City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[dom]

It certainly wouldn't stand up in any court.

I'm still unsure the overall theory of FFP is legal by European Law, it just takes someone to challenge it to find out.

Strictly speaking it almost certainly breaches EU Competition Law (Article 101 off the top of my head). However UEFA would probably argue that it improves football overall so 101 shouldn't apply. It's an argument that they might win.

surely not if the opposition comes up with a far more fair and sensible proposal as an example model that UEFA should implement as opposed to their FPPR structure?

Indeed
Where's the 'fair competition' in the established wealthy club 'pulling up the drawbridge' on any attempts at other clubs dining at the top table ? (sorry for the mixed metaphor, but you get my drift.

 

[gmckennasell]

soccer agents are already complaining regarding "restriction of trade" , clubs dont spend money , agents dont make their commission , FFP is a legal minefield , and is doomed to failure , football is a business and it is not against the law for a private individual to invest as much money as he wants , into his own business . Platini , Gill and Rumenigge can go and f*ck themselves.

 

[Centurions]

The latest post on sadcafe :-

"The figures to the end of May 2013, Brendan Rodgers' first season at Anfield, will place in doubt the club's ability to conform with Uefa's Financial Fair Play rules, which allow a loss of €45m (£38m) over three seasons. The club made a loss of £40.5m for the period of August 2011 to May 2012, and a £49.3 for the 12 months prior to that."

Another team running the risk of a fine/suspension.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...0-million-in-latest-annual-club-accounts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...0 ... ounts.html</a>

If they ban us, Chelsea and Liverpool perhaps they're hoping the CL spots will roll down far enough to include themselves?

Nah, still more likely Europa League for them even with that unlikely scenario.

 

[tregyblue61]

How do UEFA stand on one of their major sponsors GAZPROM?

State owned majority, ministers on the board and now threatening a UEFA member with price hikes unless they give way to the thug Putin?

 

[james1910]

the 3rd party deals and liverpools worrior shirt deal smells abit too!!!
but we don't have there history!!!
well not yet but we are working on it lol

 

[S04]

How do UEFA stand on one of their major sponsors GAZPROM?

State owned majority, ministers on the board and now threatening a UEFA member with price hikes unless they give way to the thug Putin?

Ukraine are notorious for not paying their Gas bills.. so any price hike is surely only of academic interest?
As for Gazprom they supply central Europe with 25% of their heating fuel so it would cause havoc in countries like Germany to boycott Gazprom, apart from driving up Oil and Gas prices globally.

 

[droylsdenblue]

I travelled to Wembley with a high flying Company Lawyer who told me City have no problems what so ever with FFP.

 

[Dribble]

Another absolute cracker by Red Dreams on Red Café.

good point about selling ourselves to a shiek. If Fred truly loves the club, he must know that would be the end of United as a club.....a top manager and sensible rebuilding. thats all we need.

Can anyone on here please explain why they think being owned by a Billionaire Sheikh or Billionaire Oligarch, is different to being owned by a Billionaire American?

Apart from the fact our owner invests in the club and doesn't bleed it dry like theirs does.

And when and where did the *MORAL HIGH GROUND* come from?

As in, proper clubs are run by revenue generated by the fans, and only the fans. While a club owned and bank rolled by a Billionaire is, erm..... *unethical*!(arf!)

Yet I seemed to recall when the Qataris were linked with United, they were all falling over themselves making player lists, and telling us how United would outspend City in the transfer market once again.

I remember when the Qataris had GPC heading their world cup bid and straight afterwards, £280m mysteriously appeared out of thin air allowing ManUre to pay off their original rights issue debt.

This is when it was announced that the Qataris were looking to buy a leading European football club and the link was made to ManUre. When this was being discussed in our office our resident Rag Red John leapt up with his bloodshot eyes bulging and asked me 'Are the Qataris richer than your lot?'

I just calmly said, 'You do know you just said that out aloud?' When he realised what he'd just said he just sat down and refused to discuss it any further......... Reason? He'd spent the last 2-3 years giving it loads about how they earned their money through success on the pitch and didn't want some rich Sheikh coming in to throw money at the club because 'We're a proper club who do things properly and we wouldn't sell our soul to the devil for money'!

I just said 'wouldn't sell your soul to the devil for money? The Glazers anyone?' :-)

 

[willipp]

Another absolute cracker by Red Dreams on Red Café.

good point about selling ourselves to a shiek. If Fred truly loves the club, he must know that would be the end of United as a club.....a top manager and sensible rebuilding. thats all we need.

Can anyone on here please explain why they think being owned by a Billionaire Sheikh or Billionaire Oligarch, is different to being owned by a Billionaire American?

Apart from the fact our owner invests in the club and doesn't bleed it dry like theirs does.

And when and where did the *MORAL HIGH GROUND* come from?

As in, proper clubs are run by revenue generated by the fans, and only the fans. While a club owned and bank rolled by a Billionaire is, erm..... *unethical*!(arf!)

Yet I seemed to recall when the Qataris were linked with United, they were all falling over themselves making player lists, and telling us how United would outspend City in the transfer market once again.

They create this whole parallel universe where they have never had investment, act with nothing but class including the GPC and their utterly vile fans, do things the right way. They spout we have no class, no fans, no history etc etc etc. I guess it shows how far we've come that this shite is all they have these days. They used to wind me up with their arrogance about their actual football and how far we were behind them, now they just make me laugh as the majority of rags know whats happening before their very eyes.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I travelled to Wembley with a high flying Company Lawyer who told me City have no problems what so ever with FFP.

Why did you go by air?

 

[City Raider]

Re: City & FFP (updated)

Another absolute cracker by Red Dreams on Red Café.

good point about selling ourselves to a shiek. If Fred truly loves the club, he must know that would be the end of United as a club.....a top manager and sensible rebuilding. thats all we need.

Can anyone on here please explain why they think being owned by a Billionaire Sheikh or Billionaire Oligarch, is different to being owned by a Billionaire American?

Not so casual racism?

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

It seems all those dodgy sponsorship deals (from the owners' own country) could not mask this club's eye watering losses. I only hope that clubs such as this, which clearly cannot survive without the indulgent largesse of their foreign owners, are suitably punished by the footballing powers that be. It is, at the end of the day, a form of cheating, and mealy-mouthed and trite statements about 'moving in the right direction' will surely hold little water with supporters of proper football clubs.

It's even worse when you consider the new foreign owners were gifted the club by the government and the banks after stealing it from the previous owners and their massive unpaid debts

They were days away from going into administration too, the small-time fuckers.

I wish I had known, i'd have lit a candle.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: Sunday Press.

:)

I prefer my wordings, "a knowfuckingall ****" !!

Thompson is a buffoon but here you're all doing him a dis-service, he merely posted a link to UEFA's own explanation of fair play. It's copy and pasted from UEFA's website.

Ahh, I thought UEFA had specifically written it for Ed Thompson to try and educate him.

 

[cibaman]

Strictly speaking it almost certainly breaches EU Competition Law (Article 101 off the top of my head). However UEFA would probably argue that it improves football overall so 101 shouldn't apply. It's an argument that they might win.

surely not if the opposition comes up with a far more fair and sensible proposal as an example model that UEFA should implement as opposed to their FPPR structure?

Indeed
Where's the 'fair competition' in the established wealthy club 'pulling up the drawbridge' on any attempts at other clubs dining at the top table ? (sorry for the mixed metaphor, but you get my drift.

I was under the impression that FFP is legal if it is used to:

1) Penalise clubs that fail to pay the bills: or

2) Penalise clubs that act anti competitively by continually making large losses without making any attempt to get them under control.

But FFP would be illegal if it prevented new entrants from entering the market by making initial losses before becoming profitable?

 

[aguero93:20]

Good point and it could be a valid one, UEFA have said on several occasions the the 15 million acceptable loss per annum is tp allow a small amount of investment year on year by smaller clubs but that's simply laughable when one club has say, £80 million in turnover and 15 makes 95 million that they can spend and they're competing against clubs with say £300 million in turnover. The limits don't reflect the realities of the market. UEFA also reckon this figure will drop to 10 million soon, personally i reckon it'll have to go the other way if they want FTP to be a realistic long term proposition.

surely not if the opposition comes up with a far more fair and sensible proposal as an example model that UEFA should implement as opposed to their FPPR structure?

Indeed
Where's the 'fair competition' in the established wealthy club 'pulling up the drawbridge' on any attempts at other clubs dining at the top table ? (sorry for the mixed metaphor, but you get my drift.

I was under the impression that FFP is legal if it is used to:

1) Penalise clubs that fail to pay the bills: or

2) Penalise clubs that act anti competitively by continually making large losses without making any attempt to get them under control.

But FFP would be illegal if it prevented new entrants from entering the market by making initial losses before becoming profitable?

 

[M18CTID]

Some of you might find this interesting?

Business Desk North West.

Losses widen at Liverpool FC as costs rise

LIVERPOOL FC have reported an increase in losses to £49.8m, despite a 9% hike in turnover, driven by improved commercial revenues.

The US-owned club said it had made "solid progress" despite the increased loss which was up from £40,5m in a 10 month period in 2012, and pointed to the hike in revenues and a cut in debt as signs it is moving in the right direction.

Although hurt by an absence of revenues from the lucrative UEFA Champions League competition, turnover in the year to the end of May 2013 was £206.1m. Commercial revenues, reflecting higher sponsorship and royalty incomes, rose to £97.7m, from £63.7m in the previous 10 month period.

Administrative expenses - including player wages - were more than the total income, and rose to £213.1m, compared with £176.5m in the 10 month peiod to May 31 2012.

External debt decreased by 29% to £45.1m.

In a statement Liverpool said that since the Boston-based Fenway Sports Group acquired the club in October 2010, revenue has steadily increased year-on-year and external debt has decreased overall by nearly £200m.

Managing director Ian Ayre said: "These results demonstrate that the financial health of the club continues to make good progress as we continue our journey to transform the club on and off the pitch.

"Over the past four or five years, revenue has been consistently increasing from around £170m in 2009 to over £200m today, and external debt has decreased significantly to less than £50m.

"With a hugely supportive ownership group, we have taken a measured approach to bring back financial stability to this great club by ensuring it is properly structured on and off the pitch."

Mr Ayre added: "These financial results are now up to 18 months old and we have continued to make further progress since this reporting period. Our strong links remain with our existing partners, signing new deals with Standard Chartered, Garuda and Carlsberg, and we have recently announced five new partnerships which endorses the global appeal of the LFC brand."

He said "good progress" was being made on the proposed redevelopment of the Anfield Stadium - which will be crucial for future revenue growth.

Liverpool currently lie second in the Barclays Premier League, leaving the club well-place to return to the Champions League.

It seems all those dodgy sponsorship deals (from the owners' own country) could not mask this club's eye watering losses. I only hope that clubs such as this, which clearly cannot survive without the indulgent largesse of their foreign owners, are suitably punished by the footballing powers that be. It is, at the end of the day, a form of cheating, and mealy-mouthed and trite statements about 'moving in the right direction' will surely hold little water with supporters of proper football clubs.

Genius!

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

We are already starting to see Financial 'Fair Play' rules fall apart at Championship level.

They were the first to introduce them a couple years back.

The league has now been petitioned by half the owners describing them as 'anti-competitive'.

The same people who called for them to be introduced have finally digested the actual reality of their folly.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Re: City & FFP (updated)

The latest post on sadcafe :-

"The figures to the end of May 2013, Brendan Rodgers' first season at Anfield, will place in doubt the club's ability to conform with Uefa's Financial Fair Play rules, which allow a loss of €45m (£38m) over three seasons. The club made a loss of £40.5m for the period of August 2011 to May 2012, and a £49.3 for the 12 months prior to that."

Another team running the risk of a fine/suspension.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...0-million-in-latest-annual-club-accounts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...0 ... ounts.html</a>

If they ban us, Chelsea and Liverpool perhaps they're hoping the CL spots will roll down far enough to include themselves?

Nah, still more likely Europa League for them even with that unlikely scenario.

Press showing ignorance of the highest order.
FFP only applies to clubs currently playing in Europe.
Liverpool aren't so it doesn't apply.

 

[aguero93:20]

The latest post on sadcafe :-

"The figures to the end of May 2013, Brendan Rodgers' first season at Anfield, will place in doubt the club's ability to conform with Uefa's Financial Fair Play rules, which allow a loss of €45m (£38m) over three seasons. The club made a loss of £40.5m for the period of August 2011 to May 2012, and a £49.3 for the 12 months prior to that."

Another team running the risk of a fine/suspension.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...0-million-in-latest-annual-club-accounts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...0 ... ounts.html</a>

If they ban us, Chelsea and Liverpool perhaps they're hoping the CL spots will roll down far enough to include themselves?

Nah, still more likely Europa League for them even with that unlikely scenario.

Press showing ignorance of the highest order.
FFP only applies to clubs currently playing in Europe.
Liverpool aren't so it doesn't apply.

Actually it does if they want to play next year, their last two results (losses of £40m and £49m) will affect whether or not they're going to face sanctions or not.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Re: City & FFP (updated)

The latest post on sadcafe :-



If they ban us, Chelsea and Liverpool perhaps they're hoping the CL spots will roll down far enough to include themselves?

Nah, still more likely Europa League for them even with that unlikely scenario.

Press showing ignorance of the highest order.
FFP only applies to clubs currently playing in Europe.
Liverpool aren't so it doesn't apply.

Actually it does if they want to play next year, their last two results (losses of £40m and £49m) will affect whether or not they're going to face sanctions or not.

You are wrong my friend.
Only 76 clubs are being investigated. Liverpool are not one of them. FFP does not apply to them next season.

This from the Times of March 5th clarifies it.

Liverpool are not at risk of being prevented from playing in Europe next season despite potentially falling foul of Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations by posting losses totalling £90 million in the past two financial years.
The FFP regulations, outlined by Uefa, restrict clubs to aggregate losses of £37.2 million for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons as European football’s governing body tries to improve the financial health of the game.
Although Liverpool are unlikely to fall in line with these parameters, even after costs such as youth development, infrastructure, community projects and the wages of any player signed before July 2010 are offset against their losses, there is no possibility of them being subjected to any sanctions should they qualify for either the Champions League or Europa League.
Uefa is looking into the accounts of 76 clubs who could fall foul of FFP regulations, but the scrutiny applies only to those who have been involved in European competition this season, which Liverpool have not.
Second in the Barclays Premier League, Liverpool expect their situation to improve significantly by the time they deliver their next annual financial report. With an expected increase in television revenue of about £25 million and the proceeds from several lucrative commercial deals set to be included, club officials are increasingly confident of putting recent economic difficulties behind them.
Yesterday’s announcement that Liverpool had recorded a £50 million loss for the financial year to May 31, 2013 did not prevent an upbeat assessment from Ian Ayre, the club’s managing director, who said that the results, which also featured a reduction of £19.9 million in bank debt, “demonstrate the financial health of the club”.