I noticed this comment posted by Cove on the Albert's Chip Shop Article. (Click FORUM look at the left hand side and you will find Articles.) In Holland it appears to have hit some 'lower' clubs and caused their demise, as always with new legislation there are unforeseen consequences. The original 'target' of these changes I understood to be clubs like Man. City and Chelsea with hugely rich owners bankrolling their chosen 'toys'. That's a bit different from 2 second tier clubs and an amateur club of long standing. What do we know about these unforeseen consequences? Can any of our 'financial' posters throw any light?
I don't dispute what the article claims without reading more on the subject. However, from what I know of HFC Haarlem, their bankruptcy had more to do with rapidly declining spectator numbers and the fact that they had been looking for a new financial backer for some time, with no success.
Might be a while before anyone can give a decent answer to that... http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php Heavy going!
FFP is better than nothing, just about. But there are too loopholes to it and too many clubs that have already been bankrolled by bored billionaires for the rules to do much more than preserve the status quo. City are the only big club that would be affected by the change as Chelsea have already bankrolled their success for long enough that their revenue has started to catch up. The idea of spending within your means would only stack the odds further in United's favour whilst the near endless list of loopholes and bizarre exemptions mean that the rules won't affect Chelsea and City as much as you'd expect given which I guess would help keep some level of balance at the top. However, the fact that there are so many exemptions and quirks to the law mean that they don't act as quite so much of a prevention for clubs for clubs going bust, it's very possible for clubs to develop unmanageable debts under the rules and even the rules themselves don't act as that much more than a detterent and an early warning that a club could be spiralling out of control. All in all it's an underwhelming thought that the most logical way of preventing clubs going bust and others buying their way to success would leave United in a stronger position than ever and the current proposals for FFP mean things will be more balanced at the top, leave 2/3 of the current top 6 permanently "stuck" to the top of the table and leave plenty of leeway for clubs still to spend their way into trouble. I don't know about anyone else but I'm depressed
True, Haarlem was the first to take the hit of the rapidly declining economic circumstances. FFP was not in effect at the time. Just stating that the financial system as it was let up to the destruction of football clubs in The Netherlands. RBC Roosendaal and AGOVV and in lesser extent BV Veendam all have been struck with financial collapse since the introduction of FFP.
Here are some financial figures of the Dutch competition, note that the 2010/2011 season is the time when FFP was introduced Average salary spending: please log in to view this image Club revenues combined: please log in to view this image
Top graph: Average personel cost per club, note this is the total, not just player salaries Bottom graph: Total net result of the Eredivisie, which is the combined profits and losses of all 18 clubs added up. Now here is a better indication for FFP: Average player wages spendings per club in the Eredivisie: please log in to view this image
This is the dilemma. I thought FFP might be a good idea at first, but it isn't. FFP is bound to reward the largest and best run clubs. Utd have the biggest revenues from gate receipts and commercial income. Putting the Glazer acquisition debt issues to one side, the club is very well run and extremely profitable. In the PL, the only two clubs able to compete with Utd on the pitch in the last 8 years have been bankrolled by billionaires. Not even Utd fans wants to see the authorities impose financial regulation which stifles any meaningful competition even further, believe me! So curbing the excesses of Chelsea and City sounds great in theory (and is easy to justify), but it won't solve the problem to be addressed- which is to prevent clubs overspending and risking financial ruin in a vain attempt to compete with the richest clubs. If you want clubs to operate within their means and in doing so, create a more level playing field for competition, then measures such as redistributing income, budgeting, salary capping etc are the only effective tools.
Bullshit argument in full, the Uefa is going to set up a three catergory system which I explained on the NUFC with the Dutc variety if it: The Dutch financial fair play is regulated in three catergories.If a club is in category III it means it's financial healthy and can take care of themselves. Category II means that the club is in tough financial times but they are still in the clear. The KNVB(Dutch FA) will be keeping a close eye on the books. Category I means the club is in big financial problems and that the KNVB will put the club in legal restraint and takes over finances. At this point the club needs permission from the FA to buy or loan players. They are forced to sell players that are above a certain wage scale. And they have to restructure the organization to the point that the expenses is back to the level the FA finds acceptable. The FA only can determine in which category a club is. Currently the rule is, that if a club remains in category for more than three years, the club is fined, excluded from european competitions and points are deducted in competition. This rule is in effect s of July 2010 with the start of the 2010/2011 season. So what this means is that the FA can have full control of the finances of a club, which means that ManC and Chelsea owners can't inject money in the club when they are financially unhealthy. They can start putting money back in it once the club is healthy again. Stop for crying out loud that only the big clubs will profit from FFP because it's utter bullshit and you're making yourself look ridiculous. These FFP hit every club that is doing a ****ty job at keeping their finances in check. Now get out!
I'm with those that think that it's unworkable and will ultimately benefit the biggest clubs at the expense of those that it's supposed to help. How is anyone ever supposed to challenge the top 2 in La Liga, for example? Their ridiculous stranglehold on the finances of that division has already turned it into a joke. Real may be ballsing it up a bit this season, but it's not going to last.
Progress of Civilization 1. The powerful take advantage of anarchy to exploit the weak. 2. Rules are made. 3. The powerful take advantage of the rules to exploit the weak more efficiently and with less risk.
As you're probably aware, PNP, in Spain the clubs negotiate their own deals for all sponsorship. Plus, most importantly, they negotiate their own deals with the TV companies. As every Spaniard I know supports either Real or Barca ( predominately Real in this area) you can easily guess who gets the vast majority of the TV pie.
They fear that the recent deals signed by Etihad to sponsor Manchester City and, in particular, the €200m a season deal by the Qatar Tourism Authority to bankroll Paris St-Germain - which doesn't even include shirt sponsorship - suggest it will be unable to cope. They're having a laugh, aren't they? I was under the impression that UEFA were already investigating City's so I assume their lack of action is probably due to them bottling it and allowing clubs to add as many fake sponsorhips as they like. I'm not sure why I expected anything from UEFA to work but it is frustrating to think everything will pretty much continue as is.
I need some explanation on this whole FFP issue. For example if uefa are making the rules why are national associations making their own? Are we to have different rules for different leagues?
It says in the article you posted Clubs that come under UEFA's FFP rules and are untroubled by it, like Liverpool, United, Arsenal and us are unsure that UEFA will enforce it effectively so want the Premier League to control the spending trhoughout the Premier League. In addition toa better level of enforcement it could also provide the peace of mind, when making significant investment, that they will not find in 2/3 years that there's more Citys and Chelseas clogging up the top of the table.
Does it YV? There is also this: And this: How can the PL allow for more leeway? That will bring them outside the uefa rules wont it?
The UEFA rules will only apply for clubs in UEFA competitions. In other words you can do what you want if you're not in European competition. I believe that the result of not abiding by FFP rules will simply preclude you from competing in the CL or EL. So in theory a billionnaire could buy Port Vale, make them champions year after year just so long as they're happy to forgo European football. The recent letter was requesting that these rules also apply for teams only involved in domestic competition. I think that's right.
