How will we work within platini's rules?

[swinton blue]

that is why city are trying to buy these young world class players know so if these rules do come in we will only have to tinker with the squad maybe buy one or two every year hence operating in our means

 

[whipper]

Manchester City have little to fear from new UEFA rules aimed at reining in the excesses of football’s reckless spenders.

The Blues have been seen, in some quarters, as prime targets for the new rules, which were rubberstamped by the European governing body on Thursday and will be phased in gradually between 2012 and 2020.

The rules will basically exclude from European competition any clubs who fail to live within their means, although they will be given time to bring their spending under control.

<a class="postlink" href="http://menmedia.co.uk/sport/football/manchester_city/s/1241434_city_set_for_uefa_finance_rule_change" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://menmedia.co.uk/sport/football/ma ... ule_change</a>

So it might not be as bad as we thought.

 

[sylar]

Fook Platinni and Fook UEFA..............ok so we wont be aloud in europe but how long could UEFA stand the pressure of not having the Premier League Champs in their best competition year after year?????








i know we aint won it yet but if we keep spending on top players we will win it.......

 

[Cobwebcat]

Ironically,the new rules were altered from being based on debt to protect the big boys (who are in debt) and penalise us. I read on another thread that Damocles said this rule wasn't aimed specifically at us....but it is and clubs like us and Platini even named us.

The way around it is simplicity itself....copy the big boys. We take out a huge loan to pay our player's wages and fund transfers. As long as ourturnover covers the interest on the loan then we haven't broken any rules. Every now and again we clear the whole debt and get a slap on the wrist. I'm sure our guys know a bank or two with very low interest rates.

Not ideal but is shows you how easy it is to get around and also how it encourages debt...the one thing they say the are trying to avoid. The truth is they want to protect the big clubs against the nouveau riche like us. They can't....it's too late...we are here...the cosy cartel is over...deal with it Platini.

 

[Kinky by name]

Manchester City have little to fear from new UEFA rules aimed at reining in the excesses of football’s reckless spenders.

The Blues have been seen, in some quarters, as prime targets for the new rules, which were rubberstamped by the European governing body on Thursday and will be phased in gradually between 2012 and 2020.

The rules will basically exclude from European competition any clubs who fail to live within their means, although they will be given time to bring their spending under control.

They are the brainchild of UEFA president Michel Platini, who has declared war on wealthy club owners who he believes are ruining the game through overspending and running up debt.

City made a £92.6m loss in 2008-09, the highest in the Premier League, even before they embarked on last summer’s £117.5m player spree.

If they were to do that in two years’ time they would, on the face of it, be threatened with exclusion from European competition.

They would also fall foul of Premier League rules, which are expected to follow UEFA’s example. But football finance expert Dr Rory Miller, of Liverpool University, says that City have far less to fear from the initiative than others in thePremier League.

“The two key things which UEFA are targeting are clubs who carry debt, and those that are not living within their means,” he said.

“As far as I can see, they are not against people coming in to buy clubs, as long as they are not loading it with debt.”

Investment

City owner Sheikh Mansour has already wiped out the £304.9m debt at City by converting his loans to the club into equity, or shares in the club.

The Blues are also gearing up to ensure the club will be able to stand on its own two feet by the time the new rules are in full swing. The vast, ongoing investment into the club aims to make sure that they are able to compete with Europe’s best on the field, and to be a global entity and a club of real substance off it.

The £1bn plans to re-develop the entire Eastlands site, possibly increasing stadium capacity to 60,000, aims to maximise revenue – and the average five per cent ticket price rises this summer are part of the strategy of ensuring the club will eventually pay for itself.

“As the rules stand, if you buy a club and put in new equity and finance, that is fine,” said Dr Miller.

“If you buy a club and then take out debt to improve facilities or build a new stadium, Uefa don’t have a problem.

“But if you are a club which runs persistent losses, financed by borrowing, there is a problem. When you get the kind of plans City have for developing the area around Eastlands, I don’t think UEFA would want to be seen trying to stop such investment in a socially-deprived area. It’s not what they are about.

“They do have a problem with owners who buy success without making a financial commitment, in terms of expanding the equity of the club.”

The new rules will start to come into force in 2012-13. For three seasons, club owners will still be able to subsidise total losses of £38m, and for three years after that the figure will be scaled down to £26m.

UEFA hopes to eventually scale down the level of subsidy to zero, meaning every club will have to live within its means.

The governing body still has to figure out how it can plug loopholes.

It would be difficult, for instance, to police sponsorship deals with companies linked to the owners, or other ways of pumping money into a club indirectly.

 

[fbloke]

I have likely read up on this as much as anyone and I am not worried in the slightest.

In fact it is now for Platini and UEFA to prove 'market value' for transactions and that is simply and plainly a subjective judgment. And they dont have any value in a court of law or in rules of associations.

If and thats as big an if as money can buy they say a single sponsorship deal cannot be more than £80m in value then how many of those would be signed by companies with arms length involvement with the Sheikh?

So rather than one £200m a year deal you get 10 x £20m per year deals which next year, upon success of the team are then worth £40m each.

So there you go, its all bollocks.

What the world sees is a warning on spending aimed at excess in terms of debt that had to at least try to include clubs like City and Chelsea as well as the Russian clubs propped up by the likes of Gazprom.

What should be of interest to all of us though is a Premiership vote being taken on introducing a rule aimed at

*Limiting the amount clubs can borrow to 25% of their income;

Oh dear that would cause a few clubs a concern wouldnt it.

 

[rastus]

deffo not, platini's rules are clear - there can be no artificial income, no false sponsorship and the clubs will basically be audited to ensure no cheating - hence those with massive incomes (real, barca, scum etc) are favoured over those with benevolent owners (City, chelsea etc)

I doubt if Real Madrid would welcome too much scrutiny of their accounts unless they were presented as an entry for the Booker prize for fiction.

As for the arguments about 'market value' with respect to sponsorships then you are in the area of defining 'market value' and what constitutes 'market value' and legal challenges to this etc etc.

Trying to get costs under control is a worthy goal and I suspect that all clubs including City and even Real would welcome something that reduced costs however these rules will at some stage be 'flexible' ie the first year that a club like Real finds itself in breach of some of the rules and potentially barred from UEFA competition. UEFA is never going to bar a club like Real in a month of Sundays so they start being 'flexible' and everyone - well everyone with financial muscle - will just take the bits they like and 'work round' the bits they don't.

Incidentally Khaldoon is on record saying that the current European model for football is not sustainable so they will not be opposed as such given they are not going to sanction huge transfer spends every summer and would ultimately welcome reduced spending on wages etc.

Platini has to be careful, the Rags only made a profit through the sale of Tranny. I would assume the sale of Wooney would only put them in a +£ this financial year.
So if you exclude Us, Rags, chelski, Liv, Real, Milan and other top clubs that potentially won their respective leagues, you couldnt call it the Champions League.
It would certainly lose its appeal and generate less income and I would imagine those clubs excluded would creat a new competition which could include the real champions of England, Italy, Spain and possibly other continents.
Fack me Im quite looking forward to it.....do one twatini, if clubs go under then so be it, we dont need a nanny football state, look at the Euro.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Ironically,the new rules were altered from being based on debt to protect the big boys (who are in debt) and penalise us. I read on another thread that Damocles said this rule wasn't aimed specifically at us....but it is and clubs like us and Platini even named us.

The way around it is simplicity itself....copy the big boys. We take out a huge loan to pay our player's wages and fund transfers. As long as ourturnover covers the interest on the loan then we haven't broken any rules. Every now and again we clear the whole debt and get a slap on the wrist. I'm sure our guys know a bank or two with very low interest rates.

Not ideal but is shows you how easy it is to get around and also how it encourages debt...the one thing they say the are trying to avoid. The truth is they want to protect the big clubs against the nouveau riche like us. They can't....it's too late...we are here...the cosy cartel is over...deal with it Platini.

Fantastic post, you are right, it is ridiculous irony that by going in to debt to fund on going transfers / wages we would be seen to be operating within the "Financial Fair Play" rules. However, if we use sovereign wealth and pump all that extra cash in to the game, that would be considered against the rules. Bonkers

 

[EalingBlue2]

False Sponsorship?

If we were for example sponsored by Etihad for 15m a year and Etihad is an entirely separate entity (not owned and run by mansour but by the sovereign funds) do you honestly think that Platini is going to accuse the leaders of Abu Dhabi or lying and being corrupt? Do you honestly think UEFA rules will be able to prove anything. Not in a million years.

The fact is by then we can and should be able to up our "sponsorship" by 10m a season, other income by 10m, Champs league money 30m and matchday revenue by 10m or so.

So if we buy players in the next two years and then become player expenditure neutral, get income as above and have no debt we can easily meet the rules and still have money left over if we want to buy.

Getting sponsorship, corporates etc from the Emirates will be legit and will get money in if we want it.

The idea that UEFA would accuse a sovereign government and one of the richest in the world of "corruption" is laughable!

It really is not an issue. As someone else pointed out you can easily buy up massively in players up to the starting point and then make your sales afterwards, that way in year one you can start 30 or 40m up. That then means you have 80m to play with over 3 years.

 

[bcliffe145]

Are TV rights included in this??