So we're rich, but we're skint

[Brown Nose]

No it doesn't.

There is nothing to stop them sponsoring the side for £26,000,000 a season for the next five seasons.

Well, you obviously have managed to out-think the rules with that little gem. It's remarkable that nobody at the Football League haven't considered it. Feck me.

 

[Blue Maniac]

No it doesn't.

There is nothing to stop them sponsoring the side for £26,000,000 a season for the next five seasons.

Doesn't shirt sponsorship and the like have to be at fair market value?

 

[Brown Nose]

Just found this:

Striani opens second front on legal challenge to UEFA’s break-even rule
20 June 2013 - Belgian player agent Daniel Striani is continuing his challenge of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rule today by launching a legal action in the Court of First Instance in Brussels. The process will ask the Court to judge on alleged infringements of both EU competition law and the right to free movement (of workers, services and capital).
This latest legal challenge follows a complaint Striani lodged with the European Commission in May against UEFA’s Financial Fair Play which argued that the "Break-even rule" (the obligation for financial equilibrium) was in contravention to fundamental principles of EU competition law. That process is ongoing and the Commission is expected to rule in 2014.
Striani’s legal team is led by Jean-Louis Dupont, the Belgian sports competition lawyer, who was part of the legal team that secured the Bosman ruling on player contracts in 1995. He also led the Meca-Medina case and, for G-14, the Charleroi case.
Since UEFA’s rule affects all football clubs, players and staff within the European Union, Striani is arguing that the Court of First Instance of Brussels seeks from the European Union Court of Justice a preliminary ruling on its compatibility with EU law (specifically free movement of workers, services, capital, and free competition).
Striani’s case argues that the UEFA rule is illegal under EU law because it is a disproportionate response and that there are more effective alternatives such as allowing over-spending if fully guaranteed; establish a "luxury tax"; or change the model of revenue sharing with regards to the UEFA club competitions.
This latest legal process is supported by a growing body of economic and legal opinion which argues that the UEFA rule is ineffective, illegal and disproportionate given alternative measures available.

 

[Mawsley]

Well, you obviously have managed to out-think the rules with that little gem. It's remarkable that nobody at the Football League haven't considered it. Feck me.

Simply pouting out the gaping holes in your flawed speculation. No need to thank me.

 

[Mawsley]

Doesn't shirt sponsorship and the like have to be at fair market value?

Which book do they use for that?

 

[step]

I expect the same argument could be used to stop a wage cap on the players. which is a shame because that would be more helpful in securing the clubs future.

 

[FryattFox]

I expect the same argument could be used to stop a wage cap on the players. which is a shame because that would be more helpful in securing the clubs future.

Or making us even less competitive with the Premier League.

 

[TommyK]

I can't see how we're going to comply with FFP. The wages of Beckford/Wellens/Danns/SSL must be on close to 100k a week. No one can afford them, no one wnats them. (apart Beckford)

How on earth are we going to bring our wage bill down?

 

[FryattFox]

I can't see how we're going to comply with FFP. The wages of Beckford/Wellens/Danns/SSL must be on close to 100k a week. No one can afford them, no one wnats them. (apart Beckford)

How on earth are we going to bring our wage bill down?

We settle their contracts and offload them. We won't meet the threshold this year, but coming down from £30m losses was never going to be realistic.

I'd expect that if we're clearly moving in the right direction we won't be punished.

 

[drummindefender]

Well, you obviously have managed to out-think the rules with that little gem. It's remarkable that nobody at the Football League haven't considered it. Feck me.

didn't Man City effectively do this with Etihad ? sorry if I'm completely wrong on this

 

[Brown Nose]

Another piece of evidence against FFP for anyone still hanging onto a hope that it is good for the game. I give you a key architect of the utterly stupid policy, Platini, getting made to look a proper cock with no clue about what he's done.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2329745/Martin-Samuel-meets-Michel-Platini--read-FULL-transcript-interview-UEFA-president.html

 

[Matt_B]

Another piece of evidence against FFP for anyone still hanging onto a hope that it is good for the game. I give you a key architect of the utterly stupid policy, Platini, getting made to look a proper cock with no clue about what he's done.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2329745/Martin-Samuel-meets-Michel-Platini--read-FULL-transcript-interview-UEFA-president.html

Nobody has said it's good for the game. It's not, that's obvious to everyone. Stopping owners from loaning huge sums, however, is.

 

[Scotfox]

As I said earlier, such regulations must (in my opinion) contravene the freedom of trade and employment laws within the EU. The fact that such agreements are voluntary does not imply that they are enforceable or excluded from legal challenge. If someone or some group wishes to pursue such action in order to establish the legal principle then they are liberty to challenge the FFP regulations. In my opinion these regulations clearly prevent members of the EU, in this instance football players from maximising their income, the fact the the football club employing them cannot afford their wages is the clubs fault NOT the players. If the owner of a club wishes to underwrite such expenditure irrespective of the clubs income is a decision based on the future potential of the club as determined by the owners. The fact that interest is charged on the cost of underwriting is normal practice, no one gets something for nothing.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Doesn't shirt sponsorship and the like have to be at fair market value?

Any Sponsorship undertaken by a "related party" will be reviewed by an Auditor on behalf of the Football League and the sponsorship can then be "re valued" to market rates (so something like the next highest value achieved in the division)

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Just found this:

Striani opens second front on legal challenge to UEFA’s break-even rule
20 June 2013 - Belgian player agent Daniel Striani ..... ]

What a surprise, a party that bleeds the game dry doesn't like it.....

 

[Foxes_Trust]

It is today being reported that our owner has somehow added £800m to his personal fortune over the last couple of years despite taking on a horribly loss making business (us), selling a few bits in a few duty free shops and playing polo. Ours is not to reason why.

However, to my point.

Vichai owns Leicester City football club in its entirety. He bought it and can pretty much do what he likes with us. Except, spend his own money on us. Yes, he's banned from spending money on his own business. Now, surely there is something fundamentally wrong with this FFP nonsense that needs to be blown apart by a legal challenge?

Why are we sitting back and taking this stupid rule? It isn't in our best interest and it is downright ridiculous to prevent someone from controlling his business by investing it it. Surely it isn't legal.

Listen to me Vichai old son, screw the FFP. Spend what you like and tell the FL arseholes that you'll see them in court. I'm sick of a summer where all we can hope for is off-loading players to save a few quid. For what? For whom?

The owners could choose to ignore FFP and role the dice on a big gamble of us being promoted season 2013/14 and pay any fine accruing, but it appears they have learnt promotion is not certain regardless of how much money has been thrown at it and decided not to gamble.

 

[Jeff]

As I said earlier, such regulations must (in my opinion) contravene the freedom of trade and employment laws within the EU. The fact that such agreements are voluntary does not imply that they are enforceable or excluded from legal challenge. If someone or some group wishes to pursue such action in order to establish the legal principle then they are liberty to challenge the FFP regulations. In my opinion these regulations clearly prevent members of the EU, in this instance football players from maximising their income, the fact the the football club employing them cannot afford their wages is the clubs fault NOT the players.

There is nothing in the FFP rules that says clubs can't pay players high wages. It just says the clubs should have the income to be able to afford those wages. Just like any well run business would do.

 

[Brown Nose]

What a surprise, a party that bleeds the game dry doesn't like it.....

Players have been sucking money out of the game for a long time now. However, this is because armchair fans around the world fund this. It's all about supply and demand. If we paid less for Sky etc, players would get less. You cannot artificially attempt to force lower player wages by establishing a draconian set of rules. It's barking mad and doomed to fail and it will drag down most clubs along the way.

FFP is attempting to tackle the wrong problem. It is only incompetent administrators that end up charging over the top ticket prices in order to offer bizarrely attractive player contracts or fail to effectively balance accounts that blight the game. It is ego-driven owners that play 'Football Manager' with a club, saddling them with debt in the process, that blight the game. Requesting professional skills and standards from these people is the way forward.

All FFP is going to do is make rich people keep away from football altogether as it has no attraction anymore. And rich people investing their fortunes in football has been as important to the advancement of the game (better stadiums, better players) as Sky has.

The people that will suffer will be fans of any club that dares to aspire to improve. FFP will lead to Man Utd winning the league every season and the three relegated Premier League teams getting promoted every season. Whose interest is FFP in? Only the richest clubs benefit from it and even they won't be happy.

 

[Redditch Fox]

The owners could choose to ignore FFP and role the dice on a big gamble of us being promoted season 2013/14 and pay any fine accruing, but it appears they have learnt promotion is not certain regardless of how much money has been thrown at it and decided not to gamble.

The assumption is that Leicester were one of the very few Football League clubs that opposed the new restrictions. However, assuming that this is the case, I guess that the owners will have had mixed feelings because they have not - in general - had good value for the money spent on bringing in costly players. If there had been better judgement on transfer dealings and the club had been better managed we would have been promoted by now.

 

[Brown Nose]

The owners could choose to ignore FFP and role the dice on a big gamble of us being promoted season 2013/14 and pay any fine accruing, but it appears they have learnt promotion is not certain regardless of how much money has been thrown at it and decided not to gamble.

Promotion is less certain when you're effectively competing against teams that have a massive financial advantage though isn't it? That's what has been artificially created in the Championship. Our league was the one where any team could get promoted and any team could beat another. It has been its USP for years and the main reason why it has a world wide audience despite being a second tier league.

FFP will destroy everything that is good about the Championship.