UEFA tell clubs how to run their finances

jas72 · 4 May 2011 at 14:37

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/8709871.stm

Basically unless they are getting loans from the bank for stadium or training facilities they will not be allowed to borrow from the bank in order to buy players.

Strangely it is also reported in this article that

"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."

I have two views on this.

1) The days in which clubs are associations run by governing bodies is over football is big business and denying the possibility for a club to improve it's lot by taking a bit of debt doesn't seem financial "fair" to me at all. Also
I find it bizarre that clubs cannot use money given from their owners to spend on the transfer market.

2) This just further entrenches my view that UEFA is all about protecting the 10-12 big clubs in Europe and using every opportunity to ensure that barring a miracle team and manager those same 10-12 well funded teams win every time (this started with the champions league back in 1992).

Just look at the following headline in the BBC

Champions League winners 'net 120m euros'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10139191

What are your views on this?

jakeke · 4 May 2011 at 14:40

UEFA aren't telling clubs how to run their finances, they're simply saying if they take the **** a la Chelsea/Man City/Real they won't be playing CL football, and rightly so. What's happened over the last 5 years is nothing short of complete absurdity

Only in football do we have this completely nonsensical idea that businesses can run at a loss year after year after year with no regard for proper conduct, and nobody even bats an eyelid. It's a strange, strange bubble that needs to pop.

Shamikebab · 4 May 2011 at 14:43

How is this protecting the top 10-12 clubs? If anything it's the opposite is it not?

jas72 · 4 May 2011 at 14:53

jakeke said:
UEFA aren't telling clubs how to run their finances, they're simply saying if they take the **** a la Chelsea/Man City/Real they won't be playing CL football, and rightly so. What's happened over the last 5 years is nothing short of complete absurdity

Only in football do we have this completely nonsensical idea that businesses can run at a loss year after year after year with no regard for proper conduct, and nobody even bats an eyelid. It's a strange, strange bubble that needs to pop.

But if the banks and financial benefactors are willing to take the hit why not?

Under what circumstances can smaller clubs compete with the likes of Man U Liverpool and Aresnal. From what I can read the size of your support should be the dictating factor in what you can spend keeping the well supported teams at the top since they will be the only teams who can spend the most.

Apart from the fact that this will be a pretty unworkable situation unless UEFA plans to waste 1000s of Euros hiring accounting firms in the 40+ countries that currently compete in the Champions/Europa leage.

Tummy · 4 May 2011 at 15:07

France have finance rules in place in their domestic League.

I think that this is a good thing for European Football.

BaZ87 · 4 May 2011 at 15:12

Shamikebab said:
How is this protecting the top 10-12 clubs? If anything it's the opposite is it not?

How do you work that out? :confused:

There's a lot of good in these regulations but it's main draw is that it potects the world's biggest clubs from the new money clubs like City and Chelsea or any future club.

The biggest clubs make the most money, therefore they're allowed to spend the most, which further cements their position at the top. How do you expect clubs to close the gap between them and the top clubs if they cannot spend a fraction of what the top sides spend on players/wages?

Tunney · 4 May 2011 at 15:28

I think that this is a good thing for football. It'll help curb the ridiculous wage inflation caused mostly in recent years by billionaire owners. Clubs will have to bring in a sensible wage structure if they want to play in the Champions League.

jakeke · 4 May 2011 at 15:30

jas72 said:
But if the banks and financial benefactors are willing to take the hit why not?

Under what circumstances can smaller clubs compete with the likes of Man U Liverpool and Aresnal. From what I can read the size of your support should be the dictating factor in what you can spend keeping the well supported teams at the top since they will be the only teams who can spend the most.

Apart from the fact that this will be a pretty unworkable situation unless UEFA plans to waste 1000s of Euros hiring accounting firms in the 40+ countries that currently compete in the Champions/Europa leage.

Because it distorts football hugely, due to City/Chelsea, wages and transfer values have gone through the roof, meaning the wage bills at all the clubs below them are also inflating massively, leaving nearly every club in the league in huge debt. The smaller clubs can't afford transfer fees or wages for half decent players as they'll ask for £100k 'cos Man City will give them that to sit on the bench. Or they'll pay £25m for James Milner, or Lescott. You can't say that is anything short of ****ing disgraceful

The only reason you bracket Arsenal with Man Utd is down to Wenger, and him sacrificing buying players to build a stadium to put Arsenal in the same/similar bracket as Man Utd. Other clubs are also completely free to spend sensibly to expand for the longer good of the club.

UEFA already have their own legal division and iirc will employ outside help too.

Might give Villa/Everton/Spurs/Liverpool/Bolton etc. a chance to sneak in the CL in place of the messes which are City/Chelsea also which any fan would welcome

Weebull · 4 May 2011 at 15:55

Nah, he's got a point though. The new (or old, if you consider the period prior to billionaire owners) system would be massively biased to the established big clubs like Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, et al. The teams with the bigger stadiums and the millions of overseas fans willing to spend ****loads on merchandise will go back to monopolising it all.

I'd much rather we just did away with this silly idea of running entire clubs as a business. Give us a massive socialist shared pot system like the yanks, let everyone have roughly the same amount to spend every year (either on transfers or wages, up to them) on their first team. Player wages will be automatically restricted, and any profits from merch/etc can be spent on youth development/stadiums/other improvements. Job done.

drunkenmaster · 4 May 2011 at 16:21

Shamikebab said:
How is this protecting the top 10-12 clubs? If anything it's the opposite is it not?

Meh, if you think about it very carefully you'll come up with dozens or reasons its seems to punish small clubs for thinking big, but also won't effect a building club as it won't effect them till they get to Europe anyway.

Its all a bit silly, lets stay City really won't win the CL for at least 3 seasons anyway. They have rich owners, the income from the CL won't do anything for them, theres nothing stopping them spending 500mil on new players this year, winning the league for 3 seasons, and a few other cups aswell. Then in 3 years they'll be the established best side in England, and at that stage transfer fee's are gone, sponsorship deals have gone through the roof being the champions, and they can get into the CL with a far stronger team than if they tried to build slowly over 3 seasons with a small stadium as would be the other option. Is the CL that important, hell this year its been more about who cheated the best than actual quality of football. I mean, semi-finals consisting of UTd playing like its a training match, Schalke playing like a team of golfers(anything but footballers), one team of cheats and one team of thugs.

Theres nothing to say a club HAS to care about Europe short term.

Again though, theres actually been no punishments/appeals/fines sorted out. The general rules(subject to change, things like amount they can lose over 3 seasons, which are being slowly cut, 45mil or so first year, 30 the second, 15-20 the 3rd) are in there, but what they'll do to clubs that break the rules is completely up in the air right now.

I've suggested it before, end of the day it could just become a cash cow for Uefa, City breach the rules, aren't allowed in the CL unless they pay a 20mil euro fine.

In practice its a good idea, in reality it won't work, a strict wage cap would work massively better as it would spread talent out a bit more and make it massively harder to maintain a top 4 team for 15 years. It would also keep ticket prices under control as clubs aren't trying to fund ever increasing salarys every year.

Alpherah · 4 May 2011 at 16:42

Anyone else want the good old days of the CL being .. for the champions?
No cash cow = no need for all these financial rules.

-edit-

Either that, or the Europa League needs to offer as much (or almost) cash as the CL to give clubs a chance of making the step up.

As much as i welcome the proposals, if i take my big club blinkers off i can see its going to suck quite hard for the smaller clubs.
By allowing more cash to be generated through the EL, it allows smaller clubs a chance to bridge the financial gap to the CL teams; the reward for a team who manages to consistantly reach the EL, and then the latter stages of the EL would allow them to slowly have a chance of reaching the daddy competition.

Alpherah · 4 May 2011 at 16:52

Moses said:
But to do that they'd have to get Champions League TV revenue and put it into Europa League prize money... siphoning off Champions League money to help teams which aren't in the ~premier competition~... that'll surely hasten a breakaway ;s.

So go back to the CL being a competition for actual champions, more high profile teams in the other competition = more money naturally.
Although then it still excludes new teams from breaking the stranglehold :x

Dont know the answer, but CL money has pretty much resulted in a two tier league for all countries participating.

BaZ87 · 4 May 2011 at 17:07

Alpherah said:
Dont know the answer

There is no answer. Even the american system that Weebull and Moses are talking about is far from straight forward; money is spread equally and they have their salary caps etc, but there's so many loopholes to get around these rules. You can exceed the salary cap but for every $ you go over it you must pay the league a $ too, which is then spread between the other clubs.

A system like that wouldn't stop City or Chelsea. And then of course they don't have promotions and relegations in america either.

BaZ87 · 4 May 2011 at 19:18

Enforcing a fixed cap and complete revenue sharing (only certain things are shared in the US afaik) simply isn't realistic and I suspect it would be successfully challenged in court.

Shamikebab · 4 May 2011 at 19:19

A fixed cap? Across Europe? That would be impossible, and clubs would just get round it.

jas72 · 4 May 2011 at 23:25

Glad it's sparked some debate and good points from both sides guess we'll need to see how UEFA plans to implement these rules and what they bring for the next 4-5 years.

After witnessing tonight's match something needs to be done. Semi final and 6-1 on aggregate

One More Solo · 5 May 2011 at 06:43

jas72 said:
Glad it's sparked some debate and good points from both sides guess we'll need to see how UEFA plans to implement these rules and what they bring for the next 4-5 years.

After witnessing tonight's match something needs to be done. Semi final and 6-1 on aggregate

Schalke beat Inter 7-3 and no-one said something needed to be done then. :/

xxalxx · 5 May 2011 at 09:35

They need to boost the Europa League and make the winners of it qualify for the Champions League, also they should stop the CL group stage 3rd place drop puts going into the Europa league.

Then the 'smaller' clubs have a route into the big money of the CL.