Options
Financial Fair Play Rules - The Entire Concept
There's been a lot of talk of this of late.
Personally, I'm bit of an old skool type of football supporter and don't particularly like football finances.
But I would genuinely be grateful, if somebody could translate this.
I've been hearing a lot about Man City finding a way to get around this in generating an income of alternative means through Stadium naming rights, but couldn't myself gauge into the meaning because quite frankly, I'm clueless
Just as an outside guess, this to me is all about the big boys, but seemingly, it doesn't at all suggest that it's trying to promote a level playing field.
Cheers
Personally, I'm bit of an old skool type of football supporter and don't particularly like football finances.
But I would genuinely be grateful, if somebody could translate this.
I've been hearing a lot about Man City finding a way to get around this in generating an income of alternative means through Stadium naming rights, but couldn't myself gauge into the meaning because quite frankly, I'm clueless
Just as an outside guess, this to me is all about the big boys, but seemingly, it doesn't at all suggest that it's trying to promote a level playing field.
Cheers
0
Comments
Etihad will pay far more to name the stadium than the naming rights are worth, thus providing the club with near limitless resources, while still being classed as "club revenue"
And strictly forbidden under FFP rules so good luck to them trying it.
So what are they worth?
Dave
Where did you get the information from?
It is absolutely impossible to police, or enforceable in law.
What is to stop Sheikh Mansour buying a small club and buying Scot Sinclair off City for a £100m fee, and loaning him straight back?
Thats effectively what United have done for Crystal palace, giving them (CP) a huge advantage.
So may ways around it, it isnt going to happen.
It is one of the fundamental aspects of FFP, intra party transactions will be revalued at market value to stop anything like that happening. It doesn't have to enforceable in law, if you want to play in a UEFA competition you have to abide by UEFA's rules.
Yes, that's why we have the rule where you can only have 5 overseas players in your team.
No wait, it was unenforceable, thats right!
The waters become muddied when the clubs sign up to the rules put in place by the governing body.
Well not exactly but it will close off one potential avenue for clubs to at least have a go - like Blackburn did badly and Chelsea and City have done over a more sustained period. I really couldnt understand why so many fans were so desperate to put an end to the "Sugar Daddy" concept, yes it was jealousy i suppose, but if you remove that dream and make spending based on the size of the cub then you can pretty much put clubs in order before a ball has been kicked.
Im not sure that the owners of Chelsea and City have always spent their money in the right way but id defend their right to spend it and without the investment in Chelsea and City the PL would have been a hell of a lot more boring and i say that as a Man Utd fan.
Is it fair for clubs to run up huge £100m+ losses a season and play in a competition where other teams are trying their best to breakeven?
Man U effectively bought Palace? I think your analogy needs some attention.
Buying and loaning Zaha back to Palace gives them their fee (or some of it) up front, while ensuring ManU have Zaha for next season. It's for half a season, not a long term arrangement. Sale and loan back is perfectly reasonable financial deal and not uncommon in football and business generally. It would be unreasonable if the valuation was wrong of course (as Scott Sinclair for £100m, for example).
The proposed fair play rules should benefit all PL teams and allow the poorest to catch up with the richest. I see no reason why it will allow the richer clubs to do better. They aren't strict enough though, compared with the Bundesliga club licensing system.
A very fair post indeed, but I wouldn't expect anything else from Cantona.
It will be worse than the current situation, the haves and have nots of football will be established for generations to come. Big clubs generate big money, everyone else will "know their place" and fans can forget any dreams of their club joining the "elite".
People appear to think this will result in a return to the days when clubs like Derby and Forest were challenging for, and winning honours. It won't, the football hierarchy will be even more entrenched than it is today, and will remain so for many years to come.
But how can Etihad pay for the naming rights to a stadium that City do not own, it is only on a lease from the council (still something like 90 or so years left on it I think), so any revenue gained from naiming rights would surely go to the council, rather than the club I would have thought.
So, I don't quite understand how City can make money out of something that is not thiers to do so.
They can and are, so it shouldn't be that hard to understand.
It is not just Chelsea and City that have a sugar daddy - every club that is run at a loss has a sugar daddy.
Liverpool
QPR
Villa
Arsenal
It does annoy me when CFC and City are 'singled' out for criticism here. All Chelsea have is a sugar daddy that is prepared to put a hand into a deeper pocket. I wouldnt see any Arsenal fans complaining if their billionaires bought then David Villa in January, or of FSG gave Suarez 200k a week to stay with them.
I would also argue that even United has a sugar daddy, it just happens to be a bank.
I dont see this FFP getting anywhere close to happening, if it does we may as well keep the premiership as a closed shop, with no relegation. It would be pointless.
That doesn't really answer my point though does it?
So, can I get some naming rights over your house, even though I don't own it, should I be able to make money off of your house?
I can understand PSG doing their massive deal, but City's ground sponsorship doesn't make sense on any level, it is not their ground to sell, or to try and make money out of, it is the councils, they are just borrowing it for the next 90 odd years.
I'm not sure why you quoted my post when nothing you said has anything to do with it. I didn't criticise City or Chelsea. It's not hard to understand why City, Blackburn and Chelsea are singled out though as it was a rapid injection of cash in order to buy the title immediately rather than sustained growth over a period.
We are the reverse of a "Sugar Daddy" system, whereas clubs use their owners money to survive, our owners use our money to survive, so how you can class us in the same way, I am not quite following your logic there.
They aren't selling it, if you rent your business premises from a third party do they dictate what you call it? No they don't. It makes perfect sense.
It all depends on the contract they signed. Im sure the council signed away the naming rights.
Im not sure we got the best deal for the taxpayer with that stadium - it seems to have advantaged city hugely!
1. Clubs can only spend TV/Prize money after they've received it and not spend money based on expectations of getting it.
2. Transfer fees paid in full upfront not over X number of years.
3. Sugar daddy owners can spend what they like BUT as gifts to the club not loans/investments and also take responsibility for wages etc should the club go into admin.
4. No loaning of players between top flight clubs to stop clubs signing players they can't use but to stop others getting them or to get work permits in less stringent EU countries.
5. Restrict Non-EU signings to one player per club per season.
The thing that usually gets under most peoples skin is monopolies, where a few giants control the markets. Won't this just encourage a return to when one or two clubs dominated for decades ? The current system of sometimes rackless spending at least means more clubs "give it a go".
I can see how this will force clubs into a more sensible approach to spending, and fewer clubs will face the risk of going out of business. But can someone explain to me how it will "level the playing field" ?