Guys When the FFP rules come into play all clubs wishing to be eligible for UEFA competitions have to meet the criteria set out. Just as a quick reminder, they are that over the two 3-yearly evaluative periods ending 2014 and 2017, clubs have to keep their accumulated level of losses over these periods at £39.5m and £26.3m respectively. If not, they would not be admitted to UEFA run competitions from the 2014/15 season and so on. Arsenal qualify on the basis of our accounts. I shan't go into a discussion of what would happen were our profits to slip. This can be reserved for another thread. What I wanted to hear from you is how you think clubs such as Man City, Chelsea or Liverpool would ensure that they meet the criteria set out by UEFA. Would they have to reduce their level of wages if there is not a corresponding increase in revenues that would ensure their meeting the guidelines? If that is the case, would we see a player exodus from these clubs? Could we even see the clubs trying to set up their own super league? If high earning, especially talented players are retained by clubs who somehow manage to fit into the FFP model, then where does that leave us? Just wondering pals so let's hear your thoughts
Havn't city just set up a multi billion pound sponsor deal to effectivly get round this? And clubs just have to show they are decreasing the debt if i remember rightly, so they can still spend loads and have debt, aslong as it's slightly less each time I doubt it will help much to be fair,
It depends on how the rules are implemented - how much leeway there is in terms of reporting a club's financial results. So far Michel Platini is adamant to pursue the rules to the end AFAIK.
As far as I'm aware, the controversy is about whether the arrangement worth £400m over 10 years violates the FFP regulations that stipulate that sponsors with close links to club owners pay a fair price. City says it consulted with UEFA in advance to ensure that the Etihad deal does not contradict any rules. Now we come to a ' how long is a piece of string ' argument in determining what is a fair price. Etihad could say that 40m a year was a fair price for them to pay since it ensures that their name is given a high profile so it's advertising that was worth every penny. What is the right price to pay? The study of Economics states that the right price to pay is that which someone is willing to pay ( for a service, product or whatever ). Therefore it is very difficult for UEFA to claim that City and Etihad have not acted correctly. From Etihad's point of view, a club with so many illustrious players would surely get a lot of publicity and again with so many stars on board, City would become very marketable thus increasing it's exposure. Now that would be an exceptional way for Etihad to get it's name known.
Even with the etihad deal they are still way of, that deal is worth about 35 - 40 million a season, but they made a loss of 121 million last year, that's expected to rise this year, so even with that deal they would still have lost over 80 million. It's not the saviour some people think it is, and they are still going to have to cut costs considerably, even if the deal is ratified.
I tell you I cannot wait for a decent set of rules to address the crazy upwards spiral of transfer fees and salaries. Every year it seems when you think it couldn't get any worse some club splashes out gazzillions on a player or indeed players. Well it's all based on what the accounts of the clubs show and certainly with Utd, there is such a healthy bottom line that they can continue to spend with apparent impunity. Does anyone really see them being toppled? I think no one stays at the top forever. Look at Chelsea. At one stage they seemed they were the new invincibles. I don't know how Chelsea will be affected but the Man City situation could get very interesting. You can expect that City will be employing all the financial and marketing brains to get the best out of their situation and generate as much by way of income off the pitch to ensure that they qualify. Arsenal have no problems. I even tried to do some quick Maths and even with our reduced profit levels, assuming we had to pay a couple of expensive salaries and increase the pay of our current starting XI and substitutes, we would still make the criteria..... as long as our profits remain steady. An average of around £15m per annum makes £45m over 3 years. Add to that the £39.5m qualifying benchmark for 2014, you have £84.5m to play with. If we start to go into a loss mode then it could change things dramatically. Consider that should we not make the CL, we would lose £25m in revenue. That would wipe out this year's profit and post a £10m loss. You'll have to take out the second year's profit as well because we won't be in the CL so that's another £25m against £15m profit ordinarily. The net is -£20m. If we get into the CL in yr 3 then we get £25m roughly which brings us back up to the £15m. However the original 3 yr period safety net will have been reduced because we don't have any profits to carry over from the first 2 years. We would be back to having to make the £39.5m loss criteria. We could still do it but it would be tight and what if our commercial revenue were to drop or we are out of Europe for a further year? I agree that a Super League seems unlikely and even if the clubs attempted it, UEFA could put pressure on the national associations and bring everyone back into line.... one hopes. Well if the high earners/top players are retained by the clubs because they meet the UEFA FFP criteria and if we drop out of the CL, we are still stuck as far as I can make out. The only way would be to continue to talent spot effectively and then negotiate successfully and this I stress........EARLY!!!!! Cheers
Yes you're right. It depends on how they address that bottom line for each of the three qualifying years. I think they ought to be running scared which I imagine they are which is why they have that campus to develop.....
http://www.sportingintelligence.com...-wages-dont-count-for-first-two-years-010205/ Chelsea will be fine for the short/medium term but for continued long term success they realise that they need a bigger stadium. As for Man City i dont really know but if Uefa do nothing about the Etihad sponsorship then these rules will be a mockery anyways
But that was when they were still abit ****, Now they have the extra 30+ from the CL, plus the extra advertising money from being top 4, and even more from challenging for the league cups etc Say, 30 mil from CL, an extra 30 from advertising (their everywhere now), 20 from the league, 15 from all the other cups would mean they actually made a profit with last years amount of loss.
I think Gazidis will be renegotiating commercial deals over the next few years, so there's every chance that our revenue stream will increase.
Gazids has already negotiated some new deals over the last few moths e.g Indesit,the new contract with Citroen,Carlsberg.
I mentioned this on the Liverpool board, and the Man City sponsorship deal is not realistic. There is a simple reason for this Real Madrid one of the worlds global commercial super-powers could not gain a sponsorship deal that size. Arsenal whom have been in the CL consistently for the last 15 years could only get one for £150 million over 10 years. All of a sudden we have Manchester City in global terms, a small club in Stockport suddenly agreeing a £400 million sponsorship deal. Now I know some things are okay when they defy logic, but this one defies logic for the wrong reasons.
I appreciate it looks out of key but if Etihad can show they believe it to be a good investment for them who is anyone to say otherwise? Supposing the Mercedes ( nee Braun ) team with the presence of while I admit ageing though 7-time world champion and a young future star in Nico Rosberg were to pull an extraordinary sponsorship which exceeded expectations, who is to question their ability to market themselves. After all just two seasons ago they won both the driver's and constructor's world championships at their first attempt and Michael remains an excellent development driver. Laws of Economics, the right price is the one the buyer is happy to pay. However 40m a year should City maintain their high salary levels is but a contribution to running costs. What I don't know though is what they expect the other projects on Etihad Campus to be able to generate. Like us though in a different way, it looks like an uphill climb. Regards
