UEFA set to ratify new financial fair play rules

[Rammyblue]

Realistically all clubs have five years to get their houses in order. Provided by then we are established in top 4 we will have nothing to worry about. Any teams outside top four when these rules and regulations come in will NEVER get into CL. It will become closed shop and those that are in it will get richer whilst those outside will only ever have a chance of getting in if they invest heavily in Stadia, hotels, acadamies etc., which will take years. These rules are to keep the top clubs happy no one else, they will have to contend with Europa league.

[john68]

Bob,
If push comes to shove, whether UeFA fold or not, it is the big clubs who hold the aces. The governing body are only as strong as the clubs that back them. The Football league were powerless to stop the Premier League being formed and in both codes of rugby, the ruling bodies were forced to accept the will of their bigger clubs.
I have no doubt that a breakaway would be massively successful financially but agree that UeFA will fall over quicker than a Tranaldo dive, just as they did at the beginning of the CL era.

With regards to the rags, I think much will depend on how politically and financially powerful they are when crunch time arrives. Their position is quite precarious. It will be increasingly difficult for them to stay in the top four and dropping out will have major financial repercussions for them. Personally, I think that time could be as early as next season.

[Exiled]

I found this thread on VillaTalk quite interesting.

http://www.villatalk.com/index.php?name ... highlight=

Most of us are worrying about our club's position in all this but I find it interesting that whilst Lerner & Villa are viewed by the media as an example of a well run club with a near perfect benefactor. According to reports, Villa would fail the FFP rules. After reading their perspective, I would be worried if I was a fan of theirs.

[Ted Hughes]

to regulate against the principle of outside investment or even against using football as a loss leader for several years within the context of a wider objective (ie City) is slightly baffling because like Abramovich it is pumping fresh money into the game that would have gone elsewhere.

It would only be baffling if UEFA were genuinely trying to stop clubs from overspending/going bankrupt 'in the best interests of the game'.
It ONLY makes perfect sense, if UEFA are actually trying to stop the established old guard 'elite' clubs from being overhauled by big money clubs like Chelsea & also up & coming clubs such as us & various Russian clubs also backed by oil money. It doesn't make sense from any other angle. Platini was simpering with joy when he handed the Chumps league trophy to Inter. As we know, that's what it's about.

UEFA, like FIFA, are a corrupt organisation, be it for money, personal power, personal gratification, favours for friends etc. UEFA currently have a certain little gang in charge who have their favourites. Their members all have their own 'scams' & their own little power bases though, which often need outside help from sponsors.

Read about the work City's people & those employed by the Sheikh & his family are doing, all around the world, investing, building contacts, building buildings! Look into Abu Dhabi's connections, financial involvement, with broadcasters around the world & with big football sponsors,( even with owners/backers of big clubs) & also of course governments. How many FIFA people will already be involved in projects financed wholly or partially by money from Abu Dhabi? Now the 'City brand' is starting to be officially attached to these kind of projects.

Go forward 5 years & imagine how much influence this will weild if UEFA top brass start barring the Sheikh's team from competition, all for the crime of investment! To protect us from being financially unstable? Really? To protect the game from money? Really? That's effectively what it would mean; the Abu Dhabi money is an unwanted influence in the game or even worse, they can't be trusted! Should they remove it's influence then? Or at least not offer up any more in the future?

Will the 'football family' who appoint the leaders of FIFA & UEFA miss a few suits, as opposed to upsetting the providors of billions of investment worldwide? Would broadcasters of a breakaway league want to upset the same people, major shareholders in some of their partners/sponsors by barring their team?

Fairplay works two ways. I recon UEFA will have no choice but to to play fair with us, which is all we ask. We won't just sit & take it if they don't. I don't believe they will stop the Sheikh from investing where needed anyway. I don't believe they can even if they try but I don't think they'll even try. They'll just change the way it's worded.

[Lev Bronstein]

1) Capitalism is regulated in many ways, Contract Law for example. The regulations may be may be imperfect and occasionally ineffectual. But, they are there and armies of commercial lawyers are employed by big concerns to try and ensure that their activities stay within the rules.

2) If a club has a Sugar Daddy then a way will be found to put money in and still stay within the rules, they aren't really the problem. The problem clubs are those that go to the banks, borrowing on assets that they don't really have.

3) My guess, for what it's worth, is that there are a strong group of bodies, banks, media corporations, tax authorities and so on, that are fed up with many aspects of the way the game is run.
The banks must be getting ticked off with the shaky nature of football finances. They want to be able to lend to clubs that are more soundly based than, say Portsmouth or Leeds.
The tax authorities must be fed up of having to chase clubs for not paying their taxes. I/we have to pay up, why should Cardiff, for example, be allowed to operate with, what is in effect, a subsidy from the taxpayers. (I fancy a new car - tell you what I won't bother paying tax for a bit so I can buy it)
The media companies want to be selling a sound product. They put in vast sums, and whilst "clubs in trouble" might make a good story for a short time, in the longer term they know they can't keep bumping up the subscription prices for ever, especially if "the product" looks to be in permanent crisis. I also suspect that they are lukewarm on any breakaway - attractive in the short term, but has the potential to turn into the Harlem Globetrotters: not sport. They need a set of sound competitions that appeal to the widest number possible. They don't want the punters turned off.

4) Sorry, but big powerful clubs will always work to sustain their position. The idea that the proposed changes will turn Mansfield into Madrid isn't going to happen.

5) Generally, it's in the interest of all that football is prevented from eating itself. Whether UEFA and FIFA are goig about it the right way, or indeed if they are capable, is a different question, but, something has to be done.