Financial Fair Play Discussion

kippy

Hi,

Manchester City have confirmed the City of Manchester Stadium at Eastlands will be renamed the Etihad Stadium after striking a 10-year partnership agreement with Etihad Airways.

More to appear here.

Read more: http://breakingnews.ie/sport/city-to-rename-stadium-in-10-year-deal-512044.html#ixzz1RVaPdnWP

The alleged fee is in the region of a Billion pounds for the ten years although this hasnt been confirmed by the club yet.


Is this the start of things to come for clubs trying to work their way through the new FIFA financial fair play rules? I am very skeptical of these deals as the fee involved is huge and the owners are under pressure to match income with expenditure (which is tough when the club wont be doing that any time soon).
Are the owners here doing some "book fiddling" in order to make the books appear balanced?

I am not sure of the ownership structure of the airline, but I am making assumptions that the owners of the club and the owners of the airline are tied together in some way........
Chelsea will be in the same boat.......

I know when there financial fair play rules were announced there was much discussion about owners attempting to circumvent them using methods such as this.

The broader knock on effects of this deal are huge but I doubt UEFA will have the balls to act on teams that are skirting the rules.

PHB

There are specific provisions in the FFP rules to deal with these exact issues.

UEFA will look at each sponsorship deal to determine whether or not they represent a fair market value. If they do not, the difference between UEFA and the clubs valuations will be deducted for the purposes of FFP.

IRISHSPORTSGUY

I think FIFA plan to do 'market testing' (I think that's the phrase?) on deals like that in the future.

SK1979

A Billion? Are they taking the p!ss or what?

Apparently UEFA have a mechanism that they can use to determine whether any party is deliberately paying above the market price for sponsorship etc. If this is true, then surely UEFA will investigate this. AFAIK they have to power to simply ignore any inflated sponsorships (from the Revenue streams) of clubs if they deem them to be unfair.

This was mentioned when they were talking about getting £100m for the naming rights, but 10X that is just lolworthy.

kippy

SK1979 wrote: »

A Billion? Are they taking the p!ss or what?

Apparently UEFA have a mechanism that they can use to determine whether any party is deliberately paying above the market price for sponsorship etc. If this is true, then surely UEFA will investigate this. AFAIK they have to power to simply ignore any inflated sponsorships (from the Revenue streams) of clubs if they deem them to be unfair.

This was mentioned when they were talking about getting £100m for the naming rights, but 10X that is just lolworthy.

That billion was a figure I read on some site this morning, it could well be nonsense (I thought it was a crazy figure as well).

One would wonder how "watertight" this rule is, and despite UEFA making allowances for this sort of thing, I would wonder who exactly is responsible for reviewing these deals and how they will classify them.

K-9

Tariq Panja, a football finance journalist who did a lot of stuff on the Liverpool takeover is saying reports of about £300 Million for 10 years. Considering Arsenal got £100 Million that seems a hell of a lot.

Etihad is translated as United!

Mitch Connor

K-9 wrote: »

Tariq Panja, a football finance journalist who did a lot of stuff on the Liverpool takeover is saying reports of about £300 Million for 10 years. Considering Arsenal got £100 Million that seems a hell of a lot.

Etihad is translated as United!

that is the figure I have heard.

With regards to the figure for the Arsenal deal, I remember reading in the last year that Arsenal were looking to buy out that contract as they felt it was now significantly undervalued and that they could get a lot more in a new deal, so that would indicate that the figure for the Arsenal deal can not really be used as a barometer.

30million per year seems a little high, but understandable; shirt sponsorship deals are hitting close to that figure, so stadium naming rights shouldn't be considered to be too different.

Frisbee

Our deal with Emirates (and our jersey deal with Nike) can't really be used to assess market value as we accepted fairly low amounts from both in order to get the cash up front to pay off the stadium loan.

Our jersey and Stadium sponsorship rights are about 30%-ish below market value.

kippy

Mitch Connor wrote: »

that is the figure I have heard.

With regards to the figure for the Arsenal deal, I remember reading in the last year that Arsenal were looking to buy out that contract as they felt it was now significantly undervalued and that they could get a lot more in a new deal, so that would indicate that the figure for the Arsenal deal can not really be used as a barometer.

30million per year seems a little high, but understandable; shirt sponsorship deals are hitting close to that figure, so stadium naming rights shouldn't be considered to be too different.

300 mill sounds a bit more realistic alright. Although I reckon UEFA won't let them off with it.


One has to wonder do the advertisers get anywhere close to the same value back especially in the current climate, with consumer spending going down and seemingly rates for this kind of this and jersey rights going up.

K-9

Mitch Connor wrote: »

that is the figure I have heard.

With regards to the figure for the Arsenal deal, I remember reading in the last year that Arsenal were looking to buy out that contract as they felt it was now significantly undervalued and that they could get a lot more in a new deal, so that would indicate that the figure for the Arsenal deal can not really be used as a barometer.

30million per year seems a little high, but understandable; shirt sponsorship deals are hitting close to that figure, so stadium naming rights shouldn't be considered to be too different.

True. Liverpool are looking at negotiating a deal for a new stadium if they go that way instead of redevelopment, so they'd probably have an idea of what it would be worth.

It really does show that while the rules will make some difference the bigger clubs will just get other ways of getting round it.

pickarooney

How many Etihad flights go out from Manchester per day? There's no way on earth a billion pounds could be considered a reasonable budget for a product with as limited appeal as an airline.

They'd be better off spending some of that money fixing their web servers...

melb

UEFA are going to have experts in the field look at the value of all sponsorship deals that I assume seem high. If these experts feel that the deal has been inflated then the obligation is on the club to take the market value.

kippy

I have to be honest, the whole idea of naming rights for stadia annoys me. It kinda removes part of the "history" and soul of the club (if that exists).

In this case, it's fairly obvious what City are trying to do.

kippy

melb wrote: »

UEFA are going to have experts in the field look at the value of all sponsorship deals that I assume seem high. If these experts feel that the deal has been inflated then the obligation is on the club to take the market value.

But is that even fair?

One would wonder would anyone sponser city at all were they not tied up with the club.

speedboatchase

Ugh, can we forget about the billion figure for a second - the OP was obviously mistaken.

It's £300m over ten years - £30m per year from a state-owned airline that has never made a profi. In comparison, the stadium deals for Arsenal and Bayern are £4.5m and £4m each. Imagine if Abramovich renamed Stamford Bridge in a huge deal with a company he also owned - completely corrupt but yeah, at least it's solid proof that FFP will descend into a farce before it even begins.

EDIT - £150m, £15m per year. Apologies

K-9

kippy wrote: »

I have to be honest, the whole idea of naming rights for stadia annoys me. It kinda removes part of the "history" and soul of the club (if that exists).

In this case, it's fairly obvious what City are trying to do.

Same with me, talk that Anfield would keep its name if redeveloped but sections of the ground may get renamed. At the same time fans will demand the best signings, Champions League football and trophies all the while giving out about wages and increases in ticket prices and wanting new stadia.

kippy

speedboatchase wrote: »

Ugh, can we forget about the billion figure for a second - the OP was obviously mistaken.

It's £300m over ten years - £30m per year from a state-owned airline that has never made a profi. In comparison, the stadium deals for Arsenal and Bayern are £4.5m and £4m each. Imagine if Abramovich renamed Stamford Bridge in a huge deal with a company he also owned - completely corrupt but yeah, at least it's solid proof that FFP will descend into a farce before it even begins.

Yep,
Just to clarify to all, the figure of 1 Billion quoted above was wrong. The figure appears to be closer to 30 Million a season.
Speedboatchase, other posters have advised that UEFA have a mechanism for dealing with this type of thing. I would question the people involved and how they will be looking at it.
If, as one poster above mentioned, they look at the market value (average across europe) and allow to only let the club use that as income for the purposes of accounts for this FFP (but still allow them to use the remainder for what they chose) then it is wrong.
It is wrong that they would allow them to use any portion of the deal as income in my opinion because I would question if the club were on the "open market" would anyone pay at all (even an average figure) to own the naming rights?
I think there are lots of loopholes and areas for avoidance that the bigger clubs can use but which wont be allowable for the smaller clubs.

flahavaj

IMO UEFA haven't the balls to properly implement FFP.

kippy

K-9 wrote: »

Same with me, talk that Anfield would keep its name if redeveloped but sections of the ground may get renamed. At the same time fans will demand the best signings, Champions League football and trophies all the while giving out about wages and increases in ticket prices and wanting new stadia.

That's very true. At some point the local/older generation fans will get pissed and move on or reduce their spending however - well in my opinion anyway.
I'd hate to see Anfield/Old Trafford and many other iconic stadia lose their official name for the sake of income (that usually ends up in agents/middle men/overpaid players pockets anyway)
When they changed the name on Landsdowne Road, I was gutted.

kippy

flahavaj wrote: »

IMO UEFA haven't the balls to properly implement FFP.

I'd agree.

Blatter

flahavaj wrote: »

IMO UEFA haven't the balls to properly implement FFP.

Yep, if they sanction any of the big clubs, the threat of the G14 creating their own league will loom larger.

speedboatchase

Very true tweet I just spotted RT'd: 'All eyes on UEFA now - if they ratify Man City's £300m sponsorship deal as fair value might as well abandon FFP.'

Dempsey

Etihad being used by Mansour to circumvent FFP rules was always on the cards.

€30m per season will have no problem getting through the red tape imo. With a reserve squad costing more than some EPL squads, what are the odds on them doing a deal over the naming rights for their training ground?

I think the name change isnt so bad because the 'City of Manchester Stadium' was a woeful name in the first place.

melb

flahavaj wrote: »

IMO UEFA haven't the balls to properly implement FFP.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this comment. Financial fair play is the way forward. Clubs will eventually no longer be running on the goodwill of sugar daddies-they will operate solely on income.

SK1979

People are reporting that the £300m fee (£30m p.a.) might include more than simply the naming rights to the stadium. Apparently it could include shirt sponsorship (which Liverpool are receiving close to £20m p.a. now with their new deal) also something along the lines of "unique brand placement opportunities" around the stadium, circa an 80 acre site.

Obviously there's some sort of codology going on, but most agree that they will get around the FFP rules this way.

Edit: The ultimate irony is of course that Etihad means United in Arabic. :-)

Blatter

lol

Don't know if it's already been posted, but Etihad translates to United.

The United stadium.

K-9

Reports now that it would include a shirt sponsorship deal which probably makes it near market value plus it covers the whole complex which is about 80 acres.

flahavaj

melb wrote: »

I wholeheartedly disagree with this comment. Financial fair play is the way forward. Clubs will eventually no longer be running on the goodwill of sugar daddies-they will operate solely on income.

I agree that it is the way forward and clubs should operate on the basis of their income.

But when push comes to shove I'm sceptical about whether UEFA would actually exclude one of the bigger clubs in Europe from the CL (say Chelsea for example) for not complying fully.

ynwa_17

Manchester City and Etihad ink partnership deal (Wam)

8 July 2011 LONDON - Manchester City Football Club (MCFC) and Etihad Airways (Etihad) have today announced a 10-year comprehensive partnership agreement significantly expanding their existing commercial relationship.
The deal was signed today by Garry Cook, CEO of Manchester City FC and James Hogan, CEO of Etihad Airways before the Manchester City first team squad departed on an Etihad Airways charter flight for a pre-season tour to the United States, said Etihad Airways in an emailed press release.

Garry Cook, CEO of Manchester City Football Club, said: “We are delighted to be expanding our relationship with Etihad Airways through this comprehensive partnership agreement. Most importantly, in addition to delivering significant revenue at a key stage in the Club’s evolution, the agreement creates exciting opportunities for our two organisations to cooperate more deeply commercially and on media and community initiatives in the future.”

James Hogan, CEO of Etihad Airways, said: “This is a game-changing partnership agreement that redefines the traditional sports sponsorship paradigm. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for two iconic brands that share the same vision to promote far-reaching global awareness and business growth.

“Etihad’s work with Manchester City Football Club has already yielded a significant return on our investment and we are thrilled to build on our relationship. Their well-established name and loyal fan base have allowed us to tap into a new and increasing global audience. In addition to being a sensible alignment for our brand from a business perspective, it is also one that we can get very excited about, especially at a time when MCFC’s winning attitude is bringing increased success for the team on the national and international stage.”

Sir Richard Leese, Leader of Manchester City Council, said: “The relationship between Etihad Airways and Manchester City Football Club further supports Manchester’s international profile and global connectivity and the city’s ability to attract leading brands to invest and create job opportunities. It is great news for Manchester, reinforcing our sporting, transport and economic growth priorities and is particularly welcome news for east Manchester. “

Charles Johnston, Property Director at Sport England, said: “This announcement is positive for grassroots sport and people in Manchester. The re-negotiated stadium agreement will generate further investment in community sport and sports facilities in the local area.”

Key elements of the comprehensive partnership agreement are as follows:

Etihad Stadium and Campus

The City of Manchester Stadium will be renamed the Etihad Stadium effective immediately, forming the centre piece of a newly-named Etihad Campus, which encompasses a large part of the Sportcity site in East Manchester, the popular City Square entertainment space and additional existing and planned facilities.

On current trends and with the added benefit of UEFA Champions League football in 2011-12, global visibility of the Etihad Stadium will be dramatically enhanced and up to two million visitors to the Etihad Campus are expected during the year.

Shirt sponsorship

Etihad Airways has extended its shirt sponsorship deal reflecting an increased media value due to the Club’s improved on-pitch performance in the 2010-11 season, qualification for the UEFA Champions League, growing international retail network and a commitment to further enhance the already impactful visibility of the Etihad logo on all home and away shirts moving forward.

Media Cooperation

MCFC and Etihad Airways will expand cooperation on media outreach and content creation initiatives including the provision of increased MCFC content, match coverage and DVD material on Etihad’s in-flight entertainment system and website. Both parties will also collaborate on joint media initiatives in shared target markets such as India, China, the United States, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates.

Business Cooperation

MCFC and Etihad Airways will draw upon their existing customer databases and loyalty schemes to create new opportunities for targeted marketing initiatives tailored to the commercial priorities of both parties.

The two organisations will also explore business cooperation at an operational level drawing upon the hospitality, customer service, ticketing and training capabilities of both parties to exchange relevant expertise and potentially deliver shared recruitment, training and call centre services from the Etihad Campus in the future.

Community Cooperation

Through its flagship City in the Community (CITC) program, MCFC will partner with Etihad in joint community initiatives in the East Manchester area, in the UK and internationally building on the success of the Etihad MCFC Soccer Schools in Abu Dhabi. International CITC initiatives such as the delivery of youth football programs in disadvantaged areas will leverage the two parties’ shared international interests.

International Cooperation

MCFC and Etihad will work together to build their respective profiles in key markets around the world benefiting from the natural alignment that already exists in shared target markets such as India, China and the United States, in addition to the other target markets of each organisation.

MCFC and Etihad will also cooperate within their home markets of the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates respectively with the new MCFC-branded Etihad Airways A330-200 plane to be used as a flagship on the Manchester-Abu Dhabi route.

The deal builds on Etihad’s already strong commitment to Manchester. The airline has announced the introduction of twice-daily flights between Manchester and Abu Dhabi from August 1 reflecting the growing demand for travel between the two cities.

The extra flights to Manchester will be followed by the opening of a call centre in the city employing up to 160 people in 2012. The airline also opened a new Business Class lounge at Manchester Airport in November 2010 for its premium passengers.

To coincide with the signing of the comprehensive partnership agreement, Manchester City Football Club has also announced plans to conduct a public consultation process in the near future on the proposed development of a new youth training and football development facility in East Manchester

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle08.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2011/July/theuae_July206.xml&section=theuae

melb

flahavaj wrote: »

I agree that it is the way forward and clubs should operate on the basis of their income.

But when push comes to shove I'm sceptical about whether UEFA would actually exclude one of the bigger clubs in Europe from the CL (say Chelsea for example) for not complying fully.

It's about credibility really for UEFA. All clubs are trying to get within the new rules(first financial records to be examined from 2012/2013 in 2014). 45m is a big buffer zone for the first year-did city have losses of around 130m last year? Should be no bother getting that down around the 45m mark esp with this new Eithad deal.

All these big transfer that Chelsea and City have made over the past few years are written down over the course of the players contract based on amortization. This will also lead to less losses for these clubs.

It will come down to whether the clubs have the balls to test UEFAs threat to kick them out of Europe-what club will stand there and say "nah, we're not playing by the rules..." There will be leeway in the first year or two to give teams who can prove they are trying a chance. But the money clubs make from the CL will make them far too wary to test UEFAs resolve.

Must be noted though that this is only a European rule. Can get kicked out of Europe for not meeting their rules but still win the EPL by spending as much as you want. That would be an interesting one...

Johner

Blatter wrote: »

lol

Don't know if it's already been posted, but Etihad translates to United.

The United stadium.

No it doesn't. It means Union.

melb

Johner wrote: »

No it doesn't. It means Union.

Thought it was unity?

MUSEIST

Its not in uefas interest to ban teams for failure to apply ffp. Even the teams with sugar daddies are high profile and these are the teams that attract huge tv audiences and huge advertising revenues. UEFA love this because it ultimately improves revenue from the champions league. The ffp is just a smoke screen but in reality the people at uefa are rubbing their hands at the thought of more clubs being bought by sugar daddies as this ultimatly means more money for UEFA.

If they start banning multiple clubs from champions league football then tv audiences will drop, advertising and sponsership deals will fall and UEFA will struggle financially as will the entire football world. Also ffp means that only a handfull of clubs will dominate world football for years to come and of course fans of these clubs are happy with the new rules but fans of clubs which benefit are not. The reality is that the only way in which new clubs can rise to the top and stay there is through finding money from a sugar daddy and that is the reality of modern football.

SK1979

I actually think UEFA will enforce this. And enforce it hard. English clubs are not the most popular within Europe, regardless of what anyone on this forum thinks. Certainly Chelsea can expect no favours from UEFA, rightly or wrongly.

The clubs and countries calling for this are German / French etc, they are where the power lies in UEFA. Its not too dissimiliar from the economic situation our country is in, do Germans have much sympathy for Ireland, because we overspent. They want tighter controls to curb spending (and ultimately protect the clubs from going bust).

Its not clearcut and would certainly become interesting if Real and Barca were missing the FFP rules by miles, but for English clubs to assume that they'll be ok, imo would be extremely foolish.

melb

MUSEIST wrote: »

Its not in uefas interest to ban teams for failure to apply ffp. Even the teams with sugar daddies are high profile and these are the teams that attract huge tv audiences and huge advertising revenues. UEFA love this because it ultimately improves revenue from the champions league. The ffp is just a smoke screen but in reality the people at uefa are rubbing their hands at the thought of more clubs being bought by sugar daddies as this ultimatly means more money for UEFA.

If they start banning multiple clubs from champions league football then tv audiences will drop, advertising and sponsership deals will fall and UEFA will struggle financially as will the entire football world. Also ffp means that only a handfull of clubs will dominate world football for years to come and of course fans of these clubs are happy with the new rules but fans of clubs which benefit are not. The reality is that the only way in which new clubs can rise to the top and stay there is through finding money from a sugar daddy and that is the reality of modern football.

FFP means that ultimately clubs will have to live within their means. It's the slow road to salary caps in soccer.

kippy

MUSEIST wrote: »

Its not in uefas interest to ban teams for failure to apply ffp. Even the teams with sugar daddies are high profile and these are the teams that attract huge tv audiences and huge advertising revenues. UEFA love this because it ultimately improves revenue from the champions league. The ffp is just a smoke screen but in reality the people at uefa are rubbing their hands at the thought of more clubs being bought by sugar daddies as this ultimatly means more money for UEFA.

If they start banning multiple clubs from champions league football then tv audiences will drop, advertising and sponsership deals will fall and UEFA will struggle financially as will the entire football world. Also ffp means that only a handfull of clubs will dominate world football for years to come and of course fans of these clubs are happy with the new rules but fans of clubs which benefit are not. The reality is that the only way in which new clubs can rise to the top and stay there is through finding money from a sugar daddy and that is the reality of modern football.

It's all well and good saying that, but surely somewhere down the line, somewhere, one of these sugar daddies/owners etc loses interest in their club - what happens then? Even in the case of the clubs up to their ears in debt - things don't always work out from these clubs over time.
We've yet to see a major implosion at the top level but some clubs have come close.
I don't think its in footballs best interest to have these guys around the place - especially the ones who arent really in it for profit.

Despite the massive money in the game nowadays, the product is still essentially the same. Two teams of 11 trying to put the ball in the back of the next for 90 minutes.
There may be more viewers but I am skeptical as to the medium to long term survival of some of the major clubs out there.

Of course its hard to balance it all out for the rule makers and they obviously have a vested interest (in a number of areas) but one has to think of the clubs security in all of these matters.

Sorry for the rambling.

Fuhrer

MUSEIST wrote: »

If they start banning multiple clubs from champions league football then tv audiences will drop

No they wont.

MUSEIST

The thing is though that clubs like chelsea and city are not stupid, they will have studied in detail the new ffp rules over the last few years so they will be prepared for them and know exactly whats expected and how to get around this.

kippy

Fuhrer wrote: »

No they wont.

In fairness, they probably will.

MUSEIST

Fuhrer wrote: »

No they wont.

yes they will

melb

MUSEIST wrote: »

The thing is though that clubs like chelsea and city are not stupid, they will have studied in detail the new ffp rules over the last few years so they will be prepared for them and know exactly whats expected and how to get around this.

So you think there is going to be one big conspiracy to get around these new rules? Not going to happen.

MUSEIST

kippy wrote: »

It's all well and good saying that, but surely somewhere down the line, somewhere, one of these sugar daddies/owners etc loses interest in their club - what happens then? Even in the case of the clubs up to their ears in debt - things don't always work out from these clubs over time.
We've yet to see a major implosion at the top level but some clubs have come close.
I don't think its in footballs best interest to have these guys around the place - especially the ones who arent really in it for profit.Despite the massive money in the game nowadays, the product is still essentially the same. Two teams of 11 trying to put the ball in the back of the next for 90 minutes.
There may be more viewers but I am skeptical as to the medium to long term survival of some of the major clubs out there.

Of course its hard to balance it all out for the rule makers and they obviously have a vested interest (in a number of areas) but one has to think of the clubs security in all of these matters.

Sorry for the rambling.

I agree but i dont think the new rules should prevent rich owners from pumping in cash to a club, instead they should be about a salary cap and possible cap on the amount of money a team can spend in a transfer window. That makes more sense and evens things out a bit so one club cant start offering insane wages.

kippy

melb wrote: »

So you think there is going to be one big conspiracy to get around these new rules? Not going to happen.

There has to be.
Clubs like Chelsea and City will have no choice by to get around the rules in some way, shape or form or they will, by the letter of the law, not be able to compete in Europe.
I believe the legal and accounting arms of all the big clubs have been looking at these rules for the past few years and seeing how they can be circumvented - it would be daft to assume that they hadn't.
Roman isn't going to be winning the champions league if they aren't allowed into it and its pretty easy to see that based on current wage and transfer costs they wont be able to compete as their income streams aren't high enough (limited by the stadium/fanbase/sponsorhip)

MUSEIST

melb wrote: »

So you think there is going to be one big conspiracy to get around these new rules? Not going to happen.

No but the rules are not black or white, there are lots of loopholes in them and the major clubs dont seem that worried.

kippy

MUSEIST wrote: »

I agree but i dont think the new rules should prevent rich owners from pumping in cash to a club, instead they should be about a salary cap and possible cap on the amount of money a team can spend in a transfer window. That makes more sense and evens things out a bit so one club cant start offering insane wages.

Salary caps (I believe) would be more difficult to implement and could, in theory anyway, be liable for legal challenge.

Sgt Pepper 64

kippy wrote: »

In fairness, they probably will.

No they wont, its not just City and Chelsea, its barca and real madred and a good few other clubs

They are not going to ban those big money spinners

FIFA is all about the money - look at the prices for CL final!

kippy

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

No they wont, its not just City and Chelsea, its barca and real madred and a good few other clubs

They are not going to ban those big money spinners

FIFA is all about the money - look at the prices for CL final!

The comment was that viewing figures would drop off if they banned the big clubs from competing.
City and Chelsea arent the only clubs that will have trouble with this.........
The point is they wouldnt dare ban the big money spinners but if they did, viewing figures would drop off.

melb

MUSEIST wrote: »

No but the rules are not black or white, there are lots of loopholes in them and the major clubs dont seem that worried.

What are you basing this on? Have you seen/heard that there are loopholes in the rules?

All the major clubs have said they are working towards being FFP compliant.

melb

Based on what is being said here if all that big clubs band together and decide not to implement the FFP then they may as well break away from UEFA altogether and form their own super European league.

How realistic is that?

Sgt Pepper 64

melb wrote: »

What are you basing this on? Have you seen/heard that there are loopholes in the rules?

All the major clubs have said they are working towards being FFP compliant.

Of course they will But FIFA arent going to upset powerful clubs are they?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/gabriele_marcotti/05/05/ffp/index.html

http://www.dailyfinance.co.uk/2011/02/02/why-chelsea-s-losses-count-as-profit/

Dempsey

melb wrote: »

What are you basing this on? Have you seen/heard that there are loopholes in the rules?

All the major clubs have said they are working towards being FFP compliant.

Today's deal would count since Etihad is owned by Mansour's brother