Financial Fair Play

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
fogueres

fogueres

Why does nobody say anything to PSG, Manchester City etc? The PSG "mask" everything by taking money from the sponsor who is then the same as the owner. This is called "circumventing the rules" while the bodies that should control close their eyes....
 
Johnboy40 said:
I thought both juventus and jeep( owned by fiat) were owned by EXOR and the ultimately the agnelli family
Click to expand...

La Juventus it takes 20 million € from Jeep. The company has to self-finance: when we bought Higuain (€ 90 million) we sold Pogba to € 105 million (taken at € 0).
The year before Juventus sold Vidal (who won the America cup with Chile) and Coman to Bayern Munich. In 2017, Bonucci was sold to Milan for 40 milion €.
PSG masked the purchase of Neymar as a World Cup operation in Qatar.
Is it the same for you?
 
Johnboy40 said:
I thought both juventus and jeep( owned by fiat) were owned by EXOR and the ultimately the agnelli family
Click to expand...

EXOR does not own Fiat. They have less than a 30% shareholding in Fiat (and about 64% in Juventus). Therefore they do not quite have the ability to financially dope Juventus in the way that Man City and PSG's owners can. If they just put money into Juventus, they would be subsidising other shareholders, and if they just took money from Fiat and put it into Juventus, they would be sued by other Fiat shareholders.

€20m a year is hardly the same as spending €200m on Neymar. €20m a year is reasonable sponsorship for a club with the profile of Juventus (serial winner of one of the top four leagues in Europe).
 
Maynard said:
EXOR does not own Fiat. They have less than a 30% shareholding in Fiat (and about 64% in Juventus). Therefore they do not quite have the ability to financially dope Juventus in the way that Man City and PSG's owners can. If they just put money into Juventus, they would be subsidising other shareholders, and if they just took money from Fiat and put it into Juventus, they would be sued by other Fiat shareholders.

€20m a year is hardly the same as spending €200m on Neymar. €20m a year is reasonable sponsorship for a club with the profile of Juventus (serial winner of one of the top four leagues in Europe).
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying the ownership..it was a genuine question which the OP declined to answer. On the issue of sister companies providing sponsorships etc to get round for, the sums provided are not relevant. You either agree with the principle or not. I dont, as it happens, but if its banned, its banned for a 2million deal or a 200 million deal. The pile of cash involved shouldnt be relevent.
 
Maynard said:
EXOR does not own Fiat. They have less than a 30% shareholding in Fiat (and about 64% in Juventus). Therefore they do not quite have the ability to financially dope Juventus in the way that Man City and PSG's owners can. If they just put money into Juventus, they would be subsidising other shareholders, and if they just took money from Fiat and put it into Juventus, they would be sued by other Fiat shareholders.

€20m a year is hardly the same as spending €200m on Neymar. €20m a year is reasonable sponsorship for a club with the profile of Juventus (serial winner of one of the top four leagues in Europe).
Click to expand...
Exactly what I meant to clarify. Thanks for the detailed explanation
 
Johnboy40 said:
Thanks for clarifying the ownership..it was a genuine question which the OP declined to answer. On the issue of sister companies providing sponsorships etc to get round for, the sums provided are not relevant. You either agree with the principle or not. I dont, as it happens, but if its banned, its banned for a 2million deal or a 200 million deal. The pile of cash involved shouldnt be relevent.
Click to expand...
Excuse me but I don’t think it's the same thing. If the Jeep is the Juventus sponsor it is because there is a return of image: pure and simple use of advertising. In the case of the PSG it is as if a very good uncle intervened to settle the debts of the football management.
The money that the sponsor puts should be proportional to the economic return otherwise it’s a scam.


I give another example. Premier League companies take a lot of money from televisions compared to other leagues (series A etc.). But this is right because it is the market that tells you that Premier League matches today affect a larger pool of people.

In the case of Ligue 1 in France the championship does not have much value: it does not interest many people and therefore the avalanches of money injected into the PSG are decided on the wealthy owner.
 
Johnboy40 said:
Thanks for clarifying the ownership..it was a genuine question which the OP declined to answer. On the issue of sister companies providing sponsorships etc to get round for, the sums provided are not relevant. You either agree with the principle or not. I dont, as it happens, but if its banned, its banned for a 2million deal or a 200 million deal. The pile of cash involved shouldnt be relevent.
Click to expand...

The test in financial fair play is that contracts should be of fair value. €20 shirt sponsorship is deemed fair - it is conceivable that an unrelated sponsor might pay as much to apart on Juventus' shirt. Backdating a €167m sponsorship as PSG did was not.
 
Again, I have no issue with the idea of outlawing sponsorship from companies involved with a shared ownership with a club. But you have to do it across the board to keep it clean. Not just a few of them cos it's suits.
 
Maynard said:
The test in financial fair play is that contracts should be of fair value. €20 shirt sponsorship is deemed fair - it is conceivable that an unrelated sponsor might pay as much to apart on Juventus' shirt. Backdating a €167m sponsorship as PSG did was not.
Click to expand...
In your opinion. ( which I agree with, btw)

I'm fairly sure that a psg supporter has no issue with it. So you do all or none. You cant half arse it and have an individual (or a group of them)decide what sponsorships are fair and what aint.
 
Unfortunately, only making fines is not a deterrent. It's like I'm fined for speeding a rich guy on Ferrari in Beverly Hills. I pay the fines willingly because I want to go at speeds that break the rules.
 
fogueres said:
Unfortunately, only making fines is not a deterrent. It's like I'm fined for speeding a rich guy on Ferrari in Beverly Hills. I pay the fines willingly because I want to go at speeds that break the rules.
Click to expand...
But it is also important to understand that FFP was set-up to protect clubs from being overstretched and going out of business due to mismanagement.
 
Monchi (Rome) said that Salah was sold for € 50 million for the parameters of the financial FairPlay otherwise Rome would not have registered for the CL
 
fogueres said:
Monchi (Rome) said that Salah was sold for € 50 million for the parameters of the financial FairPlay otherwise Rome would not have registered for the CL
Click to expand...

Rome sold "out of necessity" to avoid sanctions. If he could have waited he would not have sold Salah to € 50 million, maybe he was € 100 million. Coutinho was sold for € 160 million. In my opinion, the transfer market is false
 
Said it a few times, but you watch Wolves, Fulham and Villa and FFP next year ( and this ) Wolves especially are a mini Man City

I think it’s a bit like drug laws now, too many people are at it so now impossible to police
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom