Financial Fair Play

[Chicog]

Sounds like the mickey mousers are more worried than anyone....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/champions-league/10676021/Uefas-Financial-Fair-Play-Premier-League-club-analysis.html

[BangrakBob]

Back to back Profit & Loss Champions, congratulations Chicog 

[Chicog]

Back to back Profit & Loss Champions, congratulations Chicog 

 

Yep and no worries about being allowed to play in Europe next year Bob....

 

<cackle>

Edited March 5, 2014 by Chicog

[BangrakBob]

 

Back to back Profit & Loss Champions, congratulations Chicog 

 

Yep and no worries about being allowed to play in Europe next year Bob....

 

<cackle>

 

bang on there pal

 

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/football-liverpool-wont-face-ffp-assessment-183237075--sow.html

[Chicog]

Oooo aren't you lucky.

 

[Bredbury Blue]

Football revolutionary takes aim at UEFA -- again

By James Masters and John Sinnott, CNN

May 19, 2014 -- Updated 1519 GMT (2319 HKT)

 

He revolutionized football once before by transforming its transfer system -- now Belgian lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont is gunning to change the face of the game for a second time.

 

In his sights is UEFA's shiny new regulatory regime: Financial Fair Play (FFP), which has become the scourge of Europe's richest football clubs, notably English champion Manchester City and top French side Paris Saint-Germain, which were both heavily sanctioned by Europe's governing body Friday.

 

FFP is designed to prevent clubs spending beyond their means and posting unsustainable yearly losses, but Dupont believes the sanctions are "completely illegal" because they restrict competition -- a key principle of European Union law.

 

"The break-even requirement,' that's in itself a pure violation of EU competition law. any sanction that aims at enforcing an illegal rule is automatically illegal, " Dupont told CNN.

 

In a statement sent to CNN, UEFA said it "completely rejects" the suggestion that the break-even requirement may lead to any restriction of competition in the market for matches played in UEFA club tournaments.

 

"FFP rules emerged from a wide-reaching consultative process involving all relevant stakeholders in European football," read a statement from UEFA.

 

" As such, there is no doubt that the rules have democratic legitimacy since they were the product of an inclusive and democratic process.

 

"The substantive content of the rules -- especially the break-even principle, based on the idea that you 'don't spend more than you earn' -- is just economic common sense and a sensible prudential rule."

 

But Dupont disagrees.

 

"FFP sounds good," added Dupont. "Who wouldn't support good governance and fairness of the game?

"But when you scratch the surface, the break-even rule is no more than a prohibition to invest."

 

Dupont believes FFP raises further competition concerns by entrenching the status quo, by not allowing clubs like City and PSG to challenge the established football order in future.

 

"UEFA prohibits the owner of a club to spend his own money in the club, at least to buy players, in order to make it grow and to challenge the established top dogs.

 

"Today, with this rule, Roman Abramovich could not build his Chelsea project and turn it into one of Europe's top clubs.

"In other words, the rule ossifies the market structure. The few top European clubs will remain the same forever -- there will be no new kid in town."

 

To back up his argument, Dupont cites an academic article by professor Nicolas Petit on EU competition law and FFP.

 

"Petit says FFP creates what he calls a 'Oligopoleague: the break-even rule destroys competitive balance -- the big clubs will be bigger; the small clubs, smaller ; and no small club will ever again become a big one," said Dupont.

 

Again UEFA rejects the accusations. It says "FFP enhances competition through improving managerial incentives in football".

 

It adds that "clubs are encouraged to invest in training and infrastructure rather than 'payroll-gambling'".

 

Threat of expulsion

 

Last week, City was hit with an $82 million fine and squad restrictions for next season's Champions League, while PSG also received a heavy financial punishment.

 

Dupont argues clubs won't risk taking UEFA on in the courts because it might lead to their expulsion from the Champions League or the Europa League and disrupt their transfer activities.

 

Additionally, they have the feeling that the political cost would be high, said the Belgian lawyer. It's a threat that has ensured UEFA has faced little opposition over FFP.

 

"Pay me €60 million or I will expel you from competitions, which will cause you an even bigger damage," said Dupont.

 

"This is clearly a threat of expulsion. Again, a major crime under European competition law. And even more so since this threat aims at enforcing a rule that, itself, violates competition law."

 

Dupont also argues part of the punishment handed out to City -- where its squad for next season's Champions League has been reduced from 25 players to 21 with at least eight of those having to be home grown -- is also "illegal."

 

UEFA's homegrown players rule requires at least eight players in a European squad to have been trained domestically for three years between the ages of 15 and 21 -- a rule which Dupont says is open to challenge.

 

"The whole UEFA home grown player system violates EU Law," said the Belgian lawyer who is based in Barcelona.

 

"This rule violates free movement of workers and harms free competition without any solid justification.

 

"In other words, if any club or player challenges this rule tomorrow in court, the judge -- based on EU law -- will have no choice but to declare this UEFA rule null and void."

 

Intriguingly, Dupont urged the supporters of the nine clubs sanctioned by UEFA to become involved in the battle against FFP.

 

"Million and millions of people could challenge FFP tomorrow," said Dupont, who is already contesting the FFP regulations through the courts in a case he is fighting on behalf of football agent Daniel Striani.

 

"The fans can do this through their associations. They are the consumers of the football product and the ultimate aim of competition law is to protect the consumers.

 

"They are free to join the complaint lodged by my client, player agent Daniel Striani, with the European Commission and the civil action he has launched in the Brussels court.

 

"They could even ask the Brussels judge to stay the execution of the Uefa FFP regulation -- and of the sanctions based on it - until he renders his judgment on the merits.

 

"Since the break-even rule will stop for ever the vast majority of clubs from challenging the existing top European clubs, the fans of these 'underdog' clubs have a legitimate interest and can ask the judge to declare the break-even rule null and void.

 

"And the same goes for (for instance) the sponsors of all these clubs."

 

It was nearly 20 years ago that Dupont, who helped Belgian footballer Jean-Marc Bosman change European law in 1995 to allow players to move for free at the end of their contract.

 

Whether it change European law for a second time remains to be seen.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/19/sport/football/financial-fair-play-uefa-dupont/?c=&page=0

[Bredbury Blue]

Financial Fair Play -- fair or farce?

By James Masters, CNN

May 9, 2014 -- Updated 1619 GMT (0019 HKT)

 

(CNN) -- Three small letters striking like a dagger to the heart of football's richest football clubs.

 

FFP, known as Financial Fair Play, was introduced by European governing body UEFA to prevent clubs going bankrupt and increase competition in European football.

 

But like so much in life, will it just make the rich get richer and the poor poorer?

 

Both Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain are reportedly facing heavy fines for flouting FFP regulations -- two teams which have risen up the football ladder following huge investment over the past few years. PSG have just won the league title in France; City are close to doing it in England.

 

UEFA has so far refused to comment.

 

One leading football finance expert argues FFP is the perfect way to protect the status quo from the threat of clubs such as City and PSG, which were propelled into the upper echelons of the game by billionaire investors.

 

"The European Club's Association established by the biggest clubs in Europe, had an interest in a closed shop and to prevent more sheikhs and oligarchs blast into the top of European football as Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour did," Ouriel Daskal, referring to Chelsea and City owners, told CNN.

 

"Their reasoning was that it disrupted the market and has a corrosive effect over it," added Daskal, who has written for the The Bliezzard and a range of leading newspapers. "UEFA president Michel Platini wanted to 'counter financial doping.' However, the main benefactors of FFP are the ones who have more money than others.

 

"There's regulation on expenditure and external income (from the pockets of the rich) but there's no regulation on income -- media rights, transfer market, prize money and matchday income.

 

"So what happens right now is that clubs who have money can take out more money and therefore make more money. This has resulted in growing gaps between the haves and have-nots, which is a lot more disruptive and corrosive than financial doping."

 

UEFA's reputation is on the line over FFP and Platini is determined for the rules to be enforced.

 

But there are reservations within the game at Platini's desire to impose the policy across European football, despite clubs slowly adjusting to the idea.

 

"At the start, some clubs were outraged by the proposals," Tor-Kristian Karlsen, former chief executive of French club Monaco, told CNN.

 

"People are now slowly getting to grips with all and perhaps are not as resistant. On one side, it's positive because it makes clubs behave in a more responsible manner.

 

"But it's the actual fairness of the concept where it's debatable because it gives certain clubs advantages -- there's no doubt about that.

 

"It makes it difficult for the smaller teams because to be profitable you have to enjoy success on the pitch.

 

"It's a vicious circle. To be more successful you have to spend and if you spend and become successful, you'll bring in more money, more sponsors, attract larger crowds and sell more seats."

 

Introduced in principle in 2009, FFP started properly in 2011 with clubs which had qualified for UEFA competitions needing to prove "they do not have overdue payables towards other clubs, their players and social/tax authorities throughout the season."

 

The plan allowed for losses of up to $55.5 million during the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons which would be reduced to £37 million between 2015 and 2018.

 

According to its findings, 76 teams were at risk of flouting FFP rules this season following an examination of their accounts by the investigation body -- of which Manchester City and PSG are two.

 

"I'm surprised UEFA imposed financial punishments and fines rather than sporting sanctions," Ed Thompson, another FFP specialist, told CNN.

 

"Fining them, if it doesn't count towards the FFP tests and means that the ruler of Qatar in PSG's case and the ruler of Dubai in City's case, will put their hand in their pocket, put it into the club and that will go to UEFA.

 

"I can't see the owners being too upset given their resources. These could be world record sporting fines the like which we've never seen before.

 

"It will send out a signal that something has happened which is wrong and that is probably why they're doing it."

 

Malaga, which reached the quarterfinals of the 2013 Champions League, has already felt the full force of UEFA's wrath and was banned for a year from playing in European competition after failing to pay its bills.

 

City's situation is different, with UEFA concerned about the club's sponsorship deals with Etihad, an airline which is based in Abu Dhabi, home of the ruling family which also runs the club.

 

The deal, which was signed in 2011 and encompasses stadium and shirt sponsorship is worth around $628 million over 10 years.

 

But UEFA says that deal, like PSG's $167-million-a-year sponsorship deal with the Qatar Tourism Authority, is an invalid way of balancing books under the break-even rules.

 

"For the past two years, Qatar Tourism Authority (QTA) has poured up to €200m a year into Paris Saint-Germain under an advertising contract designed only to help the French club meet UEFA's financial fair-play rules," writes Daskal in his blog.

 

"This deal has no real fair value because tourism deals are usually valued at no more than €5m. It's worth mentioning that the deal with PSG doesn't include shirt sponsorship or stadium naming rights.

 

"UEFA should not allow this deal help PSG meet FFP rules. If UEFA allows Qatar to artificially inject cash into the club their club, then what stops Roman Abramovich's company Millhouse Capital from spending €100m per year on Stamford Bridge naming rights?

 

"If Qatar can do it, why can't Abramovich do it? And while we are at it, Stan Kroenke's wife Ann Walton Kroenke can sign a sponsorship contract with Arsenal that will turn The Emirates Stadium into the Walmart Stadium for a cool €500m?"

 

PSG was not immediately available for comment.

 

UEFA has been skeptical of these kinds of deals throughout its investigation and a quick glance at its regulations illustrates just why.

 

According to UEFA: "If a club's owner injects money into the club through a sponsorship deal with a company to which he is related, then UEFA's competent bodies will investigate and, if necessary, adapt the calculations of the break-even result for the sponsorship revenues to the level which is appropriate ('fair value') according to market prices."

 

An additional punishment which could be handed to City may see the club's Champions League squad reduced from 25 to 21.

 

It would mean having to include eight locally trained players, four of them club-trained and requiring a number of expensive foreign signings to be left out.

 

In addition, the likes of Everton, who narrowly missed out on a Champions League place, could theoretically appeal to CAS for City to be expelled from the Champions League.

 

"My criticism of FFP is that, having started out with good intentions, it has ended up as something entirely different and rather less honorable," Oliver Kay, chief football writer for the Times newspaper told CNN.

 

"If you go back to 2008, when Platini and David Taylor (former UEFA chief executive) first started talking about, it was about tackling all money of financial excesses: inequalities across Europe, the fact that debt was being used in different ways, whether it was Chelsea benefiting from interest-free loans from Abramovich or Manchester United being exploited by the Glazer families.

 

"I dug out a 2009 quote from Platini saying it would make football more equal, so that 'everyone can win.'

 

"Somewhere along the line, Platini and UEFA were persuaded by the biggest clubs to turn it into something else -- a crackdown on new money, which by 2009 or 2010 meant Manchester City and PSG, rather than Chelsea.

 

"I just find it extremely disingenuous for UEFA to have established a set of rules that crack down very heavily on owner-investment but fails to protect clubs from owner-exploitation.

 

"It ignores the inequalities that exist between one league and another and between clubs in certain leagues, such as Spain, where the distribution of broadcast revenue is so uneven.

 

"If they had introduced something that would genuinely create a more even playing field -- and I don't mean 'even' like it is in Manchester, where one club has benefited from generous ownership and the other has been hindered by exploitative ownership -- then I would be in favor of it.

 

"But unfortunately Financial Fair Play isn't financial fair play at all. It looks very much like it's designed to keep the status quo."

 

One club which has been a steadfast in its commitment to the regulations is Arsenal and its French manager Arsene Wenger.

 

"There are rules," Wenger told British media this week. "You respect them or you don't respect them. If you don't respect them you have to be punished.

 

"When UEFA doesn't want to kick the clubs out of the Champions League they have to find a more subtle punishment. To me, and from all of us on the outside, it looks a complicated punishment.

 

"There's two ways of thinking about the whole process. You can say, 'We don't care, we want the billionaires to buy the big players, they spend what they want', or you say, 'We want to keep things fair'," he added.

 

"Basically if you say to me tomorrow, we give everybody £100m ($169.53m) in the 20 Premier League clubs, I say, 'okay, I'll take the gamble.' That is a fair competition.

 

"The unfair thing is the inflation can be too big and it can put too much pressure on the clubs who do not have these resources to overpay their players."

 

While the scale of punishment is yet to be confirmed, a monetary fine has left some confused at UEFA's approach.

 

Karlsen, who has worked across Europe with the likes of Bayer Leverkusen and Zenit St Petersburg, believes UEFA could have introduced different punishments such as transfer embargoes instead of something he claims is "more ambitious and complex."

 

And while he accepts that FFP could rein in excess spending, he still has reservations.

 

"It's positive that owners will have to be more careful in the running of their clubs and the money they spend on transfers," he added.

 

"But on the other hand, why should football be so different to real life?

 

"If an individual is wealthy and has worked hard for his money, why should they not be allowed to spend it how they see fit?"

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/09/sport/football/football-financial-fair-play/index.html?c=&page=0

[PREM-R]

Football revolutionary takes aim at UEFA -- again

By James Masters and John Sinnott, CNN

May 19, 2014 -- Updated 1519 GMT (2319 HKT)

 

He revolutionized football once before by transforming its transfer system -- now Belgian lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont is gunning to change the face of the game for a second time.

 

In his sights is UEFA's shiny new regulatory regime: Financial Fair Play (FFP), which has become the scourge of Europe's richest football clubs, notably English champion Manchester City and top French side Paris Saint-Germain, which were both heavily sanctioned by Europe's governing body Friday.

 

FFP is designed to prevent clubs spending beyond their means and posting unsustainable yearly losses, but Dupont believes the sanctions are "completely illegal" because they restrict competition -- a key principle of European Union law.

 

"The break-even requirement,' that's in itself a pure violation of EU competition law. any sanction that aims at enforcing an illegal rule is automatically illegal, " Dupont told CNN.

 

In a statement sent to CNN, UEFA said it "completely rejects" the suggestion that the break-even requirement may lead to any restriction of competition in the market for matches played in UEFA club tournaments.

 

"FFP rules emerged from a wide-reaching consultative process involving all relevant stakeholders in European football," read a statement from UEFA.

 

" As such, there is no doubt that the rules have democratic legitimacy since they were the product of an inclusive and democratic process.

 

"The substantive content of the rules -- especially the break-even principle, based on the idea that you 'don't spend more than you earn' -- is just economic common sense and a sensible prudential rule."

 

But Dupont disagrees.

 

"FFP sounds good," added Dupont. "Who wouldn't support good governance and fairness of the game?

"But when you scratch the surface, the break-even rule is no more than a prohibition to invest."

 

Dupont believes FFP raises further competition concerns by entrenching the status quo, by not allowing clubs like City and PSG to challenge the established football order in future.

 

"UEFA prohibits the owner of a club to spend his own money in the club, at least to buy players, in order to make it grow and to challenge the established top dogs.

 

"Today, with this rule, Roman Abramovich could not build his Chelsea project and turn it into one of Europe's top clubs.

"In other words, the rule ossifies the market structure. The few top European clubs will remain the same forever -- there will be no new kid in town."

 

To back up his argument, Dupont cites an academic article by professor Nicolas Petit on EU competition law and FFP.

 

"Petit says FFP creates what he calls a 'Oligopoleague: the break-even rule destroys competitive balance -- the big clubs will be bigger; the small clubs, smaller ; and no small club will ever again become a big one," said Dupont.

 

Again UEFA rejects the accusations. It says "FFP enhances competition through improving managerial incentives in football".

 

It adds that "clubs are encouraged to invest in training and infrastructure rather than 'payroll-gambling'".

 

Threat of expulsion

 

Last week, City was hit with an $82 million fine and squad restrictions for next season's Champions League, while PSG also received a heavy financial punishment.

 

Dupont argues clubs won't risk taking UEFA on in the courts because it might lead to their expulsion from the Champions League or the Europa League and disrupt their transfer activities.

 

Additionally, they have the feeling that the political cost would be high, said the Belgian lawyer. It's a threat that has ensured UEFA has faced little opposition over FFP.

 

"Pay me €60 million or I will expel you from competitions, which will cause you an even bigger damage," said Dupont.

 

"This is clearly a threat of expulsion. Again, a major crime under European competition law. And even more so since this threat aims at enforcing a rule that, itself, violates competition law."

 

Dupont also argues part of the punishment handed out to City -- where its squad for next season's Champions League has been reduced from 25 players to 21 with at least eight of those having to be home grown -- is also "illegal."

 

UEFA's homegrown players rule requires at least eight players in a European squad to have been trained domestically for three years between the ages of 15 and 21 -- a rule which Dupont says is open to challenge.

 

"The whole UEFA home grown player system violates EU Law," said the Belgian lawyer who is based in Barcelona.

 

"This rule violates free movement of workers and harms free competition without any solid justification.

 

"In other words, if any club or player challenges this rule tomorrow in court, the judge -- based on EU law -- will have no choice but to declare this UEFA rule null and void."

 

Intriguingly, Dupont urged the supporters of the nine clubs sanctioned by UEFA to become involved in the battle against FFP.

 

"Million and millions of people could challenge FFP tomorrow," said Dupont, who is already contesting the FFP regulations through the courts in a case he is fighting on behalf of football agent Daniel Striani.

 

"The fans can do this through their associations. They are the consumers of the football product and the ultimate aim of competition law is to protect the consumers.

 

"They are free to join the complaint lodged by my client, player agent Daniel Striani, with the European Commission and the civil action he has launched in the Brussels court.

 

"They could even ask the Brussels judge to stay the execution of the Uefa FFP regulation -- and of the sanctions based on it - until he renders his judgment on the merits.

 

"Since the break-even rule will stop for ever the vast majority of clubs from challenging the existing top European clubs, the fans of these 'underdog' clubs have a legitimate interest and can ask the judge to declare the break-even rule null and void.

 

"And the same goes for (for instance) the sponsors of all these clubs."

 

It was nearly 20 years ago that Dupont, who helped Belgian footballer Jean-Marc Bosman change European law in 1995 to allow players to move for free at the end of their contract.

 

Whether it change European law for a second time remains to be seen.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/19/sport/football/financial-fair-play-uefa-dupont/?c=&page=0

 

The problem for City and PSG is that by accepting their punishment they have given legitimacy to the FFP. They signed up for it, they were found to have broken its rules and they have paid their dues.  The case brought by Dupont, on behalf of a football agent, must surely have been weakened by the prosecuted clubs compliance with their punishment. 

 

There is a big difference in challenging a labour law that potentially restricted the free trade of hundreds or even thousands of footballers within the EU and challenging a rule that ALL the clubs involved in UEFA competitions  signed up to, in full knowledge of the consequences, which resulted in so few of them failing to comply with the required standards. 

 

[Chicog]

The problem is that only real impact is that they've taken more money that isn't theirs in the first place and put it into Platini's coffers instead of their toy football clubs.

 

 

[mjj]

I love the caption under Spurs,

 

Spurs have always walked the line between trying to buy success and balancing their books.

 

 

[carmine]

I love the caption under Spurs,

 

Spurs have always walked the line between trying to buy success and balancing their books.

 

 

 

Jeez i'd have thought a Chelsea fan of all people would have wanted to steer clear of this thread the manner of which your club has been run by the russians in recent years.  you club and it fans have been an utter disgrace and your ground will hopefully be burnt to the ground and the vacant space used as a kids fun park.

 

i have this image of Adramovich, when on occasion he gets bored of milking the russian people for all they are worth, switching his tele on to watch his plaything and throwing a tantrum about how dog average you play considering the money spent and the talent at your disposal.  He then sits to ponder why he employes a pig eyed tool like Muorinho who starts bleating like an idiot about little horses as soon as it becomes blatantly obvious he cocked up your season.

 

Stupid little joke plaything of a small club.

 

have a chavtastic day and maybe spare a thought for all that hard earnt russian money wasted last year on a fruitless season by a right fruit of a manager.

Edited June 21, 2014 by carmine

[BangrakBob]

 

I love the caption under Spurs,

 

Spurs have always walked the line between trying to buy success and balancing their books.

 

 

 

Jeez i'd have thought a Chelsea fan of all people would have wanted to steer clear of this thread the manner of which your club has been run by the russians in recent years.  you club and it fans have been an utter disgrace and your ground will hopefully be burnt to the ground and the vacant space used as a kids fun park.

 

i have this image of Adramovich, when on occasion he gets bored of milking the russian people for all they are worth, switching his tele on to watch his plaything and throwing a tantrum about how dog average you play considering the money spent and the talent at your disposal.  He then sits to ponder why he employes a pig eyed tool like Muorinho who starts bleating like an idiot about little horses as soon as it becomes blatantly obvious he cocked up your season.

 

Stupid little joke plaything of a small club.

 

have a chavtastic day and maybe spare a thought for all that hard earnt russian money wasted last year on a fruitless season by a right fruit of a manager.

 

Well that be both barrels there Chavskis, come on P-4 let's hear your retort.

 

Or maybe Bertie Blue Bolloxks might step in with some moral support

[mrbojangles]

Carms. It's protocol at the end to put "rant over" 

 

Nice rant though. All toys out of the pram and not a "deleted" word in sight. Congrats buddy, that's how to do it 

[jellydog]

 

 

I love the caption under Spurs,

 

Spurs have always walked the line between trying to buy success and balancing their books.

 

 

 

Jeez i'd have thought a Chelsea fan of all people would have wanted to steer clear of this thread the manner of which your club has been run by the russians in recent years.  you club and it fans have been an utter disgrace and your ground will hopefully be burnt to the ground and the vacant space used as a kids fun park.

 

i have this image of Adramovich, when on occasion he gets bored of milking the russian people for all they are worth, switching his tele on to watch his plaything and throwing a tantrum about how dog average you play considering the money spent and the talent at your disposal.  He then sits to ponder why he employes a pig eyed tool like Muorinho who starts bleating like an idiot about little horses as soon as it becomes blatantly obvious he cocked up your season.

 

Stupid little joke plaything of a small club.

 

have a chavtastic day and maybe spare a thought for all that hard earnt russian money wasted last year on a fruitless season by a right fruit of a manager.

 

Well that be both barrels there Chavskis, come on P-4 let's hear your retort.

 

Or maybe Bertie Blue Bolloxks might step in with some moral support

 

 

I had my doubts as to whether there would be anything to laugh at in this thread. Proved wrong already.

 

[rijit]

ffs can't we put a sticky up or do something bout putting links rather than cutting and pasting WHOLE articles. makes scrolling and reading answers a frigging pain.

[mjj]

I love the caption under Spurs,
 
Spurs have always walked the line between trying to buy success and balancing their books.
 
 

 
Jeez i'd have thought a Chelsea fan of all people would have wanted to steer clear of this thread the manner of which your club has been run by the russians in recent years.  you club and it fans have been an utter disgrace and your ground will hopefully be burnt to the ground and the vacant space used as a kids fun park.
 
i have this image of Adramovich, when on occasion he gets bored of milking the russian people for all they are worth, switching his tele on to watch his plaything and throwing a tantrum about how dog average you play considering the money spent and the talent at your disposal.  He then sits to ponder why he employes a pig eyed tool like Muorinho who starts bleating like an idiot about little horses as soon as it becomes blatantly obvious he cocked up your season.
 
Stupid little joke plaything of a small club.
 
have a chavtastic day and maybe spare a thought for all that hard earnt russian money wasted last year on a fruitless season by a right fruit of a manager.

Seriously Carmine, you need to get laid.

[carmine]

 

 

I love the caption under Spurs,
 
Spurs have always walked the line between trying to buy success and balancing their books.
 
 

 
Jeez i'd have thought a Chelsea fan of all people would have wanted to steer clear of this thread the manner of which your club has been run by the russians in recent years.  you club and it fans have been an utter disgrace and your ground will hopefully be burnt to the ground and the vacant space used as a kids fun park.
 
i have this image of Adramovich, when on occasion he gets bored of milking the russian people for all they are worth, switching his tele on to watch his plaything and throwing a tantrum about how dog average you play considering the money spent and the talent at your disposal.  He then sits to ponder why he employes a pig eyed tool like Muorinho who starts bleating like an idiot about little horses as soon as it becomes blatantly obvious he cocked up your season.
 
Stupid little joke plaything of a small club.
 
have a chavtastic day and maybe spare a thought for all that hard earnt russian money wasted last year on a fruitless season by a right fruit of a manager.

Seriously Carmine, you need to get laid.

 

 

Its been seven days since my post and thats seriously the best you could come up with? 

[mjj]

I've been busy.

Although your rant was quite amusing, there is nothing there that you haven't written before.............many, many times. Come up with some originality and I might respond with more enthusiasm.

[carmine]

I've been busy.

Although your rant was quite amusing, there is nothing there that you haven't written before.............many, many times. Come up with some originality and I might respond with more enthusiasm.

 

OK

[BangrakBob]

Interesting analysis of EPL spending


http://tomkinstimes.com/2014/08/how-chelsea-ruined-football/

[rijit]

Talking of 'financial  fair play' all seems quite on the man city front only a 55ish mil out lay , 15 mil over the fair play restriction and

 

no one sold as yet?  .and enough token 'Englishmen' to go around.?, seeing fat frank is for 6 months, but I suppose you'll be out of the champs lge

 

by then,  so no probs there , but if your not?

[mrbojangles]

Talking of 'financial  fair play' all seems quite on the man city front only a 55ish mil out lay:cheesy: , 15 mil over the fair play restriction and
 
no one sold as yet?  .and enough token 'Englishmen' to go around.?, seeing fat frank is for 6 months, but I suppose you'll be out of the champs lge
 
by then,  so no probs there , but if your not?

FFP sanctions restricted our net spend to £49m. Where did you come up with the figure of £55m? I can't seem to find any exact figures. But don't forget we get £10m from Everton for Gareth Barry as it was part of the loan deal.

Therefore, even IF your £55m spend is correct, take away the £10m for Barry that leaves us with still £4m still to spend and we may sell some yet. I'll put my faith in the clubs accountants before the tabloids. However, after last night, we might get 10 bob for Richards!!

[rijit]

 

Talking of 'financial  fair play' all seems quite on the man city front only a 55ish mil out lay:cheesy: , 15 mil over the fair play restriction and
 
no one sold as yet?  .and enough token 'Englishmen' to go around.?, seeing fat frank is for 6 months, but I suppose you'll be out of the champs lge
 
by then,  so no probs there , but if your not?

FFP sanctions restricted our net spend to £49m. Where did you come up with the figure of £55m? I can't seem to find any exact figures. But don't forget we get £10m from Everton for Gareth Barry as it was part of the loan deal.

Therefore, even IF your £55m spend is correct, take away the £10m for Barry that leaves us with still £4m still to spend and we may sell some yet. I'll put my faith in the clubs accountants before the tabloids. However, after last night, we might get 10 bob for Richards!!

 

10 mil,,  for GARETH BARRY, YEAH COARSE U DID

Faith in your accountants ,  that wouldn't be the same one's u had faith in last  year when u were so assured that u'de adhere to ffp, was it?    and 55 includes 32 mil 4 mangala  and yeah your right it was 49 mil not 40 mil.

 

[wilai]

Tricky Blues paid 10m for Barry? Sorry Mr BJ I am with rijit on this one

[mrbojangles]

Tricky Blues paid 10m for Barry? Sorry Mr BJ I am with rijit on this one

 

I believe it's not in one go and will be linked to appearances. Something like 2.5m this year etc. All sorts of figures are banded around and to me 10mil does seem OTT but it's far from unusual for terms being agreed on the loan deal if the player eventually signs for that same team full time.

 

As you know, all sorts are put into contracts and when we hear of such and such being signed for 40mil, it's quite common for that fee not to be paid up front but is linked to appearances and can also include a cut of selling on fees. 

[mrbojangles]

Just to add. One of the Spurs fans might correct me on the detail but I'm sure when Southampton sold Bale, they included all sorts of add ons and effectively had somewhere between 10 and 25% stake in Bale. However, they were so cash strapped that in 2008 they approached Spurs and agreed about 3mil and a young goalkeeper to release them from the contract. That ended up costing Southampton about 20mil. 

[rijit]

, 10 mil  his contract expired in june,http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28221518

 

so unless Everton were double stupid and or feeling extremely benevolent and  decided to gift  you 10 mil

 

  i think  a big ZERO is what you got.

[mrbojangles]

This was just one of the reports before Barry signed on the dotted at Everton and various figures were banded around but even if this figure is correct, it shows that deals are done, whether in contract, prior to being out of contract or on loan. Players are valuable assets that are accounted for on balance sheets and if you think clubs just let multi million pound assets fall off the balance sheets at a whim, you are deluded.  http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/gareth-barrys-everton-transfer-doubt-3819573
 
Barry has been caught in the middle of a stand-off between Everton and Manchester City, who had been assured of a £2million fee if the former England midfielder agreed to sign a contract at Goodison after last season’s loan spell.

But with neither party willing to budge, Barry – who is a free agent – could sign for West Ham or his former club Aston Villa instead.

Everton had been confident of agreeing Barry’s deal this week, knowing it was the player’s preferred destination and that a three-year offer was on the table – an unusually long contract for a 33-year-old.

If Barry signs for any club other than Everton, City will not receive any fee - yet after several rounds of talks this week, no compromise could be reached.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/gareth-barrys-everton-transfer-doubt-3819573

[rijit]

the mirrror v the http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/08/gareth-barry-joins-everton

 

or the BBc http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28221518

 

 

digging at the bottom of the pile

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2635286/Premier-League-transfers-Club-club-guide-Summer-2014-moves.htm

 

 

or just http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/everton-transfers.html

 

 

   

[carmine]

Perhaps someone keep give me a heads up on why FFP is somehow exempt to Spanish and French clubs?

 

Rodriquez, Kroos and now probably Falcao to Real Madrid?  wtf!!!

 

Seems to me to be as about as effective as the United Nations.