Serious question relating to us and FFP(update P17)

[jrb]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

United have over 30 sponsors. (want a laugh/page 2 <a class="postlink" href="http://www.manutd.com/en/Club/Sponsors.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manutd.com/en/Club/Sponsors.aspx</a>)

We haven't touched the surface yet.

 

[cookster]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

The premier league will be a watered down version of UEFA's so what's the problem?

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

I must be a financial moron , but I cannot understand why the subject of debt is being glossed over in Ffp. Operating losses which seem to me to be the chief target of Ffp, surely only demonstrates that the cost of running an operation costs more than any revenues accruing, but isn't costing anybody else a red cent , and if you have an owner who can afford to, and wants to subsidise these losses then what is that to anyone?
Debt, on the other hand , unless I'm very much mistaken , is money which is owed to somebody who has lent that money. I get a credit card bill every month and I have to pay some or all of it- otherwise I increase my debt or a large chap comes round to distrain upon my goods and chattels! Why is this any different? Indeed the current government was elected on a pledge to fix the nation's debt which was deemed to be the single most important aspect of the economy . We must suffer austerity to pay off the debt!
Am I missing something?

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

I cannot understand what the PL is playing at. The EC and the British government consider free and fair competition to be of vital importance to economic growth. The EU has taken steps to protect such competition from abuse in Article 101 of the EC treaty and the British government in th Competition Act of 1998. The wording is identical in both documents which prohibit "Agreements .... between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted practices ... which ... limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment." There may be exclusions explained in the following extract from Article 101 of the EC Treaty:-

The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of:
any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings,
any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings,
any concerted practice or category of concerted practices,
which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:
(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;
(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.

The underlinings in the extract from the Competition Act are to show that the action of the PL clubs in adopting the FFP regulatios would be a clear contravention (as would the UEFA regulations) and the exclusions show that the PL and UEFA have no case at all to claim that these regulations should be excluded from the protection afforded by the law to investors.

The authorities do take violations very seriously indeed. I assume in football that a violation would be an attempt by the PL or UEFA to penalise a member for doing something forbidden by the regulations but permitted by the law. All of the regulations may bot be prohibited. I don't know what the situation would be on capping wage rises and penalising clubs which violated their "limit". But to penalise a club for investment would be a breach. Breaches are penalised by fines, and the fine can be up to 10% of annual turnover per year up to 3 years! A second offence could, of course, involve proceedings for contempt. So if Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs and that other club wanted to go to court... And of course, if a club showed that penalties imposed for legal activities had cost European qualificatio, a title, star players the damages...

 

[nehe11]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

Interesting
<a class="postlink" href="http://aggbot.com/Manchester-City-News/article/18919290" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://aggbot.com/Manchester-City-News/article/18919290</a>

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, but Manchester City are one of four clubs ready to vote against plans.

The Premier League executive need an agreement from 14 clubs to make changes to the rule and the backing of the Stamford Bridge club should enable the necessary amount of votes.

Two proposals have been put forward - a long-term broad acceptance of UEFA's FFP break-even policy, and a shorter-term salary cap where clubs will be allowed only to increase wages per year.

Manchester United's David Gill, Tottenham's Daniel Levy and Arsenal's Ivan Gazidis head those in favour of the long-term solution along UEFA lines while it is understood that Roman Abramovich's Blues will agree to a system that obliges clubs to break even but allows owners to cover some losses.

It now looks likely that the cap will only affect those clubs whose total bill is higher than £52m 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.

Arsenal, 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 £105million over three years can be covered in order to maintain the Premier League's competitiveness and its attraction to a global TV audience.

Opponents of FFP argue that the system maintains the status quo and favours the biggest clubs with large stadia and high commercial income with Fulham, West Brom and Aston Villa joining City as they look set to vote against it.

 

[jrb]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

Everton?

Who will now forever win **** all.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

I am genuinely curious as to how punitive sanctions are going to operate in Premier League FFP.

Within the prism of UEFA competitions it is a relatively simple issue: exclusion from the Champions League/Europa League. I realise that there are a series of steps before that, but that is the ultimate measure.

How is that going to operate in terms of the Premier League?

Deduction of points? Stripping of titles? Relegation?

It is absurd to assume that these measures will not seriously undermine the credibility of the league. As will having these sanctions and failing to enforce them. One only needs cast an eye towards Serie A to see the effect that footballing matters being decided away from the pitch has had on the currency of that league.

Then there is the issue of restrictive practices. I reckon it's slightly different with regards to UEFA as it could be argued being unable to enter their competitions does, or rather should not, stop a club from existing to some meaningful extent. The same cannot be said of domestic competition where restrictions that are imposed could bring in to question the viability of many clubs. Is that a restraint of trade? There's certainly an argument to be had.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

Something else has just occurred. People have been talking for ages about the Sheikh's team of lawyers ready to protect his commercial interests, but from what I've seen that isn't his style, at least not in terms of courtroom battles.

What he needs is someone else to pick up the baton in the wider interests of the game. Someone who is also opposed to FFP. Someone who is less diffident than he when it comes to publicity. Someone with deep pockets. Someone who has previously proved to be perfectly happy to litigate again and again. Someone who isn't scared of taking on people in authority. Someone who doesn't care who he upsets.

Don't bet against it.

 

[mancunial]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

When Ronaldo went to Inter Milan, Continental or Pirelli Tyres, can't recall which one, and Nike, contributed more than 70 per cent towards his salary.

Neymar gets paid only £100,000 a month from Santos but they brokered 11 companies to pay him another £850,000 A MONTH!!!!!

This is the only way to go. Pay our top players a basic £100k a week and be paid directly by companies outside of City.

Thanks Tolmie - If that's already being done already, then FFP is going to be ineffective as a protectionist measure anyway as it is wage bills that are more directly linked to success than transfer budget.[/quote]
Nothing new this I'm sure Newcastle brewery's paid part of the salary of our own king Kev when he helicoptered into St. James's

 

[Tevez City]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

So the search for " Fairness" in football has been started just after Sheik Mansour bought Manchester City ?