Manchester City and PSG breach Uefa FFP rules.
- Thread starter Tummy
- Start date
The whole thing is a sham. FFP was sold to the media and the public as a means of stopping the overspending by threatening to stop these clubs entering the Champions League.
Instead it looks like a means to fill UEFA's coffers even further and probably increase the bonus pot for Platini et al.
Instead it looks like a means to fill UEFA's coffers even further and probably increase the bonus pot for Platini et al.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yeah, I said this from day one, bigger you spend, bigger the fine, fine will end up where it shouldn't even if they say it won't.
FA are now fining championship teams what, £1 for every £1 lost after 2 or 4million or something. So lose 25mil and pay a 20mil fee.
Now the FA are saying this or whoever runs the football league, that it's going purely to charity which seems incredibly stupid and I'm not sure they won't just keep it. But it should go directly to funding grass roots football. Because it's intended to be a one off punishment it should be used sensibly. You can't hire 500 coaches for 20mil then fire them the next year when you don't get a 20mil fine coming in. But you can build a bunch of all weather pitches you previously didn't have money for which is a big thing at the moment in the world of grass roots football. Enabling kids to be able to train year around as in many areas the lack of higher quality pitches means kids can lose months of being able to play every year.
With Uefa I'm not even sure where they've said this money will go, it's so corrupt that even if they say it's going to charity I very much doubt most of it will make it there.
It was also clear as day City were never going to make the cut off regardless of what they said, Chelsea, maybe, their wage spend is impressively lowered compared to where it was and they spent less on wages than Utd(almost certainly down to bonuses for being in CL and winning league).
My bet is, limit on total value of champions league squad, to which City can just leave out some heavily over valued players like Garcia, etc. But they'll probably negotiate down from a couple small sanctions on the squad to a large fine and that will be it.
The optimist in me thinks that tough sanctions in the first year of this policy would help to cement UEFA's commitment to financial fair play, and set a precedent that their authority should not be challenged.
The realist in me thinks that money talks, and that big clubs will avoid FFP sanctions by simply spending more money, suffering at worst a delay in playing their new over-spend signings in the Champions league for a year.
Unfortunately, given the state of UEFA, the latter option seems far more likely.
Does anyone have a link to exactly which clubs have violated the rules? For the premiership it is clear that Man City are over-spending, but Chelsea have made a good effort to bring their finances under control in recent years. I don't imagine that any of the other 'big' clubs would have over-spent by more than £37m...
The realist in me thinks that money talks, and that big clubs will avoid FFP sanctions by simply spending more money, suffering at worst a delay in playing their new over-spend signings in the Champions league for a year.
Unfortunately, given the state of UEFA, the latter option seems far more likely.
Does anyone have a link to exactly which clubs have violated the rules? For the premiership it is clear that Man City are over-spending, but Chelsea have made a good effort to bring their finances under control in recent years. I don't imagine that any of the other 'big' clubs would have over-spent by more than £37m...
By the way, here is a summary of Chelsea's transfers over the last two seasons:
Not exactly cheap, but not entirely unreasonable for a club of Chelsea's size, competing at the top-end of the Premier League and the latter stages of the CL / EL. 2012/2013 was a lot more expensive, but it did follow a Champions League win and brought in three of the most important players in the current squad (Hazard, Oscar, Azpilicueta). Given the reduced wage bill I'd be surprised to see them on the "list of 20".
Looking at the transfers with hindsight... Azpilicueta was an amazing buy at £7.7m. Also Thorgan Hazard at <£1m (!). Even if he doesn't make the Chelsea first team, he'll sell for a hell of a lot more than that (£10-£20m easily; he's been player of the year in the Belgian league twice in a row).
...Couldn't find info on Courtois' loan fee, but it will only add to the "out" column.
Not exactly cheap, but not entirely unreasonable for a club of Chelsea's size, competing at the top-end of the Premier League and the latter stages of the CL / EL. 2012/2013 was a lot more expensive, but it did follow a Champions League win and brought in three of the most important players in the current squad (Hazard, Oscar, Azpilicueta). Given the reduced wage bill I'd be surprised to see them on the "list of 20".
Looking at the transfers with hindsight... Azpilicueta was an amazing buy at £7.7m. Also Thorgan Hazard at <£1m (!). Even if he doesn't make the Chelsea first team, he'll sell for a hell of a lot more than that (£10-£20m easily; he's been player of the year in the Belgian league twice in a row).
...Couldn't find info on Courtois' loan fee, but it will only add to the "out" column.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
Surely that doesn't include add-on fees?
Any decent punishment was never going to happen while PSG were one of the offenders.
Any decent punishment was never going to happen while PSG were one of the offenders.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
125mil over 2 years doesn't mean an awful lot, the cost is amortised over the length of the contract. If all those players signed 5 year contracts it would count as roughly 25mil a year, but Chelsea have spent almost 400mil in the past 4 years of which most would count towards player spend each year. Oddly ffp currently only monitors 11/12 and 12/13, in the future 3 years will be included with a lag of a year.
Chelsea are pretty laughable and if they pass it's through hilariously dodgy means, just better done than City's. Chelsea made a basically 70mil loss in 2010, in 2011 their operating expenses went up by 40mil while their income went up 27mil(mostly due to champs league winning) yet they went from 70mil loss to 1.4mil profit................., they made a massive 10mil more that season from player sales, which obviously explains the missing 80million.
Chelsea's own numbers say they lost 72mil in 2011, started 2012 with a 91million debt, increased that debt by 71.7mil in 2012..... but then "made" a profit of 166million by debt repaid through equity shares.
They magically issued more shares and Roman bought the shares for 166mil which magically gave them a tiny profit for the year. It's utterly, utterly bogus, completely, totally. Chelsea are making huge losses still and through the entire FFP period. They made enough losses in 2011/12 alone to break their allowed losses over 2 years.
Shockingly the 12/13 numbers reflected, a £49.4million loss or so, taking them a fraction over the 45mil limit. They made a 70mil loss in 2011, 70mil loss in 2012, despite making less from selling players and turnover basically not changing they reduced losses again to precisely what they needed to be.....
Surprisingly I can't actually find the financial report for 12/13, so you can only go on what Chelsea have said in statements, but expect more of the same, similar level of losses, or higher. Same revenue, roughly same outgoings, but it was the second year in a row player buying was HUGE, meaning roughly double the outgoing on players with a smaller profit from player sales. Yet magically the losses hit exactly the right number to JUST allow Chelsea to get by FFP fine.
utterly dodgy, just a different method to City. Chelsea issues shares and sold them to Roman... despite owning the club since what 2002. City got a ridiculous sponsorship deal and paid the club to cover losses that way.
Oh, and assuming 10-20mil for the younger Hazard is silly. If he doesn't sign a new contract he leaves for nothing and will have taken significantly more than 1million over that time he'll be on VERY decent wages that cost 1-2mil more per year. At 10mil it's probably break even, if he walks on a free it would be a 10mil loss.
I think a transfer embargo could be effective (provided it can't be suspended pending appeal) as can the ineligibility of newly signed players for UEFA competitions. The whole notion of clubs buying their way out of other sanctions is as sleazy and corrupt as it can possibly be
I don't think UEFA have any powers over transfers, but yes they could impose team restrictions which might be effective.
Obviously it still could be appealed - but Im sure there is a process to recommend a transfer ban to FIFA (who would actually impose the ban)
Platini has already come out and said its unlikely any club will be heavily sanctioned next month
Of course as of this season the newer EPL FFP rules are in effect too (not sure whether it means from the start or finish of 13/14 season)
Even though there are relative easy ways to get around these rules too (something around sponsorship deals which alleviate a lot of the pressure I seem to recall)
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php
Last edited:
You don't half talk some rubbish
Chelsea's financial year 2012 has turnover at 257.5m, wages at 171m and net profit of 0.2m.
2013 has turnover at 255.8m, wages at 176.6m and losses of 49.4m. All public record.
This is already very close to the FFP compliance rules, before any exceptions are applied (youth development and acedemies etc). Moreover, transfers are amortised over the length of the contract, so any net loss in transfer dealings is distributed over the contract length, reducing the immediate FFP burdon.
There is no 'dodgy' over-inflated sponsorship deal or 'shady' injection of cash designed to circumvent FFP. Don't be silly.
As for Thorgan Hazard, he has more than two years left on his contract, and he only turned 21a couple of weeks ago. He's a very talented and promising young player. Do you really think that a 880k transfer fee was poor business? :s
Honestly, sometimes I think you like to argue things just for the sake of it.
I could have sworn there was something about Chelsea NEEDING to sell Mata (or a.n.other player for the same amount) so that they could then buy Saleh and remain (give or take a couple of million £) equal compared to the beginning of the window after they had already bought Matic.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Well if they banned Chelsea, city, we only need to find a couple more in the EPL and we can smuggle utd in through the back door.
unless eufa just want to turn this into a new cash cow source if income from those they know can pay.
unless eufa just want to turn this into a new cash cow source if income from those they know can pay.
Yeah, Mourinho said at the time that selling Mata was an important piece of business for Chelsea to remain within the financial fair play constraints.
They had already sold de Bruyne for 19m, but that didn't quite cover the purchase of Matic, let alone Zouma. At the very least I think the Mata sale freed them up to chase Salah.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
You don't half talk some rubbish
Chelsea's financial year 2012 has turnover at 257.5m, wages at 171m and net profit of 0.2m.
2013 has turnover at 255.8m, wages at 176.6m and losses of 49.4m. All public record.
This is already very close to the FFP compliance rules, before any exceptions are applied (youth development and acedemies etc). Moreover, transfers are amortised over the length of the contract, so any net loss in transfer dealings is distributed over the contract length, reducing the immediate FFP burdon.
There is no 'dodgy' over-inflated sponsorship deal or 'shady' injection of cash designed to circumvent FFP. Don't be silly.
As for Thorgan Hazard, he has more than two years left on his contract, and he only turned 21a couple of weeks ago. He's a very talented and promising young player. Do you really think that a 880k transfer fee was poor business? :s
Honestly, sometimes I think you like to argue things just for the sake of it.
Why are you listing turnover and wages and the profit and trying to link them. A lot of people talk about revenue being higher than wages then get all excited about all that profit. Chelsea operating expenses for 11/12 were 304million, a significant amount higher than the 257mil income.
Likewise as is ALSO on the chelsea financial records is the 70mil increase in debt in 10/11 AND the 70mil increase in debt in 11/12 , and the 166million they magically came up with in new shares to sell to Roman to bring 166million into the club that magically wipe out the net debt. It's funny that the parent company had an increase in debt of 70million in 11/12.... when Chelsea supposedly turned a profit, and it's funny that they sold 166mil of "new" shares to Roman to offset all their debt and just squeak inside financial regulations.
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/resources/Chelsea FC plc 1112.pdf
page 11 in particular, though earlier pages explain why the debt was reduced, clearly shows an INCREASE in total debt of 70million during the 2012 financial period(the 11/12 season more or less). Roman gave the club 70mil to keep Chelsea going in 2012, and as such the debt owed to Roman increased by the same amount. Instead of the club giving him the 166mil owed total back to Roman, he wrote it off as equity. But why is Roman giving the club 70million in the 11/12 season if they made a profit? Answer is, not much changed from one season to the next. They lost 70mil one year, brought in 30mil more but spent 40mil more the next year.... but profit was 1million... okay.
As for ickle Hazard once again you are suggesting that the ONLY outcome with him is that you keep him or sell him, completely ignoring the actually at least two other possibilities, he leaves on a free or retires(he could get a career ending injury, although in that case you'd likely collect on insurance).
If you buy someone for 1million, don't use them for 4 years, pay them high wages then they leave on a free that ISN'T good business, if you sold that same player for 10mil you might only break even after wages(we can assume he's on pretty high wages for his age) and if they sell him for 20+mil they make a decent profit.
I didn't say he would walk on a free I'm merely saying it's a possibility, you are saying worst case is you sell him for at least 10 million, completely ignoring the other possibilities.
Last edited:
Firstly, I'm not 'linking' turnover and wages with profit. Not sure why you'd think that since the two sets of figures don't correspond. These figures come from the official financial statement. I gave the turnover and wage figures to show consistency for steadies (income and wages), leaving the profits as a consequence of transients (e.g. transfers). It's not rocket science.
Second - regarding young Hazard. How many times do clubs let valuable and appreciating assets simply leave for free? They don't - it's throwing money down the drain. Free transfers are for low-value underperformers or players at the end of their career. Like all high-quality young players he will either be sold, loaned out, or kept in the squad. If his contract runs down he will either be offered a new one or sold. To suggest otherwise is a bit silly.
Second - regarding young Hazard. How many times do clubs let valuable and appreciating assets simply leave for free? They don't - it's throwing money down the drain. Free transfers are for low-value underperformers or players at the end of their career. Like all high-quality young players he will either be sold, loaned out, or kept in the squad. If his contract runs down he will either be offered a new one or sold. To suggest otherwise is a bit silly.