[Football] FFP The reality!

[Super Steve Earle]

Man City fined £49m - Reality is only £17m as £32m suspended.
Man City restricted to 21 players in Champions League - Reality is only used 21 this year and only plan the same next year.
Man City restricted to spending £49m next year - Reality is aren't planning to spend that much anyway.
Man City restricted to same wages bill next year as this year - Reality is planned to reduce it anyway.

Whilst £17m is not insignificant to most clubs, this surely amounts to a slap on the wrist to ensure it isn't challenged in court. It's clearly the right thing for a club our size to adhere to FFP to ensure we remain financially viable, but I rather hoped those clubs that breached it would feel a little more pain than initially seems to be the case.

 

[Irish_Seagull]

Rather than fining clubs because they spend their cash, they should put restrictions on the number of non English players they put out on the pitch

No more than 3 at a time

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Real & Barca got £100m more income from the differently structured Spanish TV deal so are in the clear..whole thing is a farce

 

[Dorset Seagull]

The only way something like this can work is by a points deduction. The flouting of the FFP rules is done in order to improve a team so they can achieve more points, ie be more successful, so it makes sense to make the penalty appropriate to that.

 

[aliakbanrafsanjali]

Why can't an individual with billions in the bank have a nice toy? If I had unlimited resources the super seagulls would benifit! Poorer clubs could bleed all they want! The only restriction should be, that when I walk away, I leave the club on a sound financial footing! If they really want fair play hammer the clubs with point deductions that use borrowed money! Also reduce parachute payouts too those clubs that gambled and lost. How is the championship fair play? When relegated clubs from the prem start with a rich kitty, while existing championship clubs and league 1promoted clubs start on zero?

 

[beorhthelm]

the only way to get compliance would have been being kicked out of the Champions League, as they originally intended. thats why owners want to spend the money, for the prestige (similar at FL level, say you cant be promoted). but UEFA bottled that and we end up with "tough" sanctions that dont mean a jot to already wealthy clubs.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Points deductions. Would sort is pronto.

 

[Pavilionaire]

City have done everyone a favour by confirming that the "penalty" will have no impact. This should force the authorities to reconsider so they take a harder line.

I agree that part of the penalty has to make the transgressors less competitive, so that involves points deductions or a redistribution of fines to other clubs.

 

[drew]

Rather than fining clubs because they spend their cash, they should put restrictions on the number of non English players they put out on the pitch

No more than 3 at a time

Asked and answered on so many occasions. Would breach EU rules on restriction of trade. Would be nice but won't happen. (Cue a host of Ukip supporters using this as a reason to vote for them!!!)

Man City fined £49m - Reality is only £17m as £32m suspended.
Man City restricted to 21 players in Champions League - Reality is only used 21 this year and only plan the same next year.
Man City restricted to spending £49m next year - Reality is aren't planning to spend that much anyway.
Man City restricted to same wages bill next year as this year - Reality is planned to reduce it anyway.

Whilst £17m is not insignificant to most clubs, this surely amounts to a slap on the wrist to ensure it isn't challenged in court. It's clearly the right thing for a club our size to adhere to FFP to ensure we remain financially viable, but I rather hoped those clubs that breached it would feel a little more pain than initially seems to be the case.

I agree that the £17m is a bit of a slap on the wrist for Man City but it's all very well them saying they weren't going to spend big and that they were going to reduce wages but they do have to carry that through or face further sanctions next year including the suspended part of the fine. Without this I suspect City would have spent big as they flopped in the CL which must now be their next target.

Real & Barca got £100m more income from the differently structured Spanish TV deal so are in the clear..whole thing is a farce

Agree that this tips the balance in their favour. Uefa should have rules for the distribution of tv income for domestic leagues but not sure how they would impose this.

The only way something like this can work is by a points deduction. The flouting of the FFP rules is done in order to improve a team so they can achieve more points, ie be more successful, so it makes sense to make the penalty appropriate to that.

But I believe Uefa have no power to impose points deductions for domestic leagues. However I agree the principle could be applied to the PL and FL rather than fines. I believe PL sanctions come in next season so we'll see who has transgressed what penalties they get.

Why can't an individual with billions in the bank have a nice toy? If I had unlimited resources the super seagulls would benifit! Poorer clubs could bleed all they want! The only restriction should be, that when I walk away, I leave the club on a sound financial footing! If they really want fair play hammer the clubs with point deductions that use borrowed money! Also reduce parachute payouts too those clubs that gambled and lost. How is the championship fair play? When relegated clubs from the prem start with a rich kitty, while existing championship clubs and league 1promoted clubs start on zero?

I agree but the reality is they don't walk away from the money. When they leave, they tend to leave the club in debt.

 

[beorhthelm]

those asking for points deductions... seem to forget this is a UEFA rule, not Premier League. UEFA have no authority to dock points on the Leagues. as far as i know there arent any actual PL rules on FFP.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Possible silly question time - I assume that the fine ( whatever the level ) then needs to appear as expenditure in this years accounts ? If so then if a club plans to abide by FFP in the future not only will they have coughed up the fine but will have effectively had that amount removed from their playing budget so the fine is actually worth double ? So Man City pay the £17m fine in this financial year and next financial year they will have £17m less to spend on players also ?

*** that might be very badly explained ***

 

[KZNSeagull]

those asking for points deductions... seem to forget this is a UEFA rule, not Premier League. UEFA have no authority to dock points on the Leagues. as far as i know there arent any actual PL rules on FFP.

There are rules for the Premier League - Max loss 105m over 3 seasons and other "really punitive" stuff. On the front page here http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php. Sanctions include points deductions.

 

[KZNSeagull]

double...

 

[halbpro]

those asking for points deductions... seem to forget this is a UEFA rule, not Premier League. UEFA have no authority to dock points on the Leagues. as far as i know there arent any actual PL rules on FFP.

There are PL rules on FFP, but they are different to UEFA's. Essentially clubs in the PL and UEFA competitions can, in principle, be punished twice, although the punishment and criteria are different. Also Premier League restrictions are being rolled out between this December and December 2016, so it's a slower pace. Lots of details here.

As for a points deduction, could UEFA not apply a smaller points deduction in the group stages?

 

[dejavuatbtn]

This is another example of UEFA, FIFA, FA, PL and FL coming not communicating and coming up with there own rules when this whole issue needs to be handled consistently. We'll never get that because they have all got their own agendas.

 

[Triggaaar]

Possible silly question time - I assume that the fine ( whatever the level ) then needs to appear as expenditure in this years accounts ? If so then if a club plans to abide by FFP in the future not only will they have coughed up the fine but will have effectively had that amount removed from their playing budget so the fine is actually worth double ? So Man City pay the £17m fine in this financial year and next financial year they will have £17m less to spend on players also ?

No. The £17m fine will be an expense in the accounts, but not for FFP purposes.

Here's a crazy FFP idea:
How about clubs can spend as much as they like, as long as all debt is underwritten by the owners/board.

 

[Everest]

those asking for points deductions... seem to forget this is a UEFA rule, not Premier League. UEFA have no authority to dock points on the Leagues. as far as i know there arent any actual PL rules on FFP.

No, they don't in the PL, but they do in the Champions League (which is where this thread started)

 

[Brovion]

Why can't an individual with billions in the bank have a nice toy? If I had unlimited resources the super seagulls would benifit! Poorer clubs could bleed all they want! The only restriction should be, that when I walk away, I leave the club on a sound financial footing! If they really want fair play hammer the clubs with point deductions that use borrowed money! Also reduce parachute payouts too those clubs that gambled and lost. How is the championship fair play? When relegated clubs from the prem start with a rich kitty, while existing championship clubs and league 1promoted clubs start on zero?

But if you walked away would you leave the club on sound footing? Or would you leave it with a load of expensive players on contracts that it could no longer afford? This might be what's happened/happening at Reading.

Another problem is that other clubs, without the benefit of mega-rich backers, overspend in an attempt to keep up. This is often driven by fans who demand 'investment' in the team when they see it struggling against the richer clubs. And yes, it'll be the same fans who will also moan like crazy about being rinsed for every penny by a desperately cash-hungry board and will then bleat that "It isn't our fault" when it all goes tits up and they're heading towards Administration.

The whole thing results in the absurd situation we've got now where a well-run club like Brighton, virtually selling out its stadium every week, still posts stonking great losses as opposed to decent profits. Forget punishments, FFP should be about financial sanity.

 

[Insel affe]

The only clear thing I can fathom from FFP so far is.......... It is anything but fair

 

[Rugrat]

I agree but the reality is they don't walk away from the money. When they leave, they tend to leave the club in debt.

FFP needs ripping up and starting again.

You're right it is the debt that gets them. I think they put cash in but then sign players and other commitments to long term contracts that cannot be covered if they walk away - current QPR is a good example, if Fernandes walks they are uber fukked!

So for me, at the core of FFP v2 should be a methodology that doesn't allow a club to have current and future commitments beyond what is reasonable (historic) recurring revenue with the difference made up of either readily available capital or cash that can be drawn on to meet those commitments.

It would be fairly easy to control with clubs having to submit regular Management Accounts and a fairly routine audit approach

I really have no idea why it isn't handled in this sort of way ... it would also allow lower league clubs the occasional opportunity of much needed investment