New “UEFA Financial Sustainability” rules

[Gordyola]

A good example. Only Etihad know what it is worth to them, but the experts will compare similar deals. Senseless in my view.

An Arsenal fan told me that it was unfair value because the stadium wasn't on the Manchester Airport flight path How dum can one get

 

[Centurions]

An Arsenal fan told me that it was unfair value because the stadium wasn't on the Manchester Airport flight path How dum can one get

I'm biting my lip...


;)

 

[Blue Theatre]

The new rules seem like they'll discourage clubs from spending as much on their facilities, women's teams, and youth setups. Which seems an odd message ?

 

[Corky]

The new rules seem like they'll discourage clubs from spending as much on their facilities, women's teams, and youth setups. Which seems an odd message ?

The new regulations require better facilities, not sure which bit you read.

In terms of financial restriction it is like going from 32" waist Versace jeans to 34" marks and spencer old mans trousers.

 

[dario2739]

I think we have had so many issues that we automatically think it is aimed at us.

However, I think it is aimed at Newcastle

Haven't Newcastle just named a new sleeve sponsor for a massive amount..?

 

[richards30]

Haven't Newcastle just named a new sleeve sponsor for a massive amount..?

If it’s too high it’ll get reduced down mate, certainly if it’s the Geordie’s or ourselves!

 

[khoitnm]

The bottom tweet

Caught my eye.

I think it indicates that investing money in infrastructure isn’t ‘free’ anymore - ie it’s part of expenditure calculation for sustainability, rather than separate.

To me, that would seem to make infrastructure investment less attractive - ie if you haven’t got a decent academy, a state of the art stadium, training facilities and offices already… you are unlikely to be chucking wodges of cash at it?

So if you’ve got all those covered - which is almost all the top clubs, then it’s another drawbridge to any other club joining the ‘cartel’. A notable exception would seem to be United…

It basically means the rules are worse for the football world, isn't it?!

It might be acceptable if UEFA has a few stupid rules here and there little bit (who doesn't have mistakes). But if it's proved to hinder the whole football evolution (which is opposite to what they claimed), then who the hell are they that clubs have to follow their rule? I'd say let's just create another organization, other rules set altogether if that's the case.

 

[DiscoSteve]

They did vote for PL FFP but they weren't one of the letter writers

were they outside the top 10 at that point, can't remember - ISTR it was everyone in top 10 apart from Sheffield Utd

 

[ArniArason]

It basically means the rules are worse for the football world, isn't it?!

It might be acceptable if UEFA has a few stupid rules here and there little bit (who doesn't have mistakes). But if it's proved to hinder the whole football evolution (which is opposite to what they claimed), then who the hell are they that clubs have to follow their rule? I'd say let's just create another organization, other rules set altogether if that's the case.

And we could call it something like 'Super League'

 

[Kippaxpete]

An Arsenal fan told me that it was unfair value because the stadium wasn't on the Manchester Airport flight path How dum can one get

Er, that'll be 'dumb'.
; )

 

[ArniArason]

The bottom tweet

Caught my eye.

I think it indicates that investing money in infrastructure isn’t ‘free’ anymore - ie it’s part of expenditure calculation for sustainability, rather than separate.

To me, that would seem to make infrastructure investment less attractive - ie if you haven’t got a decent academy, a state of the art stadium, training facilities and offices already… you are unlikely to be chucking wodges of cash at it?

So if you’ve got all those covered - which is almost all the top clubs, then it’s another drawbridge to any other club joining the ‘cartel’. A notable exception would seem to be United…

I think this topic has been covered somewhere on here previously. It's an absolute joke, the only sustainability in their whole proposal is the word in the title. Building infrastructure, an academy, investing in the roots of a club is the very essence of sustainability. This is to do nothing more than to protect the old guard again (the ones with owners who just want to milk their cash cows like the glazers), granted clubs like the rags may suffer due to their need for a new stadium etc, but they will do OK proportinately due to their high levels of income. Its the newly rich clubs like Newcastle that will basically be hamstrung as they try to build for future financial success. If you look back at the trend of new UEFA rules, miraculously they pretty much always favour the old boys brigade and the cash cow milkmaids

 

[andyhinch]

An Arsenal fan told me that it was unfair value because the stadium wasn't on the Manchester Airport flight path How dum can one get

Stockport is though and we all come from there ;-)

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

The new rules seem like they'll discourage clubs from spending as much on their facilities, women's teams, and youth setups. Which seems an odd message ?

For me it illustrates just how much they are playing catch up. They see the success of our academy and womens team and immediately latch onto the large sums we have paid to develop both areas……ignoring the fact that the investment was in the past and any club that want to emulate what we’ve done will now be punished…..whereas we will continue to reap the rewards of moving early.

The heads at UEFA are probably still spinning in attempting to understand our amazing business sense….it’s almost prescient!

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

That's United and Chelsea fucked.

Both need new stadiums or rebuilds and to not be able to offset those costs, they will be thinking more than twice.

 

[Coatigan]

That's United and Chelsea fucked.

Both need new stadiums or rebuilds and to not be able to offset those costs, they will be thinking more than twice.

Still don't really understand what happens with Chelsea's accumulated debt, with the takeover. Probably covered in the general thread, but too much to go through.

 

[Corky]

The regulations encourage spending on infrastructure and even demand it introducing minimum standards. Ignore what is said on twitter and read the regulations yourself and make up your own mind, whatever is spent on infrastructure does count as spending but then can be added to your income if you can afford it.

 

[Holcombe bloo]

That's United and Chelsea fucked.

Both need new stadiums or rebuilds and to not be able to offset those costs, they will be thinking more than twice.

So these costs definitely can’t be excluded? Can’t believe the rags Chelsea and Barca wouldn’t have been given the heads up by uefa when they all clearly need hundreds of millions spending on their stadia ! Or are the likes of Gill not complicit in the ffp strategy designed to Cath the likes of us out?

 

[Cobwebcat]

That's United and Chelsea fucked.

Both need new stadiums or rebuilds and to not be able to offset those costs, they will be thinking more than twice.

I thought that at first but PB explained it didn’t mean what we thought.

The stadium cost is offset by its value. Only depreciation and interest on any loan count in UEFA’s figs I think was the gist.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Still don't really understand what happens with Chelsea's accumulated debt, with the takeover. Probably covered in the general thread, but too much to go through.

From what I understood, Chelsea's £1.5bn loans owed to Fordstam were effectively written off as part of the agreement?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

So these costs definitely can’t be excluded? Can’t believe the rags Chelsea and Barca wouldn’t have been given the heads up by uefa when they all clearly need hundreds of millions spending on their stadia ! Or are the likes of Gill not complicit in the ffp strategy designed to Cath the likes of us out?

Apparently not the case.