• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Bye bye Abramovich etc

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rouge Penguin

Very Active
Member
Can't post the link, but the Beeb are reporting that Uefa have approved rules in which all clubs must operate within the money the generate.

No more oil barons and wealthy families. No need for new owners now
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

Could chelsea not sell a blade of grass from stamford bridge to Roman for £100m ?
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

I would assume you can get round these rules. I mean surely Roman could sponsor something somewhere for €100m per year?
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

Sounds like a sensible decision to me.


Uefa introduces tough penalties for spendthrift clubs

Profligate clubs face being banned from the Champions League and Europa League after European football's governing body Uefa approved new plans.

The example of Portsmouth, who became the first Premier League team to go into administration, has highlighted the financial excesses in England.

Uefa president Michel Platini has now passed rules which would force clubs to operate within their means.

Clubs will only be able to spend what they themselves generate.

Big cash injections from wealthy benefactors like the owners of Chelsea and Manchester City would also be restricted under Uefa's Financial Fair Play plan.

The system is being phased in and bans would not be able to be imposed theoretically until the 2014-15 season at the earliest.

Clubs are required to restructure themselves over the next three seasons so they are financially solvent.

GORDON FARQUHAR BLOG
The devil is in the detail but, basically, it means clubs' financial returns will be monitored over a three-year period and they will be expected, on average, to spend no more than they earn

Uefa general secretary Gianni Infantino said: "The main rule is the break-even requirement which will be phased in over the next three years.

"It is not as easy to swallow for everyone but everyone understands it is necessary. They are there not to punish clubs, they are there to help clubs. We don't want to kill anyone, this is why we have a phased-in approach."

But money invested in stadiums and youth development will not be included in the number-crunching.

The rules will also forbid clubs owing money to their rivals, players and staff or the tax authorities at the end of the season.

Portsmouth were a glaring example of a club which owed millions in unpaid transfer fees, image rights, tax and VAT.

Earlier this year, Infantino estimated 50% of clubs in Europe were making losses and 20% were in financial peril.

Big transfer fees can still be paid but clubs will need to generate sufficient funds through ticket sales, TV money and commercial revenue.

"If clubs want to spend €50, 60 or 70 million, why not, provided they have the money coming from their revenues, this will continue in the future. The problem is when you don't have the money," Infantino added.

The European Clubs' Association's president, former German international Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, welcomed the move, commenting: "The measures will shape the future of European football into a more responsible business and ultimately a more sustainable one."
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

Here's the Beeb's financial expert's take on it:

"Uefa's executive board is expected to rubber stamp new club licensing and monitoring regulations later today."

It is the kind of news story that catapults most football fans into stifled yawn mode, if not complete catatonia, so I will do my best to explain why you should be aware and what it is going to mean for Premier League clubs from Chelsea to Blackpool, the Toffees to the Baggies and so on.

Uefa already runs a licensing scheme, based around certain financial criteria. Clubs that want to play in its competitions - Champions League, Europa League etc - have to comply with the terms of the license or they cannot take part.

Uefa has a clear view as to why it does this and what the intentions of the revised regulations are. They are to:

* Introduce more discipline and rationality in club football finances;
* Decrease pressure on players' salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect;
* Encourage clubs to compete with their revenues;
* Encourage investment for the long-term benefit of clubs, such as investment in infrastructure
* (sports facilities) and in youth;
* Protect the long term viability and sustainability of European club football;
* Ensure clubs settle their liabilities on a timely basis.

Frankly, it is hard to argue with any of that. So what is new? The 'break-even' clause, that's what - and it's a pretty significant development.

George Gillett (left) and Tom Hicks
Uefa rulings will put the wallets of Liverpool's owners under further scrutiny

The devil is in the detail but, basically, it means clubs' financial returns will be monitored over a three-year period and they will be expected, on average, to spend no more than they earn, give or take a 5 million euros "immaterial losses" factor.

It is a simple principle but one that has taken a lot of quite clever Uefa men in navy blue suits a long time to frame in a practical and workable way.

Let us just start by saying this is not about existing debt, it is about what you earn and spend. It is also more about what you leave out of that calculation than what you put in.

Certain expenditure will be exempt. You can blow what you like on a new stadium or training ground, on your youth academy and your community activities. So can your wealthy benefactor. However, that wealthy benefactor can only subsidise other spending - transfers and salaries, for example - to a maximum of 45 million euros over three years, above and beyond the break-even level.

That is the bit the Premier League do not like. Let us take Fulham as the example. It would mean owner Mohamed Al-Fayed could not just plough any spare cash he had from the sale of Harrods into the club's transfer kitty with impunity.

This affects the smaller Premier League clubs most, as they generally have lower incomes. It tends to make it harder for a club like Fulham to break into the Champions League places by just bringing in lots of expensive talent, even if they can afford it. That, says the Premier League, is not a "good thing".

OK, so let us cut to the chase. How would your club stand at the moment?

Looking at the latest figures, Arsenal, Blackburn, Tottenham, Manchester United, Hull City and Stoke all tabled profits, so they are fine.

Fulham, Everton, Wigan and Wolves made losses of between £5m and £8m before factoring in academy, infrastructure and community spend, so that's OK, covered by the "immaterial losses" clause.

Bolton, West Ham and Birmingham made losses of between £13 and £20m, again before the permitted items. Considering the 'benefactor' clause allowing up to 15m Euros per season, they would be pretty much OK as well.

Aston Villa, Chelsea, Liverpool, and Manchester City would have some thinking to do as their losses are at a level that would trigger concern at Uefa.

It would not, however, suddenly mean they were not allowed to play Champions League or Europa League football at a stroke. The new measure is being added to the regulations as a "monitoring" item, which, if I've got this right, means they would be put under review and given warnings before being hit with the ultimate sanction.

Finally, none of this will cut in before the 2012/13 season, although the 2011/2012 financial returns will be the first benchmark for averaging out profit and loss over the next three years.

Never has your club needed a creative accountant more urgently - or a talented currency speculator given all this rationale has been worked out in euros.

And, as we know, the value of the pound in your pocket can go up as well as down!
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

I welcome it, however im pretty sure this will be contested and either be thrown out or changed one way or another. The good thing it will stop clubs like Man City and Chelsea buying their way to success, and bad management of clubs at board level like Leeds Utd an Portsmouth.

However, this seriously will effect smaller clubs, for example restricting them the opportunity to invest to compete at a higher level. Also it could make it even harder for teams outside the champions league places to compete. Surely with these rules in place Uefa need to look at spreading the wealth more fairly?

These rules could very well create a huge divide in football. Only the Elite will be able to compete.
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

I welcome it into the game too, something needs sorting because on a personal basis, I'm losing my faith in the game, what's the point when the financial differences between clubs have become so great?

That said, if we were financially better off, I'm not sure I'd feel the same way. But anyway, at least we'd be forced into finding a manager who works well within a budget and is more dependant on his own eye for talent and tactical prowess.
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

Won't this just preserve the status of the big clubs forever though?
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

There will be some way out of it for the very rich.

If the rich clubs have the best players, win their leagues and qualify for the Champions League there is no way that UEFA will ban them from entering because they haven't broken even. The money generated by the CL is far too great.

Also, the very rich owners of clubs can not only afford the best players, they can also afford the best lawyers
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

[quote author=Richey link=topic=40408.msg1109795#msg1109795 date=1275032842]
There will be some way out of it for the very rich.

If the rich clubs have the best players, win their leagues and qualify for the Champions League there is no way that UEFA will ban them from entering because they haven't broken even. The money generated by the CL is far too great.

Also, the very rich owners of clubs can not only afford the best players, they can also afford the best lawyers
[/quote]
In what way would lawyers be able to challenge a sporting body?

Surely the sporting body sets the competition rules and the entry criteria so a challenge looks difficult.

I assume the clubs would claim a trade restriction or perhaps set up an alternate competition?
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=40408.msg1109799#msg1109799 date=1275034451]
[quote author=Richey link=topic=40408.msg1109795#msg1109795 date=1275032842]
There will be some way out of it for the very rich.

If the rich clubs have the best players, win their leagues and qualify for the Champions League there is no way that UEFA will ban them from entering because they haven't broken even. The money generated by the CL is far too great.

Also, the very rich owners of clubs can not only afford the best players, they can also afford the best lawyers
[/quote]
In what way would lawyers be able to challenge a sporting body?

Surely the sporting body sets the competition rules and the entry criteria so a challenge looks difficult.

I assume the clubs would claim a trade restriction or perhaps set up an alternate competition?
[/quote]

No idea, but then I am not a lawyer. There would be some kind of line they would be able to take

The to clubs are so powerful that they could threaten to set up another competition yes. UEFA would be in a pretty poor position if the top clubs from England, Spain and Italy went against them.
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

[quote author=keniget link=topic=40408.msg1109793#msg1109793 date=1275032654]
Won't this just preserve the status of the big clubs forever though?
[/quote]

If by 'big', you mean those with the most supporters, then perhaps, yes. But what's wrong with that? At least it would eliminate (albeit too late) what Wenger calls 'financial doping'. City and Chelsea attract fairly big crowds, but there's no way they could afford to spend £200m in a single summer if they were restricted to paying transfer fees from their football-related income.

In the long run, the winners from this kind of ruling (assuming it is enforceable) ought to be the likes of Man Utd, Arsenal and us - if we ever get the new stadium built.
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=40408.msg1109818#msg1109818 date=1275037103]
[quote author=keniget link=topic=40408.msg1109793#msg1109793 date=1275032654]
Won't this just preserve the status of the big clubs forever though?
[/quote]

If by 'big', you mean those with the most supporters, then perhaps, yes. But what's wrong with that? At least it would eliminate (albeit too late) what Wenger calls 'financial doping'. City and Chelsea attract fairly big crowds, but there's no way they could afford to spend £200m in a single summer if they were restricted to paying transfer fees from their football-related income.

In the long run, the winners from this kind of ruling (assuming it is enforceable) ought to be the likes of Man Utd, Arsenal and us - if we ever get the new stadium built.
[/quote]

Yup agreed.

It's the most welcome change to football I can remember. Clubs shouldn't sore up the table as soon as a billionaire arrives. That's not competition. It's shit.

Progression should always come from past success, however small that success might be. Not from whoever dips deepest into their bottomless pockets.
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=40408.msg1109818#msg1109818 date=1275037103]
[quote author=keniget link=topic=40408.msg1109793#msg1109793 date=1275032654]
Won't this just preserve the status of the big clubs forever though?
[/quote]

If by 'big', you mean those with the most supporters, then perhaps, yes. But what's wrong with that? At least it would eliminate (albeit too late) what Wenger calls 'financial doping'. City and Chelsea attract fairly big crowds, but there's no way they could afford to spend £200m in a single summer if they were restricted to paying transfer fees from their football-related income.

In the long run, the winners from this kind of ruling (assuming it is enforceable) ought to be the likes of Man Utd, Arsenal and us - if we ever get the new stadium built.
[/quote]

That's what really gets my blood boiling, our owners complete failure to even get a spade in the ground.

Had they of managed to deliver the stadium anywhere near on time (2010 wasn't it?) then regardless of the amount of debt on the club, we'd be in a really strong position right now - and would be welcoming these rulings with open arms.
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=40408.msg1109850#msg1109850 date=1275041998]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=40408.msg1109818#msg1109818 date=1275037103]
[quote author=keniget link=topic=40408.msg1109793#msg1109793 date=1275032654]
Won't this just preserve the status of the big clubs forever though?
[/quote]

If by 'big', you mean those with the most supporters, then perhaps, yes. But what's wrong with that? At least it would eliminate (albeit too late) what Wenger calls 'financial doping'. City and Chelsea attract fairly big crowds, but there's no way they could afford to spend £200m in a single summer if they were restricted to paying transfer fees from their football-related income.

In the long run, the winners from this kind of ruling (assuming it is enforceable) ought to be the likes of Man Utd, Arsenal and us - if we ever get the new stadium built.
[/quote]

Yup agreed.

It's the most welcome change to football I can remember. Clubs shouldn't sore up the table as soon as a billionaire arrives. That's not competition. It's shit.

Progression should always come from past success, however small that success might be. Not from whoever dips deepest into their bottomless pockets.
[/quote]

yes, but there's a danger in this that the PL will really stagnate. without chelsea, man utd might just've won their 6th title in a row. we need these kind of regulations from uefa, but we also desperately need more competition throughout the league by some means or other. we don't want to turn into la liga with 2 clubs getting 95 points in a season.
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

So Maracana's with 200k seats is the way ahead? Traffic's going to be a cunt, but the atmosphere will be good.
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

It'll be chaos in La Liga. In the Premier League the TV money is divvied up reasonably, so small clubs will still have a fighting chance. In Spain Barcelona and Real have their own deals and take the lion's share of total TV revenue. Only three clubs made a profit last year - Barca, Real, Numancia. And Numancia were relegated.

This is all a fine idea in principle, but in practice UEFA might also want to look at regulating the TV income in the big domestic leagues, so everyone gets a fair shake. The reason the NFL is the most competitive professional sports league in the world is because there is equal revenue sharing and (until recently) a well executed and maintained salary cap/floor.
 
[quote author=Rouge Penguin link=topic=40408.msg1109869#msg1109869 date=1275046471]
So Maracana's with 200k seats is the way ahead? Traffic's going to be a cunt, but the atmosphere will be good.




[/quote]

You can park by mine & walk. It's a good 30 min walk, but you'd still get home before most everyone else!
 
Re: Bye bye Abramavic etc

[quote author=Richey link=topic=40408.msg1109811#msg1109811 date=1275036667]
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=40408.msg1109799#msg1109799 date=1275034451]
[quote author=Richey link=topic=40408.msg1109795#msg1109795 date=1275032842]
There will be some way out of it for the very rich.

If the rich clubs have the best players, win their leagues and qualify for the Champions League there is no way that UEFA will ban them from entering because they haven't broken even. The money generated by the CL is far too great.

Also, the very rich owners of clubs can not only afford the best players, they can also afford the best lawyers
[/quote]
In what way would lawyers be able to challenge a sporting body?

Surely the sporting body sets the competition rules and the entry criteria so a challenge looks difficult.

I assume the clubs would claim a trade restriction or perhaps set up an alternate competition?
[/quote]

No idea, but then I am not a lawyer. There would be some kind of line they would be able to take

The to clubs are so powerful that they could threaten to set up another competition yes. UEFA would be in a pretty poor position if the top clubs from England, Spain and Italy went against them.
[/quote]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I am a qualified company secretary and have had some legal training. In this country any public body's decisions (and those by football governing bodies would certainly qualify) can be judicially reviewed by the courts on reasonableness grounds, and I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case elsewhere too. How this is affected by European law I don't know, but in theory at least the principle of making such challenges is pretty well established.

Besides, as you say the top clubs could just give UEFA the finger and leave if they reckon that's what they need to do in their own interests.
 
If Platini is doing this he must believe he will get support from the ECA, which means the clubs would fall in line. The days of the clubs threatening to leave UEFA died with G14.
 
Perhaps, but it would be unprecedented and extremely unlikely. The financial state of some of the biggest clubs means they wouldn't be too displeased at such regulation I think.
 
[quote author=MC Golgotha link=topic=40408.msg1109896#msg1109896 date=1275051530]

Perhaps, but it would be unprecedented and extremely unlikely. The financial state of some of the biggest clubs means they wouldn't be too displeased at such regulation I think.
[/quote]


i agree. the really big voices in europe like man utd, barca, real, arsenal, juventus etc have everything to gain from this because their revenues are so much higher than their competitors. i doubt they'll be complaining.
 
Basically teams with shite little stadiums wont stand a chance.

If the owners dont invest in a new stadium / expansion soon - we'll end up struggling to compete in the transfer market when new regulations come in.

Arse, Scum, City and even the likes of Newcastle and Sunderland should do pretty well from this.
 
[quote author=Terrier link=topic=40408.msg1109932#msg1109932 date=1275064058]
Basically teams with shite little stadiums wont stand a chance.

If the owners dont invest in a new stadium / expansion soon - we'll end up struggling to compete in the transfer market when new regulations come in.

Arse, Scum, City and even the likes of Newcastle and Sunderland should do pretty well from this.
[/quote] Do you realise that ticket sales is not the only thing that produces income for football clubs? Or why the hell are you talking about Sunderland becoming a major force after this UEFA regulation? Because they have a rather large stadium? Sunderland's average attendance has always been lower than Liverpool's.
 
Exactly. It's only the TV money that lets teams like Blackburn and Wigan compete in the Premier League. In leagues without a decent distribution of revenues the top teams will become even more entrenched.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom