UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%

  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%

  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%
  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltonblue said:
Not quite, UEFA did investigate Liverpool, they were allowed to write off a fair amount of their losses as allowable expenditure (think they said it was for their stadium)
Click to expand...
That was a season later if I recall correctly.
 
meltonblue said:
Not quite, UEFA did investigate Liverpool, they were allowed to write off a fair amount of their losses as allowable expenditure (think they said it was for their stadium)
Click to expand...
I don't think that's quite right either, as someone else said above.

Monitoring Periods

UEFA believe that it would be unfair to asses a club's Break Even results over just one season and has therefore introduced the concept of Monitoring Periods. Initially clubs will be assessed over two seasons (2011/12 and 2012/13) combined to see if they have made an acceptable level of loss. All other Monitoring Periods other than the first one cover three seasons - the reason for this will become clear when we look at the permitted levels of loss that clubs are able to make during each Monitoring Period.
Click to expand...

For the season of 2013/14 they did not even qualify for any European football, in which case they were not required to submit their accounts. In other words, the first review included the last two seasons of every team competing and calculated their losses over that time, every other review is for a clubs last 3 seasons.

For Liverpool fans, there is a new worry: recently released club accounts showing a combined loss of over £90 million for the 2011/12 and 2012/13 seasons combined—as per The Telegraph.

This figure is well above UEFA’s maximum permitted loss over two seasons of €45 million (£37 million). So could participation be snatched from Liverpool’s grasp?

The good news for Liverpool is that their entry into next year’s Champions League is essentially saved by the fact that they have not qualified for the UEFA competitions taking place this season (2013/14). All of the 231 clubs taking part this season had to provide UEFA with their accounts for the two previous years (2011/12 and 2012/13)
Click to expand...

Is it really that cynical to believe Rodgers was told to make sure Liverpool finished outside the European places, to essentially buy Liverpool an extra year to balance their books, for the next review? i.e 2015(which would include seasons 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14) which is the one you referenced with the stadium costs excuse. I'm not sure the stadium costs were needed to be included because it was financed by an interest free loan from their owners Fenway Sports Group(Doesn't that mean they can pay that back whenever they like?). Also by that time, if I remember right they had also sold off Suarez, for a hefty fee in the summer of 2014.

So if they still failed it after giving themselves an extra year to balance the books, with a sale as big as Suarez' to help, that would have been a massive bollock dropped.

edit: Added the correct info on monitoring periods, wasn't quite sure on the exact details of it before a quick google.
 
Last edited:
No, it was from the 2011/12 accounts. The 2013/14 year was a slight profit for them. This is what the guardian reported at the time:

“Liverpool made a loss of £49.8m for the 2012-13 season, and £40.5m for the 10-month period before that but have been able to write off a big chunk of those losses as allowable stadium expenditure - the 2011-12 accounts reported that £49.6m was associated with Liverpool’s stadium costs, £35m coming from the former co-owner Tom Hick’s aborted plan to build a new stadium on Stanley Park which new owners Fenway Sports Group had to scrap”
 
Last edited:
I read that today and tomorrow there is a big ECA meeting in Amsterdam. Is City taking an active part in this organisation? One agenda point is apparently how to reshape the Champions League, so it would seem the ECA clubs are also discussing how to position themselves in the power struggle between UEFA and FIFA about international club football (which they have to off course).
 
meltonblue said:
No, it was from the 2011/12 accounts. The 2013/14 year was a slight profit for them. This is what the guardian reported at the time:

“Liverpool made a loss of £49.8m for the 2012-13 season, and £40.5m for the 10-month period before that but have been able to write off a big chunk of those losses as allowable stadium expenditure - the 2011-12 accounts reported that £49.6m was associated with Liverpool’s stadium costs, £35m coming from the former co-owner Tom Hick’s aborted plan to build a new stadium on Stanley Park which new owners Fenway Sports Group had to scrap”
Click to expand...


It's good that ffp protects clubs by allowing owners to spunk 50 million quid of their money down the drain, whilst protecting others by preventing owners from putting 50 million quid in to help with transfers.
 
Rich owner should mean cheaper tickets for fans but FFFFFFP don’t like that. Cants!
 
Neville Kneville said:
It's good that ffp protects clubs by allowing owners to spunk 50 million quid of their money down the drain, whilst protecting others by preventing owners from putting 50 million quid in to help with transfers.
Click to expand...

I agree, it shows it was clearly never about protection of clubs. Spending on infrastructure was always exempt though.
 
meltonblue said:
I agree, it shows it was clearly never about protection of clubs. Spending on infrastructure was always exempt though.
Click to expand...

I know, but they didn't spend it on that in the end, they chucked it down the shitter due to being useless.

FFP, was originally supposed to be protecting clubs from bad financial management. Until the cartel got hold of it.
 
Jazzman said:
I read that today and tomorrow there is a big ECA meeting in Amsterdam. Is City taking an active part in this organisation? One agenda point is apparently how to reshape the Champions League, so it would seem the ECA clubs are also discussing how to position themselves in the power struggle between UEFA and FIFA about international club football (which they have to off course).
Click to expand...
https://sport.sky.it/calcio/champio...per-champions-agnelli-eca-ultime-notizie.html
https://www.calciomercato.com/en/ne...ew-super-champions-league-in-cooperatio-46539
Seems like ECA will go with the Super Champions League talked about in 2024 with UEFA and against FIFA world club project.
You know the idea of 16 founding members and 16 invited clubs. 4 relegations per year. Barca and Real Madrid with guaranteed spot (can't be relegated?). 4 groups of 8 clubs, so a minimum of 14 games by club. Takes place in week-ends with national leagues in mid-week. Lot more of TV money than current Champions League.

Here is a map with the so-called "founding members" :
 
Parisian said:
https://sport.sky.it/calcio/champio...per-champions-agnelli-eca-ultime-notizie.html
https://www.calciomercato.com/en/ne...ew-super-champions-league-in-cooperatio-46539
Seems like ECA will go with the Super Champions League talked about in 2024 with UEFA and against FIFA world club project.
You know the idea of 16 founding members and 16 invited clubs. 4 relegations per year. Barca and Real Madrid with guaranteed spot (can't be relegated?). 4 groups of 8 clubs, so a minimum of 14 games by club. Takes place in week-ends with national leagues in mid-week. Lot more of TV money than current Champions League.

Here is a map with the so-called "founding members" :
Click to expand...

According to @JuanAntAlcala, in 2024 we will have the Superliga Europea with these 16 clubs:

- 900M of right TV
- The matches will be held on Saturday and Sunday.
- Real and Barca will be always present. Do what now???
- The championships will be staggered on Tuesday and Wednesday.
 
Ballet On Ice said:
If UEFA do change this, then I guess PSG getting deep into French Football sponsorship and deep into UEFA committees will have had a lot to do with it.
Click to expand...
From a summary a french user did, the change is due to the recent rulings in favour of Milan AC, Galatasaray, PSG by TAS.
There are several reactions and talks at UEFA and some members are saying it will become less and less possible to use FFP in its current form and even risky to go into trials against those rich clubs (contrary to the small clubs that can't fight against FFP and can be forced to comply).

They are unanimous about Manchester City, since Football Leaks revelations, with a supposed financial system based on image rights that allow them to circumvent FFP and an investigation has been launched. City, on the other hand, is waiting for the results of that investigation and is using the fact that those documents have been illegally obtained through massive hack of private informations as their defence.

Ceferin doesn't want to make any comment but keeps repeating that FFP initial goal has been met, since european football has become a lot healthier with introduction of FFP in 2011 with 600 M benefices now from 1.7 billion accumulated losses before.

UEFA knows they could face a lot of complicated legal procedures in the future, so they think about simplifying some rules without ditching the whole FFP concept.
Among those rules, the instances wouldn't seek to control the origin of the money or how it is spent but will only verify if clubs finances stay in the green side.
For example, they would prioritize controls over clubs that don't pay the salary of players or club employees.

However, whatever route UEFA chose to follow in the future, PSG and Manchester City are still the targets now, especially PSG that enter the period where they need to justify Neymar and Mbappé acquisition in their books.
 
images

Bye bye football
 
Parisian said:
From a summary a french user did, the change is due to the recent rulings in favour of Milan AC, Galatasaray, PSG by TAS.
There are several reactions and talks at UEFA and some members are saying it will become less and less possible to use FFP in its current form and even risky to go into trials against those rich clubs (contrary to the small clubs that can't fight against FFP and can be forced to comply).

They are unanimous about Manchester City, since Football Leaks revelations, with a supposed financial system based on image rights that allow them to circumvent FFP and an investigation has been launched. City, on the other hand, is waiting for the results of that investigation and is using the fact that those documents have been illegally obtained through massive hack of private informations as their defence.

Ceferin doesn't want to make any comment but keeps repeating that FFP initial goal has been met, since european football has become a lot healthier with introduction of FFP in 2011 with 600 M benefices now from 1.7 billion accumulated losses before.

UEFA knows they could face a lot of complicated legal procedures in the future, so they think about simplifying some rules without ditching the whole FFP concept.
Among those rules, the instances wouldn't seek to control the origin of the money or how it is spent but will only verify if clubs finances stay in the green side.
For example, they would prioritize controls over clubs that don't pay the salary of players or club employees.

However, whatever route UEFA chose to follow in the future, PSG and Manchester City are still the targets now, especially PSG that enter the period where they need to justify Neymar and Mbappé acquisition in their books.
Click to expand...

If they no longer plan to seek the origin of the money, then City and PSG can never be targeted again.

All bets are off because they can pump in whatever cash they like.

Both clubs are and always will be in the green.

Personally, it's a crock of shit.

The new European format is a cartel of clubs and with the huge TV money on offer, neither City of Paris will have the type of financial advantage previously held if Barca, United and Real can also offer similar wages.

I suspect the first £1m a week footballer will be seen during the next five years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top