Football club finances / FFP

[Magma]

explain how the sponsor one applies

 

[moomba]

sounds like they're on the right track to me. Obviously it's not perfect, and they'll tinker with it as they go forward.

What you don't want is to put off investors, but at the same time have in place curbs so you don't get the PSG/City scenario of guaranteed success. Football needs to be more than that and I applaud the efforts taking place.

It's pretty much saying that what we've done with our spending is a good thing. Spend money to boost income, with the intention of becoming profitable.

It's a vote of confidence in the way we have done things.

The "sponsor" one must have been brought in because of City again

Sponsor one wouldnt effect us in the slightest.

 

[moomba]

Local paper is saying that we (and PSG) won't qualify for the new rules. So after settling with UEFA based on a set of restrictions/fines/punishments, UEFA are now saying that they are going to impose another restriction on top of that. In short they are happy for other clubs to spend beyond our means but not us. Seems fair.

Another one for Dupont to argue in court I would imagine.

Think our intention is to post a profit this season (14/15) and increase profits beyond that. So I don't think the club will be overly troubled. But it's so typical of what this UEFA FFP is all about.

 

[Magma]

surprised if that actually happens because it would easily be so picked apart in court.

 

[moomba]

From Dupont

Reaction to UEFA’s changes to Financial Fair Play


Our clients (Mr. Daniel Striani, Manchester Football Club Supporters Club and supporters of Paris St Germain) have been informed of the amendments to the Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations adopted yesterday by UEFA.


First, they find the crucial measure taken, namely to allow a degree of over-spending (as long as this over-spending is guaranteed by shareholders of the club), to be precisely one of the measures they had requested before the courts. Before the judges, UEFA nevertheless argued during 2 years that such an alternative was totally incompatible with the objectives of FFP. Good to know that UEFA has finally updated its software…


UEFA says that with these amendments, FFP is evolving from a "period of austerity to a sustainable growth period." In more direct terms, UEFA is simply moving from an entirely illegal rule to a rule that becomes a little bit less illegal.


Indeed, in competition law, any excessive restriction of the freedom of enterprise is by definition illegal. With these amendments yesterday, UEFA is therefore fully confessing that the previous version of the rule was excessive and therefore illegal under competition law.


The questions referred by the Court of First Instance in Brussels to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have now been registered with the European Supreme Court under the case number C-299/15.


UEFA has appealed to the Brussels Court of Appeal of the decision of the trial judge, while stating publicly that it is fully convinced that the ECJ will confirm the legality of the regulation. If this is the case, one wonders why the UEFA makes every effort to try to delay this necessary "European game"? Why is it "playing the clock"? And why is it so desperate to avoid playing that game on its natural pitch, i.e. before the ECJ? To ask the question is, in effect, to answer it.


The questions currently before the ECJ are clearly more relevant than ever since, on the one hand, the ECJ will judge the legality of the rules that UEFA has applied to all European clubs for several years (until today) and, on the other hand, it will - by contrast - assess the legality of the new version of the regulation.


Finally, we are particularly puzzled about the fact that, according to UEFA. some clubs (those already sanctioned or under agreement procedure) will not immediately benefit from the adopted amendments. At first sight, this is absolutely discriminatory. Our clients reserve the right to inject this issue into the proceedings.


Jean-Louis DUPONT Martin HISSEL

 

[WealstoneRaider]

So exactly why do you think UEFA have a personal vendetta against you and PSG then? Oh right, I remember it's because they want to protect the interest of the so called big clubs

9/11 was an inside job, Diana was bumped off by the illuminati and Elvis runs a pie and mash shop in Clacton-on-Sea right?

 

[Magma]

yes, elvis' balti's are tremendous

 

[moomba]

So exactly why do you think UEFA have a personal vendetta against you and PSG then? Oh right, I remember it's because they want to protect the interest of the so called big clubs

9/11 was an inside job, Diana was bumped off by the illuminati and Elvis runs a pie and mash shop in Clacton-on-Sea right?

No. The big clubs want to protect the interests of the big clubs.

No conspiracy, UEFA is just too spineless to stop it happening.

When asked how long the fairer distribution of champions league revenue (something that would benefit the likes of Spurs) had been postponed as a trade off for FFP do you know what Platini's answer was?

"I'll have to ask Rummenige". I guess Rummenige is taking his time coming up with an answer for that.

Do you know what the original focus of UEFA's FFP was? Clubs with large debts, something that is pretty much ignored under the current rules.

Back then, as with the new rules announced today, clubs short term spending wasnt/isnt considered a bad thing.

 

[moomba]

Suddenly a bit worried about FFP again.

Expect a new toolkit will be brought out soon with a whole host of retrospective changes that clubs can do nothing about.

Dupont will take a few years to destroy FFP through the courts. But a lot can happen between now and then.

 

[ADL9798]

Wasn't this all reported a while back? I thought it had been known for some time that the purpose of this proposed loosening of FFP was to allow for a period of accelerated investment from a new owner (ie to help clubs find new owners and to allow those owners to spend aggressively for 1-2 years & push up the table before returning to sustainable levels) because certain clubs were struggling to find a buyer, not to allow established clubs to spend like crazy & forget about FFP?

I can't remember reading anything which indicated it was going to allow the top 10 financial powerhouse clubs like United, City, Liverpool, PSG etc to spend in an unrestricted manner unless they were sold to new owners so nothing in that MEN article is particularly surprising, correct me if I'm wrong but they're not hitting you with anything new it's just that you're still under the same restrictions which you agreed to last year for failing to meet FFP isn't it?

 

[pantskyle]

Wasn't this all reported a while back? I thought it had been known for some time that the purpose of this proposed loosening of FFP was to allow for a period of accelerated investment from a new owner (ie to help clubs find new owners and to allow those owners to spend aggressively for 1-2 years & push up the table before returning to sustainable levels) because certain clubs were struggling to find a buyer, not to allow established clubs to spend like crazy & forget about FFP?

I can't remember reading anything which indicated it was going to allow the top 10 financial powerhouse clubs like United, City, Liverpool, PSG etc to spend in an unrestricted manner unless they were sold to new owners so nothing in that MEN article is particularly surprising, correct me if I'm wrong but they're not hitting you with anything new it's just that you're still under the same restrictions which you agreed to last year for failing to meet FFP isn't it?

Those big clubs should turn biggest profits, like United does.

 

[moomba]

Wasn't this all reported a while back? I thought it had been known for some time that the purpose of this proposed loosening of FFP was to allow for a period of accelerated investment from a new owner (ie to help clubs find new owners and to allow those owners to spend aggressively for 1-2 years & push up the table before returning to sustainable levels) because certain clubs were struggling to find a buyer, not to allow established clubs to spend like crazy & forget about FFP?

It's been rumoured since Rummenige came out with his "we have to help AC and Inter Milan because they have great history" comments. But confirmed today.

I can't remember reading anything which indicated it was going to allow the top 10 financial powerhouse clubs like United, City, Liverpool, PSG etc to spend in an unrestricted manner unless they were sold to new owners so nothing in that MEN article is particularly surprising, correct me if I'm wrong but they're not hitting you with anything new it's just that you're still under the same restrictions which you agreed to last year for failing to meet FFP isn't it?

They havent released detail, but apparently clubs (except City/PSG etc) will be able to enter into an agreement with UEFA to overspend before returning to profit.

Pretty much exactly what we did to get a £49m fine.

I don't think the club needs a new owner to qualify, but detail is light on that.

Providing we met our targets last year, which failing more retrospective rule changes we should have done quite easily we should be operating without sanction from this season. That was clearly written in the settlement agreement.

Although by the looks we have now received an additional penalty a year down the track by being unable to work under the same rules as our competitors.

Again, I don't think we have any intention of increasing losses in the short, medium or long term. More the principal of receiving a punishment, and once that punishment has been completed getting another one.

All the more galling is that the sort of spending now being talked about as good for the game is pretty much exactly what we got the punishment for.

 

[ADL9798]

It's been rumoured since Rummenige came out with his "we have to help AC and Inter Milan because they have great history" comments. But confirmed today.

They havent released detail, but apparently clubs (except City/PSG etc) will be able to enter into an agreement with UEFA to overspend before returning to profit.

Pretty much exactly what we did to get a £49m fine.

I don't think the club needs a new owner to qualify, but detail is light on that.

Providing we met our targets last year, which failing more retrospective rule changes we should have done quite easily we should be operating without sanction from this season. That was clearly written in the settlement agreement.

Although by the looks we have now received an additional penalty a year down the track by being unable to work under the same rules as our competitors.

Again, I don't think we have any intention of increasing losses in the short, medium or long term. More the principal of receiving a punishment, and once that punishment has been completed getting another one.

All the more galling is that the sort of spending now being talked about as good for the game is pretty much exactly what we got the punishment for.

Fair enough.

 

[moomba]

From our local paper

After initially briefing the media that the new rules only apply to new owners of clubs, Uefa have now said they will also apply to anyone who feels the need to spend to revamp the club.

 

[WealstoneRaider]

Does that mean revamping the club or the squad?

 

[moomba]

Does that mean revamping the club or the squad?

Whatever they choose. Basically all clubs (bar the exceptions) have got the green light to do what we've done.

Just need to ask Gill/Rummeniges permission first.

 

[moomba]

Worth mentioning also that under PSGs settlement with UEFA they agreed restrictions until the 16/17 financial year. So if they are restriction free this year that settlement has effectively been scrapped. With us, we faced restrictions but provided we met certain targets all restrictions would be lifted this season.

So will be very interesting if theres has been lifted.

 

[moomba]

 

[moomba]

FORBES' TOP 50 MOST VALUABLE SPORTS TEAMS IN THE WORLD
1. Real Madrid (Club members) £2,087m ($3,263million)

2. Dallas Cowboys (Jerry Jones) £2,047m ($3,200m)

2. New York Yankees (Steinbrenner family) £2,047m ($3,200m)

4. Barcelona (Club members) £2,023m ($3,163m)

5. Manchester United (Glazer family) £1,985m ($3,104m)

6. Los Angeles Lakers (Jerry Buss Family Trusts, Philip Anschutz) £1,663m ($2,600m)

6. New England Patriots (Robert Kraft) £1,663m ($2,600m)

8. New York Knicks (Madison Square Garden Company) £1,599m ($2,500m)

9. Los Angeles Dodgers (Guggenheim Baseball Management) £1,535m ($2,400m)

9. Washington Redskins (Daniel Snyder) £1,535m ($2,400m)

11. Bayern Munich (Club members) £1,502m ($2,347m)

12. Boston Red Sox (John Henry, Thomas Werner) £1,343m ($2,100m)

12. New York Giants (John Mara, Steven Tisch) £1,343m ($2,100m)

14. Chicago Bulls (Jerry Reinsdorf) £1,279m ($2,000m)

14. San Francisco Giants (Charles Johnson) £1,279m ($2,000m)

16. Houston Texans (Robert McNair) £1,183m ($1,850m)

17. Chicago Cubs (Ricketts Family) £1,151m ($1,800m)

17. New York Jets (Robert Wood Johnson IV) £1,151m ($1,800m)

19. Philadelphia Eagles (Jeffrey Lurie) £1,119m ($1,750m)

20. Boston Celtics (Wycliffe & Irving Grousbeck, Robert Epstein, Stephen Pagliuca) £1,087m ($1,700m)

20. Chicago Bears (McCaskey family) £1,087m ($1,700m)

22. Los Angeles Clippers (Steve Ballmer) £1,023m ($1,600m)

22. San Francisco 49ers (John & Denise DeBartolo York) £1,023m ($1,600m)

24. Baltimore Ravens (Stephen Bisciotti) £959m ($1,500m)

24. Brooklyn Nets (Mikhail Prokhorov, Bruce Ratner) £959m ($1,500m)

26. Denver Broncos (Pat Bowlen Trust) £927m ($1,450m)

27. Indianapolis Colts (James Irsay) £895m ($1,400m)

27. St Louis Cardinals (William DeWitt Jr) £895m ($1,400m)

29. Green Bay Packers (Shareholder-owned) £879m ($1,375m)

29. Manchester City (Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan) £879m ($1,375m)

31. Chelsea (Roman Abramovich) £876m ($1,370m)

32. Ferrari (Fiat Group) £863m ($1,350m)

32. New York Mets (Fred & Jeff Wilpon, Saul Katz) £863m ($1,350m)

32. Pittsburgh Steelers (Daniel Rooney, Art Rooney II) £863m ($1,350m)

35. Seattle Seahawks (Paul Allen) £851m ($1,330m)

36. Arsenal (Stanley Kroenke) £836 ($1,307m)

37. Golden State Warriors (Joe Lacob, Peter Guber) £831m ($1,300m)

37. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (Arturo Moreno) £831m ($1,300m)

37. Miami Dolphins (Stephen Ross) £831m ($1,300m)

37. Toronto Maple Leafs (Bell Canada, Rogers Communications) £831m ($1,300m)

41. Washington Nationals (Lerner Family) £819m ($1,280m)

42. Carolina Panthers (Jerry Richardson, Carolina PSLFC) £799m ($1,250m)

42. Houston Rockets (Leslie Alexander) £799m ($1,250m)

42. Philadelphia Phillies (Partnership led by Pat Gillick) £799m ($1,250m)

45. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Glazer Family) £783m ($1,225m)

46. Texas Rangers (Ray Davis, Bob Davis) £780m ($1,220m)

47. Miami Heat (Micky Arison) £752m ($1,175m)

48. Tennessee Titans (Adams Family) £742m ($1,160m)

49. Atlanta Braves (Liberty Media) £736m ($1,150m)

49. Dallas Mavericks (Mark Cuban) £736m ($1,150m)

49. Minnesota Vikings (Zygmunt Wilf) £736m ($1,150m)



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...r-League-club-big-money-10.html#ixzz3g3jdGYOk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[pantskyle]

Have a feeling United will jump to first next time around.

 

[ADL9798]

@JakeFCohen: Commercial revenue (£m)

MUFC: 189
MCFC: 166
CFC: 109
LFC: 104

AFC: 77
THFC: 42
EFC: 13

Top commercial directors = worth weight in gold

No new information here, but it's the first time I've realized just how far off the pace Arsenal are relative to their rivals in terms of generating commercial revenue, on face value it would seem that they are certainly not making the most of their enormous brand value, exposure and supporter base. Just what are they doing (or not doing) to be so far behind the other 4? Is there something that I've missed?

 

[WealstoneRaider]

@JakeFCohen: Commercial revenue (£m)

MUFC: 189
MCFC: 166
CFC: 109
LFC: 104

AFC: 77
THFC: 42
EFC: 13

Top commercial directors = worth weight in gold

No new information here, but it's the first time I've realized just how far off the pace Arsenal are relative to their rivals in terms of generating commercial revenue, on face value it would seem that they are certainly not making the most of their enormous brand value, exposure and supporter base. Just what are they doing (or not doing) to be so far behind the other 4? Is there something that I've missed?

How the * are City on £166m, just shy of Utd and miles ahead of Chelsea (won't even bother mentioning arsenal)

 

[Magma]

because we know what we're doing

 

[moomba]

How the **** are City on £166m, just shy of Utd and miles ahead of Chelsea (won't even bother mentioning arsenal)

- Abu Dhabi sponsorships, got some good contacts in that part of the world.

- plenty of work put into high end sponsors. Nexen Tyres, SAP, Nissan, Citibank in the past 12 months

- lots of new low end sponsors that all add up. Us and United seem to be getting loads of these, and it's always good to have an official Taiwanese noodle partner.

- should mention the CFG model which allows global companies to promote their product throughout the world, not just one market.

- hospitality/corporate tickets are counted as commercial income. Some clubs count it as matchday income.

Really think we're going to fly in this area in the next couple of years. Some of our big sponsorships are now undervalued, City Football Academy is open and is ripe for sponsors (you can see the spaces at the academy stadium just ready for a new corporate logo to be added). New 3rd tier of the South Stand provides advertising opportunities and has allowed both sides on the second level to be made exclusively corporate/hospitality.

Come back in 3 years time and I'll be surprised if we're not making £300m plus.

 

[WealstoneRaider]

What a load of old shat.

City's commercial revenue shouldn't even be a fifth of Uniteds. United have got about 20 times the amount of support City have. Liverpool, arsenal and Chelsea should also have far greater revenue streams.

So bent