Serious question relating to us and FFP(update P17)

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

Has anyone gone through the accounts of clubs like Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers etc.

I recall Leeds in particular running at pretty small losses but large debt. And were reliant on getting in the champions league to stay out of trouble.

By the time they missed out on CL they were in the shit. But I've got a feeling that they would have passed current FFP rules until it was too late.

Too much talk IMO about FFP stopping another Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers etc. I'm not sure it would.

It would insofar as the barriers to entry that FFP provides would prevent anyone of sane mind even attempting to do a Leeds, or more to the point, a City.

In that sense proponents of FFP will quite possibly be able to disengenuously claim it to be a success, especially with all the new TV money coming into the game.

It is a classic tactic used by those who seek to deceive. Make a claim about a by-product of your actual plan, which you know will come to fruition (for you to point to when it does) to mask your real motives.

 

[moomba]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

The thing with Leeds is that as long as they stayed in the champions league they would have been within the confines of FFP.

They effectively rolled the dice on staying in the top 4. Once they dropped out of the top 4 their problems became clear, but it was too late by then.

So I'm not convinced FFP would have stopped a Leeds.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

The thing with Leeds is that as long as they stayed in the champions league they would have been within the confines of FFP.

They effectively rolled the dice on staying in the top 4. Once they dropped out of the top 4 their problems became clear, but it was too late by then.

So I'm not convinced FFP would have stopped a Leeds.

My point is that it would now as no-one would take that risk anymore, as in order to qualify for the CL, you almost certainly have to fall foul of FFP, which means, in all likelihood, you will be excluded from the CL.

Only the insane would embark on such an undertaking.

Then again....

 

[moomba]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

You could argue that if you were prepared to risk the entire future of a club on a pretty unsound basis (ie qualifying for champions league every year) you're not likely to change your mind because of a possible European competition ban.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

The thing with Leeds is that as long as they stayed in the champions league they would have been within the confines of FFP.

They effectively rolled the dice on staying in the top 4. Once they dropped out of the top 4 their problems became clear, but it was too late by then.

So I'm not convinced FFP would have stopped a Leeds.

Of course it wouldn't. While they were in the top 4 they'd have been OK but there's nothing in FFP that stops a club making completely imprudent financial decisions. By the time FFP sanctions would have kicked in, they'd have been well screwed anyway. Same with Pompey.

If you're going to do it properly then you should make sure that clubs don't plan on the basis of hugely optimistic, fingers-crossed financial projections or unsustainable debt.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

It is reported that PSG will escape sanction over Beckham because his salary is paid into a charity, thus making his deal exempt from FFP rules. It is also reported that his non-qualifying earnings will instead be made up from sponsorship deals.

Isn't it handy employing a lawyer to work out this arrangement, especially a lawyer who happens to be the son of the UEFA President?

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

It is reported that PSG will escape sanction over Beckham because his salary is paid into a charity, thus making his deal exempt from FFP rules. It is also reported that his non-qualifying earnings will instead be made up from sponsorship deals.

Isn't it handy employing a lawyer to work out this arrangement, especially a lawyer who happens to be the son of the UEFA President?

This shows the lack of thought going into FFPR if it's true - a club can pay wages into a charity, and can, therefore, also throw them down the drain if they wish and it will not count as spending. Financing Al-Quaida or the "real" IRA will presumably be OK as long as you don't invest money in the club. We're back to Platini's wonderful wheeze of "when is a euro not a euro?"

As for Leeds and Portsmouth, I believe their problem was that they tried to finance their dash for Europe by borrowing. It may be that UEFA can stop such debt financing within the law, though United had better watch out if they can. But I would point out that borrowing is NOT investment. A loan has to be repaid, usually with interest, as in the case of Leeds (but not in Portsmouth's case, I believe). With an investment there is no guarantee of repayment. It is the investor who takes the risk not the club.The right to invest is protected by laws to prevent cartels trying to restrict competition. I think that had UEFA restricted itself to insisting that clubs should not finance development by loans it would have found the courts unsympathetic, but it could have argued that it must be shareholders who take the loans and therefore the risk rather than the club. Attempting to limit the amounts shareholders can invest because they claim this inflates the market for other clubs and thus distorts competition is not a case likely to win much support in court. For a start it sounds like telling a shareholder that his right to invest is to be limited in case his club becomes competitive, more competitive than its competitors are prepared to tolerate! Secondly, UEFA would have to prove that Sheikh Mansour had "inflated" the market. This would be difficult to prove when the transfer fees paid by City for the players bought are studied - of City's present squad only Aguero cost more than Veron or Ferdinand ... or Berbatov - and the wages paid. The two best paid players in the PL are at the swamp. And the argument that "United generate all their own money" won't wash either - if it's "inflating the market" that is undesirable and anti-competitive it's clear that City didn't do it!

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

gordondavies moustache posted:-

Too much talk IMO about FFP stopping another Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers etc. I'm not sure it would.[/quote]

I think it's interesting to ask what exactly it is that had to be stopped in connection with these clubs.

In the case of Rangers it's obvious. They made payments to players not authorised in the players' contracts, didn't pay tax on such payments, hid the payments from the accounts and accountants and got found out. they couldn't pay the outstanding tax bill and effectively went bust. Rangers BROKE existing SFA rules and the law, FFP wouln't have stopped this arising and it would be unreasonable to expect it to. Such scandals have arisen in the past and may arise in the future, whatever regulations are in place.

Leeds and Portsmouth are different. There is no question of illegal activity. They took risks and they backfired. They were relegated after having to sell most, and certainly the best, of their players. But they are still in business, and our league actually functions on the idea that 3 teams will be relegated and 3 promoted each season. Both clubs got rid of the gamblers who had ruined the finances and Leeds at least are in better shape than for some years - without any help from UEFA, who appear to have decided that clubs must not be allowed to risk their finances. To do this UEFA appears to want to allow clubs to exist on an even keel. For most clubs this will involve a fairly uneventful mid-table torpor (depending on the gates your town or city can provide) and your excitement will come fro seeing if you can beat United or Arsenal whoare allowed to aspire to trophies because they did their borrowing more that 15 years ago. For this safety clubs like Leeds must forgo any hopes of ever qualifying for Platini's own, invitation only, CL.

This seems to me to be the violation of Al-Fayed's "right to dream". He has been an excellent owner of Fulham. Platini stands full square with such prophets as Gill, Henry, Kroenke, Gazidis and Leivy who hold before us the right to "breaking even", "living within your means" (carefully rigged means, of course) and of open topped bus parades round the city (a trophy free zone) for the annual accounts. In one corner Sheikh Mansour and Al-Fayed - the "football is glory" brigade - while in the other the "football is bean counting" club. The trouble with football is that it's too bloody competitive!

 

[George Hannah]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

This man's on a roll, I like it!

 

[LoveCity]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

Martyn Ziegler ‏@martynziegler
Exclusive: Chelsea set to back wage increase cap + a compromise financial fair play system at tomorrow's Premier League meeting.

Just saw this on Twitter, not sure if the + means "wage cap AND a FFP compromise" or "wage cap AS A FFP compromise". I've personally got no qualm with wages being brought more into check, it's crazy how much some of them earn. But how would they set it? £120million or something? Because we're at £200million right now (about £15million of which will disappear with RSC/Bridge/Kolo) and it could affect us.