Financial Fair Play Regulations

Correct me if I am wrong here...........

but under FFP a club, i.e. Chelsea, City, can still have the owner's own company sponsor the club for silly money, yeah?


Therefore Roman Abramovich can sponsor Chelsea with a £900m deal for Ruski Oil, or whatever, to hold naming rights for the stadium.

Kind of beats the point doesn't it?

I am not the brightest but isn't that a way the clubs with a billionaire owner can beat FFP?

Spot on.
http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/186348/psg-linked-to-lucrative-qatari-sponsorship-deal

Bit of a joke really. Platini himself said owners can be 'clever' and circumnavigate the rules.

Malaga facing a one year ban, possibly two if deadlines are missed.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20121221/malaga-ban-europe-uefa.ap/index.html

Liga - Malaga receive Financial Fair Play ban from Europe

Malaga and five other European clubs have been banned from UEFA competitions for as many as three seasons from 2013/14 in the first repercussions of Financial Fair Play.


The Liga side, who face Porto in the last-16 of this season’s Champions League tournament, have been provisionally excluded from three years of European football unless they can prove they have settled all financial issues by March 31 2013.

Croatian clubs Hajduk Split and NK Osijek, Romanian sides Rapid Bucharest and Dinamo Bucharest and Serbian outfit FK Partizan have also received the same suspension, plus a fine of €100,000 each (€300,000 for Malaga, €80,000 for Split).

Partizan’s domestic rivals FK Vojvodina were fined €10,000 with no suspension and Ukraine’s Arsenal Kiev also received only a fine, to the sum of €75,000.


http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/liga-malaga-receive-financial-fair-play-ban-europe-142302651.html

Amazing - and suprising... I hope they would come down on the 'big' teams if they too mess up...

However, it makes me sick - you get this for being broke, but racist - nah, dont worry about it, just give us a few grand and that will do!

rules

No ones been banned yet for overspending their budget, teams have been fined and banned for not paying bills/wages on time or at all

No ones been banned yet for overspending their budget, teams have been fined and banned for not paying bills/wages on time or at all

No sh*t.
Bizarre quote.

We've said on here before that they won't ban clubs unless they owe money.
sh*te hawk rule.

No sh*t.
Bizarre quote.

We've said on here before that they won't ban clubs unless they owe money.
Sh*te hawk rule.

I've said this cos the above posts are making out teams were banned/fined for stepping outside their Ffp limits when in reality they have been sanctioned for not paying bills completely unrelated to the Ffp drum being  beaten around these forums as our saviour

I've said this cos the above posts are making out teams were banned/fined for stepping outside their Ffp limits when in reality they have been sanctioned for not paying bills completely unrelated to the Ffp drum being  beaten around these forums as our saviour

But they have been banned under FFP rules ?

I think it's fair enough to say that the rationale, behind staying withing the F.F.P. rules, is that you [the club] will remain eligible to participate in European Cup competitions; yes? The 'big one' being the Champions League, of course.

However we must never lose sight of the fact; in order "participate" in the Champions League, for e.g., you [the club] still have to qualify, where it matters most... on the field of play.

Nonetheless, the lesser* clubs (* all those who don't have the ambition or "the resources to compete") may still harbour hopes of "qualification" by default, by simply staying within (or hiding behind) the constraints of the F.F.P. regulations. The hope, of course, being that enough of the teams, which finish above them, are in breech of the Regulations and are banned; thus leaving a space or three vacant.

One thing clubs, using this "strategy", need to be mindful of is the extra money that the clubs already in 'the top four' already generate simply by being there.

That "extra" money can and will be used to strengthen already strong squads; thereby perpetuating their dominance and rendering the hope, that they [the 'top four clubs'] will "live beyond their means", as being forlorn.

In short: those who don't lack ambition or "the resources to compete" have F**k all to worry about but those who do have... in my opinion, of course.

But they have been banned under FFP rules ?

They would have been banned with or without Ffp rules, they were banned for not paying bills. Nobody has seen any action for not living within their means. There are several loopholes around living within your means as we have already seen with city's sponsorship deal. Most worryingly a one to one win platini can exempt you unders special circumstances if he sees fit

Il accept it can work when Madrid are removed from the cl for a govt bailout.. Sure Chelsea are turning a profit Ffs!! It's unenforcable

I think it's fair enough to say that the rationale, behind staying withing the F.F.P. rules, is that you [the club] will remain eligible to participate in European Cup competitions; yes? The 'big one' being the Champions League, of course.

However we must never lose sight of the fact; in order "participate" in the Champions League, for e.g., you [the club] still have to qualify, where it matters most... on the field of play.

Nonetheless, the lesser* clubs (* all those who don't have the ambition or "the resources to compete") may still harbour hopes of "qualification" by default, by simply staying within (or hiding behind) the constraints of the F.F.P. regulations. The hope, of course, being that enough of the teams, which finish above them, are in breech of the Regulations and are banned; thus leaving a space or three vacant.

One thing clubs, using this "strategy", need to be mindful of is the extra money that the clubs already in 'the top four' already generate simply by being there.

That "extra" money can and will be used to strengthen already strong squads; thereby perpetuating their dominance and rendering the hope, that they [the 'top four clubs'] will "live beyond their means", as being forlorn.

In short: those who don't lack ambition or "the resources to compete" have f**k all to worry about but those who do have... in my opinion, of course.

Excellent point, I also agree it will cement the hi turnovers clubs position Europe and make it even harder for us to get in..

IMO we are already restrained by nesv lack of ambition/investment so no change so

They would have been banned with or without Ffp rules, they were banned for not paying bills. Nobody has seen any action for not living within their means. There are several loopholes around living within your means as we have already seen with city's sponsorship deal. Most worryingly a one to one win platini can exempt you unders special circumstances if he sees fit

Il accept it can work when Madrid are removed from the cl for a govt bailout.. Sure Chelsea are turning a profit Ffs!! It's unenforcable

Chelsea have shown a profit of £1mil during the last reporting year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20270934

Chelsea have shown a profit of £1mil during the last reporting year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20270934

But they had to win the CL to do it, something they will not be doing this year. 

Small profit last year vs 9 years of big losses does not mean all is well at the bridge.

Premier League agrees new financial regulations

The Premier League says its clubs will be punished with a points deduction if they breach new spending controls.  Each team will not be allowed to make a total loss of more than £105m over the next three seasons and must limit their player wage bills from next season.  "If people break the £105m we will look for the top-end ultimate sanction range - a points deduction," said Premier League boss Richard Scudamore.  The rules are designed to improve the financial sustainability of clubs.

Investment in areas such as stadia and academies will be exempt.

The aim is a 'break even' model similar to the Financial Fair Play regulations introduced by Uefa for sides in European competitions. The FFP allows only a £38m (45m euros) loss - significantly less than the Premier League's new limit of £105m between 2013 and 2016.
Analysis

One thing that's been guaranteed in the unpredictable world of Premier League football is that when TV revenues go up, so do the financial rewards to players.  It was many people's assumption that the astounding sums agreed by Sky and BT for the live rights for the next three seasons would result in another ticket to El Dorado for the current crop of playing talent.  However, against the run of play, the clubs have shown signs of self restraint. Could sustainability become the new spend spend spend?  In theory, these measures will present clubs with an opportunity to pay down some debt, secure a more stable financial platform, and even stick something away for a rainy day. Now that would be an interesting development.

Agreeing to cost controls marks a major change for Premier League clubs - they made cumulative losses of £361m in the 2010-11 season - and Scudamore is adamant the system will be enforced.  "As with all things in our rulebook, you will be subject to a disciplinary commission," the Premier League chief executive warned clubs.  "Normally we stay silent on sanctions as the commission has a free range but clearly if there is a material breach of that rule we will be asking the commission to consider top-end sanctions."  Scudamore confirmed there would be an "absolute prohibition" on teams reporting losses of more than £105m over the next three years, with the first sanctions possible in 2016.

Of the 20 top-flight sides, only Manchester City, Chelsea and Liverpool have reported losses of more than £105m over the last three years, according to the most up-to-date published accounts.  It emerged that the vote for the financial regulations could hardly have been closer with only 13 of the 20 clubs voted in favour, with six against and Reading abstaining.  The 'yes' vote only narrowly achieved the necessary two-thirds majority of the 19 votes cast.  It is understood that Fulham, West Bromwich Albion, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea City and Southampton all voted against. Chelsea, who had initially been viewed as opponents of financial fair play regulations, voted in favour.  "A new owner can still invest a decent amount of money to improve their club but they are not going to be throwing hundreds and hundreds of millions [of pounds] in a very short period of time," said Scudamore.  "While it has worked for a couple of clubs in the last 10 years, if that's going to be done in the future it's going to have to be over a slightly longer term without the huge losses being made.


"I think at £105m you can still build a very decent club with substantial owner funding but you have to do it over time, not in a season."
Chelsea won the Premier League two years after Roman Abramovich acquired the Stamford Bridge outfit, and Manchester City's title success came three years after Sheikh Mansour's takeover.  Any club making a loss of above £5m a year will have to guarantee those losses against the owner's assets, which should help prevent the situations that afflicted Leeds and Portsmouth.  "In some ways that's the most significant part, this is a three-year rolling system of secure funding - it's one year at the moment," Scudamore added.  Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52m will only be allowed to increase their salaries by an accumulative £4m per season for each of the next three years (2013-14: £4m, 2014-15: £8m, 2015-16: £12m).

However, that only applies to revenue centrally distributed by the Premier League - essentially TV income - and does not cover extra money coming in from increases in commercial or matchday income.  The 'short-term cost control' measure applies solely to clubs with a player wage bill in excess of £52m in 2013-14, £56m in 2014-15 and £60m in 2015-16. West Ham's co-owner David Gold said that the proposals for controls had received backing of the majority of chairmen.  "We have all voted and it was overwhelmingly supported, not by all the clubs - some are a little concerned - but the vast majority of the clubs voted in favour," he explained.  "It's not a salary cap, it's a restraint on over-spending. If clubs increase their revenues then they can increase their spending.  "We have got restraint, that's the important thing. What's driving the whole thing is we've got to avoid another Portsmouth."

Minister for Sport Hugh Robertson commented: "I am pleased that Premier League clubs have agreed further financial regulations that will help ensure they are run on a more sustainable basis.  "The Government has been clear that we want clubs to be on a secure financial footing for the long-term health of the game. This is a welcome and positive move."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21374699

Financial Fair Play and the 'Break even Rule':

I've seen it mentioned on here that "we didn't need to pass FFP for last season because we were not playing in champions league last season"

That statement is specious and ultimately unhelpful to anyone who, genuinely, wants to understand what UEFA's 'Break even Test' entails and means to Liverpool F.C.

The truth is: we did need to pass the test "for last season" simply because we are playing in the Champions League this season.

The facts [taken from UEFA]...

"From this current season (2013/14), clubs also have to make sure they comply with break-even requirements, which in principle means not to spend more than they earn. UEFA has installed the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) to verify every year each club's figures of the past two years put together, and as of 2014/15, they will look at the figures of the previous three years put together.

The first sanctions for clubs not fulfilling the break-even requirement will be taken following this first assessment in May 2014. The first possible sanctions relating to non-compliance with break-even requirements would be effective for the 2014/15 campaign."

http://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.html

What that means:-

* From 2013/14 all clubs have to pass a 'test' that they have not spent more than they have earned.

* That 'test' was based on the previous two season's figures/accounts.

* The sanctions (for failing the 'Break even Test') only started this season. No club, irrespective of what level they competed at, was subject to this 'test' before this date.

* Any club who failed the 'test' [City & P.S.G., for e.g.] were sanctioned.

* Clubs who passed were not sanctioned.

So what does it mean for Liverpool F.C.?

Well... after the first assessment was made, in May this year, we escaped sanction and therefore passed UEFA's 'Break even Test'. Had we been in breach, over the previous two year's spending, we would have failed. It's as simple as that.

Whilst it's true that some had 'tagged' us as being at risk; the fact remains, we escaped sanction. That's not to say we didn't escape by the skin of our teeth or that we didn't have to be creative [as everyone knows, or at least should know, "stadium debt" is not included in any calculation] but we did 'pass'.

Going forward - the additional monies brought in via BT and Champions League should ensure that we will again pass the 'test' come the end of 2014/15 season (when the test will be based on the previous three years).

I think financially we'll be much healthier on the club accounts next year, as you have the new TV deal, Champions League money coming in and there's 2 or 3 new sponsors coming in. That's easily about £65 million, which should take club revenues to £260-£270 million. Still short of our rivals though.

For us to comply with FFP over the long term, while competing at the top end of the transfer market we'd need to qualify for CL football regularly and expand our stadium to 60,000. Plus get more money from our sponsors.

FFP is working, look at City and PSG. They've both spent within the limits given to them by UEFA. Over the years that limit will come down too.

I don't think we were at risk of getting sanctioned. We never spent massive amounts on transfer fees like City, and we were aggressively trying to reduce our wage bill for many years.

FFP is working, look at City and PSG. They've both spent within the limits given to them by UEFA. Over the years that limit will come down too.

Is it working really tho' Tom?

I mean; City & PSG have already built powerful squads and won titles and escaped with minimal sanction - will limiting their spending to only one, or two big signings a season really have much impact on them?

Think of it another way: the wealthiest clubs will continue to be the wealthiest clubs and they will continue to be able to outspend their less wealthy counterparts. Will FFP really even the playing field between Bayern Munich and Burnley, or Liverpool and Leicester, or Rangers and Real Madrid? I doubt it.

It could well be working in the respect that it perpetuates the division between the 'haves and have nots'... something that was already there.

FFP is a load of aul sh*te (IMO, of course). 

Is it working really tho' Tom?

I mean; City & PSG have already built powerful squads and won titles and escaped with minimal sanction - will limiting their spending to only one, or two top signings a season really have much impact on them?

Think of it another way: the wealthiest clubs will continue to be the wealthiest clubs and they will continue to be able to outspend their less wealthy counterparts. Will FFP really even the playing field between Bayern Munich and Burnley, or Liverpool and Leicester, or Rangers and Real Madrid? I doubt it.

It could well be working in the respect that it perpetuates the division between the 'haves and have nots'... something that was already there.

FFP is a load of aul sh*te (IMO, of course). 

You're right, FFP will not level the playing field between Bayern and Burnley. It just stops clubs like Chelsea, City, PSG, Monaco from allowing their rich billionaire taking over, and spending the owners money on players, racking up huge losses for clubs.

It's supposed to enforce clubs to build their infrastructure for long term success, and allow clubs to have a sustainable long term model.

City and PSG have built powerful squads because the rules were not enforced previously, I can't deny that. However if the rules were not there, you'd just see their squads become even more endowed with talent. PSG cannot buy Di Maria without selling another player. You'd never see that without the FFP rules.

I don't think it's the perfect system in the world but I think it's certainly reducing the spending of clubs who rely on their owners investment.

FFP is helpful for us as it's easier for us to build the infrastructure to generate revenues. Arsenal are seeing the benefits of it now, as they have purchased top quality players like Ozil or Sanchez. There'd be a lot more competition for those players without FFP.

It's supposed to enforce clubs to build their infrastructure for long term success, and allow clubs to have a sustainable long term model.

Fair enough I fully appreciate that mate but... in doing so it will keep the wealthiest clubs [the established elite] at the top of the pile. Leicester and Burnley will have a sustainable business model alright but they will never compete with or challenge Liverpool for example.

In a world which revolves around money; is it right that smaller clubs can never challenge the established elite? Definitely... if you are one of the elite. Maybe not... if you're a smaller club.

We are part of that elite (if on a lower level than Real and Bayern, for e.g.) so "we're alright Jack..."; eh?

FFP, [as far as football and divvying up titles/trophies go], has and will change F**k all. 

Fair enough I fully appreciate that mate but... in doing so it will keep the wealthiest clubs [the established elite] at the top of the pile. Leicester and Burnley will have a sustainable business model alright but they will never compete with or challenge Liverpool for example.

In a world which revolves around money; is it right that smaller clubs can never challenge the established elite? Definitely... if you are one of the elite. Maybe not... if you're a smaller club.

We are part of that elite (if on a lower level than Real and Bayern, for e.g.) so "we're alright Jack..."; eh?

FFP, [as far as football and divvying up titles/trophies go], has and will change f**k all. 

Depends on how you look at it really. Many clubs are as big as they are because of where they are. Ofcourse you could say that becomes less of a role now in the Premier League with the globalisation of the sport. But Burnley has a population of about 70k, it seems normal to me they can't compete with the big clubs. In that regard Leicester City should have more potential.

I do think that with good policy a club can grow towards the top, but it would need to have the potential, to tick all the potential boxes. And it takes alot of time. There's a reason why many of these clubs are as big as they are, there aren't that many sleeping giants left in that regard, and most of them have been run badly in the past.

Depends on how you look at it really.

Indeed it does Bier and I 'look at it' as perpetuating the divide between wealthy and poor. I might be wrong tho'...

I do think that with good policy a club can grow towards the top.

I guess we will know, for sure, in twenty or so years. 

Fair enough I fully appreciate that mate but... in doing so it will keep the wealthiest clubs [the established elite] at the top of the pile. Leicester and Burnley will have a sustainable business model alright but they will never compete with or challenge Liverpool for example.

In a world which revolves around money; is it right that smaller clubs can never challenge the established elite? Definitely... if you are one of the elite. Maybe not... if you're a smaller club.

We are part of that elite (if on a lower level than Real and Bayern, for e.g.) so "we're alright Jack..."; eh?

FFP, [as far as football and divvying up titles/trophies go], has and will change F**k all. 

Well, yes, that's the impact of FFP. Income equality between the rich and the poor increases. It creates a monopoly because only a certain few clubs can generate the revenue to purchase top quality players

However it can reduce or stop incidents like Leeds for example. They spent, spent and spent and in the end they couldn't sustain it so they sold and got relegated.

If a club manages to challenge like Leeds, with FFP they'd have done it in ways that allows them to sustain that challenge.

I do think FFP does more good than bad, it isn't perfect.

I do think FFP does more good than bad, it isn't perfect.

Like I said: that's fair enough Tom and I know your motives are pure. I'm just not sure everyone else has the same reasons for wanting FFP.

Let's take Liverpool out of the equation and look instead at Arsenal; a huge advocate of the 'virtues' of FFP and the 'shining example' of how to run a business...

Arsenal were, for as long as I can remember (and before), always a wealthy club; always able to 'compete'; always able to sign and pay for the best and always winners. Yet, in all that time, I don't recall them ever saying "whoa, hold on here, this isn't fair... we can sign and pay the best, whilst Burnley can't."

Then, two things happen... a noisy, wealthy, Russian neighbour moves in across the street and Kronke starts his rise to prominence.

All of a sudden Wenger starts to mewl: "It's not fair... We can't compete... How's it fair when we can't compete and pay what the Russian can?" Well the truth is; they could compete but that would have meant Kronke (a very wealthy man) and others spending his/their own money - just like the pesky Russian.

The fact is; he (and the other shareholders ) didn't want to compete. They were getting their coin [dividends] and watching their stock grow without 'competing', thanks to a good but compliant coach/manager.
[Striking similarities between Arsenal and Man U with their own noisy Arab neighbours but that's for again maybe].

Arsenal never gave a F**k about level playing fields or inequality until they were the poor relations. Now they're buying into FFP lock, stock and both barrels. A system which is every bit unfair. Why?

Well, without spending a penny of their own money, Arsenal's shareholders will be at the top of the pile... and my guess is that, just like all them years ago, Arsenal will not be pointing out how unfair the inequality is.

So whilst I know your motives are pure Tom, I also know that the clubs who are shouting the loudest are less altruistic. For them it's more about money than concern about their 'fellow man'. (IMO, of course). 

Some interesting points. We all want to see football run on a sustainable financial footing and the ability of clubs to 'buy' success diminished so as not to undermine the competition, but doing this after the likes of Chelsea, City etc have already had massive investments from wealthy owners to propel them into the elite is arguably unfair on smaller clubs who face a virtually impossible task of ever making those sorts of improvements within their own means. What's the answer? Maybe a less stringent form of FFP for smaller clubs?