Topic: Financial Fair Play - developments in here

[Dave D]

Man city, like chelsea, are a poorly run club with a c*nt of an owner. Their only strategy is to throw money at any problems that arise and hope that they'll go away. Fines, transfer bans, squad reductions, it's all too good for the c*nts. Start banning them from the CL it's the only way.

[RedSince86]

Tranfer embargos would be better than paltry fines.

[Cantona]

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.

The sanctions were never going to be the highest possible in the first year but they are still pretty strong.
Accepting the settlement means City agree that they've failed to comply and will have to rein in their spending from now on, as failure next year will mean even tougher sanctions imposed.

[Circa1892]

Anyone reckon UEFA have their eyes on some fancy new headquarters. Seems like a good way to do it, fine the oil rich teams every year but never really punish them where it hurts...

[CraigDS]

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

'None of the wordings'?

You mean the two or three media sources of this information which is all stemming from L'Equipe and provides little to no detail on how it will work?

[Schmidt]

The sanctions were never going to be the highest possible in the first year but they are still pretty strong.
Accepting the settlement means City agree that they've failed to comply and will have to rein in their spending from now on, as failure next year will mean even tougher sanctions imposed.

Yeah I suppose, I guess we'll have to wait until next year to see how far it all progresses.

[CraigDS]

Anyone reckon UEFA have their eyes on some fancy new headquarters. Seems like a good way to do it, fine the oil rich teams every year but never really punish them where it hurts...

The money goes to grass roots football.

[sturridginho]

Would they still need 8 HG players? that would mean only 13 foreign players, that could hurt a lot.
Who were there HG players this season?

[Kadian]

Decent work by UEFA that.

Fair play.

[OneTouchFooty]

Oh wow a fine to a sugar daddy club is really going to hurt them isn't it?

Transfer embargo for a couple of windows or force them to reduce the wage bill to whatever % of their turnover by next season. Funny though as some of their big names won't be playing in the CL next year. 

[Circa1892]

Would they still need 8 HG players? that would mean only 13 foreign players, that could hurt a lot.
Who were there HG players this season?

They're going to struggle with that, Lescott and Richards will be moving on - so that leaves Hart and Milner and another six spots to fill doesn't it?

[CraigDS]

Oh wow a fine to a sugar daddy club is really going to hurt them isn't it?

Transfer embargo for a couple of windows or force them to reduce the wage bill to whatever % of their turnover by next season. Funny though as some of their big names won't be playing in the CL next year. 

If they fine them then this is included in the FFP calculations, so it effectively means they have to reduce their figures by a further €20m a season below the likes of ourselves.

The money will not be an issue, but the impact on their FFP calculations will be.

[west_london_red]

Oh wow a fine to a sugar daddy club is really going to hurt them isn't it?

Transfer embargo for a couple of windows or force them to reduce the wage bill to whatever % of their turnover by next season. Funny though as some of their big names won't be playing in the CL next year. 

Since it's the first time action is actually being taken then we cannot expect anything too harsh first time round.  The ideal situation from UEFAs point of view is that people play by the rules with as lenient a punishment as they can get away with as long as it has the desired effect.

[Libertine]

Would they still need 8 HG players? that would mean only 13 foreign players, that could hurt a lot.
Who were there HG players this season?

These were their homegrown players for the PL (slightly different rules apply):

Dedryck Boyaya
Gael Clichy
Joe Hart
Joleon Lescott
James Milner
Alex Nimley
Micah Richards
Jack Rodwell
Richard Wright

http://worldsoccertalk.com/2013/09/08/homegrown-player-lists-for-201314-premier-league-squads/

I imagine if this is applied it would hugly change their transfer plans for the summer.

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

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

The sanctions are putting a limit to their spending. The real difference between the sugar daddy clubs and the normal sustainable clubs is the size of the wage bill, not the spending on transfer fees. UEFA's sanctions for PSG and Man City are freezing their wage bill.

[Ray K]

**Waits for ManchesterBlue to appear and tell us all is well and going according to plan, and that we've misinterpreted everything**

[Flash6289]

**Waits for ManchesterBlue to appear and tell us all is well and going according to plan, and that we've misinterpreted everything**

[Nessy76]

Tranfer embargos would be better than paltry fines.

£50m is hardly "paltry"  - even by City's standards.

[RedSince86]

**Waits for ManchesterBlue to appear and tell us all is well and going according to plan, and that we've misinterpreted everything**

Yeah and how man city will be self sufficient and the turnover will reach over 400 million a year and none of it will come from abu dhabi.

[andy84]

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

I've not seen anything regarding sell before buy. Where did you read that? That would be the only true punishment here if that were the case.

[CraigDS]

I've not seen anything regarding sell before buy. Where did you read that? That would be the only true punishment here if that were the case.

I can only presume you don't understand how FFP works if you think that's the only true punishment.

[Cantona]

I've not seen anything regarding sell before buy. Where did you read that? That would be the only true punishment here if that were the case.

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.

[andy84]

I can only presume you don't understand how FFP works if you think that's the only true punishment.

Fair enough mate, I don't know the full ins and outs of it so I don't claim to be an expert. I was just giving my opinion as I see it and that is a fine for Man City means very little but any restrictions on them doing business in the transfer market would have a greater impact.

[CraigDS]

Fair enough mate, I don't know the full ins and outs of it so I don't claim to be an expert. I was just giving my opinion as I see it and that is a fine for Man City means very little but any restrictions on them doing business in the transfer market would have a greater impact.

The money for the fine isn't a punishment, no.

However it effectively lowers their FFP limits (which they already do not meet) by €20m a year, so therefore cannot spend that amount each season on transfers and/or wages - this is after they lower their spending to fall in line with the current level of FFP.

[andy84]

Cheers, thanks for that. I'd only read the report on the beeb about City which mentions the other three punishments but nothing about transfer restrictions.

[Gegenpresser]

**Waits for ManchesterBlue to appear and tell us all is well and going according to plan, and that we've misinterpreted everything**

"Hello, my name is Mheik Sansour, and I would like to order 50,000,000 Scott Sinclair kits."

Seems legit.

[andy84]

The money for the fine isn't a punishment, no.

However it effectively lowers their FFP limits (which they already do not meet) by €20m a year, so therefore cannot spend that amount each season on transfers and/or wages - this is after they lower their spending to fall in line with the current level of FFP.

Ok I see, thanks for that. I must say I'm surprised anything like this has come to fruition. I expected City to continue to get around FFP with "sponsorship deals" from companies affiliated with the owner. City may well talk the sanctions down a bit but this seems like a step in the right direction and will be a warning to all teams when entering the transfer market this summer.

As a side note, we've made a loss in recent financial reports. Do you think there is any chance we could face something similar in the near future?

[Nessy76]

Ok I see, thanks for that. I must say I'm surprised anything like this has come to fruition. I expected City to continue to get around FFP with "sponsorship deals" from companies affiliated with the owner. City may well talk the sanctions down a bit but this seems like a step in the right direction and will be a warning to all teams when entering the transfer market this summer.

As a side note, we've made a loss in recent financial reports. Do you think there is any chance we could face something similar in the near future?

No. FSG are well aware of the requirements and committed to operating within them. What was overlooked in our accounts last year was that a large amount was written off against stadium costs - those figures don't count towards FFP, take that out of the equation and we're in a decent position. The biggest issue we have is the loans between the club and the owners, but that can be simply solved by converting the debt to equity. Also, our income next season will get a hefty boost from Champions League football, and a far greater slice of the Premier League's prize money, as well as the club's continued development of new sponsorship/partnership opportunities (dunkin donuts and so on)

I think that FSG will be watching what happens with City and PSG very, very closely, and will be careful to ensure we comply if it looks like it could cause us problems. These are smart people.

[Giono]

UEFA has to be tough. If they aren't, there will be a replacement competition for the CL created by teams who don't have oil sugar daddies. The FAs are not under that threat.

[rob1408]

So apparently the fine doesn't enter the equation regarding future FFP criteria and can be paid directly by the owner.  Ridiculous.

[CraigDS]

As a side note, we've made a loss in recent financial reports. Do you think there is any chance we could face something similar in the near future?

Nah we'll be fine, there are certain amounts that can be taken off as not counted towards FFP, and our revenues have been increasing a huge amount and will continue to do so over the next few years with the increased sponsorship and inclusion of CL football.

[CraigDS]

So apparently the fine doesn't enter the equation regarding future FFP criteria and can be paid directly by the owner.  Ridiculous.

Where is this info from?

[rob1408]

Where is this info from?

Martyn Ziegler, via Matt Dickinson at The Times.  Hope he's wrong because if he isn't its bloody insane.

[viteslesrouges]

The money goes to grass roots football.

 

Yeah, as if.

[Abrak]

Ok I see, thanks for that. I must say I'm surprised anything like this has come to fruition. I expected City to continue to get around FFP with "sponsorship deals" from companies affiliated with the owner. City may well talk the sanctions down a bit but this seems like a step in the right direction and will be a warning to all teams when entering the transfer market this summer.

As a side note, we've made a loss in recent financial reports. Do you think there is any chance we could face something similar in the near future?

There is a pretty good article on Liverpool and FFP numbers here....

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/will-liverpool-face-any-ffp-punishment-

Going forward we are well positioned with the extra CL etc. Furthermore there is hardly a player in the squad who isnt worth considerably more than his book value so that player turnover going forward is likely to generate profits rather than the losses we have have booked in recent years.

The FFP sanctions are quite interesting and given the penalties are on several levels and the fines count against future FFP, they are likely to hurt at some level. For instance the 8 home grown players in a 21 man CL squad is likely to prove a nightmare for City especially as Lescott and Richards are almost certain to leave and the existing 9 home grown players dont have a lot of quality (Milner and Hart excluded).

It is also interesting that a club like Chelsea has already effectively bent to the demands of FFP. We have seen some reduction in wage spend and one would imagine that the sale of Mata was done out of necessity (in that it booked a profit of GBP23.5m) which gives the club (further) scope to buy in the summer. Chelsea hoarding of players to send out on loan was likely a way of building up considerable 'unrealized gains' on players to fund the future cost base

Incidentally the website listed above includes a very interesting article about how Utd are prevented from increasing their wage bill by very much at all next season by the Premier Leagues financial restrictions.

[Nessy76]

Martyn Ziegler, via Matt Dickinson at The Times.  Hope he's wrong because if he isn't its bloody insane.

It makes a lot of sense; you can't penalise someone for overspending and then make it almost impossible for them not to overspend the following year, that's Tony Soprano style finance and it would never stand up to a legal challenge.

[Nessy76]

There is a pretty good article on Liverpool and FFP numbers here....

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/will-liverpool-face-any-ffp-punishment-

Going forward we are well positioned with the extra CL etc. Furthermore there is hardly a player in the squad who isnt worth considerably more than his book value so that player turnover going forward is likely to generate profits rather than the losses we have have booked in recent years.

The FFP sanctions are quite interesting and given the penalties are on several levels and the fines count against future FFP, they are likely to hurt at some level. For instance the 8 home grown players in a 21 man CL squad is likely to prove a nightmare for City especially as Lescott and Richards are almost certain to leave and the existing 9 home grown players dont have a lot of quality (Milner and Hart excluded).

It is also interesting that a club like Chelsea has already effectively bent to the demands of FFP. We have seen some reduction in wage spend and one would imagine that the sale of Mata was done out of necessity (in that it booked a profit of GBP23.5m) which gives the club (further) scope to buy in the summer. Chelsea hoarding of players to send out on loan was likely a way of building up considerable 'unrealized gains' on players to fund the future cost base

Incidentally the website listed above includes a very interesting article about how Utd are prevented from increasing their wage bill by very much at all next season by the Premier Leagues financial restrictions.

Great link, thanks.

[Rojo O Muerto]

Throw the book at them. Hopefully it hits the Sheik on the head.

[GG8]

It makes a lot of sense; you can't penalise someone for overspending and then make it almost impossible for them not to overspend the following year, that's Tony Soprano style finance and it would never stand up to a legal challenge.

Thats what I would have thought as well.

[Abrak]

It makes a lot of sense; you can't penalise someone for overspending and then make it almost impossible for them not to overspend the following year, that's Tony Soprano style finance and it would never stand up to a legal challenge.

I disagree. A financial penalty in a year of 'overspending' isnt really a penalty for someone who likes to spend more than he earns. Why not simply overspend every year and budget the fines into your overspending?

By imposing a fine which is fairly small relative to the size of the business - something like 60m euro over 3 years - and counting that against FFP they are not making it 'almost impossible for them not to overspend in the following year'. Each club controls its own expenses and UEFA is simply encouraging them to 'cut' theirs. In effect they are saying that if you overspend by FFP rules in one year, a degree of the overspend must be made up by underspending relative to FFP limits in future years.