Financial results

[Socrates]

The only way to do this is by having crowds of around 65,000 every week.

our arrangement with MCC is we only keep 50% ticket sales at that level so if you're right, we'd actually need crowds of 85,000 for the smae revenue.
We will need to increase all revenue sources

Not certain at all about that. Our arrangement is that they get 50% of revenues between the capacity of Maine Road in it's final season and the average gates at COMS but as far as we know that is only up to it's initial capacity. If we pay for further development beyond the initial development then additional revenues beyond 48,000 would not by right be subject to the agreement.

With regard to what happens when a club is refused a license, it is up to the FA of the country which clubs fill the allocation(from the UEFA licensed clubs) and how they then fill the place. Scrutinising the accounts of so many clubs sounds onerous but the fact they are introducing a turnover threshold will address this practicality, The fast majority of top tier European clubs would be excluded by a threshold as low as £20,000,000.

[Alex Sapphire]

The only way to do this is by having crowds of around 65,000 every week.

our arrangement with MCC is we only keep 50% ticket sales at that level so if you're right, we'd actually need crowds of 85,000 for the smae revenue.
We will need to increase all revenue sources

Not certain at all about that. Our arrangement is that they get 50% of revenues between the capacity of Maine Road in it's final season and the average gates at COMS but as far as we know that is only up to it's initial capacity. If we pay for further development beyond the initial development then additional revenues beyond 48,000 would not by right be subject to the agreement.
.

good point, on the revenue side to get the same effect as 65,000 we'd need gates of 71,000,
However we'd have to pay for the costs of ground expansion unless the Shiekh converted that investment into equity too. i don't suppose WC2018 would foot part of that bill if England win it?

[Socrates]

The only way to do this is by having crowds of around 65,000 every week.

our arrangement with MCC is we only keep 50% ticket sales at that level so if you're right, we'd actually need crowds of 85,000 for the smae revenue.
We will need to increase all revenue sources

Not certain at all about that. Our arrangement is that they get 50% of revenues between the capacity of Maine Road in it's final season and the average gates at COMS but as far as we know that is only up to it's initial capacity. If we pay for further development beyond the initial development then additional revenues beyond 48,000 would not by right be subject to the agreement.
.

good point, on the revenue side to get the same effect as 65,000 we'd need gates of 71,000,
However we'd have to pay for the costs of ground expansion unless the Shiekh converted that investment into equity too. i don't suppose WC2018 would foot part of that bill if England win it?

Certain capital expenditure is excluded from the calculations. This includes ground redevelopment. Also the academy. So that is two ways the Sheikh can get some extra money into the club.

Something else to consider is that, with the Sheikh's hands effectively tied when it comes to investing more money to fund player purchases, we will need the Champions League money just to continue building the squad.

[Alex Sapphire]

Certain capital expenditure is excluded from the calculations. This includes ground redevelopment. Also the academy. So that is two ways the Sheikh can get some extra money into the club.

you mean this?
"No obligation imposed on clubs to be profitable: losses can be
incurred and covered by owners’ contributions’ to the extent that
they correspond to sporting objectives advanced by UEFA
(investment in youth, sporting facilities)"

This obviously helps us very much.

And the answer to my earlier question is that clubs projections will be taken into account over a 3 year window

[Rag_hater]

I love that "Uefa warns Chelsea and Manchester City over huge losses" article... because this is basically just a rehash of quotes of what was said back in August when they "announced" these plans. Nothing new. And sorry where exactly in the article is there any statement from the UEFA which is a warning to Chelsea and City regarding the losses they announced this week?

Also, I love how that Sky TV presenter in the Video above constantly tried to stir shit by insinuating that Mansour and Abramovich will leave and it's just a toy for them yadda yadda. Loved the answers from the old bloke though who just brushed it off and instead said that these payments made and the transfer of debts into equity shows nothing but huge commitment by the owners.

And yea what about fucking Real Madrid? I don't believe for a second that they are not making losses every year!

Youre right.Same old bollocks as before.
And anyone can take anybody to court as long as they have the money.They may end up paying costs if they lose but nontheless we are entitled to take Uefa to court if we want to.And we would win if we went to court.

[john@staustell]

A certain company I used to work for used to accept ring-fenced grants/gifts, say, in this case, for 'ground redevelopment' or 'youth development'. This money was given with a view to use sometime in the future, but of course as the ring-fencing wasn't secure enough it just disappeared into the accounts to keep the place afloat.

in the hope of course that either no-one will ever remember or care why they were given the money in the first place.

As both the owner and the club are on the same side I would've thought this sort of thing is fairly easy to achieve, one of many dodges that many clubs will be using around Platini's paranoia.

[Ted Hughes]

Amazing thing is; we announced the plans for the academy well before Platini announced his plans to stop us, in fact Jim Cassell was already working on a similar idea before the Sheikh took over & the 1st thing Khaldoon did was visit Jim Cassell. That didn't fit in with previous old wives tales so was largely ignored.

[Alex Sapphire]

Half of Europe's Clubs make losses.
c150 make "large losses"
This year we made the largest ever loss.
2012 we won't
Simple

[Socrates]

you mean this?
"No obligation imposed on clubs to be profitable: losses can be
incurred and covered by owners’ contributions’ to the extent that
they correspond to sporting objectives advanced by UEFA
(investment in youth, sporting facilities)"

This obviously helps us very much.

Indeed Alex, and explains the huge increase in investment plans for the Academy announced just last month (£3million announced last year, £500 million announced last month to put it into perspective). The owners clearly understand the problem and I have no concern about that, my concern is that people judge their actions against the backdrop of these proposals - whether that be the dismissal of Hughes last month or what might be perceived as a lack of investment in needed players a year or two down the line (you can imagine what people will be saying - Mansour has lost interest etc etc)

[Socrates]

I love that "Uefa warns Chelsea and Manchester City over huge losses" article... because this is basically just a rehash of quotes of what was said back in August when they "announced" these plans. Nothing new. And sorry where exactly in the article is there any statement from the UEFA which is a warning to Chelsea and City regarding the losses they announced this week?

Also, I love how that Sky TV presenter in the Video above constantly tried to stir shit by insinuating that Mansour and Abramovich will leave and it's just a toy for them yadda yadda. Loved the answers from the old bloke though who just brushed it off and instead said that these payments made and the transfer of debts into equity shows nothing but huge commitment by the owners.

And yea what about fucking Real Madrid? I don't believe for a second that they are not making losses every year!

Youre right.Same old bollocks as before.
And anyone can take anybody to court as long as they have the money.They may end up paying costs if they lose but nontheless we are entitled to take Uefa to court if we want to.And we would win if we went to court.

which court?

[Alex Sapphire]

I love that "Uefa warns Chelsea and Manchester City over huge losses" article... because this is basically just a rehash of quotes of what was said back in August when they "announced" these plans. Nothing new. And sorry where exactly in the article is there any statement from the UEFA which is a warning to Chelsea and City regarding the losses they announced this week?

Also, I love how that Sky TV presenter in the Video above constantly tried to stir shit by insinuating that Mansour and Abramovich will leave and it's just a toy for them yadda yadda. Loved the answers from the old bloke though who just brushed it off and instead said that these payments made and the transfer of debts into equity shows nothing but huge commitment by the owners.

And yea what about fucking Real Madrid? I don't believe for a second that they are not making losses every year!

Youre right.Same old bollocks as before.
And anyone can take anybody to court as long as they have the money.They may end up paying costs if they lose but nontheless we are entitled to take Uefa to court if we want to.And we would win if we went to court.

which court?

RH lad. Before they can get their licence they will have to...
"submit a legally valid declaration confirming ... It recognises as legally binding the statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the national association and, if any, the national league as well as the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne as provided in the relevant articles of the UEFA Statutes".
So I guess if you know a court that would overturn that, then you can give Socrates his answer

[Ted Hughes]

I love that "Uefa warns Chelsea and Manchester City over huge losses" article... because this is basically just a rehash of quotes of what was said back in August when they "announced" these plans. Nothing new. And sorry where exactly in the article is there any statement from the UEFA which is a warning to Chelsea and City regarding the losses they announced this week?

Also, I love how that Sky TV presenter in the Video above constantly tried to stir shit by insinuating that Mansour and Abramovich will leave and it's just a toy for them yadda yadda. Loved the answers from the old bloke though who just brushed it off and instead said that these payments made and the transfer of debts into equity shows nothing but huge commitment by the owners.

And yea what about fucking Real Madrid? I don't believe for a second that they are not making losses every year!

Youre right.Same old bollocks as before.
And anyone can take anybody to court as long as they have the money.They may end up paying costs if they lose but nontheless we are entitled to take Uefa to court if we want to.And we would win if we went to court.

which court?

European I'd say but any they could find with any relevance seeing as it involves so many countries. See how many clubs are being treated unfairly & how many rules are being bent & act accordingly. It only comes into effect if Platini actually finds a new law with which to ban a club from European competition. So far he hasn't got one. He'd have to rely on adjudication from a panel whos standing or powers have not yet been established. When that time comes, seeing as he's freely admitted to acting in the interests of such people as Berlusconi against the interests of their competitors, I would say we should look at the possibility of going as far as criminal charges. That sounds like an admission of corruption to me.

[Socrates]

I love that "Uefa warns Chelsea and Manchester City over huge losses" article... because this is basically just a rehash of quotes of what was said back in August when they "announced" these plans. Nothing new. And sorry where exactly in the article is there any statement from the UEFA which is a warning to Chelsea and City regarding the losses they announced this week?

Also, I love how that Sky TV presenter in the Video above constantly tried to stir shit by insinuating that Mansour and Abramovich will leave and it's just a toy for them yadda yadda. Loved the answers from the old bloke though who just brushed it off and instead said that these payments made and the transfer of debts into equity shows nothing but huge commitment by the owners.

And yea what about fucking Real Madrid? I don't believe for a second that they are not making losses every year!

Youre right.Same old bollocks as before.
And anyone can take anybody to court as long as they have the money.They may end up paying costs if they lose but nontheless we are entitled to take Uefa to court if we want to.And we would win if we went to court.

which court?

European I'd say but any they could find with any relevance seeing as it involves so many countries. See how many clubs are being treated unfairly & how many rules are being bent & act accordingly. It only comes into effect if Platini actually finds a new law with which to ban a club from European competition. So far he hasn't got one. He'd have to rely on adjudication from a panel whos standing or powers have not yet been established. When that time comes, seeing as he's freely admitted to acting in the interests of such people as Berlusconi against the interests of their competitors, I would say we should look at the possibility of going as far as criminal charges. That sounds like an admission of corruption to me.

There are no grounds under which they would consider it, the European Court would refuse to hear it. Simple as that.

[Ted Hughes]

I love that "Uefa warns Chelsea and Manchester City over huge losses" article... because this is basically just a rehash of quotes of what was said back in August when they "announced" these plans. Nothing new. And sorry where exactly in the article is there any statement from the UEFA which is a warning to Chelsea and City regarding the losses they announced this week?

Also, I love how that Sky TV presenter in the Video above constantly tried to stir shit by insinuating that Mansour and Abramovich will leave and it's just a toy for them yadda yadda. Loved the answers from the old bloke though who just brushed it off and instead said that these payments made and the transfer of debts into equity shows nothing but huge commitment by the owners.

And yea what about fucking Real Madrid? I don't believe for a second that they are not making losses every year!

Youre right.Same old bollocks as before.
And anyone can take anybody to court as long as they have the money.They may end up paying costs if they lose but nontheless we are entitled to take Uefa to court if we want to.And we would win if we went to court.

which court?

European I'd say but any they could find with any relevance seeing as it involves so many countries. See how many clubs are being treated unfairly & how many rules are being bent & act accordingly. It only comes into effect if Platini actually finds a new law with which to ban a club from European competition. So far he hasn't got one. He'd have to rely on adjudication from a panel whos standing or powers have not yet been established. When that time comes, seeing as he's freely admitted to acting in the interests of such people as Berlusconi against the interests of their competitors, I would say we should look at the possibility of going as far as criminal charges. That sounds like an admission of corruption to me.

There are no grounds under which they would consider it, the European Court would refuse to hear it. Simple as that.

If that was the case we'd have to try a suitable country.

[irblinx]

How many times does this have to be explained? There is no basis in law for this to be challenged in the European courts. It's in effect a beefing up of an established principle - UEFA already have a licensing system and it cannot be challenged. Anti-competition laws don't apply to UEFA as a body, only the businesses that operate in the markets that they regulate. It doesn't constitute an anti-competitive agreement nor does it constitute abuse of a dominant market position.

A few more times before I believe it, feel free to spout "Bosman was totally different again" but that's just total nonsense, sporting bodies are challenged all the time and considering that we can probably afford better lawyers than them (and there are plenty of other big name teams that are run at a loss) I just don't believe that we would roll over and let them tickle our tummy, we should be challenging the proposed change NOW before it is added to their rulebooks.

Ultimately I don't see it being an issue in any case as the Sheikh will find some way to make us viable, £20m per year for stadium naming rights or some other such wheeze no doubt.

[Ted Hughes]

How many times does this have to be explained? There is no basis in law for this to be challenged in the European courts. It's in effect a beefing up of an established principle - UEFA already have a licensing system and it cannot be challenged. Anti-competition laws don't apply to UEFA as a body, only the businesses that operate in the markets that they regulate. It doesn't constitute an anti-competitive agreement nor does it constitute abuse of a dominant market position.

A few more times before I believe it, feel free to spout "Bosman was totally different again" but that's just total nonsense, sporting bodies are challenged all the time and considering that we can probably afford better lawyers than them (and there are plenty of other big name teams that are run at a loss) I just don't believe that we would roll over and let them tickle our tummy, we should be challenging the proposed change NOW before it is added to their rulebooks.

Ultimately I don't see it being an issue in any case as the Sheikh will find some way to make us viable, £20m per year for stadium naming rights or some other such wheeze no doubt.

It won't be the rule change that we challenge. We don't need to. We only need to challenge if Platini tries to use his bizzarre 'panel' to tell the Sheikh he's not allowed to invest in his own company or accept sponsorship from companies to which he has connections. Almost all the other clubs do that so picking on us would be unfair.

[Rag_hater]

I love that "Uefa warns Chelsea and Manchester City over huge losses" article... because this is basically just a rehash of quotes of what was said back in August when they "announced" these plans. Nothing new. And sorry where exactly in the article is there any statement from the UEFA which is a warning to Chelsea and City regarding the losses they announced this week?

Also, I love how that Sky TV presenter in the Video above constantly tried to stir shit by insinuating that Mansour and Abramovich will leave and it's just a toy for them yadda yadda. Loved the answers from the old bloke though who just brushed it off and instead said that these payments made and the transfer of debts into equity shows nothing but huge commitment by the owners.

And yea what about fucking Real Madrid? I don't believe for a second that they are not making losses every year!

Youre right.Same old bollocks as before.
And anyone can take anybody to court as long as they have the money.They may end up paying costs if they lose but nontheless we are entitled to take Uefa to court if we want to.And we would win if we went to court.

which court?

Which Court would be a decision for the Sheikh's lawyers to make.
But I should think the European Court for Justice would be a start along with the Human rights court

[Socrates]

Which treaty provision or directive do people believe is possibly being broken here that the European Court would even agree to hear it? It was fairly clear what the argument was with Bosman - a pre-existing system of transfers had to be judged against a treaty provision on movement of labour. I cannot think of anything where this could apply.

As for the suggestion that is a breach of human rights, please stop saying that it is embarrassing.

[Rag_hater]

Which treaty provision or directive do people believe is possibly being broken here that the European Court would even agree to hear it? It was fairly clear what the argument was with Bosman - a pre-existing system of transfers had to be judged against a treaty provision on movement of labour. I cannot think of anything where this could apply.

As for the suggestion that is a breach of human rights, please stop saying that it is embarrassing.

Human Rights is so silly it normally is embarrassing however there are parts of it which can be applied.
And Im sure the Sheikh will employ lawyers who can believe it or not think of things that you cannot getting things to apply

[john@staustell]

Which treaty provision or directive do people believe is possibly being broken here that the European Court would even agree to hear it? It was fairly clear what the argument was with Bosman - a pre-existing system of transfers had to be judged against a treaty provision on movement of labour. I cannot think of anything where this could apply.

As for the suggestion that is a breach of human rights, please stop saying that it is embarrassing.

Human Rights is so silly it normally is embarrassing however there are parts of it which can be applied.
And Im sure the Sheikh will employ lawyers who can believe it or not think of things that you cannot getting things to apply

Clear case of racism against Arab and Russian owners, illegal in European law. Or could be protectionism/restraint of trade, also mostly illegal!!