Jacko93
Player Valuation: £35m
Is this why Martinez didn't spend any money in January?
Also, is it likely that this is why Suarez's wage increase doesn't happen till next season? They know they're close to the wind.
ECHO Comment: "Fears of Witch-hunt Against Liverpool FC"
- Thread starter davek
- Start date
- Status
Is this why Martinez didn't spend any money in January?
Also, is it likely that this is why Suarez's wage increase doesn't happen till next season? They know they're close to the wind.
Jose is popcorning big over the ffp as well, giving it some media attention
I'd laugh if a team with such a meagre budget as our own breached FFP
Proof that the system is flawed right there
Proof that the system is flawed right there
Jags..class
Player Valuation: £70m
what about clubs from other countries, 70% of them will fail the FFP
or proof that we aren't being run as responsibly as is being made out with no investment from shareholders and poor outsourcing deals, I don't think the FFP should just target the super rich, but also clubs in our position, or portsmouth, run with short term objectives in mind, at the danger of the clubs long term future. The big hope of course is that it can rein in the big boys, I think we all remain sceptical
Foot Long Hot Dog
Player Valuation: A packet of pork scratchings
Wrong. just under 1/3 of qualifiers across Europe have been asked to provide further details
Foot Long Hot Dog
Player Valuation: A packet of pork scratchings
We only lost £7.5m in the 2 monitoring years, the limit is 45m Euro
Ashtonian
Banned on request
The reason why they aren't paying suarez more until next season is simple....
If they don't make champions league he will be sold and paid that at another club. Therefore he gets them in the champs league and as a reward gets rewarded with a champions league wage.
Del
Ric Wee fan club member 2014
Liverpool £90million losses between 2011-2013 might not have breached Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations
Just when Liverpool look like getting back into the Champions League for the first time in four years, they release annual accounts that could get them kicked out again.
But, as followers of Manchester City and Chelsea are fast realising, massive losses do not necessarily equate to a breach of Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations – for which expulsion from Europe is the ultimate sanction.
On the face of it, Liverpool’s £90million-plus loss between 2011 and 2013 is well in excess of the £37m FFP allows them to lose during that period, and the period 2011-14.
However, spending on infrastructure is exempt from FFP calculations and, as any Liverpool supporter worthy of the name knows, the club have wasted millions on stadium-related projects in the last seven years.
Despite ousting George Gillett and Tom Hicks as owners almost three-and-a-half years ago, Liverpool’s accounts show they were still saddled with debt related to aborted attempts to build a new ground at Stanley Park.
An interest-free, inter-company loan of £46.8m from parent company Fenway Sports Group was used to pay off debts from such projects dating back to the Gillett and Hicks regime.
When it comes to FFP, exactly how much money can be deducted from the £49.8m loss Liverpool announced overnight is something Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body will determine when it comes to forensically examine Liverpool’s 2011-14 accounts this time next year.
Those deductions will include other exemptions, such as investment in youth development, while the club are expected to plough even more money into the redevelopment of Anfield in the near future.
Their income, meanwhile, will also be boosted by their share of year one of the massive new £5.5 billion broadcast deal which began this season, although they will have to wait for a potential £30m of Champions League riches until next year.
Interestingly, their financial statement does include a forecast for the current season relating to transfers and wages – which are undoubtedly covered by FFP.
Liverpool revealed their transfer and contract activity – including the extention of Luis Suarez’s deal – cost them £53.3m.
How much that affects their ability to meet FFP will only become clear this time next year.
Just when Liverpool look like getting back into the Champions League for the first time in four years, they release annual accounts that could get them kicked out again.
But, as followers of Manchester City and Chelsea are fast realising, massive losses do not necessarily equate to a breach of Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations – for which expulsion from Europe is the ultimate sanction.
On the face of it, Liverpool’s £90million-plus loss between 2011 and 2013 is well in excess of the £37m FFP allows them to lose during that period, and the period 2011-14.
However, spending on infrastructure is exempt from FFP calculations and, as any Liverpool supporter worthy of the name knows, the club have wasted millions on stadium-related projects in the last seven years.
Despite ousting George Gillett and Tom Hicks as owners almost three-and-a-half years ago, Liverpool’s accounts show they were still saddled with debt related to aborted attempts to build a new ground at Stanley Park.
An interest-free, inter-company loan of £46.8m from parent company Fenway Sports Group was used to pay off debts from such projects dating back to the Gillett and Hicks regime.
When it comes to FFP, exactly how much money can be deducted from the £49.8m loss Liverpool announced overnight is something Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body will determine when it comes to forensically examine Liverpool’s 2011-14 accounts this time next year.
Those deductions will include other exemptions, such as investment in youth development, while the club are expected to plough even more money into the redevelopment of Anfield in the near future.
Their income, meanwhile, will also be boosted by their share of year one of the massive new £5.5 billion broadcast deal which began this season, although they will have to wait for a potential £30m of Champions League riches until next year.
Interestingly, their financial statement does include a forecast for the current season relating to transfers and wages – which are undoubtedly covered by FFP.
Liverpool revealed their transfer and contract activity – including the extention of Luis Suarez’s deal – cost them £53.3m.
How much that affects their ability to meet FFP will only become clear this time next year.
Del
Ric Wee fan club member 2014
Although UEFA’s FFP Guide outlines the losses a club can report and still be eligible for Champions League or Europa League licensing—the amount is pegged at €45 million for this season and next—buried within its own regulations document is an out-clause, known as Annex XI, that violators could use to escape punishment.
Titled “Other factors to be considered in respect of the break-even requirement,” the clause discloses that “an improving trend in the annual break-even results will be viewed more favourably than a worsening trend.”
In other words, a club can conceivably achieve UEFA licensing despite a considerable deficit, so long as that deficit has been trending downward—and considerably so—in successive reporting periods.
Titled “Other factors to be considered in respect of the break-even requirement,” the clause discloses that “an improving trend in the annual break-even results will be viewed more favourably than a worsening trend.”
In other words, a club can conceivably achieve UEFA licensing despite a considerable deficit, so long as that deficit has been trending downward—and considerably so—in successive reporting periods.
Jags..class
Player Valuation: £70m
No clubs will be banned because of the FFP
- Status