Financial Fair Play

[Fernando 6,468]

I still find that pointless. If they want to make a statement about FFP, ban clubs. That is the only way clubs will stay in line. A fine isn't a big deal for major clubs.

What you mean pointless?

The 50 million if it was only that it would have been pointless for a very rich club.

The other punishment are of real consequences and best option then out rightly banning them.

Cause it shows that UEFA is giving chances to teams to get their act straight.

You imagine if we screw up once and break the rule? Do you want them to ban us right of the bat?

No give us a chance to work it out.

Now if the same club continues doing the same after having been already sanctioned, then it makes sense to escalate the punishment.

But I repeat, you just focusing on the 50 million fine and forgetting the other punishment which are of greater impact!

[LAM09 6,755]

What you mean pointless?

The 50 million if it was only that it would have been pointless for a very rich club.

The other punishment are of real consequences and best option then out rightly banning them.

Cause it shows that UEFA is giving chances to teams to get their act straight.

You imagine if we screw up once and break the rule? Do you want them to ban us right of the bat?

No give us a chance to work it out.

Now if the same continues doing the same after having been already sanctioned, then it makes sense to escalate the punishment.

FFP hasn't come out of nowhere, clubs have been warned about it for a while. I personally think the procedure UEFA have currently followed is too lenient IMO. If FFP was just announced, I would say this punishment would suffice, but that isn't the case.

It relation to Chelsea, we are trying to follow FFP, by selling players, and go far in European Competitions. I think the Chelsea board are making sure they don't fall foul of FFP.

[Fernando 6,468]

FFP hasn't come out of nowhere, clubs have been warned about it for a while. I personally think the procedure UEFA have currently followed is too lenient IMO. If FFP was just announced, I would say this punishment would suffice, but that isn't the case.

It relation to Chelsea, we are trying to follow FFP, by selling players, and go far in European Competitions. I think the Chelsea board are making sure they don't fall foul of FFP.

Yes, but if FFP hasn't come out of nowhere then you should know that FFP also had in mind sanctions step.

First a fine, then point deductions and finally ban.

It was an escalation punishment to repeatedly offenders.

[LAM09 6,755]

Yes, but if FFP hasn't come out of nowhere then you should know that FFP also had in mind sanctions step.

First a fine, then point deductions and finally ban.

It was an escalation punishment.

I personally wasn't aware of that, but a three strike set up is too lenient either way IMO.

[Fernando 6,468]

I personally wasn't aware of that, but a three strike set up is too lenient either way IMO.

Rules are rules, and we all agreed to it.

[LAM09 6,755]

Rules are rules, and we all agreed to it.

Some more than others.

[Fernando 6,468]

What I want to know is if those sponsorship deal that PSG and City did with themselves will stand?

Cause if UEFA let it slide then these two teams will be in the green in less then 5 years as those are massive injection that will count as revenue.....

[Rmpr 8,977]

https://twitter.com/JWTelegraph/status/463661515628118016

Inclined to agree with the notion above. This almost feels like a way for UEFA to pick up more $$$$$$$$..

Exactly!

Yet some of our dumb members think it is right to back UEFA in this shit just because it "benefits us".

Pathetic!

[The only place to be 11,313]

Exactly!

Yet some of our dumb members think it is right to back UEFA in this shit just because it "benefits us".

Pathetic!

No reason for you to call members dumb simply because they believe that City should be punished for not playing by the same rules that we have over the last few years.

[cosmicway 1,328]

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 1,328]

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 20,593]

@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