Sport financial expert on SSN ref FFP

[Wonderwall]

This thread leaves me to believe that football could become like boxing with different governing bodies.

Hideous.

[Swales4ever]

1632 & Soccs: I do apologize for my limited language. My experience is ditto very sectorial and limited to marine litigation, thus I cannot certainly claim to be expert of such issue.
I only deemed to point out a general weapon of litigation: whenever I have potential ground for an allegation You can never rest assured of the final settlement. Platini & his elector KHR are not in a suitable stance to even consider a ban, neither the withholding of prize money, nor transfer ban for MCFC.
whether is debatable and/or unlikely that suing UEFA for loss of profit either assuming a breach of freedom of trade and ‘abuse of monopoly' by UEFA while acting as the Governing Body can be ruled in favour of the plaintiff, I nonetheless would be extremely carefull prior to issue one of those major penalties for a Club who can show a significant ‘path towards compliance’ with a trajectory more than likely to break even. in such a conjecture the claim underneath the allegation would not be about the mere loss arising from lack of revenue from the impeded participation (50m suggested by Beefy above), but for the whole loss resulting from the reduced status of superstar club: marketing, merchandising, sponsorships, etc. home and overseas.
the argument of previous consultations and signing of protocolos of undertaking is also weak/objectable when opposed to a Club who can show a significant ‘path towards compliance’. a ban and the withholding of prize money would constitute ground for claiming a pretextual impediment to the final compliance, thus breach of freedom of trade and ‘abuse of monopoly' of the competition.
In a nutshell: they won't even dare to consider the risk.

I totally agree on the real shame about these regulations being the way they have been crafted to protect the elite and the real losers being every other club left outside the door, a door which MCFC have already passed through, with no more means to reverse, imo.

[Swales4ever]

This thread leaves me to believe that football could become like boxing with different governing bodies.

Hideous.

I am the sole culprit of inducing You in such nightmare, but the subtle irony of Soccs is totaly spot on. extremely unlikely.

[ronk]

We're not the target, whatever Bacon Face might say. He knows football but has never had a head for business.

Even sued his boss for gifting him a racehorse and got laughed out of court. He had to announce his retirement before he got a pay rise after years of Dave O'Leary being on more.


FFP is just a way to limit the growth of player salaries so clubs aren't run into the ground.

Players won't go off and become investment bankers just because they're only making £60k/week.

[Blue Oli]

In what world do investment bankers earn 60k ???????? Not London thats for sure !!

[Blue Oli]

<null>

Ok read that incorrectly - its footballers earning 60k a week - to be fair though I don't know a single footballer who would cut it in a real job !

[Wonderwall]

Ok read that incorrectly - its footballers earning 60k a week - to be fair though I don't know a single footballer who would cut it in a real job !

And there are many imvestment bankers on more money than their ceo's
crazy world

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

I do wonder how much Liverpool need to spend to get back in that top four. I reckon it is around 100m. Throw in what they've already been chucking at it and it will be quite difficult for them to qualify and satisfy FFP. Now if one of the clubs with the best European pedigrees, and former G14 member, fails to satisfy those rules, will they be prepared to exclude them?

[Feed The Goat]

I've always thought that their is no way they will exclude a championship winning side from the champions league. If you finish 4th and don't comply it's easy to turf you out you're not champions. So IMO as long as we stay champions we are fine

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

I've always thought that their is no way they will exclude a championship winning side from the champions league. If you finish 4th and don't comply it's easy to turf you out you're not champions. So IMO as long as we stay champions we are fine

Super. That's that one sorted out then.

[Im_Spartacus]

I do wonder how much Liverpool need to spend to get back in that top four. I reckon it is around 100m. Throw in what they've already been chucking at it and it will be quite difficult for them to qualify and satisfy FFP. Now if one of the clubs with the best European pedigrees, and former G14 member, fails to satisfy those rules, will they be prepared to exclude them?

I suppose there is an argument that you can spend say 100m in a summer faced with the task of major rebuilding, and assuming the new manager is successful at integrating those players, and cracking back into the top 4, they could say that their results for the next financial year will show that that was a one off, and they are working twards ffp rules.

Its this "working towards" business which leaves it all open to interpretation.

Thing is thoughh, there will always be variables which test the principles of ffp, and here is one of them. Lets assume a club like barcelona for example had a generation of home grown talent all coming to maturity at the same time. The club will be reluctant to dispose of players at the peak of their powers, so they keep 4 or 5 of the best players in the world going till they all hit 32/33.

Then bang, they have to replace them all in one go.

Should that club be punished for not having had to spend much on transfers over the preceding decade, when they need to spend perhaps 200m all at once to replace what they have lost - IN ADDITTION to the normal squad maintenance. To my mind, if strict adherence to FFP becomes necessary if uefa show they do have the teeth, it means that The likes of Barcelona would have to stagger the replacement of their top, meaning you would have to start to buy the replacements for Messi, Pedro, Fabregas years before they were actually needed, thus stockpiling players.

I can see FFP having a disastrous effect on the value of players later in their careers because of their sell on value, which i think is a definite good thing, but it will put a mental premium on the players who are dead certs for a 10 year career at the very very top level - eg 38m for aguero vs 25m for y toure who is arguably the more important.

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

All interesting points again.
I'm sure there will be more unfortunate side effects rather than positive ones. It seems more and more ill thought out.
What I think we can say is that a smaller club will get the book thrown at it and a blind eye will be employed for the more established elite group.

[Socrates]

]

I suppose there is an argument that you can spend say 100m in a summer faced with the task of major rebuilding, and assuming the new manager is successful at integrating those players, and cracking back into the top 4, they could say that their results for the next financial year will show that that was a one off, and they are working twards ffp rules.

Its this "working towards" business which leaves it all open to interpretation.

If you spent 100m in a summer on transfers then it would be amortised over the contracts anyway, 20m a year if you signed them to 5 year contracts. Wages on top are the killer. Loss created doesn't go down after the first year though, the investment needs to work and create the revenue to cover it!

[mcfc1632]

The CITY emergence was one of the triggers for these regulations at the behest of the old guard - take note of what KHR says as he is arguably more important than Twatini as he holds the power of the top European clubs whilst Twatini is just the ponce that tries to placate them to keep UeFA viable.

Lets all just be glad that:

1/ we have Khaldoon
2/ Cook made such strides in growing our revenues
3/ we have Mancini and that the has and will bring on-pitch success.

If we continued to spunk money without growing revenues and being successful we would end up being the wrong side of the door as it slams shut - as it is we are likely to be one of those 'accommodated' by UeFA as we make progress - even if this means that KHR has gritted teeth - but beware his seemingly total hatred of all things CITY.

The KHR club will probably end up accepting the position so long as the doors are closed to further threats because the regulations prevent other clubs doing the same. Big investors are likely to be reluctant to become involved if they can see that the progress to the 'top table' is blocked. We interested to see what happens at PSG and Malaga - probably they will also scrape through?

[john68]

Does anyone, through their legal work have access to the following

HEINONLINE
LEXISNEXIS

Both are law sites and they seem to contain a wealth of documentation regarding UeFA, FIFA and legal papers written on all the subjects we are discussing. They are law subscriber sites.

[Duckman]

the scum are sinking deeper and deeper.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/17/manchester-united-debt-glazers

Manchester United's net debt up by £26m as income falls nearly 6%
• Glazers spend £71m on buyback of bonds and on interest
• United's cash reserves drop from £113m to £25.6m
Manchester United's net debt has risen by £26m and total revenue is down 5.8%, according to quarterly figures released by the club. The figures also reveal that the Glazer family spent the equivalent of more than £250,000 a day – which amounts to Wayne Rooney's weekly salary – on a £71m buyback of bonds and on interest payments over the past nine months.

Critics of the club's American owners argue such money should be spent on buying players and the revelations will cause further anger among fans, who view the heavy leveraging of United by the Glazers as affecting their ability to compete with Manchester City, the new champions, in the transfer market.

While United's accounts say gross debt has dropped by £61.2m from £484.5m to £423.3m, a 12.6% reduction, this is countered by the club's cash falling from £113m to £25.6m – a reduction of £87.4m – meaning the former champions are £26m worse off than 12 months ago.

The 5.8% fall in total revenue – from £75.2m to £70.8m – reflects United's exit from the Champions League at the group stage.

[Vhero]

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2914/cha ... a-blow-for This link has some good views for Chelsea and there chances of getting through FFP next year. Basically if they lose the CL final they will probably fail FFP. Also since Abramovich has taken over there income hasn't hardly moved they made 177.9m in 2003/04 and 199.9m in 2011/12. That's with all the changes he has made.

[Blue2]

Looks like we may be about to challenge the rule anyway


Manchester City to challenge Uefa’s financial fair play rules in the European Court of Justice

Whether it’s in Munich, Madrid or Barcelona, moneybags City hope to topple the giants of European football next season after landing their first English top-flight title in 44 years.

The Allianz Arena, the Bernabeu and Camp Nou are venues the Blues could visit during their Champions League campaign next term.

But a rather more drab encounter involving lawyers in a Luxembourg courtroom could be the most important fixture of all.

Ever since Sheikh Mansour, a member of Abu Dhabi’s ruling Al-Nahyan family, invested some of his estimated £20bn personal fortune in buying the Blues for a reported £304m in 2008, he has ploughed around £1.5bn into the club. It helped to secure the FA Cup last year and now the Premier League title, snatched from United in the dying seconds of the season.

The eye-watering spending includes nearly £400m on new players such as Carlos Tevez (£47m), Sergio Aguero (£38m), Edin Dzeko (£27m), James Milner (£26m), Emmanuel Adebayor (£25m), Yaya Toure (£24m), Mario Balotelli (£24m) and Joleon Lescott (£22m).

The Abu Dhabi United Group, Mansour’s investment vehicle, has transformed City from football’s perennial underdogs into a sporting superpower, attracting the world’s best players and paying them the best money.

What the financial fair play rules really mean

Tevez and Yaya reportedly each earn more than £200,000 a week.

But a dark shadow lurks on an otherwise gleaming sky blue horizon in the form of Uefa’s new Financial Fair Play rules.

By 2013/14, clubs throughout Europe will be required to break even on their balance sheets, although for the first couple of years a €45m (around £36m) deficit will be considered an ‘acceptable deviation’. Even with that margin of error, City risk sanctions up to and including exclusion from European competition unless they drastically reduce their spendingor dramatically increase their revenue.

The announcement last year of a £400m, 10-year sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways will go some way to addressing that thorny problem, although even that is not nearly enough.

Some analysts believe City may head to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to challenge Uefa’s fair play rules as anti-competitive.

While City won’t comment, Kieran Maguire, principal lecturer in accounting and finance at Manchester Business School, believes the club would have a point.

He says: “The big issue for the Mansour family now is how they are going to deal with the financial fair play rules. There are whispers City lawyers are looking very, very carefully to see whether or not they are in the realms of EU competition law.”

Maguire believes Europe’s footballing elite will welcome new rules preventing City from using their new-found millions to dominate European soccer in the way that other clubs have done for generations.

“Until three or fours years ago, the top four English clubs going into the Champions League were United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool,” Maguire said. “No one else had a sniff. What they were afraid of most of all was a club with a lot of money upsetting that.”

However, Maguire says there are a number of clubs who lack the monetary clout to push for top honours.

He adds: “There’s no way clubs of the stature of Aston Villa or Newcastle can compete financially when the top four teams are guaranteed £20m a year just for appearing in the Champions League.

“Chelsea alone got another £45m this year just for getting to the final. It is an incredibly lucrative competition and it’s in the interests of the top teams of Italy, Spain, Germany and England to make sure no one else rocks their little boat.

“If a multi-billionaire decides to take over Leeds or Stockport County, he or she should be able to invest as much money as he or she wants.

Wealth

“Speaking as a chartered accountant, my view is that for every set of rules there is a way around those rules.

“The financial fair play rules say there is a maximum loss a club can make each year.

“We then come to the question ‘what is a loss?’ What’s to stop City having a special executive box for Sheikh Mansour and charging him £50m a year for it?

“As far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing to stop that whatsoever.

“What City are doing is not a sustainable business model if you look at it from the classic owner-investor point of view.

“But it’s not a business, it’s a project. Compared to the overall wealth of Abu Dhabi, it’s just a fraction. If they have 10 per cent of the world’s oil reserves, City is quite a good project.

“They’re getting publicity ten months of the year. Compare that to the grand prix circuit they’ve built which is only used once a year. It’s very difficult to put a price on the value of global awareness of Abu Dhabi as an emirate.

“They’re trying to make people more aware because eventually the oil will run out. It’s part of the long-term planning of Sheikh Mansour’s family to make sure they have alternative sources of income.

“If they can build up awareness of Abu Dhabi as a potential shopping destination like Dubai, it will benefit them in the long run.

“The Mansours can now say they own the most successful football club in the UK and the Premier League is the most exciting football league globally.”

Meanwhile, Premier League boss Richard Scudamore feels City have nothing to fear from the new Fair Play rules.

When asked about City’s wealth, he said: “It doesn’t concern me – I am glad for them.

“Look at what they have done off the pitch as well - the way it operates from an infrastructure point of view, what they are doing in youth and around the stadium, what they are doing in the development of that site in east Manchester.

“You can’t say ‘This is wrong’. In any other industry you would be welcoming that investment, and I welcome it.

“If they want to go on and play in the top echelons of Europe they are going to have to adjust, but at the same time they have all the tools in place to do that.

“I don’t think it will have any negative consequences.”

[zuricity]

Karl Heinz said in an interview earlier this year, published most certainly in the NZZ , which is where I read it, if not in other newspapers in Germany, that Bayern were not happy with FIFA and most certainly not happy with Platini either. He seriously questioned the way FIFA Is being run , he asked if Clubs really needed Uefa and questioned their importance/transparency. Implying that different countries might look to alternatives to Uefa/FIFA.

http://mobile.nzz.ch/sport/aktuell/rummenigge_droht_der_fifa_1.11667892.html

I don't think FFP will work and I don't think it will be implemented successfully. It will be changed.

Also on a side note, Banning a team from playing in the Champions League for not meeting FFP rules would result in a farce. You wouldn't be able to call it 'Champions league' it would have to be called something else. 'Also rans money making scheme' perhaps.

[Ted Hughes]

The main point raised in that is spot on imo.

How can someone claim legitimately that money which comes from Abu Dhabi to City is breaking the rules of 'fair play' when sponsoring City is bringing exposure like of the kind we have just seen last weekend ?

How do they put a value on that ?

People are not just messing with City, they are messing with the whole project of Abu Dhabi.

They have no legitimate cause to do so other than to protect self interest. They failed to stop others such as Spain from doing the same thing in the past & have sat back & allowed teams to gain an advantage in the market but are now seeking to stop others from competing.