably selling AC Milan to some Saudis or something, so they'll be back in the game.
 
This is all great news.

Legal principle ‘Lex posterior derogate priori’ –which means, ‘Later law removes the earlier’

Now for us the more relevant rules are the football leagues own rules but I’d imagine the loosening of the rules there and with the overarching UEFA rules can only be good news for us and what would be a justified legal challenge if necessary on our part.

But as things stand of course there is no issue with the loss we declared.

All this is completely ridiculous anyway. Our debt is tiny in comparison to Chelsea’s.

Saw an article recently buried away that no one bats an eye lid over. Abramovich loan is £1,041,243,000!! That’s around 10 times bigger than our debt!! Its also up £60million from £984m in the previous year. So unsurprisingly the complexity of an £18m declared profit in that year versus a £60m increase in their debt is too much for the average football fan or journalist to handle.

The loan is repayable at 18 months notice. It is certainly no more sustainable then our own comparatively small debt to shareholders.

Now I don’t think Chelsea are doing anything wrong but the important point is neither are we. They’ve tried and been successful and we’ve tried and been relatively unsuccessful but in the warped and biased world of the media the billion’s of bounds of debt they’ve amounted is ok compared to our debt of around a tenth of that size

Read more:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...n-owner-set-carry-spending.html#ixzz3aa0RGbEe
 
Come to think of it Peter - Chelsea SHOULD be quaking in their designer boots. If any of the £60 million write off from TF to QPR is rejected and then included in any FFP fine, they will surely have to look at Chelsea next, given the scale of the 'loans' by the owner to the club. On their scale, they would be utterly wiped out.
 
Peter Damage said:
This is all great news.

Legal principle ‘Lex posterior derogate priori’ –which means, ‘Later law removes the earlier’

Now for us the more relevant rules are the football leagues own rules but I’d imagine the loosening of the rules there and with the overarching UEFA rules can only be good news for us and what would be a justified legal challenge if necessary on our part.

But as things stand of course there is no issue with the loss we declared.

All this is completely ridiculous anyway. Our debt is tiny in comparison to Chelsea’s.

Saw an article recently buried away that no one bats an eye lid over. Abramovich loan is £1,041,243,000!! That’s around 10 times bigger than our debt!! Its also up £60million from £984m in the previous year. So unsurprisingly the complexity of an £18m declared profit in that year versus a £60m increase in their debt is too much for the average football fan or journalist to handle.

The loan is repayable at 18 months notice. It is certainly no more sustainable then our own comparatively small debt to shareholders.

Now I don’t think Chelsea are doing anything wrong but the important point is neither are we. They’ve tried and been successful and we’ve tried and been relatively unsuccessful but in the warped and biased world of the media the billion’s of bounds of debt they’ve amounted is ok compared to our debt of around a tenth of that size

Read more:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...n-owner-set-carry-spending.html#ixzz3aa0RGbEe
Click to expand...

Difference is that Chelsea have the fifth biggest revenue in Europe and their wage bill accounts for just over half of that.

But QPR's wage bill was double turnover in 2013/14, that's what the penalty is for

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...y-with-Premier-Leagues-highest-wage-bill.html
 
Chaz said:
Come to think of it Peter - Chelsea SHOULD be quaking in their designer boots. If any of the £60 million write off from TF to QPR is rejected and then included in any FFP fine, they will surely have to look at Chelsea next, given the scale of the 'loans' by the owner to the club. On their scale, they would be utterly wiped out.
Click to expand...

All the big loans from Abramovich were done pre FFP. Chelsea passed FFP with flying colours for the past two seasons and will do for 2014/15
 
I'm going to guess Chavski. Or maybe Birmingham. Because Birmingham's finances are so clear and secure that he can get self-righteous with a clear conscience.

Alternatively, Mods, can you look up People banned from posting to our board? It's probably one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UTRs
Without getting into percentages of turnover and keeping it simple. To take your number of £18m of profit over a debt of £1 billion owed - over that 18 month period you have a shortfall of still more than a billion pounds!!!!


Neither debt is sustainable difference is we are unsuccessful.

But in money and debt terms, i would say, even worse, Chelsea is going about as well as it can and it’s still not sustainable!!!!!!!!!!

Not without rich backer support which is no different to the situation Rangers are in. Difference is we get stick but Chelsea et al dont
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back