Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Uefa Fair Play rules level the playing field?

  • 08-10-2010 11:48am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,153 ✭✭✭


    Good article below and the Big problem for City appears to be player depreciation.
    For instance take Luka Modric he cost us £16m and was signed on a four year contract that means he costs the club £4m pounds a year for the four years.
    This means City with their recent spending spree are likely to be hit with a minimum 50m pounds a year loss, given that currently the clubs wages outstrip it's turnover the effect could mean fifth becomes the new fourth and it should also put an end to truely ridiculous transfer spending.

    That said the clubs have a three year rolling period to reduce the losses to the acceptable level. Which AFAIK is 45 million in 2013 but by 2018 all clubs must be breaking even if they wish to compete in the Uefa Champions League.
    The £250m millstone that could cost City their European future

    Club admit they face a ‘huge challenge’ to pass financial test after Uefa makes a tough new stand
    By Nick Harris

    Friday, 8 October 2010

    city_469987t.jpg
    GETTY IMAGES
    City have spent huge amounts of money on players









    Manchester City face a much tougher fight than they expected if they are to avoid a ban from European football from 2013 onwards because of a £250m burden that must remain on their books for the next five years.
    Uefa has told The Independent that this nine-figure sum, accrued from recent transfers, cannot be written off as a loss on next year's accounts alone, but must be spread over the length of the relevant players' contracts. As a result, the club must rethink its strategy as it hopes to meet the terms of Uefa's Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations, which demand that, from 2013, clubs must lose no more than £13m per year or risk being shut out of all European competitions.
    Uefa's calculations are made as an average over a rolling three-year period and, though this would allow some flexibility, City's recent spree means they will be starting each year until 2015 some £50m in the red, before they spend another penny. The club acknowledges privately that "a huge challenge" lies ahead to meet Uefa's break-even targets.


    Uefa's head of club licensing, Andrea Traverso, the man in charge of monitoring, has told The Independent that any "wipeout" of historic spending would "be seen as a way to circumvent the rules, and that is not allowed".
    The news comes as City's Manchester rivals, United, publish accounts today that are expected to comply comfortably with FFP, not least because they make enormous operating profits. A British record figure of more than £100m for 2009-10 is expected when United post their latest results, even though the overall losses are expected to be tens of millions as a result of interest payments, plus exceptional currency exchange losses and refinancing fees.
    The FFP rules dictate that clubs must effectively break even from 2011-12 onwards, when monitoring begins. Two seasons of finances will be considered for entry into the Champions League or Europa League in the 2013-14 season. Initial losses averaging £19.6m per year will be allowed, but from 2012-13, losses will be capped at £13m per year (averaged over three-years), and from 2013-14, be capped at £8.7m per year.
    The size of City's task is illustrated by the fact they made a loss of £121.3m in 2009-10, and expect losses of £130m-plus in 2010-11. The trend is hugely problematic and the transfer "backlog" is a damaging part.
    Because City will not be allowed to clear that in one go, the £250m will have to be amortised (spread out) over five years. In simple terms, City will start every season between now and 2014-15 with a red hole in the accounts averaging £50m per season – for players they already own – before a ball is kicked. If they sign anyone else from now on, the deficit will only get bigger.
    Amortisation of transfer spending is a necessary requirement under FFP regulations relating to British clubs. It makes no difference if City have actually already physically handed over all the money to the selling clubs for the players they have brought in. For accounting purposes, the fees need to be amortised over the length of the players' contract.
    The £250m is an estimate calculated by The Independent from data within City's 2009-10 financial accounts, released last week, and has been corroborated by sources with insight into City's financial situation. City's net spending on players including Wayne Bridge, Gareth Barry, Carlos Tevez and Yaya Touré since June 2008 has been £332.6m and the gross spending far higher.
    City hope to meet the FFP requirements by achieving giant leaps in income, especially from Middle East firms; by playing Champions League football for the next two years (a sizeable earner); and by producing their own young stars for the first team and for sale in the near future. But there are no guarantees of success – and other challenges. The biggest of those is a wage bill that grew to £133.3m in 2009-10, which alone was greater than City's entire income of £125m. That wage bill is expected to rise to around £160m in 2010-11; again that bill is expected to be close to the club's total income.
    In 2009-10, the club's operating losses – income minus operating expenses, of which wages are the biggest single part – were £55.1m, and will rise.
    City argue, with some justification, that owner Sheikh Mansour's investment of hundreds of millions is rebuilding not just a club but a community, with spending on everything from facilities to improved pies, a better website and an academy aimed at nurturing home-grown players. (No other club can better City's figure of fielding seven full England internationals in league games alone this season, albeit not all raised in Manchester).
    And if City exceed Uefa's FFP limits solely because of spending before the rules were published, punishment may be reduced if not avoided. But even City insiders acknowledge they have actively chosen to keep on spending in 2010 – on players and wages – on the "if you don't spend, you don't grow" principle.
    But as one Uefa source said: "While many clubs have been moving actively towards compliance, it is clear others are still deciding to go the other way... The rules are clear, and when they apply, they will apply."
    Other European giants at risk...
    Internazionale
    The reigning European champions are also the continental kings of spending, with losses of £132m to June 2009, £126m to June 2008 and £178m the year before, or £436m in three years, underwritten by the Moratti family. Gargantuan transfer fees and wages need slashing.
    Red Bull Salzburg
    Bought by the Red Bull drinks firm in 2006, which has subsidised multi-million pound seasonal losses ever since. Titles have been consistent since (three in five years), under coaches and with players previously out of financial reach. But Uefa will take a keen interest.
    Schalke
    The Bundesliga deserves its reputation for being well-run financially but Schalke's debt climbed to £121m in their last financial year after losses of £14m. The parent company debt is bigger still at £212m, although that is partly due to stadium funding.
    Zenit St Petersburg
    Owned and bankrolled by Russia's largest company, the gas firm Gazprom, which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on facilities, players and wages since 2005.The Uefa Cup win of 2008 was one result. The spending of £38m during the summer was typical, and unsustainable.
    Nick Harris




Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    Great news, moar of this


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 325 ✭✭I-Shot-Jr


    Haha given that criteria and the amount of clubs that will be banned from Europe we can excpect Shamrock Rovers or Pats to be crowned European Champions any year now!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,153 ✭✭✭everdead.ie


    I-Shot-Jr wrote: »
    Haha given that criteria and the amount of clubs that will be banned from Europe we can excpect Shamrock Rovers or Pats to be crowned European Champions any year now!

    Their are some very well run clubs Liverpool Utd Spurs and Arsenal Utd and Liverpool have been crippled nt intrest repayments but with new owners Liverpool will be fine Utd once the Pik's are taken care off will be sorted. Bayern are in great shape too.
    The likes of Real , Inter, Milan and Barca though might have to reasses their business plans.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 325 ✭✭I-Shot-Jr


    Their are some very well run clubs Liverpool Utd Spurs and Arsenal Utd and Liverpool have been crippled nt intrest repayments but with new owners Liverpool will be fine Utd once the Pik's are taken care off will be sorted. Bayern are in great shape too.
    The likes of Real , Inter, Milan and Barca though might have to reasses their business plans.

    Ah yeah I was just taking the mick. I think its high time these rules came to be, hopefully FIFA and most countries' respective FAs will attempt to do something similar. Maybe the glamour and cash rich aspects of footballers, their clubs and lifestyles are part of the attraction for some sports fans, (I can't imagine why though) but I for one much prefer to see a club come together through teamwork and hard graft and succeed, (Blackpool's progress so far springs to mind) than see some Saudi prince throw money at a club. To me the money aspect eliminate much of what I love about football and sport in general and probably why I prefer rugby over football.


Advertisement