May be a bit redundand as im sure there are loopholes for chelsea and man city but surely spending 35 mil and anythin between 170 and 250k a week on hazard and buying marin from bremen. Also city pay most players 150 to 250k a week and will sign more in summer.and not being able to break even through sales of players surely breaks the rules. Doesnt seem fair that spurs are still a top club, make a profit, but are highly disadvantaged because of it.
-
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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
I don't know much about the new FFP rules, but I would imagine that they aren't going to take into account the purchase price of players, as that would count as capital expenditure, and then they have include depreciation of those assets, and how do you decide the value of a player, which may go up or down, or change with injury or a dip in form, and is also not even known unless they are placed on the transfer market?
No, my guess is the only part that matters for FFP will be the opex - wages and the club running costs, against income from gates, merchandising, sponsorship, and competitions.
If this is true then for Hazard they will only have to offset 13 million per year of income to pay his wages. Also of course, with sponsorship alone, the big clubs have a massive loophole, what's to prevent Abramovich taking the naming rights of the stadium for a subsidiary, at a vastly inflated price to boost the income. For sure they will have a whole army of accountants already working on the loopholes.
Another nail in the coffin for football... gonna be tough year for us to be sure
No, my guess is the only part that matters for FFP will be the opex - wages and the club running costs, against income from gates, merchandising, sponsorship, and competitions.
If this is true then for Hazard they will only have to offset 13 million per year of income to pay his wages. Also of course, with sponsorship alone, the big clubs have a massive loophole, what's to prevent Abramovich taking the naming rights of the stadium for a subsidiary, at a vastly inflated price to boost the income. For sure they will have a whole army of accountants already working on the loopholes.
Another nail in the coffin for football... gonna be tough year for us to be sure
If the bog clubs break the FFP then it's going to be upto UEFA to enfirce them.
Question is, will they? If they do then it could see a sea change. If they don't then the rules will fizzle and die. My gut feeling and a few brown envelopes says the latter will happen.
Question is, will they? If they do then it could see a sea change. If they don't then the rules will fizzle and die. My gut feeling and a few brown envelopes says the latter will happen.
Transfer fees are very much part of the fair play regulations but there is no chance that UEFA is going to enforce these rules. You do have to admire Levy for running the club with in our means just in case they do actually get enforced. If by some act of God UEFA does, we will be in great shape moving forward. Here is a PDF with all the mind numbing regulations in legal terms if you really want to give yourself a headache.
http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf
http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf
rwb2000 said:
Transfer fees are valued as an amount per year of the players contract rather than a lump sum.
i.e. a £30m player on £5m a year wages for a three year deal costs £15m per year for FFP purposes.
rwb2000 said:
ER, bzzzz! Couldn't be wronger on the capex/depreciation issues. Yes the purchase is of an intangible asset and it technically is capex. However, the assets are added to the balance sheet on the opposite side to the debt that created it or by reducing the cash that purchased it. The investment decision or payment structure would determine the likely 'life' of the asset and the depreciation (technically it is amortisation) would pass through the I&E.
Now, because the I&E holds the turnover information for the period, against which amortisation is offset along with wages etc. this is how FFP would regulate transfer dealings - by requiring that clubs live within their means.
...if UEFA implement it, which I doubt they will.
I was only answering the question about player purchases being excluded.
Like you I suspect that Citeh in particular will find themselves immune to FFP, despite having backers with very deep pockets and carrying massive losses.
What will be interesting - to say the least - is whether the 2011 announcement of a £197m loss by Citeh is counted towards their three-year FFP aggregate loss. Under FFP, the maximum loss that can be carried into 15/16 is EUR45m, with the expectation that this is reduced to an aggregate EUR30m. So technically (maybe) they could already have breached the rules or substantially be unlikely to comply. The first bans would not be effective before 13/14 in any event, so they're safe...for now...
Like you I suspect that Citeh in particular will find themselves immune to FFP, despite having backers with very deep pockets and carrying massive losses.
What will be interesting - to say the least - is whether the 2011 announcement of a £197m loss by Citeh is counted towards their three-year FFP aggregate loss. Under FFP, the maximum loss that can be carried into 15/16 is EUR45m, with the expectation that this is reduced to an aggregate EUR30m. So technically (maybe) they could already have breached the rules or substantially be unlikely to comply. The first bans would not be effective before 13/14 in any event, so they're safe...for now...
I think UEFA need to enforce this rule otherwise we will be seeing more clubs go the same way as Leeds, Portsmouth and Rangers
Habanero said:
Chances are even if UEFA get their way on how it is interpreted, it will be challenged in the courts and overturned.
Well, there's debt and there's debt. The Barça/RM numbers are inflated when put in comparison to English numbers (Swiss Ramble wrote about this earlier this month, and I recommend checking it out).Habanero said:
Anyway, we just have to hope that Juventus benefits from FFP. Then it'll be enforced
Mr Vexed said:
Éperons said:
For me, these two statements sum up the situation perfectly.
I would Keegan love it for the clubs with billionaire owners to be punished for what is tantamount to cheating - but I cannot see a way for it to happen in such a corruptible sport.
UEFA cannot afford to have the top clubs out of the competitions, their sponsors wouldn't accept it.JamieG17 said:
That is the crux of the problem. Blatter was re-elected on his ability to :
a) get rid of the competition by exposing their corruption, and
b) to be corrupt enough to keep sponsor onside.
Everything else is merely positioning and conjecture.
So, if you think for one second they would throw out the Chavs or City (who will no doubt use their corporate sponsorship leverage) or Madrid, or any other 'important' club to selling the TV rights, purely on a financial technicality, then you my son belong in the land of Mido next to a river.
Habanero said:
I was told by the Sunderland owner that City fully consulted Uefa to check the deal would be legal before doing it.....