Financial Fair Play

[tap-in]

City have agreed to pay the money according to Sky.

60m Euros, curtail their transfer spending for the next two seasons and a limit of 21 players in their squad for European competition.

Now if only we'd take advantage of this.

Tim Payton also mused that getting Sagna, regardless of salary/age makes sense. They're losing Richards and they can get Sagna for little to no cost apart from salary.


Hope he doesn't go there.


City Statement according to Bryan Swanson- Sky

"Club's expenditure on new players for upcoming summer transfer market will be limited to 60m euros or 49m pounds."

Whatever difference that ish makes. They spent close to 100 last year alone

Thats good if true, and of the 21 players, 8 have to be home grown

 

[squallkid]

This can only help us.

One summer where we can outspend city and potentially offer bigger fees for individual players.

 

[spartandre217]

Tap-in

Having looked at their squad from this season if they have to have no more than 13 "foreign" players they'll be fine.


Non Home-grown players in their squad bolded.

Joe Hart
Micah Richards
Vincent Kompany (captain)
Pablo Zabaleta
Joleon Lescott
James Milner
Samir Nasri
Álvaro Negredo
Edin Džeko
Aleksandar Kolarov
Javi García
Jesús Navas
Sergio Agüero
Jack Rodwell
David Silva
Gaël Clichy
Fernandinho
Martín Demichelis
Richard Wright
Costel Pantilimon
Matija Nastasić
Stevan Jovetić
Dedryck Boyata
Yaya Touré (vice-captain)
Marcos Lopes


That's 16 total, and they could afford to drop a few of them with little undue consequence. Particularly Garcia, Navas and Jovetic.

And the squad limitations don't affect their squad in the league. Only conceivable downside for them is having to keep some of their big players fresh for the CL (if they even prioritize it) and lack of depth in that competition. They're going to go after free agents like Sagna and any English talent they can scrape up. This won't hit them nearly as hard as it could/should have.

 

[FinnGooner]

@spartandre

Do you think those players are free of cost? If City want to comply with the FFP rules they will have to redesign their wage structure. They don't have the commercial revenue to pay for that sqaud.

 

[spartandre217]

@spartandre

Do you think those players are free of cost? If City want to comply with the FFP rules they will have to redesign their wage structure. They don't have the commercial revenue to pay for that sqaud.

The players are not free of cost at all. I've just been reading the
UEFA settlement agreements in the past 1/2 hour or so.



Link here: http://www.uefa.org/disciplinary/club-financial-controlling-body/cases/index.html

A few things to note about this FFP thing.

City CANNOT increase expenses as far as salaries to players are concerned for next season/reporting period. No raises for current players and little negotiation of salaries during that period. Also means that any new players will have to take the salaries of existing players being cut. Or maybe compensated via increased percentage of player commercial rights than would otherwise be the case. The language is a bit obtuse to me.

No revenue from deals coming from Abu Dhabi owned/run affiliates will matter as far as calculating FFP is concerned.

Player limitation applies more or less for the 2014/15 season. If they manage to comply then the limit is lifted for the following season.

60M Euro fine is refundable up to 66%. That is to say that if City comply, they can expect to get 40m back.



Sure it's a landmark case but it's gonna have f*** all effect on them in the long term. They're simply going to have to invest smarter and take riskier bets that may not pay off.

Short term they might lose some of their players.

Lescott, Wright and Boyata's contracts expire this season.

Nasri, Milner, Kolarov, Dzeko, Richards, Demichelis the following season

Hart and Pantilimon the year after that.

Given the relative strength of their academy and the investment being made on that front I can hardly think this will do anything but accelerate existing plans to make it their backbone.

 

[Anzac]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.football365.com/news/21554/9314405/Heavy-UEFA-sanctions-hit-City" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.football365.com/news/21554/9 ... s-hit-City</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27445475" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27445475</a>

The part I'm interested in, is does the fine become part of their operating costs for the next period of reduced allowable pre-tax losses?
If so (and IMO it should), it will have a massive impact.

The 49m transfer cap (not including funds raised via player sales) should mean it is unlikely that Citeh woulkd be in the market for the likes of Cavani & Co.

 

[Suave Gooner89]

I don't know much about the specifics of FFP or if they'll have any tangible effect over super rich clubs' proceedings, but I was wondering whether PSG's ludicrous, imminent signing of David Luiz (between £40-£50 million) will make them more willing to part with Cavani/sell him at a lower rate in order to comply with the guidelines of FFP?

 

[Bouchra]

Seems like the oil sheiks help each other out with signings like Luiz to fit the FFP.

 

[tap-in]

I don't know much about the specifics of FFP or if they'll have any tangible effect over super rich clubs' proceedings, but I was wondering whether PSG's ludicrous, imminent signing of David Luiz (between £40-£50 million) will make them more willing to part with Cavani/sell him at a lower rate in order to comply with the guidelines of FFP?

Thats a good point, I only saw the Luiz price this morning and thought wtf. Maybe Cavani will go to Chelsea for about £50m therefore keeping both PSG and Chelsea's net spend low. I know Costa looks done but Chelsea need more than 1 new CF.

 

[Rain Dance]

Anyone can tell me why Chelsea isn't fined/banned by FFP? did they make a profit ?

 

[eye4goal]

Chelsea made a loss of 49.4 million pounds in the last financial year, but the West London club say they still satisfy UEFA's Financial Fair Play regulations.

Despite that, Jose Mourinho's side will satisfy FFP regulations as the two-year monitoring period includes the 1.4 million-pound profit made in the 2011-12 season. The Blues also see around 15 million pounds knocked off their overall loss in add backs, which includes infrastructure costs, youth development costs and charitable donations amongst other outgoings.

That brings Chelsea's losses for the period to approximately 34 million pounds, falling under the FFP threshold of 45 million euros (37.5 million pounds).

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1667080/chelsea-announce-L494m-loss-pass-ffp?cc=5739" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1 ... fp?cc=5739</a>

 

[Toast]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29129536" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29129536</a>

Queens Park Rangers face Football League ban threat
By Simon Stone BBC Sport

QPR could be refused future entry into the Championship if they fail to pay a potentially huge fine for breaching Financial Fair Play rules.

Chairman Tony Fernandes has indicated he would appeal against a fine from the Football League, which would be around £54m if losses for Rangers' promotion season matched the £65.4m in 2012-13.

But if the club don't pay, the FL can block entry to its own competitions.

"Theoretically that is the position," said FL chief executive Shaun Harvey.

"I would hope there would be a resolution long before that option even had to be considered.

"We are satisfied we still have the ability under our regulations to charge them for a breach of our rules whilst they were in membership."

It has been argued relegated clubs are at greater risk of FFP penalties due to the huge wage costs associated with the Premier League.

QPR's swift return to the top tier had the potential to cause the Football League difficulties as they could be left trying to collect fines from clubs who are no longer in their jurisdiction.

This is the difficulty Harvey will be facing when QPR eventually release their 2013-14 financial figures at some point before the end of November.

"Most clubs (in the Premier League) will become a Football League club again," said Harvey.

"QPR will be hoping it does not happen for some considerable number of seasons.

"But the chances are they will need to return to the Football League fold at some point in the future.

"Certainly, three of the current 20 clubs that are in the Premier League will be in the Football League next season."

 

[Rex Stone]

"Most clubs (in the Premier League) will become a Football League club again," said Harvey.

Never actually thought of it like that... kind of depressing if you're say a Stoke or West Brom fan, for all the raging against the dying light, your club is living on borrowed time.

 

[Iceman10]

That's a bit silly instituting a FFP for the Championship (and Football League as a whole) with a glaring loophole for clubs promoted to the PL. There needs to be a reconnection of a management umbrella for the Football League and Premier League, and ideally clubs that cheat the rules shouldn't be allowed to be promoted into the PL in the first place, although that is difficult with timings of financial periods and statements. After all QPR had benefit of the parachute payment system. At least the PL should dock points from QPR for cheating the system when they were in the Championship, which is a separate issue from concerns about creation of 'tiers' in the PL where smaller clubs are inhibited in closing the gap to the top 4-8 teams.

 

[Iceman10]

... furthermore the whole concept of fines with FFP is flawed. If oil money backed clubs with virtually unlimited funds are fined it's just a drop in the bucket for them, and if the fine is for pure financial mismanagement (e.g. a theoretical Portsmouth or Leeds in the past) then the club that has put itself in financial difficulties obviously is going to find it hard to pay the fine and the fine only makes things worse in digging out of any hole. Punishments should purely be docking of points or in the case of clubs qualifying for the CL, exclusion from that competition. Anything else just reeks of governing bodies being more interested in collecting fines to support their own beauracratic apparatus (and fat cats) as opposed to doing what FFP is supposed to do.

 

[DJ_Markstar]

Yes, but Iceman, you're forgetting one thing.

FFP was never designed to be fair, it was just a lie sold to us (badly) so that the idiots amongst us believed they were trying to do something about the oil sheikhs, while simultaneously doing very little. It is also a good excuse to line their own pockets "for the good of the game", or something.

Anyone with half a brain cell can tell that these guys care more about points in the league table than money in the bank, otherwise they wouldn't be trading the latter for the former in such large quantities.

 

[Mastadon]

The whole concept of fines under FFP is a bit bonkers. For clubs already making losses and struggling to stay afloat what the hell is the point of a fine which will sink them into administration?

FFP has certainly slowed down the likes of Chelsea and City a bit in the last couple of years. Its also positive for us in that any new sheikh looking to buy over for example Stoke City and turn them into the new Chelsea/City will have much more difficulty.

For Arsenal FFP is a positive thing because we are easily compliant while our rivals have to make all sorts of adjustments. Anything that hinders our rivals surely benefits us. Whether its fair for the small clubs that need that funding to ever break top 4 is another story but great for us because really who needs more rivals?

 

[DJ_Markstar]

Football should be about unpredictability and rivalries, though. The US drafts/wage cap system is brilliant for this kind of thing.

 

[Tir Na Nog]

Well before Sky's money came along clubs like Derby, Forrest, Wolves and Villa could win the league without the need for sugar daddies. Huge commercialization of football along with TV deals forced other clubs to use oil money to compete with commercial powerhouses like Man United (unless you had a god-like manager like Arsène Wenger of course!).

The FFP has came at a time where it prevents other sugar daddy's from buying small clubs, though it does keep the power-houses of world football at the top. Then again that's the case in every team sport tbh, why should a team like Stoke with 25,000 fans and not much worldwide interest be able to compete with well known world-wide clubs like Arsenal, Liverpool and Man United just because a rich owner decides to choose them as their new play-toy.

Football seems to have become too simplistic where there's very few genuine geniuses like Clough, Robson, Paisley or Shankley or that anymore. Now it's filled with guys who always demand big transfer budgets and put that before even trying to get the best out of their current squads. Everyone's looking for a quick fix and on that side of things I think the FFP is a good thing. If Atletico and Dortmund can run their clubs to get them to win their leagues and almost win the champions league then it should be a lessen for the rest.

So **** it, I'm fully supportive of FFP, as long as they don't continue to just fine clubs like City and PSG, get some balls and suspend them from the champions league if they continue to ignore the rules!

 

[Bigbludfire]

There's an independent article published today that basically says City have only registered one club trained player (Boyata) in the Champions League when you need 4, and UEFA have caved into pressure by FIFPRO over legal action.

Scumbag club.