New “UEFA Financial Sustainability” rules

[SWP's back]

So these are coming in to replace the old FFP.

Swiss Ramble, as always, has a fantastic (long) thread on them:



Tl;dr - we should be absolutely fine although it’s notable that the “fair market value” rule applies to all deals, not just related party transactions going forward although I think that will hamper Newcastle more than City these days.

 

[Betterdeedthan red]

Is it still OK to be 600 million in debt

 

[richards30]

Is it still OK to be 600 million in debt

yes of course! especially if you are part of the old cartel ;-)

 

[JASR]

The bottom tweet

Caught my eye.

I think it indicates that investing money in infrastructure isn’t ‘free’ anymore - ie it’s part of expenditure calculation for sustainability, rather than separate.

To me, that would seem to make infrastructure investment less attractive - ie if you haven’t got a decent academy, a state of the art stadium, training facilities and offices already… you are unlikely to be chucking wodges of cash at it?

So if you’ve got all those covered - which is almost all the top clubs, then it’s another drawbridge to any other club joining the ‘cartel’. A notable exception would seem to be United…

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

So these are coming in to replace the old FFP.

Swiss Ramble, as always, has a fantastic (long) thread on them:



Tl;dr - we should be absolutely fine although it’s notable that the “fair market value” rule applies to all deals, not just related party transactions going forward although I think that will hamper Newcastle more than City these days.

Fail to see how the 'fair value' thing can ever stand up to be honest.

This is quite a high level opinion, but if say United have 659m fans (or what they deemed to be 'fans' upon that count about 20 years ago), and we share a pitch with them at least twice a season with the same sets of eyes viewing the same pitch, how can it be proven that our sponsors do not realise the same level of commercial exposure?

Each and every time said fan base looks at the league table and counts how many points and places they are below us, they are still seeing that City are currently miles ahead of them in terms of performance. Effectively all associated sponsors are guilty by proxy of contributing to a well run and successful organisation.

What am I missing?

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

The bottom tweet

Caught my eye.

I think it indicates that investing money in infrastructure isn’t ‘free’ anymore - ie it’s part of expenditure calculation for sustainability, rather than separate.

To me, that would seem to make infrastructure investment less attractive - ie if you haven’t got a decent academy, a state of the art stadium, training facilities and offices already… you are unlikely to be chucking wodges of cash at it?

So if you’ve got all those covered - which is almost all the top clubs, then it’s another drawbridge to any other club joining the ‘cartel’. A notable exception would seem to be United…

That's going to hamstring Rags quite a bit isn't it!?!

Edit : apologies you have covered that with your last statement........ :-)

 

[dario2739]

Fail to see how the 'fair value' thing can ever stand up to be honest.

This is quite a high level opinion, but if say United have 659m fans (or what they deemed to be 'fans' upon that count about 20 years ago), and we share a pitch with them at least twice a season with the same sets of eyes viewing the same pitch, how can it be proven that our sponsors do not realise the same level of commercial exposure?

Each and every time said fan base looks at the league table and counts how many points and places they are below us, they are still seeing that City are currently miles ahead of them in terms of performance. Effectively all associated sponsors are guilty by proxy of contributing to well run and successful organisation.

What am I missing?

As I see it we've played damn near every game it is possible for a PL team to play in the last 5yrs or so... getting to finals/semi finals... therefore we have been featured on TV and in the media more than nearly every team in the PL, which means our sponsors have certainly had 'bang for their buck'!
Add to that, the negative posts on social media actually work for us too – the bitter opposition fans whinging about us means that City are featured massively on social media - every time one of these numpties post a picture of a blue, that's more exposure for Etihad for example.
'Fair Value' will be very hard to enforce (unless it's stupidly over-the-top) and I can see legal challenges coming from it.

 

[East Level 2]

Why not just say Senor Teabag has to approve all expenditure.

 

[waspish]

Sorry if you have the money you should be able to spend as much as you want on infrastructure!

Also if FSG or the Glazers are good friends with a big American company it’s fine if they get sponsored above market value! Like the Liverpool’s first shirt sponsors there best offer at the time was 16m in the end they got one for 24m!

 

[KS55]

The bottom tweet

Caught my eye.

I think it indicates that investing money in infrastructure isn’t ‘free’ anymore - ie it’s part of expenditure calculation for sustainability, rather than separate.

To me, that would seem to make infrastructure investment less attractive - ie if you haven’t got a decent academy, a state of the art stadium, training facilities and offices already… you are unlikely to be chucking wodges of cash at it?

So if you’ve got all those covered - which is almost all the top clubs, then it’s another drawbridge to any other club joining the ‘cartel’. A notable exception would seem to be United…

This is a nonsensical rule. If you spend money on stadium improvements, safety etc you are effectively penalised!!!?