Financial Fair Play/Financial Report (merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

oakiecokie said:
LoveCity said:
David Conn just wrote this about us in his club-by-club finances breakdown. Last part the most relevant, it's what many have said but is reassuring coming from him.

The most spectacular example ever of an individual from the global super rich buying an English football club and funding it to success. Courtesy of Sheikh Mansour's oil-based fortune, ran a wage bill £40m higher than Manchester United's, from income £90m lower, and won the Premier League with the 94th minute goal by £38m Sergio Aguero. The accounts show a striking contrast between modest matchday income, £22m, with ticket prices lower than London prices, and £121m commercial income, substantially via sponsorships from Abu Dhabi companies. City say the £99m loss will come down, and given exemptions in the rules, they will comply with Uefa's financial fair play next season.
Click to expand...

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club?CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013 ... CMP=twt_gu</a>
Click to expand...

Nice to see a Villa fan is spitting feathers about our wealth :
Donegalavfc

18 April 2013 2:41pm

Recommend
0


I've just read today that, according to Forbes, Man City are now worth over $600 million dollars! Man bloody City. A club that wasn't worth tuppence ten years ago is now all of a sudden supposedly worth over half a billion: Make no bones about it, English football is in a bubble and that bubble will burst.
Click to expand...
another sleepless night for me ,worring about villa fans,
 
Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

Taken from Swiss Ramble.

More so Barcelona and their wages/bonus structure. Soriano at City and the new basic wage/bonus structure.

It is clear that both clubs have made efforts towards cost containment. In particular, Barcelona cut their wage bill from €241 million to €233 million in 2012. This gave some support to Rosell’s claim that “austerity will be a pillar of our day-to-day management”, though sporting salaries still rose by €17 million to €155 million, following the arrival of Fàbregas and Alexis Sánchez. This was off-set by a €24 million reduction in bonus payments to €44 million, as the club failed to retain La Liga and the Champions League.

[bigimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img18/5497/barca1x.jpg[/bigimg]

In fairness, the wages to turnover ratio has improved from 59% in 2010 to a very creditable 48% in 2012, though Faus conceded that “it’s difficult to reduce the (wages) figure further and still maintain stability.”

As a technical aside, I have used the wages from Barcelona’s detailed accounts here to be consistent with the University of Barcelona analysis. The business review section of Barcelona’s annual report lists salary costs as €268 million (sports €237 million, other €31 million), as this also includes other costs, mainly image rights of €24 million.

In contrast to Barcelona, Madrid’s wage bill rose from €216 million to €234 million (almost identical to their rivals), presumably due to bonus payments for winning the league, though they managed to maintain their superb wages to turnover ratio at 46%. This may come under pressure from the abolition of the so-called “Beckham Law”, which allowed foreigners to benefit from a lower tax rate. As many players, such as the occasionally “sad” Ronaldo, are paid net, the club potentially faces a sizeable increase in its costs from 2015, when the tax rate increases from 24% to 52%.

[bigimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img17/2777/barca2r.jpg[/bigimg]

Again, these wage bills are considerably higher than other Spanish clubs – at least €150 million higher in 2010/11 with Atlético Madrid and Valencia the closest at just €64 million and €61 million respectively. Some of the comparatives are almost laughable, e.g. Levante’s wage bill of €7 million is about 3% of Madrid’s.

As with revenue, it’s getting worse for the rest of Spain with the wages gap ever widening. Between 2008 and 2011 Barcelona’s wage bill rose €72 million, while Madrid’s increase by €49 million. In the same period, the wage bills at Atlético Madrid, Valencia and Sevilla actually fell, while Bilbao’s €14 million growth only took them to €49 million.

[bigimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img40/4369/barca3r.jpg[/bigimg]

Their wages are also the highest in Europe, though Manchester City and Chelsea were quite close with €209 million and €202 million respectively. However, there are a couple of caveats. First, the exchange rate can play a part, so City would have been higher than Madrid in 2010/11 at today’s rates. Second, both Spanish clubs’ wage bills are inflated by other sports. In Barcelona’s case, this amounted to €31 million in 2011/12, while Madrid included around €23 million. Barca have targeted these for future savings.

[bigimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img43/5989/barcva5.jpg[/bigimg]

Despite this factor, Madrid’s wages to turnover ratio of 45% was still better than both the financially prudent clubs (Manchester United 46%, Bayern Munich 49%, Arsenal 55%) and the more profligate ones (Manchester City 114%, Inter 90%, Milan 88%, Chelsea 75%).

<a class="postlink" href="http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/</a>
Click to expand...
 
Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

http://tifosobilanciato.it/en/2013/...to-gandini-direttore-organizzazione-ac-milan/

Financial Fair Play, stadiums, supporters’ participation to the Club’s management: a chat with Mr. Gandini, AC Milan Organization Director
02/05/2013 | Filed under: Financial Fair Play,Highlights,Football Stadia,TB Report | Posted by: Diego Tarì
The closing sport season is probably among those that have stimulated at a European level, the greatest amount of debates on issues that have no direct reference on the playing field.

We asked to Umberto Gandini (@UmbertoGandini), AC Milan Organizing Director and ECA Vice-President, to help us to better decipher what is going on, thanks to his direct experience.







Q: Mr. Gandini, let’s start with the main discussion “issue” in recent months: Financial Fair Play has started. How was this project born and up to what point it has been a path on which UEFA has cooperated with the other actors?

Let me first say that I have never really loved too the adjective “fair“, especially since it implies that those who do not respect the requirements are ”unfair“. However, the idea has been mediatically successful, so we have continued to use it.



The project is the result of a shared discussion, born from the inspiration of President Platini, but then reasoned between UEFA, the football clubs (represented by ECA), the Federations and players (represented by FIFPro).

The very first idea actually stems during the Champions League Final in Moscow in 2008, which saw Manchester United opposed to Chelsea. Two club which, for different reasons, at that time had very high debt: MUtd for the LBO transaction occurred earlier, Chelsea due to Abramovich will to achieve leading positions in Europe quickly.

President Platini initially considered that it was necessary to achieve a total elimination of debts. Within the ECA, however, we observed that the presence of bank debt, in itself, is not a negative factor, since it is traditionally an element common to all companies pertaining to different industries.

From there we started to build a regulation that was centered on balancing the budget, in the belief that this was the really interesting goal. And, not less important, in the identification of some parameters that would help to ensure the sustainability of the debt: this is the real issue.





Q: By the end of June we should know the first observations by UEFA Club Financial Control Body (the body created at UEFA to manage from a procedural point of view and on all assessments of compliance with the requirements Financial Fair Play, NdR) What kind of relationship exists between the individual and the CFCB Club? Does it all work mediated by UEFA and the national associations or meetings were held with the primary stakeholders, ie the Club, to have a concrete and practical comparison on individual aspects?

The relationship between the individual Clubs and the CFCB is straightforward: each Club will send its data and documentation to have them assessed for Financial Fair Play purposes.

We do not really expect big differences in the approach between this “new” party and those who already oversee the budgets of the Club (the audit firm for the statutory financial statements, the Covisoc for the national license) considering that the CFCB can reasonably ask for clarification or additions to the documentation provided and then begin a contradictory to arrive to a shared view.

Should the position of CFCB diverge from the Club one and shoudl this conflict lead to determine the sanctions against this club, then it will start the traditional procedure with the steps before the Disciplinary Committee and, subsequently, to TAS in Lausanne.





Q: What attitude do you expect from CFCB in this first phase of implementation of Financial Fair Play?

I presume the CFCB will initially adopt a less formal and more substantial approach. The path in the implementation of the new legislation was deliberately built to lay down clearly the target, but also to put the club in a position to comply with the requirements within a reasonable time. There are, in fact, structural components (e.i. the diversification of revenues, the salaries, the funding sources) that can not be changed within one or two seasons.

I think the CFCB will pay particular attention to verify whether, in the event of a Club’s failure to comply with one or more parameters of the Financial Fair Play, it has started a virtuous path to reach the expected result or whether, instead, the problem has not been properly addressed.

The decision to identify a set of sanctions that starts from the “recall” to reach the “withdrawal of the title” will allow CFCB to dose appropriately its intervention, taking into account the overall context within which a Club has operated. I do not expect, thought, an “Inquisition” approach, but rather a management of emerging issues. In a resolute way (CFCB born for this and can not change its mission), but in also with an “understanding” approach.

In any case, I’d like to remember that the assessments made by the CFCB during 2013 will relate to the 2011/12 FY, ie one of the two that make up the first observation period. So this first year will be a step closer to the verification of 2014 Spring, when the very first sanctions would be decided.





Q: The subject on which everyone is waiting to see what will happen, and many believe to be the real “test” to see if the Financial Fair Play is “a serious matter”, comes from the sponsorship “fair value” when coming from related parties: the most striking example is Paris Saint-Germain’s contract with the Qatar Tourism Authority, signed with retroactive effect for 2011/2012. What is your opinion on what will happen?

Undoubtedly the case of QTI sponsorship of PSG is special. Much will depend on how the lawyers of the PSG will be able to justify the value (and retroactivity) of the sponsorship agreement as part of “related party transactions”. To be honest … none of us envy at this time PSG! To prove that a sponsorship of 150 million is indeed withinh the “fair value” is complex and, as far as I’m concerned, difficult. But I also assume that if they moved this way they will have built an effective line of defense.

As for the support of the French Football Federation is concerned, I think it’s natural. Among other things, it is important to remember that the “fair value” is specific request coming from Financial Fair Play, but does not necessarely impact on each Federation internal assessment process. For which, therefore, PSG 2011/12 Annual Report was not liable to reliefs.



Q: What are the elements of the Financial Fair Play that, in his view, would need further consideration?

I’m glad you asked me that question, because I think that the discussion in recent months has been too focused on PSG and Manchester City sponsorships, while there are other issues which, I believe, have not yet found a solution that ensures uniformity in the assessment process. I mean that there are differences in the accounting criteria of each nations and UEFA evaluation process still do not make all Clubs “equal”.

A first example is the substantial absence of Annual Report official audit by most of the clubs pertaining to Eastern Europe (including Russia) Federations. I have the utmost respect, of course, the correctness of the owners and shareholders of the Company, but it is also true that we have a part of the UEFA world that has stringent procedures and request a third party (the audit firm) control, while another part of the same world that can potentially draw up budgets and provide them to CFCB without these being subject to any external check.



A second example concerns a peculiarity of Spanish law, which means that the annual contributions coming form the Club’s shareholders are treated as ordinary income. This, especially when we tried to send a signal to the contrary “football maecenas” is a bit incoherent . Why, for example, the 180,000 Barcelona shareholders can annually fund their Club and Abramovich (to say a random name) cannot?



A third example concerns a matter which has recently even led to the opening of an infringement procedure by the European Commission, which disputes some Dutch and Spanish clubs for having been beneficiaries of “state aid”. Also in this case it is known that in some UEFA areas there are Governments, either directly or through subsidiaries, that deliver substantial contributions to the Clubs, as sponsorships or tax benefits.



Unfortunately, all these isses are not easy to solve, because it is clear that football clubs are, firstly, subject to the individual laws of their own Nation and, therefore, close their Financial Statements in accordance with those regulations. I also understand that it might be difficult to map all these specificities in order to fully identify harmonization criteria for the purposes of the CFCB controls.

What I hope to happen is that, quickly, also these matters will be addressed. We will then probably come to the determination that there are no viable solutions, but at least we will have tried.





Q: Considering that one of the major “problems” European football is the players costs, both in the market values ​​and, especially, in wages, would it be possible to borrow ​​salary cap idea, as applied in the United States?

The US is very different from our reality. These are “closed” Leagues, without relegations. The number of subjects that need to share a certain approach is contained and directly concerned. I do not think, therefore, that the U.S. model could be applied as it is.

Salary cost reduction is actually a goal that most of the Club have (although they are sometimes themselves responsible for such a “race”). It clashes, however, with a series of obstacles not easy to overcome:

the need for the rule to be applied in all UEFA; differently it would create discrepancies that would lead to the impoverishment of some championships for the benefit of others;
the availability of the main “victims” of these decisions. For the moment FIFPro (European Footballer Union) has been open to listen but without special glimpse availability to an agreement.


In the meantime, however, the European clubs are increasingly signing contracts which provide a share of fixed salary and a variable in an attempt to bind as much as possible of the costs to the results obtained, in order to self-finance (as far as possible) the costs with the additional income.





Q: Let’s change the subject and move on to the supporters. In Europe there is a growing debate about how the may contribute to the life the Clubs team, also as shareholders. Supporters Direct is carrying out a project funded by the European Union. We would like to have your opinion on this phenomenon, in particular on any problems and constraints that you believe may prevent a gradual spread in Italy.

What is happening in Europe is very attractive. I think, however, that it strongly depends on a cultural factor.

In England, the fan-shareholder existed, today almost not anymore. So also the “homeland” of this culture has actually abandoned this practice in the last decade: Premier League Clubs are owned by private investors, or at least have a control structure easily attributable to a specific subject , just like in Italy.

Germany is certainly the country where this model is more prevalent. Partly because at the time of the transformation of football clubs form “no profit” associations into normal companies Germay has expressly adopted the ”50 +1″ rule, that prevent an individual person to control a Club.

But to return to the concept of cultural tradition, we must not forget that Germany is a Nation where the entire economic system is based on the concept of participation: I am referring in particular to the direct employees involvement in the management of the company for which they work. It is clear that it is almost natural that the football team see the fans having an important role.



If we come to Italy, I have to say I’m a bit skeptical on the actual possibility that supporters participation may succeed, bot for a cultural jmatter and also because the management model used until now forced the owners to important annual injections of money to support the club, something that would not be possible for a normal supporter.

As far as I know, in Serie A only Genoa CFC has an experience of this kind, because 25% of its share capital were donated years ago by President Preziosi to ”Fondazione Genoa “. Perhaps this could be an interesting model, because Fondazione Genoa has the right to participate in the appointment of the governing bodies of Genoa (Board of Directors and Board of Statutory Auditors) and, therefore, can play a sort of warranty role with respect to the proper management of the Company.

I do not exclude that in the future the approach will change. Indeed, perhaps, if football clubs become truly self-sufficient, we may study how to have supporters participating to the Company life. But I think it will be hard to find a comparable situation to, let’s say, Barcelona, ​​Real Madrid and Bayern Munchen.





Q: Now l’ets come home, to Italy. At the beginning of April, FIGC published Football Report 2013, a photograph of our professional football. The debate emerged after the publication, and the solution invoked always the same: “let’s hurry to approve the law on stadia”. Can you tell us his vision about the stadium issue and, to the extent possible, the strategy for Milan also use this lever to increase and diversify the revenues of the Club?

Italian teams, more than other belonging to the Big-5, strongly depend on television rights and from participation in European competitions. Unfortunately, the commercial revenues and those arising from the exploitation of the stadium are still marginal.

I think the slogan “property stadium” is, however, deceptive. It is not the ownership of the stasium that makes the difference, but the possibility of exploitation of the same by the Club, increasing the offer towards business customers, offering attractive alternatives to the fans (the Museum , shops for the sale of official products, spaces for conferences and meetings).

We shall be careful to consider international examples as automatically “localizable” on our territory. I think of Milan and, although it is perhaps the Country “economic capital”, I struggle to believe they we may find the same economic environmento of, for example, Munchen.

Juventus, who is the team with the greatest number of supporter in Italy, has chosen a 41,000 seats venue. I can’t say if if was a proper choice or not, but I would imagine they have pursued the goal of having a load factor consistently close to 100%, to get the maximum benefit in a sustainable investment for the team.



As for Milano, I believe there are conditions for the City to have two venues.

AC Milan wants to stay at San Siro, and if there was the possibility of turning it into a facility exclusively dedicated to us we would be happy to study and, where possible, to proceed with such a project. Probably the constraints that currently prevent us from taking full advantage of the system (in particular the needs of our mutual respect and Inter) would be less and, then, we could increase the share of revenues from games that currently I’m afraid it came almost to a maximum of how much is allowed to get in the current situation.



Returning to the national debate, I would add, however, that the investment of a new stadium is not for everyone: Care should be taken to the component of debt that is generated, which must be within reach of the Club

Perhaps for this reason, in the past, there have been many projects that supported the investment with sports activities on the fringes of a commercial or residential that would allow a return of the expenditure.

I do not see anything wrong, because the goal of an investor – even more so today with the Financial Fair Play – must be to undertake profitable initiatives and leading a benefit.

But the sports component, that is, the system should remain the central element of the project and not be a corollary.
 
Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

Can someone inform me of how many transfers a player is allowed to make in, say, one calendar year? I have a gut feeling that there is some limitation even though, technically, once a player has been bought by one club, there is no reason why that club cannot sell him on straight away if he isn't quite what was expected. I seem to recall Brian Clough once doing this with a player whose name escapes me, but Forest lost a large chunk of money over him.

The reason I ask is that if this New York City deal goes ahead, would there be anything to stop them from buying Messi for £80m, then immediately sell him on to City for £1m with a privately arranged deal to sell him back to NYC a couple of years later for the same £1m, and it's then up to NYC to either keep him for the rest of his career or to sell him on again for a high fee.

It would be one way of avoiding FFP as UEFA and the EPL would have no jurisdiction over the game outside of Europe.
 
Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

'President Platini initially considered that it was necessary to achieve a total elimination of debts. Within the ECA, however, we observed that the presence of bank debt, in itself, is not a negative factor, since it is traditionally an element common to all companies pertaining to different industries.'

This is the bigeest load of bollocks I've ever heard ... debt is common to all companies ... SO IS FUCKING OWNER INVESTMENT !!!!!

What he really meant was ... 'all the so-called BIG CLUBS are knee deep in shit with debts they'd all be removed from European competition if the FFP proposals included any action against excessive debts, so we persuaded Mr Platini (probably with a bag full of euros) that debt is normal, and investment is an unfair competitive advantage to clubs we don't want round OUR table, cheek of them taking money from us BIG clubs which we need because of our debts, who do Chelsea & City think they are?'
 
Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

Haven't got time to read all of this - but does this mean we can spend as much as we like this summer?<br /><br />-- Fri May 03, 2013 5:52 pm --<br /><br />
matrix said:
http://tifosobilanciato.it/en/2013/...to-gandini-direttore-organizzazione-ac-milan/

Financial Fair Play, stadiums, supporters’ participation to the Club’s management: a chat with Mr. Gandini, AC Milan Organization Director
02/05/2013 | Filed under: Financial Fair Play,Highlights,Football Stadia,TB Report | Posted by: Diego Tarì
The closing sport season is probably among those that have stimulated at a European level, the greatest amount of debates on issues that have no direct reference on the playing field.

We asked to Umberto Gandini (@UmbertoGandini), AC Milan Organizing Director and ECA Vice-President, to help us to better decipher what is going on, thanks to his direct experience.







Q: Mr. Gandini, let’s start with the main discussion “issue” in recent months: Financial Fair Play has started. How was this project born and up to what point it has been a path on which UEFA has cooperated with the other actors?

Let me first say that I have never really loved too the adjective “fair“, especially since it implies that those who do not respect the requirements are ”unfair“. However, the idea has been mediatically successful, so we have continued to use it.



The project is the result of a shared discussion, born from the inspiration of President Platini, but then reasoned between UEFA, the football clubs (represented by ECA), the Federations and players (represented by FIFPro).

The very first idea actually stems during the Champions League Final in Moscow in 2008, which saw Manchester United opposed to Chelsea. Two club which, for different reasons, at that time had very high debt: MUtd for the LBO transaction occurred earlier, Chelsea due to Abramovich will to achieve leading positions in Europe quickly.

President Platini initially considered that it was necessary to achieve a total elimination of debts. Within the ECA, however, we observed that the presence of bank debt, in itself, is not a negative factor, since it is traditionally an element common to all companies pertaining to different industries.

From there we started to build a regulation that was centered on balancing the budget, in the belief that this was the really interesting goal. And, not less important, in the identification of some parameters that would help to ensure the sustainability of the debt: this is the real issue.





Q: By the end of June we should know the first observations by UEFA Club Financial Control Body (the body created at UEFA to manage from a procedural point of view and on all assessments of compliance with the requirements Financial Fair Play, NdR) What kind of relationship exists between the individual and the CFCB Club? Does it all work mediated by UEFA and the national associations or meetings were held with the primary stakeholders, ie the Club, to have a concrete and practical comparison on individual aspects?

The relationship between the individual Clubs and the CFCB is straightforward: each Club will send its data and documentation to have them assessed for Financial Fair Play purposes.

We do not really expect big differences in the approach between this “new” party and those who already oversee the budgets of the Club (the audit firm for the statutory financial statements, the Covisoc for the national license) considering that the CFCB can reasonably ask for clarification or additions to the documentation provided and then begin a contradictory to arrive to a shared view.

Should the position of CFCB diverge from the Club one and shoudl this conflict lead to determine the sanctions against this club, then it will start the traditional procedure with the steps before the Disciplinary Committee and, subsequently, to TAS in Lausanne.





Q: What attitude do you expect from CFCB in this first phase of implementation of Financial Fair Play?

I presume the CFCB will initially adopt a less formal and more substantial approach. The path in the implementation of the new legislation was deliberately built to lay down clearly the target, but also to put the club in a position to comply with the requirements within a reasonable time. There are, in fact, structural components (e.i. the diversification of revenues, the salaries, the funding sources) that can not be changed within one or two seasons.

I think the CFCB will pay particular attention to verify whether, in the event of a Club’s failure to comply with one or more parameters of the Financial Fair Play, it has started a virtuous path to reach the expected result or whether, instead, the problem has not been properly addressed.

The decision to identify a set of sanctions that starts from the “recall” to reach the “withdrawal of the title” will allow CFCB to dose appropriately its intervention, taking into account the overall context within which a Club has operated. I do not expect, thought, an “Inquisition” approach, but rather a management of emerging issues. In a resolute way (CFCB born for this and can not change its mission), but in also with an “understanding” approach.

In any case, I’d like to remember that the assessments made by the CFCB during 2013 will relate to the 2011/12 FY, ie one of the two that make up the first observation period. So this first year will be a step closer to the verification of 2014 Spring, when the very first sanctions would be decided.





Q: The subject on which everyone is waiting to see what will happen, and many believe to be the real “test” to see if the Financial Fair Play is “a serious matter”, comes from the sponsorship “fair value” when coming from related parties: the most striking example is Paris Saint-Germain’s contract with the Qatar Tourism Authority, signed with retroactive effect for 2011/2012. What is your opinion on what will happen?

Undoubtedly the case of QTI sponsorship of PSG is special. Much will depend on how the lawyers of the PSG will be able to justify the value (and retroactivity) of the sponsorship agreement as part of “related party transactions”. To be honest … none of us envy at this time PSG! To prove that a sponsorship of 150 million is indeed withinh the “fair value” is complex and, as far as I’m concerned, difficult. But I also assume that if they moved this way they will have built an effective line of defense.

As for the support of the French Football Federation is concerned, I think it’s natural. Among other things, it is important to remember that the “fair value” is specific request coming from Financial Fair Play, but does not necessarely impact on each Federation internal assessment process. For which, therefore, PSG 2011/12 Annual Report was not liable to reliefs.



Q: What are the elements of the Financial Fair Play that, in his view, would need further consideration?

I’m glad you asked me that question, because I think that the discussion in recent months has been too focused on PSG and Manchester City sponsorships, while there are other issues which, I believe, have not yet found a solution that ensures uniformity in the assessment process. I mean that there are differences in the accounting criteria of each nations and UEFA evaluation process still do not make all Clubs “equal”.

A first example is the substantial absence of Annual Report official audit by most of the clubs pertaining to Eastern Europe (including Russia) Federations. I have the utmost respect, of course, the correctness of the owners and shareholders of the Company, but it is also true that we have a part of the UEFA world that has stringent procedures and request a third party (the audit firm) control, while another part of the same world that can potentially draw up budgets and provide them to CFCB without these being subject to any external check.



A second example concerns a peculiarity of Spanish law, which means that the annual contributions coming form the Club’s shareholders are treated as ordinary income. This, especially when we tried to send a signal to the contrary “football maecenas” is a bit incoherent . Why, for example, the 180,000 Barcelona shareholders can annually fund their Club and Abramovich (to say a random name) cannot?



A third example concerns a matter which has recently even led to the opening of an infringement procedure by the European Commission, which disputes some Dutch and Spanish clubs for having been beneficiaries of “state aid”. Also in this case it is known that in some UEFA areas there are Governments, either directly or through subsidiaries, that deliver substantial contributions to the Clubs, as sponsorships or tax benefits.



Unfortunately, all these isses are not easy to solve, because it is clear that football clubs are, firstly, subject to the individual laws of their own Nation and, therefore, close their Financial Statements in accordance with those regulations. I also understand that it might be difficult to map all these specificities in order to fully identify harmonization criteria for the purposes of the CFCB controls.

What I hope to happen is that, quickly, also these matters will be addressed. We will then probably come to the determination that there are no viable solutions, but at least we will have tried.





Q: Considering that one of the major “problems” European football is the players costs, both in the market values ​​and, especially, in wages, would it be possible to borrow ​​salary cap idea, as applied in the United States?

The US is very different from our reality. These are “closed” Leagues, without relegations. The number of subjects that need to share a certain approach is contained and directly concerned. I do not think, therefore, that the U.S. model could be applied as it is.

Salary cost reduction is actually a goal that most of the Club have (although they are sometimes themselves responsible for such a “race”). It clashes, however, with a series of obstacles not easy to overcome:

the need for the rule to be applied in all UEFA; differently it would create discrepancies that would lead to the impoverishment of some championships for the benefit of others;
the availability of the main “victims” of these decisions. For the moment FIFPro (European Footballer Union) has been open to listen but without special glimpse availability to an agreement.


In the meantime, however, the European clubs are increasingly signing contracts which provide a share of fixed salary and a variable in an attempt to bind as much as possible of the costs to the results obtained, in order to self-finance (as far as possible) the costs with the additional income.





Q: Let’s change the subject and move on to the supporters. In Europe there is a growing debate about how the may contribute to the life the Clubs team, also as shareholders. Supporters Direct is carrying out a project funded by the European Union. We would like to have your opinion on this phenomenon, in particular on any problems and constraints that you believe may prevent a gradual spread in Italy.

What is happening in Europe is very attractive. I think, however, that it strongly depends on a cultural factor.

In England, the fan-shareholder existed, today almost not anymore. So also the “homeland” of this culture has actually abandoned this practice in the last decade: Premier League Clubs are owned by private investors, or at least have a control structure easily attributable to a specific subject , just like in Italy.

Germany is certainly the country where this model is more prevalent. Partly because at the time of the transformation of football clubs form “no profit” associations into normal companies Germay has expressly adopted the ”50 +1″ rule, that prevent an individual person to control a Club.

But to return to the concept of cultural tradition, we must not forget that Germany is a Nation where the entire economic system is based on the concept of participation: I am referring in particular to the direct employees involvement in the management of the company for which they work. It is clear that it is almost natural that the football team see the fans having an important role.



If we come to Italy, I have to say I’m a bit skeptical on the actual possibility that supporters participation may succeed, bot for a cultural jmatter and also because the management model used until now forced the owners to important annual injections of money to support the club, something that would not be possible for a normal supporter.

As far as I know, in Serie A only Genoa CFC has an experience of this kind, because 25% of its share capital were donated years ago by President Preziosi to ”Fondazione Genoa “. Perhaps this could be an interesting model, because Fondazione Genoa has the right to participate in the appointment of the governing bodies of Genoa (Board of Directors and Board of Statutory Auditors) and, therefore, can play a sort of warranty role with respect to the proper management of the Company.

I do not exclude that in the future the approach will change. Indeed, perhaps, if football clubs become truly self-sufficient, we may study how to have supporters participating to the Company life. But I think it will be hard to find a comparable situation to, let’s say, Barcelona, ​​Real Madrid and Bayern Munchen.





Q: Now l’ets come home, to Italy. At the beginning of April, FIGC published Football Report 2013, a photograph of our professional football. The debate emerged after the publication, and the solution invoked always the same: “let’s hurry to approve the law on stadia”. Can you tell us his vision about the stadium issue and, to the extent possible, the strategy for Milan also use this lever to increase and diversify the revenues of the Club?

Italian teams, more than other belonging to the Big-5, strongly depend on television rights and from participation in European competitions. Unfortunately, the commercial revenues and those arising from the exploitation of the stadium are still marginal.

I think the slogan “property stadium” is, however, deceptive. It is not the ownership of the stasium that makes the difference, but the possibility of exploitation of the same by the Club, increasing the offer towards business customers, offering attractive alternatives to the fans (the Museum , shops for the sale of official products, spaces for conferences and meetings).

We shall be careful to consider international examples as automatically “localizable” on our territory. I think of Milan and, although it is perhaps the Country “economic capital”, I struggle to believe they we may find the same economic environmento of, for example, Munchen.

Juventus, who is the team with the greatest number of supporter in Italy, has chosen a 41,000 seats venue. I can’t say if if was a proper choice or not, but I would imagine they have pursued the goal of having a load factor consistently close to 100%, to get the maximum benefit in a sustainable investment for the team.



As for Milano, I believe there are conditions for the City to have two venues.

AC Milan wants to stay at San Siro, and if there was the possibility of turning it into a facility exclusively dedicated to us we would be happy to study and, where possible, to proceed with such a project. Probably the constraints that currently prevent us from taking full advantage of the system (in particular the needs of our mutual respect and Inter) would be less and, then, we could increase the share of revenues from games that currently I’m afraid it came almost to a maximum of how much is allowed to get in the current situation.



Returning to the national debate, I would add, however, that the investment of a new stadium is not for everyone: Care should be taken to the component of debt that is generated, which must be within reach of the Club

Perhaps for this reason, in the past, there have been many projects that supported the investment with sports activities on the fringes of a commercial or residential that would allow a return of the expenditure.

I do not see anything wrong, because the goal of an investor – even more so today with the Financial Fair Play – must be to undertake profitable initiatives and leading a benefit.

But the sports component, that is, the system should remain the central element of the project and not be a corollary.
Click to expand...
holy crap! where do people get the time to do all this?
 
Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

ANY1aBLUE said:
Haven't got time to read all of this - but does this mean we can spend as much as we like this summer?

-- Fri May 03, 2013 5:52 pm --

matrix said:
http://tifosobilanciato.it/en/2013/...to-gandini-direttore-organizzazione-ac-milan/

Financial Fair Play, stadiums, supporters’ participation to the Club’s management: a chat with Mr. Gandini, AC Milan Organization Director
02/05/2013 | Filed under: Financial Fair Play,Highlights,Football Stadia,TB Report | Posted by: Diego Tarì
The closing sport season is probably among those that have stimulated at a European level, the greatest amount of debates on issues that have no direct reference on the playing field.

We asked to Umberto Gandini (@UmbertoGandini), AC Milan Organizing Director and ECA Vice-President, to help us to better decipher what is going on, thanks to his direct experience.







Q: Mr. Gandini, let’s start with the main discussion “issue” in recent months: Financial Fair Play has started. How was this project born and up to what point it has been a path on which UEFA has cooperated with the other actors?

Let me first say that I have never really loved too the adjective “fair“, especially since it implies that those who do not respect the requirements are ”unfair“. However, the idea has been mediatically successful, so we have continued to use it.



The project is the result of a shared discussion, born from the inspiration of President Platini, but then reasoned between UEFA, the football clubs (represented by ECA), the Federations and players (represented by FIFPro).

The very first idea actually stems during the Champions League Final in Moscow in 2008, which saw Manchester United opposed to Chelsea. Two club which, for different reasons, at that time had very high debt: MUtd for the LBO transaction occurred earlier, Chelsea due to Abramovich will to achieve leading positions in Europe quickly.

President Platini initially considered that it was necessary to achieve a total elimination of debts. Within the ECA, however, we observed that the presence of bank debt, in itself, is not a negative factor, since it is traditionally an element common to all companies pertaining to different industries.

From there we started to build a regulation that was centered on balancing the budget, in the belief that this was the really interesting goal. And, not less important, in the identification of some parameters that would help to ensure the sustainability of the debt: this is the real issue.





Q: By the end of June we should know the first observations by UEFA Club Financial Control Body (the body created at UEFA to manage from a procedural point of view and on all assessments of compliance with the requirements Financial Fair Play, NdR) What kind of relationship exists between the individual and the CFCB Club? Does it all work mediated by UEFA and the national associations or meetings were held with the primary stakeholders, ie the Club, to have a concrete and practical comparison on individual aspects?

The relationship between the individual Clubs and the CFCB is straightforward: each Club will send its data and documentation to have them assessed for Financial Fair Play purposes.

We do not really expect big differences in the approach between this “new” party and those who already oversee the budgets of the Club (the audit firm for the statutory financial statements, the Covisoc for the national license) considering that the CFCB can reasonably ask for clarification or additions to the documentation provided and then begin a contradictory to arrive to a shared view.

Should the position of CFCB diverge from the Club one and shoudl this conflict lead to determine the sanctions against this club, then it will start the traditional procedure with the steps before the Disciplinary Committee and, subsequently, to TAS in Lausanne.





Q: What attitude do you expect from CFCB in this first phase of implementation of Financial Fair Play?

I presume the CFCB will initially adopt a less formal and more substantial approach. The path in the implementation of the new legislation was deliberately built to lay down clearly the target, but also to put the club in a position to comply with the requirements within a reasonable time. There are, in fact, structural components (e.i. the diversification of revenues, the salaries, the funding sources) that can not be changed within one or two seasons.

I think the CFCB will pay particular attention to verify whether, in the event of a Club’s failure to comply with one or more parameters of the Financial Fair Play, it has started a virtuous path to reach the expected result or whether, instead, the problem has not been properly addressed.

The decision to identify a set of sanctions that starts from the “recall” to reach the “withdrawal of the title” will allow CFCB to dose appropriately its intervention, taking into account the overall context within which a Club has operated. I do not expect, thought, an “Inquisition” approach, but rather a management of emerging issues. In a resolute way (CFCB born for this and can not change its mission), but in also with an “understanding” approach.

In any case, I’d like to remember that the assessments made by the CFCB during 2013 will relate to the 2011/12 FY, ie one of the two that make up the first observation period. So this first year will be a step closer to the verification of 2014 Spring, when the very first sanctions would be decided.





Q: The subject on which everyone is waiting to see what will happen, and many believe to be the real “test” to see if the Financial Fair Play is “a serious matter”, comes from the sponsorship “fair value” when coming from related parties: the most striking example is Paris Saint-Germain’s contract with the Qatar Tourism Authority, signed with retroactive effect for 2011/2012. What is your opinion on what will happen?

Undoubtedly the case of QTI sponsorship of PSG is special. Much will depend on how the lawyers of the PSG will be able to justify the value (and retroactivity) of the sponsorship agreement as part of “related party transactions”. To be honest … none of us envy at this time PSG! To prove that a sponsorship of 150 million is indeed withinh the “fair value” is complex and, as far as I’m concerned, difficult. But I also assume that if they moved this way they will have built an effective line of defense.

As for the support of the French Football Federation is concerned, I think it’s natural. Among other things, it is important to remember that the “fair value” is specific request coming from Financial Fair Play, but does not necessarely impact on each Federation internal assessment process. For which, therefore, PSG 2011/12 Annual Report was not liable to reliefs.



Q: What are the elements of the Financial Fair Play that, in his view, would need further consideration?

I’m glad you asked me that question, because I think that the discussion in recent months has been too focused on PSG and Manchester City sponsorships, while there are other issues which, I believe, have not yet found a solution that ensures uniformity in the assessment process. I mean that there are differences in the accounting criteria of each nations and UEFA evaluation process still do not make all Clubs “equal”.

A first example is the substantial absence of Annual Report official audit by most of the clubs pertaining to Eastern Europe (including Russia) Federations. I have the utmost respect, of course, the correctness of the owners and shareholders of the Company, but it is also true that we have a part of the UEFA world that has stringent procedures and request a third party (the audit firm) control, while another part of the same world that can potentially draw up budgets and provide them to CFCB without these being subject to any external check.



A second example concerns a peculiarity of Spanish law, which means that the annual contributions coming form the Club’s shareholders are treated as ordinary income. This, especially when we tried to send a signal to the contrary “football maecenas” is a bit incoherent . Why, for example, the 180,000 Barcelona shareholders can annually fund their Club and Abramovich (to say a random name) cannot?



A third example concerns a matter which has recently even led to the opening of an infringement procedure by the European Commission, which disputes some Dutch and Spanish clubs for having been beneficiaries of “state aid”. Also in this case it is known that in some UEFA areas there are Governments, either directly or through subsidiaries, that deliver substantial contributions to the Clubs, as sponsorships or tax benefits.



Unfortunately, all these isses are not easy to solve, because it is clear that football clubs are, firstly, subject to the individual laws of their own Nation and, therefore, close their Financial Statements in accordance with those regulations. I also understand that it might be difficult to map all these specificities in order to fully identify harmonization criteria for the purposes of the CFCB controls.

What I hope to happen is that, quickly, also these matters will be addressed. We will then probably come to the determination that there are no viable solutions, but at least we will have tried.





Q: Considering that one of the major “problems” European football is the players costs, both in the market values ​​and, especially, in wages, would it be possible to borrow ​​salary cap idea, as applied in the United States?

The US is very different from our reality. These are “closed” Leagues, without relegations. The number of subjects that need to share a certain approach is contained and directly concerned. I do not think, therefore, that the U.S. model could be applied as it is.

Salary cost reduction is actually a goal that most of the Club have (although they are sometimes themselves responsible for such a “race”). It clashes, however, with a series of obstacles not easy to overcome:

the need for the rule to be applied in all UEFA; differently it would create discrepancies that would lead to the impoverishment of some championships for the benefit of others;
the availability of the main “victims” of these decisions. For the moment FIFPro (European Footballer Union) has been open to listen but without special glimpse availability to an agreement.


In the meantime, however, the European clubs are increasingly signing contracts which provide a share of fixed salary and a variable in an attempt to bind as much as possible of the costs to the results obtained, in order to self-finance (as far as possible) the costs with the additional income.





Q: Let’s change the subject and move on to the supporters. In Europe there is a growing debate about how the may contribute to the life the Clubs team, also as shareholders. Supporters Direct is carrying out a project funded by the European Union. We would like to have your opinion on this phenomenon, in particular on any problems and constraints that you believe may prevent a gradual spread in Italy.

What is happening in Europe is very attractive. I think, however, that it strongly depends on a cultural factor.

In England, the fan-shareholder existed, today almost not anymore. So also the “homeland” of this culture has actually abandoned this practice in the last decade: Premier League Clubs are owned by private investors, or at least have a control structure easily attributable to a specific subject , just like in Italy.

Germany is certainly the country where this model is more prevalent. Partly because at the time of the transformation of football clubs form “no profit” associations into normal companies Germay has expressly adopted the ”50 +1″ rule, that prevent an individual person to control a Club.

But to return to the concept of cultural tradition, we must not forget that Germany is a Nation where the entire economic system is based on the concept of participation: I am referring in particular to the direct employees involvement in the management of the company for which they work. It is clear that it is almost natural that the football team see the fans having an important role.



If we come to Italy, I have to say I’m a bit skeptical on the actual possibility that supporters participation may succeed, bot for a cultural jmatter and also because the management model used until now forced the owners to important annual injections of money to support the club, something that would not be possible for a normal supporter.

As far as I know, in Serie A only Genoa CFC has an experience of this kind, because 25% of its share capital were donated years ago by President Preziosi to ”Fondazione Genoa “. Perhaps this could be an interesting model, because Fondazione Genoa has the right to participate in the appointment of the governing bodies of Genoa (Board of Directors and Board of Statutory Auditors) and, therefore, can play a sort of warranty role with respect to the proper management of the Company.

I do not exclude that in the future the approach will change. Indeed, perhaps, if football clubs become truly self-sufficient, we may study how to have supporters participating to the Company life. But I think it will be hard to find a comparable situation to, let’s say, Barcelona, ​​Real Madrid and Bayern Munchen.





Q: Now l’ets come home, to Italy. At the beginning of April, FIGC published Football Report 2013, a photograph of our professional football. The debate emerged after the publication, and the solution invoked always the same: “let’s hurry to approve the law on stadia”. Can you tell us his vision about the stadium issue and, to the extent possible, the strategy for Milan also use this lever to increase and diversify the revenues of the Club?

Italian teams, more than other belonging to the Big-5, strongly depend on television rights and from participation in European competitions. Unfortunately, the commercial revenues and those arising from the exploitation of the stadium are still marginal.

I think the slogan “property stadium” is, however, deceptive. It is not the ownership of the stasium that makes the difference, but the possibility of exploitation of the same by the Club, increasing the offer towards business customers, offering attractive alternatives to the fans (the Museum , shops for the sale of official products, spaces for conferences and meetings).

We shall be careful to consider international examples as automatically “localizable” on our territory. I think of Milan and, although it is perhaps the Country “economic capital”, I struggle to believe they we may find the same economic environmento of, for example, Munchen.

Juventus, who is the team with the greatest number of supporter in Italy, has chosen a 41,000 seats venue. I can’t say if if was a proper choice or not, but I would imagine they have pursued the goal of having a load factor consistently close to 100%, to get the maximum benefit in a sustainable investment for the team.



As for Milano, I believe there are conditions for the City to have two venues.

AC Milan wants to stay at San Siro, and if there was the possibility of turning it into a facility exclusively dedicated to us we would be happy to study and, where possible, to proceed with such a project. Probably the constraints that currently prevent us from taking full advantage of the system (in particular the needs of our mutual respect and Inter) would be less and, then, we could increase the share of revenues from games that currently I’m afraid it came almost to a maximum of how much is allowed to get in the current situation.



Returning to the national debate, I would add, however, that the investment of a new stadium is not for everyone: Care should be taken to the component of debt that is generated, which must be within reach of the Club

Perhaps for this reason, in the past, there have been many projects that supported the investment with sports activities on the fringes of a commercial or residential that would allow a return of the expenditure.

I do not see anything wrong, because the goal of an investor – even more so today with the Financial Fair Play – must be to undertake profitable initiatives and leading a benefit.

But the sports component, that is, the system should remain the central element of the project and not be a corollary.
Click to expand...
holy crap! where do people get the time to do all this?
Click to expand...

Council Worker :)
 
Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

Anyone see Moyes' new comments on FFP? He knows it's a sham and will soon be muzzled by Gill and cronies.

'I think we are all still trying to come to terms with it. You now can only use a small amount of the television money on your wages. There is more emphasis on the club doing its job well in terms of the marketing and commercial side – selling more season tickets and corporate boxes. If you are a club that is good at that, FFP will help you.

'If you are a smaller club, with poorer attendances, then it will affect you. It could make the rich richer and the poor poorer, increasing the gulf in the Premier League. It has been brought in with good intentions but we could end up concluding that it is restricting trading. For example, if you want to buy a football club and spend money, then it would be more difficult to do that now.'
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.