New “UEFA Financial Sustainability” rules

manimanc said:
So to a thicko like myself, what are the new rules saying if anybody would like to simplify it?
Click to expand...
You’ll only be able to spend 70% of your turnover (plus profit on player trading) on player salaries, coaches salaries and amortised transfer fees.

Basically most of the Big Six will piss the new rules but Italy, PSG and Barca may struggle. Germany and Madrid should be fine.

The previous ffp 30m euros allowance to go over the limit in a 3 year period also rises now to 90m euros so long as it’s equity investment from owner (not loan) AND the club is deemed in good financial health.

It seems less draconian than previous rules and still does fuck all about debt so long as the repayments are made.
 
waspish said:
If a club can pay the monthly fee within ffp old rules it was fine how does this differ? If you borrow 500m over 10 years and the payments are with ffp Isn’t that fine?
Click to expand...
Loans only effect cash flow. So if we buy a player for £100m on a 5 year contract. That’s amortised at £20m per year in the accounts. Doesn’t matter whether we had the money in cash or got a loan from HSBC or HRH Mansour.

Obviously interest on loans does go in the expenditure column though.
 
SWP's back said:
You’ll only be able to spend 70% of your turnover (plus profit on player trading) on player salaries, coaches salaries and amortised transfer fees.

Basically most of the Big Six will piss the new rules but Italy, PSG and Barca may struggle. Germany and Madrid should be fine.

The 30m euros allowance to go over the downs in a 3 year period also rises now to 90m euros.

It seems less draconian than previous rules and still does fuck all about debt so long as the repayments are made.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that mate.

Like you say they've turned a blind eye to the clubs in debt.
 
manimanc said:
Thanks for that mate.

Like you say they've turned a blind eye to the clubs in debt.
Click to expand...
Thing is, debt is pretty much irrelevant for big cash cow clubs. Like a footballer buying a £5m house with a mortgage (which they do as I’ve done a few). That mortgage is huge and expensive (for you and me) but their income is also huge so it’s not an issue.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Never mind that. What about all of the German corporations that hold shares in clubs they sponsor? Bayern Munich have the highest commercial income in the whole of football. Are we really supposed to believe that they're the most valuable team in the world to sponsors?
Click to expand...
No we don’t have to believe that. The point is that the three companies that own a slice of Bayern and sponsor them have decided that the arrangement and the costs are commercially advantageous to them. No outsider should be allowed to interfere with freely entered into contracts on some dodgy subjective grounds. Of course in Bayern’s case, UEFA wont interfere as they are a G14 club. But they will try with City! It is the difference in treatment by UEFA that is objectionable, not Bayern’s commercial set up.
PS I posted elsewhere that we should cultivate Ceferin and this is a good reason to do so. He has lost patience with Teabag and frivolous complaints.
 
Last edited:
The concept of not being able to freely invest on infrastructure e.g training facilities (which helps clubs become more sustainable) seems completely at odds of the phrase "UEFA Financial Sustainability"
 
I presume the infrastructure thing will fuck Chelsea, Spurs, United and Liverpool more than us, their planned redevelopments or the ones they are already paying for will now directly affect FFP calcs.

Our training ground and Stadium is developed and paid for already, North Stand excluded.

The Youth Development thing is a worry though, seem to have been coining it in recently.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Never mind that. What about all of the German corporations that hold shares in clubs they sponsor? Bayern Munich have the highest commercial income in the whole of football. Are we really supposed to believe that they're the most valuable team in the world to sponsors?
Click to expand...
And how that is somehow different to say sponsorship to us from the UAE..........
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC1
mattcity5 said:
Agree.

The bit that concerns me though is in the top tweet you posted. "if a club is deemed to be in good financial health... etc".

Who gets to decide that? Why do they get more allowance?

Rules with blurred lines can be used a multitude of ways.
Click to expand...
Interesting isn't it. How do they quantify good financial health? That has to be underpinned by accountable measures surely. If not, I can imagine some clubs would be licking their lips.
 
One point to note on infrastructure spending.

It is still a Profit/Loss calculation. So if you spend £100m on a stadium and add a £100m asset to the books the loss is £0. So no impact.

The issue as i see it is the risk of these projects, typically these big projects go wrong and you have to write of chunks of the value eventually. So you spend £150m as the first estimate was wrong - you add a £150 asset to the books but down the line you have to come clean that the asset is only worth £100m. That £50m write off is what will get you. All big infrastructure projects go like this.
 
willipp said:
Suprised at the infrastructure element. United and Barca spring to mind who have stadiums falling to pieces and need massive amounts spent on them. How can any club effectively build new stands / stadiums if that cost counts towards FFP? No suprise this comes just as Madrid are finishing off their billion pound upgrade of their stadium.
Click to expand...
It's not the capital cost of the infrastructure that gets added back under the current FFP rules, but the depreciation once it's recorded as a fixed asset.

So if united spend £750m on a new stadium (or the complete redevelopment of OT) there will be two costs that hit the P&L account. One is the depreciation, which might be over 50 years, so £15m per annum, plus they'll have to borrow the money, which will incur interest.
 
A bit of a spanner in the NS expansion. Arrrgh!

Won't stop it.

United are f*cked for a new stadium.

Back to a sticking plaster on OT.

Real Madrid have timed the redevelopment of the Bernabéu perfectly.
 
manimanc said:
Thanks for that mate.

Like you say they've turned a blind eye to the clubs in debt.
Click to expand...

I think what they've done is turned a blind eye to existing debt - that would be impossible to put in.

What Swiss Ramble seems to say (to me, anyway!) is that INCREASE in debt will be monitored. It specifically says somewhere that injecting equity is viewed better than loans now, as it aids solvency. That seems quite reasonable, once they identify the starting point to review change.

Having a big debt which is properly dealt with isn't really a problem - Spurs have a huge debt because they built a stadium, but they do seem to have a plan in place for it.

Wasn't this year's figures for City misleadingly high due to the shuffling over Covid seasons? I don't know how much that might cause some awkwardness.
 
KS55 said:
No we don’t have to believe that. The point is that the three companies that own a slice of Bayern and sponsor them have decided that the arrangement and the costs are commercially advantageous to them. No outsider should be allowed to interfere with freely entered into contracts on some dodgy subjective grounds. Of course in Bayern’s case, UEFA wont interfere as they are a G14 club. But they will try with City! It is the difference in treatment by UEFA that is objectionable, not Bayern’s commercial set up.
PS I posted elsewhere that we should cultivate Ceferin and this is a good reason to do so. He has lost patience with Teabag and frivolous complaints.
Click to expand...
Understand what you’re saying but why haven’t any of the other countries highlighted Bayern’s related party situation- it must have had a bearing on our situation when we were fighting UEFA
 
Gaudion M said:
One point to note on infrastructure spending.

It is still a Profit/Loss calculation. So if you spend £100m on a stadium and add a £100m asset to the books the loss is £0. So no impact.

The issue as i see it is the risk of these projects, typically these big projects go wrong and you have to write of chunks of the value eventually. So you spend £150m as the first estimate was wrong - you add a £150 asset to the books but down the line you have to come clean that the asset is only worth £100m. That £50m write off is what will get you. All big infrastructure projects go like this.
Click to expand...
Provided that UEFA rules allow this calculation. No idea if they do.
 
SWP's back said:
You’ll only be able to spend 70% of your turnover (plus profit on player trading) on player salaries, coaches salaries and amortised transfer fees.
Click to expand...
I reckon that situations like we have with Sterling, or had with Milner, where players wind down their contracts looking to move on a free, will be less frequent under the new rules. Any player refusing to sign a new contract with 2 years left on their existing contract will be forced out in my opinion.
 
SWP's back said:
It specifically states that the calculation is for [MENS] player salaries, transfer amortisation and the coaches salaries.

The women’s team don’t factor in the calculation.

Honestly, just click my first link and follow the thread as it will save you asking a lot of questions. You don’t need an account to do so.
Click to expand...
I thought Ramble said somewhere that spend on womens football was included.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top