Liverpool fail FFP

Thanks.

 

What is potentially interesting out of all this, is how it was always assumed 'money bag' clubs like us would be in trouble. As it stands (and based on the facts before us), Chelsea look set to comply, Liverpool don't.

In any event, I think FFP is probably going to amount to very little anyway.

 

It would appear that you've planned for it better than they have and in so doing have made the assumption that the threat of sanctions is real & that you expect UEFA to follow through with them.

This is the interesting bit for me, as if most of the biggest established European sides actually meet the criteria, then you'd have thought that they'll push hard for UEFA to punish any of the 'wannabe's' who haven't?

In addition, UEFA's own rules state that any club which is directly effected by another clubs inclusion in their competitions, who have breached the FFP rules, they can appeal. i.e. if Liverpool failed FFP and finished 4th, the side who finished 5th and complied could in theory appeal against their inclusion.

It could turn into a right quagmire this, opinion seems to be split between those who think it'll have no teeth at all & is merely 'window dressing' by UEFA & those who think that they'll stringently uphold it. I wouldn't like to call it tbh.

 

I haven't really followed the FFP rules as I don't think they apply to my club. However, can anyone confirm whether all teams in the Premier league have to comply regardless of whether they play in the European Competitions or not? If they do then I can think of a team who might not be too cocky should they be in the PL next year (they won't be in Europe)...............

 

As I understand it, and I am by no means an expert, Uefa will only be concerned with inclusion in European competition but that the P.L will be introducing their own form of FFP.

 

I think this is where the Jose comments came from re: City. Chelsea clearly assume the threat is real and are planning accordingly. We are by no means self sufficient but we are keeping losses to an acceptable limit. City continue to spend massively and are trying to exploit loopholes as well from what I gather. Remains to be seen how Uefa will deal with these kind of things.

Call me a cynic, but I think Uefa will happily make an example of a club to show FFP has teeth, but not to the detriment of their own competition / sponsors' demands etc. I.e, I'm sure they'd turn a blind eye to Madrid or Barca but perhaps not a Monaco or a Russian club. Whilst these clubs have good players, it is mainly the club names that are still the big draw worldwide so the Champions League wouldn't be as degraded without a high spending 'average club' against the European heavyweights.

 

Thats the way I understand it.
UEFA have no authority when it comes to domestic football, that falls under the jurisdiction of the governing body for whichever country the team in question comes from (in our case the Premier League).
So the only punishment UEFA can apply to teams from the PL, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga etc, is expulsion from UEFA governed competitions (ie the Champions League and Europa League).
But should the Premier League decide to introduce its own for of FFP, and should teams fail to adhere, they will be able to punish teams with transfer bans, points deductions, etc

 

Thanks . That's a shame as a possible promotion party would have all gone rather flat which would have been a good giggle for some of us.

 

Are you talking of a certain team whose name rhymes with Sheen Dark Mangers?

 

Is it that obvious?!

 

The EPL already has done. The first measures started this season, with a maximum wage increase of £4m if your wage bill was already over £52m this season. There's also a maximum loss of £105m over the first 3 seasons monitoring period (which ends 2016), which seems rather pointless given the loss level UEFA have set , but might allow AN other club that's not currently at the peak yet, to spunk a load of cash in the EPL before 2016.

 

That's because it never was anything other than about Suarez and why it only came to be sung at the time of Suarez but the very fact that Liverpool fans have tried to connect it to other things shows how apt the words are. Only they could do something so distasteful and try to blame it on someone else.....they really do act as if they are always the victims.

 

Once a team qualifies then UEFA goes back 3 years of their accounts. You can't spend a billion, get in Europe and then comply. You have to already have complied.

 

The relevance of FFP asumes we make the CL this year, which itself would bring about £30m in extra money. The new commercial deals announced this year will also bring in extra money (Standard Chartered, Garuda, Carlsberg, Dunkin' Brands Group, and 9 TV deals).

There's £37m of players sales from last summer and this year which might also have not been used in the accounts yet.

Because a lot of the debt is not to banks the option of converting it to equity remains open.

There are 9 levels of sanction available even if Liverpool don't meet FFP.

So there's a long time to wait and many things yet to happen before UEFA think about sending LFC a warning letter.

If for some reason you prefer the CL without Liverpool then your best hope is stil backing Moyes to win the CL this year and then compete for the PL next year

 

I agree to a large extent but the same must apply to all clubs. Everyone who suddenly assumes Chelsea, City, Psg etc wont be able to spend money from now on due to FFP is way off the mark.

 

1. The accounts run from May to May, you've had no CL revenue in this financial year, so your next set of accounts won't have any incremental income from that stream.

2. The figure of £53m is stated as being net, so wrong again

3. I've never said what the sanctions are likely to be (if any) I've just stated that at face value, you've not met the criteria set out by UEFA.

btw this nonsense about debt being reduced, the net debt actually rose....

 

Do you understand what the word always means?

What other incidents do you think its referring too?

 

As a scouser who's sung the song - I do.

In part it's referring to Heysel (when you tried blaming Chelsea fans).

LFC fans are eager to airbrush that event (& others) from their history and therefore applied the Hillsborough connotation to that chant.

Because you've done that, we no longer feel comfortable using it & so it's had the desired affect.

 

Surely it is irrelevant what peoples thoughts or feelings are on this subject of Heysel, nor the reasoning it happened. Singing about a tradegy is somewhat distasteful in the majority walks of life, never mind in a football fan point scoring context! And besides that, it was almost thirty years ago, how many fans at a match were involved on the day of Heysel? Therefore, even if you disagree with my "distasteful" comment, its hardly aiming it at the right people is it so there is little wonder people get their backs up about it IMO.

In response to the mentioning of Hillsborough, have people already forgotten where the finger was pointing for over twenty years? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that it absolutely included that event too!


Anyway, can I ask one of the Chelsea mods to look at this thread. It should be closed if it fails to get back on topic (not that I'm overly fussed about the topic in question mind )!


PS...I won't be coming back on here now I've had my say.

 

You're not a mod on this board and it's you & yours that have taken it off topic btw......in a purely diversionary way I might add.

As for that post, Scousers knew from day 1 who was to blame for Hillsborough, so you can't say that about Evertonians, as it simply isn't true.

In addition the song doesn't specifically mention Heysel, it references the psyche of some kopites, nothing more.