Man City lost £197 mill last year, the largest ever recorded loss Can someone explain to me what will now happen under the FFP rules. I know that losses are averaged out over 2 years, but how can Man City possibly pull that figure back.
They'll get a 'sponsor' such as Etihad to dream up another ficticious deal that retains their spending power - failing that they, Chelsea, PSG , Anzhi and any of the other chequebook bullies that ruin European football will employ the worlds best lawyers who will be better than any lawyers EUFA can employ. For the record, that £197 doesn't include the money spent in the Summer of 2011 so what they laid out on Aguero and Na$ri, so chuck anothr £60m on the figure - though they did offload one or two players and somehow got a big fee for Boeteng....
Still waiting for UEFA to produce some findings about the Etihad stadium naming deal - £400m that was. Did it 'represent fair market value' ? Did it **** ! Until UEFA can show that they've got some teeth over the basic issues like this, then I've very little hope of them clamping down on clubs like City making massive losses.
...and City are going to find it difficult to offload these expensive players...and reduce the wage bill. Players seem to have th choice of dramatically dropping ther wages or going to Russia or China. We've already seen Tevez 'stay put' and now Dzeko does not want to go anywhere either.. http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11679/7778733/Dzeko-happy-to-stay-put These players have reached a point where the money cannot be matched anywhere else - they have nowhere else to go. I hope RVP looks at a player like Dzeko and realises that he would be going to club that might splash out a lot of money - but it does not mean they give a **** about him. If it suits then they will end his career just as quickly as they are destroying Dzeko's.
There is another option here - the chairmen of the other 18 clubs could meet and decide to breakaway from the Premier League. For 1 season have 1 club relegated and 3 come up from the Championship to form a new 20 team division. Chelsea and City would be barred from entering it until their finances were in order - rules written into the new league at he time of the break away. When City's and Chelsea's finances were in order they could be allowed back into the Championship level - a division down. This would not really impact public interest at all in the new league - in fact it would probably improve it. I would be surprised if clubs like Utd, Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool have not already at least thought about this.
thinking is one thing - doing is quite different. Good example is F1 - manufacturers getting the thin end of the money - but they allow Ecclestone to shaft them year after year.
It would need the Premier League to support it, which could be difficult, but I like the idea. If FFP didn't restore parity then an idea like this could. I would imagine that the clubs you mention may already have given this some thought, especially in light of a pan european super league, which has been on the cards for a few years. But of course, money isn't an excuse for us not to compete with City eh ?
F1 is slightly different though because the money from TV would dry up if the big teams were not racing. If Chelsea and City were not in the league - would anyone apart from their own fans miss them? The league has prospered without them before. Its not the same as taking out Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs who have history and reach around the world.
No it is not an excuse because at the moment there are still enough players available. What I am afraid of though is that City just keep extending their squad so it reaches something ridiculous like 200 players - all paid huge money. They could then pick who they loaned them out to - in essence equalising the league at a lower level and ensuring every teams best players could not play against them. They would have 38 games against very weakened teams, whilst everyone else would be fighting against opponents strongest teams. Currently there is nothing stopping them doing this.
No but they can certainly push the price up of the ones that we're interested in buying. . . . suddenly City are interested and the price and wages rocket.
Aren't player wages supposed to be a maximum percentage of gate money? There will be a lot more money from the PL television deal coming up after next year, but that revenue is not supposed to be used on wages, surely?
probably worth finding a link to summarise it... will dig around. Regardless of the FFP, I just think that clubs will find ways round it, or ignore it.
Financial Fair Play (FFP) makes up part of an extensive set of criteria clubs must comply with in order to be licensed to take part in Uefa's club competitions, primarily the Champions League and Europa League. FFP regulations were agreed in September 2009 with Uefa declaring they had the following principle objectives: • to introduce more discipline and rationality in club football finances • to decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect • to encourage clubs to compete with(in) their revenues • to encourage long-term investments in the youth sector and infrastructure • to protect the long-term viability of European club football • to ensure clubs settle their liabilities on a timely basis Central to the FFP regulations is an obligation for clubs over a fixed period of time to achieve a break-even figure when expenditure is measured against income from football-related activities. Included in the relevant income are revenue from gate receipts, broadcasting rights, sponsorship and advertising deals plus profit made from the transfer of players. Included in the relevant expenditure are the cost of transferring players in, salaries and employee benefits expenses and other operating expenses. Not included in expenses are expenditure on youth development activities, community development activities and development of infrastructure such as stadiums or training grounds. A club can spend limitless amounts on these with no risk of failure to comply with FFP. ********** There is an implementation period for the FFP regulations which began the summer of 2011, with the criteria that must be met altering during the implementation period. The first season when a club could fail to be licensed to take part in European competition due to FFP is 2013/14. For the 2013/14 season, Uefa will assess club accounts for the previous two seasons (this is known as the monitoring period). A club will only be allowed to fall below break even for the 2011/12 and 2012/13 seasons combined by 45 million euro. For the 2014/15 season, the same 45 million euro deviation below break even will be allowed for a licence to be granted but this time the monitoring period over which the figure will be calculated is three seasons rather than two - the seasons being 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14. For the 2015/16 season the figure drops to a 30 million euro deficit allowed. The monitoring period is again the previous three seasons combined, in this case 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15. The 30 million euro figure stays in place until 2018. The deviation amount for the 2018/19 season has yet to be set but it will be reduced from 30 million euro. That is therefore the first season when clubs might have to break even with no leeway given in order to comply with FFP. If a club reported a surplus over break even for the monitoring period prior to the one under immediate consideration then that surplus figure can count towards the latest calculation. Profits made in the recent past can help towards complying with FFP. There is a further stipulation on the 45 or 30 million euro deviations. For those amounts to be allowable they must be made up by equity investments over the relevant monitoring period. For example for the 2013/14 season, an owner of a club can invest up to 45 million euro over the previous two seasons in exchange for more shares in the club. However if the investment is merely in the form of a loan to the club then only a 5 million euro deviation from break even is allowed over the monitoring period. The allowable figure remains at 5 million rather than 45 or 30 million euro for the subsequent monitoring periods too if it continues to be in the form of loans. ********* In the early stages of the implementation period, there are provisions for a club not to suffer sanctions for exceeding the acceptable deviation from break even if it reports a positive trend in the annual break-even results, and if the deficit is only due to contracts with players that were in place prior to 1 June 2010. These provisions only apply to the first two monitoring periods, which are for licence applications for the 2013/14 and 2014/15 seasons. ********** Rules are in place to guard against the figure for revenue coming into a club being artificially increased by abnormally large transactions from a related party. For instance Uefa would not allow any additional amount above what is consider a 'fair value' for a sponsorship deal to count towards the FFP break-even calculation should the deal be with a company related to the club. Another example in which an estimated fair value would come into play is the sale of corporate hospitality tickets, and/or use of an executive box, by a club to a related party. ********** A further requirement of FFP is a club must have no overdue amounts owed to football clubs, employees or tax authorities. A Club Financial Control Panel has been set up to monitor and ensure clubs adhere to the FFP requirements. uefa has indicated that sanctions other than refusing a licence to play in European competition may be considered for clubs failing to comply with FFP but that the refusal of a licence is definitely a possibility.
EDIT : City's loss of £197m will NOT count against them - it is their account from 11/12 that will be important. INterestingly it also means that Arsenal hoarding that cash pile offers no benefit at all in terms of FFP. If we spend too much of it now (as opposed to a week ago) it could cause us to be unlicenced in 2013/14.
