UEFA set to ratify new financial fair play rules

[Mark (Blue Army)]

Just six of the current Premier League teams would be permitted to qualify for future European competitions under new UEFA 'financial fair play' rules, which are due to be introduced on Thursday.

European football's governing body is set to decide that clubs will only be allowed to enter the Champions League and Europa League from 2012-13 if they break even, meaning three-quarters of the English top flight's clubs, including Chelsea, Manchester City and Liverpool, would be ineligible under their present financial circumstances.

Michel Platini has made it his mission to rid European football of debt-ridden clubs. English clubs are now facing the prospect of having to slash their huge wage bills to balance the books, as well as reduce outlay on transfer fees.

And the Premier League has admitted that its top clubs face tough times ahead. A spokesman told The Guardian: 'The vast majority of what is being proposed is common sense, and has already [been], or is about to be, incorporated into Premier League rules.'

'If the regulations are introduced as reported, we envisage a difficult period of adjustment for our member clubs who play, or aspire to play, in European competitions.'

Clubs subsidised by loans from rich owners will also no longer be eligible for Europe under the new rules. This would hit Chelsea and City, whose losses of £47million and £93m were covered by Roman Abramovic and Sheik Mansour respectively.

Rich owners will only be permitted to put money into clubs through buying shares or by investment in training grounds or youth academies, but not by financing huge player wages. The rules will also allow for owners to cover limited amounts of loss: £38.5m for the three years from 2012, reducing to £25.5m over the following three years.

Financial results from 2008-09 - the most recent figures available - show that the Premier League's other big loss-makers included Liverpool, who were £55m in the red, Aston Villa, who lost £46m and Sunderland, who were £26m down. 14 clubs in total made substantial losses.

Manchester United made a profit only because of Cristianio Ronaldo's world record £80m transfer to Real Madrid.

dailymail.co.uk

[john@staustell]

I have already posted a comment - which probably wont get published - to the effect that trawling up old news seems to be the best the anti-City Mail can do at the moment.

One WAFFA spokesman has already said that clubs can be sponsored any level.

Funny how 'Sportsmail Reporter' (unusual name) doesn't mention United's monster debt too much!

[Fidel Castro]

No problem. Mansour can just boost our revenue by buying millions of these little fella's
http://mcfc.co.uk/Shop/Souvenirs/Soft-T ... -BEAR-GREY

[john@staustell]

No problem. Mansour can just boost our revenue by buying millions of these little fella's
http://mcfc.co.uk/Shop/Souvenirs/Soft-T ... -BEAR-GREY

Lighthearted but true. Why these crap journos keep targeting City (and Chelsea) with these stories is beyond me, when there are far more worried candidates.

[Vhero]

The problem with most is they need to be in Europe to break even but of course that don't matter to these scum bags.. As long as the scum stay on top eh?? Seems they always get the fucking breaks even when they nearly a billion in debt.

[eastlandsblue]

Do Fifa and UEFA not understand, that for every law, there will be a loophole, which is very fortunate. Because TV companies worldwide including sky would stay well clear of european tournaments that didnt have, europes elite teams involved.

[Lee_R]

To be fair I think eventually this will put us in a healthier position than clubs like the rags etc. Ah times they are changing!

[Fish111]

So a club like the rags can be £800M in debt but still qualify while we may get turned away even though we have no debt? What a bizzarre ruling.

[john@staustell]

We really dont want to go through all this again but the upshot last time was that a WAFFA bloke said anyone could give as much sponsorship as they like, and it would count as earned income.

[Dameerto]

It's still a reason to get more seats sooner rather than later though

[Blue Since 76]

the thing is we have no debt as it was all converted to shares which, as the article says, is ok. why they then named us is strange, yet tiringly obvious

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

So let me get this straight, we are debt free but financed by an investor and that is wrong. Rags have debts bigger than average African nation and they are cool because they make OPERATIONAL profits.

[Slim]

So let me get this straight, we are debt free but financed by an investor and that is wrong. Rags have debts bigger than average African nation and they are cool because they make OPERATIONAL profits.

They only made an operational profit last year because of the Ronaldo sale. Without that they are in the same boat.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

So let me get this straight, we are debt free but financed by an investor and that is wrong. Rags have debts bigger than average African nation and they are cool because they make OPERATIONAL profits.

They only made an operational profit last year because of the Ronaldo sale. Without that they are in the same boat.

Regardless, if UEFA REALLY wanted to make any sort of difference, they'd concetrate on teams deep in debt. Making operational losses if you cover them means fuck all. Making 2 millions of operational profit when you are 700m in debt means fuck all as well.

[Dameerto]

This was the logic I didnt understand the last time it was an issue on here - they seem to want to discriminate against investment but have no problems with debt-ridden clubs

[Im_Spartacus]

This was the logic I didnt understand the last time it was an issue on here - they seem to want to discriminate against investment but have no problems with debt-ridden clubs

I'm not sure. I read a very good article yesterday somewhere that made it pretty clear that Platini's main aim is not to target the clubs per se, but to try and regulate the disparity between the "haves" and "have nots", but without going to the extreme of the US NFL route of drafts, or Rugby League's salary caps.

My perception of this is that it is GOOD for football, regardless of each team's individual interest. By limiting the spending of the clubs, it means that this should regulate transfer fees and wages. However I can easily see where a wealthy sponsor could sponsor a number of players on high salaries. For example in League 2 where they already have a cap of sorts, i understand that Gary Neville sponsors the wages of Andy Bishop at Bury which is off Bury's balance sheet.

My biggest concern about exploiting the potential loopholes though, is that we see a situation where an incredibly ambitious club like ourselves pushes the envelope too far, and end up with points deductions for breaching rules (like happens annually in Rugby league), or even relegation or a ban from European competition to set an example.

The clubs that will always struggle will be the Uniteds, Barcelonas, Real Madrids, etc because they will take forever to pay down their debts, and servicing the liability will automatically reduce their ability to compete in the transfer markets and pay top dollar wages. Until a benefactor takes them over, they will remain in this circle of debt and will struggle to move forwards. As the transfer market becomes more normalised, the clubs without debt, eg us, Chelsea, will be able to exploit this, and still sign the top players on greatly reduced terms than would be the case today.

[ashton287]

no matter what happens im sure the owners have a team of legal people who will make sure we find a way to come out on top eventually and then the world will be ours, scarface style

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

The clubs that will always struggle will be the Uniteds, Barcelonas, Real Madrids, etc because they will take forever to pay down their debts, and servicing the liability will automatically reduce their ability to compete in the transfer markets and pay top dollar wages. Until a benefactor takes them over, they will remain in this circle of debt and will struggle to move forwards. As the transfer market becomes more normalised, the clubs without debt, eg us, Chelsea, will be able to exploit this, and still sign the top players on greatly reduced terms than would be the case today.

No. That is exact opposite of what would happen. Rags, Barcelona, Real, Milan etc despite being DEEP in red constanly make operational profits. Operational profits don't including the repayments of the debts (of umbrella company in united's case). It's just money spent on operations and money gained from matchday revenue, merchandise etc. Therefore this will make it impossible for Club like ours, or even more so for any other club that would end up in our situation, to ever challenge the big clubs. Since you have to speculate to accumulate, but according to these restrictions you can't really financially speculate or simply invest on the business to push it to next level and eventually through on field success (and marketing value this will give us of course) generate operational profits (this is what we are aiming for), you will never be able to make any professional clubs take giant steps forward and punch above their weight.

This will hurt most clubs like us and Chelsea. But also likes of Wigan and Fulham. They too, like us, are living beyond their means in order to make their clubs bigger in long term (well who knows what the fuck Dave Wallace thinks but anyway) even if they are lower in hieararchy. Clubs who will benefit from this are likes of Leeds and Sheffield clubs in lower end of the scale and in higher end the former G14 clubs. As far as our position in league table goes we will not fall too much as we are easily among seven biggest clubs in England as far as the income goes but the gap between us and rags+Arsenal+Liverpool will be enormous and will make Premier League eternally three horse race.

What Platini's aim is, doesn't interest me one bit but he is trying to restrict the competition in open business and shouldn't be able to do that.

[Fidel Castro]

Platini is a cunty frog. This quote from an interview about Heysel always pisses me off no end:

Talk turned to darker times, to Heysel in 1985 when Platini was criticised for briefly celebrating his European Cup-winning penalty against Liverpool while 39 mainly Juventus fans were dying on the terraces. "I didn't know what was happening. My father was in the stadium and only learnt what happened by the radio the day after.

He didn't know what was happening my arse. And his dad must be a thick blind twat if he was in the stadium and only found out what happened a day later.

[brite blu sky]

my view is that clubs will always find a way around whatever financial rules are put in place.

The football industry is exemplary capitalism at its best/worst.. and as we know it will do whatever it takes to invent ways around limiting rules, by bending them, undermining them or inventing things that the regulators hadn't been able to think of. So in the not so longer term Platini's rules will amount to nothing.