Bobby Gunning For Karl-Heinz Rummenigge!

[toffee balls]

Can our Germanic friend kindly fuck off now .
You are on a city forum and your cocky arrogance reminds me of how those twats across the road used to treat us.
I have a lot of respect for your country don't spoil my ilusion


Our day is coming soon pal

See ya

 

[Rocket Sauce]

If they start tossing out the big clubs, what's to stop those big clubs from finding sponsorship (we know they have the resources) and breaking away from UEFA and making their own "champions league?"

 

[Anonymous]

I think it's great these chaps are posting as we get to see a different perception of things. I welcome it. Just a shame that with a bit more careful thought and research most of what has been said so far can be disproved.

I genuinely hope someone from the club gets hold of Karl-Heinz, shows him what we are planning to do, how we are planning to do it and then encourages him to speak about it in the press.

 

[jrb]

If they start tossing out the big clubs, what's to stop those big clubs from finding sponsorship (we know they have the resources) and breaking away from UEFA and making their own "champions league?"

Exactly. Another good point. Platini and UEFA will do what it takes to protect their assets.

The CL would look shit with..........(fill in as appropriate) in it.

At least we've educated a few Bayern fans tonight. Hopefully they will spread the word and the football fans in Germany will really see what's going on.

 

[Ruhr]

i really wonder, who started it...

 

[jrb]

i really wonder, who started it...

The thread? Me. Money in football?

 

[The Future's Blue]

Notice how it's based on the Bundesliga, pushed by a Frenchman whose league is pants. I wonder if there could be a conflict of interest issue here

 

[Anonymous]

i really wonder, who started it...

You did

no we we didn't

Yes you did, you invaded Poland.

 

[MCC]

i really wonder, who started it...

You did

no we we didn't

Yes you did, you invaded Poland.

PMSL!!!

 

[SWP's back]

Do enlighten me SWP.

As an initial compromise, clubs will be able to record maximum losses of €45 million (£39.5m) in total over the following three years. That can be subsidised by an owner but only if they invest the money permanently in return for shares, not by lending it as Roman Abramovich did when he first took control of Chelsea. If owners are unable to subsidise debts, the maximum loss is €5m (£4.4m).
Yes we know
From 2014 to 2017, the overall permitted loss will fall to €30m (£26.3m) for each three-year block monitored by Uefa. After that, Uefa hope clubs will have learned financial balance and be genuinely breaking even.

Yes we know

* Three years to ‘break even’

* Clubs will be able to record maximum losses of £39.5m before 2014

* From 2014 to 2017, the overall permitted loss will fall to £26.3m

* Owners cannot bail clubs out of debt with personal wealth

* Clubs could face exclusion from Uefa competitions in 2014-15

* Newly-created Club Financial Control Panel to ensure rules are abided by

* Arsenal would comfortably meet FFP requirements but Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool & Manchester City would fail at present

Yes we know we would, hence the spending now so we can break even when it actually counts

However, Uefa’s break-even calculation is not the same as a club’s statutory accounts. Expenditure such as youth development, stadium infrastructure and community development does not count towards FFP. Depreciation on tangible fixed assets is also excluded. In the case of Chelsea, for instance, analysts estimate that around £10m a year is spent on a youth set-up that has yet to really bear fruit, while another £9m can be lopped off for depreciation on tangible fixed assets such as spectator facilities at Stamford Bridge or training facilities at the club’s Cobham headquarters. Therefore, FFP rules would allow Chelsea to reduce their expenses by £19m, which is a considerable portion of the £70.9m loss revealed on their last annual balance sheet.

Furthermore, deep in Uefa’s 91-page FFP document lies a safety net. Even if a club misses the break-even target, it can still be granted a licence if it meets two criteria – the trend of losses is improving; and the over-spend is caused by the wages of players that were contracted before June 2010 (when the fair-play rules were approved). However, that flexibility is only available for the reporting period ending in 2012.

In England where high transfer fees are rife the new rules may well stimulate competition and mean that rich clubs wont be racking up ‘sustainable’ debt whilst smaller sides become glorified feeder clubs for the big boys, it took City spending over 1 billion pounds to break the monopoly of the ‘big four’ which was the status quo of English football for far too long. Perhaps now, if these rules are properly implemented smaller sides will be able to break into the top 4. By blocking huge money signings it will also mean teams are more reliant on farming young players something that will undoubtedly have a positive effect for the English national team as at the moment young players development is often neglected as bigger name foreign players dominate the positions with youngsters being loaned down the divisons.

Man City’s new 300 million pound deal to rename their stadium the Etihad stadium over ten years appears to be a clear violation of the rules but City may well get away with it. Etihad is owned by the owners of Man City and by pledging the large sum from Etihad airlines Gary Cook, City’s Chief Executive feels he has shrewdly side stepped the new regulation. However UEFA should clamp down hard on this if they want the rules to stick and be truly successful, Chelsea and Spurs apparently floated the idea of selling the naming rights of White Hart Lane and Stamford Bridge respectively but reportedly struggled to get even 10 million pounds a year let alone the 30 million that City’s deal is worth. City will have to prove that the sum is the correct fee for such naming rights which it appears is not.

Absolute bollocks. Etihad is not owned by our owner and as such, is not a related party. Where did you find this shite?

"Uefa is aware of the recent transfer activity across Europe. It must be noted, however, that the financial fair play rules do not prevent clubs from spending money on transfers themselves but rather require them to balance their books at the end of the season. It is therefore difficult to comment on any individual situation without knowing the long-term strategy of each club," a statement on the official Uefa website reads.

"There is no doubt that transfers made now will impact on the break-even results of the financial years ending 2012 and 2013 – the first financial years to be assessed under the break-even rule. The clubs know the rules and also know that Uefa is fully committed to implementing them with rigour. For example, as from this summer all payments due on transfers and to employees will be assessed by the Club Financial Control Panel (CFC Panel) as part of the "enhanced overdue payables" rule.

My answers are in red above.


Look fella, I don't want to seem mean, but you have not the faintest clue about FFP or City. Where above does it say that clubs can't be in debt? Where does it say Utd would struggle? They will not for a second. They operate a profit despite being heavily in debt. If that is the shite you are fed in Germany then it seems propaganda is alive and well.

try reading this by a footbal finance expert, it won't be fun for you

<a class="postlink" href="http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/12/manchester-city-masterplan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/12 ... rplan.html</a>

Or this:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2013243/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Financial-fair-play-merely-stifle-Manchester-City.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... -City.html</a>

or this:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2064436/Blame-Platini-Manchester-Citys-195m-loss-Martin-Samuel.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... amuel.html</a>

Man city have fuck all to worry about with regards to FFP, but it stops another City happening. I am shocked how little you know about it to be honest.