New “UEFA Financial Sustainability” rules

[SWP's back]

So to a thicko like myself, what are the new rules saying if anybody would like to simplify it?

You’ll only be able to spend 70% of your turnover (plus profit on player trading) on player salaries, coaches salaries and amortised transfer fees.

Basically most of the Big Six will piss the new rules but Italy, PSG and Barca may struggle. Germany and Madrid should be fine.

The previous ffp 30m euros allowance to go over the limit in a 3 year period also rises now to 90m euros so long as it’s equity investment from owner (not loan) AND the club is deemed in good financial health.

It seems less draconian than previous rules and still does fuck all about debt so long as the repayments are made.

 

[SWP's back]

If a club can pay the monthly fee within ffp old rules it was fine how does this differ? If you borrow 500m over 10 years and the payments are with ffp Isn’t that fine?

Loans only effect cash flow. So if we buy a player for £100m on a 5 year contract. That’s amortised at £20m per year in the accounts. Doesn’t matter whether we had the money in cash or got a loan from HSBC or HRH Mansour.

Obviously interest on loans does go in the expenditure column though.

 

[manimanc]

You’ll only be able to spend 70% of your turnover (plus profit on player trading) on player salaries, coaches salaries and amortised transfer fees.

Basically most of the Big Six will piss the new rules but Italy, PSG and Barca may struggle. Germany and Madrid should be fine.

The 30m euros allowance to go over the downs in a 3 year period also rises now to 90m euros.

It seems less draconian than previous rules and still does fuck all about debt so long as the repayments are made.

Thanks for that mate.

Like you say they've turned a blind eye to the clubs in debt.

 

[SWP's back]

Thanks for that mate.

Like you say they've turned a blind eye to the clubs in debt.

Thing is, debt is pretty much irrelevant for big cash cow clubs. Like a footballer buying a £5m house with a mortgage (which they do as I’ve done a few). That mortgage is huge and expensive (for you and me) but their income is also huge so it’s not an issue.

 

[KS55]

Never mind that. What about all of the German corporations that hold shares in clubs they sponsor? Bayern Munich have the highest commercial income in the whole of football. Are we really supposed to believe that they're the most valuable team in the world to sponsors?

No we don’t have to believe that. The point is that the three companies that own a slice of Bayern and sponsor them have decided that the arrangement and the costs are commercially advantageous to them. No outsider should be allowed to interfere with freely entered into contracts on some dodgy subjective grounds. Of course in Bayern’s case, UEFA wont interfere as they are a G14 club. But they will try with City! It is the difference in treatment by UEFA that is objectionable, not Bayern’s commercial set up.
PS I posted elsewhere that we should cultivate Ceferin and this is a good reason to do so. He has lost patience with Teabag and frivolous complaints.

 

[Moss Side's Finest]

The concept of not being able to freely invest on infrastructure e.g training facilities (which helps clubs become more sustainable) seems completely at odds of the phrase "UEFA Financial Sustainability"

 

[Del_Bosque]

I presume the infrastructure thing will fuck Chelsea, Spurs, United and Liverpool more than us, their planned redevelopments or the ones they are already paying for will now directly affect FFP calcs.

Our training ground and Stadium is developed and paid for already, North Stand excluded.

The Youth Development thing is a worry though, seem to have been coining it in recently.

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

Never mind that. What about all of the German corporations that hold shares in clubs they sponsor? Bayern Munich have the highest commercial income in the whole of football. Are we really supposed to believe that they're the most valuable team in the world to sponsors?

And how that is somehow different to say sponsorship to us from the UAE..........

 

[Roachy]

Agree.

The bit that concerns me though is in the top tweet you posted. "if a club is deemed to be in good financial health... etc".

Who gets to decide that? Why do they get more allowance?

Rules with blurred lines can be used a multitude of ways.

Interesting isn't it. How do they quantify good financial health? That has to be underpinned by accountable measures surely. If not, I can imagine some clubs would be licking their lips.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

One point to note on infrastructure spending.

It is still a Profit/Loss calculation. So if you spend £100m on a stadium and add a £100m asset to the books the loss is £0. So no impact.

The issue as i see it is the risk of these projects, typically these big projects go wrong and you have to write of chunks of the value eventually. So you spend £150m as the first estimate was wrong - you add a £150 asset to the books but down the line you have to come clean that the asset is only worth £100m. That £50m write off is what will get you. All big infrastructure projects go like this.