Financial Fairplay

UEFA plan to enforce this new concept of financial fairplay.

The three main talking points are

• Break-even requirement – clubs must not spend more than they generate over a period of time (Stadium and Youth academy costs are not included)
• No overdues payable during the season – towards other clubs, employees and/or social/tax authorities
• Provision of future financial information – to ensure clubs can meet their future obligations

If clubs fail to meet any of the above requirements then they will be unable to participate in UEFA football.

Another big change is that clubs like Man City and Chelsea cannot rely on their owners wealth.

This system will take 3 seasons to phase in although I'm not sure the differences within the 3 years.


Anyways to me this means that:
transfers will have to be much more carefully thought out
less big signings
greater focus on youth (development and poaching)
smaller clubs will find it more difficult to hang onto their stars

and also within the next 3 years small clubs will get stripped of their stars

Its interesting that they finally agreed on it after the G20 declined this concept. I suppose its surely b/c of the rise of sheikh driven clubs like Man City and the unwillingness to give away their secure top4 spots (in england that should be true for Utd, Pool and Arsenal at least) when small clubs bring in large sums of external money. Otherwise the same clubs could have been agreed to it earlier.

I still dunno if it actually works out. Some sheikh could as well buy a player for a ton of money and just loan him out to the club he supports (even for free). So i really wonder if the UEFA will prevent those tricks.

el tren said:

Its interesting that they finally agreed on it after the G20 declined this concept. I suppose its surely b/c of the rise of sheikh driven clubs like Man City and the unwillingness to give away their secure top4 spots (in england that should be true for Utd, Pool and Arsenal at least) when small clubs bring in large sums of external money. Otherwise the same clubs could have been agreed to it earlier.

I still dunno if it actually works out. Some sheikh could as well buy a player for a ton of money and just loan him out to the club he supports (even for free). So i really wonder if the UEFA will prevent those tricks.

Click to expand...

I was also thinking that people like Abromovich and the Sheikh's are all business people and could actually be an official sponsor with some ludicrous deal

It will suit prudent clubs like Bayern Munich for sure at the same time, force clubs to invest in grounds rather than players (which for me is a great thing).

At the beginning yes... maybe it's a way to keep players in his clubs...

the value of the club derives from its location + its fixed assets.

this would ensure that both of those increase with time.

Overwhelming yes, it seems.

Clubs will have to be better managed and that is probably the most important result of this imo

There's so many loop holes in these proposals it's untrue.

If an investor wants to invest in a private business Uefa and Fifa can do fuk all about it. We will actually be completely fine by then anyway, we've got two summers where we can spend whatever we like. Then Mansour's Billion pound development of our stadium and the surrounding area will bring in bucket loads of cash.

All these rules will mean that the clubs who are successful at the time the rules are set, will stay successful pretty much indefinitely.

blueduck said:

There's so many loop holes in these proposals it's untrue.

If an investor wants to invest in a private business Uefa and Fifa can do fuk all about it. We will actually be completely fine by then anyway, we've got two summers where we can spend whatever we like. Then Mansour's Billion pound development of our stadium and the surrounding area will bring in bucket loads of cash.

All these rules will mean that the clubs who are successful at the time the rules are set, will stay successful pretty much indefinitely.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It means that there will be no more excessive amounts of huge signings per clubs, which will help big players stay at smaller clubs. So there will be more Fernando Torres' at more Atleticos providing them with greater talent and better performance... Better performance = better winnings, smaller clubs drawing closer with bigger ones...

You're wrong I'm afraid, it will keep the status quo.

The teams that are in the CL will have a huge advantage over the clubs that aren't. All that extra cash will mean that any quality player at a club without the CL, would have to move on to a CL club if they were to get a top wage.

Meh... GdS today demonstrated the financial situation of the big clubs in Europe and the figures about many clubs are worrying. The article says Big Clubs may ask Uefa to postpone the FFP rule for now.

Barca -72,9 and Inter... -223,4!!! Oh boy...



[size=+1]BUT WHERE IS FAIR PLAY?[/size]

Inter and City are in the red zone. And the sheiks will not stop.

Wages are not decreasing, signings of the market continue: in Europe, they are not thinking about the new rules.

Analyst Deloitte: "Perhaps the clubs will ask for a postponement."

Can you imagine a Champions League without the teams from Manchester, Milan, Chelsea and Barcelona? Science fiction. Yet if the new financial fair play rules of UEFA had already entered into play then this would happen. Easy objection: there is still time to remedy, given that the head of the control panel, former Belgium Prime Minister Dehaena will begin to control the balances in 2012. True, but the accounts of several European clubs are really bad. But, with few exceptions, the cost of transfer and salary continue to raise. Richard Raffo, partner of Deloitte, explains: "Clubs still have those who will continue to spend and spend. The Germans have their budgets in order. For Italy, the country has entered a phase of austerity, but elsewhere it is living beyond its means. It is possible that big clubs will try to delay the timing of the new fair play rules."

Negative scenario Our simulation is based on the latest available financial statements. As the first step will be a two-year situation so we have looked at the numbers of the last two years (those of 2009 and 2010) and the aggregate net results that is the difference between costs and revenues. So the maximum deficit allowed is 45 million? Well, seven clubs would be out of that parameters and they are Valencia, Barcelona, Milan, Man Utd, Chelsea, Inter, and Man City. Some of them are really in trouble, in the sense that the imbalance is so big that you can not imagine a way out. What is amazing is the nonchalance of the "new rich" who continue to open their wallets as if the financial fair play is a joke. These massive investments that former patrons in Moratti and Berlusconi are not willing to make to delight the fans but they are trying to balance the budgets. Look at City for example. In the last two years, they have put themselves in the red zone with 249.million euros, and just for this year alone, a decline is expected to be -143 comparing to 2010. Despite this, Mansour continues to spend 60 million during this summer transfer market. It is true that the entry in the Champions League will increase revenue and it is equally true that there is a mega agreement with Etihad Airways which will provide an extra 50 million per season. By the way, UEFA will have their antennas up because the airline is also related to the Sheik: sponsorship can not be inflated, there is an obligation to give it a "fair value" that is the right value, in line with the transfer market. Anyway, those are not enough tricks. PSG have already spent 83 million euros and if the costs continue soaring then they can say goodbye to the dream of the Champions League.

Down with salaries There are positive models in Europe from Arsenal to newcomer Napoli. Those teams are not missing but overall the situation is not good. Because the dream of Platini ("you can not spend more than you cash in") is that the big clubs should sign a pact to moderate salaries to at least 30-40%. Utopia? Apparently, yes.

Yess!!!

ranjix said:

Yess!!!

Click to expand...

:huhsign:

recovering 70 million in 2 years is easily doable for a club like Barca, and from the above article it seems that a 45 million deficit is also acceptable so we need not worry. however seeing Inter, Citeh and Chel$ki so deep in shit makes me want to jizz in my pants and LMAO at Arsenal, no wonder they are not winning shit, their board is too busy ripping off their fans with ticket prices and what not