Fair Play and January Sales

[Bluez]

Maybe this has been covered and if it has I am sorry, but with the fair play rules wouldn't it make sense for the club to sell no one this Jan when the money brought in doesn't count towards a positive balance for fair play? Loan them out or take a hit on salaries when it doesn't count, then sell them in the summer when it goes into the plus column. Or have I missed something? Even if their value drops, something in the summer is better than double now when it doesn't count for fair play.

[Wooders]

most of the deals muted seem to be loan deals with a view to a permenent move so perhaps this has already been thunk up?

[Mikhail Chigorin]

Maybe this has been covered and if it has I am sorry, but with the fair play rules wouldn't it make sense for the club to sell no one this Jan when the money brought in doesn't count towards a positive balance for fair play? Loan them out or take a hit on salaries when it doesn't count, then sell them in the summer when it goes into the plus column. Or have I missed something? Even if their value drops, something in the summer is better than double now when it doesn't count for fair play.

Socrates would be the ultimate oracle to consult on this one for a definitive answer but, as I see it you're perfectly correct in what you say.

By selling players in/after the summer we receive a balance towards our incomings and the annual amortisation balances triggered for that/those particular player(s) are removed from the accounts also, to our benefit.

[Twobob]

On talkshite tonite, Durham (who seems to have a hard on for us recently) said that Platini had reportedly had a private meeting with Sheik Monsour who had garanteed that we would meet the fair play rules when they are introduced.

Dont know where he got this info from though so could be pap

[Goaters 103]

On talkshite tonite, Durham (who seems to have a hard on for us recently) said that Platini had reportedly had a private meeting with Sheik Monsour who had garanteed that we would meet the fair play rules when they are introduced.

Dont know where he got this info from though so could be pap

He read it in yesterdays Guardian article by Daniel Taylor.

[john@staustell]

On talkshite tonite, Durham (who seems to have a hard on for us recently) said that Platini had reportedly had a private meeting with Sheik Monsour who had garanteed that we would meet the fair play rules when they are introduced.

Dont know where he got this info from though so could be pap

He read it in yesterdays Guardian article by Daniel Taylor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog ... NTCMP=SRCH

Looking out over the calm waters of Lake Geneva, Uefa executives today considered the far-reaching effects of new rules that they claim will irrevocably change the landscape of European football.

Their accountants outlined, in painstaking detail, the intricacies of the financial fair play rules and revealed the figures which they say make the new rules vital for the game's future. Clubs who do not comply with the central tenet of living within their means could be banned from Europe before the 2014-15 season.

Meanwhile, at their Carrington training ground Manchester City were unveiling their £27m striker Edin Dzeko, the latest addition to a playing squad assembled at huge expense by Sheikh Mansour since he bought the club in August 2008 and began a unprecedented spending spree that led to losses of £121m.

As City's manager, Roberto Mancini, again insisted that this was just one last splurge before the club would knuckle down to the business of meeting the new standards, Platini was unequivocal about the consequences for any club that did not ultimately comply.

"With power comes the responsibility to help and protect football," said Platini, who is virtually certain to be re-elected as Uefa president for another four-year period in April. The success or failure of that tenure will be defined by the effect of his bold initiative.

He said Mansour had personally assured him last year that City would comply, but Uefa insiders said the club faced a "big challenge".

Uefa's 2009 benchmarking report, published today and running to 111 pages of dense graphs and statistics, showed that this was far from an English disease. More than half (56%) of the European top division clubs reported net losses in 2009, compared to 47% in 2008.

An in-depth analysis of the accounts of the Premier League's own clubs for the same period carried out by the Guardian last year showed that almost three-quarters of them would fall foul of the new Uefa regulations, if they were applied tomorrow.

Under the new rules, clubs must pledge to break even on all football activities, subject to a sliding scale of acceptable losses that can be covered by a club's owner. In the first two years that will be analysed by Uefa's team of accountants – 2011-12 and 2012-13 – clubs will be permitted to overspend by a total of €45m (£37.4m) as long as that figure is cancelled out by an equity injection from the owner.

Over the following three seasons, the permitted losses will again be set at €45m over the entire period. That will then drop to €30m over three seasons, then €15m, then zero.

Once a club, which will be investigated in detail if it exhibits one of a number of warning signs, fails the test the case will pass to a new panel set up to decide on sanctions.

But there are crucial caveats. If clubs can show that they are travelling in the right direction, that their losses are reducing year on year and can point to them being a result of contracts signed before June 2010 when the rules were enshrined in Uefa's rulebook, that may reduce the sanction. An outright European ban is being described as a last resort – but an eminently plausible one.

As such, the process will be far from as straightforward as the basic "live within your means" premise suggests. But Manchester City aside, Platini claimed the new rules were already having an impact on the spending habits of Europe's major clubs.

Indeed, for very different reasons, they have been positively welcomed by Roman Abramovich at Chelsea (having already ploughed £700m into the club), by the Glazers at Manchester United (who hope to use their natural revenue-generating strengths to increase their competitiveness without spending more) and by Arsenal's chief executive, Ivan Gazidis (who believes it will reward his club's careful financial husbandry).

Gianni Infantino, Uefa's general secretary, today described the new rules as a de facto salary cap because they would stop clubs overspending on wages. He pointed to the 2009 figures as the reason why the status quo could not continue.

Uefa's figures showed that top-flight clubs across 53 countries increased their revenue by 4.8% to €11.7bn during the year despite the impact of the recession. But costs rose by twice that, 9.3%, to result in total losses of €1.2bn – more than twice the previous record. More than half of the 733 clubs audited [56%] reporting a net loss. Just four leagues broke even – Germany, Austria, Belgium and Sweden. At 249 clubs, more than 70% of turnover was spent on players' wages and at 73 of those more than 100% of all the club's income went on player wages.

The overall aim, said Infantino, was to curb wage inflation and break the cycle that has taken hold in the Premier League and elsewhere – of fans desperately hoping for a "white knight" on a steed: "What kind of healthy business model is it to wait for a white knight on a horse with a lot of money to throw around and then one day to jump on his horse and ride away?"

Platini is deeply committed to his quest but many practical questions remain. Uefa tried to meet some of those head on today, describing in detail how the analyses would be carried out and how factors such as sponsorship revenue from owners would be subject to market value tests.

Uefa still has trouble answering the charge that all this could merely result in preserving the existing order in aspic, enabling the big clubs to extend their advantage by virtue of their natural advantage. The Premier League has forcefully pointed out that investment of the kind that once took Blackburn Rovers to a title or Fulham to the Europa League final would be impossible under the new rules.

Instead, Infantino pointed to the advantages of long-term investment in stadium infrastructure and youth development. Owners can still plough unlimited sums into both, and goodwill costs will also be written off.

"A decade ago, Arsenal reported less income than Liverpool and Newcastle. In 2009, after a decade of investment, their income is more than double Newcastle and higher than Liverpool. It is possible for a club to come up with good management but it does it in a healthy way. That is what we want, long-term benefits."

Ultimately, the political trade-off between the European Clubs Association (ECA), the organisation that represents 197 of the biggest clubs, and Uefa will result in a new landscape in which there will be winners and losers – with the biggest clubs likely to be among the former.

Platini is confident it will help usher in a new era of responsible club ownership. Others are convinced that the most determined would find a way round the new rules, although Uefa warned it would come down twice as hard on those who tried to mask overspending.

But the climate of being under constant review by Uefa and at risk of what the ECA chairman, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, described as the potential "meltdown" scenario of not being allowed to enter European competition would be more than enough to bring clubs into line, he said. "It's time to step on the brake and bring a bit of rationality to football."

[rabbit]

It would be interesting to see if any of the other MAJOR European clubs failed the criteria. Fuck all action would be taken except some suspended sentance shite. No way would UEFA ban Barca etc from euro comps. Michel Platini est un dick.

[john68]

I'm not certain if we could consider it backtracking but what I initially thought was the standard punishment of being banned from Euro Comps now seems to be only the ultimate sanction to be considered at the end of a list of other possible sanctions, such as a transfer ban.
I also heard quote that even if a club fell outside the entry criteria, if it could show that it was making inroads into its debt or at least moving in the right direction, the club could be viewed sympathetically.

It would seem from what is being quoted now, that UeFA are keeping the door open for a bit of discretion. Maybe they are worried that one or two of the old order, whom they seek to protect, are having troubles.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

I'm not certain if we could consider it backtracking but what I initially thought was the standard punishment of being banned from Euro Comps now seems to be only the ultimate sanction to be considered at the end of a list of other possible sanctions, such as a transfer ban.
I also heard quote that even if a club fell outside the entry criteria, if it could show that it was making inroads into its debt or at least moving in the right direction, the club could be viewed sympathetically.

It would seem from what is being quoted now, that UeFA are keeping the door open for a bit of discretion. Maybe they are worried that one or two of the old order, whom they seek to protect, are having troubles.

funny but I was thinking the exact same while back mate.

Ten to fifteen years ago it was standard that if you made some dodgy deals or broke the rules otherwise, you'd get banned from Euro competitions for certain period of time. That was only fair since, apart from UEFA cup, euro competitions was nice little extra reward you'd get for actually winning something.

These days half of the clubs in top leagues make it to Europe and they have their finances around making it there. In fact, one might say that UEFA are actually part of the problem, not the solution.

This is why I would prefer old cup formats and stopping this Champion's league/Europa League non-sense. Not a popular opinion, I know but even if it meant we were less in Europe, I would rather be there when we really deserve it. And that goes for other clubs as well.

[Sheikhermaker]

funny but I was thinking the exact same while back mate.

Ten to fifteen years ago it was standard that if you made some dodgy deals or broke the rules otherwise, you'd get banned from Euro competitions for certain period of time. That was only fair since, apart from UEFA cup, euro competitions was nice little extra reward you'd get for actually winning something.

These days half of the clubs in top leagues make it to Europe and they have their finances around making it there. In fact, one might say that UEFA are actually part of the problem, not the solution.

This is why I would prefer old cup formats and stopping this Champion's league/Europa League non-sense. Not a popular opinion, I know but even if it meant we were less in Europe, I would rather be there when we really deserve it. And that goes for other clubs as well.

Do you think if clubs were allowed to manage their own television rights packages internationally, as well as domestically, it would help clubs be more self sufficient?

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

funny but I was thinking the exact same while back mate.

Ten to fifteen years ago it was standard that if you made some dodgy deals or broke the rules otherwise, you'd get banned from Euro competitions for certain period of time. That was only fair since, apart from UEFA cup, euro competitions was nice little extra reward you'd get for actually winning something.

These days half of the clubs in top leagues make it to Europe and they have their finances around making it there. In fact, one might say that UEFA are actually part of the problem, not the solution.

This is why I would prefer old cup formats and stopping this Champion's league/Europa League non-sense. Not a popular opinion, I know but even if it meant we were less in Europe, I would rather be there when we really deserve it. And that goes for other clubs as well.

Do you think if clubs were allowed to manage their own television rights packages internationally, as well as domestically, it would help clubs be more self sufficient?

It might but I'd also be dead against it.

More and more money is concentrating on fewer and fewer Clubs. Even if we are rubbing shoulders with the big boys and would be benefactor, I would still be against it.

From my personal point of view as far as finances go, the game has been heading in wrong direction for past 20 years. What Gary Cook said few years back about closed 16 team league isn't as far away as some might think. They want less and less Clubs getting more and more of the rewards (which actually mostly go to players and agents wallets since most of the clubs are on red ie go out of the game). Fuck grassroots. Fuck anyone except Premier League, La Liga and to lesser extent Serie A. That's the way things are going.

As a City supporter I'm glad that we are part of the upper echelon, as a football fan I'm sad that we NEED to be part of that group to have any future.

[john@staustell]

I'm not certain if we could consider it backtracking but what I initially thought was the standard punishment of being banned from Euro Comps now seems to be only the ultimate sanction to be considered at the end of a list of other possible sanctions, such as a transfer ban.
I also heard quote that even if a club fell outside the entry criteria, if it could show that it was making inroads into its debt or at least moving in the right direction, the club could be viewed sympathetically.

It would seem from what is being quoted now, that UeFA are keeping the door open for a bit of discretion. Maybe they are worried that one or two of the old order, whom they seek to protect, are having troubles.

70% of all qualifying clubs isn't it, according to this week's report!?

[Scatman]

If UEFA decided to ban Barca, Real, AC, Inter, Man U, Chelsea from European Competitions, do you think the sponsors and TV companies would just stand back and watch the competitions they have invested billions in get devalued by those clubs' absence? Would they hell. There isn't a hope in hell of any big club, and consequently any other club unless they are really stupid, getting banned from the competition. Transfer bans might reduce the teams effectiveness and ultimately cost them the league place that is required for qualification, but there is no way UEFA would slap a ban on them. Chelsea et al might agree with it now but if they aren't allowed in the sandpit, it would be the end of either UEFA or the rules.

[Sheikhermaker]

It might but I'd also be dead against it.

More and more money is concentrating on fewer and fewer Clubs. Even if we are rubbing shoulders with the big boys and would be benefactor, I would still be against it.

From my personal point of view as far as finances go, the game has been heading in wrong direction for past 20 years. What Gary Cook said few years back about closed 16 team league isn't as far away as some might think. They want less and less Clubs getting more and more of the rewards (which actually mostly go to players and agents wallets since most of the clubs are on red ie go out of the game). Fuck grassroots. Fuck anyone except Premier League, La Liga and to lesser extent Serie A. That's the way things are going.

As a City supporter I'm glad that we are part of the upper echelon, as a football fan I'm sad that we NEED to be part of that group to have any future.

I'd be dead against it too - there would be huge huge differences between top and bottom in terms of tv revenue for starters.

Interesting that you should mention the closed league scenario - I also follow Rugby League closely, as do a fair few other posters on here - and the top flight is very much a closed shop, with 'licenses' awarded every few years. This was due to the number of clubs experiencing financial difficulty, but I think it is an isolated case with RL due to low crowds and participation numbers. I don't think a closed league has a place in football.

I like to think that the salary cap system is starting to work in RL with parity between top and bottom teams being gradually reduced. A similar scheme I'm sure would work in football, where a club can only spend a percentage of their annual revenue on player salaries, but not a definitive cap. I do, though, think that broadcast rights should be revolutionised, especially given the different platforms for content to be viewed on these days and the potential for income there.

Question: Did we had to pay for the rights to show highlights of our games on mcfc.co.uk?