No one seems to be taking the 'istory' coefficient into account.john@staustell said:mannion18 said:If liverpool actually do fail, what do does anyone think will actually happen?
I honestly believe uefa will change it on the eve of the next champions league draw to pass them. However could they actually do this?
It's a possibility as a member of the old masonic G14.
But dont forget Gill is doing the punishing. Licking his lips all summer!
Ah sorry I read it as they were being assessed for break-even this summer, it's just to let UEFA get as up to date with Giddypool's accounts as they are with the rest. I'd nearly say it was a pity Everton had such a good season last time under Moyes and took that EL spot off them, but then we might not have had the hilarity that was Wee Davey at the swamp this season.Prestwich_Blue said:They wouldn't face any sanctions (if they fail) until the next assessment, this time next year. If they'd got into the Europa League last season however, then they would almost certainly have faced sanctions now. Being shit actually saved them.aguero93:20 said:If they're OK as in the debt has been converted to equity or could they still face sanctions over the first monitoring period before next season starts? Because if they get assessed under the same terms we were they're up shit creek without a paddle, HG rules won't hurt them but limiting their wage bill when they need to strengthen the squad will absolutely cripple them. Could force them to sell Suarez.Prestwich_Blue said:Liverpool lost something like £91m over the last two years. Assume £25m for academy and infrastructure and that leaves them with a break-even deficit of £66m or €80m, which is way above the €45m. Plus in order to use the figure of €45m the owners would have to convert €40m of loans to equity, otherwise it's €5m. With the figures as they are, they wouldn't be able to use the wages exclusion as their loss in 2013 was slightly higher than that in 2012 (even after adjusting that 10 month figure to a 12 month equivalent).
So to be sure of passing, they'll need to report an adjusted break-even surplus of £30m, meaning a net profit of more than £15m at least, possibly closer to £20m. That's a £70m turnaround from 2013. Going to be tight. If they do miss then they should still be OK as they'll show an improving trend from 2013 to 2014 but it depends on how UEFA interprets that rule as the 2012 accounts will be in the calculation.
It's also not true that they won't be assessed until next summer. It seems they have to submit their 2012 & 2013 accounts before the next CL starts. Then they have to add the 2014 ones later this year if they've failed on the two years' accounts. If those are OK, they're in the clear but if not then they could face sanctions in 2015.
gh_mcfc said:Daz_Blue said:http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/20/uefa-defeats-financial-fair-play-challenge?CMP=twt_gu
UEFA win
Not quite true. Effectively the European Commission have said the National Courts (in this case Brussels) can deal with the case. It may then have to pass to a higher court. I have been sent the following press release on the matter which clarifies it from the "horses mouth" rather than the rehashed nonsense we get in the uK press. - A bit long so apologies in advance. The second last paragraph sums it up which i have added below for those not arsed to read it all.
"Mr. STRIANI therefore notes that, according to the European Commission, the Court of Brussels is well placed to decide the question of the EU legality of the UEFA rule, in particular since - according to the Commission - the national court may itself address the preliminary questions raised by Mr. STRIANI at the European Union Court of Justice and also because the Brussels Tribunal may nullify the UEFA rule, which would lead to is ceasing to exist all across the European Union. The Brussels Court is expected to rule in spring 2015."
ROCA JUNYENT •
21 May 2014
PRESS RELEASE
Re. :Complaint of Mr. Daniel STRIANI against the « FFP » UEFA regulation
Following reports from an unidentified source that the European Commission has decided to reject the complaint filed by Mr. Daniel STRIAN I against the UEFA rule imposing "the requirement of financial stability" (known as Financial Fair Play), Mr. STRIANI can confirm he has received a letter from the Commission's DG Competition in which it reports that it envisages rejecting the complaint.
In essence, the response contains two reasons supporting this potential rejection.
First, the Commission has expressed doubts as to the legitimate interest of Mr. STRIANI since the impact to him is indirect (the UEFA rule is aimed primarily at clubs, and penalizes agents indirectly).
Mr. STRIANI strongly disagrees with this analysis from the European Commission and shall have until June 16 to make submissions in this regard, which will provide a detailed response.
Second, the European Commission intends to support its decision by means of another reason which has not been fully explained nor released to the press by the unidentified source.
For the purpose of completeness, the letter Mr. STRIANI has received from the European Commission states the second reason as follows:
« As you will appreciate, the Commission is unfortunately unable to pursue every alleged infringement of EU competition law that is brought to its attention. The Commission has limited resources and must therefore set priorities, in accordance with the principles set out at points 41 to 45 of the Notice on the handling of complaints.
When deciding which cases to pursue, the Commission takes various factors into account and there is no fixed set of criteria.
For example, the Commission may take into account whether national courts are well-placed to examine the allegations made in a complaint. The Commission is entitled to decide not to pursue certain cases where national courts can protect the rights of a complainant in a satisfactory manner" (...).
"The Brussels Court appears to be well-placed to handle the matters raised in your complaint:
On 20 June 2013 you lodged an application (citation) before the Brussels Court requesting it to establish that UEFA has infringed the same Treaty provisions as those set out in your complaint, and to award you damages for these infringements. In your application, you develop arguments virtually identical to those set out in the complaint. The Brussels Court requested, and on 12 February 2014 received, UEFA's observations on your application (citation). You provided your observations (conclusions) on UEFA's observations on 18 April 2014. An oral hearing is scheduled for 26 and 27 February 2015.
For the reasons set out below, the Brussels Court appears to be well-placed to handle the matters raised in your complaint as your rights will be protected by that court in a satisfactory manner.
First, as shown by its request to UEFA to submit observations on your application, and UEFA's response to that request of 12 February 2014, the Brussels Court is in a position to gather the factual information necessary to determine whether the FFP, and in particular the break-even requirement, constitutes an infringement of Article 101 and 102 TFEU.
Second, the Brussels Court is able to examine whether the FFP, and in particular the break-even requirement: (i) restricts competition within the meaning of Article 101 (1) TFEU; (ii) benefits from an exemption under Article 101 (3) TFEU; and (iii) infringes Article 102 TFEU. The Brussels court can a/so apply the nullity sanction provided for in Article 101(2) TFEU and award damages for breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.
Third, the Brussels Court can make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267 TFEU concerning the compatibility of the FFP, and in particular the break-even requirement, with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. You already made a request to this effect in your application of 20 June 2013, a request which you repeated in your observations of 18 April 2014.
Fourth, the Brussels Court can take effective action because of the sui generis system established by UEFA for the purpose of participation in pan-European club competitions. The FFP uniformly applies across the EU to all clubs that participate, or want to participate, in UEFA club competitions. If the Brussels Court were to consider the break-even requirement to be contrary to Articles 101 and/or 102
TFEU, such a ruling - even if limited to the facts of the case before the Brussels Court - is likely to have an impact on the operation of that requirement across the EU.
Fifth, if the Brussels Court were to consider the break-even requirement to be contrary to Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU, you would not need to bring further actions before national courts in other Member States. This is because if the Brussels Court applied the nullity sanction provided for in Article 101(2) TFEU, the break-even requirement would also cease to produce effects in other Member States".
Mr. STRIANI therefore notes that, according to the European Commission, the Court of Brussels is well placed to decide the question of the EU legality of the UEFA rule, in particular since - according to the Commission - the national court may itself address the preliminary questions raised by Mr. STRIANI at the European Union Court of Justice and also because the Brussels Tribunal may nullify the UEFA rule, which would lead to is ceasing to exist all across the European Union. The Brussels Court is expected to rule in spring 2015.
Finally, for further background reading of the incompatibility of the UEFA rule with European competition law, please look at the recent article by Professor Nicolas Petit, entitled 'Financial Fair Play' or Rent-Seeking 'Oligopoleague'?: A Preliminary Analysis of the UEFA's Break Even Requirement Under the EU Competition Rules'. This item is available at the following
address: <a class="postlink" href="http://ssrn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://ssrn</a> .com/abstract=2438399 .
Hope its useful :-) Remember we can all still add our names to this case (gratis) but there is little point unless fans of other clubs also do the same. PM me for details.
bobbyowenquiff said:If it is not withdrawn (which I think will happen within 5 years) FFP will kill football. We will be left with a sterile cartel of top clubs (we will probably be one of them) who play themselves all the time. This coupled with the ludicrous seeding system will ensure there are no prospects of any other clubs breaking through in the way that Ajax and Feyenoord did in the 70s, and Forest and Villa in the 80s. In fact the Champions League is already starting to resemble this model. Let's face it it is not as much fun for fans as the much-maligned Europa league where there is still an element of surprise. Surely teams like Everton, Villa, Spurs, West Ham, and anyone else with ambition, will have to challenge FFP...otherwise they have no chance of progress. How can any business grow without external investment in its product (ie players)?
If UEFA wanted to create a level playing field they should have implemented wage controls for players (admittedly hard to police) and limits on the level of debt allowed. Virtually all fans and owners would have supported this and it could have worked. The truth is that UEFA and its crooked cartel of top clubs have no intention of allowing a level playing field. Look at the scandalous way the TV money (which counts as FFP revenue) is carved up in Spain.
It has long been said that to make a small fortune out of football, you had to start with a large one. Back in the days before Jack Walker sunk millions into Blackburn, we City supporters were the same as the rest in calling for the Directors to splash the cash and were disappointed when they didn't. Although we suffered years of poor management, the lack of real investment in our club weighed upon us like a millstone, and our demise was testimony to that. Only with the Sheikh Mansour takeover has the problem of poor management and poor investment been eradicated, but only at the expense of upsetting the ruling cartel. There has been talk of Everton being sought by new potential owners from Mansour's neck of the woods, but the asking price was too high. And here is the warning for that club, and Villa, and I'm sure we can add West Ham and Leeds, and doubtless many others to the list. The restraints on investment in football clubs by both UEFA and the PL, and The Championship too if QPR are anything to go by make the buying of a football club a foolhardy venture, and the clubs I name are going to find themselves as unsellable, but should we really care about that if their present owners voted for this?ColinLee said:It's taken 6 years for us to get where we are now and that's with absolutely massive (arf!!!) investment with more than one eye on FFPR.TonyM said:Let's say City was bought now instead of 6 years ago. Mansour let's say would invest just as heavily in the academy, the stadium and the City Football Group partner clubs. All outside the FFFP figures right? Then he'd want to grow our revenues by sponsorship deals but he'd have a tough time due to not having spent big yet on big names.
How much would he be able to spend in years 1, 2 and 3 to be compliant with FFFP while maximising revenues?
I am curious to know if he could have still got us to where we are but doing it the UEFA way. Anyone knowledgable enough to model it out?
I would guess that it is possible to do bug the margin for error regarding return of player investment would be almost zero, i.e. You'd want players like Silva and Yaya from the start rather than Robinho and Adebayor. And I'd suspect Santa Cruz would have sent you back years. Meanwhile all the big clubs can afford a load of mistakes.i think it's unfair but is it possible to see it from Uefa's perspective?
People who are saying it would take Villa for instance (in a roughly similar position to ourselves 6 years ago) 10 years to get to our level (with a generous owner) are wildly wrong. You couldn't jump straight in and get players like Aguero, Silva or Yaya (due to wages & transfer fees), you couldn't get the big sponsors in and you certainly wouldn't get anywhere near Europe. It would take literally decades (20-30 years minimum) and may even be impossible until FFPR is scrapped and a genuinely fair system put in place.
We are the last 'new' club that will ever challenge at the top table and FFPR (unless it's removed) is the death knell for a competitive football league (PL or CL). Even though I love where we are now it's a sad day.
Prestwich_Blue said:They wouldn't face any sanctions (if they fail) until the next assessment, this time next year. If they'd got into the Europa League last season however, then they would almost certainly have faced sanctions now. Being shit actually saved them.aguero93:20 said:If they're OK as in the debt has been converted to equity or could they still face sanctions over the first monitoring period before next season starts? Because if they get assessed under the same terms we were they're up shit creek without a paddle, HG rules won't hurt them but limiting their wage bill when they need to strengthen the squad will absolutely cripple them. Could force them to sell Suarez.Prestwich_Blue said:Liverpool lost something like £91m over the last two years. Assume £25m for academy and infrastructure and that leaves them with a break-even deficit of £66m or €80m, which is way above the €45m. Plus in order to use the figure of €45m the owners would have to convert €40m of loans to equity, otherwise it's €5m. With the figures as they are, they wouldn't be able to use the wages exclusion as their loss in 2013 was slightly higher than that in 2012 (even after adjusting that 10 month figure to a 12 month equivalent).
So to be sure of passing, they'll need to report an adjusted break-even surplus of £30m, meaning a net profit of more than £15m at least, possibly closer to £20m. That's a £70m turnaround from 2013. Going to be tight. If they do miss then they should still be OK as they'll show an improving trend from 2013 to 2014 but it depends on how UEFA interprets that rule as the 2012 accounts will be in the calculation.
It's also not true that they won't be assessed until next summer. It seems they have to submit their 2012 & 2013 accounts before the next CL starts. Then they have to add the 2014 ones later this year if they've failed on the two years' accounts. If those are OK, they're in the clear but if not then they could face sanctions in 2015.
pavelsrnicek said:Prestwich_Blue said:They wouldn't face any sanctions (if they fail) until the next assessment, this time next year. If they'd got into the Europa League last season however, then they would almost certainly have faced sanctions now. Being shit actually saved them.aguero93:20 said:If they're OK as in the debt has been converted to equity or could they still face sanctions over the first monitoring period before next season starts? Because if they get assessed under the same terms we were they're up shit creek without a paddle, HG rules won't hurt them but limiting their wage bill when they need to strengthen the squad will absolutely cripple them. Could force them to sell Suarez.
A question for you PB our transfer limit refers to the actual transfer fee does it not? Could we see City offer a lower transfer fee but with heavy bonus driven extras for like Fernando, say a basic price of €10m plus an additional million for every say 5 appearances until he has played 30 games? Would the fee be €10m for the purposes of our spending limits?
cheddar404 said:pavelsrnicek said:Prestwich_Blue said:They wouldn't face any sanctions (if they fail) until the next assessment, this time next year. If they'd got into the Europa League last season however, then they would almost certainly have faced sanctions now. Being shit actually saved them.
A question for you PB our transfer limit refers to the actual transfer fee does it not? Could we see City offer a lower transfer fee but with heavy bonus driven extras for like Fernando, say a basic price of €10m plus an additional million for every say 5 appearances until he has played 30 games? Would the fee be €10m for the purposes of our spending limits?
As the recipients of the transfer fee, I couldn't see Porto agreeing to that.