Financial Fair Play rules are a farce and incredibly ambiguos.

I'm writing this article on the Financial Fair Play rules,as I feel that there is things ie loop-holes that Michel Platini has failed to consider,plus there is things that he also needs to address.
1.Man Citys sponsorship deal.In one way Man City haven't done anything wrong.They cannot be done for ''a conflict of interest'' as they aren't owned by a company.They are owned by the Abu Dhabi family.So it doesn't matter that the CEO of Etihad the sponsors happens to be Sheikh Monsours half brother.I always knew that ''new money clubs'' ie City,Chelsea would attempt to find loop-holes in order to get past the new financial fair play rules.
2.Operating profit.How can a club have an ''[BOperating profitB]'' when it issues a Loss/B],This is in relation to Man United,Chelsea and Man City who have all issued massive losses,If these exist when the FFP rules kick in,they must all be excluded from European Competition,thus making the new rules viable and acceptable.If they make losses over the limit even with supposed ''operating profits'' in Man Uniteds case,they must be excluded from European Competition.
I reckon these are the things that Platini needs to address.Does he come out and clarify the rules and clamp down on Man City.Or will all clubs be able to follow suit and do what City did and thus make the rules worthless.

 

The ffp rules will be brought in and then thrown in the bin within 3 seasons is my guess

 

FIFA and UEFA seems to hate the English teams so maybe they will come down hard on the likes of City and Chelsea.

Time will tell though. I'm not feeling too confident about it at all.

 

I reckon it will be binned as soon as UEFA have to exclude Man United from Europe.There will be a massive hissey fit from head of the FA David Gill.And UEFA will give in and thev FFP will no longer exist.They won't admit that clubs cannot make profits when they issue losses.Only in Man Uniteds case..you can make a profit...if you make a loss.

 

David Bernstein is the chairperson of the FA, not Gill.

 

Gill has a lot of pull.If it came to UEFA kicking Man United out of Europe due to the rules of the FFP.I'm 100% sure that the FA will get UEFA to bend the rules to allow them in...therefore making the FFP a farce.

 

Surely they still class as related parties under the FFP rules? Eithad is also owned by the Bin Zayeds who also own Man City, so that's about as related as you can get. Your MD thinks the same thing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/15/liverpool-uefa-manchester-city-etihad

It looks to me like City are trying to test the waters early - looking to see if UEFA will blink and let them get away with it, or if they will clamp down straight away. It's gonna be interesting to see what UEFA does and what they rule on this deal. If they don't act quickly then like King_Kenny says the rules will all fall down pretty quickly.

Don't the FFP rules already make an allowance for things like long term investment in the club, facilities etc? So it can't be as simple as looking at the published figures, otherwise Liverpool, for example, would be ruled out of Europe for the next few years due to the costs of the new stadium / Anfield expansion.

As for Utd (cos you know they're the only one you care about ), of our £100 million operation profit turning into a £84 million loss last year:

£45 million was interest, which is obviously included
£40 million was transfer amortisation, also included
£64 million was one off costs, related to the bond issue which won't recur next year
£35 million was goodwill amortisation, related to the purchase of the club in 2005 which is probably excluded cos it's related to the investment in the club

With the growth in revenues we've had this year, and no one off costs next year, I expect our total loss to be around £10 million, which is well within the FFP rules whether or not the goodwill amortisation is included. Feel free to quote me on this if I turn out to be wrong come October

Let's be honest, it'll be binned as soon as UEFA have to exclude either Barca from Europe. They made a similar loss to Utd last year with no major one off items and are far and away the UEFA darlings at the moment. That'll be the true test of FFP, and probably it's death knell.

 

So the only way Liverpool can get into Europe it to hope the big 3 fail the FFA.

It will not happen, the sponsors will not let it happen.
Sorry KPR, enjoy the wilderness years

 

Uniteds profit minus debt = ??

 

Swarbs.
Where are you getting £84 million from?...It was £109 million.As I said if you make a loss...How on earth can you make a profit?
Secondly.Liverpools stadium costs?Liverpool don't have stadium costs as of yet.Anyway John Henry has taken care of that,as he has issued a £40 million non interest operating 'loan'' to the club.Its the only actual ''debt'' that the club actually has.This has been used for both stadium costs when needed and player amortisations.

 

Who was your lecturer at LSE ?

 

LSE.?
What are you on about?
Who was your lecturer when you were studying Sesame Street?
Was it Big Bird or Oscar the Grouch?

 

Yes LSE, that is the London School of Economics, quite a good university that specialises in your favorite subject. I wanted to know how you have such a warped view of basic finances

 

£109 million was the holding company, not the football club. And I already explained where the loss came from above, and why it won't be repeated. I thought you understood the difference between operating profit and net profit?

Yes, they don't have costs as of yet. But over the next few years they're gonna have some pretty hefty costs if the new stadium gets built. The Emirates cost almost £400 million to build, and whilst the new Anfield would be cheaper you wouldn't be able to turn the old stadium into luxury flats to pay for some of it. Either way it'll be expensive for the club.

 

Comas.
Simple Economics is based on a number of issues.The most basic principle is ''Supply and demand''.Wayne Rooney knows plenty about this when it comes to the Red light district in Manchester.He has his pick of whores.
The second principle is based on three parts.
Profit.
Loss.
Break-even.
If you make a profit after tax...you make a net profit.
If you make a loss...you don't pay tax..and thus have a net loss.
If you break-even..you don't pay tax..and you don't make either a profit or a loss.
Therefore if you make a loss,no matter how you sugar coat it,you have not made a profit.

 

You however forget to relate your great economic skills to the fact that united have actual "real" money in the bank!! 156 million which outways the reletively small 109 million "loss"

Do not forget these figures are slightly warped, due to the face all of the one off payments in setting up the pik loans, which have been mysteriously paid off in full, possible by an outsider who will buy the club leaving it and the glazers extremely rich

 

The PIK loans were paid off....by a loan when the Glazers allegedly borrowed from the Qatar royal family.Man United fans were rejoicing that the Glazers paid off the PIK's..until they found out they paid off a loan..with a loan.
So therefore add another £230 million to Man Uniteds ''debt'' as it hasn't been paid off.

 

So if the glazers sell united tomorrow, will they not make money?????????????? that is true worth of a company!!

 

Not if they sell Man United on the only thing they can sell them on...oh wait that door is closed to them too..as its illegal to sell **** over the internet.

 

45 m debt payments per year is what united pay. Are you seriously trying to tell me that man united arguably the biggest if not top 3 clubs in the world do not make more than 45 million?? We got more than that for just playing in the champs league final