Financial Fair Play

[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.

[bushman 2,043]

Chelsea in the hands of Russian Roman have plenty of money waiting to be inserted into the club if needed.

All of this FFP & now FA fucks control is another joke supported by Manure, Arssens...mostly.

One whistle by Roman to Russia, his pals at Gazproms are sending money.

We are dealing with one shrewd Russian billionaire & not some dimwit sitting in FA office.

[Stingray 9,441]

Well, we are a business ater all it seems.

Now, I hope the board remembers a long term vision and football successes are needed to make it a sustainable business.

[zolayes 14,489]

the wage limit is extremely low ,,I fail to see how any of the larger clubs can keep within it.

[bushman 2,043]

Not sure how much the wage limit was lowered though.

One thing I do agree with. No player should be making some 150-170 thou a week.

This sum is just out of reality, I feel.

If I were making 170 thousand pounds a year, I would be the happiest bug in the rug.

[Ankit 3,176]

Chelsea has a good squad right now and we dont need to spend as high as we had to at the start of the Roman era.We are pretty stable and the losses will come down with relatively less spending and UCL.The biggest winners will be clubs who dont have to worry about this until UEFA's FFP kicks in which i honestly dont see coming in strictly any time soon.

It could be best for Chelsea.Roman might be forced to stick with 1 manager for a longer time to not pay the huge compensations.

But i dont see how FFP will bridge the gap that exists between the top clubs and the rest. Atleast in the current scenario a lower club can break into the top level by spending money (when it's spending is not limited by only what they earn).

[Muzchap 8,966]

the wage limit is extremely low ,,I fail to see how any of the larger clubs can keep within it.

I'm sure one of TC's accountants can chime in here - but the way I see it - players wages will be constructed as:

- BASE SALARY (reported for FFP regs etc) - essentially FIXED COST

Then they will add VARIABLE revenue to it:

- Win Bonus

- Loyalty Bonus

- PR Even Bonus

etc....

So lets take Player A...

Basic (Fixed) = 50k P/W

Bonus (Variable) = 50k P/W

We would 'technically' still comply - as the Fixed portion of the player wage is what is reported... Variablised costs can be moved anywhere in the P&L....

I'm relatively stupid and I think the above works - so would love to see what our accountants come up with LOL