Football club finances / FFP

[pantskyle]

I don't mind a good parma.

 

[Fryer Tuck]

and it's official. they're now officially an amateur club and will play in serie d next season.

102 years of proud history flushed down the toilet like it was nothing. feel for their fans.

baggio, buffon, crespo, thuram, cannavaro, zola, asprilla. just a few names to don the parma strip for 100+ games. just terrible.

Dino Baggio!


It is a horrible thing indeed. I can only hope that they will make a recovery similar to that to Fiorentina and Napoli. Get an owner that will pump in the cash and take better care of the club, and get them back into Serie A. Of course, this time around, they are officially amateur, which does make it harder (Fiorentina was C2 and Napoli C1). I could see Parma ending up like Como, in that it will take a while to get themselves back. But I hope for the sake of the club, they will storm the divisions (maybe even get a double promotion on the way to yet another Italian scandal) and return back to Serie A, stronger than ever.

Just an idea of how awesome they were:

 

[Magma]

i knew it was dino btw.

 

[moomba]

Duponts FFP case has been referred to the European Court.

Havent looked in detail but apparently that means the planned reduction of allowable losses from €45m to €30m will be postponed.

Also the European Court could declare FFP illegal.

On the face of it, seems like a big win for Dupont.

 

[ADL9798]

and it's official. they're now officially an amateur club and will play in serie d next season.

102 years of proud history flushed down the toilet like it was nothing. feel for their fans.

baggio, buffon, crespo, thuram, cannavaro, zola, asprilla. just a few names to don the parma strip for 100+ games. just terrible.

http://www.theguardian.com/football...-the-football-club-milked-for-all-their-worth

Terrible story. Just sounds like a case of shocking mismanagement and short-termism by the owner, such a shame that the club should have to carry the bucket like this for he and the board.

I know you're a firm proponent of clubs amassing debt to jump up the table and hopefully entice more lucrative sponsorship & investment in the club, but not every club has owners that are as sensible and more importantly as well resourced as City's, that can personally carry the risk for that sort of investment until the club becomes self sustainable. It becomes a massive issue for me when the owners put that risk on the club itself, as a Liverpool supporter I know this all too well after our experiences in 2008-2010.

The chances of a club like Parma actually being able to pay off that debt were slim to none, and these sorts of scenarios have got to be more heavily regulated by the leagues in future.

 

[moomba]

I know you're a firm proponent of clubs amassing debt to jump up the table and hopefully entice more lucrative sponsorship & investment in the club

Is he?

 

[Magma]

where on earth have i ever proclaimed to be a fan of 'amassing debt to jump up the table'?

that's a pretty poor comment really and you know it.

 

[moomba]

UEFA's response.

"UEFA takes note of the recent decision of the Brussels Court of First Instance in the Striani case challenging the UEFA Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.

"The Brussels Court has declared itself incompetent to hear this case on the merits. However, at the same time, the court referred a question to the European Court of Justice and also indicated that the reduction of the so called 'acceptable deviation' from €45 million to €30 million should be provisionally put on hold.

"UEFA considers it strange that a national court having no competence to hear a dispute on the merits would, at the same time, refer a question to the European Court of Justice or make a provisional order.

"In any event, UEFA remains fully confident that FFP is entirely in line with EU law, and that the European Court will in due course simply confirm this to be the case.

"In the meantime, UEFA will appeal this decision of the Brussels Court to the Court of Appeal. Since an appeal automatically suspends the ruling of the lower court, it means that UEFA can proceed with the next phase of implementation of FFP, as already planned and as supported by the vast majority of stakeholders in European football as well as the European Commission, European Parliament and Council of Europe.

"UEFA is, in addition, considering further adjustments to the FFP rules in light of the substantially improved position in European football club finance which has been brought about directly as a result of the implementation of FFP. This matter will be considered by the UEFA Executive Committee when it meets in Prague next week."

Hee hee

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Sounds like it's going to be dragged through the courts for a while yet......

 

[ADL9798]

Is he?

Probably a poor way of wording it and correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you both supported the idea of speculation (which given the way the finances of most football clubs are administrated is likely to result in the creation of debt one way or another) to improve the likelihood of success and further commercial opportunities for a club?

I'm just saying that for some clubs that's a viable strategy that I agree with in principle as long as they're well run/have greater certainty over existing and future revenue streams/have owners who can write off that debt if required. However, for a club like Parma who had already gone into administration less than 10 years previously, surely there should have been a safety net there and greater regulation of the sale of the club, the board and the strategies they were taking to prevent this kind of situation happening.

 

[moomba]

I've always supported controls on clubs putting their finances at risk. Pretty sure Kizza has to.

Pretty sure that neither of us are opposed to some form of FFP, just that this FFP has nothing to do with protecting clubs, and all about stopping clubs breaking into the elite.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ll-news/man-citys-victory-against-ffp-9527978

moomba NFGKizza

 

[moomba]

Platini better call the caterers. Get that £16m spent before we ask for it back.

 

[moomba]

UEFA have apparently appealed last weeks court decision, so it's as you were.

Suspect there will be some big changes announced to FFP in the coming days anyway.

 

[WealstoneRaider]

I've always supported controls on clubs putting their finances at risk. Pretty sure Kizza has to.

Pretty sure that neither of us are opposed to some form of FFP, just that this FFP has nothing to do with protecting clubs, and all about stopping clubs breaking into the elite.

This is complete tosh. You can only break into the elite with an owner like yours now - which is complete BS.

 

[moomba]

This is complete tosh. You can only break into the elite with an owner like yours now - which is complete BS.

If FFP was in place 5 years before it was we would still be struggling to make it up there. We wouldn't have been able to spend to improve our squad to the level where we qualified for the champions league. That brings in £30m of champions league revenue every year (rising to £50m next season). It also means we can attract more sponsors and sponsor money.

It was the lack of FFP that allowed us to get to the point where we earn £350m a season. If FFP was in place we would be definitely worse of as a club. I suspect the stadium expansion and academy would not have got off the ground, and we would still be in a position where we'd struggle to get top 4 calibre players to the club.

 

[WealstoneRaider]

Yes exactly, so it benefits the few (the extreme few) at the expense of everyone else - who are unable to expand naturally by gaining entry to the CL for one.

Unless you have about 20 (minimum) Sheik Mansour's waiting to invest in clubs around Europe then FFP is required. No one wants football to become a battle of who has the wealthiest owner - that's absurd.

 

[Magma]

so how exactly is ffp helping to bring football back to the working class?

 

[WealstoneRaider]

so how exactly is ffp helping to bring football back to the working class?

It's not - at least it's attempting to put the reigns on though.

It needs to go further, that's obvious

 

[Magma]

was football not being basically run by rich owners before roman came to chelsea? just that he was richer?

do you agree with what is occurring at inter milan, valencia and ac milan concerning outside investment to help them once again compete at the top level?

 

[moomba]

Yes exactly, so it benefits the few (the extreme few) at the expense of everyone else - who are unable to expand naturally by gaining entry to the CL for one.

No, FFP benefits that clubs that are already at the top, earning champions league revenue, earning the big sponsor dollars. Because it makes it that much harder for anyone else to come in and take over from them,

Unless you have about 20 (minimum) Sheik Mansour's waiting to invest in clubs around Europe then FFP is required. No one wants football to become a battle of who has the wealthiest owner - that's absurd.

We earn £347m last season. Spurs earned £181m. That's club revenue, not owners wealth or anything like that.

Under FFP that means that we can spend £166m more than Spurs every year on wages, transfers, coaching etc. How can Spurs ever compete with that?

Take out our commercial income (which contrary to popular belief does not all come from Sheikh Mansours pocket) and we earn as much from TV revenue and gate receipts as Spurs earn in total (£180m to your £181m). That's not taking the piss, that's just saying how much an advantage the clubs already at the top get. Now say Spurs want to tap into those huge revenues that you can earn from being one of the top clubs in the country, how do they do it?

The answer is, they can't under the current rules. Maybe without FFP they can raise investment as they did in the early 2000's to fund a squad building exercise. Get into that top 4 and then use the proceeds from it to hold off raids on your players, and continue to improve the squad.

 

[moomba]

It's not - at least it's attempting to put the reigns on though.

It needs to go further, that's obvious

Like I pointed out in the transfers thread, we can spend £160m without batting an eyelid under current FFP rules. It really isn't doing anything to make the competition fairer.

And one thing that would make the competition much fairer is a better distribution of champions league money throughout all clubs in the domestic competition. Guess which change in UEFA policy was sidelined as a tradeoff to allow for the introduction of FFP?

 

[WealstoneRaider]

Like I pointed out in the transfers thread, we can spend £160m without batting an eyelid under current FFP rules. It really isn't doing anything to make the competition fairer.

Without FFP you could spend a whole lot more though.

To be honest the whole of football is bent, and has been for a long time before abramovich and Mansour came along. But at the end of the day, football had a far more even playing field back in the 70s and 80s, and we need a little bit of that spirit back. Yes there were richer clubs then, but they were nowhere near as dominant year after year. There is no fun if you know who the top 6 are going to be every year - look how many different teams have finished in the top 6 in the last 6 seasons. And within that top 6 there is a top 3 or 4 every season. This will become stale, if it hasn't already

 

[moomba]

Ship sailed a long time ago.

We could spend more, but it's not FFP stopping us. From day 1 we were told that we wouldnt be a club that would just spend for the sake of it.

Nearly profitable last season and will be next season. I reckon history will show MCFC as a nice little earner for Sheikh Mansour.

 

[WealstoneRaider]

And I don't analyse figures, but City earning twice as much as Spurs strikes me as bent. Surely inflated sponsorship deals by companies affiliated to the UAE. As I say it's all bent