Financial Fair Play

[Chicog]

Both Platini and a group of Premier League clubs have been talking about Financial Fair Play as if a new set of rules will be coming in to stop the Rich kids throwing their money around on their toy clubs.

I thought I'd start a thread for any news or discussions related to the subject.

To kick it off, here's the transfer net spend table for the last five years:

http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-last-five-seasons.html

Obviously Man City are the biggest joke of the lot. Nearly 400 million spent (and that doesn't include managers) and they have a league and an FA Cup to show for it.

No surprise with Arsenal, Wenger has done an amazing job keeping them in the Champions League year after year whilst paying off Ashburton Grove.

But there are some surprises in there. Sunderland and Villa's spend hasn't done them much good.

Everton are a lot lower than I thought.

And of course Chelski and Liverpool's figures are somewhat inflated by Torres and Carroll.

The two biggest culprits will no doubt have their most creative accountants at work to try and show they haven't made a 45 million euro loss over three years.

Of the 46 clubs that failed to break even, 20 made losses of more than the acceptable total of €45m over three seasons that would lead to sanctions of up to a ban from European competition. Two of the 20 are believed to be Chelsea and Manchester City. The exercise was based on figures for the three seasons between 2008 and 2011 and both clubs remain confident of complying when the first assessments begin for real next spring.

PSG are in the same boat, but then again they've got Beckham.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Chicog

[smokie36]

I've heard Mancunians and Chavs can't see this thread for some reason!

[Chicog]

<deleted> did I put it in a rose-coloured font?

[mjj]

I've heard Mancunians and Chavs can't see this thread for some reason!

You need to do some research my friend. Chelsea made a profit last year which is more than can be said for your tight fisted clowns.

TBH with sugar daddy clubs like Chelsea and City these rules will be made to look stupid. Both owners have friends in high places that will pay ridiculous amounts in sponsorship that will cover the losses made. Chelsea will probably have a massive deal from Gazprom or such and City will be some oil company. I don't agree with it but this is what will happen.

[mrbojangles]

TBH with sugar daddy clubs like Chelsea and City these rules will be made to look stupid. Both owners have friends in high places that will pay ridiculous amounts in sponsorship that will cover the losses made. Chelsea will probably have a massive deal from Gazprom or such and City will be some oil company. I don't agree with it but this is what will happen.

It's that bit in particular that FFP are going to scrutinise. Not just our clubs but any club who has sponsorship that is above what they consider to be the correct market value. How they will do is anybody's guess.

[smokie36]

TBH with sugar daddy clubs like Chelsea and City these rules will be made to look stupid. Both owners have friends in high places that will pay ridiculous amounts in sponsorship that will cover the losses made. Chelsea will probably have a massive deal from Gazprom or such and City will be some oil company. I don't agree with it but this is what will happen.

It's that bit in particular that FFP are going to scrutinise. Not just our clubs but any club who has sponsorship that is above what they consider to be the correct market value. How they will do is anybody's guess.

Its simple. You will both be relegated.

[mrbojangles]

TBH with sugar daddy clubs like Chelsea and City these rules will be made to look stupid. Both owners have friends in high places that will pay ridiculous amounts in sponsorship that will cover the losses made. Chelsea will probably have a massive deal from Gazprom or such and City will be some oil company. I don't agree with it but this is what will happen.

It's that bit in particular that FFP are going to scrutinise. Not just our clubs but any club who has sponsorship that is above what they consider to be the correct market value. How they will do is anybody's guess.

Its simple. You will both be relegated.

And you still won't finish in the top three

[Chicog]

I've heard Mancunians and Chavs can't see this thread for some reason!

You need to do some research my friend. Chelsea made a profit last year which is more than can be said for your tight fisted clowns.

Ha Ha, yeah, profit my arse. Creative accounting at its best!

The club also announced that Abramovich had converted £166.6 million of loans into equity, another move intended to prepare Chelsea for the financial fair-play regime.

Under Roman rule: Profit and loss

2011-12 Profit £1.4m

2010-11 Loss £67.7m

2009-10 Loss £70.9m

2008-09 Loss £44.4m

2007-08 Loss £65.7m

2006-07 Loss £74.8m

2005-06 Loss £80.2m

2004-05 Loss £140m

2003-04 Loss £87.8m

Edited February 6, 2013 by Chicog

[Thailand1977]

If PSG with their 200 million euro per year sponsorship deal pass the test, then Platini (whose son works for the Qataris) is clearly in their pocket.

And Man City would never get that kind of deal from any other company.

Chelsea are looking screwed if the only way they can make a profit is by winning the Champions League.

Time will tell.

[mrbojangles]

And Man City would never get that kind of deal from any other company.

We're a great investment opportunity ya know. It's just Etihad saw it first

[Chicog]

A set of not particularly stringent rules have been agreed:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/9855388/Premier-League-clubs-vote-for-spending-controls-and-could-lose-points-if-they-fail-to-comply.html

[carmine]

A set of not particularly stringent rules have been agreed:

http://www.telegraph...-to-comply.html

Yes because they had to pamder to the chavs to get them onboard. Strangely enough City and Chelsea were dead against it all. Theres a surprise

[mrbojangles]

A set of not particularly stringent rules have been agreed:

http://www.telegraph...-to-comply.html

Yes because they had to pamder to the chavs to get them onboard. Strangely enough City and Chelsea were dead against it all. Theres a surprise

And so were West Bromwich Albion, Swansea, Southampton, Aston Villa and Fulham. theres a surprise.

Actually, according to the article, Chelsea voted in favour.

[carmine]

A set of not particularly stringent rules have been agreed:

http://www.telegraph...-to-comply.html

Yes because they had to pamder to the chavs to get them onboard. Strangely enough City and Chelsea were dead against it all. Theres a surprise

And so were West Bromwich Albion, Swansea, Southampton, Aston Villa and Fulham. theres a surprise.

Actually, according to the article, Chelsea voted in favour.

They did after some allowances were made.

[mjj]

I've just read the bbc article and the wage bill part looks quite unfair to me.

Take a scenario of a team like Everton. They are usually skirting around the top 4, but not quite making it. If they do break in and want to bolster there squad, due to there wage bill being £58m, they can only increase by £4m (80k a week) which isn't going to get many top players in is it? And in all fairness a good showing in the cl and the amount of money it can bring in, it's worth the gamble to overspend a bit.

On the other hand Chelsea who have a £190m wage bill could just offload a superstar and get a better superstar in. Doesn't seem very fair to me, this is just keeping the rich rich and the poor poor.

[Chicog]

I've just read the bbc article and the wage bill part looks quite unfair to me.

Take a scenario of a team like Everton. They are usually skirting around the top 4, but not quite making it. If they do break in and want to bolster there squad, due to there wage bill being £58m, they can only increase by £4m (80k a week) which isn't going to get many top players in is it? And in all fairness a good showing in the cl and the amount of money it can bring in, it's worth the gamble to overspend a bit.

On the other hand Chelsea who have a £190m wage bill could just offload a superstar and get a better superstar in. Doesn't seem very fair to me, this is just keeping the rich rich and the poor poor.

Perhaps it isn't as simple as that. Why did Everton vote for it?

The complex measures agreed on Thursday are designed to help ensure that a five billion pound ($7.85 billion) television windfall brings a new era of financial stability rather than being frittered away on lavish wages for players.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Chicog

[mjj]

I hope it isn't that simple. Even though I want Chelsea to win everything, I do like rooting for the underdog and a shock top 4 without the usual suspects would make me smile.

[carmine]

I hope it isn't that simple. Even though I want Chelsea to win everything, I do like rooting for the underdog and a shock top 4 without the usual suspects would make me smile.

Couldn't agree more. Wouldn't it be great if a club like Swansea crept in. Obviously not at the expense of Spurs, and since LeArse are a spent force that meand you lot mate!!

[Chicog]

I hope it isn't that simple. Even though I want Chelsea to win everything, I do like rooting for the underdog and a shock top 4 without the usual suspects would make me smile.

Couldn't agree more. Wouldn't it be great if a club like Swansea crept in. Obviously not at the expense of Spurs, and since LeArse are a spent force that meand you lot mate!!

A spent force. 5-2 5-2. OK.

:nods sagely and laughs: