Financial Fair Play

[cosmicway 1,333]

City face sanctions:

http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/manchester-city-face-heavy-fine-and-cut-in-champions-league-squad-050614?cmpid=tsmfb:fscom:foxsoccer

I 'm in two minds.

If Greece of 1960 was like Greece of 2000, we would have no national football history whatsoever.

Who is Kostas Nestoridis people were going to say ? Ah yes, that Juventus player and he also played for a Greek side for half a season, did he ?

But I have also lived through a total ban period, in 1967-74
This thing made the top teams weak but only for a short while and they more or less dominated again - before the ban was lifted.
On the other hand we would never have signed Thomas Mavros, the other great living legend, in AEK Athens had the ban persisted.

[Johnny Kills 164]

I can't remember where I heard this, but apparently in America in either the NFL and/or MLB they have similar sanctions and the money from a club's (massive) fine is distributed evenly between the other teams in the league who did not break sanctions...maybe an American brethren can confirm this, but call me crazy, it seems like a much more reasonable solution compared to fines going straight in Platini's pockets...try telling him that!

It's not the NFL, but the MLB and NBA. In NFL, you have X amount you can spend, and that's it. In the MLB and NBA, if your team's salary goes over Y amount, your team gets charged with a "luxury tax". However, the situation you described only applies to the NBA where it's divided to the small market teams. In the MLB, it goes into an "industry growth fund", helped to promote baseball, kids' leagues, players' benefits, etc. Also the term 'fine' sort of has a negative connotation to it. Teams know what the luxury tax # is, and the bigger markets ie Yankees, Nets have to decide whether they want to go over it or not. Gab Marcotti wrote an article today about the irony of socialist sport in America vs capitalistic sport in Europe.

[cosmicway 1,333]

It's not the NFL, but the MLB and NBA. In NFL, you have X amount you can spend, and that's it. In the MLB and NBA, if your team's salary goes over Y amount, your team gets charged with a "luxury tax". However, the situation you described only applies to the NBA where it's divided to the small market teams. In the MLB, it goes into an "industry growth fund", helped to promote baseball, kids' leagues, players' benefits, etc. Also the term 'fine' sort of has a negative connotation to it. Teams know what the luxury tax # is, and the bigger markets ie Yankees, Nets have to decide whether they want to go over it or not. Gab Marcotti wrote an article today about the irony of socialist sport in America vs capitalistic sport in Europe.

A compromise solution is called for. No socialism, no overkill tactics.

[The Mak 4,459]

It's not the NFL, but the MLB and NBA. In NFL, you have X amount you can spend, and that's it. In the MLB and NBA, if your team's salary goes over Y amount, your team gets charged with a "luxury tax". However, the situation you described only applies to the NBA where it's divided to the small market teams. In the MLB, it goes into an "industry growth fund", helped to promote baseball, kids' leagues, players' benefits, etc. Also the term 'fine' sort of has a negative connotation to it. Teams know what the luxury tax # is, and the bigger markets ie Yankees, Nets have to decide whether they want to go over it or not. Gab Marcotti wrote an article today about the irony of socialist sport in America vs capitalistic sport in Europe.

Why thank you for clearing that up!

[Only1Didier 5]

So considering the FFP implications on the squad limit and homegrown players besides the fines. How do we stand for the next season in terms of how is our squad gonna be like and which players will we need to sell to buy new ones to balance?

Please provide your views. I have been thinking over it and would love some inputs from more Chelsea fans!

Cheers!

[Madmax 9,219]

ummm.... nope... not possible...

this stat means that

hazard is earning 198kpw. which even dailymail would say is high.

That fee takes into amortisation of their transfer fee as well.

Nonetheless I still think it's incorrect because Jake Cohen has Hazard down as £175k a week which I think is nonsense. He's closer to £120k.

i did take that into consideration.

the stat said 16,7 mil. hazard's transfer fee =32mil for 5 years = 6.4 mil per year. so salary = 16.7-6.4 = 10.3mil which is close to 198kpw.

Quite probable that he's following the common accounting principle of conservatism i.e assuming the biggest possible number in case of expenses and losses and the smallest possible number in case of incomes and gains. Hazard may well be on less than 175k or 185k or whatever but he's simply running with the highest number he's seen reported. In other words, a worst case scenario.

[Madmax 9,219]

@TheSkipper and @didierforever

I sought confirmation from Jake Cohen himself and this is what he said :

@JakeFCohenwe have him on £185k, and figure is based on a conservative (i.e. high) averaging of sorts of figures from BBC, Guardian, etc.

[The Skipper 20,609]

@TheSkipper and @didierforever

I sought confirmation from Jake Cohen himself and this is what he said :

@JakeFCohenwe have him on £185k, and figure is based on a conservative (i.e. high) averaging of sorts of figures from BBC, Guardian, etc.

Fair enough. Thanks for that.

[mediator 2,026]

Financial Fair Play: Galatasaray, Zenit and Anzhi Makhachkala fail UEFA rules

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/9314355/financial-fair-play-galatasaray-zenit-and-anzhi-makhachkala-fail-uefa-rules

[mediator 2,026]

Decision of the Chief Investigator of the CFCB Investigatory Chamber: Settlement Agreement with Manchester City Football Club Limited

Following an investigation under the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (“CLFFPR”) a settlement agreement was concluded between the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (“CFCB”) Chief Investigator and Manchester City Football Club Limited ("Manchester City") on the basis of Article 14 (1)( and Article 15 of the Procedural Rules governing the CFCB.

The settlement was concluded on 16 May 2014 and covers the three sporting seasons 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16. For the duration of the settlement, Manchester City will be subject to on-going restrictions which have been agreed by the club and which are described further below.

A central purpose of the settlement is to ensure that Manchester City becomes break- even compliant within the meaning of the CLFFPR in a short space of time.

• In this regard, Manchester City undertakes to report a maximum break-even deficit of EUR 20 Mio. for the financial year ending in 2014 and a maximum break- even deficit of EUR 10 Mio. for the financial year ending in 2015. In this context certain commercial partnerships were subject to examination. In order to avoid dispute and for the avoidance of doubt, Manchester City has agreed that for the period of the settlement it will not seek to improve the financial terms of two second tier commercial partnerships.

• Furthermore Manchester City agrees that revenues from the sale of assets within their group structure will not be included in future break-even calculations.

• Manchester City accepts that employee benefit expenses cannot be increased during the next two financial periods (2015 & 2016). If Manchester City meets the annual break-even requirements outlined above, this spending limit will be removed for the 2016 financial period.

• Manchester City accepts that for the duration of the settlement it will be subject to a limitation on the number of players that it may include on the “A” list for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. Specifically, for season 2014/15 Manchester City may only register a potential maximum of 21 players on the “A” list, instead of the potential maximum of 25 as foreseen in the relevant competition regulations. If MC manages to comply with the annual break-even target the club shall be released from the restriction as regards the registration of players in UEFA club competitions for the 2015/16 season.

• Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Manchester City further accepts a calculated limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This calculation is based on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by this agreement.

• Manchester City agrees to pay a total amount of EUR 60 Mio. which will be withheld from any revenues it earns from participating in UEFA competitions commencing in season 2013/14. Of this EUR 60 Mio. an amount of EUR 40 Mio. will be withheld conditionally and will be returned to Manchester City if the club fulfills the operational and financial measures agreed with the UEFA CFCB.

The compliance with the Settlement Agreement will be subject to on-going and in depth monitoring, in accordance with the applicable rules. In this connection, Manchester City also undertakes to provide the CFCB with a Progress Report evidencing its compliance with all relevant conditions agreed on a six monthly basis.

In case Manchester City fails to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement, the UEFA CFCB Chief Investigator shall refer the case to the Adjudicatory Chamber, as foreseen in Art. 15 (4) of the Procedural Rules.

Nyon, 16 May 2014

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/ClubFinancialControl/02/10/69/00/2106900_DOWNLOAD.pdf

[Madmax 9,219]

Great news. The fine was never going to be an issue for them but reduced roster spots goes down well with me. Also reassuring to see UEFA anticipating some of the get-arounds and extracting an undertaking in those aspects.

[Thendo 1,088]

Guess city won't be very active in the coming transfer windows then. A fine might seem abit ridiculous as a punishment for a club that has overspent, but ffp will still be there next season with probably more hefty punishments (maybe CL ban etc) if a team is charged again. Not sure how much this 21 man squad limit for cl will effect them tough.

Any news about PSG yet?

[Pizy 18,852]

So now City will spend only £85m per window instead of £100m?

[mediator 2,026]

Statement on Official site

http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2014/May/Club-statement-16-May

[iseah100 5,612]

Guess city won't be very active in the coming transfer windows then. A fine might seem abit ridiculous as a punishment for a club that has overspent, but ffp will still be there next season with probably more hefty punishments (maybe CL ban etc) if a team is charged again. Not sure how much this 21 man squad limit for cl will effect them tough.

Any news about PSG yet?

PSG gave their roster for CL reduced to 21, idk about any fines or anything against them.