financial fair play situation????

[Factamondo]

can somebody please explain it to me???...many thanks!!

[QprSinceBirth]

In pretty sure you have to break even or make profit otherwise you can't enter Europe lol. This is where we would be ****ed however look at city with Etihad sponsoring them with 400mill.
I suspect tony to just sponsor us with a amount that just keeps us in profit.

[QPR Richard]

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/protectingthegame/financialfairplay/index.html

[silvercue]

This is a drive from Platini - his aim is to make a more level playing field, so that Abramovich and Man City situations can't come about. The idea is that you cannot spend beyond your revenue from FOOTBALL related business. Breaking the rules only mean you can't play in the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Cup thing. So, we can ignore it, like many clubs will. There is also a good reason for this - to stop clubs going out of business like we are seeing.

The sad thing is that if this is enforced it will acheive the total opposite of what he wants and make it even more unequal as Barca, Utd, Real and Arsenal will make so much money that other clubs can't compete even more so than now.

Also, it means that yet again the fans will suffer as clubs will just put prices up to increase football related revenues.

Tony will not be allowed to have his companies sponsor us under these rules. The Man City sponsorship is not by a company related to teh owners AFAIK, however there was clearly an dodgy agreement there.

[QPR Richard]

The whole thing is designed to protect the established big boys from the threat of clubs like Man City. Rich people buying a club with potential and turning it into a major player. Man City's owners aren't daft, they screwed the system before the system screwed them. The Etihad sponsorship deal was well out of proportion compared to the Arsenal-Emirates one. They also strengthened their squad by spending a fortune on players which will ensure they won't have to spend big sums for a while because they may not be allowed to.

The only fair way is to do it is to take the average turnover of each club and use that as a guide to how much can be spent in the transfer market, so for example, each club will only be able to spend say, £15m each season. Coupled with that you'd need a salary cap so that a club could only spend X amount on wages each season. That would stop a lot of greedy sods jumping ship all the time. Obviously this would have to be implemented Europe-wide.

[QPRDave]

The way things are at the present Facto............................................. we're f*cked!!......in a nutshell!

[Rich]

It sounds like a typical situation that would have benefited us pre TF & Mittals but would now screw us. Right now we can attract the good/greedy (depends how you define greedy as the best players would argue they demand higher salaries because they have proved they are worth it).

[Factamondo]

so where does uefa stand with real madrid s'debts' being written off constantly by local government.......and will that odiuos french surrendermonkey prattini want to hamstring his fellow soap dodgers at psg????

[Will M]

I can't in all honesty see that UEFA will follow through with this. Can you imagine a Champions League with no Real Madrid, Barcelona or AC Milan? It would hurt UEFA financially.

There's massive corruption in Italian football. Yet they won't expel Italian teams from European footy. Yet they kicked all English teams out of it for hooliganism. UEFA are full of ****. If they upset the big clubs they'll just reform another G14 and say we want our own league again.

[QPR Richard]

Well, the current UEFA CL winners would probably fall foul of this rule too. I think they are massively in debt, as are most of the top clubs in Europe. Man Utd owe £500m. Will they get thrown out?

[maccatwo]

It so easy to get round owners etc by there seat say 100 mill. It to stop owners saying we going to loan you the money and later demind it back. This would have help Portmouth etc.

[Will M]

Well, the current UEFA CL winners would probably fall foul of this rule too. I think they are massively in debt, as are most of the top clubs in Europe. Man Utd owe £500m. Will they get thrown out?

I think it's based on turnover, so the debt repayments would count but not the debt itself. Of course, all that simply means is clubs can still get into debt which brings me back to my original point of this is total nonsense.

If a club can take on a massive debt, and prove they can pay it off, then can they for instance be loaned a billion by investors interest free to be paid off after 50 years? I mean, otherwise we couldn't finance a new stadium for example (not that a stadium would cost that much). I'm sure that any club's legal team could make a monkey out of UEFA's ham fisted attempt at control.