Topic: Financial Fair Play - developments in here

[No666]

Some harrumphs coming from Platini's bum about implementation, and various articles/statements implying it will be enforced and it is having an effect already. Annoyingly, Chelsea seem to have got their CL win at just the right time, so I assume they are immune.

http://football.uk.reuters.com/leagues/champleague/news/2012/08/31/2E1AF0F4-F37D-11E1-86D3-DB248033923B.php

Transfers slow as clubs react to new financial rules
By Mike Collett
15:54 BST, Fri 31 Aug 2012
MONACO (Reuters) - Transfers between European clubs are slowing down as UEFA's new rules aimed at preventing them spending beyond their means begin to have an impact, UEFA's general secretary Gianni Infantino said on Friday.
CHAMPIONS AND EUROPA LEAGUE

However, he warned that while the situation was improving, the accumulated losses in Europe were still too high.
With just hours remaining before the latest transfer window closed on Friday night, UEFA president Michel Platini insisted that European soccer's governing body would "never back down" on its decision to enforce sanctions against clubs who fail to break even and live within their means.
Speaking ahead of the Super Cup final between European champions Chelsea and Europa League winners Atletico Madrid in Monaco, Infantino said revenues may have gone up but for the first time in five years the percentage between revenues and losses was decreasing.
"The trend is starting to turn... there is a significant slowdown in transfer activity," he said.
"The new Club Financial Control Body monitoring this activity reports that the new Financial Fair Play Rules are having a clear and positive affect already.
"The financial losses are stabilised but still at dangerous levels."
Infantino revealed that last January's transfer window was quieter than in 2011 with a 36 percent decrease in spending and the comparison between January 2012 and the January average for the previous four seasons showed that activity was 20 percent lower.
Russia, Germany, France and Turkey were the only notable exceptions among the major countries, while spending this summer - excluding the final day on Friday when many deals are often done - was 22 per cent less than the seasonal average.
Infantino said that as at August 30, 1.753 billion euros ($2.19 billion) had been spent on players, lower than the summer transfer annual average of 2.249 billion.
He added that taken together, the winter and summer transfer spend is 2.146 billion euros, 78 percent of the 2008-2011 average.
"This is encouraging even though there are still some "red" figures where the transfer spend has been higher, but we are at last beginning to move in the right direction."
UEFA has backed the rules with leading political and financial experts now sitting on the control body board, which was established to monitor the situation.
Former Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene chairs the investigatory chamber, while Jose Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues of Portugal, a senior judge at the European Court of Justice, chairs the adjudicatory chamber from October.
Infantino also said UEFA was investigating 27 unnamed European clubs for non-payment of either transfer fees or salaries and that their prize money had been suspended.
But he added that in recent months 36 million euros of overdue fees had been paid by clubs - but only after UEFA exerted some pressure.
"These are not just words, it's a clear signal that the clubs are afraid," Infantino said. "They know the rules are there and that sanctions can be taken - so they pay."
The new fair play rules take full effect in 2014, and Platini remains determined to "revolutionise European football" to stop clubs continually getting into serious financial trouble.
"We are never going to go back on this," Platini said.
"There was a provisional period of three or four years for the system to get set up. This period is reaching its end. We are determined to see this through."
(Editing by Tom Bartlett)

I notice, too, that Gill is backing the LFC call for FFP in the Premier League.

[DutchRed]

It's unusual to say, but we should side with Manchester United and, to perhaps a lesser extent, Arsenal, to get FFP enforced as soon as possible. Liverpool, Arsenal and Manchester United are three teams with a huge budget without rich owners. If FFP comes to power it will see Manchester City and Chelsea unable to maintain their unfair advantage.

[mccred]

If they do this right, it can only be good for the game because its reached a point where some of the spending is obscene and will help level the playing field a bit. Success should breed success and not just be bought.
Have they even said what the sanctions will be on clubs that just ignore the rules?
I think I saw a chart on players wages and clubs income from a year or two ago and Man City's was 120% of there income, think ours was somewhere around 70% iirc? Can't see City's will have gone down, probably gone up if it was before last seasons transfers.

[No666]

These are the Gill quotes.


Premier League needs financial fair play rules now, says Manchester United chief executive David Gill

FAIR PLAY: Gill wants rules in now
Posted Friday, August 31, 2012 - 11:12
By Mancunian Matters staff

Manchester United chief executive David Gill believes the time is right for the Premier League to adopt financial fair play rules.

The rules, which UEFA will introduce into European competition in 2014, are designed to ensure clubs break even.

The changes are being implemented by the Football League, but Gill believes top-flight clubs need to lead by example and bring in the rules.

He said: "There's a real opportunity to introduce some sensible rules that effectively improve and enhance the long-term or medium-term financial stability.

“The Premier League, being the best league in the world – the most commercially effective league in the world – is having discussions now as to what, if any, additional financial regulations we should bring in.

"A lot of clubs would be happy just to introduce the financial fair play regulations into the Premier League now – some wouldn’t* – but that's a debate that has to have happened.

"And it will happen. If you look at it we've got financial regulations in the league below us, the Championship, and the competition above us, the Champions League, so we need to do it.”

*guess the clubs, eh?

[Zeb]

Scudamore was in Parliament a few weeks back to answer some follow-up questions. He said that there would be a Premier League study into aspects of financial fair play beginning in the late autumn and would be due to report in late spring. The context of that was around how clubs would be spending the increased tv money and whether it would vanish into increased wages.

[rafathegaffa83]

I'm not surprised Gill is interested in implementing FFP within a PL structure. It would benefit the likes of Manchester United who have huge gate revenues and commercial sponsorships. I seem to recall earlier in the summer, there was some mention that there were a few unnamed PL clubs that wanted the PL to adopt some sort of system in which spending was tied to revenues. I think the Football League clubs are trying to implement something similar.

[rafathegaffa83]

Apparently 27 European clubs are to be warned they are at risk of not meeting the requirements. I'd assume PSG, Chelsea, Man City and Anzhi top that list. I didn't realize Beşiktaş, Bursaspor and AEK were already currently banned for financial wrongdoings.

Michel Platini: I just want clubs to spend money they have

The Uefa president is preaching prudence, extolling the virtues of financial fair play and warning of possible sanctions amid the glitz and glamour of money-drenched Monaco

    Dominic Fifield in Monaco
    guardian.co.uk, Friday 31 August 2012 15.40 BST   

The setting seemed rather incongruous. Michel Platini stood Uefa suited and booted on a sun-drenched terrace of a plush Monte Carlo hotel, the Mediterranean lapping gently on the shore of the French Riviera below and luxury yachts drifting across the bay behind. One might have belonged to Roman Abramovich whose Chelsea, fresh from a summer spending spree that skirts £80m, were due to contest the European Super Cup on Friday night.

The scene oozed glitz and glamour and yet it was here, in this money-drenched enclave that boasts the highest number of millionaires per capita in the world, that Uefa's president delivered his annual reminder on all things financial fair play (FFP). The implementation of a scheme rubber-stamped four years ago is under way with the implications of the rules that have attracted most attention, that clubs have to break even, already being felt. "We wanted to revolutionise European football when we first introduced this idea," said the president. "We are never going back on this."

That mantra was repeated three times as if delivered for the oligarchs, American franchises and sheikhs who have transformed the face of football in recent years. Platini was speaking as clubs across Europe whipped themselves into a frenzy ahead of the closure of the transfer window. There is, Uefa insists, a uniform desire for FFP to work – both in terms of ensuring teams meet their existing debts, but also do not overstretch themselves – and yet the period since the plans were first made public has seen the continued spending of Chelsea, the eye-catching emergence of Manchester City and, more recently, Paris St-Germain, as well as clubs across Russia whose outlay on wages and in the transfer market would, at first glance, appear to fly in the face of all things FFP.

Those clubs argue they are not spending beyond their means, pointing to commercial revenues and sponsorship deals to justify their considerable clout. But there is also the example of Málaga, a club purchased by Sheikh Abdullah bin Nasser al-Thani of the Qatari royal family and who were heavy spenders last season, only for the owner's interest apparently to wane and funds dry up. There have been transfer bans, the threat of legal action over unpaid wages and a player exodus since, with this the kind of meltdown FFP is aimed at preventing. Clubs bought on a whim can be discarded and left to disintegrate just as quickly.

"It can happen at Málaga, it has happened at Portsmouth, it can happen everywhere," said Platini. "Many people are coming into the game to make business, to make popularity ... some actually love football, but remember Uefa are there to protect [the clubs], not kill them. I just want clubs to spend money they have, not what they don't have. I've spoken to football directors, chairmen and owners from all over the world, I've spoken to Manchester City's owners in Abu Dhabi, and everybody has given their commitment to this plan. Some aren't necessarily showing it, but we have been very clear with them. We have put the structure in place to implement these rules. If clubs do not respect the rules, they will get into difficulty, whether they are from France, from Italy, from England, from Georgia ..."

The sanctions will range from warnings, reprimands and fines, to the deduction of points, disqualification or exclusion from competitions and withdrawal of titles. The break-even rule comes into effect from the 2014-15 season – Uefa's club financial control body is taking into account the financial years 2012 and 2013 – though the other element of FFP, the overdue payments rule where commitments have not been met to players or other clubs for transfers, has been running since last year. The Hungarian club Gyori, AEK Athens and Beşiktaş are already banned from European competition. Disciplinary procedures are under way against another 27 clubs, who are in the process of being informed.

There was a criticism of national associations who allow such mismanagement to occur in their leagues – "Sometimes the associations don't do their work and we have to come after [them]" – though the threat of punishment, Platini suggested, is already having an effect. While Chelsea and PSG have poured money into recruitment, the average spend in the last two windows was actually well down on previous years. There was a 36% decrease in the winter window, from €613m (£487m) in January 2011 to €393m this year. Indeed, 2012's transfer spend of €2.146bn to 30 August represented only 78% of the 2008-11 average. Some might put that down to a difficult economic climate. Uefa and its president insist it is the shadow being cast by the imminent new rules.

How, then, does a proud Frenchman react to Ligue 1 boasting arguably the richest club in the world given the money PSG has flung at Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Thiago Silva, Lucas Moura and Ezequiel Lavezzi? "I'm not here to be proud or popular," added Platini. "I have to do my job as president of Uefa. We take decisions that apply for English, French and Russian clubs. Perhaps I will be unpopular [in France], but they will respect me.

"Anyway, you think people in Paris think about financial fair play and PSG? Most people in Paris don't even know there's a club in Paris … It's not London. This is France. It's different, even if people are surprised at the amount of money PSG are paying the players. They are not used to that."

That sense of shock will apply to those clubs who fail to comply in the years ahead. The message from Monaco was clear.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/aug/31/michel-platini-financial-fair-play?newsfeed=true

[No666]

A version of FFP for the Premier League - can anyone explain why Everton are against the idea?

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/wenger-controls-show-real-size-clubs-185150822.html

[Agger]

UEFA's FFP Regulations - Play To Win

http://swissramble.blogspot.se/2012/09/uefas-ffp-regulations-play-to-win.html

[INABITSKI]

Not taken much notice of this recently, just seen the thread (not read any of the above or this article infact, but this guy does post some great stuff in fine detail)

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/uefas-ffp-regulations-play-to-win.html

[Semi Skimmed]

A version of FFP for the Premier League - can anyone explain why Everton are against the idea?

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/wenger-controls-show-real-size-clubs-185150822.html

It's Kopite behaviour.

[RedHopper]

A version of FFP for the Premier League - can anyone explain why Everton are against the idea?

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/wenger-controls-show-real-size-clubs-185150822.html

Because they want to sell, and wiping out sugar daddies are going to make everton a much less attractive prospect for a buyer.

For FSG, FFP means that we can build ourselves up to the point where we're at least the second richest club in the league, and since we won't be handing over a third of our money to our owners, we'll be able to fight on an even footing with man utd. It is just going to take time to build us up to that level. A club that is making a healthy operating profit to reinvest, is one that does well on the pitch, and is better able to get out of trouble.

[redgriffin73]

Mancs get the headline but it's about us as well.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/manchester-united-to-argue-case-for-tighter-controls-on-spending-in-the-premier-league-8106912.html

[-Willo-]

^^

Good on them, however they can hardly talk, they've spent fucking shit loads to win numerous titles in the past an all the daft bints.

Veron, Berbatov, Nani, Anderson, Ferdinand, Rooney, van Persie, van Nistelrooy, fuck it I can't be arsed I'll be here all night.

[rafathegaffa83]

About time... shame it took United getting involved before the league gave a damn

Premier League ponders salary cap or financial fair play as new cash looms

• New even more lucrative TV deal runs 2013-16
• Richard Scudamore presents options to clubs at meeting

    David Conn   
    guardian.co.uk, Thursday 6 September 2012 21.33 BST   

The Premier League is considering the introduction of rules to control escalating player wages before the huge influx of cash from the next television deals in 2013-16. Potential rules presented to the clubs by the chief executive, Richard Scudamore, at a meeting in London on Thursday include a salary cap or a form of Uefa's financial fair play rules.

Some clubs feel strongly that the new TV deal, with £3bn already secured from the UK rights, should not be swallowed up by a new wave of pay inflation. But any rule change requires 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs to agree and it is not clear whether sufficient clubs will be in favour of strengthening financial regulations.

Manchester United and Arsenal, both of whom made profits in 2010-11, are understood to favour rules similar to Uefa's, which require clubs to move towards breaking even financially, not making losses. On Thursday Arsène Wenger supported that view, the Arsenal manager saying: "You should just get the resources you generate, that will determine the real size of the club."

However, some clubs see that as a move by the two with the greatest income to outspend everyone else. Manchester City, whose path to becoming Premier League champions has been achieved by the club's Abu Dhabi owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, subsidising huge losses, are thought unlikely to support new regulations, even though they have consistently said they are aiming to break even. City argue that a level of investment by an owner to bankroll losses is necessary to lift a club to success on the field and commercially.

Other clubs, including Fulham, Everton, West Bromwich Albion, Newcastle and Tottenham Hotspur, are also understood to question whether clubs need new regulations, rather than being trusted to manage their own affairs.

Despite income rising every year, pay to players has risen steadily over the past decade. In 2001-02, clubs spent £1.1bn, 62% of their income, on players' wages. In 2010-11, the most recent year for which financial figures are available, income grew to £2.5bn but players' wages amounted to £1.8bn, 70% of the clubs' turnover. Despite massive commercial growth and the Premier League's growing popularity abroad, only eight of the 20 clubs made a profit in 2010-11.

West Ham United's chairman, David Gold, is vocally in favour of introducing rules to limit wages to help clubs make a profit, as is Dave Whelan, the Wigan Athletic owner. Peter Coates, the Stoke City owner, said all clubs would be helped by having to conform to agreed rules.

"I hope this view is widely shared: we cannot have all the new money going in inflated wages and payments to agents," Coates said. "There is no need to do that; we will have the same players, they won't get better because we pay them more. It should not be beyond us to find a formula which works for us all."

Ellis Short, the owner and chairman of Sunderland, who lost £8m last year having spent 77% of the club's income in wages, is understood to favour restricting salary increases to 10% in each of the new TV deal's three years.

The clubs have agreed to work on the proposals in two separate groups of 10, then for all 20 to meet to consider the issue in detail at the end of September. The Premier League did not want to comment in detail until further work has been done; a spokesman confirmed: "There is a process under way to examine potential further financial regulation."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/06/premier-league-salary-cap

[kopitecrash]

About time... shame it took United getting involved before the league gave a damn

They care about destroying the competition, not financial fair play. If they enforce some kind of spend what you earn policy instead of a salary cap they just give free reign to supposed 'big clubs' to dominate based on their reputation. Which isn't the way football should work.

[Malaysian Kopite]

They care about destroying the competition, not financial fair play. If they enforce some kind of spend what you earn policy instead of a salary cap they just give free reign to supposed 'big clubs' to dominate based on their reputation. Which isn't the way football should work.

Why not? Clubs that will make the most money are the ones with the biggest global reputation as opposed to being a billionaire's latest plaything.

[armchair-fan]

It's unusual to say, but we should side with Manchester United and, to perhaps a lesser extent, Arsenal, to get FFP enforced as soon as possible. Liverpool, Arsenal and Manchester United are three teams with a huge budget without rich owners. If FFP comes to power it will see Manchester City and Chelsea unable to maintain their unfair advantage.

And then we get to maintain our unfair advantage?

In any case, we have to qualify for UEFA competition before we worry about being excluded.  Let's not put the cart before the horse.

[armchair-fan]

Why not? Clubs that will make the most money are the ones with the biggest global reputation as opposed to being a billionaire's latest plaything.

Because it cements the stats quo for ever more, kills the dreams of 99% of clubs of one day being taken on by a Sheikh Mansour type and makes the sport as dull as f*ck for everyone who doesn't support a "Champions League Club".

[Giz a Gobble]

Agreed, to an extent.

My own opinion is that it is badly needed and will reign in this practice of pumping ridiculous sums of money into teams to 'purchase' success. However, that's with my Liverpool hat on and I'm, obviously, biased. If we were in Manchester City's position right now, god know how much noise we would make about it being unfair that other clubs were attempting to drag us back down.

I still can't see any form of FFP coming in in all reality but I hope it does for our (admittedly) selfish reasons

[No666]

A salary cap will merely ensure a talent drain. A break-even allows more flexibility.

[Solomon Grundy]

A version of FFP for the Premier League - can anyone explain why Everton are against the idea?

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/wenger-controls-show-real-size-clubs-185150822.html

It probably all boils down to. If and when this comes in Everton wont earn enough to compete with the big boys.

Man Utd will be the big winners in all this, because they earn more then everybody else.

[Solomon Grundy]

What they should've done instead of this FFP rule is put a cap on how much a club can spend on players and wages each season. For example set the cap at say 50 million worldwide. That way, clubs would have to think long and hard on how they spent their money. They would have to learn to run their clubs properly, not like some rich billionaires play thing. It would also clamp down on the mercenary players element aswell. You see clubs wouldn't be able to offer players two or maybe three times what they're on already to join them, because they'd have to be a lot more carefull with their budgets.

[Upinsmoke]

I know american sports have salary caps, how does competition fair year in year out?

[Solomon Grundy]

I know american sports have salary caps, how does competition fair year in year out?

I've no idea mate.

BUT

I dont think you can put a cap on salaries in Europe. I think thats the law. You cant put a restriction on how much somebody can earn, including footballers unfortunately. Thats why I think it would be better if they put a worldwide cap on how much a club can spend.

[helmboy_nige]

I do think that the authorities might be more serious than a lot of us originally felt about FFP.  While there is a case to say that with the likes of Chelsea and City they have such resources that they might find a way to wangle their way out of problems, neither of these teams have the authority of Man Utd in the corridors of power.

For the first time in ages, Man U (amongst a few others) might be doing something really good by holding the key to seeing this through.  FFP helps them, so they will want it to succeed.

FFP in the prem is something I'd like to see, but I'd expect it to take a number of years to fight that one out.

[armchair-fan]

I do think that the authorities might be more serious than a lot of us originally felt about FFP.  While there is a case to say that with the likes of Chelsea and City they have such resources that they might find a way to wangle their way out of problems, neither of these teams have the authority of Man Utd in the corridors of power.

For the first time in ages, Man U (amongst a few others) might be doing something really good by holding the key to seeing this through.  FFP helps them, so they will want it to succeed.

FFP in the prem is something I'd like to see, but I'd expect it to take a number of years to fight that one out.

I find it slightly odd that you relish the idea of Man Utd being head and shoulders above everyone else in England in perpetuity, but each to their own.

[stevo7]

For the first time in ages, Man U  might be doing something really good by holding the key to seeing this through.

Nah - it's self-interest. They're worried that another 2 teams with potential to grow (eg Leeds & a Birmingham based side) are taken over like Manc City & Chelsea and then Manc Utd are left outside the Top 4 & Champions League.

Although theres need for FFP, I think smaller clubs should have some influence in the formulation of the rules, so clubs with small revenues aren't shut out of ever making the top 4.

[Cid]

I recall reading that ffp does not include stadium or related development costs?  If it goes through I imagine what we'll see is massive stadium monstrosities surrounded by retail and restaurant venues all owned by the clubs.

Another possibility is seeing clubs like Chelsea and city absolutely splurge cash in one lump sum to break the top 4 and then worry about the finances after establishing that dominance. City could stop spending entirely now and in a few years would meet ffp requirements, so they'll never be as weak a club as they were.

Same goes for Chelsea really. The players they have and the things they have won mean they're now an established name for players and do not need to blow millions every year (the fact they continue to do so is just disgusting).

Everton opposition is hilarious. This from a team that doesn't even spend its own income? I guess it's all down to the theory I keep hearing from blue friends that they'll get bought by a billionaire soon, as they're the best prospect in the league. The idea that such a fantasy exists all the way to the top of their club really warms my cockles :-D

[RossoBianchi]

As I've said.

The only way I'll believe this isn't all bullshit is if they kick clubs overspending and clubs in debt out of the 'Champions' League and their other competitions.

No way that Chelsea, Manchester City or Manchester United should be allowed in under these rules.

Manchester United bleating and they've spent £48M NET despite being hundreds of millions of quid in debt.

It's not so much about being in debt, as it is being self-sufficient.

Why can't we all be like Dortmund...

WHEN Sheikh Al Mansour’s Manchester City take on Borussia Dortmund they will face the man who wants them expelled from the Champions League. Dortmund chief executive Hans-Joachim Watzke has called for heavily-indebted City to be disqualified by UEFA when the Financial Fair Play rules kick in. City drew Dortmund in a group that includes Real Madrid and Ajax.

But the Borussia vs City face-off is more than a match — it is a clash of cultures.

Watzke saved Borussia after years of mismanagement, huge transfers, sky-high wages and stadium expansion led them to debts of £125million in 2005.
They sold their stadium but Watzke managed to buy it back and ship out the big earners.

During his seven-year stewardship Dortmund have slashed their debts back to £30m, won back-to-back titles and posted a German record £32m pre-tax profit 10 days ago.
The differences with billionaire Al Mansour’s City are staggering. Borussia’s wage-bill is £40m — a QUARTER of their £162m turnover.

Carlos Tevez and Yaya Toure pocket £10m per season EACH. City posted whopping £194.9m losses last year and their £174m wage-bill was £22m MORE than their turnover.
Dortmund retained the title in 2012 despite losing Nuri Sahin to Madrid for just £8m.

But even that was an example of good housekeeping, Borussia accepted the bargain get-out clause in the contract to keep his salary low and balance the books.
They are favourites for a Bundesliga hat-trick this season even after Shinji Kagawa’s sale to Manchester United with the £12m fee not even included in this year’s record profits.
They manage to do all this with ticket prices ranging from just £11.50 to £52. You pay as little as £170 for a season ticket — £620 is the priciest — and they throw in the Champions League matches for that price!

Borussia’s average gate last season was 80,552, Europe’s highest. Watzke makes no secret that he hates the approach of Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich and Sheik Mansour. he says: “Financial Fair Play (FFP) means clubs can’t spend more than they receive.

“It’s over for Italian tycoons, Russian oligarchs and sheikhs that buy clubs for personal fun and spend billions just because life in a yacht is boring.

“Manchester City lost £195m with the spending of their Abu Dhabi investors. From 2014-15 such clubs will be threatened with exclusion from the Champions League. This is not about German virtue against southern European profligacy or Arab football immorality. Such businessmen existed in German football too and had success even at Dortmund.

“We must allow a football culture to prevail. It allowed Dortmund to win two titles by having a good structure, a healthy fan base, a full stadium and a patient, financially viable policy.”

In a swipe at City, whose £350m deal with Etihad airlines (owned by the United Arab Emirates government who have close links with Sheikh Al Mansour) has come under UEFA scrutiny, Watzke insists: “UEFA must find the thin line between sponsorship and excessive back-door funding. They must show strength to expel big clubs.

“No tycoon should be allowed to pump crazy money into a club with sponsorship from five companies he controls. If that happens FFP will fail.”

Watzke likens City with big-spending Russian club Anzhi Makhachkala, who pay Sam Eto’o £17.5m a season, and Malaga, who reached the Champions League under Arab owners who ran into trouble and slashed costs. They ended up flogging stars like £25m-rated Santi Cazorla to Arsenal for just £16m.

He added: “I doubt Eto’o can earn £17.5m a year from a club that has nothing. It’s sick.

“With FFP this club should never play in European competitions. It will be as tough for Malaga and Manchester City. They will have a massive problem when FFP is implemented.”

The customary pre-match meal between both sets of directors when City play Dortmund promises to be rather spicy

[..Bruiser..]

This will help united dominate with all the money they get in. Whether FFP is the best thing or not the authorities have allowed massive spending to go in for years and not seemed to care. The only gripe I'd have if I was a big spender would be why not do something earlier. City have a lot of work to do to get in line with FFP, especially if UEFA only counted a percentage of the stadium naming rights because they see it as a "gift" from th owner.

[Kovai Red]

Why Manchester United want to have some salary cap is because, they cant afford to pay more wages and in that process they lost some targets to Chelsea and City. That shouldn't be the case, but a break-even policy will do fine and it will be fair to every party involved.

[Cid]

This will help united dominate with all the money they get in. Whether FFP is the best thing or not the authorities have allowed massive spending to go in for years and not seemed to care. The only gripe I'd have if I was a big spender would be why not do something earlier. City have a lot of work to do to get in line with FFP, especially if UEFA only counted a percentage of the stadium naming rights because they see it as a "gift" from th owner.

It hurts to say it but United deserve to dominate. They have done very good business for years to develop their club into a money making machine unmatched across football and they have done it while winning and strengthening their side.

We're starting down the same road. Maximising our public image, getting huge sponsorships rather than insulting low ones with companies we like doing business with.

Chelsea and city have made it difficult for any well run club to enter Europe. no matter the size of their fan base, their income or their history and that is wrong.

In a fair system Newcastle and spurs would both be in the champions league this year. Yes it's a case of closing the door once the horse has bolted but what is another club gets a billionaire owner? What if another 5 do? 

It is not fair to have owners spending far, far more than any other club can afford, because it all ends in a class system. Sheik owned and not. If they're allowed to continue this perversion of the game man United will skip and fall down the table, but we'll be right down there with them fighting for scraps.

[BarryCrocker]

Ideally a salary cap should be a fixed value and not based on a % of turnover.

The National Rugby League (NRL) in Australia introduced one 20 years ago. There has only ever been 2 occasions that a team has gone back-to-back. There has also been 11 different champions.

[rafathegaffa83]

I know american sports have salary caps, how does competition fair year in year out?

I can write more about this later, but it depends on how "hard" the cap is. The NBA still has large disparity between the haves and have nots. The NHL cap has enabled smaller teams to retain key players and has introduced more parity, but is currently eating itself due to loopholes involving the length of player contracts and dumping stupid contracts in the minor leagues to minimize the hit. The NFL has more parity, but unlike say the NHL, contracts are largely performance based and not guaranteed. Thus if you release someone in the NFL you're not stuck with a massive bill, unlike in the NHL. You also tend to see older players accept the minimum wage for their "age bracket" (in most of these leagues there is a minimum salary based on how long you have been in the league and a maximum for rookies) in order to try to win something.

That said much of the parity in these sports is possibly driven by the fact they are won via knockout competitions and thus the best team on any given day could win. However, you do have teams big and small that despite the cap are terribly run: For example, the Toronto Maple Leafs and New York Islanders in the NHL or the Miami Dolphins in the NFL are all mismanaged in various ways and haven't taken advantage of the cap or figured out how to best exploit it.

[-Willo-]

Because it cements the stats quo for ever more, kills the dreams of 99% of clubs of one day being taken on by a Sheikh Mansour type and makes the sport as dull as f*ck for everyone who doesn't support a "Champions League Club".

The sport right now is dull as fuck though, seeing City as the champions of England and Chelsea as the champions of Europe is sickening, its not hard to compete if you're clever, see Newcastle and even Swansea for a lovely example, if you want to be up there with the big boys earn it properly.

[helmboy_nige]

I find it slightly odd that you relish the idea of Man Utd being head and shoulders above everyone else in England in perpetuity, but each to their own.

I think you've misunderstood.  I'm not happy that Man U are essentially the controlling influence in football.  I'm saying that the fact they are and are on our side of the fence for a change is a good thing.

Yes they are doing it out of self-interest.  But at least their self-interest matches up with ours.

Man City and Chelsea will be on one side... Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal on the other.

[B0151?]

haven't thought about it much at all but i'd much prefer if there was a team salary cap. really even the playing fields. would be difficult i guess though with the difference in leagues and their incomes. (just saw a mention of it above, hadn't read the thread sorry)

one of the things i dislike about any of this though is that they say all this financial fair play will encourage investors along... is that a good thing? so we'll have even more money-grabbing twats only this time they are guaranteed a profit? i don't think for a minute that any of this will mean that ticket prices will be reduced. that should be the aim, in this country at least.

[litliper]

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/protectingthegame/financialfairplay/news/newsid=1857626.html#prize+money+clubs+withheld

Prize money for 23 clubs withheld
Published: Tuesday 11 September 2012, 10.30CET
The UEFA Club Financial Control Body's investigatory chamber has announced that 23 clubs involved in 2012/13 UEFA club competitions have had their prize money temporarily withheld.

The UEFA Club Financial Control Body has taken its first measures

UEFA Fair Play and Social Responsibility Committee meeting, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina
The UEFA Club Financial Control Body's (CFCB) investigatory chamber, chaired by former Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, has today announced that 23 clubs involved in 2012/13 UEFA club competitions have seen the payment of their prize money temporarily withheld pending further investigation.

As part of the first measure of the financial fair play requirements included in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations 2012, the clubs participating in 2012/13 UEFA club competitions had to provide information regarding the status of any overdue payables as at 30 June 2012. Following its last meeting in August 2012, the CFCB investigatory chamber has identified that important overdue payables towards other clubs, and/or towards employees or social/tax authorities existed in 23 cases.

These cases involve the following 23 clubs:
FK Borac Banja Luka (BIH)
FK Sarajevo (BIH)
FK Željezničar (BIH)
PFC CSKA Sofia (BUL)
HNK Hajduk Split (CRO)
NK Osijek (CRO)
Club Atlético de Madrid (ESP)
Málaga CF (ESP)
Maccabi Netanya FC (ISR)
FK Shkendija 79 (MKD)
Floriana FC (MLT)
FK Budućnost Podgorica (MNE)
FK Rudar Pjevlja (MNE)
Ruch Chorzów (POL)
Sporting Clube de Portugal (POR)
FC Dinamo Bucureşti (ROU)
FC Rapid Bucureşti (ROU)
FC Vaslui (ROU)
FC Rubin Kazan (RUS)
FK Partizan (SRB)
FK Vojvodina (SRB)
Eskişehirspor (TUR)
Fenerbahçe SK (TUR)

Consequently, the CFCB investigatory chamber will continue their investigations and request these clubs to provide an updated situation as of 30 September 2012 with regards to overdue payables towards other clubs, employees and social/tax authorities.

This conservatory measure will remain into force until all identified balances have been settled in full or until a final decision by the CFCB adjudicatory chamber is taken.

[Cid]

Pointless measure when applied to clubs like city and Chelsea. I fear this may be the halfway we all feared ffp would arrive at.