Players in this country tend to get paid a portion of their salary in 'Image Rights', thus avoiding paying 45% income tax, or anywhere near it.JGL07 said:nmc said:Smithy34 said:can someone please explain how AS Monaco with a stadium capacity of only 18500 can spunk the amount of money they are spending this summer and how so called FFP book will not be thrown at them !!
Their lawyers have clearly told them not to worry about FFP - by the time they hit the CL it will be irrelevant.
As things stand Monaco residents pay no income tax. Since most agents negotiate wages based on take home pay, this gives Monaco a huge advantage over other French clubs and indeed over others. A team in the UK (45% tax rate) would have to shell out over £90,000 a week for a £50,000 take home. A team in France (assuming their proposed 75% tax rate comes in) would have to pay out £200,000.
The French clubs are trying to force Monaco to relocate their head office to France and pay the same taxes. This is under appeal at the moment. There is a lot going on with Monaco apart from FFP.
Also, if the UEFA version of FFP is ruled to be against EU law, then the PL version will be struck down too.City Raider said:Ladybarn Blue . said:Did I read that the English Premier League is voting ( has voted ) to bring in its own version of FFP ?
If so how will this effect us ?
Can somebody advise me please .
I am confused - not difficult -.
Yes they have but apparently it's easier to meet than UEFA version so won't be a problem.
Golden Balls said:Financial Fair Play (FFP) has been implemented to create greater competition. However, nothing will happen to Chelsea, PSG or even ourselves for that matter, and there are a couple of reasons why.
1) Losses Exclusions: Stadium infrastructure, youth and fixed assets do not count.
2) Player Transfer/Wages Amortization: The players’ wages and transfer fees equal to a yearly loss based on the contract that they have signed. Also, contracts signed prior to June 1, 2010 do not count.
3) Gaps in the UEFA license ban: If a club fails to show that it is sustainable and posts a negative loss below the FFP threshold they can escape a European ban. This can occur by two ways, i) by showing the trend of losses is improving; and ii) the over-spend is predominantly caused by the wages of players contracted prior to June 2010.
4) Allowed Loss: With an owner who is capable of contributing their wealth into balancing the financials, then the club is allowed to lose 45million per year over the monitoring period and not be punished.
Example – Manchester City:
2011/2012 reported loss – 97.9 mill
Stadium Infrastructure – 15 mill (excluded)
Wages (Prior June 1, 2010) – 80 mill (excluded)
Net Loss – 2.9 mill
Since we have a limit of negative 45 million, UEFA will view us as having a 42.1 million dollar profit.
Example – Player Transfer/Wages Amortization:
Take Sergio Aguero…
Transfer Fee: 35 million pounds
Wages: Say 200,000 pounds per wk (equals 10.4 mill per yr)
Contract: 5 years
Now, instead of adding the 35 million to our 11/12 losses, UEFA create an annual assessment (transfer fee/contract years). Therefore, the figure becomes: = (35,000,000/5) + 10,400,000 = 17.4 million
____
Hope I helped. Bottom line, City will not get punished, nor anyone else.
gordondaviesmoustache said:This arrangement, as you describe it, sounds very much akin to financial doping to me.JGL07 said:As things stand Monaco residents pay no income tax. Since most agents negotiate wages based on take home pay, this gives Monaco a huge advantage over other French clubs and indeed over others. A team in the UK (45% tax rate) would have to shell out over £90,000 a week for a £50,000 take home. A team in France (assuming their proposed 75% tax rate comes in) would have to pay out £200,000.
The French clubs are trying to force Monaco to relocate their head office to France and pay the same taxes. This is under appeal at the moment. There is a lot going on with Monaco apart from FFP.
I wonder what Arsene Wenger made of it for the seven years he was manager of Monaco.
Golden Balls said:Financial Fair Play (FFP) has been implemented to create greater competition. However, nothing will happen to Chelsea, PSG or even ourselves for that matter, and there are a couple of reasons why.
1) Losses Exclusions: Stadium infrastructure, youth and fixed assets do not count.
2) Player Transfer/Wages Amortization: The players’ wages and transfer fees equal to a yearly loss based on the contract that they have signed. Also, contracts signed prior to June 1, 2010 do not count.
3) Gaps in the UEFA license ban: If a club fails to show that it is sustainable and posts a negative loss below the FFP threshold they can escape a European ban. This can occur by two ways, i) by showing the trend of losses is improving; and ii) the over-spend is predominantly caused by the wages of players contracted prior to June 2010.
4) Allowed Loss: With an owner who is capable of contributing their wealth into balancing the financials, then the club is allowed to lose 45million per year over the monitoring period and not be punished.
Example – Manchester City:
2011/2012 reported loss – 97.9 mill
Stadium Infrastructure – 15 mill (excluded)
Wages (Prior June 1, 2010) – 80 mill (excluded)
Net Loss – 2.9 mill
Since we have a limit of negative 45 million, UEFA will view us as having a 42.1 million dollar profit.
Example – Player Transfer/Wages Amortization:
Take Sergio Aguero…
Transfer Fee: 35 million pounds
Wages: Say 200,000 pounds per wk (equals 10.4 mill per yr)
Contract: 5 years
Now, instead of adding the 35 million to our 11/12 losses, UEFA create an annual assessment (transfer fee/contract years). Therefore, the figure becomes: = (35,000,000/5) + 10,400,000 = 17.4 million
____
Hope I helped. Bottom line, City will not get punished, nor anyone else.
They only do not count for season 2011-12's contribution to the first two monitoring periods (2 seasons for 2011-13 & 3 seasons for 2011-14). What is more they can only be discounted if a club fails to meet their target for the monitoring period...2) Player Transfer/Wages Amortization: The players’ wages and transfer fees equal to a yearly loss based on the contract that they have signed. Also, contracts signed prior to June 1, 2010 do not count.
The sum is €45m (Euros not Pounds) over the whole monitoring period - NOT per season.4) Allowed Loss: With an owner who is capable of contributing their wealth into balancing the financials, then the club is allowed to lose 45million per year over the monitoring period and not be punished.
Still 37.5% for the higher rate on dividends.Bert Trautmann's Parachute said:Players in this country tend to get paid a portion of their salary in 'Image Rights', thus avoiding paying 45% income tax, or anywhere near it.JGL07 said:nmc said:Their lawyers have clearly told them not to worry about FFP - by the time they hit the CL it will be irrelevant.
As things stand Monaco residents pay no income tax. Since most agents negotiate wages based on take home pay, this gives Monaco a huge advantage over other French clubs and indeed over others. A team in the UK (45% tax rate) would have to shell out over £90,000 a week for a £50,000 take home. A team in France (assuming their proposed 75% tax rate comes in) would have to pay out £200,000.
The French clubs are trying to force Monaco to relocate their head office to France and pay the same taxes. This is under appeal at the moment. There is a lot going on with Monaco apart from FFP.
BlueAnorak said:Golden Balls said:Financial Fair Play (FFP) has been implemented to create greater competition. However, nothing will happen to Chelsea, PSG or even ourselves for that matter, and there are a couple of reasons why.
1) Losses Exclusions: Stadium infrastructure, youth and fixed assets do not count.
2) Player Transfer/Wages Amortization: The players’ wages and transfer fees equal to a yearly loss based on the contract that they have signed. Also, contracts signed prior to June 1, 2010 do not count.
3) Gaps in the UEFA license ban: If a club fails to show that it is sustainable and posts a negative loss below the FFP threshold they can escape a European ban. This can occur by two ways, i) by showing the trend of losses is improving; and ii) the over-spend is predominantly caused by the wages of players contracted prior to June 2010.
4) Allowed Loss: With an owner who is capable of contributing their wealth into balancing the financials, then the club is allowed to lose 45million per year over the monitoring period and not be punished.
Example – Manchester City:
2011/2012 reported loss – 97.9 mill
Stadium Infrastructure – 15 mill (excluded)
Wages (Prior June 1, 2010) – 80 mill (excluded)
Net Loss – 2.9 mill
Since we have a limit of negative 45 million, UEFA will view us as having a 42.1 million dollar profit.
Example – Player Transfer/Wages Amortization:
Take Sergio Aguero…
Transfer Fee: 35 million pounds
Wages: Say 200,000 pounds per wk (equals 10.4 mill per yr)
Contract: 5 years
Now, instead of adding the 35 million to our 11/12 losses, UEFA create an annual assessment (transfer fee/contract years). Therefore, the figure becomes: = (35,000,000/5) + 10,400,000 = 17.4 million
____
Hope I helped. Bottom line, City will not get punished, nor anyone else.
Two serious errors in the above:
They only do not count for season 2011-12's contribution to the first two monitoring periods (2 seasons for 2011-13 & 3 seasons for 2011-14). What is more they can only be discounted if a club fails to meet their target for the monitoring period...2) Player Transfer/Wages Amortization: The players’ wages and transfer fees equal to a yearly loss based on the contract that they have signed. Also, contracts signed prior to June 1, 2010 do not count.
The sum is €45m (Euros not Pounds) over the whole monitoring period - NOT per season.4) Allowed Loss: With an owner who is capable of contributing their wealth into balancing the financials, then the club is allowed to lose 45million per year over the monitoring period and not be punished.
Moreover it drops to €30m (Euros) for the third monitoring period (3 seasons from 2012-15 - i.e. the season just gone and the following 2 seasons).
LoveCity said:Here we go... watch your blood pressure people.
-
UEFA give Gill power to punish United's rivals... if they fall foul of financial fair play
By Ian Ladyman
PUBLISHED: 23:00, 17 June 2013 | UPDATED: 23:00, 17 June 2013
Former Manchester United chief executive David Gill has been handed power by UEFA to recommend bans on clubs such as rivals Manchester City and Chelsea, who may find themselves in breach of new European Financial Fair Play rules.
Having stepped down from his post at Old Trafford at the end of last season to become a UEFA executive member, Gill has now been appointed chairman of the governing body’s extremely influential Club Licensing Committee.
The committee essentially decides which clubs are entitled to licences to play Champions League and Europa League football. This will become increasingly important as UEFA’s FFP rules shape the landscape of European football in the coming years.
Gill is a known advocate of FFP and one of four Barclays Premier League chiefs who proposed similar rules be implemented in English domestic football back in January.
He said 18 months ago that the new European system would only work if ‘appropriate sanctions’ were imposed on those who missed the targets. Sanctions already discussed by UEFA president Michel Platini have included fines and, for severe offences, competition bans.
Gill’s appointment will certainly raise eyebrows at clubs such as City and Chelsea who are currently striving to ensure their losses are no greater than the 845million (£38m) limit allowed by FFP across last and next season.
Both clubs have been used to viewing Gill as a rival in recent years and it will not have escaped their attention that the 55-year-old is to remain a United director and board member, despite handing over the chief executive baton to Ed Woodward.
On Monday night, a UEFA spokeswoman confirmed that Gill’s committee will have an influence over whether clubs’ finances entitle them to play in major European competition.
This is despite that fact that the Club Financial Control Body will go through individual clubs’ finances initially to see if they meet the targets set by FFP. Gill will play no role in this part of the process.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2343384/UEFA-David-Gill-power-punish-Manchester-Uniteds-rivals-like-Chelsea-Manchester-City.html#ixzz2WVy7P3Uc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z2WVy7P3Uc</a>
Taggart; February 2013.'David has been a magnificent chief executive. Of course, we have had a million arguments, but I have always enjoyed them because I know that David has two great qualities: he is straight and he always puts Manchester United first.