city saint
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 6,138
tbf they arnt playing in europe for a few years anyway
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
Onholiday(somemightsay)
Well-Known Member
Exactly.If I want to sponsor a football club to the tune of a few million to show of my company. Who has the right to say I am paying to much ?
If I think it's a fair price and the club think it's fair what's the problem. Is it to protect the sponsors from paying to much ?
I just dont see how someone employed by UEFA can tell me how much I should sponsor a club for.
Did anyone pull Newcastle and tel them that £15m for Shearer was way above market valuation? No as it was the agreed valuation between the two businesses and he went on to score a fuck load of goals for them.
If I see someone driving a Ford Mustang that is worth 'X' as is, 'Y' in parts but I secretly know that Steve McQueen has driven it and etched his and Ali McGraw's initials in the glove compartment so now worth 'Z', who on earth is going to tell me what the correct valuation for that is?
Surely it is too subjective to define a 'fair' price............?
The Future’s Blue!
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 9,023
- Team supported
- City
Completely correct. What if you have 3 bidders in to get their name up in lights and the deal sky rockets past what is classed as a fair price. Surely that then sets market value and fair value is just an arbitrary figure plucked out of the cartels arse?If I want to sponsor a football club to the tune of a few million to show of my company. Who has the right to say I am paying to much ?
If I think it's a fair price and the club think it's fair what's the problem. Is it to protect the sponsors from paying to much ?
I just dont see how someone employed by UEFA can tell me how much I should sponsor a club for.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
It's not clear what the bit in bold actually means. There's an explanatory note from UEFA, that Swiss Ramble used, which accompanies the regulations.Article 89
Relevant investments The following costs are considered relevant investments for the long-term benefit of football as defined in Annex J:
a. Expenditure directly attributable to youth development activities;
b. Expenditure directly attributable to community development activities;
c. Expenditure directly attributable to women’s football activities;
d. Expenditure directly attributable to non-football operations related to the club net of the corresponding income;
e. Finance costs directly attributable to the construction and/or substantial modification of tangible assets;
f. Costs of leasehold improvements.
Aggregate football earnings may be adjusted upwards if relevant expenses include relevant investments and only if the aggregate amount of any such adjustment is covered either by contributions in the reporting period T or equity at the end of reporting period T that have not already been used to cover the acceptable deviation.
This suggests that money has to be put in to cover these "relevant investments" but it can't be on top of any contribution to cover a deficit.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 50,274
You can, just don’t call yourself Franny Lee’s Bogroll PLCIf I want to sponsor a football club to the tune of a few million to show of my company. Who has the right to say I am paying to much ?
If I think it's a fair price and the club think it's fair what's the problem. Is it to protect the sponsors from paying to much ?
I just dont see how someone employed by UEFA can tell me how much I should sponsor a club for.
So, you are saying that my original take on this, (about the 4th post in the thread), is wrong, because I went off what SwissRamble stated, but that is infact incorrect as regards to Infrastructure costs not now being included in 'FFP' deductables?Spending on such things shouldn't matter as we should have the money, owner investment counts as 'contributions' if the club has no liability to pay it back.
The regulations are all about promoting better quality infrastructure and not intended to stop spending on it.
oops - Though I did imply, I was just interpreting and had no idea from an accounting expert point of view.
Clearly if you've read the UEFA guff to the nth degree a month or so back, you've got miles more expert knowledge.
I've got a lot of Likes to hand back!
... or maybe not, now that PB has also looked up the regs to a far higher degree than moi.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
It's not crystal clear as written but it could mean that if a development is fully funded by an equity contribution, you can't claim any associated costs as a relevant expense. But the only item you can claim is the depreciation on the capital cost of infrastructure, not the cost itself.So, you are saying that my original take on this, (about the 4th post in the thread), is wrong, because I went off what SwissRamble stated, but that is infact incorrect as regards to Infrastructure costs not now being included in 'FFP' deductables?
oops - Though I did imply, I was just interpreting and had no idea from an accounting expert point of view.
Clearly if you've read the UEFA guff to the nth degree a month or so back, you've got miles more expert knowledge.
I've got a lot of Likes to hand back!
... or maybe not, now that PB has also looked up the regs to a far higher degree than moi.
As knowledgeable as he is, it is just one persons interpretation and the devil will be in the detail. I’m sure the club with have financial experts looking all over it. I also think we are in a completely different place with UEFA now.
I find it hard to believe investment in infrastructure has really been discouraged (as this will have been wrote by the clubs and makes little to no sense). The full wording might make it clearer, especially understanding the accounting method.
On the face of it seems an easier one to pass
I find it hard to believe investment in infrastructure has really been discouraged (as this will have been wrote by the clubs and makes little to no sense). The full wording might make it clearer, especially understanding the accounting method.
On the face of it seems an easier one to pass
If your income in the last 2 years is a total 400m then there is no downside, if it is less they reduce the acceptable overspend by 10m euros. The sustainable debt rule. If you pass that one you won't fail the other tests unless you are actually bankrupt.Is it still OK to be 600 million in debt
Fair value is whatever is less than what the cartel get.Completely correct. What if you have 3 bidders in to get their name up in lights and the deal sky rockets past what is classed as a fair price. Surely that then sets market value and fair value is just an arbitrary figure plucked out of the cartels arse?