How will we work within platini's rules?

[samharris]

Would a huge sponsorship deal say 150 million per annum put us in debt...er no, so why are they talking of limiting sponsorship deals if they deem them excessive....??

It stinks..

One way to get money is like this and Im sure it would be legal..

we put 10 players age roughly 17/18 from abu dahbi on our books..we then loan 5 of these players for 6 months say 15 million each thats 75 million to an abu dahbi club with affiliation to the sheikh..then at the end of the 6 month loan they are then sold to that team in abu dahbi with affilliation to the sheikh for say 15 million each or more if required..that would then bring in 150 million of transfer and loan money...which if im right is perfectly legal.. we then add another 5 to the books and start again..

If carlsberg did loans and transfers !!

 

[Rammyblues]

Five years away, our owner is top notch businessman who is extremely wealthy, they will have had every lawyer, accountant pouring over this legislation, we will be OK about this and nothing to worry about IMO.

 

[Royal Blue Moon]

Why don't they just come clean and make the rules state that a club must have won a minimum of 3 European Cups and ideally feature red as a predominant colour somewhere in their kit or else wear all white? Status Quo preservation is clearly, so stinkingly obviously, the goal here.

 

[CBlue]

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.

This makes no sense - our owners have converted the debt to equity - financing equity is a lot cheaper than financing debt - I'm not sure there is any bank that could match an interest rate of 0%. You would only take out debt to pay players wages as a temporary measure due to cash flow issues - no bank in their right mind would give you a loan to continually pay wages. The rags could clear their debt tomorrow by offering the bank a share in the ownership (i.e. equity).
The issue with these new rules are that they change the old addage "build it & they will come" to "the fans have to come before we can build it & when they do we have to do it very gradually". I believe clubs write off the investment of a player over the term of their contract i.e. if we bought a player for 40m & paid him 10m a year on a four year contract then it would cost us 20m a year in "wages". If we were operating at breakeven before purchasing then we would need to generate a further 20m+ a year in new revenues to stay onside of these new rules. Now try & build a team to compete in the CL over a short period of time with these new rules - it is practically impossible. Plus, which star players are going to join if it is going to take 5 -10 years to build a team to compete.
How it is financed doesn't come into the equation other than interest costs.<br /><br />-- Fri May 28, 2010 11:56 am --<br /><br />

There is no law, British, European, Global or otherwise that limits the amount of money an individual or group can invest into a private business. If there was the world would fall apart.

If UEFA try to stop any club owner from doing so they will be taken to court and they will lose. Instead of the Bosman rule, there will be the Mansour/Abramovich rule.

Capitalism is bigger than Platini.

I think you miss the point. Any investor can continue to plough whatever they like into a club - UEFA have only said that to enter THEIR competition (which isn't compulsary - ask Portsmouth, they didn't apply this year) then you must satisfy certain rules. Think of it as trying to enter a nightclub where jeans are not allowed - they can refuse you entry but it doesn't mean that you can't continue to wear jeans.

 

[Blue Haze]

IMO, I'm starting to think His Highness and Mr Khaldoon aren't concerned with these rules. Not because there are loopholes, but because so many other clubs are worse off. What's the worst that can realistically happen to us? We lose out on Euro football?

What about Liverpool? Even with Euro football they are on te verge of administration. Without Euro money they might be, or worse, they are liquidated. Imagine the shitstorm Platini will face if his rules cause a major team to die. And they aren't the only ones. How would Real survive without Euro football? Man U would be utterly screwed.

If this happened, Platini would not only be fired, but crazy hooligans might attack him. These people riot after a game is lost, what do you think they'll do if he gets them sent into administration?

 

[Ducado]

It's far enough away for most clubs to not even think about, it's a very French solution, and in my opinion will not happen, if he tries it for real I expect it to go to court

 

[fbloke]

It's far enough away for most clubs to not even think about, it's a very French solution, and in my opinion will not happen, if he tries it for real I expect it to go to court

It will fail its first test as, as far as we know, the market test is based on the opinion of a committee or at least an elite group of individuals representing the interests of 'fair play'.

Almost every club on the planet needs to raise money from companies who desire the brand association.

City, I believe uniquely in world football, are owned by a member of a ruling family of such astronomical wealth and economic power that it cannot be imagined and as such (however it is arranged) has influence over the very same companies and even over the decisions made by governments.

How can a few men in suits even imagine what a market value for access to such a ruling family is worth?

Is it worth BP spending £250m over 3 years sponsoring City if it gains them a foothold in Abu Dhabi? But the market test is likely to be the value for other Premier League clubs of similar sized attendances!

How does that test stand up in terms of relevance in an open, capitalist marketplace?

I will let you all imagine the issues UEFA will open itself up to if it tries to argue its case there.

It seems to me that the only club this wont affect is the very club it was supposed to.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Tend to agree fBloke can't see how it could possibly be enforced or even argued with us. All the companies would be arms length from Abu Dhabi and UEFA would never try and say otherwise.

There are a million ways to get round it none of which UEFA would dare challenge and none of which would really transgress the rules.

Also what is to stop deals between clubs Abramovich offers to sponsor Shaktar DOnetsk through one of this companies for 30m a year and it just happens Shakhtars owner sponsores Zenith SP and that Zenits owner sponsors chelsea through his company. What is to stop companies in Russia through companies in the Caymans doing X Y and Z.

The worlds governments and tax authorities can't with the might of hundreds of thousands of laws, judges and tax agents get many millionaires to pay any tax so what hope have a couple of UEFA amateurs got against a multi billionaire backed by a state!

It is a joke based on looking like they are doing something, a bit like pissing on the great fire of London or scooping water out of the titanic with an egg cup!

 

[CBlue]

It's far enough away for most clubs to not even think about, it's a very French solution, and in my opinion will not happen, if he tries it for real I expect it to go to court

It will fail its first test as, as far as we know, the market test is based on the opinion of a committee or at least an elite group of individuals representing the interests of 'fair play'.

Almost every club on the planet needs to raise money from companies who desire the brand association.

City, I believe uniquely in world football, are owned by a member of a ruling family of such astronomical wealth and economic power that it cannot be imagined and as such (however it is arranged) has influence over the very same companies and even over the decisions made by governments.

How can a few men in suits even imagine what a market value for access to such a ruling family is worth?

Is it worth BP spending £250m over 3 years sponsoring City if it gains them a foothold in Abu Dhabi? But the market test is likely to be the value for other Premier League clubs of similar sized attendances!

How does that test stand up in terms of relevance in an open, capitalist marketplace?

I will let you all imagine the issues UEFA will open itself up to if it tries to argue its case there.

It seems to me that the only club this wont affect is the very club it was supposed to.

Again, I believe you are missing the point. There are no rules (other than maybe M&A rules that certainly aren't an issue here) that prevents our owners from investing as much as they like into our club. The issue are the rules that allow entry into someone else's competition (taken to the extreme - why aren't City allowed to enter the FIFA world cup?). UEFA are at liberty to impose any entry rules that they see fit - they don't prevent us from spending billions of pounds on players or infratructure or receiving billions of pounds in sponsorship deals etc - but these rules may prevent us from participating in the CL or Europa League (which isn't compulsory)!

 

[EalingBlue2]

The second they stop a big big club with top players going in is the second that they split world football and if they did this the loss to FIFA and UEFA would be control of the world game, they would never let this happen.

There is also the fact that any club could go to arbitration and if this happened this becomes far more law based and they would almost certainly lose.

Look at UEFA's transfer bans all huff and puff and the second they are challenged by any material club they lose and shut up.

They will be impotent in the face of powerful Premier League clubs absolutely impotent. The Champs League would be tarnished and the sponsorship and TV deals that bring the money would plummet, they would never ever kick out a team who finished high in a powerful league

Not worth getting knickers in a twist about!