Abramovich fears UEFA's financial fair play rules

[LDN Blue 7,903]

ESPNsoccernet"] Abramovich fears financial rules

One of the men involved in the transfer dealings of Chelsea and Manchester City spoke to ESPNsoccernet about the concerns affecting the Premier League's big-spending clubs.

The source said: "The problem at Chelsea is that it is vitally important for the team that they acquire a central defender; one of the highest quality, young and who can come straight in and make a difference.

"David Luiz is that man, he is by far their first choice, but after three failed bids there is still a gap - one that is getting ever closer, but still a gap. There is a deep reluctance on the part of Chelsea to pay the full amount demanded by Benfica.

"The reason is simple ... UEFA's new Financial Fair Play regulations come into force in a year or so, but clubs buying now and paying later will be hit hard if they find they are spending more than they are earning when those rules come in.

"This might turn out to be the window of the last of the really big buys. Certainly there might be one or two, but nowhere near as many as in the past."

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/868332/chelsea%27s-roman-abramovich-fears-uefa%27s-financial-fair-play-rules?cc=5739

Not sure how credible this "source" is.. But does it explain things?

[Madmax 9,219]

Considering that source is likely to be Harry Harris, this is bollocks.

[Styles 9,790]

They don't know anything and this just proves it. This is a reactionary piece simply because with just 12 days or so left in the transfer market the club hasn't bought anyone.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Yes, but at the same time its something a lot of us have already suggested. I personally think there are two reasons why Abramovich doesn't really want to spend big - I think he is concerned about these rules, whilst at the same time, he's saying that he has put the best part of a billion quid into this football club and turning our fortunes around. I think he's every bit entitled to keep his wallet in his pocket.

[Styles 9,790]

Yes, but at the same time its something a lot of us have already suggested. I personally think there are two reasons why Abramovich doesn't really want to spend big - I think he is concerned about these rules, whilst at the same time, he's saying that he has put the best part of a billion quid into this football club and turning our fortunes around. I think he's every bit entitled to keep his wallet in his pocket.

Yes and rightly so but therein lies the conundrum. The youth players are simply not ready and/or trusted and the squad is very small. We need players or we will lose that vital Champions League money. It is a catch-22 of epic proportions and the club has two choices; buy players using Roman's money or sell some star players and use that money to fund moves for 2 or 3 new players.

[Kostas 1,468]

Bullshit of the highest order.

I didn't really had any intention of bumping this thread but this article is beyond ridiculous.

Abramovich, just like any other businessman on the planet, want his business to stop running at a loss. Common Sense 101

[Wilson 358]

It makes sense to save money on the club and for Roman himself but we need good operations and money to keep our club going and to be successful. Football is indeed about sport but now it's just natural to have money involved to be successful. It's a vicious circle.

[Lampards Bitch 21]

Reguardless of this article I have said for a while this could be a reason for Roman NOT spending alot, if any at all. it does make sense to be honest. He has invested so much in to the youth academy and I am sure he expects to bring star players through that but it hasnt really happend yet and our first team is very thin on the ground and not alot of the youth seem to be ready to step up in the shoes of sya JT, lampard (well maybe Josh) and Drogba.

[Madmax 9,219]

Reguardless of this article I have said for a while this could be a reason for Roman NOT spending alot, if any at all. it does make sense to be honest. He has invested so much in to the youth academy and I am sure he expects to bring star players through that but it hasnt really happend yet and our first team is very thin on the ground and not alot of the youth seem to be ready to step up in the shoes of sya JT, lampard (well maybe Josh) and Drogba.

The rules are a hindrance yes, but the lack of spending is not entirely down to that as the article would have you believe. We've put in bids for Neymar and Torres in the summer and Luiz in this window. Roman was perfectly aware of these rules before making these bids. It's not like he suddenly woke up all sweaty one night after just remembering about the rules.

Anyway the impact of these rules is being overhyped imo. What it only states is that you can't spend more than what you earn (the earnings of the club, not the owner). The 40 mil loss figure (which is still not confirmed) belongs to 09-10. After that we've shaved practically 25 mil off the wage bill by releasing those guys in the summer. Add to that the new sponsorship deal with Singha Beer and the Samsung renegotiation and the revenue stream is looking healthy for the time being (in the long run though we'll have to consider naming rights for the Bridge because moving stadiums or expansion looks very unlikely).

In any case there's a 3 year rolling grace period from next year till 2014, where the owner can pump in £15 mil (I think that's the figure, but I'm not sure.)

[Lampards Bitch 21]

yeah 'bids'. No where on the Chelsea website does it say we have made a bid or approached him and club. Its all media bullshit. I dont believe it untill its on the Club website. We are always linked with someone.

'I can say Neymar is a fantastic player but he is not a Chelsea player now

and it is difficult for me to speak about this. I can say just about his

technical quality. 'We are interested in all the young players that come through in the world,

Neymar is one of these but this doesn't mean we have to buy this player.'

This was on the chelsea website, It doesnt mean to say we bid for him, just says to me Carlo Knows about him and he would be a good player to have.

[Madmax 9,219]

yeah 'bids'. No where on the Chelsea website does it say we have made a bid or approached him and club. Its all media bullshit. I dont believe it untill its on the Club website. We are always linked with someone.

Santos themselves announced on their website that they had rejected an offer from Chelsea.

On topic -

The 15 mil figure is correct, although in euros, not £. And it's for the first year, it reduces to 10 mil after that. This money to be given as equity, not loan. Also, player wages cannot exceed 70% of the revenue.

[Lampards Bitch 21]

You know full well if any team is going to get punished in anyway for this new rule it will be us. They will find a way

[LDN Blue 7,903]

In theory, I love the rule if I'm honest. It stops clubs spending billions and billions on players, and rather invest it in the academy (well that's the incentive) and starts teaching them to live within their means (quite literally). It stops clubs reaching the point of bankruptcy like the likes of Leeds & Portsmouth have succumbed to in recent years. The consequences of not being able to play in Europe economically damaging and humiliating for big clubs.

That being said we just know it won't be applied properly. The likes of Real Madrid, Manchester City & Manchester United will all become exempt because of some legal jargon which will find a loophole in the rule. For example; we know ManCity have already found a solution (via Etihad). And like Lampards Bitch said, if any club is going to be punished for breaching those rules.. It's us.

It's pretty obvious Roman's taken a lot of interest over it. Bruce Buck, a man who hardly ever talks, came out in support of the rule, on behalf of the club. He'd only do that to show we're committed to it, and will implement changes to comply. We've already seen the wheels in motion, from the releasing of Ballack to likes of the sacking of Ray Wilkins. The latest scout department revamp is further evidence of this.

[Henrique 9,133]

yeah 'bids'. No where on the Chelsea website does it say we have made a bid or approached him and club. Its all media bullshit. I dont believe it untill its on the Club website. We are always linked with someone.

'I can say Neymar is a fantastic player but he is not a Chelsea player now

and it is difficult for me to speak about this. I can say just about his

technical quality. 'We are interested in all the young players that come through in the world,

Neymar is one of these but this doesn't mean we have to buy this player.'

This was on the chelsea website, It doesnt mean to say we bid for him, just says to me Carlo Knows about him and he would be a good player to have.

Bruce Buck was in Brazil to sign Neymar in the he decide to stay at Santos. Of course you wont find this in Chelsea´s website: "Bruce Buck was in Brasil to try to sign brazilian wonderkid Neymar, but he decided to stay with Santos. We respect his decision and wish good luck for him." lmao

[strong centreback 157]

That being said we just know it won't be applied properly. The likes of Real Madrid, Manchester City & Manchester United will all become exempt because of some legal jargon which will find a loophole in the rule. For example; we know ManCity have already found a solution (via Etihad). And like Lampards Bitch said, if any club is going to be punished for breaching those rules.. It's us.

From what I have been able to find man citys etihad deal is worth around 30-45 over 3-4 years depending on which source you read, so at best on par with our current samsung deal which is to be no doubt bttered when it is due to be renegotiated come the end of this season (I think its this season) and their kit manufacturing deal is by far more insignificant compared to our adidas one, which is one the biggest in the world.

You are right about there being somekind of loophole that some clubs are going to find, man citys deficits are going to affect their finances for years to come and with their chairman only allowed to pump so much in from the summer their is going to be a loophole to be found.

We are still making losses 3-4 years on from our last significant spend and we had a greater position both footballing and financially to build on then city did so even if the sheik does as roman did and turns the debt into equity the running losses of the club are going to be sky high for many many years (see us as prime example) so it will be interesting as to what they do, their wage bill (135m not including their latest batch of player ie toure dzeko silva etc) is far in excess of ours now and on last financial reports their turn over is about 55-60% of ours (125m) so id ssay that its gonna take a good number of years just to get their revenue up to that of their wage bill, let alone break even.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

From what I have been able to find man citys etihad deal is worth around 30-45 over 3-4 years depending on which source you read, so at best on par with our current samsung deal which is to be no doubt bttered when it is due to be renegotiated come the end of this season (I think its this season) and their kit manufacturing deal is by far more insignificant compared to our adidas one, which is one the biggest in the world.

You are right about there being somekind of loophole that some clubs are going to find, man citys deficits are going to affect their finances for years to come and with their chairman only allowed to pump so much in from the summer their is going to be a loophole to be found.

The details of the deal is irrelevant though, I believe. Since it's owned by the Manchester City's owner's brothers I'm sure he can easily "have a word" with Etihad to get more funds, and since it's from sponsorship it = revenue. Which they're allowed to use for transfers.

We are still making losses 3-4 years on from our last significant spend and we had a greater position both footballing and financially to build on then city did so even if the sheik does as roman did and turns the debt into equity the running losses of the club are going to be sky high for many many years (see us as prime example) so it will be interesting as to what they do, their wage bill (135m not including their latest batch of player ie toure dzeko silva etc) is far in excess of ours now and on last financial reports their turn over is about 55-60% of ours (125m) so id ssay that its gonna take a good number of years just to get their revenue up to that of their wage bill, let alone break even.

It's true, but considering it's only really been 7 years since Roman brought the club, it's hardly surprising we're still making losses. By next year hopefully we'll see a significant decrease in this loss we're making. It's been well noted already how we've already reduced our wage bill from the staff cut backs and player renewals. We're taking all the right steps to eventually break even, it'll be a painful process though.

[strong centreback 157]

The details of the deal is irrelevant though, I believe. Since it's owned by the Manchester City's owner's brothers I'm sure he can easily "have a word" with Etihad to get more funds, and since it's from sponsorship it = revenue. Which they're allowed to use for transfers.

It's true, but considering it's only really been 7 years since Roman brought the club, it's hardly surprising we're still making losses. By next year hopefully we'll see a significant decrease in this loss we're making. It's been well noted already how we've already reduced our wage bill from the staff cut backs and player renewals. We're taking all the right steps to eventually break even, it'll be a painful process though.

See my post in the finances thread, we are almost rosey imho with our finances from this year accounts (released year from now), im sure platini has said something about any sponsership deals signed would need to be proved as market value or words to that effect if I remember rightly to stop the exact thing your insinuating will happen at city, im sure it would contravene uefa/fifa rules if etihad suddenly bumped up their sponsership deal to 100m a season in 2 years time especially as if you say the sheiks brother owns the company then im sure it wouldnt be allowed to be used as a way of balancing the books.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

See my post in the finances thread, we are almost rosey imho with our finances from this year accounts (released year from now), im sure platini has said something about any sponsership deals signed would need to be proved as market value or words to that effect if I remember rightly to stop the exact thing your insinuating will happen at city, im sure it would contravene uefa/fifa rules if etihad suddenly bumped up their sponsership deal to 100m a season in 2 years time especially as if you say the sheiks brother owns the company then im sure it wouldnt be allowed to be used as a way of balancing the books.

Ah ok. Well Platini did meet with the City owners in Dubai of the Christmas period, who knows what happened in those discussions hopefully you're right about the sponsorship rules and it means City will comply like we would have to.