Topic: Financial Fair Play - developments in here

[GG8]

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?

Hopefully because the wage limit, squad reduction and transfer limit will deter them.

[andy84]

Thanks for all the info folks.

I hope this news about the owner being able to pay out of his pocket isn't true. It just means the Sheikh can scrabble around the back of his sofa and pay UEFA out of that!

[deano2727]

I think it seems reasonable enough for the first big case they have acted on. It would be fairer if they had the sell to buy restriction, as it has been suggested has been placed upon PSG.

Hopefully if City's appeal is unsuccessful, they will have more punishments placed on them. Perhaps start on -1 or -2 or something?

[CraigDS]

Hopefully if City's appeal is unsuccessful, they will have more punishments placed on them. Perhaps start on -1 or -2 or something?

UEFA can't implement any punishment on their PL campaign.

[Gegenpresser]

I wouldn't want to win the title from a points deduction and I don't think it's fair to the City players who have been fantastic professionals and shouldn't be held responsible for their owners' actions. It's fair to handicap the club going forward as then they know exactly what they have to work with but fiddling with what's already happened would be too arbitrary and compromise the validity of the title, IMO.

[CraigDS]

I wouldn't want to win the title from a points deduction and I don't think it's fair to the City players who have been fantastic professionals and shouldn't be held responsible for their owners' actions. It's fair to handicap the club going forward as then they know exactly what they have to work with but fiddling with what's already happened would be too arbitrary and compromise the validity of the title, IMO.

UEFA couldn't deduct them league points anyway, this season or next.

[deano2727]

UEFA can't implement any punishment on their PL campaign.

I meant on next years group stage. Though if UEFA can take points off them for this years PL, then even better. 

[Ashburton]

I meant on next years group stage. Though if UEFA can take points off them for this years PL, then even better. 

I don't think it should impact the XI on the pitch and their chance of success, mainly the chance of the club and the management to continue their financial doping.  It'd be extremely rough if you miss out from qualifying by a (deducted) point which had nothing to do with you, as a player.

[Cid]

Do the Premier league not give a shit about ffp then? Here is uefa trying their best to keep their competition being dominated by bored billionaires while the Bpl sit in their laurels and seem quite OK with the concept of more money = more points.

I hope the appeal is us unsuccessful, and I hope future sanctions increase in severity.

[deano2727]

I don't think it should impact the XI on the pitch and their chance of success, mainly the chance of the club and the management to continue their financial doping.  It'd be extremely rough if you miss out from qualifying by a (deducted) point which had nothing to do with you, as a player.

Whilst I agree its unfair on the players, at the same time, should it be 'ok' for City to go and spunk hundreds of millions on players, meeting UEFA at the same time every year with an envelope with their annual fine in it? No. It certainly isn't. If a teams chances of success being hindered is what must be done to level the playing field, then so be it.

What isn't fair, is the majority of the other teams going about things in the right way, and having to compete with teams that have a second team able to compete with their first, not due to years of building a team, but rather throwing money around.

[Carlito Roberto]

I'd imagine it's the other sanctions that City are most worried about, particularly the salary cap and the reduction in size of their Champions League squad for next season.

[CraigDS]

Do the Premier league not give a shit about ffp then? Here is uefa trying their best to keep their competition being dominated by bored billionaires while the Bpl sit in their laurels and seem quite OK with the concept of more money = more points.

I hope the appeal is us unsuccessful, and I hope future sanctions increase in severity.

The PL have their own version of FFP which focuses on wage level increases.

[SP]

I don't think it should impact the XI on the pitch and their chance of success, mainly the chance of the club and the management to continue their financial doping.  It'd be extremely rough if you miss out from qualifying by a (deducted) point which had nothing to do with you, as a player.

You take the petrodollar, you live with the consequences. There almost has to be a sporting consequence, as the club can afford any financial one.

[Abrak]

Thanks for all the info folks.

I hope this news about the owner being able to pay out of his pocket isn't true. It just means the Sheikh can scrabble around the back of his sofa and pay UEFA out of that!

No you are slightly misunderstanding this. Under FFP in the first period assessed the clubs are allowed a maximum loss of Euro45m - so long as that loss is paid for by cash/equity out of the owners pocket. If the loss is financed by loans then the maximum loss allowable over the period is Euro5m.

[Abrak]

UEFA can't implement any punishment on their PL campaign.

This is a good point, I seriously doubt that UEFA could impose a penalty that affected the clubs PL campaign.

For instance I read (via L'Equipe) that some sort of 'transfer ban' or perhaps 'limit' has been imposed on PSG. My guess is that what has actually happened is that UEFA has placed some limit on the number of new players it will accept registration of for the CL from the club. In other words PSG can buy as many players as they like but UEFA wont accept more than 1-2? newly transfered players into their CL squad.

[CraigDS]

This is a good point, I seriously doubt that UEFA could impose a penalty that affected the clubs PL campaign.

For instance I read (via L'Equipe) that some sort of 'transfer ban' or perhaps 'limit' has been imposed on PSG. My guess is that what has actually happened is that UEFA has placed some limit on the number of new players it will accept registration of for the CL from the club. In other words PSG can buy as many players as they like but UEFA wont accept more than 1-2? newly transfered players into their CL squad.

That's one of the possible punishments agreed on by the clubs/UEFA when FFP was being set up.

[Cid]

I don't think it should impact the XI on the pitch and their chance of success, mainly the chance of the club and the management to continue their financial doping.  It'd be extremely rough if you miss out from qualifying by a (deducted) point which had nothing to do with you, as a player.

The players make a conscious choice to go to these clubs though, primarily it's a selfish choice based on high wages being on offer.  I have no sympathy for them if their career suffers as a consequence.

The trick is to make it harder to compete via injecting money.  No matter how rich an owner is the punishments need to be sufficient enough that spending a clubs earnings is more competitive than buying every player in the world via debt.

Yes some clubs will have more money.  That's because they have more fans, attractive football, a rich history or a canny scouting department.  If a sheik wants to win he shouldn't be able to buy a club like city or psg and throw money at it.

[turkish kopite]

Not good enough. They should be banned

[Flash6289]

So FFP apparently exists to 'prevent teams buying success' just for City to do exactly that in the same season they are found to be non-compliant with FFP. They'll probably pip us by TWO points, someone please tell me how they would still have won it had they had actually complied with FFP?

[Chakan]

So the punishment for overspending is to spend more. Interesting.

That like the punishment for cheating on your wife is have sex with another girl.

[west_london_red]

So FFP apparently exists to 'prevent teams buying success' just for City to do exactly that in the same season they are found to be non-compliant with FFP. They'll probably pip us by TWO points, someone please tell me how they would still have won it had they had actually complied with FFP?

Because FFP is a UEFA rule, where as in this country we seem to pride ourselves on making everything available for sale to the highest (usually foreign) bidder.

[Cid]

If that fine is spread over 3 years then in essence they will have to spend 16m less in order to achieve the exact same profit/loss in the coming year.  Presumably they will have to reduce their spending by that 16 per year plus more again in order to bring themselves in line with ffp.

It's actually a very clever idea.  Massively over spending for 1 year would be damaging, continuing to do it and flouting the rules would not only financially batter a club with ascending fines and restrictions, it would make it harder to get back to square one than clubs who didn't inject funds in the first place.

[Brian Blessed]

So the punishment for overspending is to spend more. Interesting.

That like the punishment for cheating on your wife is have sex with another girl.

I want to live in your utopia.

[ThePeetmix]

What I don't understand is the squad limiting. In the last two seasons, Man City have only used 21 players in each CL campaign anyway.

[robgomm]

What I don't understand is the squad limiting. In the last two seasons, Man City have only used 21 players in each CL campaign anyway.

Ahha, yes.

OptaJoe on Twitter: Manchester City have used 21 players in each of their last two Champions League campaigns.

Go on UEFA, lay the smackdown.

[Chakan]

I want to live in your utopia.

Everyone does

[Flash6289]

Because FFP is a UEFA rule, where as in this country we seem to pride ourselves on making everything available for sale to the highest (usually foreign) bidder.

I know. The FA should have their own consequences for FFP non-compliance though. I'm sure many teams would be perfectly happy to buy the league title and each domestic cup every year and only having to pay a fine to play in the CL..

[Cid]

Just a thought.  Chelsea bought a load of players and sent a fair few of them on loan.  Some of them for years like courtois.

If they now sell those players it will count as a profit on their books and increase their available expenditure for ffp, Correct?

We all joke about how Chelsea have stockpiled players all across Europe but perhaps they've viewed that process as 'banking' future transfer funds in a way that ffp can't touch.

[Ray K]

What I don't understand is the squad limiting. In the last two seasons, Man City have only used 21 players in each CL campaign anyway.

One way to look at it: do they pick 3 GKs in their 21, or risk 2 and hope neither keeper gets injured?
If you pick 3 there's 18 outfield players to select.  You won't have cover in every position. And players will be seriously pissed if they're off the CL panel - either an experienced pro or, more likely, a young guy.  Maybe a Daniel Sturridge type, who thinks 'I'd get more of a look in at Liverpool...'

[Circa1892]

What I don't understand is the squad limiting. In the last two seasons, Man City have only used 21 players in each CL campaign anyway.

They have, but if the 21 players includes the requirement for 8 British/home-grown players then they're in trouble.

[Circa1892]

Just a thought.  Chelsea bought a load of players and sent a fair few of them on loan.  Some of them for years like courtois.

If they now sell those players it will count as a profit on their books and increase their available expenditure for ffp, Correct?

We all joke about how Chelsea have stockpiled players all across Europe but perhaps they've viewed that process as 'banking' future transfer funds in a way that ffp can't touch.

Not just future funds, but also home grown players. Courtois would count as home grown should he return next year? Wouldn't he?

[west_london_red]

Just a thought.  Chelsea bought a load of players and sent a fair few of them on loan.  Some of them for years like courtois.

If they now sell those players it will count as a profit on their books and increase their available expenditure for ffp, Correct?

We all joke about how Chelsea have stockpiled players all across Europe but perhaps they've viewed that process as 'banking' future transfer funds in a way that ffp can't touch.

I think its pretty widely accepted thats exactly what they have done, all those players are in effect money in the bank that they can spend in a FFP complient way.

[Abrak]

If that fine is spread over 3 years then in essence they will have to spend 16m less in order to achieve the exact same profit/loss in the coming year.  Presumably they will have to reduce their spending by that 16 per year plus more again in order to bring themselves in line with ffp.

It's actually a very clever idea.  Massively over spending for 1 year would be damaging, continuing to do it and flouting the rules would not only financially batter a club with ascending fines and restrictions, it would make it harder to get back to square one than clubs who didn't inject funds in the first place.

I do think it is interesting how FFP is panning out. I cant help but feel that City have already budgeted for the likely consequences. I particularly like this article on City's approach to FFP.

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/man-city-failure-of-ffp-test-a-matter-of-choice

As you say a 16m fine that must be absorbed by your costs is a disincentive to overspend. However, City's wage bill is GBP233m which is 100m more than Liverpool's - from that perspective 16m is a drop in the ocean. As the article above points out they quickly got rid of Mancini (and included the costs in their June year end figures) adding all the costs into the qualifying year so that it would give them a high figure from which to then produce a lower one. The cost of sacking Mancini was 10m which they could have pushed into this financial year.

I also think that PSG/City have scored some notable wins with the FFP review. For instance PSG have a 'deal' from the Qatar tourism authority worth up to Euro200m a year which FFP have valued at Euro100m a year (according to L'Equipe). Now at Euro100m that is roughly equivalent to the whole of Liverpool's commercial income - so it is pretty hard to believe that is a fair value of an arms length agreement. In fact it gives a license to the few club owners who happen to own and run their own countries to doctor commercial revenues going forward.

And at the end of the day I cant help but feel that the 'headline' offenders will 'vaguely' fall in line with FFP out of self interest. What FFP will achieve is to entrench the big football clubs in their position as big football clubs. No longer will anyone be able to afford to create a 'big football' club. And, of course, City and PSG will have beaten the deadline and made themselves into a big club. I doubt they want anyone else joining them.

[Zeb]

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

Ta. He's also saying the official line is they've not decided what to do with fine money yet, although I know they've said in the past that it would go to football development around Europe.

edit: Have to say that using the fine as a de facto luxury tax makes no sense to me without it carrying a penalty for future cycles of FFP.

David Conn is saying that the Etihad deal and rights image sales are behind City's failure to comply. Acaustiq's posts in the past pretty much seem to have nailed the reasons why and are worth a look.

[Abrak]

What I don't understand is the squad limiting. In the last two seasons, Man City have only used 21 players in each CL campaign anyway.

Yes 21 players over a 6 and 8 week campaign doesnt sound much of a hardship.

I believe that Liverpool have only used 20 different players in the first 37 matches of this year's PL.

[CraigDS]

On the face of it the 21 players may not be an issue, but when those 21 have to include their home grown players it becomes a bit more of an issue as will mean some of the ones who have played now missing out to fit in these non-playing home growns...

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

[The North Bank]

I never took FFP seriously before, well done UEFA.
 Platini even going after his own PSG shows that no one is beyond compliance.  Good stuff.

[Zeb]

Yes 21 players over a 6 and 8 week campaign doesnt sound much of a hardship.

I believe that Liverpool have only used 20 different players in the first 37 matches of this year's PL.

Interesting that it's precisely the number they used this season though? Seems preventative rather than punitive? PSG's transfer ban almost looks like they've already agreed to buy a player for around 60m Euros and it's being allowed through too. If the 30m in allowable losses is true, that's a 15m Euro reduction in the allowable losses everyone else can make so there's an element of penalty in breaking over the first two year cycle with the additional third year for the first third year cycle that bit tighter.

Not surprised that it's not majorly punitive, it's about things tightening up over time and the effect in league competition will be a side effect of meeting it for European. Will be interesting to see whether City stick or twist on the punishments offered. Conn's saying they're unhappy that the Etihad deal was passed as non-related by their auditors but wasn't by UEFA. All I'll say is that Human Rights Watch are convinced it's all the same pot of money and UEFA haven't been obliged to use the same definitions of 'related' as City's auditors. City are not the only ones who can appeal any punishment, so Wenger's words take on added importance, and once it leaves the settlement phase it's out of Platini's hands. Know some are looking to the ruling by the commission on FFP this summer, but every indication is that UEFA have crossed t's and dotted i's sufficiently for that not to be a problem. What happens after that, who knows?

[Cantona]

This was Citys CL squad list this year, so for next season 8 have to be homegrown (HG) allowing 13 foreigners (F)
Goalkeepers

Joe Hart HG
Costel Pantilimon F
Eirik Holmen Johansen HG

Defenders

Micah Richards HG
Vincent Kompany F
Pablo Zabaleta F
Joleon Lescott HG
Aleksandar Kolarov F
Gaël Clichy HG
Martín Demichelis F
Matija Nastasic F
Dedryck Boyata HG

Midfielders

James Milner HG
Samir Nasri F
Javi García F
Jesús Navas F
Jack Rodwell HG
David Silva F
Fernandinho F
Yaya Touré F

Forwards

Álvaro Negredo F
Edin Džeko F
Sergio Agüero F
Stevan Jovetic F

So 3 of the above marked F would miss out, if the sanctions were this season. That's pretty tough.

[Zeb]

Cheers Cantona and Craig. So it's more of a penalty than it looks at first glance. Especially with the home grown players who look likely to be leaving.