QPR agreed to this ?

[MattyRangers]

The whole fair play rule everyone goes on about will have loopholes as would this. The likes of PSG, Man City, Chelsea don't generate enough income to break even.... City just announced about £100m negative this financial year, half of last years £200m.... so they're £300m from breaking even in 2 years.


When it comes to it the rich owners will get around it by putting money in the club in a way it is on the books and factored as income. Most likely sponsorship.

Exactly this - take Man City's ludicrous stadium sponsorship deal for example.

[silvercue]

Owners are not going to be allowed to sponsor the clubs with companies that they own soon as even UEFA can see through that. Man City will get away with some dodgy deals in sponsorship due to the contacts back in the ME. But we will possibly have trouble with Air Asia in future.

This is not the same as Fair Play. Fair Play will benefit Utd, Barca, Arsenal and Madrid, so it is hardly "fair". However, as far as I undesrtand at the moment we can ignore the rule if we are happy not to play in Europe, but not sure how they are going to filter the rule down to the League structure.

[Del]

Owners are not going to be allowed to sponsor the clubs with companies that they own soon as even UEFA can see through that. Man City will get away with some dodgy deals in sponsorship due to the contacts back in the ME. But we will possibly have trouble with Air Asia in future.

And how exactly can they dictate what companies decide to do with their own money? Nobody's saying people wouldn't see through it, but with restraint of trade laws etc UEFA can't tell Mittal or Air Asia or the Arabs for example, what to do with their money. Who are UEFA or anyone else for that matter to tell a company they can't sponsor a prem team, when the company say they want to do it as see it as a sound investment. If it went to court it would get laughed out as UEFA would have no rights whatsoever i'd imagine.

[silvercue]

They make it against the rules. It is already against the rules to own two clubs in the same competition for example. So Roman A could not buy QPR. So to answer the question they can very easily dictate what companies do with their money by disqualifying certain activities from their competition. So, Roman can buy QPR if he likes, but either Chelsea or QPR would not be allowed to play in the league. It is the same with sponsorship. They can not stop TF sponoring QPR with a company he owns, but they can make it against their rules and therefore disqualify them from the competition.

There are already numerours rules of this type in place. It has already caused issues with Roman helping a club in Russia when he owns Chelsea and they are not even in the same competition.

[MattyRangers]

They make it against the rules. It is already against the rules to own two clubs in the same competition for example. So Roman A could not buy QPR. So to answer the question they can very easily dictate what companies do with their money by disqualifying certain activities from their competition. So, Roman can buy QPR if he likes, but either Chelsea or QPR would not be allowed to play in the league. It is the same with sponsorship. They can not stop TF sponoring QPR with a company he owns, but they can make it against their rules and therefore disqualify them from the competition.

There are already numerours rules of this type in place. It has already caused issues with Roman helping a club in Russia when he owns Chelsea and they are not even in the same competition.

In fairness Im far from an expert on this but I tend to agree with Del - the point you make about owning 2 clubs in one league is valid but totally different from sponsorship. Having 2 clubs in one league is a massive conflict of interests and could well result in matchfixing to benefit the owner in question. Simply sponsoring your own club cant have such possible effects, can it? Cant imagine how they can enforce such a rule tbh.

[Del]

Owning 2 clubs is completely different though as creates a conflict of interest. As for the Russion club Roman's involved in, they could be end up in the same competition.

With Sponsorship they will find ways round it, or know ways round it using subsidiaries or whatever. I still think whwn it comes to it UEFA would get challenged and lose. If it's likely to be so watertight a ruling there would be plenty of clubs panicking and changing their ways, which they're not.

Ultimately, UEFA aren't going to weaken their product by throwing the big clubs from their competitions, hence there will be ways round it.

[silvercue]

In fairness Im far from an expert on this but I tend to agree with Del - the point you make about owning 2 clubs in one league is valid but totally different from sponsorship. Having 2 clubs in one league is a massive conflict of interests and could well result in matchfixing to benefit the owner in question. Simply sponsoring your own club cant have such possible effects, can it? Cant imagine how they can enforce such a rule tbh.

You have missed the point. The response was because Del said UEFA cannot dictae how owners spend their money. My example was to show that they can do exactly that. They will be putting rules in place around sponsorship. Some clubs may choose to get around them, others will find it far more difficult.

EDIT - also I notice you agree with all of Del's posts.......do you need to tell us something??

[jmelanie]

Not sure how this works but do the clubs put a value on players in their accounting. In other words if they think a player is worth 10 million pounds, do they put this on the accounts?

[silvercue]

Not sure how this works but do the clubs put a value on players in their accounting. In other words if they think a player is worth 10 million pounds, do they put this on the accounts?

They will account for all assets. However, the perceived value will not influence the Fair Play rules as that is about revenue. What is paid on transfers and salaries is more important.