Yet another look at Premier League Finances

everdead.ie

Yet another look at premier league finances an article from the Gaurdian
http://www.guardian.co.uk
link to the graphs
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/55741334

It paints a pretty gloomy outlook however I would like to point out that everyone take this article with a pinch of salt, as the way I read the articles details on spurs comes across as a little misleading.

The Premier League's 20 clubs collectively lost close to half a billion pounds last year despite making record income, a Guardian analysis of their most recent accounts has revealed. In the 2009-10 financial year, the clubs currently in the Premier League made total revenues of £2.1bn, principally from their billion-pound TV deals and the world's most expensive tickets. Yet 16 of the 20 clubs made losses, totalling a record £484m, and the same number relied on funding from their wealthy owners.
Since the owners took over their clubs, they have put in a staggering £2.3bn, by way of loans or for shares, mostly to pay ever-escalating players' wages and transfer fees. The Premier League's total wage bill in 2009-10 was £1.4bn, an average £70m per club, accounting for an average 68% of the clubs' income, once Arsenal's exceptional profit from selling flats in the old Highbury stadium is discounted.
This picture of Premier League clubs making fortunes in the gilded bubble of national and worldwide popularity, but failing to control players' wages, making huge losses and relying on owners, poses a major question about whether they can reform in time to meet Uefa's financial fair-play rules. Clubs will be permitted to record losses of only €45m (£39.7m) altogether over the three seasons from 2011-12 to 2013-14, and cannot rely on owners' subsidies, if Uefa is to sanction their participation in European competitions.
All the clubs in the top seven made substantial losses except Arsenal, whose record income of £382m, and £56m profit, were swollen by £156m made from the Highbury development. By far the biggest loss was at Manchester City, where Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi put his dynastic oil millions into bankrolling a £121m deficit from signing and paying the galactic wages of players who could lead City to trophies. Across Manchester, United made £286m turnover, more than any other club if Arsenal's property income is discounted – yet the costs and interest on the debts the Glazer family have loaded on to the club, pushed United into a losing £79m.
Double winners in 2009-10, Chelsea, whose owner Roman Abramovich is always cited as a supporter of financial fair play, made the next biggest loss, £78m. Tottenham's successful push for Champions League qualification was achieved with a £7m loss and £15m investment from the owners, principally Bahamas-based currency speculator, Joe Lewis. Aston Villa lost £38m as the club's US owner, Randy Lerner, struggles to compete with clubs whose commercial income and potential is much greater than Villa's. Liverpool made revenues of £185m, more than double that of Villa, yet lost £20m, in the last full season owned by Tom Hicks and George Gillett, who had borrowed £200m to buy Liverpool then made the club responsible for paying their interest.
Even among the four clubs which avoided making losses, only one, Wolverhampton Wanderers, did so by making a substantial, convincing
profit. Arsenal's remarkable-looking £56m profit was hugely boosted by the club's £156m income from the Highbury apartment sales, and Arsenal moved into making a £6m loss in the six months from May to November last year.
Of the other non loss-making clubs, Birmingham City's profit was very small, and the club is now considered the Premier League's major financial headache, struggling with a cash shortfall which could tip into crisis if Birmingham fall into relegation this weekend. West Bromwich Albion, considered a soundly-run club resigned to a habitual yo-yo existence, made a small £500,000 profit in 2009-10, when they were in the Championship, not the Premier League.
Wolves' £9m profit stands out among all 20 clubs, yet it was made in the first season up from the Championship with new Premier League TV income pouring into Molineux. The Wolves owner, Steve Morgan, believes he can crack the challenge of establishing the club in the Premier League while not taking excessive financial risks.
Yet the overall losses on this scale, £484m in total, and net debts of £2.5bn, £400m more than the clubs' total turnover, do not in fact mean the 20 clubs are mostly in financial difficulties. Most of the losses are soaked up by huge financial contributions from club owners whose wealth looks more stable than has been true of the Premier League in the recent past.
The four clubs not bankrolled by owners were Arsenal, whose shareholders last month pocketed a combined £243m selling to Stan Kroenke, but never put a penny into the club itself, West Bromwich Albion, Everton and Manchester United. The Glazer family's ownership has cost United around £350m in interest, fees, loans to the family themselves and bank charges since 2005, and they have never put money into the club. In the year to June 30 2010, United paid £42m interest on the £500m loans the Glazer family originally took out to buy the club in the first place, and just refinancing that debt, replacing the loans with a bond, cost United an eyewatering £65m, cash.
The Glazers, though, are the exceptions in causing money to be taken out of their club, particularly with Hicks and Gillett, the other US "leveraged buyout" practitioners, forced out of Anfield. Most owners have put huge finance in, yet one of the most extraordinary aspects of this subsidy is how small a proportion of it has financed anything permanent, whether stadium-building or other club infrastructure. Almost all the stadiums were already built or refurbished when the current generation of owners bought the clubs. So the overwhelming proportion of the £2.3bn the owners have contributed has gone on paying transfer fees, superstar wages and other expenses, beyond what the clubs could otherwise afford.
At Manchester City, the prime example, Sheikh Mansour's investment is up to £493m in less than three years. City have improved the Carrington training ground, built a new office block and made other relatively inexpensive improvements, but the Eastlands stadium was already built, with £132m public and lottery money, well before Mansour bought the club. Most of Mansour's half a billion has been spent paying the transfer fees and near £10m-a-year wages each for players such as Carlos Tevez, Yaya Touré, David Silva and the others City would never have been able to afford without Mansour's patronage.
While Mansour, Abramovich, Lerner and Fulham's Mohamed Al Fayed, whose loans to Fulham increased to £187m, are high-profile figures, subsidies from less prominent owners are nevertheless huge. Peter Coates' family, who own online gambling company bet365, have invested £43m in Stoke City, US private equity investor Ellis Short £47m in Sunderland and the little-known, Isle of Man-based Edwin Davies has taken to £85m his financial ballast of Bolton Wanderers, whose loss last year was £35m.
The figures illustrate the multiple challenges facing Premier League clubs to comply with financial fair play. Clubs must not only stop paying players and their agents continually inflating wages which were already incomprehensible years ago to most of the world's population. Fans are concerned, particularly in England, that Uefa's sensible principle that clubs should rely on income, not owners, will have the unintended consequence of leading to increased ticket prices.
That has already happened at Arsenal, and this week Liverpool, owned by John Henry's Fenway Sports Group, announced 6.5% ticket price rises, to the club's loyal, generally not wealthy fanbase who must live in the real world, where there is a recession going on.

NukaCola

Some of those figures in the article are fairly shocking......if true....even if they are fairly accurate they are an eyeopener...

everdead.ie

NukaCola wrote: »

Some of those figures in the article are fairly shocking......if true....even if they are fairly accurate they are an eyeopener...

Well the problem with only giving numbers is it doesn't accurately tell you whats going on for instance almost the entire spurs Debt i'd say 90% is actually because of all the property we have bought around the stadium in our bid to build a new stadium and the 15m investment by ENIC was actually spent on the designs and planning stages of the Northumberland project and invested so that the club wouldn't have to take it out of it's own pocket and we could continue to put all our profits and turnover back into the club as we have always done, the owners haven't put a cent of there own money into the squad though.

Pepe LeFrits

Not long to wait now to see if the FFP will have any effect...

busyliving

The level of debt is crazy, I know the figures don't account for assists such as Players, Stadiums and Training Facilities.

But i mean some of the wage bills alone are stocking 170+ million for Chelsea WTF

I really think the FA have to take a look at this situation before we have another Leeds(fecking Ridsdale) or Porthsmouth.

Also has that eufa financial fairplay rule moved anywhere? Is it coming into effect definitely or what?

Pepe LeFrits

The FFP monitoring starts this summer, and it is to be implemented from the 2013/14 season.

Hopefully it won't just be a load of hot air from UEFA.

busyliving

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

The FFP monitoring starts this summer, and it is to be implemented from the 2013/14 season.

Hopefully it won't just be a load of hot air from UEFA.

So next season is the first season that counts is it?

I read an article a few months back (dunno where) that there were some concerns over the rule that may delay its implementation

Helix

arent these the same figures from about 6 months ago, rehashed for a new article?

Le King

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

The FFP monitoring starts this summer, and it is to be implemented from the 2013/14 season.

Hopefully it won't just be a load of hot air from UEFA.

Ir more than likely will be a load of hot air. They should cap wages per club at least. That would at least address some of the problem. Sheikh Mansour will just sponsor his club himself by paying a couple of billion to put his logo on the shirt.

Also the figures here are completely wrong. Don't know why he couldn't just wait a while longer for the Q4 figures.

Pepe LeFrits

busyliving wrote: »

So next season is the first season that counts is it?

Yep. In theory we should see the big loss-makers making efforts to reduce their wage bills this summer. Certainly I'd expect City to offload some of their fringe and loan players like Santa Cruz, Adebayor etc, the question is whether they'll also go and spend the mega money the papers are saying they will...

Helix wrote: »

arent these the same figures from about 6 months ago, rehashed for a new article?

Yeah, I had the same thought. I don't think any clubs have released annual figures recently...

Pepe LeFrits

Le King wrote: »

Sheikh Mansour will just sponsor his club himself by paying a couple of billion to put his logo on the shirt.

To be fair they've said that the requirements are quite detailed and specifically designed to prevent exploiting loopholes in the manner described.

Fr Tod Umptious

Regardless of whether the figures are 6 months old or not, the moral of the story here is that the EPL is a huge bubble.

Like all bubbles it has to burst, but what will be the catalyst to burst it ?

Will ticket prices increase so much that people will stop attending ?

Will there be a drop off in Sky subs (due to people not having as much income) and thus the TV contract will not be as much ?

Will a wealthy owner pull out and leave a top club in crisis ?

everdead.ie

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Regardless of whether the figures are 6 months old or not, the moral of the story here is that the EPL is a huge bubble.

Like all bubbles it has to burst, but what will be the catalyst to burst it ?

Will ticket prices increase so much that people will stop attending ?

Will there be a drop off in Sky subs (due to people not having as much income) and thus the TV contract will not be as much ?

Will a wealthy owner pull out and leave a top club in crisis ?

I'd say a wealthy owner pulling out being the biggest worry United or Arsenal will always have suitors as would Liverpool but any other club may have trouble if an owner pulled out Bolton, City, Chelsea and Wigan would be in the biggest trouble if an owner pulled out as they would probably have to massively cut there wage bills and sell a few players

Raskolnikov

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Regardless of whether the figures are 6 months old or not, the moral of the story here is that the EPL is a huge bubble.

In fairness now, it's not just English teams. The spending of Barcelona and Real Madrid is massively ahead of that of any English team.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6354899

Kess73

Helix wrote: »

arent these the same figures from about 6 months ago, rehashed for a new article?

Yep some of the figures are rehashed.

Plus the writer neglects to mention that there was an increase in the government tax on the tickets which came into effect in January of this year.

2.5% in every listed increase is the tax jump.

So in the case of Liverpool's 6.5% increase, the club raised it's prices by 4% and the rest was the government increase.

He also failed to mention that whilst the cost of Liverpool season tickets for adults went up, all child tickets were reduced by £8.


And I am sure that other clubs would have similar things going on where the price of season tickets goes up a bit and the cost of kid tickets go down.


Nobody likes price hikes, but it is part of the world we live in.


For as long as there is massive profit to be had by individuals and crazy wages for players in some leagues, this bubble will continue to grow.

Will it burst someday? Almost certainly something will have to give at some point, but I don't hold out much hope for it being done before the shyte hits the wall.

Fr Tod Umptious

Raskolnikov wrote: »

In fairness now, it's not just English teams. The spending of Barcelona and Real Madrid is massively ahead of that of any English team.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6354899

Oh I totally agree, but I take little heed of La Liga to be honest, thus my concentration on the EPL

busyliving

You'd wonder if the bubble is going to burst the way it did with Italian football?

During the 90's and early 00's the Italian league was up there as being the best in Europe and they were getting some serious TV money like the premier league is getting now (obviously not as much).

Then the TV money dried up (bubble burst) and now you look at the Italian league which I’d reckon is the fourth in Europe after England, Spain and Germany.

Also with German league imposing strict financial rules there is little debt in those clubs (as far as I know), but the wages on offer there are still low for the most part, when compared to England.

Sure isn't all the talk of Dortmund losing around 6 of their top players to Liverpool, Utd & Chelsea over the summer?

One thing I find amazing is the attendances at the premier league games, considering the price of tickets...In Germany you can watch Dortmund for €15 I think I mean you'd pay the same for an LOI game:eek:


Surely time will tell:D

OhNoYouDidn't

This thread is bookmarked for next time any fan of foreign football states the LoI is a mes....

As for when the bubble in English football bursts, either 2013 when the 'financial doping' rules comes in and the EFA have to run it, or 2016 when UEFA take it over if the EFA fudge it.

Either way, the top level in particular of the English game has to cut its cloth and had to cut it fast in order to be allowed play in the top division or Europe. As it stands all teams bar one are in non compliance. I predict at least one big team getting booted to the conference for failure to comply.

I can actually see German teams racking up three or four CL titles while the rest adjust.

Look to home for what happens to teams who run their financial affairs badly. Rovers, Cork and Shels relegaged and Bohs on a precipice.

Jelle1880

I honestly wonder how UEFA's new financial rule will have an impact on this, and how they (Because they will) get around it.

everdead.ie

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I honestly wonder how UEFA's new financial rule will have an impact on this, and how they (Because they will) get around it.

Not many ways around it although you can gain revenues from the area around your stadium to cover footballing losses as City are looking at doing, by the time the rules are in place I expect Utd, Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool will definitely be compliant but there are question marks over Chelsea and City given there large wage bills and also given the huge transfer fees paid which will continue to show on there balance sheets for the next few years in player amortization.

OhNoYouDidn't

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I honestly wonder how UEFA's new financial rule will have an impact on this, and how they (Because they will) get around it.

Impact? They will relegate and ban from Europe any teamin any league who runs up a debt on the playing side and spends more than 65% of turnover on wages. What Platini is trying to introduce is the culture that clubs financials are as important as their league placing.

In the leagues that it was rolled out in advance, there was no getting around it. The only potential loopholes are 1: that a sugardaddy sponsors the club for a billion or 2: that they spend money on youth acadamys, stadium maintence, facilities etc and that frees the club up to spend that money on players.

But they don't really mind 2.

OhNoYouDidn't

everdead.ie wrote: »

Not many ways around it although you can gain revenues from the area around your stadium to cover footballing losses as City are looking at doing, by the time the rules are in place I expect Utd, Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool will definitely be compliant but there are question marks over Chelsea and City given there large wage bills and also given the huge transfer fees paid which will continue to show on there balance sheets for the next few years in player amortization.

How on Gods green earth do you figure that out?

Have you seen their debts?

everdead.ie

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

How on Gods green earth do you figure that out?

Have you seen their debts?

Liverpools debt has been almost completely wiped out since there takeover I believe it's down to a lowly 20m compared to where it was and interest has dropped to 2m a year.
United have a new bank facility in place which will allow them to pay off the loan which was causing massive interest(PIKs) and then the rest of the loan on there revenues will be very manageable.

OhNoYouDidn't

everdead.ie wrote: »

Liverpools debt has been almost completely wiped out since there takeover I believe it's down to a lowly 20m compared to where it was and interest has dropped to 2m a year.
United have a new bank facility in place which will allow them to pay off the loan which was causing massive interest(PIKs) and then the rest of the loan on there revenues will be very manageable.

Sorry petal, but thats still debt...

Whether its manageable debt or not is entirely and fundamentally irrelevent to the topic in hand. Debt is debt is debt. You cannot have it unless it is for building a new stadium or training ground, and then there are strings attached.

everdead.ie

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Sorry petal, but thats still debt...

Whether its manageable debt or not is entirely and fundamentally irrelevent to the topic in hand. Debt is debt is debt. You cannot have it unless it is for building a new stadium or training ground, and then there are strings attached.

You are allowed have debt that is not the issue at all petal, the club has to be run properly and by running it properly they mean break even over the course of three years rolling so once they can pay the interest and still break even United won't have any issues. which based on there revenues imo they will be able to do.

Helix

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Sorry petal, but thats still debt...

Whether its manageable debt or not is entirely and fundamentally irrelevent to the topic in hand. Debt is debt is debt. You cannot have it unless it is for building a new stadium or training ground, and then there are strings attached.

doesnt matter how in debt united or anyone else is before the rules. when they start in june every club has a £0 balance by them. over the following 3 years it has to remain above £0, although they'll allow a certain amount of operating debt for the first 3 years which will be reduced after that point to zero.

Fr Tod Umptious

everdead.ie wrote: »

You are allowed have debt that is not the issue at all petal, the club has to be run properly and by running it properly they mean break even over the course of three years rolling so once they can pay the interest and still break even United won't have any issues. which based on there revenues imo they will be able to do.

Teams like Utd and Liverpool have the revenue streams, because of their long term worldwide popularity, that others like Chelsea and City do not have, and will never have.

What you may see happen as a result of the UEFA rules is the demise of the collective television agreement in the EPL.

Top clubs may wish to go it alone and negotiate their own right, but domestically and internationally, in order to bump up their revenue figures, leaving the smaller clubs to pick up the crumbs.

No I have no idea when the next TV deal is up for negotiation or if such a breakaway is even possible.

OhNoYouDidn't

everdead.ie wrote: »

You are allowed have debt that is not the issue at all petal, the club has to be run properly and by running it properly they mean break even over the course of three years rolling so once they can pay the interest and still break even United won't have any issues. which based on there revenues imo they will be able to do.

Wrong.... Simple as that.

In three years time ALL clubs EVERYWHERE in Europe must be debt free or approaching debt free (by UEFA special dispensation) and not borrow or be sugar daddied one cent for day to day operations.

If you think Man U will get a derogation for £600m+, I would seriously question your understanding of whats coming.

I find it very hard to believe that all these clubs are in debt for stadium development, so one way or the other, they have to substantially reduce spending to clear their debts and then run on a breakeven basis. Thats the 'bubble' deflating right there. Whether it bursts or not is the question.

everdead.ie

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Teams like Utd and Liverpool have the revenue streams, because of their long term worldwide popularity, that others like Chelsea and City do not have, and will never have.

What you may see happen as a result of the UEFA rules is the demise of the collective television agreement in the EPL.

Top clubs may wish to go it alone and negotiate their own right, but domestically and internationally, in order to bump up their revenue figures, leaving the smaller clubs to pick up the crumbs.

No I have no idea when the next TV deal is up for negotiation or if such a breakaway is even possible.

Any change like that I think would require 14/15 of the 20 clubs to agree to it because the premier league currently has the rights to do so and because each club is an equal shareholder the small groups like Liverpool or United couldn't break away although I am not 100% on that but I think it's correct.

28064212

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I predict at least one big team getting booted to the conference for failure to comply.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

They will relegate...

Since when do UEFA have the ability to relegate teams in member FAs? The only enforcement (AFAICS) is that clubs won't be allowed compete in UEFA competitions

L'prof

Helix wrote: »

doesnt matter how in debt united or anyone else is before the rules. when they start in june every club has a £0 balance by them. over the following 3 years it has to remain above £0, although they'll allow a certain amount of operating debt for the first 3 years which will be reduced after that point to zero.

I don't think it ever goes to zero, I thought it went to €30m loss over 3 years. Either way it doesn't leave a lot to play with!

OhNoYouDidn't

28064212 wrote: »

Since when do UEFA have the ability to relegate teams in member FAs? The only enforcement (AFAICS) is that clubs won't be allowed compete in EUFA competitions

Since 2016.

The FA's enforce this for a couple of years, then UEFA take over. A clear potential punishment for non compliance is relegation. See Cork City for an example. Thems is the rules and I don't think the penny has dropped yet for the fans of foreign football that this means your team.

Even now if UEFA decided that a club be relegated as a punishment for something, I can't see how the local FA's can stop it.

28064212

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Since 2016.

Source?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The FA's enforce this for a couple of years, then UEFA take over. A clear potential punishment for non compliance is relegation. See Cork City for an example. Thems is the rules and I don't think the penny has dropped yet for the fans of foreign football that this means your team.

Cork were relegated by the FAI

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Even now if UEFA decided that a club be relegated as a punishment for something, I can't see how the local FA's can stop it.

UEFA don't have any regulatory power there. They can tell a local FA to relegate a team or the FA gets kicked out of UEFA, although AFAIK, that's never happened

OhNoYouDidn't

28064212 wrote: »

Source?

You want me to source the new rules coming in?

28064212 wrote: »

Cork were relegated by the FAI

Implementing a UEFA rule.

28064212 wrote: »

UEFA don't have any regulatory power there. They can tell a local FA to relegate a team or the FA gets kicked out of UEFA, although AFAIK, that's never happened

Thats my point. While UEFA may not have the formal power, they very much have a stick.

We are going to see some associations implement this badly or wrong. UEFA will be all over them if they do prior to taking this on centrally in 2016. Then they will have the power.

Fr Tod Umptious

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You want me to source the new rules coming in?.

well yea, show us a source to say that rule is coming in

28064212

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You want me to source the new rules coming in?

A source which says they are even considering it? There are hundreds of sources explaining how clubs won't be allowed compete in UEFA competitions. I can't find even one that suggests relegation (or even points deductions) might be an option

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Implementing a UEFA rule.

Which UEFA rule? Here's a link to the FAI Licensing Criteria. UEFA are mentioned three times in the Financial Criteria's 42 pages, none of which have any relevance.

In some FAs with laxer requirements, Cork might have survived. In others, they might have gone down ages ago. But it wasn't UEFA regulations which they were relegated under, it was the FAI's

OhNoYouDidn't

28064212 wrote: »

In some FAs with laxer requirements, Cork might have survived. In others, they might have gone down ages ago. But it wasn't UEFA regulations which they were relegated under, it was the FAI's

This is where you are incorrect.

The FAI introduced licencing to the LoI as a pilot for the broader roll out in 2013. This is how it will work going forward all over Europe. You need to apply annually to compete in the league you are in regardless of league position. This application is to be as important to your status as your league placing. Cork City, Shels and Derry (although that is more complicated) fell foul of the financial aspect of the licencing requirements. Although the FAI pulled the trigger, they did so off the back of the UEFA rules.

In 2016 the national associations will no longer do the licencing, UEFA take it over. One of the punishments involved is points deductions and relegation. So logically, UEFA will have that power in 2016 and beyond.

28064212

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

In 2016 the national associations will no longer do the licencing, UEFA take it over.

Again, source? At the moment, the FAI grant licences. UEFA licences are only required for clubs competing in UEFA competitions. I haven't seen anything about UEFA taking over local licensing

Jelle1880

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Impact? They will relegate and ban from Europe any teamin any league who runs up a debt on the playing side and spends more than 65% of turnover on wages. What Platini is trying to introduce is the culture that clubs financials are as important as their league placing.

In the leagues that it was rolled out in advance, there was no getting around it. The only potential loopholes are 1: that a sugardaddy sponsors the club for a billion or 2: that they spend money on youth acadamys, stadium maintence, facilities etc and that frees the club up to spend that money on players.

But they don't really mind 2.

So you honestly believe they will ban ManU, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Chelsea, Man City,... (random examples) ?
That'll be the death of UEFA.

I support Platini's plans, but I feel it's far too late for that.

101001

28064212 wrote: »

Again, source? At the moment, the FAI grant licences. UEFA licences are only required for clubs competing in UEFA competitions. I haven't seen anything about UEFA taking over local licensing

funny i went and googled this to see if I could get any links. tried 'uefa team licensing 2016'. A load of Euro 2016 links. lets -euro. This thread first result.

Any links to info on this would be great

Paully D

It's only a matter of time before football implodes.

Paully D

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So you honestly believe they will ban ManU, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Chelsea, Man City,... (random examples) ?
That'll be the death of UEFA.

I support Platini's plans, but I feel it's far too late for that.

If they do that then the big clubs that you've listed, along with many others, will just form a Super League.

Jelle1880

My point exactly.

I don't see UEFA sticking to their guns regarding this, as soon as the big clubs start complaining louder and louder UEFA will first start with some small adjustments to the rules, then a few more until it's completely gone.

Pepe LeFrits

To be fair most of the big clubs have been vocal in their support of it. It's in their interests to comply with the rules and as long as it isn't a large number of teams failing the requirements, then there won't be any threat of a breakaway.

dreamers75

Paully D wrote: »

If they do that then the big clubs that you've listed, along with many others, will just form a Super League.

They cant, the disbanded G18 and any notion of that league few years ago and agreed to stay in UEFA and adhere to these rules.

The clubs actually welcome this new rule, and if they did drop out they would have some issues getting players.

yahoo_moe

Le King wrote: »

Sheikh Mansour will just sponsor his club himself by paying a couple of billion to put his logo on the shirt.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I honestly wonder how UEFA's new financial rule will have an impact on this, and how they (Because they will) get around it.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The only potential loopholes are 1: that a sugardaddy sponsors the club for a billion

Have any of you actually investigated that prospect?

I suggest you try reading up on the concept of fair value that UEFA have specifically written into the rules. The main loopholes are closed off and they certainly haven't left the option of billion-dollar shirt sponsorship deals open.

I don't think it's any coincidence that certain clubs have tried to get their spending in before the regulations start to take hold and they'll reduce their outlay over the next couple of 'monitoring' years. So while things aren't rosy, it makes sense for the figures now to be as bad as they're going to get.