ffp for pl

[Ghoddle10]

No I think you will find all my comments were trying to debate the issues with FFP but a couple of you have tried to turn it into a pissing contest, check out 1965 /1980 along with the fact that you have not won the league for over half a century. You say we have won the oil lottery, I say we have someone who came and bought the club similar to the owners of Arsenal, Utd, Liverpool, Villa and a few more, but unlike these he has only put money into the game in order to reach his long term objectives, whereby the owners of Utd are taking massive amounts out of the game to service their other interests. City and Chelsea have benefited from our generous owners and in my opinion so has the EPL, my point all along was that maybe Spurs could benefit if a new owner came along who had real vision for the club,but alas FFP will put a stop to that now, which I don't agree with.

I disagree, you weren't at our level before you first got given a stadium and then struck oil, and you hadn't been for thirty years. We were a bigger, more successful club than you and would have continued to be so , IMO.

I agree with your point about a weathy owner, and I would love for Spurs to win the lottery like Chelsea and City have, and get owners prepared to put serious money int to the club. I think it's been a great thing for Chelsea and City. Incidentally I think even with FFP I'd love to get such an owner in, for example he could get our stadium built without loading us with debt, which would be masssive for us.

But City simply were'nt on a similar level to us. Pre your rich owner, you hadn't won a major trophy for over 30 years, we'd won 6 in the meantime. 6-0 it's not even close. Plus we'd gained considerably more points in the top flight than you, and have never been anywhere near the third division which you slipped into during your barren years.

 

[NSIS]

[NSFW][/NSFW]

Sorry but you are wrong, you will find our accounts will be moving in the right direction to meet the FFP regs and if you don't think we are being run as a business you need to understand the long term vision, our owner has more business acumen than the Glazers and the rest of them put together.

We'll wait and see then, shall we? Your owners have more MONEY than the Glazers and everybody else put together, that much I'll grant you. However, how they accumulated it, doesn't exactly display a genius level of business acumen.

 

[humanbeingincroydon]

Look at the list of teams that UEFA are investigating under FFP...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19557934

FK Borac Banja Luka,FK Sarajevo,FK Zeljeznicar (Bosnia)
PFC CSKA Sofia (Bulgaria)
HNK Hajduk Split, NK Osijek (Croatia)
Maccabi Netanya FC (Israel)
FK Shkendija 79 (Macedonia)
Floriana FC (Malta)
FK Buducnost Podgorica, FK Rudar Pjevlja (Montenegro)
Ruch Chorzow (Poland)
Sporting Clube de Portugal (Portugal)
FC Dinamo Bucuresti, FC Rapid Bucuresti, FC Vaslui (Romania)
FC Rubin Kazan (Russia)
FK Partizan, FK Vojvodina (Serbia)
Club Atletico de Madrid, Malaga CF (Spain)
Eskisehirspor, Fenerbahce SK (Turkey)

With the exception of Malaga, none of those are teams that should be investigated for FFP - whilst Fener were supposed to be expelled from European competitions due to their part at the centre of a match-fixing scandal before they were re-instated (so, once again, there was a way for UEFA to allow Spurs into the CL this season...)

Whilst a few of those teams rule the roost in their native leages (Dinamo Bucharest certainly do, whilst Partizan and Hajduk are usually in the top two or three) so that list is essentially telling clubs attempting to break into the top bracket that UEFA is keeping an eye on them, to make sure that they don't.

If they really wanted to even the financial playing field, the list UEFA would have released would have read...
Chelsea, Manchester City (England)
Paris Saint-Germain (France)
Anzhi Makhachkala (Russia)
Malaga (Spain)

 

[Boss]

Europa League winners Atlético Madrid fall foul of financial fair play rules as Uefa withholds prize-money

Uefa has withheld prize-money payments from 23 European clubs over their failure to pay tax or transfer debts — with Falcao’s Atlético Madrid among them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...play-rules-as-Uefa-withholds-prize-money.html

 

[District Line]

Does the vote need to be unanimous or a simple majority? City, Chelsea and QPR will always vote against.

RA is in favour of FFP he's made that clear. And City have worked closely with UEFA to ensure they comply, they are in favour of it too.

Your comment is mythical and has no foundation to it I'm afraid

 

[District Line]

The only teams that would suffer would be Chelsea and City, sounds like a good move to me

Why would we suffer? Only United earn more than us. We've jumped through the hoop and are over to the other side having landed safely. Like it or not Chelsea are amongst Europes elite now. If we had a larger stadium we would be generating close to what United do.

City will be fine. They've pumped in loads of money into youth facilities and will be fine.

Clubs that are in danger are Wigan, West Ham and Villa. Liverpool and Newcastle will be hugely disadvantaged, as will QPR and Everton.

 

[District Line]

I think that the whole idea's stupid and badly conceived.
There needs to be something put in place to stop teams from using what they call financial doping to dominate, but the FFP ruling wouldn't do that.
It would just give the upper hand to teams with larger revenue, which can easily be unduly influenced.

Put a wage cap on squads and make it the same across the whole of UEFA.
If you want to have a player like Ronaldo in your side, then that's fine, but you won't be able to have 25 of them and stick a few out on loan too, just in case.

Agree on the first part entirely

 

[NSIS]

RA is in favour of FFP he's made that clear. And City have worked closely with UEFA to ensure they comply, they are in favour of it too.

Your comment is mythical and has no foundation to it I'm afraid

Your last set of published accounts show a loss of £67.7mil. What's mythical, or within FFP rules about that?

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

To be fair though, Chelsea only spent about £80m on players this summer and they recouped £0m through sales.

 

[NSIS]

Exactly. City have deviously arranged dodgy sponsorship deals, but Chelsea are brazenly flouting the rules.

There's nothing devious about City's sponsorship deal. It's just blatantly incestuous.

 

[District Line]

Your last set of published accounts show a loss of £67.7mil. What's mythical, or within FFP rules about that?

Your not reading into it your only touching the surface and believing what is said in the mainstream media. Much of the £67.7m loss was down to player amortisation, that will not be included in the losses UEFA are monitoring.

UEFA want losses under £40m and they want clubs to break even by 2015(I think). Under UEFA's guidelines our loss (as of 2010/11) is only £8m, and it is coming down each season. With an £8m loss we'd be fine no problem.

Exactly. City have deviously arranged dodgy sponsorship deals, but Chelsea are brazenly flouting the rules.

How are we flouting the rules Luke? We've worked closely with UEFA to ensure the rules are adhered to. The club wants to be self sustainable, our owner doesn't want to be continually financing the club, he's made that clear from the offset. Our losses have come down dramatically, what does that tell you?

To be fair though, Chelsea only spent about £80m on players this summer and they recouped £0m through sales.

We recouped £14m from Meireles and Alex. In a normal year, annual wages > player transfer fees.

Anelka, Drogba, Bosingwa and Kalou off the wage bill is a near £25m off the wage bill. If you factor in Benayoun, De Bruyne, Courtois And other loaners that figure is closer to £30m. The CL windfall alone gave us £50m, if you factor in all of that, we've pretty much spent what we've earnt. It's only the exorbitant wages of our more senior players hat our owner is fully subsiding. However the likes of Ramires and Mata started out on 65 and 70k a week, Hazard is the only player we've signed in a good 2/3 years (at least) that is on over 100k a week. Once Lampard, Cole, Terry and Cech all live our wages will be roughly the same as United and Arsenal's

 

[No Kane No Gain]

Our losses have come down dramatically, what does that tell you?

Not really.

"Chelsea's aim of breaking even as a business by 2010 looked more remote than ever today after the club announced it made a loss of £74 million in the financial year to the end of June 2007." - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2292359/Chelsea-losses-Abramovich-spend-tops-500m.html

"Chelsea yesterday announced huge losses of £70.9m"(2010) - http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...e-16370m-losses-in-double-season-2200213.html

You might be able to appear profitable under the daft FFP rules but lets not pretend the club isn't still making huge losses.

 

[No Kane No Gain]

We recouped £14m from Meireles and Alex. In a normal year, annual wages > player transfer fees.

If you include Alex you also include Cahill and De Bruyne leaving it still around £80mill net.

We'll see but I suspect your wages will come up as bloated as ever for this season.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

We recouped £14m from Meireles and Alex.

You sold Alex in January for £4.2m.
Not the summer, by anyone's judgement, but if you want to include that window too, then you also signed Cahill, De Bruyne and Bamford for £15.5m.
I did genuinely forget about Mereiles' transfer though, so you can knock £8m off this summer's spending, leaving a total of about £72m.

As for your wage bill, it was about £100m more than ours at last count, so I'd suggest that you need to do quite a lot of trimming to get anywhere near breaking even.

 

[District Line]

Not really.

"Chelsea's aim of breaking even as a business by 2010 looked more remote than ever today after the club announced it made a loss of £74 million in the financial year to the end of June 2007." - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2292359/Chelsea-losses-Abramovich-spend-tops-500m.html

"Chelsea yesterday announced huge losses of £70.9m"(2010) - http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...e-16370m-losses-in-double-season-2200213.html

You might be able to appear profitable under the daft FFP rules but lets not pretend the club isn't still making huge losses.

FFP rules are what count, that's why we're all here isn't it?

 

[District Line]

You sold Alex in January for £4.2m.
Not the summer, by anyone's judgement, but if you want to include that window too, then you also signed Cahill, De Bruyne and Bamford for £15.5m.
I did genuinely forget about Mereiles' transfer though, so you can knock £8m off this summer's spending, leaving a total of about £72m.

As for your wage bill, it was about £100m more than ours at last count, so I'd suggest that you need to do quite a lot of trimming to get anywhere near breaking even.

Whom knows, but we earn more than Spurs and have better playing staff so naturally our wage bill will be a lot higher.

I do agree though that as a % of turnover our wages are unacceptable. And that is the only thing good that will come from FFP IMO

 

[NSIS]

We will have to wait and see. However, my bet would still be that both Chelsea's and City's accounts will only fall within the rules by deint of some "creative" accounting. Given the size of Chelsea's ground, they will struggle to increase revenues except by continuing to win, especially in Europe. That will only be done, by continually replacing top players. I.e. spending.

 

[No Kane No Gain]

FFP rules are what count, that's why we're all here isn't it?

Just making a point that FFP is nothing to do with actual losses, which aren't going down at all.

Anelka, Drogba, Bosingwa and Kalou off the wage bill is a near £25m off the wage bill. If you factor in Benayoun, De Bruyne, Courtois And other loaners that figure is closer to £30m. The CL windfall alone gave us £50m, if you factor in all of that, we've pretty much spent what we've earnt. It's only the exorbitant wages of our more senior players hat our owner is fully subsiding. However the likes of Ramires and Mata started out on 65 and 70k a week, Hazard is the only player we've signed in a good 2/3 years (at least) that is on over 100k a week. Once Lampard, Cole, Terry and Cech all live our wages will be roughly the same as United and Arsenal's

One more thing....

Those 3 players were on loan last season too and Benayoun's wages aren't being paid in full, not sure about the others. As for Mata, I thought he was on close to £80k at Valencia and that's why we pulled out? Might be wrong though. As for 2/3 years without a £100k player, what about Torres?

I think you're going to be rather shocked when you see your spending over this season and last.

 

[District Line]

Just making a point that FFP is nothing to do with actual losses, which aren't going down at all.



One more thing....

Those 3 players were on loan last season too and Benayoun's wages aren't being paid in full, not sure about the others. As for Mata, I thought he was on close to £80k at Valencia and that's why we pulled out? Might be wrong though. As for 2/3 years without a £100k player, what about Torres?

I think you're going to be rather shocked when you see your spending over this season and last.

Mata was on 65k when we bought him, that's definite. Torres is on something stupid like 175k. I don't deny we're big spenders, that would be foolish but we've spent pretty much what all the other top European sides have over the last 20 years.

People will undoubtedly point to the losses, but in a project like ours losses were always going to be huge initially, that's what happens when you spend so much in a short time period. United have done it over a longer period of time therefore haven't encurred the losses we have.

As for it being "earnt", I'd argue UEFA, Sponsors and Sky pumping money into a club isn't earning it anymore than having a "Sugar Daddy" give you a huge loan as RA did. The media have fooled people into thinking its different but in reality isn't.

As a Chelsea fan I'm wholly in favour of FFP. We Generate more than any other English club bar United and have a solid global and worldwide fanbase to boot. FFP will mean we don't have to worry about finishing outside the top 4 for the foreseeable future.

As a Football fan I'm wholly against FFP. I've liked the challenge of Spurs and Newcastle. No team should have the divine right to play in the CL. FFP prohibits ambition. I'd like to see challenges from outside the Sky 4.

Look at what Sheikh Mansour has done for City and Eastlands as an area and tell me he has been bad for English Football. RA as well to a far lesser extent. The plans QPR's owners are brilliant as well. I don't want to go back to the days of Arsenal/United duopoly.

The one and only concern of Chelsea/City fans is that other clubs from outside the traditional big 3 (Liverpool, United, Arsenal) won't be able to upset that cartel as we have done

 

[NSIS]

Mata was on 65k when we bought him, that's definite. Torres is on something stupid like 175k. I don't deny we're big spenders, that would be foolish but we've spent pretty much what all the other top European sides have over the last 20 years.

People will undoubtedly point to the losses, but in a project like ours losses were always going to be huge initially, that's what happens when you spend so much in a short time period. United have done it over a longer period of time therefore haven't encurred the losses we have.

As for it being "earnt", I'd argue UEFA, Sponsors and Sky pumping money into a club isn't earning it anymore than having a "Sugar Daddy" give you a huge loan as RA did. The media have fooled people into thinking its different but in reality isn't.

As a Chelsea fan I'm wholly in favour of FFP. We Generate more than any other English club bar United and have a solid global and worldwide fanbase to boot. FFP will mean we don't have to worry about finishing outside the top 4 for the foreseeable future.

As a Football fan I'm wholly against FFP. I've liked the challenge of Spurs and Newcastle. No team should have the divine right to play in the CL. FFP prohibits ambition. I'd like to see challenges from outside the Sky 4.

Look at what Sheikh Mansour has done for City and Eastlands as an area and tell me he has been bad for English Football. RA as well to a far lesser extent. The plans QPR's owners are brilliant as well. I don't want to go back to the days of Arsenal/United duopoly.

The one and only concern of Chelsea/City fans is that other clubs from outside the traditional big 3 (Liverpool, United, Arsenal) won't be able to upset that cartel as we have done

Loan?? Wow! That's some loan! Do tell us how you intend to pay it back. We'd be fascinated to hear that one.
So, you and City just form a new cartel, then. Is that it? Doesn't sound like much of a trade, to me!