yea but he's hilarious so its OKpudge said:You should know, 'DaveTheYid' has decided to take the WUM approach now, after he was shown up for his "Falcao is on standby for Spurs" comment.Falastur said:DaveTheYid said:Wouldn't it be epic if City ended up signing him for £1mill and then selling him for £100million back to some club in the middle east under the ownership of Sheikh Mansour, That would wind up the financial fairplay freaks.
No it wouldn't. There's an important caveat in FFPR called "market value". In other words, if UEFA doesn't think any transaction - player transfer, sponsorship deal, etc etc - was set at a fair value, they have the right to determine what value they think it should have been roughly at, then take a proverbial tipex to our financial accounts and replace our figure with theirs. In other words, in your example, they'd just deduct £99m from the final revenue column in our books and laugh in our face about it.
Seriously, we need to stop acting like FFPR is an exercise in finding loop-holes. That's just going to make UEFA want to hurt us worse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Omar Abdulrahman
- Thread starter Akai
- Start date
FantasyIreland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 64,697
ManAD said:Omar Abdulrahman Twitter, or as they call him: Amooory
<a class="postlink" href="https://twitter.com/#!/3moory10/followers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://twitter.com/#!/3moory10/followers</a>
Thanks,now i'm fully up to speed........
mcfc-mark
Well-Known Member
Falastur said:DaveTheYid said:Wouldn't it be epic if City ended up signing him for £1mill and then selling him for £100million back to some club in the middle east under the ownership of Sheikh Mansour, That would wind up the financial fairplay freaks.
No it wouldn't. There's an important caveat in FFPR called "market value". In other words, if UEFA doesn't think any transaction - player transfer, sponsorship deal, etc etc - was set at a fair value, they have the right to determine what value they think it should have been roughly at, then take a proverbial tipex to our financial accounts and replace our figure with theirs. In other words, in your example, they'd just deduct £99m from the final revenue column in our books and laugh in our face about it.
Seriously, we need to stop acting like FFPR is an exercise in finding loop-holes. That's just going to make UEFA want to hurt us worse.
Out of curiosity, will this mean we won't be paying way over the odds for players in the future?
Roll On City
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 883
Incorrect, are you saying if we sell Kompany to Anzhi for £40m UEFA will deduct £34m because we bought him for £6m? I think not. They're no benchmark on players market valueFalastur said:DaveTheYid said:Wouldn't it be epic if City ended up signing him for £1mill and then selling him for £100million back to some club in the middle east under the ownership of Sheikh Mansour, That would wind up the financial fairplay freaks.
No it wouldn't. There's an important caveat in FFPR called "market value". In other words, if UEFA doesn't think any transaction - player transfer, sponsorship deal, etc etc - was set at a fair value, they have the right to determine what value they think it should have been roughly at, then take a proverbial tipex to our financial accounts and replace our figure with theirs. In other words, in your example, they'd just deduct £99m from the final revenue column in our books and laugh in our face about it.
Seriously, we need to stop acting like FFPR is an exercise in finding loop-holes. That's just going to make UEFA want to hurt us worse.
Roll On City
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 883
McFcMiKe7 said:What if we play a £100 million buy out clause in his contract?
Exactly, or the Ronaldo to Madrid for £80m
Rammyblues
Well-Known Member
DaveTheYid wrote:
Wouldn't it be epic if City ended up signing him for £1mill and then selling him for £100million back to some club in the middle east
And when have MCFC really made any sort of profit on a player you are talking Marwood here. More like be buy him for 10m then next year sell him for five. :-)
SkyBlueFlux
Well-Known Member
Roll On City said:Incorrect, are you saying if we sell Kompany to Anzhi for £40m UEFA will deduct £34m because we bought him for £6m? I think not. They're no benchmark on players market valueFalastur said:DaveTheYid said:Wouldn't it be epic if City ended up signing him for £1mill and then selling him for £100million back to some club in the middle east under the ownership of Sheikh Mansour, That would wind up the financial fairplay freaks.
No it wouldn't. There's an important caveat in FFPR called "market value". In other words, if UEFA doesn't think any transaction - player transfer, sponsorship deal, etc etc - was set at a fair value, they have the right to determine what value they think it should have been roughly at, then take a proverbial tipex to our financial accounts and replace our figure with theirs. In other words, in your example, they'd just deduct £99m from the final revenue column in our books and laugh in our face about it.
Seriously, we need to stop acting like FFPR is an exercise in finding loop-holes. That's just going to make UEFA want to hurt us worse.
No, Falastur is correct. There are benchmarks. They wouldn't just take his value as £6m. It doesn't go by the amount you originally sign the player for, it goes by similar transactions in the market. Your example isn't very good because Kompany is obviously considered a high quality player, has been developing for several years since we bought him and £40m is not an overly extortionate price at the top end of the market.
Furthermore the 'fair value' rule only comes into use if the transaction is between related parties. The criteria for 'related parties' is complicated in itself, but generally involves having people on the boards of both companies.
It goes like this:
1. UEFA investigate whether parties involved are related.
2. If yes, UEFA decide whether the price paid corresponds to similar transactions in the market place.
3. If not, UEFA state what the precedent of value is, and deduct the difference from our accounts.
So we couldn't sell Santa Cruz to Al Jazira for £100m because UEFA would see that the Sheikh owns both clubs, so the parties are related. They would see the disparity in his appearances and his value, they would investigate as to what a fair value would be based on the precedent of people sold with similar experience/injury records/achievements, and then come to a value.
People coming up with these overly simplistic loop holes have clearly not read the rules.