S04 said:grunge said:Does anyone have a link to how much teams will get with the new TV deal?
-- Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:51 am --
bluemoondays said:Doesn't work that way - their costs are spread over the duration of their contract. For example, Aguero was £38m over 5 years so he'd appear in the books as costing circa £7.5m/year.
Isn't that only if we choose to pay in instalments? I thought we were paying everything up front with only the salary spread out?
FFPR calculates everything as instalments..
Year after next could be £100 million, apparently.Bluenjamin said:We'll have to see how it effects the transfer market and will be interesting, I think the very best players will command big fees and wages but your joe bloggs average player wouldn't see a huge change...I hope!
I wonder how much the champions will get?? if the bottom club gets around £60 million can't say I've seen a figure mentioned!
I think the date of the article "16 August 2011" should allow you to sleep soundly tonight... LolShaelumstash said:Prestwich_Blue said:Once again, accounting standards define who is a "related party" and how these must be reported and FFP just regurgitates that word-for-word. We've not declared Etihad as a related party and UEFA has no say in the matter.Shaelumstash said:Commercially the Nike and Etihad deals should help with that, but I still have a feeling Etihad will be treated as a related party and the value of the deal will questioned by UEFA.
Right ok, so in theory Sheik Mansour's brother could set up a new company called Dave's Dildo's and sponsor our training kit for £3bn pounds a season and as long as we don't declare Dave's Dildo's as a related party in our accounts then UEFA won't look in to the "fair value" of the deal?
Seems like a rather large, easily exploited loophole. If UEFA have no say in the matter if we do that, I'm sure they may look at tweaking the regulations!
For the record I think FFP is an absolute disgrace and clearly set up by UEFA in collusion with the old G-14 clubs specifically to stop the likes of us and Chelsea over throwing the old guard. I hope we can find a way around them, but articles like the one below give me cause for concern that the Etihad deal might not pass the regulations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14490740
Bert Trautmann's Parachute said:Year after next could be £100 million, apparently.Bluenjamin said:We'll have to see how it effects the transfer market and will be interesting, I think the very best players will command big fees and wages but your joe bloggs average player wouldn't see a huge change...I hope!
I wonder how much the champions will get?? if the bottom club gets around £60 million can't say I've seen a figure mentioned!
Dribble said:I think the date of the article "16 August 2011" should allow you to sleep soundly tonight... LolShaelumstash said:Prestwich_Blue said:Once again, accounting standards define who is a "related party" and how these must be reported and FFP just regurgitates that word-for-word. We've not declared Etihad as a related party and UEFA has no say in the matter.
Right ok, so in theory Sheik Mansour's brother could set up a new company called Dave's Dildo's and sponsor our training kit for £3bn pounds a season and as long as we don't declare Dave's Dildo's as a related party in our accounts then UEFA won't look in to the "fair value" of the deal?
Seems like a rather large, easily exploited loophole. If UEFA have no say in the matter if we do that, I'm sure they may look at tweaking the regulations!
For the record I think FFP is an absolute disgrace and clearly set up by UEFA in collusion with the old G-14 clubs specifically to stop the likes of us and Chelsea over throwing the old guard. I hope we can find a way around them, but articles like the one below give me cause for concern that the Etihad deal might not pass the regulations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14490740
Apparently the Etihad deal was looked into and begrudgingly UEFA accepted that we didn't have a case to answer...... Case closed.
To use your example, the rules are quite complicated and there's grey areas but essentially as long as Sheikh Mansour could say that he has no control or influence over Dave's Dildos and his brother had none over City then we probably wouldn't have to declare it as a related party. It's all about someone using their influence or control over one company to benefit themselves or another company they control.Shaelumstash said:Dribble said:I think the date of the article "16 August 2011" should allow you to sleep soundly tonight... LolShaelumstash said:Right ok, so in theory Sheik Mansour's brother could set up a new company called Dave's Dildo's and sponsor our training kit for £3bn pounds a season and as long as we don't declare Dave's Dildo's as a related party in our accounts then UEFA won't look in to the "fair value" of the deal?
Seems like a rather large, easily exploited loophole. If UEFA have no say in the matter if we do that, I'm sure they may look at tweaking the regulations!
For the record I think FFP is an absolute disgrace and clearly set up by UEFA in collusion with the old G-14 clubs specifically to stop the likes of us and Chelsea over throwing the old guard. I hope we can find a way around them, but articles like the one below give me cause for concern that the Etihad deal might not pass the regulations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14490740
Apparently the Etihad deal was looked into and begrudgingly UEFA accepted that we didn't have a case to answer...... Case closed.
Wow, the case is closed? That's fantastic news. I'm surprised none of the major media outlets got on that one, great news all the same.
The Future's Blue said:We all seem happy with the news that CL money is going to rise by a 3rd but what hasn't been mentioned is that this is going to have a massive impact on those other clubs trying to break the cartel.
What this allows for is the likes of United to help pay their debts and have another 20 mil to spend elsewhere. The rest, fall further behind.