Serious question relating to us and FFP(update P17)

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.

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!

It was moomba, not me, that posted that BSHR.

I would like to add to the further salient points that you have made, however.

It is quite telling that the likes of Gill and Gazidis say they are so keen to prevent another Portsmouth occurring and yet appear to have done nothing to prevent that club's continuing slide into oblivion.

It was these clubs that set up the structure of finances in football that prevails and sees so many clubs struggle once they succumb to relegation from the Premier League. If they were truly concerned about another Portsmouth they would give a little bit of their slice of the cake up for the greater good of the game.

It is the equivalent of me walking into a pub which has a collection bucket for 'Children in Need' outside, consciously ignoring the collection, and then spending the rest of the night boring the other customers in the pub about what a great cause 'Children in Need' was and how I always supported it.

They care as much about another Portsmouth happening as I do about who wins the next "I'm a Celebrity".

 

[ifiwasarichfan]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

I still get worried over FFP.

On the one hand many posters tell me that as far as we are concerned the Horse has already bolted but on the other hand I am frightened of the power that could yet be weilded by David Gill.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

I still get worried over FFP.

On the one hand many posters tell me that as far as we are concerned the Horse has already bolted but on the other hand I am frightened of the power that could yet be weilded by David Gill.

City themselves say they are "confident" that they will meet their requirements. If the club really is confident, then you can relax. Our situation is far different than that highlighted in postings above.

 

[LoveCity]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

This isn't good... Chelsea backing not only a wage cap but FFP itself in England.

I'd love to know why QPR are backing this when they'd probably fall foul more than anyone.

-

Chelsea are set to back both a wage increase cap and a compromise financial fair play deal at Thursday's showdown meeting of all 20 Premier League chairmen, it can be disclosed.

The Roman Abramovich-owned club had been viewed as a hardline opponent of financial fair play (FFP), but it is understood Chelsea will agree to a system that obliges clubs to break even but allows owners to cover some losses.

The thawing of the European champions' position should now ensure that both spending control systems are agreed tomorrow.

Arsenal, Manchester United, Tottenham and Liverpool will still argue that wealthy owners should not be allowed to underwrite any losses, but in order to push FFP through will have to settle for a compromise, where up to £105m over three years can be covered.

Opponents of FFP argue that the system maintains the status quo and favours the biggest clubs with large stadia and high commercial income.

Four clubs - Manchester City, Fulham, West Brom and Aston Villa - are still expected to vote against it.

Chelsea's backing of a compromise, however, should enable the necessary 14 out of the 20 votes to be reached.

The wage increase cap may also be watered down - initially Sunderland owner Ellis Short had suggested a maximum 10 per cent increase allowed for player wages.

It now looks likely that the cap will only affect those clubs whose total bill is higher than £52million so that promoted sides are not prevented from improving their squads.

Furthermore, spending money earned from clubs' individual sponsorship deals on wages will not be restricted. That can be significant - in Manchester United's case commercial income totalled £117.6m last year and their wage bill £160m.

But some form of wage increase cap will satisfy club owners, who are fearful of the bulk of the income from next season's bumper new television rights deals - expected to be worth £25m-£30m per club - going straight into the pockets of the players and agents.

The Premier League's expected FFP system would be less restrictive than UEFA's, which is being brought in from next season and will oblige clubs to break even or face possible exclusion from European competition.

Under UEFA's system, for the first three years owners will be permitted to cover annual losses of up to £12million via equity but that will then be phased out.

Arsenal, Manchester United, Tottenham and Liverpool - styled as the 'gang of four' after they sent a joint letter to the last shareholders meeting calling for owners not be allowed to cover any losses - argue that tough FFP measures will maintain the Premier League's competitiveness and its attraction to a global TV audience, rather than risk a situation developing such as in Spain, where only two clubs dominate the football landscape.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

This isn't good... Chelsea backing not only a wage cap but FFP itself in England.

I'd love to know why QPR are backing this when they'd probably fall foul more than anyone.

-

Chelsea are set to back both a wage increase cap and a compromise financial fair play deal at Thursday's showdown meeting of all 20 Premier League chairmen, it can be disclosed.

The Roman Abramovich-owned club had been viewed as a hardline opponent of financial fair play (FFP), but it is understood Chelsea will agree to a system that obliges clubs to break even but allows owners to cover some losses.

The thawing of the European champions' position should now ensure that both spending control systems are agreed tomorrow.

Arsenal, Manchester United, Tottenham and Liverpool will still argue that wealthy owners should not be allowed to underwrite any losses, but in order to push FFP through will have to settle for a compromise, where up to £105m over three years can be covered.

Opponents of FFP argue that the system maintains the status quo and favours the biggest clubs with large stadia and high commercial income.

Four clubs - Manchester City, Fulham, West Brom and Aston Villa - are still expected to vote against it.

Chelsea's backing of a compromise, however, should enable the necessary 14 out of the 20 votes to be reached.

The wage increase cap may also be watered down - initially Sunderland owner Ellis Short had suggested a maximum 10 per cent increase allowed for player wages.

It now looks likely that the cap will only affect those clubs whose total bill is higher than £52million so that promoted sides are not prevented from improving their squads.

Furthermore, spending money earned from clubs' individual sponsorship deals on wages will not be restricted. That can be significant - in Manchester United's case commercial income totalled £117.6m last year and their wage bill £160m.

But some form of wage increase cap will satisfy club owners, who are fearful of the bulk of the income from next season's bumper new television rights deals - expected to be worth £25m-£30m per club - going straight into the pockets of the players and agents.

The Premier League's expected FFP system would be less restrictive than UEFA's, which is being brought in from next season and will oblige clubs to break even or face possible exclusion from European competition.

Under UEFA's system, for the first three years owners will be permitted to cover annual losses of up to £12million via equity but that will then be phased out.

Arsenal, Manchester United, Tottenham and Liverpool - styled as the 'gang of four' after they sent a joint letter to the last shareholders meeting calling for owners not be allowed to cover any losses - argue that tough FFP measures will maintain the Premier League's competitiveness and its attraction to a global TV audience, rather than risk a situation developing such as in Spain, where only two clubs dominate the football landscape.

Or create a system in the premier league exactly like Spain but with 4 clubs dominating instead of 2. The last thing the gang of 4 want is a competitive league.

They want a system in place that allows them dominate because of existing earnings and existing fan base thereby hoping to guarantee top 4 and maintain huge earnings for the Glazers, FSG, the Arsenal board and Mr. Lewis without having to compete with big spending upstarts.

Means 12 turkeys are looking forward to Christmas.

 

[jrb]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

It doesn't matter chaps. It's too late. City are well placed to deal with the PL and UEFA's FFPR.

 

[jake28]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

I'm not worried about us and ffp...i am worried about the fact that it will pretty much create a European super league in all but name. It's an absolute farce and as a previous poster said its the biggest stitch up in football history

What would our view be had we been left on the outside. What would be the point anymore?..the dream would be over and that's the case now for all but 20-25 clubs at most.It makes my blood boil it really does.

 

[VOOMER]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

And if it hasn't already been mentioned, perhaps clubs who fail to pay their tax demands should also face sanction.

Malaga have been treated with disgust, just try breaking into the top 2 and see what happens:
UEFA's club finance judicial body also fined Malaga €300,000 (NZ$481,000).

The club can appeal the sanctions direct to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and Malaga spokesman Vicente Casado said it would do so when it "receives documentation from UEFA about the decision".

Late on Friday Casado said the club "did not know why" it had been banned, adding that "as of today all our players have been paid their wages for this year and previous years."

He added that Malaga had paid off all its pending debts for transfers and was suffering a "campaign of harassment" from European football's governing body.

Think there's more to it than that, mate. Al Thani wants to sell. Difficult to make out the ins and outs. As you know, Spain's a basket case and has no concept of the rule of law. So not a good example of anything else, for me, but what do I know...

Exactly, they owed money all over the place and I think they are still in dispute with several clubs over monies owed. Talkshite mentioned them last night, in one of there usual dumb and dumber, rag motivated propaganda topics. However Saggers, confirmed its did in the water simply on the basis of how variable taxation is when you come to the countries involved in the champions league

 

[Atypical]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

It seems a bit watered down, which cap but then sponsors can pay wages too. Surely that's a loop hole to exploit.

 

[LoveCity]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

It doesn't matter chaps. It's too late. City are well placed to deal with the PL and UEFA's FFPR.

Doesn't change that these rules are limiting us and making us cautious when without them we would reach our targets faster. The whole thing makes my blood boil too, we need to start bringing in more sponsorships. Given the PL's comparative leniency compared to UEFA will they investigate sponsorship deals? We ought to get something going with Abu Dhabi Tourism.

This part said it all to me:

Furthermore, spending money earned from clubs' individual sponsorship deals on wages will not be restricted. That can be significant - in Manchester United's case commercial income totalled £117.6m last year and their wage bill £160m.

It's a complete stitch-up that rewards the clubs with preexisting fanbases, no we won't be ruined by it but it has and will hinder us in some ways.