New “UEFA Financial Sustainability” rules

[Cobwebcat]

I’ve just read Swiss Ramble’s twitter summary.

Im far from an expert but understood two thirds of it so it’s worth a read.

The bottom line for me is if you are already rich you will mostly be fine but if you aren’t you'll struggle more.

From our point of view I think we are OK and some of the changes actually benefit us.It could have been a lot worse.

UEFA cannot come up with a rule now that hits us but not the history clubs. It’s pretty much too late to stop us but not others.

It makes more sense than FFP which isn’t saying much I know.

 

[RP2]

I thought football was supposed to be encouraging youth and womens football?
These rules will cause investment in these areas to drop, again, and some teams may drop their womens team all together (or drop plans to introduce one)

 

[M12Blue]

I thought football was supposed to be encouraging youth and womens football?
These rules will cause investment in these areas to drop, again, and some teams may drop their womens team all together (or drop plans to introduce one)

I would imagine a U-turn on this once UEFA boffins have sobered up

 

[I'm With Stupid]

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.

Well yeah, Bayern's commercial arrangements are none of our business, until they start making our commercial arrangements their business, then there are legitimate questions to ask about what counts as a 'related party.' In fact, the existence of clubs like Bayern was probably the main reason why this could never realistically be enforced and they've had to scrap it.

 

[Blue Maverick]

Womens game will disappear, teams can use that money for other things.

 

[wolviedinho]

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.

Can you name a club that has benefited from building a world class training complex? City make a fortune from the academy. Now it’s not allowed. No transparency needed.

 

[SWP's back]

Can you name a club that has benefited from building a world class training complex? City make a fortune from the academy. Now it’s not allowed. No transparency needed.

It is allowed and it won’t affect us.

Come on lads, these rules are much more watered down than ffp and won’t be an issue.

 

[chaddblue]

Yep… get that drawbridge pulled up. Don’t want anyone else joining the cartel money machine.
Newcastle also, I think - I don’t know on their present infrastructure

Everton are committed to spending hundreds of millions on a new stadium and are making huge losses at the same time

 

[bobmcfc]

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?

Especially when Spanish clubs are placing 1 bilion euro release clauses on players contracts

 

[Centurions]

I realise that, but it means I rely on someone else to post them in the first place.

Try https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1541305051976695808.html instead.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I’ve just read Swiss Ramble’s twitter summary.

Im far from an expert but understood two thirds of it so it’s worth a read.

The bottom line for me is if you are already rich you will mostly be fine but if you aren’t you'll struggle more.

From our point of view I think we are OK and some of the changes actually benefit us.It could have been a lot worse.

UEFA cannot come up with a rule now that hits us but not the history clubs. It’s pretty much too late to stop us but not others.

It makes more sense than FFP which isn’t saying much I know.

Yeah - FFPv1 was designed to hit the new rich but was starting to hit the establishment clubs who had hit hard times.

This is a bit more reasonable although still totally ignores debt. I doubt they will every go after debt as it has implications for the value of clubs. The type of deal the rags have suffered is wide placed in the world of business. If you own a business you dont want to agree to rules that limit potential buyers. Its a bit like owning a house and agreeing along with your neighbours you wont ever sell to someone who needs a mortgage. Its only going to reduce the value of houses in the street. So they will never materially limit the ability to load clubs with debt.

 

[mrsprkl]

So whats this new shit rules that certain teams are gonna exploit anyway?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Good excuse to never freeze ticket prices ever again.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Ah, got it now. Thanks.
I think the losses allowance will help us in developing the business. A bit close on wages.

And the academy should help us with keeping in line with the "wages" rule.

I'm not that worried about any of this as far as City are concerned, tbh.

The only thing I would say is that some flexibility from UEFA is required on the "wages" thing. It's conceivable a club can plan players and wages to compete in the CL every year, but then miss out for one year. The "wages" ratio would shoot up, FFP failed, sanctions, screwed completely. Becomes a bit like Russian roulette.

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

I thought football was supposed to be encouraging youth and womens football?
These rules will cause investment in these areas to drop, again, and some teams may drop their womens team all together (or drop plans to introduce one)

How fucking short sighted is that!?!

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Having read a bit more. Look at the implications for different clubs and ability to pay wages. As per these table. The percentage is key and has to come down to 70%. Arsenal look bad at 93% but then look at the big European clubs...

 

[JASR]

And the academy should help us with keeping in line with the "wages" rule.

I'm not that worried about any of this as far as City are concerned, tbh.

The only thing I would say is that some flexibility from UEFA is required on the "wages" thing. It's conceivable a club can plan players and wages to compete in the CL every year, but then miss out for one year. The "wages" ratio would shoot up, FFP failed, sanctions, screwed completely. Becomes a bit like Russian roulette.

Man United nods and waves vigorously

 

[Blueknows]

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

good for us not so good for the rags and their crumbling shithouse

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

It is allowed and it won’t affect us.

Come on lads, these rules are much more watered down than ffp and won’t be an issue.

Accepting that I am paranoid about UEFA and their love for their favoured clubs, but I expect a shafting from the cunts at every given opportunity.

Not being seriously affected would be a massive change for us,

 

[abu13]

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

The Rags are in the shit big time with this, the whole stadium is outdated and needs shitloads spending on it.