• Participation within this 'World Football' is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

Financial fair play? Yeah right...

Status
Not open for further replies.

kenada_blue said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/9364531.stm


Get spending kenwrong you blert cos theres is no way FIFA will stop the money spinning clubs from playing in Europe!
Click to expand...

Scuadamore is the biggest lying disingenuous horrible snide to inhabit this earth.

He's a pawn of Murdoch's evil empire.


Detest the snide.


"No-one in football is proud of the kind of wage inflation we've experienced, but equally we mustn't do anything that dampens the international appeal of our league"
Richard Scudamore

What a joke. Business as usual is what he's saying. Even though it's IMPOSSIBLE for this to be so.

Clueless him.
 
Last edited:
He's a knobhead. I don't like Platini but he's on the right track with this, football is trying it's best to alienate itself from the working class man but this may readdress the balance somewhat.
 
chicoazul said:
He's a knobhead. I don't like Platini but he's on the right track with this, football is trying it's best to alienate itself from the working class man but this may readdress the balance somewhat.
Click to expand...

It wont - the Platini rules are even more favourable to the established big clubs than the current system is (since noone can buy their way into the top rank now, those already established like Barca/Real/United etc are basically set up for life because their business models can generate far more cash than the rest), what he should have done is introduce a Europe-wide wage cap at a level of a middling, sensibly run Spanish*, French or German top flight club, and then enforced it.

* probably a hypothetical one
 

chicoazul said:
He's a knobhead. I don't like Platini but he's on the right track with this, football is trying it's best to alienate itself from the working class man but this may readdress the balance somewhat.
Click to expand...

He's not on the right track. This is more about keeping the Man Citys and Chelseas (and to a lesser extent a club like Hoffenheim) far far away from the later rounds of the Champions league. While I hate both teams the whole "you can only spend what revenues you get" rule is just a cover for the Juves, Barcas, Liverpools, Milans and Real Madrids of the world. If he was serious about "fair play" then he'd package that rule with even distribution of TV revenue throughout the respective leagues. The fact that clubs like Barca and Real Madrid get up to 100X what other teams like La Liga do in TV revenue is a joke and alot worse than what City is doing.
 
tsubaki said:
It wont - the Platini rules are even more favourable to the established big clubs than the current system is (since noone can buy their way into the top rank now, those already established like Barca/Real/United etc are basically set up for life because their business models can generate far more cash than the rest), what he should have done is introduce a Europe-wide wage cap at a level of a middling, sensibly run Spanish*, French or German top flight club, and then enforced it.

* probably a hypothetical one
Click to expand...

Agreed. And if you finish in a CL place you should be only allowed one major signing prior to the next season.
 
Lets see what Uefa enforce after this summer, expect the biggest bucks ever to be spent on the youngest prospects.
It is coming.
 
Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian said:
so is THIS how you get around the regulations.....
http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896...e-to-finalising-record-stadium-naming-rights-

Stadium naming rights basically, a record deal from an Abu Dhabi based company. Of course it isnt the sheik gifting them more to increase their turnover, how could anyone think such a thing.
Click to expand...

That's the issue there about the use of market rates to avoid “the possibility of circumnavigating the rules,”: which market are they using as a measure? As the artticle states, if you use all sports stadium naming rights then those in North America are astronomical and could lead to £200M worked into a club by legal means. By definition there is no such thing as a European market - the market is the market is the market...it's global or nothing at all.

The other way of 'circumnavigating' the Fair Play directive is to have multiple sponsors all observing the market rate that UEFA believe is correct...but the sheer volume of sponsors would add up to a hefty injection into the club each year.

One thing's for sure: if this Uefa Fair Play really did clip the wings of the big spending clubs then it wouldn't have seen the light of day as a piece of legislation. The powerful clubs in Europe would have done what they've always done - threatened to wreck Uefa and breakaway.
 

davek said:
That's the issue there about the use of market rates to avoid “the possibility of circumnavigating the rules,”: which market are they using as a measure? As the artticle states, if you use all sports stadium naming rights then those in North America are astronomical and could lead to £200M worked into a club by legal means. By definition there is no such thing as a European market - the market is the market is the market...it's global or nothing at all.

The other way of 'circumnavigating' the Fair Play directive is to have multiple sponsors all observing the market rate that UEFA believe is correct...but the sheer volume of sponsors would add up to a hefty injection into the club each year.

One thing's for sure: if this Uefa Fair Play really did clip the wings of the big spending clubs then it wouldn't have seen the light of day as a piece of legislation. The powerful clubs in Europe would have done what they've always done - threatened to wreck Uefa and breakaway.
Click to expand...

And citeh have also redeveloped the surrounding area which the council have green lit so that will rake in a further load of cash.

So add their clearout, the naming rights to a stadium they dont own, and the development project just means they'll ace this rule.

The rs too will be sound as anything to splash the cash as their record kit deal would clear this seasons losses. They're also going to sell naming rights go anfield I remember right.

The rules don't mean ****
 
I'd also like to know what Uefa are going to do about Fair Play in Spain with Real Madrid and Barcelona selling their broadcasting rights to the same company and raking in €1.1 billion per year whilst the rest of the Spanish Primera Liga teams are locked out and pick up crumbs from broadcasting. That's how the duopoly is preserved over there.

Incidentally, what's to stop clubs in England (if they were inconvenienced by the Fair Play legislation...which they wont be) scrapping collective bargaining over broadcast rights and launch it themselves or with a multi-platform service and coining it in that way? I suppose they'd see it as a club earning it's own revenue and leave it alone - as per the Barca/Madrid situation. Hardly Fair Play though is it?

Uefa Fair Play = 100% bullshit.
 
davek said:
That's the issue there about the use of market rates to avoid “the possibility of circumnavigating the rules,”: which market are they using as a measure? As the artticle states, if you use all sports stadium naming rights then those in North America are astronomical and could lead to £200M worked into a club by legal means. By definition there is no such thing as a European market - the market is the market is the market...it's global or nothing at all.

The other way of 'circumnavigating' the Fair Play directive is to have multiple sponsors all observing the market rate that UEFA believe is correct...but the sheer volume of sponsors would add up to a hefty injection into the club each year.

One thing's for sure: if this Uefa Fair Play really did clip the wings of the big spending clubs then it wouldn't have seen the light of day as a piece of legislation. The powerful clubs in Europe would have done what they've always done - threatened to wreck Uefa and breakaway.
Click to expand...

Thats nonsense. The markets are always defined on national boundaries (or EU common market) in a jurisdictional context.

The WTO only requires general standards for cross border trade and arbitrates in disputes but respects that individual countries are responsible for enforcement.


Some of you are also assuming that the legal text of the Financial Fair Play regulation is "fixed". If club's are distorting the regulation then you can expect UEFA to make a change probably on a three year revision basis.


UEFA have already commented that they will not allow club's to circumnavigate the rules with distorting "sponsorships".

The Naming rights may add to their "legal" revenue streams but it won't be the full strategy they have. My best guess is that they'll try and tie in Casinos and Hotels onto "the club" which is where they will try and balance this off.


One of the parts of the regulation is that club's will have to JUSTIFY (to UEFA) that their revenues are legitimate and in the spirit of the regulation

Basically if I'm UEFA and I see a £200million sponsorship deals and only £50million in gate receipts and £50million in merchandise I'm going to hammer them since the sponsorship is obviously twice the organic revenue of the club!

Plus justifications on what constitutes a sponsorship are clear also. If other businesses owned by the same owner of the club or related businesses are using this to pump money into the club, then there will be action from the authorities.



Oh and I've said it before and I'll say it again,

This regulation is being fronted by UEFA: but the EU commission (backed by national governments, including the UK) is behind this and if UEFA will not enforce it the EU commission will and they have legal powers to do so too.

This is since national governments and the EU is concerned at the levels of debt that have developed which are significant drain, in a time of national austerity. That and the social implications of football club's being bought by hedge funds and leveraged buyouts , the rising cost of tickets and social exclusion from national sports.
 
Last edited:
Matt Damon said:
Thats nonsense. The markets are always defined on national boundaries (or EU common market) in a jurisdictional context.

The WTO only requires general standards for cross border trade and arbitrates in disputes but respects that individual countries are responsible for enforcement.


Some of you are also assuming that the legal text of the Financial Fair Play regulation is "fixed". If club's are distorting the regulation then you can expect UEFA to make a change probably on a three year revision basis.


UEFA have already commented that they will not allow club's to circumnavigate the rules with distorting "sponsorships".

The Naming rights may add to their "legal" revenue streams but it won't be the full strategy they have. My best guess is that they'll try and tie in Casinos and Hotels onto "the club" which is where they will try and balance this off.


One of the parts of the regulation is that club's will have to JUSTIFY (to UEFA) that their revenues are legitimate and in the spirit of the regulation

Basically if I'm UEFA and I see a £200million sponsorship deals and only £50million in gate receipts and £50million in merchandise I'm going to hammer them since the sponsorship is obviously twice the organic revenue of the club!

Plus justifications on what constitutes a sponsorship are clear also. If other businesses owned by the same owner of the club or related businesses are using this to pump money into the club, then there will be action from the authorities.



Oh and I've said it before and I'll say it again,

This regulation is being fronted by UEFA: but the EU commission (backed by national governments, including the UK) is behind this and if UEFA will not enforce it the EU commission will and they have legal powers to do so too.

This is since national governments and the EU is concerned at the levels of debt that have developed which are significant drain, in a time of national austerity. That and the social implications of football club's being bought by hedge funds and leveraged buyouts , the rising cost of tickets and social exclusion from national sports.
Click to expand...

But that wont happen. Uefa will easily just say "yup, that's fine" and the EU wont bother wasting time investigating is Barca, Real, Inter, Citeh, Liverpool all have OTT sponsorship deals. All the clubs have to do is prove that..."a list of sponsors wanted to sponsor us, we went for the highest bidder - thats business"

Naming rights of a stadium is perfectly valid and with the Citeh owners...they're astute business men that will make sure that even though the companies naming the stadium are owned by the same people will pass the rules. Increasing ticket prices are perfectly valid. £25million a year kit deals are perfectly valid.

There is no way a club is going to be barred from Champions League or Europa League competitions based on these rules...unless its some ****ty club from Belgium that no one has ever heard about. Man Citeh are the new blood in town. UEFA and FIFA love money. The two love each other and they dont want their competition tarnished so because UEFA are covering their backs because the EU have had a word, no team will get a banning unless their finances are absolutely toilet.
 
kenada_blue said:
But that wont happen. Uefa will easily just say "yup, that's fine" and the EU wont bother wasting time investigating is Barca, Real, Inter, Citeh, Liverpool all have OTT sponsorship deals. All the clubs have to do is prove that..."a list of sponsors wanted to sponsor us, we went for the highest bidder - thats business"

Naming rights of a stadium is perfectly valid and with the Citeh owners...they're astute business men that will make sure that even though the companies naming the stadium are owned by the same people will pass the rules. Increasing ticket prices are perfectly valid. £25million a year kit deals are perfectly valid.

There is no way a club is going to be barred from Champions League or Europa League competitions based on these rules...unless its some ****ty club from Belgium that no one has ever heard about. Man Citeh are the new blood in town. UEFA and FIFA love money. The two love each other and they dont want their competition tarnished so because UEFA are covering their backs because the EU have had a word, no team will get a banning unless their finances are absolutely toilet.
Click to expand...

You don't understand regulation. Or what's causing this regulation to be implemented.

And you don't understand the EU either in regard to regulating markets.


They're usually focused on "increasing competitiveness" whilst achieving a particular aim. This one being prevention of distortion of markets and the gradual reduction of unsustainable debt.

The authority (in this case UEFA) will get all the help they need from the EU - WHO DO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING.


And this is nothing to do with FIFA. Who are facing corruption investigation(s) in the UK, US and possibly EU level too.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top