Topic: Financial Fair Play Rules

[mark82]

After nearly every thread I have read recently has people explaining this incorrectly and then others repeating this incorrect information I though a thread and link would be needed to explaiin it and footballing accounting principals once and for all (hopefully).
The following link uses Chelsea as an example and is a long read so will cut and paste a few relevant parts.

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/02/chelseas-financial-fair-play-challenge.html

Some commentators have speculated that the reason for Chelsea’s burst of activity is to somehow beat the UEFA Financial Fair Play rules, as the next set of accounts (2010/11) is the last year where the numbers are excluded from UEFA’s break-even calculations, but this merely betrays a lack of accounting knowledge. The reality is that when a player is purchased, his cost is capitalised on the balance sheet and is written-down (amortised) over the length of his contract. Importantly, this means that the cost of Chelsea’s recent purchases will be included under Financial Fair Play via the amortisation charge.

In this way, amortisation can have a big influence on a club’s results. For example, Manchester City’s player amortisation has grown significantly from £6 million in 2007 to £71 million in 2010. On the other hand, the slow-down in Chelsea’s transfer spend has seen their amortisation fall from £83 million to £38 million in the last five years.

Although a few journalists have suggested some accounting trickery, whereby clubs would choose to book all the huge transfer spend now as a cost, so that it would not impact future accounts, this seems extremely unlikely to me. While it is true that UEFA's regulations do allow football clubs to choose "an accounting policy to expense the costs of acquiring a player’s registration rather than capitalise them", the key point is that this must be "permitted under their national accounting practice."

This is highly technical, but in my view this is where their argument falls down. Ever since the introduction of IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards), in particular FRS10 on Goodwill and Intangible Assets, major clubs have used the capitalisation and amortisation method to account for player transfers, so it would be difficult for Chelsea (or anybody else) to argue that the "income and expense" method had suddenly become appropriate.

UEFA have all but confirmed this in a recent statement, when they clarified the issue: “There is no doubt that transfers now will impact on the break-even results of the financial years ending 2012 and 2013 – the first financial years to be assessed under the break-even rule.” This was further underlined by Andrea Traverso, the Head of Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play at UEFA, who explained, “All clubs must amortise all transfer fees.”
I suppose that there is always the possibility of a club booking a massive impairment provision in 2010/11, which would dramatically reduce the value of their players in the accounts, but have the advantage of reducing future expenses. However, this has the whiff of earnings manipulation and is unlikely to be accepted by UEFA.


However, they don’t need to be absolutely perfect by then, as wealthy owners will be allowed to absorb aggregate losses (so-called “acceptable deviations”) of €45 million (£39 million), initially over two years and then over a three-year monitoring period, as long as they are willing to cover the deficit by making equity contributions. The maximum permitted loss then falls to €30 million (£26 million) from 2015/16 and will be further reduced from 2018/19 (to an unspecified amount). Note that these sums represent aggregate losses, not a yearly loss, as I have seen some people erroneously report.

For how new signings will be calculated into FFP read this as an example......



2. New Signings

The 2009/10 accounts ran up to 30 June 2010, so do not include the cost of any new signings after that date, which means that we need to add the wages and amortisation for Torres, Luiz, Ramires and Yossi Benayoun. Taking Torres as an example, his wages have been estimated at £150,000 a week, which works out to £8 million a year, while the annual amortisation is £9 million (£50 million transfer fee divided by the 5.5 years of his contract), giving a total of £17 million. Although players’ salaries are not divulged, we can make reasonably accurate estimates for the others, which give us a total of £36 million of additional costs for these four players.

The £17m is what Torres is costing them per year in expenses including his transfer fee.

I'm not going to cut and paste anymore as the article is well worth the read, even twice if thats what is takes to stop the chinese whispers of false information.

 

[Cleveland_Red]

Thanks for this article.

[mark82]

No worries spread the word! Hopefully a mod will start a sticky thread with a link to that article in it. Would save a lot of 

[Beninger]

I think Chelsea and City will be able to bring their sheets within the excess allowed.  But their revenue stream is not very large.  Within 10 years, they will have to be breaking even without equity investment, with their "small club" revenue.

[mark82]

Yeah I agree. one way of doing it will mean a conveyor belt of signing and sales, if each yr their sales reach say £50m that goes straight in as income as a lump some on that date. This means technically they can buy two players with ammortisation costing an extra £10m a year (£50m worth of player) and sell the same, they would have a positive £40m in their accounts for that year, given incoming and outgoing wages are equal.
It would be a risky strategy though and houses of cards always come falling down.

[Beninger]

These clubs will be able to skate for the next few years, even a bit longer.  In the long run, it will become difficult.  They just don't have the financial support that big clubs have.  If they did, they wouldn't have needed Roman and the Sheikh to compete.  The likes of Real Madrid will no longer be able to obscenely outspend the other big clubs either.  I think we're in a great position for the longer term.

In the end, we just had someone spend 300 mil on the club.  They cited the FFP as their reasoning to getting involved.  That's quite an investment if they weren't quite sure it was going to work...

[Abrak]

Actually the whole site is worth a read because all the articles are very thorough and easy to understand.

There are a couple of other key points in that Chelsea article for those who do not have time to read the whole thing.
1) Despite a 70m loss in the last financial year and high spending in January, Chelsea are very well placed to meet the FFP rules of breakeven. In fact they have more room to spend. This is very much based on an assumption that they continue to qualify for the CL each year.
2) Financial and FFP breakeven are not the same. Chelsea and other clubs can omit the cost of youth development (say 10m) and the cost of their grounds (depreciation of 9m). From 2011/2012 they also have a 'devation' loss of 15m a year for 3 years, meaning they can easily lose 35m a year financially and conform to the rules.

What concerns me particularly with Chelsea is what they might be able to do with matchday revenues. They already make 67m with a smaller ground than Anfield where we make 43m. They are in the richest part of London so can have some very fancy premium seat facilities (Arsenal makes 30m of match day sales from 9,000 seats.) So I believe that theoretically Abromavich could build what we would be an incredibly expensive 70,000 seat stadium. Generate say 30m additional matchday revenues and because the depreciation of the new stadium would not be included, it might be 'uneconomic' but it would be 'profitable' under FFP.

Two other articles are worthy of looking at.

Latest breakdown of revenues from Deloittes 09/10. Note that Liverpool's numbers include CL and Spurs does not compared to 10/11. The net effect of CL is about 30m. I think the commercial revenues being derived by some of the Spanish and German teams look interesting. I wonder for instance if we had a much larger stadium filled by much lower ticket prices (say a bit like Bayern Munich) whether the fact that we didnt gain much in matchday revenues might be compensated by commercial revenues.
 
http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-footballs-gravy-train-slowing-down.html?utm_source=BP_recent

Finally take a look at Sunderland. They were 6th a little while back. They are a typical mid table club with wages close to a half that of Liverpool but they are bleeding cash every year just the same.

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/03/sunderlands-problem-is-not-their-fans.html?utm_source=BP_recent

I know a lot of supporters feel that all this financial stuff is incredibly boring but it is very important. 89% of the average position in the league is over time determined by your wage bill (there is only a 70% correlation in any single season.) Just rank the top three clubs by wage bill in 09/10 and you have exactly ranked the top three clubs in the league. In Serie A the correlation is 93%.

Just getting back to Chelsea. Given we know the accounting, it seems pretty odd to be buying Torres at 17m cost per annum for 5 years especially after 5 years he will be worth very little as a transfer (especially on his personal terms.) If you take Suarez for instance he costs 4.5m a year transfer and 4.5m (total guess) a year wages which is 9m. However the difference between the two transfers becomes noticeable after say 3 years.

Either 1) he then extends his contract for another 3 years (as his acquisition cost has now been written down to 9m) this will result in the amortisation of the final 9m being taken over 5 years so falling to 1.8m or 2) LFC may perhaps sell him for 30m reaping a profit over his BV of 21m in the year of sale (or perhaps spread over two years if payments are staggered.)

[mark82]

Either 1) he then extends his contract for another 3 years (as his acquisition cost has now been written down to 9m) this will result in the amortisation of the final 9m being taken over 5 years so falling to 1.8m or 2) LFC may perhaps sell him for 30m reaping a profit over his BV of 21m in the year of sale (or perhaps spread over two years if payments are staggered.)

I would like to know if this bit is true, It sounds like the way to do it. The payments on most transfers are staggered but are shown at the date of sale for ffp checks i believe. What i would like to know is how add ons eg, fees after appearances will be calculated for both ins and outs

[KingLuis05]

Interesting read, thanks for the clarification. I haven't looked too far into the rules so maybe this problem has already been dealt with but what would stop a rich chairman from buying merchandise or a box at the stadium for, say, 50 million and counting that as revenue?

[mark82]

There are rules against cross sponsorship and all comercial deals and deals like you suggested are to be market tested and if inflated will be adjusted in terms of ffp's assesment of said clubs financial results at a normal rate. It will be hard to do as the market price is what someone is willing to pay. It will flag up though if Man City start getting deals that compete with Real Barca etc as only a mug would believe that to be a market value for such a club

[Surprise me.]

The 2009/10 accounts ran up to 30 June 2010, so do not include the cost of any new signings after that date, which means that we need to add the wages and amortisation for Torres, Luiz, Ramires and Yossi Benayoun. Taking Torres as an example, his wages have been estimated at £150,000 a week, which works out to £8 million a year, while the annual amortisation is £9 million (£50 million transfer fee divided by the 5.5 years of his contract), giving a total of £17 million. Although players’ salaries are not divulged, we can make reasonably accurate estimates for the others, which give us a total of £36 million of additional costs for these four players.

The £17m is what Torres is costing them per year in expenses including his transfer fee.

Shouldn't the 8million for his wages also be divided by the 5.5 years of his contract? So Torres is costing Chelsea roughly £10million per year instead of £17million.

[Beninger]

Interesting read, thanks for the clarification. I haven't looked too far into the rules so maybe this problem has already been dealt with but what would stop a rich chairman from buying merchandise or a box at the stadium for, say, 50 million and counting that as revenue?

There is a panel for that.  I found this: "The Club Financial Control Panel will at all times bear in mind the overall objectives of these regulations, in particular to defeat any attempt to circumvent these objectives."  They'll basically audit them and look for any loopholes and deal with them case by case. 

[Beninger]

Shouldn't the 8million for his wages also be divided by the 5.5 years of his contract? So Torres is costing Chelsea roughly £10million per year instead of £17million.

8mil a year.  Not 8mil over 5.5 years.  That would be like 1.4 mil a year...Torres is on more than 30k a week...

[Surprise me.]

Ah fair enough. Jesus 8 million a year.

[Ipcress]

Shouldn't the 8million for his wages also be divided by the 5.5 years of his contract? So Torres is costing Chelsea roughly £10million per year instead of £17million.

If he's on £150,000 per week, then this comes to about £8m per year spread over 5.5 years. In other words his total wages over the life of his contract is £44m.

[mark82]

There is a panel for that.  I found this: "The Club Financial Control Panel will at all times bear in mind the overall objectives of these regulations, in particular to defeat any attempt to circumvent these objectives."  They'll basically audit them and look for any loopholes and deal with them case by case.

I could see a 300 million pound lawsuit heading uefa's way if they don't enforce and police these rules correctly. Our club was purchased in the knowledge of these rules and as a member club of uefa.

[Beninger]

I could see a 300 million pound lawsuit heading uefa's way if they don't enforce and police these rules correctly. Our club was purchased in the knowledge of these rules and as a member club of uefa.

Good point.  They bought the club with these rules in mind.  They figured they could create a successful business based on that rule set.  They could very easily cite profit losses if other clubs are allowed to get away with shady practice and it costs CL places ie. higher revenue.

[jdpapa3]

Solid post. Swiss Ramble is a great blog. I feel like calling it a blog is a disservice since it is so in depth and researched. There was a FAQ or something on Financial Fair Play in the general sport forum that had some terrible information in it that everyone was using as their basis to evaluate the January transfer window and I'm just glad that some of the issues are cleared up. It definitely does look like Chelsea are in a world of trouble and face serious pressure if they don't qualify for the Champions League.

[BazC]

He isn't costing them 17m a year on top of his transfer fee. That 17m less wages of 8m *is* his transfer fee spread over his contract.



when a player is bought he becomes an asset which amortizes over the length of the contract.

[No666]

For us, this means we can spend profit plus 39m providing the owners regard the 39m as equity rather than a loan?

[babraham]

Absolutely fascinating stuff this! As someone studying accounting, it's great to learn more of the intricacies of how this will work!

Note that these sums represent aggregate losses, not a yearly loss, as I have seen some people erroneously report.

What's the difference again? Is aggregate loss like "total" or "gross" loss and yearly loss "net loss" so the negative value of income minus expenses?

It is not widely appreciated that UEFA’s break-even calculation is not exactly the same as a club’s statutory accounts, as it excludes certain expenses, including depreciation on tangible fixed assets and expenditure on youth development and community development activities.

Vitally important this! Interested in what exactly counts as youth development but I'm assuming you can basically go in with an open wallet for players under 18 as well as their coaches and possibly facilities too, and it doesn't count against your spending according to FFP. Of course you need to actually have the means to account for that spending as it will obviously be reflected on the club's books, despite not being in the FFP figures.

I wander how the amortisation would be treated though? Say you buy Lukaku for simplicity sake at 20m over 4 years and pay him close to 80k a week which works out to about 4m a year. That's 5m + 4m per year. Now is none of that included in the figures that FIFA use since he was purchased at 17 years old or when he turns 18, does it start being included? Maybe it's not included for the duration of the original contract but if his contract gets renegotiated and he's 18 or older, it then starts being included? Just guess work from me.

The club is limited in its ability to generate more match day revenue, because of the low 42,000 capacity of Stamford Bridge, which is considerably smaller than Old Trafford (76,000) and the Emirates (60,000). To be fair, they do get a lot of bang for their buck (yield per seat), as can be seen by the fact that their match day revenue of £67 million is much higher than Liverpool’s £43 million, even though Anfield’s capacity is actually larger at 45,000. However, they still earn over a £1 million less per match than Manchester United and Arsenal.

Their only realistic hope of matching the £100 million earned by those two clubs would be to move to a larger stadium.

This has me wandering. If we decided on a new stadium to push capacity beyond 60k and long term substantially boost match day revenue, how would it reflect in the FFP? Does that also get amortised and count against you?

For us, this means we can spend profit plus 39m providing the owners regard the 39m as equity rather than a loan?

So that basically means giving the club (up tp) 39m out of their own pockets rather than giving the club a loan and expecting repayment?

Have there been any reliable estimates at what our profit will look like according to FFP (baring in mind you subtract the expenses of depreciation on tangible fixed assets, expenditure on youth development and community development activities)?

If we're profitable, then that 39m transfer kitty could increase - although would that not be the kitty for both the summer and January added together?

[Jellies]

Ah fair enough. Jesus 8 million a year.

Yup. Just goes to show how much financial fair play is needed.

You need a nickname change mate.

[Daniel Cabbaggio]

im sure yossi and sideshow bob are on a fair bit as well

[Carlito Roberto]

Going to be nigh on impossible for sponsorship loopholes not to be exploited by the likes of City. Shekih Mansoor has so much power and influence in the Middle East it'd be very easy for him to setup numerous sponsorship deals with companies from the UAE and there would be little UEFA could do about it.

[babraham]

New stadium. Arsenal’s move to the Emirates more than doubled their match day revenue in 2006/07 from £44 million to £91 million, moving them four places up the main Money League from ninth to fifth. Sometimes, it is possible to expand the capacity of the current stadium, as Manchester United did in 2006/07, when they completed the upper quadrants at Old Trafford. However, the big money growth, especially for those clubs with smaller grounds, comes with a move to a larger, more modern stadium, which is why so many have been looking at such a possibility. However, as we have seen, there are many hurdles to overcome before successfully completing such a project.

Tottenham’s hopes of moving to the Olympic Stadium appear to have been thwarted, while Hicks and Gillett’s famous spade never quite reached the ground at Stanley Park in Liverpool. Similarly, Chelsea have struggled to find a suitable location in West London, though the Earls Court Exhibition Centre may once again be on the agenda. Manchester City’s match day income has been restricted by the deal they signed with the local council, though a new agreement means that they would get more benefit if they were to expand the capacity at the City of Manchester Stadium.



All of these factors produce vastly different match day revenues per match with Manchester United and Arsenal really coining it at around £3.5 million, while Tottenham and Manchester City earn considerably less at £1.5 million and £1 million respectively. Interestingly, Chelsea generate far more revenue (£2.4 million) than Liverpool (£1.6 million), even though their ground capacity is nearly 4,000 lower. If you ever wanted to understand why clubs are exploring other options, there’s the reason right there.

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-footballs-gravy-train-slowing-down.html
This is our biggest failing as far as I'm concerned from a revenue generation point of view.

Man U, Chelsea and Man C have ridiculous expenses which means they won't be able to take advantage of their revenue so much under FFP but I think Arsenal are going to be the team to beat over the next decade as their youth policy ensures cheaper transfer fees and wages yet they can pull in massive revenue from the Emerites.

If we can sort out a stadium of at absolute minimum 60k (whether by redevelopment or moving), I think we can be right up there challenging with them.

[xerxes1]

Thanks for the link.

The mistake is to take the rules as read. It has nothing to do with financial fair play. It ensures that the rich stay rich - and that the rest can't become rich.

This has nothing  to do with Malmo, Royal Antwerp, Den Haag, Rosenberg and Wigan being able to compete - it ensures that they cannot.

The key question for LFC is whether we are going to be on the inside looking out, or the outside looking in. With Man U and Arsenal generating around £60m a season more than us from matchday revenue, we are in serious danger of being in the latter category. Football specialises in unintended consequences and this will probably be the biggest example of them all.

[mark82]

Thanks for the link.

The mistake is to take the rules as read. It has nothing to do with financial fair play. It ensures that the rich stay rich - and that the rest can't become rich.

This has nothing  to do with Malmo, Royal Antwerp, Den Haag, Rosenberg and Wigan being able to compete - it ensures that they cannot.

The key question for LFC is whether we are going to be on the inside looking out, or the outside looking in. With Man U and Arsenal generating around £60m a season more than us from matchday revenue, we are in serious danger of being in the latter category. Football specialises in unintended consequences and this will probably be the biggest example of them all.

I'd like to look at it more like teams who have had success over a century of football have an advantage over teams who get bought out by Russians with nothing better to do. It should protect clubs from their owners which can only be good too.

[Redmaj]

Posted on these new shiny rules before:

These rules will not be inforced as UEFA don't have the resources to look at all clubs finances in any depth to satisfy court proceedings. They are more like GUIDELINES and we know how well the RICH and POWERFUL follow those? Nothing will change, just like the respect campaigns, diving guidelines etc et

UEFA, not a great track record with imposing fines and rules. Really have kept the Ultra's in check and handed out massive fines for racist chants in the last few years! Think these NEW rules will be about as relevant and enfarcable (that was a typo but an apt one!) as the recent ones about banks and bonuses. Money talks. Tory bastards never never change their spots and I can't see UEFA changing theirs. Maybe I'm too cynical but I doubt it.

The big clubs have POTS of money, more than UEFA, they will sue UEFA or bog them down in the courts forever if they try to impose sanctions affecting their revenue.

You are basically having a debate about  the colours of the deckchairs on the Titanic. 

[WavertreeRed]

This has nothing  to do with Malmo, Royal Antwerp, Den Haag, Rosenberg and Wigan being able to compete - it ensures that they cannot.

Care to back this up with facts?

[mark82]

Posted on these new shiny rules before:

These rules will not be inforced as UEFA don't have the resources to look at all clubs finances in any depth to satisfy court proceedings. They are more like GUIDELINES and we know how well the RICH and POWERFUL follow those? Nothing will change, just like the respect campaigns, diving guidelines etc et

UEFA, not a great track record with imposing fines and rules. Really have kept the Ultra's in check and handed out massive fines for racist chants in the last few years! Think these NEW rules will be about as relevant and enfarcable (that was a typo but an apt one!) as the recent ones about banks and bonuses. Money talks. Tory bastards never never change their spots and I can't see UEFA changing theirs. Maybe I'm too cynical but I doubt it.

The big clubs have POTS of money, more than UEFA, they will sue UEFA or bog them down in the courts forever if they try to impose sanctions affecting their revenue.

You are basically having a debate about  the colours of the deckchairs on the Titanic.

1. Clubs have signed upto these rules.
2. Its not a god given right to be allowed into Uefa competitions and they will have no grounds for any procedings. Uefa will also have the full backing of the various FA's obviously.

[paxo2k]

I suppose that there is always the possibility of a club booking a massive impairment provision in 2010/11, which would dramatically reduce the value of their players in the accounts, but have the advantage of reducing future expenses. However, this has the whiff of earnings manipulation and is unlikely to be accepted by UEFA.

A team would need a massive provision if they bought the likes of Owen, Aurelio or Kewell!

[Witherkay]

Either 1) he then extends his contract for another 3 years (as his acquisition cost has now been written down to 9m) this will result in the amortisation of the final 9m being taken over 5 years so falling to 1.8m or 2) LFC may perhaps sell him for 30m reaping a profit over his BV of 21m in the year of sale (or perhaps spread over two years if payments are staggered.)

I'm not sure if this is correct. I always thought the cost of a players registration was written off over their initial contract. i.e. it doesn't matter how many subsequent contracts they sign, if they initially sign for 5 years, that's the period the fee is written off. As a result, club's cannot 'manipulate' the amount of annual amortisation by extending contracts.

If clubs are going to play the system, ones like Man City and Chelsea could simply sign young players on 10 year deals - the club would then only have to charge half the amortisation than on a 5 year deal and, I'm sure, a lot of players would love having a guaranteed 10 year deal. This could lead to those clubs speculating on players, buying them young and then loaning them out a lot more, etc, or else giving older players longer deals than they would otherwise have done. It is risky, but could be mitigated.

Also, I wouldn't put it past some of the more wealthy owners buying other clubs 'indirectly' who would always be willing to buy the 'cast offs' from the main club - ensuring a ready market for players no longer wanted. This would ensure the selling club got good resale fees and would help keep their solvency better than it would have otherwise been. 

Re staggered payments - I understand that the actual timing of payments is immaterial to the accounting entries recognised. Clubs bring in debtors or creditors for any unpaid amounts. What would make a difference is the add ons - etc. These are only recognised when either certain or reasonably certain to be paid. i.e. when a player has played 50 games, or plays their 50th game just after the year end but before the accounts have been signed off. If you want to see a club manipulating this side of things (allegedly) - see the Aquilani deal and why Cecil did not want him to play much last season.

Either way, I can see the bigger clubs getting around the rules, and lets face it, UEFA have hardly got a track record of clamping down on non-Englist clubs not toeing the line have they?

[RedinExeter]

...I see 

[Redmaj]

1. Clubs have signed upto these rules.
2. Its not a god given right to be allowed into Uefa competitions and they will have no grounds for any procedings. Uefa will also have the full backing of the various FA's obviously.

Lawyers will make a fortune. Devil and details. How will Uefa prove a breach of said rules? FA's and football bodies in general move slower than Veira on these kind of matters. It will be a messy-talking-shop-load-of-balls. Hopefully the financial arse will fall out of football and a natural level playing field will be born. You can't get at the rich and wealthy with rules and regulations: they ignore or subvert them to their own ends. The revolution will be televised on PPV! I will be watching on a dodgy stream

[Arcadian]

Sorry, but I'm still of the opinion that Roman has accountants who know what they're fucking doing. I'm in no way pretending to understand the rules, but it seems naive in the grossest way to assume that a) clubs haven't found the potentially numerous loopholes and b) that it not going to be a joke watching UEFA attempt to "enforce" the new rules.

[Zeb]

Sorry, but I'm still of the opinion that Roman has accountants who know what they're fucking doing. I'm in no way pretending to understand the rules, but it seems naive in the grossest way to assume that a) clubs haven't found the potentially numerous loopholes and b) that it not going to be a joke watching UEFA attempt to "enforce" the new rules.

Enforce the new rules? There's no need - exceptions can be granted. So if Real Madrid broke the rules, they'd likely still be able to compete in European competitions under the exemption clauses.

Xerxes makes the important point that these rules only serve to make certain that there are no more challenges to the current elite. The drawbridge has now been pulled up.

[mark82]

Lawyers will make a fortune. Devil and details. How will Uefa prove a breach of said rules? FA's and football bodies in general move slower than Veira on these kind of matters. It will be a messy-talking-shop-load-of-balls. Hopefully the financial arse will fall out of football and a natural level playing field will be born. You can't get at the rich and wealthy with rules and regulations: they ignore or subvert them to their own ends. The revolution will be televised on PPV! I will be watching on a dodgy stream

They don'y have to prove anything, its their competition and clubs are invited into it from each nation. They can ban who the hell they like. If it went ppv and each club sold their own, I would certainly buy. That would give us a massive edge especially as we have owners who own and can run a tv network. If all our fans didn't have the same feeling as you we would be in the top four for revenue and profits, new stadium or not. Hell the deal would pay for the stadium.

[JHova2427]

Care to back this up with facts?

If the amount of money you can spend on players is directly related to the amount of money you bring in in revenue, then the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.  It seems to basically attempt to keep the status quo if I'm not mistaken, which would make it harder for teams like Manchester City to form over a couple of years.

Wigan is not generating a lot of revenue and more than likely never will.  Therefore they would not be able to quickly change the amount they spend on buying players.  Unless of course I am getting the wrong idea of these rules.  Xerxes1 seems right in his guesstimates to me.

[Acaustiq]

Same old predictable horse shit with ffp threads, every fucking time.

[mark82]

Same old predictable horse shit with ffp threads, every fucking time.

What's that exactly?
The idea of the thread was to hopefully stop people from using incorrect info about ffp rules and how accounts are prepared to backup or dispel possible spending restrictions, not to discuss whether or not they will actually be adhered to.