Platini: No Ban For Failing FFP This Time Around

[DoomMerchant]

I think he's right on this, from my understanding: If there's a 500m sponsorship that looks a bit fishy, then UEFA could say "Hang on a sec! You can only count 300m of that as fair market value." The remaining 200m can only be spent on things for which the club doesn't have to adhere to FFP, or spent within things UEFA count within FFP on, but at the risk of punishment, as it will count as 'loss'. For leagues without their own FFP rules in addition to UEFA's, the additional 200m can be spent on non-UEFA-competition registered squad players' wages, and so on. For the PL, I'm not sure - I assume infrastructure, and other expenditures which fall outside PL FFP jurisdiction.

What unicunt world do you live in where that could be considered a fair business environment? This shit will not stand.

[Original Dub]

What unicunt world do you live in where that could be considered a fair business environment? This shit will not stand.

Draw a line in the fuckin sand dude

[Socrates]

We're just going to have to learn to be a bit patient and continue to be as creative as possible with such things as our approach to long contracts for key players so that annual amortisation is decreased while trying to spend much very wisely with the money we have.

Am I right with my understanding of this:

i) If we buy an old player with one year left on their current contract with another club for, say, 4 million, and give them a 2-year contract for 100K a week, for FFP purposes, their cost will be 7 million per year, or thereabouts? (50 x 100K + 0.5 x 4M)

ii) 'Amortisation value' only counts for the initial contract offered, and cannot be extended over contract extensions?

If so, isn't signing players like Demi financially far less astute in comparison to, say, a 19 year old on a 6 year contract for 30M on slightly lower wages?

Right on part i but not part ii. If you extend a contract, the remaining part of the fee that has not yet been used up by amortisation can be reassigned over the new longer contract. So if you buy a player for £30m on a 5 year contract you have to amortise at £6m per year. If after 2 years he signs a new 6 year contract, thereby extending for 3 years, the £18m that is not yet amortised can now be spread over the remaining six years so amortisation reduces from $6m a year to $3m a year on that player.

[Socrates]

They don't have the power to stop a sponsorship deal, what they can do is revalue it for ffp purposes and adjust PSG's loss upwards thereby increasing the work they have to do to break even and also increasing the penalty they will receive.

Can you go crawl back under your rock again please?

You are absofuckinglutely annoying.

I think you have the FFP acumen and insight of a half-drunk snail.

Cheers

Did you just call Platini a half-drunk snail? Please don't confuse my interest and understanding of FFP with approval of it. I think any sustainability rules should be concentrating on balance sheet items like debt rather than trading accounts. Hope that helps. Cheers.

[Ted Hughes]

If they don't stop the PSG sponsorship deal, Sheikh Mansour can invest as much money as he wants. It seems to me that the genuine plan for City has always been to break even eventually anyway though.

If we desperately need money to come in, short term, I have no worries that money will come in. If Messi becomes available for instance, we will try to sign him imo.

They don't have the power to stop a sponsorship deal, what they can do is revalue it for ffp purposes and adjust PSG's loss upwards thereby increasing the work they have to do to break even and also increasing the penalty they will receive.

Same thing. It's stopping PSG using the money.

If they don't succeed, it's fucked.

[BlueinBosnia]

If they don't stop the PSG sponsorship deal, Sheikh Mansour can invest as much money as he wants. It seems to me that the genuine plan for City has always been to break even eventually anyway though.

If we desperately need money to come in, short term, I have no worries that money will come in. If Messi becomes available for instance, we will try to sign him imo.

They don't have the power to stop a sponsorship deal, what they can do is revalue it for ffp purposes and adjust PSG's loss upwards thereby increasing the work they have to do to break even and also increasing the penalty they will receive.

Same thing. It's stopping PSG using the money.

If they don't succeed, it's fucked.

No, it's not stopping them using the money. They can still use it for non-FFP related expenditure, such as infrastructure and facility development, and wages for players not in the UEFA competition squad (providing the French League has no aditional FFP rules akin to those the PL has introduced), or use the money on FFP-related things, and risk a punishment.

[Ted Hughes]

If they don't stop the PSG sponsorship deal, Sheikh Mansour can invest as much money as he wants. It seems to me that the genuine plan for City has always been to break even eventually anyway though.

If we desperately need money to come in, short term, I have no worries that money will come in. If Messi becomes available for instance, we will try to sign him imo.

They don't have the power to stop a sponsorship deal, what they can do is revalue it for ffp purposes and adjust PSG's loss upwards thereby increasing the work they have to do to break even and also increasing the penalty they will receive.

Same thing. It's stopping PSG using the money.

If they don't succeed, it's fucked.

No, it's not stopping them using the money. They can still use it for non-FFP related expenditure, such as infrastructure and facility development, and wages for players not in the UEFA competition squad (providing the French League has no aditional FFP rules akin to those the PL has introduced), or use the money on FFP-related things, and risk a punishment.

It's stopping them using the money as they intend to use it. PSG don't want £100 million quids worth of 'infrastructure' per season; it's there for transfers & wages etc. Otherwise, they may as well set fire to most of it for the amount of use it is.

From the way they are talking, they are not going to accept UEFA telling them how they can spend their perfectly legitimate sponsorship money. Nor should they, as we, & everybody else know it's only being done in order to give an advantage to PSG's competitors. If UEFA push it & lose, ffp is fucked. If UEFA don't push it, ffp is fucked.

Imo, they have brought in this system of plea bargaining (where you admit to being in the wrong & they agree to a small punishment) in order to try & worm out of this. Imo, clubs should refuse to admit they are wrong in every instance or they are handing a legal advantage to UEFA. Don't give them a fucking inch. Make them hand out the maximum punishment & if they try to use dodgy panels to interfere with the legitimate operation of a business; nail their fucking hats on & sue them for any losses incurred.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

They don't have the power to stop a sponsorship deal, what they can do is revalue it for ffp purposes and adjust PSG's loss upwards thereby increasing the work they have to do to break even and also increasing the penalty they will receive.

Can you go crawl back under your rock again please?

You are absofuckinglutely annoying.

I think you have the FFP acumen and insight of a half-drunk snail.

Cheers

Steady on, Doomie.

Your comments were unfair and absolutely uncalled for as Socs was only making a valid point with regard to the 'mechanics' of FFP.

Perhaps you should just lighten up a little and have yourself a nice day instead.

Cheers.

[Rag_hater]

The thing is there is going to be no ban which some people were trying to delude some into believing.

[BlueinBosnia]

It's stopping them using the money as they intend to use it. PSG don't want £100 million quids worth of 'infrastructure' per season; it's there for transfers & wages etc. Otherwise, they may as well set fire to most of it for the amount of use it is.

From the way they are talking, they are not going to accept UEFA telling them how they can spend their perfectly legitimate sponsorship money.[highlight]Nor should they, as we, & everybody else know it's only being done in order to give an advantage to PSG's competitors. If UEFA push it & lose, ffp is fucked. If UEFA don't push it, ffp is fucked.[/highlight]

Imo, they have brought in this system of plea bargaining (where you admit to being in the wrong & they agree to a small punishment) in order to try & worm out of this. [highlight]Imo, clubs should refuse to admit they are wrong in every instance or they are handing a legal advantage to UEFA. Don't give them a fucking inch. Make them hand out the maximum punishment & if they try to use dodgy panels to interfere with the legitimate operation of a business; nail their fucking hats on & sue them for any losses incurred.[/highlight]

I totally agree with the highlighted bits, and believe FFP is now something that UEFA sincerely regret instigating. However, non-approved finances may be spent on the following wages & transfers:
- Players ineligible for UEFA Competitions for the club
- Players the club chooses not to include in its UEFA squad
Just so long as the domestic league in which the club plays do not have parallel FFP rules to which the club must adhere.

This, as Socrates clarified earlier, may prove to be of interest to players who don't mind missing European football for a season, by being enticed on one-year contracts for massive signing-on fees, and their contracts then being extended in, say, mid-March, with 75% being up. Only the remaining 25% would then be amortised over the new contract.

So, say Messi bought himself out of his Barca contract, then PSG gave him a 1 year contract with a signing on fee of 100m and excluded him from their UEFA squad list, then he signed a 5-year extension in mid-March, the remaining 25 million would be amortised over the remaining 5-and-a-bit seasons, meaning just under 5 million a year, for 5 seasons of which the ineligible money would count towards FFP. Of course, the agreement to extend the contract would have to purely be a 'gentleman's agreement'.

[DoomMerchant]

Steady on, Doomie.

Your comments were unfair and absolutely uncalled for as Socs was only making a valid point with regard to the 'mechanics' of FFP.

Perhaps you should just lighten up a little and have yourself a nice day instead.

Cheers.

I'm as light as I can be.

I'll have a nice day no matter what turdy posts any of you make.

Cheers yourself, fucknut.

[BlueinBosnia]

The thing is there is going to be no ban which some people were trying to delude some into believing.

UEFA stated from the start that there would be no ban for first-time offenders, and that bans would only be handed out to repeat offenders. There has been no such clarification of punishment (although the UEFA one seems to be made up as it goes along) with regard to the Premier League's own version of FFP, as far as I'm aware, however, aside from the threat of (an unspecified number of) point deductions.

[bayblue]

I totally agree with the highlighted bits, and believe FFP is now something that UEFA sincerely regret instigating. However, non-approved finances may be spent on the following wages & transfers: - Players ineligible for UEFA Competitions for the club - Players the club chooses not to include in its UEFA squad Just so long as the domestic league in which the club plays do not have parallel FFP rules to which the club must adhere. This, as Socrates clarified earlier, may prove to be of interest to players who don't mind missing European football for a season, by being enticed on one-year contracts for massive signing-on fees, and their contracts then being extended in, say, mid-March, with 75% being up. Only the remaining 25% would then be amortised over the new contract. So, say Messi bought himself out of his Barca contract, then PSG gave him a 1 year contract with a signing on fee of 100m and excluded him from their UEFA squad list, then he signed a 5-year extension in mid-March, the remaining 25 million would be amortised over the remaining 5-and-a-bit seasons, meaning just under 5 million a year, for 5 seasons of which the ineligible money would count towards FFP. Of course, the agreement to extend the contract would have to purely be a 'gentleman's agreement'.

A great example of the law of unintended consequences. Can't see Platini backing away from the concept so either it'll take come thing crazy like this or a mega law suit for it to go away.

[Ted Hughes]

The thing is there is going to be no ban which some people were trying to delude some into believing.

UEFA stated from the start that there would be no ban for first-time offenders, and that bans would only be handed out to repeat offenders. There has been no such clarification of punishment (although the UEFA one seems to be made up as it goes along) with regard to the Premier League's own version of FFP, as far as I'm aware, however, aside from the threat of (an unspecified number of) point deductions.

I don't think they have any idea as to what kind of sanctions they can get away with. Their lawyers probably can't tell them with any certainty, what the outcome is likely to be in each case should they be challenged.

And of course they have a legal challenge to face re the very existence of the clause re investment in clubs. They can't even think about nailing the sponsorship deals until they are sure that their attempts to stop owners investing in their own clubs is actually going to stand up. And that is being challenged on several fronts.

How long will that case take if it goes through ? What happens in the meantime ? What do they do about the PSG sponsorship deal whilst the whole thing is being challenged in court ?

Interesting to remind ourselves of the original objectives of so called 'fair play'.


to protect the long term viability of European club football;
to introduce more discipline and rationality into club finances;
to decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effects;
to encourage clubs to compete within their means;
to encourage long-term investments in academies and youth infrastructure; and
to ensure clubs settle liabilities on a timely basis.

Can't see anything there which mentions stopping people from investing in their own clubs. And how does the £27 mil fpr Fellaini plus Rooney's contract, by one of the clubs doing it the 'right way' stand up compared to our investment in Silva etc ?

[Mikhail Chigorin]

Steady on, Doomie.

Your comments were unfair and absolutely uncalled for as Socs was only making a valid point with regard to the 'mechanics' of FFP.

Perhaps you should just lighten up a little and have yourself a nice day instead.

Cheers.

I'm as light as I can be.

I'll have a nice day no matter what turdy posts any of you make.

Cheers yourself, fucknut.

Thanks Doomie.

You're just an old, inveterate flatterer at heart.

Try to keep your chin up and don't get too despondent.

[Saul Goodman]

Well we've been found guilty of breaching FFP, which is no surprise, and been offered a settlement ranging from a fine to squad sanctions in Europe

[Dameerto]

I don't like these settlements, they are based (and Platini deliberately worded it this way earlier) on acceptance of guilt. We have done nothing wrong so we shouldn't settle. It's their sanction, let them impose it, and then we can challenge it.

[zuricity]

Well we've been found guilty of breaching FFP, which is no surprise, and been offered a settlement ranging from a fine to squad sanctions in Europe

Pay the beans !

[ant london]

I don't like these settlements, they are based (and Platini deliberately worded it this way earlier) on acceptance of guilt. We have done nothing wrong so we shouldn't settle. It's their sanction, let them impose it, and then we can challenge it.

Agree fully

We should tell them where they can put their "settlements" #seeyouincourt

[Bianchi on Ice]

Is Marvin Mitchelson still alive? hire him.
If still breathing he'd have no idea about the game but that would only mirror the twits running it.