Topic: Financial Fair Play - developments in here

[Zeb]

Being widely reported that PSG have settled with UEFA on their sanctions for breaking FFP. They are supposed to be:

1) Cannot increase total wage bill beyond where it's at currently (c.240m Euros per year).

2) They must sell before buying, and cannot pay more than 60m Euros total on new players. (Implication is that's 60m gross, not net).

3) Can only register 21 players for European competition.

4) They also must pay a 60m Euro fine and reduce their FFP deficit to 30m Euros by the end of the 2014/15 financial year.

---

Manchester City are also being widely reported to be in no mood to settle. They have until the end of the week to do so, or take part in Platini's 'I've no fucking clue what will happen - but these guys have been absolutely brutal in banning clubs from European competition in the past' adjucation group. Spot who is being briefed by whom in the press over the next week as all sorts of poo hits the revolving thing.

[CraigDS]

That is a lot tougher sanctions than I was expecting to be honest, which is a good thing.

Will be interesting what City decide to do, as with it being an English club (and the French one settling) I can see Platini pushing for an example to be made.

[Cantona]

Tougher sanctions then I expected. I don't see the point of a fine thought and where does the money go? UEFA's pockets? What's the point of that?

Agreeing to this deal means they are also agreeing to cut down their future spending, or next season the sanctions will be much tougher.

Going to be interesting what happens with City.

Edit. Turns out I wrote the same as Craig.

[Zeb]

Any fines get redistributed to grassroots football by UEFA. What I'd like to know is whether any fines levied also count towards the FFP total? Not seen that clarified anywhere, but would seem logical that they would? Suggestion is that the fine will be paid over a 3 year period.

Have to say I've not yet seen the L'Equipe piece the information is based upon (hence no link to it), so if anyone can post it that would be hugely appreciated. Even if it's just a pic, we can translate it from that.

[Cantona]

Cheers Zeb, so grassroots football benefit? Well that's good then.

Surely the fines cannot be included in next season's accounting to meet FFP, that would be unfair.

[Zeb]

If the issue is that the club is overspending and has plenty of money, it's one way to encourage them to stick to the limits if they've got a c.£15m reduction in their normal FFP spending plans every year for two or three? The alternative punishment would be to not give them their CL tv money, which wouldn't count as income and so wouldn't count to FFP either. But, as I said, it's logical to me that it would have that effect, but not seen it clarified whether it will work like that.

[Cantona]

Hmm, it's a tough one and I understand where you are coming from Zeb, but they will probably fail again next season, no way will they reduce their deficit to 30 Million. What happens then? Tougher sanctions and a bigger fine? The fines will be neverending.

[Zeb]

Yeah, know what you mean. But if owners are not taking a hint at 60m Euros over 3 years, you'd think that the next stage is just outright bans from European competition until a club comes into line with FFP?

[wellred99]

Interesting stuff. Would have liked a transfer ban as well to be honest but this is a start. Hope City don't find some loophole for which to wriggle out of any punishment.

[Cantona]

I don't think bans would happen for a few years yet, but nobody really knows do they?
Looks like FFP may have some teeth indeed, it's going to be interesting watching it all unfold and the legal disputes following it.

[wellred99]

It needs to have some teeth if it's going to achieve what it was intended to do, deter teams from over spending. I like what they have done so far. I think if a team has found in breach more than 3 times then they should be banned from Europe for a season.

[Latenight Surfer]

If FFP looks to impose sanctions upon the loan system in the near future, then I am sure that it would be more effective.

[CraigDS]

If FFP looks to impose sanctions upon the loan system in the near future, then I am sure that it would be more effective.

In what way?

[Latenight Surfer]

 

In what way?

If it comes up with something like an age cap or putting a limit on the number of players that can be loaned out by a club each year then the clubs will be more careful as to how many they should buy and for what price.

1. Limit on players being loaned-out

Example Chelsea:

They have over 26 players on loan, 8 of them are in Vittesse Arnhem alone (Many were bought from them and loaned back to them for their 'development') and they have no intention upon bringing them back to their team any time soon, which would of course help those teams who have those players on loan, like Everton or Atletico Madrid but what when the time comes, then the clubs like Vittesse will surely be effected. They are selling because offers are coming that are hard to reject with the money involved, but if they imposed these sanctions then the offers will be reduced.

2. Age cap

Example Man City:

Consider Barry, Adebayor, Santa Cruz, Jo, etc. They all are/were being loaned out because the clubs no longer need them and their wages are too high. If there was an age cap for the players being loaned out then clubs would think twice before buying players involving huge contracts.

Things like these would definitely help small clubs who are looking to protect their players, although the players would want to go to a bigger club but knowing that there are risks involved with that money they would weigh their options carefully and not go running to sign the contract and end up being on the bench/back to the club they came from/In search of another club willing to take them on loan etc.,.

If sanctions like these or similar to these were at place long back then Southampton won't be fretting about losing their priced possessions at the end of the season despite moving in the right direction.

P.S: The examples above were given just to illustrate the problems but not used in anyway to criticize those clubs' models because almost all clubs are looking to exploit the loop holes of the loan system which is only natural but clubs with a lot of money are always in the spot-light and so the examples were used for a better understanding.

[CraigDS]

That's not really got anything to do with FFP though.

And not sure why they would implement it, as it prevents players going away to get playing time (older players) and prevents youngsters going away to develop. As long as their transfer spend/wages don't make them pass the FFP limits then it's not really an issue for FFP.

The Chelsea/Vittesse link is being looked into for other reasons though.

[brownie 09]

so Everton and United could say those fines dont go far enough?

[Latenight Surfer]

That's not really got anything to do with FFP though.

And not sure why they would implement it, as it prevents players going away to get playing time (older players) and prevents youngsters going away to develop. As long as their transfer spend/wages don't make them pass the FFP limits then it's not really an issue for FFP.

The Chelsea/Vittesse link is being looked into for other reasons though.

Maybe not FFP but a similar body at a continental level combining with FFP would definitely make the case even stronger.

Now, as far as the player growth is concerned, how many players are actually being loaned out by their clubs in order to allow them to get more game time in the same league? Very few. So if there was a limit say 4 players per team in the same league then it would be of help in many ways without disturbing the development of those players. If there is no limit then clubs will look to exploit it by signing players when they don't need them just to be ahead of their rivals and keep them on loan at the club from which they bought, recent example Kurt Zouma. 

I can only think of Chelsea players at this moment but I must also add that Italian league currently has the highest players on loan across Europe for good or bad is totally up for debate, but smaller clubs are in desperate need of these loan sanctions more than anyone.

[Felch Aid]

breaking news city fined 50 million?

[CoventryYNWA]

50m can be absorbed by them quite easily I would suspect, seems around the figure you get for Champions League Qualification.

If only they could be deducted 3 points...

[jillcwhomever]

@martynziegler  3m
Man City's FFP sanctions: 21-man CL squad instead of 25; 60m euro fine over 3 years; no rise in CL squad wage bill allowed. Same as for PSG.

[CraigDS]

Maybe not FFP but a similar body at a continental level combining with FFP would definitely make the case even stronger.

Now, as far as the player growth is concerned, how many players are actually being loaned out by their clubs in order to allow them to get more game time in the same league? Very few. So if there was a limit say 4 players per team in the same league then it would be of help in many ways without disturbing the development of those players. If there is no limit then clubs will look to exploit it by signing players when they don't need them just to be ahead of their rivals and keep them on loan at the club from which they bought, recent example Kurt Zouma. 

I can only think of Chelsea players at this moment but I must also add that Italian league currently has the highest players on loan across Europe for good or bad is totally up for debate, but smaller clubs are in desperate need of these loan sanctions more than anyone.

This is nothing to do with FFP though, unless they are overspending on fee's and/or wages and pushing them outside the FFP regulations.

[CraigDS]

50m can be absorbed by them quite easily I would suspect, seems around the figure you get for Champions League Qualification.

If only they could be deducted 3 points...

As Zeb said, it's not necessarily the fine which is the biggest punishment for that, it effectively lowers the bar for FFP for them by €20m a season so it is even harder to achieve.

[jillcwhomever]

Man City Fined £50m For Breaking Finance Rules

The fine will be payable over three years and the team will have to freeze their Champions League spending, Sky sources report.

Manchester City have been fined £50m after breaching Uefa's Financial Fair Play regulations, according to Sky sources.

And there will be limits on their squad size in next season's Champions League.

Sky sources understand the fine will be payable over three years and the team will have to freeze their Champions League spending.

Additionally, they will only be able to enter a 21-man squad in the Champions League (instead of 25).

City are contesting the penalty - full confirmation of the fine and conditions imposed is expected by the end of the week or early next.

More follows...

[Latenight Surfer]

This is nothing to do with FFP though, unless they are overspending on fee's and/or wages and pushing them outside the FFP regulations.

That is exactly what is happening right now.

[Cantona]

@martynziegler  3m
Man City's FFP sanctions: 21-man CL squad instead of 25; 60m euro fine over 3 years; no rise in CL squad wage bill allowed. Same as for PSG.

How does that work then?

[GG8]

How does that work then?

I asked the same in the City thread. Surely the wage bill of a 21 man squad will be substantially lower than the 24 man squad anyway. Does this not just give them room to massively improve the reduced squad?

[BurnCK]

If FFP is to stop clubs doing a Portsmouth or Leeds then surely fines like that only make matters worse...or is it just the clubs with owners that have deep pockets that get those sorts of fines? 

£50mil?? haha FFP has just been revealed for what it truly is...a UEFA money making exercise.

[peachybum]

How does that work then?

They look at the wage bill of the players registered in this years competition and they can't go over that amount next year, although they can register different players.

[Schmidt]

It seems like they've tried to put as many sanctions on both teams as possible while having as little real impact as possible, to make FFP sanctions look more severe than the actually are.

[west_london_red]

@martynziegler  3m
Man City's FFP sanctions: 21-man CL squad instead of 25; 60m euro fine over 3 years; no rise in CL squad wage bill allowed. Same as for PSG.

If thats true then its great news, although I suspect its a starting position that will be negotiated down as thats a lot harsher then people were expecting

[Cantona]

Do City have the same sanction as PSG with new transfers?
Sell before buy and cant spend more than 60M?

[CraigDS]

That is exactly what is happening right now.

Given Chelsea don't break the FFP rules, and are arguably the worst for loaning players out, it isn't really what happens now.

[CraigDS]

It seems like they've tried to put as many sanctions on both teams as possible while having as little real impact as possible, to make FFP sanctions look more severe than the actually are.

If what is being reported is true then the sanctions are pretty severe, and should have a real impact.

[Zoomers]

What a fucking joke... They should put a limit on their spending the fucking pricks.

[viteslesrouges]

If FFP is to stop clubs doing a Portsmouth or Leeds then surely fines like that only make matters worse...or is it just the clubs with owners that have deep pockets that get those sorts of fines? 

£50mil?? haha FFP has just been revealed for what it truly is...a UEFA money making exercise.

Spot on mate, financial "irregularity" attracts punitive financial penalties which are way over anyone would have predicted. Compare it to the penalties levied on clubs who have been found guilty of failing to control their fans' racist abuse, chanting etc.

And UEFA have the balls to call it Financial Fair Play. FFS.

I hope City challenge it to the highest level necessary. Oh, and make no mistake, I'm no apologist for the mega-rich investors in these clubs.

[Schmidt]

If what is being reported is true then the sanctions are pretty severe, and should have a real impact.

I'm not too sure, a 21 man squad is still plenty, and the smaller squad means a lower wage bill anyway. They could sign a player on £150k/week and make sure that the players they drop from the squad make more than that surely? The fine doesn't affect them at all.

[brownie 09]

I'm not too sure, a 21 man squad is still plenty, and the smaller squad means a lower wage bill anyway. They could sign a player on £150k/week and make sure that the players they drop from the squad make more than that surely? The fine doesn't affect them at all.

thats an assumption though on the wage bill no one knows what the actual terms are there. They could take the average wage for the current 25man squad and just aportion it to a 21man squad and say you cant go higher then that

[Latenight Surfer]

FFP may not have whatever it needs right now but in time it'll get stronger and stronger provided UEFA and FFP do not bend and the initial signs IMO are not really that bad.

[jillcwhomever]

Do City have the same sanction as PSG with new transfers?
Sell before buy and cant spend more than 60M?

I am sure someone else has confirmed they have the same sanctions as PSG.

[Schmidt]

thats an assumption though on the wage bill no one knows what the actual terms are there. They could take the average wage for the current 25man squad and just aportion it to a 21man squad and say you cant go higher then that

None of the wordings I've seen suggest they will, but it's a possibility.