Financial Fair Play Regulations

Does this look like a face that would tell a lie?

That looks like a face that shouldn't stand outside a school with a bag of sweets.

That looks like a face that shouldn't stand outside a school with a bag of sweets.

 

Or


Yeah of course it's not been clocked mate... Even 3 months tax on it..

Or


Yeah of course it's not been clocked mate... Even 3 months tax on it..

psst, got some great cheap gear for you, totally kosher, proper labels, got them in a cheap import deal. Chavs will love the stuff, I'm telling you. Bit of fake bling and roberts your new managers, erm I mean yer uncle.

psst, got some great cheap gear for you, totally kosher, proper labels, got them in a cheap import deal. Chavs will love the stuff, I'm telling you. Bit of fake bling and roberts your new managers, erm I mean yer uncle.

Officer honestly I've been meaning to get a new belt for ages... I didnt even realise they had fallen down...

Premier League ponders salary cap or financial fair play as new cash looms

• New even more lucrative TV deal runs 2013-16
• Richard Scudamore presents options to clubs at meeting

David Conn
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 6 September 2012 21.33 BST

The Premier League is considering the introduction of rules to control escalating player wages before the huge influx of cash from the next television deals in 2013-16. Potential rules presented to the clubs by the chief executive, Richard Scudamore, at a meeting in London on Thursday include a salary cap or a form of Uefa's financial fair play rules.

Some clubs feel strongly that the new TV deal, with £3bn already secured from the UK rights, should not be swallowed up by a new wave of pay inflation. But any rule change requires 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs to agree and it is not clear whether sufficient clubs will be in favour of strengthening financial regulations.

Manchester United and Arsenal, both of whom made profits in 2010-11, are understood to favour rules similar to Uefa's, which require clubs to move towards breaking even financially, not making losses. On Thursday Arsène Wenger supported that view, the Arsenal manager saying: "You should just get the resources you generate, that will determine the real size of the club."

However, some clubs see that as a move by the two with the greatest income to outspend everyone else. Manchester City, whose path to becoming Premier League champions has been achieved by the club's Abu Dhabi owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, subsidising huge losses, are thought unlikely to support new regulations, even though they have consistently said they are aiming to break even. City argue that a level of investment by an owner to bankroll losses is necessary to lift a club to success on the field and commercially.

Other clubs, including Fulham, Everton, West Bromwich Albion, Newcastle and Tottenham Hotspur, are also understood to question whether clubs need new regulations, rather than being trusted to manage their own affairs.

Despite income rising every year, pay to players has risen steadily over the past decade. In 2001-02, clubs spent £1.1bn, 62% of their income, on players' wages. In 2010-11, the most recent year for which financial figures are available, income grew to £2.5bn but players' wages amounted to £1.8bn, 70% of the clubs' turnover. Despite massive commercial growth and the Premier League's growing popularity abroad, only eight of the 20 clubs made a profit in 2010-11.

West Ham United's chairman, David Gold, is vocally in favour of introducing rules to limit wages to help clubs make a profit, as is Dave Whelan, the Wigan Athletic owner. Peter Coates, the Stoke City owner, said all clubs would be helped by having to conform to agreed rules.

"I hope this view is widely shared: we cannot have all the new money going in inflated wages and payments to agents," Coates said. "There is no need to do that; we will have the same players, they won't get better because we pay them more. It should not be beyond us to find a formula which works for us all."

Ellis Short, the owner and chairman of Sunderland, who lost £8m last year having spent 77% of the club's income in wages, is understood to favour restricting salary increases to 10% in each of the new TV deal's three years.

The clubs have agreed to work on the proposals in two separate groups of 10, then for all 20 to meet to consider the issue in detail at the end of September. The Premier League did not want to comment in detail until further work has been done; a spokesman confirmed: "There is a process under way to examine potential further financial regulation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/06/premier-league-salary-cap?CMP=twt_gu

That looks like a face that shouldn't stand outside a school with a bag of sweets.

 

Could you imagine John Henry in the same position tho'?... "Go easy on them sweets kid."

Until Platini & co have the stones to rein in the chavs, PSG ect from their continued obscene spending by actually evicting them from the CL then FFP aren't worth the paper they're written on. At the moment generally speaking, rich clubs are being more sensible in their fiscal dealings while as for the super-rich it's very much business as usual. One of the few exceptions to this rule - much to my surprise - is citeh, who didn't spend their usual obscene amount on transfers this summer but  that was possibly down to missed targets, so the jury is still out on them.

Until Platini & co have the stones to rein in the chavs, PSG ect from their continued obscene spending by actually evicting them from the CL then FFP aren't worth the paper they're written on. At the moment generally speaking, rich clubs are being more sensible in their fiscal dealings while as for the super-rich it's very much business as usual. One of the few exceptions to this rule - much to my surprise - is citeh, who didn't spend their usual obscene amount on transfers this summer but  that was possibly down to missed targets, so the jury is still out on them.

Thing is though you have Chelsea/City/PSG big spending in Europe, then you have everyone else. In terms of FFP if they decide to push foward I doubt those 3 teams want to compete in a 3 team super league. All three of those clubs are going to change or they will not be playing the likes of Bayren, Barca or Inter because those teams along with us, RM and the rest of football are on the other side of FFP.

Well here's a little something interesting.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/soccer/09/11/atletico-madrid-case.ap/index.html?sct=sc_t2_a7

Well here's a little something interesting.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/soccer/09/11/atletico-madrid-case.ap/index.html?sct=sc_t2_a7

Surely is.

It doesn't go as far as we might hope yet but it is a start.

Uefa withholds prize money from 23 clubs in first fair play sanctions
• Uefa reveals sanctions under its financial fair play rules
• Clubs include Atlético Madrid, Sporting Lisbon and Málaga


Uefa has withheld 23 clubs' share of European prize money due to their failure to pay debts to other clubs or tax bills. The clubs include some famous names in European football such as Atlético Madrid, Sporting Lisbon, Fenerbahce and Málaga, but no British sides.

The sanctions follow the first elements of Uefa's financial fair play rules coming into force regarding unpaid debts, with the prize money temporarily withheld pending further investigation.

The action was taken by the Uefa club financial control body (CFCB) investigatory chamber, chaired by the former Belgian prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene.

Uefa said in a statement: "The clubs participating in Uefa club competitions had to provide information regarding the status of any overdue payables as at 30 June 2012. The CFCB investigatory chamber has identified that important overdue payables towards other clubs, and/or towards employees or social/tax authorities existed in 23 cases."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/11/uefa-prize-money-fair-play

It is a start to identifying clubs to show they are going to push on with this idea of making it a somewhat even playing field though I don't think anyone will really think they are serious until some serious punishment goes down to one of the bigger European nations. What I often believe that it wasn't just a issue with clubs from the big leagues who spend vast amount of cash each window, but middle tier clubs who spend decent money but are not bringing in nearly enough revenue to balance the books out. Just shows this issue is widespread across Europe.

Thing is though you have Chelsea/City/PSG big spending in Europe, then you have everyone else. In terms of FFP if they decide to push foward I doubt those 3 teams want to compete in a 3 team super league. All three of those clubs are going to change or they will not be playing the likes of Bayren, Barca or Inter because those teams along with us, RM and the rest of football are on the other side of FFP.

It's good that UEFA are starting to cane clubs financially for spending before making but what I am longing for is the day that the likes of citeh, chelski, PSG and Zenit get booted off the CL gravy train for their fiscal shenanigans; as far as I'm concerned only then will Platini show if he's serious about making FFP work. What will hurt these offenders the most is having their world-wide profile reduced and as we know, all the best players all want to play in the Champions League, so tbeing evicted from it will lessen considerably these clubs attraction as transfer destinations; this is vastly more important to the super-rich clubs than mere prize money. I'm certain that not being involved in the world's top club competition would be an enormous motive for actually behaving in a sensible monetary fashion.

This will be interesting to see play out. Despite what many have said about the formation of a "Super League" there is far and away more support from important clubs in Europe for FFP than against. The 23 clubs penalized are not against FFP per se then just don't have their act together yet.

On one side of the coin from what I can see there is:

Chelsea
Man City
Fulham
PSG


On the other side is:
Liverpool
United
Arsenal
The entire Bundesliga
Milan
Barcelona
Real Madrid


So while there is going to always be some conspiracy crop up with a team like Chelsea/City (circumventing the rules) I think the combined power for FFP in Europe is far greater than against it.

Interesting story over the course of the next few years.

When they ban these clubs from European competition it will be interesting. A few quid lost isn't going to stop the likes of Atletico.

This will be interesting to see play out. Despite what many have said about the formation of a "Super League" there is far and away more support from important clubs in Europe for FFP than against. The 23 clubs penalized are not against FFP per se then just don't have their act together yet.

On one side of the coin from what I can see there is:

Chelsea
Man City
Fulham
PSG


On the other side is:
Liverpool
United
Arsenal
The entire Bundesliga
Milan
Barcelona
Real Madrid


So while there is going to always be some conspiracy crop up with a team like Chelsea/City (circumventing the rules) I think the combined power for FFP in Europe is far greater than against it.

Interesting story over the course of the next few years.

How can Real Madrid be ok they get bailed out by the Spanish Government everytime they need money its a real wierd deal.

How can Real Madrid be ok they get bailed out by the Spanish Government everytime they need money its a real wierd deal.

Just quoting what Jose Mourinho said a few days ago that they welcome it and that RM books are in order.

The Portuguese told AS: "Madrid, Barca and Bayern are all clubs that have a unique history.

"You can't buy that with money. The titles, the European Cups, the history, the fanbase, you can't achieve these things just by spending money.

"And all the best players want to be at these clubs, at these three clubs and a few others that have hundreds of trophies between them.
Restrictions

"It's still an important factor for the players. Then you have to bear in mind that Financial Fair Play is coming in soon, and Platini says he wants it followed to the letter.

"They are going to impose restrictions on clubs that aren't well structured and make life difficult for them, even if they have piles of money.

"I know my club, Madrid, well and the infrastructure is in place to cope (with the new rules).

"Real Madrid has the potential and the history to keep the best players, such as Cristiano (Ronaldo), (Iker) Casillas, (Karim) Benzema and (Gonzalo) Higuain. Barca are the same.

"But clubs that live exclusively on the funds of their owners won't find life so easy, because they don't have the structure of the historic clubs.

"And that's why Financial Fair Play will be good for football."

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11835/8056833/Mourinho-backing-FFP

Real owe sh*t load sof money but their income is huge which is why the FFP rules are not yet infirnged but if Spain goes "tits up" Real will no longer be able to offer such lucrative deals to players who come on virtually tax free deals.

City and UEFA in sustainability talks

September 13, 2012

By Harry Harris, Football Correspondent

Manchester City are one of a number of clubs holding talks with UEFA ahead of the implementation of Financial Fair Play in order to convince them that they aim to achieve long-term sustainability, ESPN can reveal.

The FFP rules being introduced by European football's governing body mean clubs must break even within a margin of "acceptable deviation" of €45 million over the first two years - next season and the one after that.

Any club showing a loss of more than that figure will be punished by UEFA sanctions, with City and Chelsea the two most vulnerable in English football because of their high levels of spending.

But a City source told ESPN: "The ambition of the club, from the outset of new ownership in September 2008, was to build a sustainable football club. The club remains fully committed to that principle."

City are not alone in holding direct talks with UEFA about the issue. ESPN understands that up to 19 clubs across Europe are currently involved in similar discussions.

The club's claims to be chasing long-term sustainability will be received sceptically in many quarters. The Premier League champions have bought many of the best players available, running up an enormous wage bill and running at record losses.

However, this summer's transfer window showed they are no longer willing to pay vastly inflated fees, even though that meant manager Roberto Mancini missed out on his prime targets. Instead, the club bought in less expensive players.

They are cautious about Premier League plans to introduce a domestic version of FFP  an approach, an insider told ESPN, that could be shared by "three or four" other clubs.

But with 14 votes required to push through Premier League FFP rules, the chances are that they will be brought in for next season.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1158040/manchester-city-and-uefa-in-sustainability-talks?cc=5739

If the sh*t hits the fan for them , there could be a fire sale of some of their best payed . lets hope it becomes completely unsustainable for them .

We are told that once Uefa’s Financial Fair Play rules come into effect, that teams will be forced to live within their means, ( and I really don’t know what that means) and that well run clubs like Liverpool would have an advantage over their rivals.
The actions of Chelsea and Paris Saint-Germain this summer have told us one thing. That Platini’s Financial Fair Play rules are a joke. That big spending clubs, backed by gulf money, can, and will, buy whoever they want, whenever they want.
So far this summer, Chelsea, who have been hemorrhaging money since Abramovich took over, have spent £47m on Eden Hazard and Marko Marin and they have only just started.
PSG  bought Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Thiago Silva from AC Milan for around €62 million. That is on top of the €26m that they earlier spent on getting Ezequiel Lavezzi from Napoli.
Platini is the greatest supporter of FFP and I respect him for that. But if, as strongly rumored, he will be FIFA president -in 2014, and no-one knows who will be the new Eufa president, and are we sure that will arrive backing a project that is penalizing the biggest European clubs? No-one knows
So what does this mean for Liverpool? We have been told for the last three or four years that with Financial Fair Play that nobody will be able to outspend Liverpool and that Liverpool with its good young talent will be able to compete with anyone in Europe.
That is obviously false. The gulf money at Man City, PSG and Malaga, is taking spending (transfers and wages) to a whole new level. Teams trying to only spend cannot compete. The only way to compete is to have a regular infusion of cash from an ownership group in order to compete. That means that Kroneke is going to have to put his hand in his pocket and come up with a cash infusion if Liverpool are to maintain their top four position.
We are just over four weeks into the start of the 2012 season. Is Liverpool any closer to Man City and Man United today, than they were when the season ended? The answer is no. And with Chelsea’s recent spree, you can make the argument that they have jumped above Liverpool this summer by a long way.

We are told that once Uefa’s Financial Fair Play rules come into effect, that teams will be forced to live within their means, ( and I really don’t know what that means) and that well run clubs like Liverpool would have an advantage over their rivals.
The actions of Chelsea and Paris Saint-Germain this summer have told us one thing. That Platini’s Financial Fair Play rules are a joke. That big spending clubs, backed by gulf money, can, and will, buy whoever they want, whenever they want.
So far this summer, Chelsea, who have been hemorrhaging money since Abramovich took over, have spent £47m on Eden Hazard and Marko Marin and they have only just started.
PSG  bought Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Thiago Silva from AC Milan for around €62 million. That is on top of the €26m that they earlier spent on getting Ezequiel Lavezzi from Napoli.
Platini is the greatest supporter of FFP and I respect him for that. But if, as strongly rumored, he will be FIFA president -in 2014, and no-one knows who will be the new Eufa president, and are we sure that will arrive backing a project that is penalizing the biggest European clubs? No-one knows
So what does this mean for Liverpool? We have been told for the last three or four years that with Financial Fair Play that nobody will be able to outspend Liverpool and that Liverpool with its good young talent will be able to compete with anyone in Europe.
That is obviously false. The gulf money at Man City, PSG and Malaga, is taking spending (transfers and wages) to a whole new level. Teams trying to only spend cannot compete. The only way to compete is to have a regular infusion of cash from an ownership group in order to compete. That means that Kroneke is going to have to put his hand in his pocket and come up with a cash infusion if Liverpool are to maintain their top four position.
We are just over four weeks into the start of the 2012 season. Is Liverpool any closer to Man City and Man United today, than they were when the season ended? The answer is no. And with Chelsea’s recent spree, you can make the argument that they have jumped above Liverpool this summer by a long way.

In the short term obviously the likes of Man City, Chelsea and PSG are big winners. A lot of people think that football is secure and only the big spenders will win. True in the long term but who's to say something massive in the financial world won't inflict critical damage on football affecting the likes of the oil rich or heavily indebted clubs like Manchester United. There's no way spending can continue like it is. Anyone thinking there won't be a bust in football as there was in the world banking system are kidding themselves.

We are already within our means and not doing well, manure and arsenal made profits, have huge stadiums and are way ahead of us with cl football..

How is Ffp going to help us exactly at our stage? For teams looking to expand its useless and for teams who have spent previously it allows them to cement their strong position..

How does Ffp benefit a former 'top 4' club with no stadium or cl? Just from a selfish point of view it's not good for us right now, I feel fsg are using it as a smokescreen to explain our lack of progress..

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?