I think there is no issue with investment and no issue with owners running how they want to reason.
Think leveraged buy outs should not be allowed and there should be regulation.
However, 70% of turnover on wages, transfers, agent fees. Leaving 30% for investment in infrastructure etc. It’s far too restrictive.
UEFA are wrong on not allowing people to have 8 year contracts if they want them, any one could do them and seems a risk to me, but one people should be allowed to make.
Just against this, someone doesn’t like it and UEFA react.
Platini was the worst actually changed the rules once on owner investment for Italian clubs and then back (even said they can’t make up their mind). Surely it’s your rules on what you think is best.
No club has a right to always be at the top and football does not work that way (as we have seen), but these rules always give the select clubs away back to the top (seeing United coming competitive again despite years of mismanagement, Juve will bounce back etc). That’s what this does and with the latest changes an excuse for owners to create a profit.
Agree with all of your points there.
On the contracts bit, I’m pretty sure the five year limitation is an existing fifa regulation and has been for some time. I agree I don’t think UEFA or the pl should enforce it though. Should be entirely up to the club and the player and I said on a different thread, how Chelsea have done it to me is a huge risk that could screw them up for a long time.
I think you are right on FIFA and is risky to Chelsea and seems unlikely someone so new to the game would change from the norm and get it right (whereas ones experienced in the game, have not done it)…
But, if he has then he deserves the awards that have gone with it.
Do think Chelsea football club have been very fortunate with the 1.75 billion on effectively owner investment. They where supposedly brought for 4.25 billion but they where not, it was surely just 2.5 billion (so sold by the Govt at a knocked down price).
Guaranteeing that 1.75 billion of the sale price is available for infrastructure and team building does not make it part of the purchase price.
We could not go buy a £1 million pound house and say I’ll give you 500K and I’m also going to spend another 500K on improving the property.
It’s no wonder Chelsea have gone mad, they have money burning a hole in their pocket.
Agree with all of your points there.
On the contracts bit, I’m pretty sure the five year limitation is an existing fifa regulation and has been for some time. I agree I don’t think UEFA or the pl should enforce it though. Should be entirely up to the club and the player and I said on a different thread, how Chelsea have done it to me is a huge risk that could screw them up for a long time.
Times, last week:
Fifa's regulations state that players' contracts should be a maximum of five years unless they are allowed to be longer under the laws of a particular country, and there is no restriction in the UK.
That may be one of the more bizarre ideas:
"no longer than 5 years if it's not legal"
I don't see there is anything to challenge. They aren't outlawing the contracts, they are setting out how they will be included in FFS costs. As we know, they can do what they want there, pretty much, and have a good reason for doing it at the European level. All IMHO.Yep. Be interesting to see if Uefa do try to enforce it, if anyone challenges it.
Write off debt goes as a positive movement through p&l which increases profit. Profit means tax. Tax is a p&l hit/expense.There’s no p&l hit to Leicester is there?
"Chelsea have done it to me is a huge risk that could screw them up for a long time"Agree with all of your points there.
On the contracts bit, I’m pretty sure the five year limitation is an existing fifa regulation and has been for some time. I agree I don’t think UEFA or the pl should enforce it though. Should be entirely up to the club and the player and I said on a different thread, how Chelsea have done it to me is a huge risk that could screw them up for a long time.
Yep. Be interesting to see if Uefa do try to enforce it, if anyone challenges it.
I don't see there is anything to challenge. They aren't outlawing the contracts, they are setting out how they will be included in FFS costs. As we know, they can do what they want there, pretty much, and have a good reason for doing it at the European level. All IMHO.
I think the latter is likely - they can change the FFP rules without needing external agreement.
I wonder if some other countries have a limit of 5 years though, and this is more to level the playing field across UEFA rather than to stop some exploiting it.
They'll presumably have to allow Chelsea some leeway as the contracts are in place before the rule.