New “UEFA Financial Sustainability” rules

[Roachy]

Hopefully United's proposed development of Old Trafford goes exactly like this. And then some! How funny would that be that they end up falling foul of these new rules?

Wouldn't surprise me if certain clubs are granted exemptions. Unlikely, but you get my drift.

 

[SilverFox2]

Hopefully United's proposed development of Old Trafford goes exactly like this. And then some! How funny would that be that they end up falling foul of these new rules?

No doubt Gov money will cover it.

 

[Taylor]

Wonder if this will hold up development of the North stand as its now accountable within FFP

I find it strange how they have altered their stance of this, surely the development of training grounds and stadiums can only be good for the game.

 

[jrb]

New infrastructure rules to make it harder and more expensive for clubs wanting to increase stadium capacity, and to improve their training facilities, if they are in UEFA competitions. What a strange rule change that is.

 

[GAZZA]

EUFA continually trying to raise the drawbridge on new money clubs like City, Newcastle & PSG, what they don't realise that City are already in there sat on the throne.

 

[KS55]

If only these rules had been in place before, Bury FC would not have gone bankrupt.

Oh, wait - it would have made fuck all difference. This is about protecting the Yankee Cartel.

A load of our smaller clubs have got into difficulty over the years, often thru rogue owners. Tbf, UEFA can’t be expected to police that level. It is up to the football league, the PL and the FA to protect the sustainability of the domestic game. Sadly they make no real effort to do so. Still farting about with regulator issues and so on. Where are the rule changes that would help? Derby just the latest example of an owner being allowed to separate club from stadium, the only real asset. Nearly did for them.

 

[whipper]

I take it then, that if these rules were in place in 2015. Liverpool would have failed FFP. With reference to the £50 million spent on ground improvement that didn't exsist.

 

[KS55]

Can you put a wee bit more meat on the bones please pal as I wasn’t aware of that?

Sorry, I can’t really. You need an expert, which I deffo am not!
Start by looking up PL new rules. Google is your friend.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

As far as I can tell, infrastructure costs are just a further repayment that the club has to cover on time.
If you can get the money, you can spend it.

The rules are apparently now largely against overdue payments, and that if in negative equity, that has to be reduced by 10% year on year.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

A load of our smaller clubs have got into difficulty over the years, often thru rogue owners. Tbf, UEFA can’t be expected to police that level. It is up to the football league, the PL and the FA to protect the sustainability of the domestic game. Sadly they make no real effort to do so. Still farting about with regulator issues and so on. Where are the rule changes that would help? Derby just the latest example of an owner being allowed to separate club from stadium, the only real asset. Nearly did for them.

Generally, I agree with you on this.
The regulations state what will happen if a club breaks the financial rules.

They can't actually stop the club breaking the rules or owners playing fast and loose, such as the stadium club/owner transfers that have happened a lot recently such as the Derby one you mention.