FFP Again

[london blue 2]

Ted I think you're being naive if you think the general majority understand that FFP is set up to maintain the status quo. I believe that most on here do and most intelligent football fans, but unfortunately the majority of people seem to think that it's a good idea, set up to stop teams like city and chelsea ruining football.

Id love it if there was a media outlet as powerful as the sun (I know) that focused on the fact that FFP restricts any lesser team with any financial ambition but that's never going to be the case.

Your first paragraph is true unfortunately. I think even most fans of teams like Villa, Everton etc. don't realise the impact it will have on their own clubs, in that it will forever doom them to mid-table mediocrity.

I think this is spot on, and it's the point that seems to be evading so many average football fans. The effect it will have on the midtable and lesser teams will be UNfair.

[Hazy2]

Club A Offer 50 mill for a player Club B Call Michell Plattini and ask can we accept the money mate, not going to happen. Club C call club B we have 12 mill and we are a small club with the future of the game at heart, accept it or we will report you. Club C call club A we can do a deal at 30 mill boys whatdaysay, PSG call and offer 75 mill and Michell says NO COMMENT !!!!!

[Avalon]

The biggest issue I have with FFP is that it ruins chances for smaller clubs. Look at Swansea. Unless they suddenly get a massive turn over from sales, they're forced to buy average players, because their turnover is low. I like Swansea, I find that they play exciting football, especially with Laudrup, however, they will never be able to get a rich owner, splash the cash like we did, because of FFP. Therefore, they're stuck where they are now. It's rubbish.

I can understand there are those who want to protect clubs and I agree, it's just that this is not the answer. This is only helping those who have already made it. We barged through the door just in time.

[Wooders]

i was a bit suprised by the likes of wigan and stoke getting behind it, I mean, our spending is going to make fuck all difference to their clubs, with every financial imposition in place that ever could be, they would never be at the races against the likes of the scum and it would just make it an even easier league for the top earners to restrict us and chelsea from spending

it will be the first time in history that a club's local "benefactor" can avoid losing money, so I'm not at all surprised Whelan and others like it.

I don't understand that comment - can you elaborate ?

[Rag_hater]

I'm no expert in law but seeing as there is no viable alternative to UEFA & the Premier League, I think it would be a winning argument to suggest that they would effectively be banning a club & basically putting it out of business by refusing it a license.

I too am not a legal expert Ted, but from the research I have done and a long discussion with a lawyer involved with the FFPR, I believe that on the "NO ALTERNATIVE/MONOPOLY" issue, you are right. UeFA has to be seen to act fairly and equitably and be in compliance with both EU and Swiss monopoly law. I believe that; because UeFA have the right to determine the criteria for their licence, because the FFPR are the same for everyone and given the added support of the ECA and the European Commission, UeFA are sitting pretty at this stage.
However....that scenario may change if/when/should UeFA actually act to refuse to grant a license or apply sanctions for non compliance. They must then do so in a fair and equitable way. As UeFA have not yet acted against a club, we don't know.

That's the issue for me.I can't see how they can single us out for punishment if all we are guilty of is doing the same as the others and being considerably richer than all the others.

[bluej]

i was a bit suprised by the likes of wigan and stoke getting behind it, I mean, our spending is going to make fuck all difference to their clubs, with every financial imposition in place that ever could be, they would never be at the races against the likes of the scum and it would just make it an even easier league for the top earners to restrict us and chelsea from spending

Haven't Stoke spent a shed load of money over the last few years? I'm sure they had spent the most outside of the top 4/5.

[Dameerto]

i was a bit suprised by the likes of wigan and stoke getting behind it, I mean, our spending is going to make fuck all difference to their clubs, with every financial imposition in place that ever could be, they would never be at the races against the likes of the scum and it would just make it an even easier league for the top earners to restrict us and chelsea from spending

Haven't Stoke spent a shed load of money over the last few years? I'm sure they had spent the most outside of the top 4/5.

I doubt they've outspent Sunderland.

[Tokyo Blue]

It surprises me that the Wigans of this world want to limit certain clubs' spending cos it is these clubs who will get a lot less cash for their better players when they inevitably demand their move to a top club. Fuckwits.

This is quite apart from the incredible situation of the filth being allowed to change the rules to specifically stop us. You can bet your arse that if they get their spending power back in the future, this rule will suddenly disappear.

[Michigan Blue]

If UEFA and the English leagues cared to maintain any illusion of pushing through FFP for "the good of the game", it would be in the form of a luxury tax imposed on clubs spending more than a flat amount (or % of turnover if they insist on bowing to the G14 cartel). The money collected could be distributed back through the association to promote and fund grassroots, youth, and non-league football. A true benefactor like Sheikh Mansour would not be put off by paying such a luxury tax, while it might discourage the grifters and frauds that FFP is supposedly trying to protect football from.

The fact that no one in a position of influence is saying "hey, rather than stopping real money being invested into football, let's vet it, then spread it around more evenly", in addition to the fact that they won't tackle the problem of massive debts, lays bare their corrupt intentions. That more clubs haven't spoken out against FFP proves that it's not just opposition players that psychologically capitulate to the Rags year after year, it's their boardrooms as well.

Particularly incredible is the position of Liverpool, who seem eager enough to forfeit a chance to ever pose a serious threat to their historical enemies, just in order to claw back some of their status by hook or by crook. They are the Vichy French of English football.

[john68]

Ted,
Remember that the sliding scale of sanctions was NOT part of the original announcement, it was added some time later which leads me to agree with you that this was only done to give UeFA room to manoeuvre.

Again, I am no legal expert but am not sure that your point regarding "clubs not being told" is a solid one. The Criteria is known to all, as are the range of sanctions that UeFA say they will use. Isn't that similar to any judicial system? If you take assault as a crime, what constitutes the crime is known as is the range of sanctions against the criminal is known. The actual sanction per case is wholly dependent on the circumstances of each case in its isolation. e.g. evidence versus mitigation. A judge would decide on a case to case basis. In that respect, I expect that UeFA would be making their rulings on a similar basis.

Peter Parker,
UeFA have no rights to stop City (or any club) spending or investing where and what they like Mate. That is solely the clubs' decision. All UeFA are saying is that; should you not meet our criteria, we can choose to sanction you but only for the purposes of UeFA competitions.
That would NOT be the case domestically. If any FFPR were introduced in the Premier League, I doubt that the ultimate BANNING sanction could be used. That would mean clubs being relegated. It remains top be seem what happens at this forthcoming meeting.

[john68]

Michigan,
Anything that helps create a more level playing field and adds (even forces) financial stability on the game is a good thing. The problem with these proposed FFPRs is that they are an illusory way of doing so, when they actually cement the financial positions of those old order richer clubs.
Historically, the Football League already had financial rules in place which gave the League long term financial stability. They were removed by the bigger clubs themselves. Shared gate receipts, the levy that was trickled down the lower leagues and the fact that the old Division 1 was part of the whole rather than a breakaway private business, allowed that historic and long term financial stability. They were all removed by the clubs in their own self interest to maximise their profit.

I can understand why Liverpool are supportive of FFPR being introduced into the Premier League. The last Deloitte report placed them about 34M Euros ahead of us in the rich list. Their European coefficient (which governs seedings and UeFA income rates) still remains 90.882 (11th place), compared to our 63.882 (28th place). Though it would hinder their battle with the rags, Arsenal and Chelsea, it gives them a huge advantage against challenger like us from below. It helps them in the battle for 4th place, which is the crucial qualifying place to access the UeFA income channels.

[john68]

Rag Hater,
You are correct Mate ans surprise surprise, we agree. They CAN'T single us out or treat us differently if they apply sanctions, just because we are rich. It must be seen as being fair and equitable. For them to do so would leave it open for us to challenge.

I have never thought of the FFPR being solely aimed at us. The old order is being challenged by a number of clubs. We just seem to be at the head of the chasing group, which means it seems to target us more.
Until UeFA show their hand and actually sanction a club, we won't know.

[Blue Since 76]

Can't remember last year's numbers exactly, but additional TV money, PL payments for winning it and, crucially, CL money, put us about £50m in turnover ahead of say an Everton. The only realistic way they can catch us would be to invest, either through a richer owner or by mortgaging their future on an attempt to make the top 4. However, the new rules will mean that as soon as they got in, they'd be banned. The CL money would be about a £30m loss and then there's potential PL losses on top of that. Result is they can't catch us unless we do a Liverpool and cock up one season.

Thankfully they've realised this and are against it. I just can't believe so many clubs think limiting our spending to date will make their lives better.

Add into that the ultimate effect is that the likes of Yaya and Aguero leave for Europe, together with Cisse, Fellaini, Dembele and anyone else who's decent and can earn more abroad. The next time the PL tv rights are up, Sky cut the money as no one is willing to pay to watch a bunch of English and Scots kicking lumps out of each other like it's 1985 again.

Now we're into the top 4 and our income has gone through the roof and will continue to grow, FFP is actually in our favour, as it stops the next City/PSG kicking us out.

FFP isn't fair and clubs will find a way round it - Real Madrid is building a $1bn resort in the UAE, Trabzonspor is building a hydro electric plant to sell power back to the government. All it will mean is that the dreams of the majority of fans are crushed, as they are deemed not one of the elite and therefore effectively banned from winning anything, or we'll see more clubs creating offshoots to increase their revenue.

If they really want to make it fair, start with a ticket price cap, based on a percentage of the average national income. Wonder if the rags or arsenal would be in favour of a maximum ticket price of say £600?

[carl_feedthegoat]

Breakaway league is the answer ,as is breakaway champions league that only includes real champions.


It will happen one day.

[Goataldo]

Breakaway league is the answer ,as is breakaway champions league that only includes real champions.


It will happen one day.

Yeah, long term angling for a European Superleague could well lie somewhere close ot the heart of this. That, if it ever happens, will be a sad sad day.

[Beefymcfc]

Have you noticed that while the PL and CL money goes up certain clubs want to curtail spending? The only aim of this is to cut certain clubs debts.

Also, I bet all those sponsors and Sly will be loving the fact that they're spending an absolute fortune for a possible 2nd rate league. Anybody noticed how much advertising Sky are doing lately, I wonder how many subscribers they've lost since we lifted the trophy?

[Blue Since 76]

Anybody noticed how much advertising Sky are doing lately, I wonder how many subscribers they've lost since we lifted the trophy?

600 million?

[Beefymcfc]

Anybody noticed how much advertising Sky are doing lately, I wonder how many subscribers they've lost since we lifted the trophy?

600 million?

Hopefully! Strangely, they lost me and I've still not been allowed to watch the game back.

It keeps staring at me though, calling me in, telling me to switch it, it's only money.

Mmmmmmm, it looks so nice!

[Swales4ever]

John, my Lord,
once again, stop worrying this cheating fake, and better tell me You are up for a curry on sunday!

History tells that all revolutions have shown the "Established" twisting, shouting and crying to avoid being overturned from their privileged comfort spot.
FFP is not more than a blunt witch hunt set up by a bunch of desperate cheating Debt-Holders. History never stops.
can You yet see around Landlords claiming for their right to take the virginity of serfs' maiden daughters?

I never doubted of the serious intentions deemed by those G14 Desperates, nor I ever disregarded their still existing influence, but there are TOO MANY FACTORS in this equation to be twisted: way too many even for their powers.
Now, with Soriano, City have filled all blank spaces: upon the Chaiman judgement, there is now a "non playing management team" possibly of an even better professional quality of the "playing management team": They are gonna play all these factors and just slam in the G14 shameful face all said factors with the aid of a true Fourth-Party Logistics from the most experienced consultants available.

IT WON'T NEVER HAPPEN, RELAX AND ENJOY THE MOST BEATIFULL RIDE EVER GIFTED BY YOUR BELOVED BLUES.


and, hang on me, never trust a lawyer unless You don't control a fair size of his firm's turnover: they thrive with the uncertainty of law... ;)


[center]
[/center]

[patrickblue]

I'm no expert in law but seeing as there is no viable alternative to UEFA & the Premier League, I think it would be a winning argument to suggest that they would effectively be banning a club & basically putting it out of business by refusing it a license.

I too am not a legal expert Ted, but from the research I have done and a long discussion with a lawyer involved with the FFPR, I believe that on the "NO ALTERNATIVE/MONOPOLY" issue, you are right. UeFA has to be seen to act fairly and equitably and be in compliance with both EU and Swiss monopoly law. I believe that; because UeFA have the right to determine the criteria for their licence, because the FFPR are the same for everyone and given the added support of the ECA and the European Commission, UeFA are sitting pretty at this stage.
However....that scenario may change if/when/should UeFA actually act to refuse to grant a license or apply sanctions for non compliance. They must then do so in a fair and equitable way. [highlight]As UeFA have not yet acted against a club, we don't know.[/highlight]

They've banned Beşiktaş Bursaspor and Gaziantepspor for a year. They state that they are in breach of their FFP regulations.

http://fourfourtwo.com/news/restofeurop ... fault.aspx

Three Turkish clubs banned from Europe
Reuters - Wednesday 30 May 2012, 13:08

UEFA has banned Turkey's Besiktas, Bursaspor and Gaziantepspor from European competitions for one year due to financial problems, club officials said on Wednesday.

UEFA's decisions, with the punishments for the first two confirmed by European football's ruling body, came as a fresh blow to the beleaguered Turkish league amid a court investigation into match-fixing allegations which overshadowed the whole of last season.

Besiktas were fined 200,000 euros due to delays in payments to players and staff, they said in a statement to the Istanbul Stock Exchange where shares in the club are traded.

UEFA scrutinised Besiktas' accounts in the second and third quarters of 2011 and ruled that they breached articles of the ruling body's financial fair play regulations.

Besiktas had qualified for the second qualifying round of the Europa League and Bursaspor for the pre-qualifying rounds. Shares in Besiktas tumbled more than 9 percent on the news to 4.29 lira.

UEFA said in a statement that its appeals body had decided to exclude Besiktas from the next two UEFA club competitions for which it qualifies in the next five seasons.

The exclusion for the second competition is suspended for a probationary period of five years.

Besiktas Chairman Fikret Orman and the club's lawyers attended a meeting with UEFA's disciplinary committee for a second time on Wednesday after the club was earlier warned about its financial status and high debt.

Orman said Besiktas would appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding the ban, but added he was not very optimistic about a ruling in favour of the 13-times Turkish champions.

"We will defend the club's rights until the end, and will appeal to CAS as the first step," Levent Erdogan, a lawyer and club board member told Turkey's Dogan news agency.

"I think it's a dramatic decision, and it will hit us pretty badly, but there's nothing we can do," he added.

Bursaspor are excluded from one UEFA club competition for which it qualifies in the next four seasons, UEFA said.

"It's impossible for us to receive such a suspension, it would be a murder of justice," Bursaspor club chairman Ibrahim Yazici told the state-run Anatolia news agency and added they would definitely appeal the ruling.

The other major Istanbul clubs Galatasaray and Fenerbahce, Besiktas's arch-rivals, will compete in the Champions League after taking the top two places in the domestic league.

UEFA's statement did not mention a punishment for Gaziantepspor.