Cheers. I did think vaguely about this but too lazy to explore it!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New “UEFA Financial Sustainability” rules
- Thread starter SWP's back
- Start date
RobinHood
Well-Known Member
Couldn't see the paragraph from Swiss Ramble that mentions Der Spiegel as an authority to proceed to CAS.
Im not so sure. With our finances, we can fund it i believe. The Rags however with their Debt and revenues falling will struggle. Not sure Uefa have thought this thru. Both Milan Clubs/Barca could also be affected negatively by itThat’s why this rule change has come in not even subtle
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
david gill will of inserted clauses that the cartel avoid punishmentIm not so sure. With our finances, we can fund it i believe. The Rags however with their Debt and revenues falling will struggle. Not sure Uefa have thought this thru. Both Milan Clubs/Barca could also be affected negatively by it
They could make it a condition of membership of the league that the club owned the stadium, freehold or long leasehold, or a supporters trust owned it or had a veto over transfer.. See Chelsea. (Would take a long transition period now)Generally, I agree with you on this.
The regulations state what will happen if a club breaks the financial rules.
They can't actually stop the club breaking the rules or owners playing fast and loose, such as the stadium club/owner transfers that have happened a lot recently such as the Derby one you mention.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 15,029
Clubs need to take this into consideration in contracts.
1.Reduce basic pay and increase bonuses for winning trophies/qualifying as a proportion.
2. Contract allows for reductions in pay for failures to qualify.
Good points. May be difficult for existing contracts, though, and especially for clubs who aren't winning anything / qualifying for anything financially worthwhile .... cough, cough.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
They could make it a condition of membership of the league that the club owned the stadium, freehold or long leasehold, or a supporters trust owned it or had a veto over transfer.. See Chelsea. (Would take a long transition period now)
I think the last part is a key one, assuming it was domestic.
As far as I know, it wouldn't be possible in Europe - memory says it is quite common for grounds to be owned by the city not the clubs. The San Siro would be problematic!
Ah, yes. An extra clause on my rule! I was really thinking domestic.I think the last part is a key one, assuming it was domestic.
As far as I know, it wouldn't be possible in Europe - memory says it is quite common for grounds to be owned by the city not the clubs. The San Siro would be problematic!
More trouble for the rags down in the lower reaches of the league.Good points. May be difficult for existing contracts, though, and especially for clubs who aren't winning anything / qualifying for anything financially worthwhile .... cough, cough.
Few if any contacts longer than 5 years, so time would cure it.
JGL07
Well-Known Member
I thought that was by CFG to fund a stadium in New York?I was wondering that myself, didn't we take a 'loan' for £500million for infrastructure improvements a short while back? Was it to circumvent this? I may have well imagined all of this mind.
train man
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 1,014
- Location
- down 'ere from oop there
- Team supported
- only football team to come from Manchester
Perhaps awaiting conclusion of old ffp investigation of the big bad wolf, so a good few years down the line yet...These the Uefa ffp new rules! What’s happening to the premier ffp new rules?
Centurions
Well-Known Member
I think you're right, it was the CFG but I can't remember anyone stating that is what it is for?I thought that was by CFG to fund a stadium in New York?
JGL07
Well-Known Member
They didn’t say specifically but the assumptions were that a new stadium in New York was most likely.I think you're right, it was the CFG but I can't remember anyone stating that is what it is for?
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
Spot on. These new rules will make it almost impossible to attract new external investment. It will damage youth football, community projects, stadium development and destroy women's football. It will encourage owners to take on huge long-term loans for most projects to avoid breaching FFP.In a way its spending any money that gets hit by this. Its basically a set of rules that compounds any misery and stops any speculation or investment.
Rule 1. You have some ambition - get back in your box.
Rule 2. Get your finances wrong and we will kick you when you are down.
It deters owner investment and encourages debt. It is the opposite of sustainable and designed to protect the elite clubs (and we are now part of that group). It will devastate anyone trying to climb the ladder like Everton and Newcastle and ironically will damage United hugely because of their crumbling infrastructure.
Why should we be surprised that a corrupt body like UEFA should come up with this proposal. It will hasten the onset of the Super League. Why should ambitious clubs who want to improve their infrastructure, creating hundreds of local jobs, be hampered by a bunch of greedy crooks.
Last edited:
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
It's a free pass for those twats not to invest a penny in the Swamp and to carry on ignoring the local community which they have been doing for years. It also gives them an excuse to pull out of women's football. But they can carry on accumulating debt and taking dividends. As a City fan perhaps I should be laughing but this proposal by UEFA is a disaster for English football in general. Meanwhile I would expect the PL and the FA to oppose this because it will devastate youth development in English football which is now as good as anywhere in the world.Glazer's will be laughing.
Gareth Barry Conlon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 15,955
Yeah - Clubs like Rags and Barca will have a massive issue because of their old stadiums.Spot on. These new rules will make it almost impossible to attract new external investment. It will damage youth football, community projects, stadium development and destroy women's football. It will encourage owners to take on huge long-term loans for most projects to avoid breaching FFP.
It deters owner investment and encourages debt. It is the opposite of sustainable and designed to protect the elite clubs (and we are now part of that group). It will devastate anyone trying to climb the ladder like Everton and Newcastle and ironically will damage United hugely because of their crumbling infrastructure.
Why should we be surprised that a corrupt body like UEFA should come up with this proposal. It will hasten the onset of the Super League. Why should ambitious clubs who want to improve their infrastructure, creating hundreds of local jobs, be hampered by a bunch of greedy crooks.
It brings all sorts of accountancy issues into the game. Some grounds are probably worth a shit load, like Fulham. So would this encourage an owner to buy a club like Fulham, sell the ground for a big profit and relocate to some cheap location and build a big plastic stadium.
Everton on the other hand - Goodison is worth more as fire wood than it is as a property deal.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
I think it will make it harder to sell clubs in general because new owners will never be able to develop their new assets properly. It will be impossible to build new infrastructure without an exemption from FFP rules. I wonder if this new UEFA proposal has been misreported. It sounds too crazy to be true. It will lead to more clubs going out of business. I am sure the PL will fight it. It is commercial suicide.Yeah - Clubs like Rags and Barca will have a massive issue because of their old stadiums.
It brings all sorts of accountancy issues into the game. Some grounds are probably worth a shit load, like Fulham. So would this encourage an owner to buy a club like Fulham, sell the ground for a big profit and relocate to some cheap location and build a big plastic stadium.
Everton on the other hand - Goodison is worth more as fire wood than it is as a property deal.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
I think it will make it harder to sell clubs in general because new owners will never be able to develop their new assets properly. It will be impossible to build new infrastructure without an exemption from FFP rules. I wonder if this new UEFA proposal has been misreported. It sounds too crazy to be true. It will lead to more clubs going out of business. I am sure the PL will fight it. It is commercial suicide.
It doesn't seem tenable that the debt incurred by rebuilding would go on the UEFA figures, so I don't think it is the plan.
I think that rather than exemptions of simply discounting infrastructure, instead it is just that the costs of financing the debt has to be covered in UEFA's financial accounting. They want solvency and stability, and incurring a properly managed debt doesn't really contradict those ideals.
Academies in England got badly stuffed by the PL forcing the EPPP plan on them; minimising the maximum payment for produced players made the lower tier ones untenable, and all but limiting it to the top flight/big clubs. Anyone building a new one is a good thing, they could do with a decent geographical spread though (I'm not sure where they are at the moment).
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
That makes sense but Swiss Ramble (usually reliable) said differently. If they only included the annual debt interest payments for FFP purposes that would be sensible. That said suppose a club wanted to build a hotel and leisure complex attached to their stadium what business would that be of UEFA's?It doesn't seem tenable that the debt incurred by rebuilding would go on the UEFA figures, so I don't think it is the plan.
I think that rather than exemptions of simply discounting infrastructure, instead it is just that the costs of financing the debt has to be covered in UEFA's financial accounting. They want solvency and stability, and incurring a properly managed debt doesn't really contradict those ideals.
Academies in England got badly stuffed by the PL forcing the EPPP plan on them; minimising the maximum payment for produced players made the lower tier ones untenable, and all but limiting it to the top flight/big clubs. Anyone building a new one is a good thing, they could do with a decent geographical spread though (I'm not sure where they are at the moment).
The regulations haven't changed since they were published and approved almost 3 months ago.
Slow news day.
Infrastructure counts as a relevant investment for the long term benefit of the club, and can allow your aggregate football earnings to be adjusted upwards if the amount is covered by contributions or equity.
Therefore if you can afford it you can build it.
Maybe have a look at the regulations rather than someone who hasn't read them on twitter.
Slow news day.
Infrastructure counts as a relevant investment for the long term benefit of the club, and can allow your aggregate football earnings to be adjusted upwards if the amount is covered by contributions or equity.
Therefore if you can afford it you can build it.
Maybe have a look at the regulations rather than someone who hasn't read them on twitter.