Financial Fair Play

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

To be honest even though people say City and PSG are cheaters I honestly don't see the big deal.

FFP was mainly put in place to prevent teams borrowing a lot of money and going bust.

Like what happened to Portsmouth.

If PSG and City owners want to inject money and not require it back then for me it should be done.

This is why to an extent I feel like they should allow these deals with themselves.

Free money should be welcome.

What we don't want is to put a financial burden on teams. That is what FFP should be more dealing.

The bit in bold is the problematic part for me. If that was truly so then the FFP regulations would not put a limit on the amount rich donors could give to clubs. The regulations do put a limit on such cash injections however. I therefore think it's reasonable for people to conclude that, whatever the pretended motives behind FFP, its effect is to ring-fence the established clubs and allow them to grab the lion's share of the money and the medals.

Personally I believe in US style rules aimed at achieving competitive balance. I have always argued, for example, that a fixed amount salary cap is one tool that should be imposed. Through repetition, people have learned the knee-jerk reaction that such a cap would be illegal under European law but I've never believed that. I've always felt that if there was a will there would be a way. Now, this season, UEFA have imposed a salary cap so that argument is dead. Unfortunately the established clubs, including Chelsea, don't want a level playing field. They are quite happy the way things are thank you very much. I hope City and PSG run a coach and horses through that plan.

[Blue Colored Sky 1,807]

Chelsea transfer news: Jose Mourinho told FFP cash boost could allow him to sign a superstar

Chelsea will have access to an extra £40m in extra FFP cash this summer which makes a move for a big name player like Paul Pogba or even Lionel Messi possible.

He forgot about

1) Champions League money from next season will be about 12-15 millions more each year,

2) Chelsea no longer have to bear about 50 millions loss made in 2012-13 season, since the 2015-16 will start a new monitoring period (if someone doesn't know FFP is accounted in 3years period),

3) Since 2016-17 season it's highway to big spending through 50 millions additional money each year thanks to new Premier League deal. It will practically put to bed all the talks about FFP as long as Chelsea don't increase wages to some exorbitant level

3a) While waiting to get to this almost unlimited spending spree, Chelsea can spend very big this this year by offsetting some of their players, either on loan or currently in the first team. Since 2016-17 it won't be necessary at all to sell in order to buy. Chelsea can spend big this summer without sells or spend very big with a couple of sells.

[dUMB 189]

He forgot about

1) Champions League money from next season will be about 12-15 millions more each year,

2) Chelsea no longer have to bear about 50 millions loss made in 2012-13 season, since the 2015-16 will start a new monitoring period (if someone doesn't know FFP is accounted in 3years period),

3) Since 2016-17 season it's highway to big spending through 50 millions additional money each year thanks to new Premier League deal. It will practically put to bed all the talks about FFP as long as Chelsea don't increase wages to some exorbitant level

3a) While waiting to get to this almost unlimited spending spree, Chelsea can spend very big this this year by offsetting some of their players, either on loan or currently in the first team. Since 2016-17 it won't be necessary at all to sell in order to buy. Chelsea can spend big this summer without sells or spend very big with a couple of sells.

This is great, if its true

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

He forgot about

1) Champions League money from next season will be about 12-15 millions more each year,

2) Chelsea no longer have to bear about 50 millions loss made in 2012-13 season, since the 2015-16 will start a new monitoring period (if someone doesn't know FFP is accounted in 3years period),

3) Since 2016-17 season it's highway to big spending through 50 millions additional money each year thanks to new Premier League deal. It will practically put to bed all the talks about FFP as long as Chelsea don't increase wages to some exorbitant level

3a) While waiting to get to this almost unlimited spending spree, Chelsea can spend very big this this year by offsetting some of their players, either on loan or currently in the first team. Since 2016-17 it won't be necessary at all to sell in order to buy. Chelsea can spend big this summer without sells or spend very big with a couple of sells.

In fact the article does mention the increased Champion's League money as additional to the numbers it outlines but your overall point is still a good one.

[Vybz Kartel 1,613]

Apparently we are 1 billion in debt which is concerning

[We Hate Scouse 10,286]

Apparently we are 1 billion in debt which is concerning

In debt to whom? As far as I was aware Chelsea was debt free.

[Polo7 3,496]

Apparently we are 1 billion in debt which is concerning

1 Billion debt. No currency, no link, no information as to whom.....basically its bollocks.

[Jase 43,479]

[Blue Colored Sky 1,807]

+ 1,5m€ for a win and 0,5m€ for a draw in the group stage.

Uefa has announced new prize money sheet in their European competitions.

Increase is significant in %, however is not so much in actual money.

Lions share from Champions League money is from TV though and rise in that department, especially for English clubs, is very significant.

If someone doesn't know already, there's big diffrence when market pool money is divided between club that finished 1st in their domestic league to the one that finished 4th.

So let's finish 1st to be

a) champions

b ) spread-sheet kings

I calculated that IF UEFA would grow market pool for English clubs as actuall contract has growed (125%), using this new sheet and assuming that Chelsea would play as a domestic champion in next year edition (instead of 3rd) and repeat last year performance, when they reached a semi-final then

total money Chelsea has received from UEFA would grow from that 43,4m€ in 2013/14 season

to very big 94,3m€ in 2015/16 season

(I used last season performance because there isn't data base from current season yet)

I highly doubt that UEFA would be generous enough to grow market pool for England by 125% just like contract with BT has growed, however taking everything conservately and keeping performance to conservative last 16 level, I can safely predict that overall money from UEFA will grow by 20-25m£.

That's another huge help to stay compliant with FFP.

What I want to say, and that's not a joke, Yokohama deal can entirely cover FFP cost of Bale while new prize money from UEFA can cover cost of Pogba ...

[Muzchap 8,966]

That Mirror article on City really raises a few questions....

At least at Chelsea we have a business model and can demonstrate 100% compliance. Buy low, sell high(er)

City have nothing of the sort. A £50 million fine is nothing to them. They have renegotiated half way through the deal.

Unless FFP excludes clubs from CL it will achieve nothing.

[didierforever 7,349]

That Mirror article on City really raises a few questions....

At least at Chelsea we have a business model and can demonstrate 100% compliance. Buy low, sell high(er)

City have nothing of the sort. A £50 million fine is nothing to them. They have renegotiated half way through the deal.

Unless FFP excludes clubs from CL it will achieve nothing.

and that is never going to happen. so in short, FFP is useless.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

+ 1,5m€ for a win and 0,5m€ for a draw in the group stage.

Uefa has announced new prize money sheet in their European competitions.

Increase is significant in %, however is not so much in actual money.

Lions share from Champions League money is from TV though and rise in that department, especially for English clubs, is very significant.

If someone doesn't know already, there's big diffrence when market pool money is divided between club that finished 1st in their domestic league to the one that finished 4th.

So let's finish 1st to be

a) champions

b ) spread-sheet kings

I calculated that IF UEFA would grow market pool for English clubs as actuall contract has growed (125%), using this new sheet and assuming that Chelsea would play as a domestic champion in next year edition (instead of 3rd) and repeat last year performance, when they reached a semi-final then

total money Chelsea has received from UEFA would grow from that 43,4m€ in 2013/14 season

to very big 94,3m€ in 2015/16 season

(I used last season performance because there isn't data base from current season yet)

I highly doubt that UEFA would be generous enough to grow market pool for England by 125% just like contract with BT has growed, however taking everything conservately and keeping performance to conservative last 16 level, I can safely predict that overall money from UEFA will grow by 20-25m£.

That's another huge help to stay compliant with FFP.

What I want to say, and that's not a joke, Yokohama deal can entirely cover FFP cost of Bale while new prize money from UEFA can cover cost of Pogba ...

Agree with points a & b but we need to add that finishing first is necessary: -

c) in order to be one of the top seeds in next season's Champions' League draw. If not we'll be in pot 2 and face the possibility of a much tougher group.

Also agree with your observation about UEFA syphoning off a greater percentage of England's TV rights deal and redistributing it across the continent. While I don't have any real issue with that, I'm all for football's wealth being spread around, I do feel a bit aggrieved about one aspect of it. As I said earlier in the thread, it's English football fans, not English football clubs, who will foot the bill. The clubs will still get a big revenue increase, albeit not as big as it might have been. We fans on the other hand, will just get a bigger bill for our pay TV services.

I don't remember this particular detail from my reading of the announcement but doesn't logic dictate that the prize money for a draw will be €750,000 not €500,000?

Lastly, and I only mention this in case it is helpful to you, where you have used the word growed you should say grown instead. As you know well by now, the English language defies logic and there is in fact no such word as growed.

[Blue Colored Sky 1,807]

Agree with points a & b but we need to add that finishing first is necessary: -

c) in order to be one of the top seeds in next season's Champions' League draw. If not we'll be in pot 2 and face the possibility of a much tougher group.

Also agree with your observation about UEFA syphoning off a greater percentage of England's TV rights deal and redistributing it across the continent. While I don't have any real issue with that, I'm all for football's wealth being spread around, I do feel a bit aggrieved about one aspect of it. As I said earlier in the thread, it's English football fans, not English football clubs, who will foot the bill. The clubs will still get a big revenue increase, albeit not as big as it might have been. We fans on the other hand, will just get a bigger bill for our pay TV services.

I don't remember this particular detail from my reading of the announcement but doesn't logic dictate that the prize money for a draw will be €750,000 not €500,000?

Lastly, and I only mention this in case it is helpful to you, where you have used the word growed you should say grown instead. As you know well by now, the English language defies logic and there is in fact no such word as growed.

Thanks

Few points :

a) Indeed, the money UEFA will receive from BT is paid by customers in England. And it's not coming back entirely to English clubs but rather is redistributed across all participants. So you there are going to pay for extra prize money for clubs from Romania, Slovenia etc. That's why UEFA has increased prize money significantly in % ... Sorry bro

However I believe that market pool for English clubs is going to grow significantly nonetheless but not as much as one would expect.

In that 2013/14 season, from that market pool, PSG & Juve have netted much more money than Chelsea despite going out earlier in the competition. I think it's going to change, I don't believe that English clubs would allow to let this money slip from their hands, the money that all in all should fall to them because THEIR contract has grown that significant (and will be paid by English customers)

b ) Personally don't think that will be easier in the group stage. The first pot will contain 8 champions from 8 countries of highest coefficent ranking in UEFA. And while you will have there Barcelona, Bayern, Juventus, Chelsea, PSG you also will have Benfica, Zenit and Dynamo. 3 clubs that you can't draw.

But apart from pot 1 further forward you will have clubs seeded according to their coefficent so pot 2 will contain clubs like Real Madrid, Atletico, Porto, Arsenal, Man City etc. Fortunately, there are clubs that are not regarded as very strong and have high coefficent, thanks to their well-doing in Europa League. But in theory if every big club had high coefficent, then pot 2 would be stronger than pot 1 because you wouldn't have clubs like champions of Portugal, Ukraine and Russia.

All in all I don't think that it will change that much. If you're champion or not, you have a chance to draw a very strong opponent or some minnows. But it should ensure that variety will be reasonably bigger and that's main reason for a change of people who are sick of Arsenal, Bayern; Psg, Barcelona in the same group every year. However to really change this seeding and have way bigger variety, get things really interesting in the group stage, then they should do something more like changing coefficent calculator to have more emphasis on recent years. It's weird that last year is as important as that 5 years ago.

Would like if group stage progress would be more difficult for big clubs when they currently face usually only 1 significant competitor for a place.

c) No, award for a draw remains the same. Only here they haven't increased money.

d) Thanks. I know what form is correct but I forgot, don't know why exactly. Sometimes I don't have that sense for the language and write with mistakes.

[Fernando 6,458]

That Mirror article on City really raises a few questions....

At least at Chelsea we have a business model and can demonstrate 100% compliance. Buy low, sell high(er)

City have nothing of the sort. A £50 million fine is nothing to them. They have renegotiated half way through the deal.

Unless FFP excludes clubs from CL it will achieve nothing.

No to me the problem with CIty was the sponsorship deal that UEFA deem good.

Now there was a report that they wanted to improve their deal for more money.

If UEFA continues to let them with such deal then they will be okay in the long run. Because FFP is all about revenues and clubs are increasing their revenues.

The Etihad deal is eventually a deal with themselves but UEFA does not see it like that....

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

... Thanks. I know what form is correct but I forgot, don't know why exactly. Sometimes I don't have that sense for the language and write with mistakes.

Last time I mentioned this you disagreed, but your English really is very good.

... No, award for a draw remains the same. Only here they haven't increased money.

Ah right, thank you.

This is interesting, I wonder how they are budgeting for this. The difference between all 96 group games being drawn or all 96 resulting in a win for one of the clubs is a whopping €48m in prize money terms. Obviously there will be draws but since no one knows how many, UEFA can't predict with certainty how much prize money will be paid out. Presumably they will budget for the historically average number of draws but what will they do if there is a surplus? My guess is that they'll bank it as a hedge against a future deficit.

...b ) The first pot will contain 8 champions from 8 countries of highest coefficent ranking in UEFA...

That's not quite right I think. I understand that the champions of the 7 leading nations, plus the Champions' League winners, will be the top seeds. So, for example, if Barca win La Liga, and Real win the Champions' league, then both Spanish giants will be among the top seeds. If we were to fail to win our own league, and find ourselves in pot 2, we then face a better than 71% chance of being drawn against Barca, Bayern, Juve, Madrid or Paris. Precisely the teams we'd prefer to avoid if possible.

No matter which 5 clubs we might avoid because they are in pot 2 with us, the prospect missing them and facing one of the big five instead, is not a good deal for us.

[Fernando 6,458]

Chelsea's Jose Mourinho: Manchester City should lose points for FFP breach

http://www.espnfc.us/barclays-premier-league/story/2427221/jose-mourinho-man-city-should-lose-points-for-ffp-breach

Don't agree with Mourinho.

FFP of UEFA should stay in UEFA.

Should not interfere with the local league and FA.

[Viper22 2,418]

Chelsea's Jose Mourinho: Manchester City should lose points for FFP breach

http://www.espnfc.us/barclays-premier-league/story/2427221/jose-mourinho-man-city-should-lose-points-for-ffp-breach

Don't agree with Mourinho.

FFP of UEFA should stay in UEFA.

Should not interfere with the local league and FA.

To be fair in an ideal world you're right, UEFA should deal with only UEFA issues.

But then the only things UEFA have control over is their CL participation - so unless they either chuck them out of the CL (or relegate them to the EL and put the 5th place BPL team into the CL instead) there is no punishment that will actually make the City owners stop abusing the FFP rules.

But this isn't an ideal world and there is very little chance of UEFA dropping PSG & City from the CL because they're too worried about losing potential revenue (wrong, but an unfortunate truth) so if they don't want to do that the next best thing IMO is to dock them points in their respective leagues.

Over-reaching their jurisdiction yes, but at least it may make City & PSG stop fucking about.

[Fernando 6,458]

To be fair in an ideal world you're right, UEFA should deal with only UEFA issues.

But then the only things UEFA have control over is their CL participation - so unless they either chuck them out of the CL (or relegate them to the EL and put the 5th place BPL team into the CL instead) there is no punishment that will actually make the City owners stop abusing the FFP rules.

But this isn't an ideal world and there is very little chance of UEFA dropping PSG & City from the CL because they're too worried about losing potential revenue (wrong, but an unfortunate truth) so if they don't want to do that the next best thing IMO is to dock them points in their respective leagues.

Over-reaching their jurisdiction yes, but at least it may make City & PSG stop fucking about.

Well the world ain't fair!

Plus FA have their own FFP.

Do not interfere with each jurisdiction, simple as that!