Financial Fair Play

[Sheva. 5,373]

It's pretty ridiculous....You don't have enough money, so we're going to take money off you.

It's a ridiculously unfair and flawed system, they either need to change it massively or completely throw it out. It is designed to help clubs and stop clubs going under, but if they carry on like this they will destroy more clubs than they are saving.

Actually, this will in the future prevent teams like Atletico spending the money they do not have.

They got a great deal for Aguero, but then wasted all of the money on Falcao, sure he's been immense for them - but he can't solve their financial problems.

And i know it's harsh to not give teams that need money their money, but it wouldn't happen if they didn't break the rules.

[capriccioso 2,545]

Goes to show what complete clowns run UEFA. These clubs are struggling with money, that's the reason that they are in this situation. The probably have huge relief that they will be getting some money after each game etc. and it will probably help them massively. Yet UEFA feel the need to withhold prize money? You really couldn't make it up. Utter clowns.

Its even worse when you consider that all but 2 Spanish clubs earn a pittance compared to even relegation battlers in other leagues like the Bundesliga or the Premier League.

They have literally no chance of ever 'moving progressively' with their debt. If they do that then they will be spending so little on their players, they'll be packed full of random journeymen, youth and other shit players. They'll be awful in Europe, the whipping boys in every group stage of the CL they qualify for.

[Blue-in-me-Veins 4,067]

[termninja 5,290]

Leave Partizan alone

[Naked Mole Rat 437]

Problem: A team is financially struggling because it isn't popular enough and doesn't generate enough revenue.

Solution: Cancel the prize money the club was due and possibly even prohibit it from participating in the competitions in the future. That will teach them a lesson.

[xPetrCechx 13,570]

Financial fair play draws closer as Premier League chairmen vote in favour

Premier League clubs facing points deduction if they breach new spending controls

The vote for financial regulations could hardly have been closer, with only 13 of the 20 clubs voting in favour, with six against and Reading abstaining.

It meant that the 'yes' vote only narrowly achieved the necessary two-thirds majority of the 19 votes cast.

Clubs sources say Fulham, West Brom, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea and Southampton all voted against.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11661/8478278/Premier-League-clubs-facing-points-deduction-if-they-breach-new-spending-controls

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11661/8477775/Financial-fair-play-draws-closer-as-Premier-League-chairmen-vote-in-favour

FINANCIAL RULES UPDATE

Posted on: Thu 07 Feb 2013

Premier League clubs today reached an agreement to introduce financial stability rules and wage controls for the league. Chelsea Football Club is supportive of moves that promote financial stability in football. We are already subject to UEFA's Financial Fair Play principles and will comply with those.

The new rules will be subject to further detailed discussions before they are brought in and we will play our part in those to ensure implementation is fair for all clubs in the league.

http://www.chelseafc.com/news-article/article/3068368/title/financial-rules-update

[AndersonBLUE 819]

You would have thought Chelsea would vote against.

[We Hate Scouse 10,326]

You would have thought Chelsea would vote against.

Why? It would just be bad media.

We already have to comply with it because of UEFA, it doesn't effect us at all.

[xPetrCechx 13,570]

CHELSEA VOTED "YES".

We are already subject to UEFA's Financial Fair Play principles and will comply with those.

[Rmpr 8,977]

Chelsea has already achieved a solid financial structure.

We are in a situation where we can (specially without Malouda and Torres wages) spend 50mi on the transfer window (which would mean 2-3 good players) and still make money (with a good run in UCL and a top4 in EPL of course). With the possibility of a bigger stadium, naming rights and a shirt sponsor that does not underpay, 105mi in losses for a period of three years seems very easy to achieve!

What impresses me is how low the wage limit is. Only 7 of the 20 EPL teams have wages bellow 56mi/year...

[AndersonBLUE 819]

Why? It would just be bad media.

We already have to comply with it because of UEFA, it doesn't effect us at all.

Dunno just don't really understand it fully, when it comes to rich owners.

[Yeboii 1,844]

Goodbye talent!

[Kezza 1,965]

Goodbye talent!

Why u say that? As we've learnt, if a player is more expensive does not mean he has more talent.

Michu vs Torres is a great example.

One cost 2 mil the other 50

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Great news! Shame it's just all talk..

[BlueLion. 21,491]

We've finally broken even, after the best part of nine years. This year we might even post a net profit. Shirt sales are through the roof and the tour to Asia in the summer will only help that.