Proposed new uefa financial rules

This will not happen as the top sides cannot suddenly turn around their finances in the space of a few seasons into profit. The European Club Association, formerly G14 still hold the power and will have the final say. If anything a breakaway superleague could occur if this was pushed through.
 
Last edited:
Well it's back up to ~1.15 from about 1.1, but don't forget in 2007 you used to be able to get 1.5 euros to the pound. It remains to be seen how badly Greece's financial crisis will affect the transfer market this summer, but the state of our own crippled economy is only beginning to emerge under the new coalition. You can still get more for your Euro in Europe than you can get for your pound over here...
 
Kev_19 said:
This will not happen as the top sides cannot suddenly turn around their finances in the space of a few seasons into profit. The European Club Association, formerly G14 still hold the power and will have the final say. If anything a breakaway superleague could occur if this was pushed through.
Click to expand...

You do know that this is done in the interests of nearly every football club (besides Chelsea/City)?

It will be welcomed. Time for the ridiculous wages/transfers to stop.

Contrary to popular belief, sensible finances are actually a good thing that should be encouraged :/
 
If anything a breakaway superleague could occur if this was pushed through.
Click to expand...
This relies on Madrid and Barca being involved, the whole rule does look as if it has been written especially for Madrid and Barca though. Platini has spent his entire presidency brown nosing them so that it is no surprise.

The German clubs also benefit as they have the soundest financial structure in Europe I think.

I am not sure how this applies to the Italian clubs but Milans shortage of money is well known.
 
It's not about debt, debt is fine if it's manageable. It's about consistently spending more than you earn, nobody could argue against stopping that, surely?
 
Oh by the way, perhaps not relevant as this thread is about the impositions UEFA is considering, but the Premier League is meeting this week to discuss even more stringent financial rules, such as banning leveraged buyouts (Glazers @ Utd, Hicks/Gillett @ Liverpool), and that is a great idea. It also wants to: Limit the amount clubs can borrow to 25% of their income, Change the way transfer fees are paid to make it 50% upfront & 50% in a year, with no fees carried over into successive seasons, and to make clubs’ accounts far more transparent. So one way or another it looks like the landscape of football finance is going to change drastically in the next few years.
 
goonerfan said:
Well it's back up to ~1.15 from about 1.1, but don't forget in 2007 you used to be able to get 1.5 euros to the pound. It remains to be seen how badly Greece's financial crisis will affect the transfer market this summer, but the state of our own crippled economy is only beginning to emerge under the new coalition. You can still get more for your Euro in Europe than you can get for your pound over here...
Click to expand...

So in other words, the pound is still stronger than the Euro :p

How much things you can buy for a euro is largely irrelevant since no matter which country you are in, the wages are linked closer to the cost of the living. You can buy more for a Euro in Slovakia than you do in Germany for example but Germans are paid more so it's a moot point.
A top level pro footballer would have no problems wherever :p
 
If I'm understanding this right isn't it a bit unfair on smaller clubs who generate less income? how can anyone else hope to compete with the likes of Man UTD who have a massive global fanbase?
 
Last edited:
As a football fan I'm against this. For sure we need new rules to keep debt low and sustainable and to not let people buy clubs and then saddle them with debt however this is going to have the effect that the big clubs will stay big and no one else can join them. What's the problem if a wealthy guy decides to put money into a club to move them up the table? As long as he does not do so by adding to the debt of the club then what is the problem? For many smaller clubs this is the only hope they have of pushing up the table. I also fear that ticket prices are going to jump up when this comes in.
 
goonerfan said:
google "platini anti-english" - 14,000 results :D

the man himself had to deny that's he's anti-english! which is, as it goes, a fairly good indication he's anti english! :p
Click to expand...

You never seen / read about some of his "anti" Real Madrid rants?

He's not at all anti English, it's just something the English media have made up.
 
Love how all the gooners are suddenly daisy chaining each other over this proposed ruling. Atleast it will stop you guys whinging over Arsene not spending enough money.
 
bibalasvegas said:
As a football fan I'm against this. For sure we need new rules to keep debt low and sustainable and to not let people buy clubs and then saddle them with debt however this is going to have the effect that the big clubs will stay big and no one else can join them. What's the problem if a wealthy guy decides to put money into a club to move them up the table? As long as he does not do so by adding to the debt of the club then what is the problem? For many smaller clubs this is the only hope they have of pushing up the table. I also fear that ticket prices are going to jump up when this comes in.
Click to expand...

Reading this topic I was beginning to think I was the only one worried by this.

Example, you're Man Utd. You have a huge stadium filled with a huge fan base. You attract big sponsors with big money. Your turnover is very high, and you can thus buy the best players to retain your position. Not unlike how they worked pre-glazers :p, however..

Second example, you're Man City (pre super sheikh). Stadium isn't as big, not as many seats to sell. You don't attract the largest sponsors with the most lucrative deals. You don't have as much money to spend on players so you can't buy the best. Making top flight football harder to break into.

The only realistic way Man City would be able to oust Man Utd is with a massive influx of cash.

All this rule sounds like it does is favour the top teams with the lucrative infrastructure already in place. It does nothing for equality because you're effectively freezing the system in a thoroughly unequal state.
 
Not sure about this ruling really, the problem is that all the data will be 'old'. If some mickey mouse outfit manages to get into europe for the 2013/14 season for example their assessed revenue will be based on 2012, when they weren't playing in europe, maybe had poor domestic cup runs and hence had much lower revenue. Normally it might give them an opportunity to kick on, but they'd possibly be barred.

Also as mentioned above it seems to favour clubs that have already spent vast sums on infrastructure, as it allows clubs with a 50,000+ stadium to spend a lot more than clubs with a 30,000 stadium. It also effectively 'punishes' clubs who have cash in the bank already rather than having spunked it all in recent years..... let me illustrate by example:

Club X spend £200m net on transfers over the past 2 years
Club Y make a profit on transfers over the past 2 years
Result: Club X have a better squad, meanwhile club Y have cash in the bank.

New rule comes into place.

Club X reap the benefits of their supersquad
Club Y have loads of cash but aren't allowed to spend it because their revenue isn't high enough.

Now I realise that football clubs don't traditionally have huge cash reserves lying around, but the point remains. Failing to 'break even' is only a problem if you can't afford to make up the shortfall, I mean take me, some months I spend more than I earn, I just take it out of savings, it doesn't mean that I am necessarily any worse off or less financially secure than someone who earns more than they spend.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom