Abramovich fears UEFA's financial fair play rules

[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.

[Madmax 9,219]

we are almost rosey imho with our finances from this year accounts (released year from now)

Exactly.

The media can't be arsed with actually thinking through why we've not signed players so far and hence find it easier to put up an article saying Roman's scared of those rules.

[strong centreback 157]

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.

Well the owner can pump 35m in the first year then less over the next 2 years so I wouldnt be suprised for the plans to happen but after the first year of doing it id wager platini giving clubs longer and allowing owners to pump more money in, he will use an excuse along the lines of to many teams are to far away from being even, he will then alter the original plans to a 5 year break in period with the owners allowed to pump more money in the first 2 years then the original plan for the remaining 3, he gives the big clubs longer to break even without losing to much face in the eyes of the media and fans, can anyone really see real madrid, barcelona etc not being able to play in uefas showpiece event? I cant it will be those teams that get the rules bent to suit and we will be able to follow in their slipstream, imo that is what man city are banking on and even then they will be very lucky to make the cut, as I reckon it will take man city 10 years to break even and thats like us having the debts written off by the owner each year, as they have far superior expenditure than us and im not talking about transfer fees.

[Henrique 9,133]

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.

Do you believe that the football world is against Chelsea ? That Platini created this financial rules just to fuck Chelsea ?

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Do you believe that the football world is against Chelsea ? That Platini created this financial rules just to fuck Chelsea ?

Not at all. These rules are a great idea like I've said.

But it will be apparent that the likes of Madrid will get away with it. I don't even think City can, or United. I do believe Platini does target these rules at English football more than any other though.

[strong centreback 157]

Not at all. These rules are a great idea like I've said.

But it will be apparent that the likes of Madrid will get away with it. I don't even think City can, or United. I do believe Platini does target these rules at English football more than any other though.

Goes witout saying that seeing as when announced he mentioned our club by name as an example, english football has the most money in it and fifa/uefa dont like it, more than likely because they realise that if clubs get fed up with uefa that our top clubs in england will be the first to march off and setup a european super league with its own managing body (uefa/fifa), the top clubs have alot of power in the modern game and if they wanted to they could go setup the ESL tomorrow, and if that happened where would uefa/fifa money come from?

[Henrique 9,133]

Not at all. These rules are a great idea like I've said.

But it will be apparent that the likes of Madrid will get away with it. I don't even think City can, or United. I do believe Platini does target these rules at English football more than any other though.

I disagree.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

I disagree.

I hope you're right lol

[Styles 9,790]

The new rules basically want to keep the status quo. The don't want clubs like Barcelona or Madrid to ever come under threat from upstart clubs that can compete financially. For anybody who thinks these new rules are good you will see how wrong you are in10 years time when we can't compete with the likes of Real, Barcelona, Manchester and Arsenal because we don't make anywhere near as much money as they do. They all have bigger stadiums and Real + Barca make more money through stadiums and TV deals.

[Madmax 9,219]

^That. FIFA and it's cronies are fucking political mugs. They cannot bear their established darlings being outshone by new arrivals.