Its Going To Get Ugly / Ganging up [MERGED]

[Ted Hughes]

Not that we would need to, but if neccessary, we could just buy the players & take the points deduction anyway.

What's the problem ? It's not as if we would be relegated.

It would be quite fun to still win the league after having ten points knocked off.

[john68]

Piccs,

I am interested why you are of the opinion that this decision suits us just fine and won't be a problem?
If that were the case, why didn't we simply vote for it?

Genuine question.

[Im_Spartacus]

Not that we would need to, but if neccessary, we could just buy the players & take the points deduction anyway.

What's the problem ? It's not as if we would be relegated.

It would be quite fun to still win the league after having ten points knocked off.

This isnt something we would need to be concerned with anyway, certainly not in the first 3 years.

As with European FFP, whilst there is an arbitrary figure of £105m, they cannot discriminate against a club whose business plan since 2008 has been to invest capital heavily and sustain losses in the short term. Especially with no notice of implementation of these rules allowing clubs like us to get our house in order. Therefore all expenditure which we signed upto predating this agreement will have to be exempt from the calculations.

If we werent, we would probably have to sell all our squad in the 3rd year and turn a £50m profit in order to comply so the policy would be clearly disciminatory against clubs with substantial existing liabilities (contracts) which run through this 3 year period, as we can't just tell the players we are giving them a pay cut because of PL FFP..

[john68]

Thanks for clarifying that John. As I have been working most the night, I haven't had chance to look at the detail and was wondering about a cut off point. There is one included in the UeFA proposals.

Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be any cut off point mentioned in the Prem proposals. A sort of Hobson's choice of comply or suffer. I am not sure if legally that would stand a legal challenge. I am tempted to agree with you that contracts entered into prior to this decision are covered by contract law and therefore would have to be paid in full.

Yet, still no mention of any cut off point....????

[Beanieboy]

I can understand the reasons for not wanting this form of financial fair play as it will ruin English football on the whole but just regarding City I have wondered about a few things, I have no knowledge on financial and legal matters so these might be really stupid naive questions....but....

Would we be able to sign players on low wages, combined with a big fat sponsorship deal with Etihad?
And what stops the Sheik's limo driver from buying 10 million replica kits for himself at the City store, paid in cash?

[Wooders]

I can understand the reasons for not wanting this form of financial fair play as it will ruin English football on the whole but just regarding City I have wondered about a few things, I have no knowledge on financial and legal matters so these might be really stupid naive questions....but....

Would we be able to sign players on low wages, combined with a big fat sponsorship deal with Etihad?
And what stops the Sheik's limo driver from buying 10 million replica kits for himself at the City store, paid in cash?

no, the wage cap includes image rights etc so there is no getting around it

this is really us fucked in my opinion, we might not be able to afford to re-sign tevez & as other posters have said, we'll not be getting falcao or cavani in to replace him
better get used to rodwell-esque signings and battling it out for top 4 with everyone else other than utd who will win the league every year because they can comfortably outspend the lot of us

[ruralblue]

Can i just ask someone who knows more about this stuff than I do (7/8 of the forum need not reply). It states that investment in the stadium or acadamy will not count towards this 105m.

Has it counted in previous recent losses we have announced??? Or always been left out of these figures?
Also if it doesnt count does that mean if we bring along an academy kid then sell him for say 1m, would that profit not count either?

If it doesnt count then we have to hope that some of these young kids we are bringing through break into the first team.

Cheers

[Beefymcfc]

Let's face it, this is just going to be a short-time fix allowing the Glazer's and Kronke's of the league to pay off more of their debt before changing the rules to suit once more.

The PL FFP will have no affect on us as we are well on our way to sustainability, it will just ensure that most chairman will line their pockets/service debt with an extra 25 million, or so, per season.

The biggest thing for me is what affect it will have on the league as a whole? I think we have voted 'No' because we know it favours the old 'Sky 4', not because it will hurt us as a club, knowing that they will be able to manage their clubs better against the uncertainty of debt. But what about the likes of Fulham? Al Fayed voted 'No' and for a very good reason. He has ploughed a lot of money into Fulham and markets it as an 'Any Fan' club; those who want to go and see a match just because they can without any real allegiance. What happens when he wants to re-invest or even wants to sell?

Like I say, a short-term fix so that the Americans can get their house in order with others following the path of riches. Gone are the days of owner investment and in come the days of owner selfishness. We'll just have to see where it all ends up.

PS. Let's also see the next evolution in-line with UEFA FFP. Gill wasn't forcing the issue of fair value for no reason.

[Im_Spartacus]

Thanks for clarifying that John. As I have been working most the night, I haven't had chance to look at the detail and was wondering about a cut off point. There is one included in the UeFA proposals.

Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be any cut off point mentioned in the Prem proposals. A sort of Hobson's choice of comply or suffer. I am not sure if legally that would stand a legal challenge. I am tempted to agree with you that contracts entered into prior to this decision are covered by contract law and therefore would have to be paid in full.

Yet, still no mention of any cut off point....????

Yes i suppose the devil will be in the detail of the proposal, but it is theoretically impossible for us to comply because of our legal obligation to honour existing contracts, I dont see how this could ever be enforcable either in law or practice. One argument could be that the PL isnt bound by law as its essentially a private club, but even that could be challenged to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and there is no way an immediate enforcement with no regard to existing liabilities can work in practice.

I await the detail with anticipation to see just how fudged this compromise is.........seeing as 6 clubs voted against it but Chelsea didnt, whats the betting that the £105m allowance is actually the upper limit of their projected losses over the next 3 years?

Whats particularly interesting is that if Chelsea sneak through, but we don't how can this be anything other than a direct attempt to alienate Manchester City, and to state to any prospecttive investors that the premier league could be a decent place to invest once wages are driven down........but only for those who are content to just pocket the tv money and not trouble the top 4 for champs league money.

Also, by excluding the ability to link salary increases pro rata to the tv deal, if a club cant attract more commercial revenue through sponsorship, the only option to increase income is to i prove matchday income to fund wages.

If this isnt a direct poke in the eye of the fan, I dont know what is.

[Alex Sapphire]

I can understand the reasons for not wanting this form of financial fair play as it will ruin English football on the whole but just regarding City I have wondered about a few things, I have no knowledge on financial and legal matters so these might be really stupid naive questions....but....

Would we be able to sign players on low wages, combined with a big fat sponsorship deal with Etihad?
And what stops the Sheik's limo driver from buying 10 million replica kits for himself at the City store, paid in cash?

no, the wage cap includes image rights etc so there is no getting around it

this is really us fucked in my opinion, we might not be able to afford to re-sign tevez & as other posters have said, we'll not be getting falcao or cavani in to replace him
better get used to rodwell-esque signings and battling it out for top 4 with everyone else other than utd who will win the league every year because they can comfortably outspend the lot of us

That's not quite right. The salary "cap" (no more than 4 mill additional per year) only applies to TV money. We can make further payments from increased Commercial income and typically that would cover things like image rights wouldn't it?
Also are we any more fucked now ythat we can't lose more than 105m over 3 years than we are already by UEFA's 45 m ceiling? I wouldn't have thought so.

[Im_Spartacus]

Can i just ask someone who knows more about this stuff than I do (7/8 of the forum need not reply). It states that investment in the stadium or acadamy will not count towards this 105m.

Has it counted in previous recent losses we have announced??? Or always been left out of these figures?
Also if it doesnt count does that mean if we bring along an academy kid then sell him for say 1m, would that profit not count either?

If it doesnt count then we have to hope that some of these young kids we are bringing through break into the first team.

Cheers

Yes it has, because the financial results we announce publically are the accounting return for the clubs finances as a whole.

The accounting process for ffp is quite different, and in terms of the european ffp will not include infrastructure costs or 2010 contracts, which I believe is likely to show us not being a million miles off compliance in the next year or two.

But, the minute a contract like tevez' is renewed it counts for ffp and we are theoreticallyfucked. But in practice if commercial revenues continue to increase, it should cover the increased costs which drop into the post 2010 side of the expenditure figures (eg, contract renewals and new signings). It shows we still have some way to go in terms of increasing revenues, but we definately have the right people in charge to achieve what we need

[Im_Spartacus]

That's not quite right. The salary "cap" (no more than 4 mill additional per year) only applies to TV money. We can make further payments from increased Commercial income and typically that would cover things like image rights wouldn't it?
Also 66are we any more fucked now ythat we can't lose more than 105m over 3 years than we are already by UEFA's 45 m ceiling? I wouldn't have thought so.

I dont think we will have a big problem with this provided there is provision for existing contracts predating this agreement.

But if a mid table club has no prospect of additional commercial revenue because they can never challenge for anything more than 6th and the occasional cup final appearance. Their only income optiin is to shaft the fans by increasing matchday revenue

Its a fucking black day for fans of all clubs outside of the top 5 or 6 by revenue

[Bluez]

Piccs,

I am interested why you are of the opinion that this decision suits us just fine and won't be a problem?
If that were the case, why didn't we simply vote for it?

Genuine question.

If we voted yes, we would look pretty hypocritical. While the reports say it prevents rich owners buying success quickly like Chelsea and City, they actually mean new owners. Chelsea posted a profit last year and our revenue has gone up dramatically. If you look at our revenue and limited purchasing of new players (and Sale of Balloteli) our loses this year will be even lower.

Also if England has a slary cap, and europe doesn't, how will we compete for players?
Is this even illegal under EU rules?

[Im_Spartacus]

If we voted yes, we would look pretty hypocritical. While the reports say it prevents rich owners buying success quickly like Chelsea and City, they actually mean new owners. Chelsea posted a profit last year and our revenue has gone up dramatically. If you look at our revenue and limited purchasing of new players (and Sale of Balloteli) our loses this year will be even lower.

Also if England has a slary cap, and europe doesn't, how will we compete for players?
Is this even illegal under EU rules?

A salary cap is valid if the members of a private organisation vote it into their constitution, eg as per both codes of rugby. That doesnt mean it cant be legally invalid however, especially when football clubs are clearly commerical enterprises these days, rather than "sports clubs" in the historical sense, the commercial laws of competition would have to be considered, and if it is anti-competetive it will be found out in time.

In rugby it suited all clubs as they got in early with the rules before the money got too big, and actually pegged the likes of Wigan back in league because the salary cap was equal for all clubs, not based on turnover. In fact one would argue it has meant clubs in both codes of rugby as a result have genuinely retained the ethos of being a sports club, with no single club being dominant for too long and avoided the rampant commercialism that we see in football.

Football is too far down that road for a salary cap

[Ted Hughes]

I can understand the reasons for not wanting this form of financial fair play as it will ruin English football on the whole but just regarding City I have wondered about a few things, I have no knowledge on financial and legal matters so these might be really stupid naive questions....but....

Would we be able to sign players on low wages, combined with a big fat sponsorship deal with Etihad?
And what stops the Sheik's limo driver from buying 10 million replica kits for himself at the City store, paid in cash?

no, the wage cap includes image rights etc so there is no getting around it

this is really us fucked in my opinion, we might not be able to afford to re-sign tevez & as other posters have said, we'll not be getting falcao or cavani in to replace him
better get used to rodwell-esque signings and battling it out for top 4 with everyone else other than utd who will win the league every year because they can comfortably outspend the lot of us

That's not quite right. The salary "cap" (no more than 4 mill additional per year) only applies to TV money. We can make further payments from increased Commercial income and typically that would cover things like image rights wouldn't it?
Also are we any more fucked now ythat we can't lose more than 105m over 3 years than we are already by UEFA's 45 m ceiling? I wouldn't have thought so.

No we're not any worse off in that regard. The only difference is that technically we could have been barred from the Champions League & still played in our own domestic competition. We still can now, but they would ensure Utd & Arsenal have a points advantage if we miss the target, which is all the rules are there for.

There is no problem with us passing this or the UEFA one, the problem is that these things have been specifically set up to give the rags & similar corrupt shithouse organisations an advantage. They are cheating.

There has only ever been one way we can get through this & remain at the top: cheat. No way on this Earth could we ever get even close to it in the short term without either packing in trying to compete, or using sponsorship. We will have been plotting this stuff for years.

The establishment are cheating but doing it in a way they can't be stopped. We will cheat back, but in a way that can't be stopped.

PSG have already started with the Beckham 'wages to charity' trick (for which some people on here were were actually praising him as if it was a genuine act FUCKING L.O.L.!!). It doesn't count towards FFP. It's a trick. He is making his money elsewhere & neither UEFA nor FIFA have any power to do anything about it. If the Qatari govt invest in Beckham's property development in Dubai, it has fuck all to do with Platini. It's corruption of course, but so is FFP.

The established clubs have bent the rules in order to gain an advantage & they have invited everyone else to do the same.

We will do it big style & if they try to sanction us, we will have them for breakfast.

[Sideshow Bob]

ted, i like your optimism, but i am wondering if our owners are a bit out of their depth here. as soon as that fucking stupid letter from arsenal went public, we should have fucking blasted them in the press every day and lobbied hard for other owners to do the same. i am fucking STUNNED rags have managed to push this through so quickly and quietly.

[Nickyboy]

how about the sheik raises season ticket prices to £2000 but pays £1500 out of his own pocket as a good will gesture to the fans.....

[City64]

Why dont the Rags and the Arse and there respective yank rip off owners just fuck off .....

[Pretty Boy Lee]

I'm stunned that united are allowed to be so blatantly corrupt with such little resistance. Why don't we just put them in charge and save some time?

[Beefymcfc]

I'm stunned that united are allowed to be so blatantly corrupt with such little resistance. Why don't we just put them in charge and save some time?

You don't think they've been in charge this whole time?