Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Time To Break FFP?

Is it time to take the hit and break FFP?

  • Yes

    Votes: 153 70.2%

  • No

    Votes: 51 23.4%

  • Maybe (give Brands 1 more window)

    Votes: 14 6.4%
  • Total voters
    218
Status
Not open for further replies.
number4. said:
Completely agree. My point is they will now try to sharpen the edges with rule changes; will it work. Not so sure, but I am sure they will try
Click to expand...

Try being the operative word.The entire framework of FFP has failed in its primary objective to bring about a level playing field for teams in European leagues.

Every major European league is still and will be dominated by the same group of clubs. All FFP does in its current form is to deny mobility, deter investment and limit competition.

when they do challenge one of the big clubs (City, PSG, AC Milan). They get their arses handed to them by teams of mega lawyers employed by the clubs to pick holes in their flaky legal statutes.

In its current form it’s dead. It needs to be re-thought and re-built from scratch.

in the meantime, like I said earlier, it’s time for us to go shopping. FFP should not concern or affect us for the next couple of years, it will take UEFA a lot longer than that to sort out their mess.
 
Zatara said:
@catcherintherye (or anyone else)...

If i was worth £10billion and wanted to sponsor something or gift the club £1billion. Yet i had zero shares and was merely a fan...

Would this not account for wiping out the FFP concerns?

Because, if so then what would be the issue with Usmanov doing something similar?

The value would go into the club and the club valuation would soar benefiting Moshiri who could then agree to a side letter or gentlemans agreement for the funds to be returned at a later date or a % of any future sale price.
Click to expand...

There are obviously a lot of implications with this, so I'll try to answer what I can.

1) I don't think gifts can be counted in FFP calculations. So any gift of money can help the club but wouldn't save it from FFP.

2) An individual could sponsor the club. After the verdict yesterday strengthened this, as Monsour seemed to do exactly this (alongside Etihad). If you we worth 15bn+ it would probably make more sense to use a company if you had one. From an audit perspective, it's much harder to prove wrongdoing on behalf of a company's board.

3) Yes if 1bn was sponsored if would wipe out FFP concerns. The issue is on "market value test".

4) Yesterdays verdict essentially cleared City, who had (I calculate) agreed a deal which was 15 times higher than the top industry rate (highest at the time the Emirates, City's was £60m. There would be some argument about inflation between the two deals. However it's not unreasonable to assume 10x what the highest sponsorship is for something, is consistent with what City did, and were cleared of any wrongdoing of yesterday.

5) That gives an indication of the wriggle room. If we stay within those boundaries, UEFA will be advised to not even bring a case, never mind have a successful case.

6) As always a lot depends on how much money Usmanov wants to throw in. I can't answer that. I'd expect a range of things to be sponsored, (potentially with the womens team) and slowly to start increasing most of the existing sponsorship if we hit any mile stones. Don't rule out a "now Everton in Europe USM have doubled their sponsorship in x,y,z to account for the added exposure." I suspect they will stick to sponsorships to keep us the right side of the line for FFP.

7)I don't think we will see instantly transformative spending, but a continuation of reasonable funds being made available, for a better manager.

8) As for the final question, I don't know what business regulations would be about gifting money to one company, to inflate it's value. I'm sure it would be in a grey area. It's not my area of understanding. It's why I suspect he will do so via his companies.

Thats my sumary, but if any questions emerge, do ask away.
 
number4. said:
Completely agree. My point is they will now try to sharpen the edges with rule changes; will it work. Not so sure, but I am sure they will try
Click to expand...

There's very little they can do though. The issue is not how sharp the edges of the rules are, it's that they don't stand up outside of football. UEFA's problem has emerged from trying to "sharpen the edges".

I can't stress this enough, but CAS, the ESC or other statutory bodies don't care about football, nevermind Everton. Football is a small industry. They will deal with companies 50 times the the PL in total. They will apply the rules as they see them, as consistently as they can. I've said for a long time, the FFP legislation doesn't fit with European (and American) principles on competition. Even in a fairly blatant case of rule breaking from City, they can't secure a conviction. If sides stick within the remit of what City did, the precedent and rules are set, there's no rule breaking.
 
Evertonians, always so quick to provide their owners with excuses before they even need them. We write their excuses for them.
 
Mutzo Nutzo said:
Try being the operative word.The entire framework of FFP has failed in its primary objective to bring about a level playing field for teams in European leagues.

Every major European league is still and will be dominated by the same group of clubs. All FFP does in its current form is to deny mobility, deter investment and limit competition.

when they do challenge one of the big clubs (City, PSG, AC Milan). They get their arses handed to them by teams of mega lawyers employed by the clubs to pick holes in their flaky legal statutes.

In its current form it’s dead. It needs to be re-thought and re-built from scratch.

in the meantime, like I said earlier, it’s time for us to go shopping. FFP should not concern or affect us for the next couple of years, it will take UEFA a lot longer than that to sort out their mess.
Click to expand...

Very very little I disagree with above. the one Q I have is what about the PL and their rules?
 

catcherintherye said:
There's very little they can do though. The issue is not how sharp the edges of the rules are, it's that they don't stand up outside of football. UEFA's problem has emerged from trying to "sharpen the edges".

I can't stress this enough, but CAS, the ESC or other statutory bodies don't care about football, nevermind Everton. Football is a small industry. They will deal with companies 50 times the the PL in total. They will apply the rules as they see them, as consistently as they can. I've said for a long time, the FFP legislation doesn't fit with European (and American) principles on competition. Even in a fairly blatant case of rule breaking from City, they can't secure a conviction. If sides stick within the remit of what City did, the precedent and rules are set, there's no rule breaking.
Click to expand...

They certainly seem very very limited, but I don't think you can fully compare football with general competition laws, as the teams agree to play by the rules when entering a tournament / league etc.

What UEFA can do is change the scopes of punishment and arguably the right to appeal.... Ultimately this will change the landscape dramatically and all of the below are on the table

1) Arms war between national states pretending to be football clubs
2) Uefa tightening regulations and reducing appeal rights (not sure if this can happen)
3) European superleague
4) Establishment clubs around Europe fighting more aggressively for TV rights on their own or bigger slices of the pie, particularly in the flatly distributed PL

In terms of "just smash it" hopefully we show real aggression
 
number4. said:
They certainly seem very very limited, but I don't think you can fully compare football with general competition laws, as the teams agree to play by the rules when entering a tournament / league etc.

What UEFA can do is change the scopes of punishment and arguably the right to appeal.... Ultimately this will change the landscape dramatically and all of the below are on the table

1) Arms war between national states pretending to be football clubs
2) Uefa tightening regulations and reducing appeal rights (not sure if this can happen)
3) European superleague
4) Establishment clubs around Europe fighting more aggressively for TV rights on their own or bigger slices of the pie, particularly in the flatly distributed PL

In terms of "just smash it" hopefully we show real aggression
Click to expand...
All you missed out was the FIFA dream of a World Club League, potentially the biggest money spinner of all.
 

catcherintherye said:
There are obviously a lot of implications with this, so I'll try to answer what I can.

1) I don't think gifts can be counted in FFP calculations. So any gift of money can help the club but wouldn't save it from FFP.

2) An individual could sponsor the club. After the verdict yesterday strengthened this, as Monsour seemed to do exactly this (alongside Etihad). If you we worth 15bn+ it would probably make more sense to use a company if you had one. From an audit perspective, it's much harder to prove wrongdoing on behalf of a company's board.

3) Yes if 1bn was sponsored if would wipe out FFP concerns. The issue is on "market value test".

4) Yesterdays verdict essentially cleared City, who had (I calculate) agreed a deal which was 15 times higher than the top industry rate (highest at the time the Emirates, City's was £60m. There would be some argument about inflation between the two deals. However it's not unreasonable to assume 10x what the highest sponsorship is for something, is consistent with what City did, and were cleared of any wrongdoing of yesterday.

5) That gives an indication of the wriggle room. If we stay within those boundaries, UEFA will be advised to not even bring a case, never mind have a successful case.

6) As always a lot depends on how much money Usmanov wants to throw in. I can't answer that. I'd expect a range of things to be sponsored, (potentially with the womens team) and slowly to start increasing most of the existing sponsorship if we hit any mile stones. Don't rule out a "now Everton in Europe USM have doubled their sponsorship in x,y,z to account for the added exposure." I suspect they will stick to sponsorships to keep us the right side of the line for FFP.

7)I don't think we will see instantly transformative spending, but a continuation of reasonable funds being made available, for a better manager.

8) As for the final question, I don't know what business regulations would be about gifting money to one company, to inflate it's value. I'm sure it would be in a grey area. It's not my area of understanding. It's why I suspect he will do so via his companies.

Thats my sumary, but if any questions emerge, do ask away.
Click to expand...

Its not a problem, Moshiri has already ploughed 350m into the business.

But that money isnt income, so when you spend it, you show a massive loss on the balance sheet.

City took UEFA to court.

No English team has ever breached FFP Rules, so the Premier League has never sanctioned a single club, so nobody knows how The Premier League would react.

Money isnt an issue, Moshiri will give us whatever we need, the issue is being able to spend it without doing something nobody has ever done before.
 
catcherintherye said:
There are obviously a lot of implications with this, so I'll try to answer what I can.

1) I don't think gifts can be counted in FFP calculations. So any gift of money can help the club but wouldn't save it from FFP.

2) An individual could sponsor the club. After the verdict yesterday strengthened this, as Monsour seemed to do exactly this (alongside Etihad). If you we worth 15bn+ it would probably make more sense to use a company if you had one. From an audit perspective, it's much harder to prove wrongdoing on behalf of a company's board.

3) Yes if 1bn was sponsored if would wipe out FFP concerns. The issue is on "market value test".

4) Yesterdays verdict essentially cleared City, who had (I calculate) agreed a deal which was 15 times higher than the top industry rate (highest at the time the Emirates, City's was £60m. There would be some argument about inflation between the two deals. However it's not unreasonable to assume 10x what the highest sponsorship is for something, is consistent with what City did, and were cleared of any wrongdoing of yesterday.

5) That gives an indication of the wriggle room. If we stay within those boundaries, UEFA will be advised to not even bring a case, never mind have a successful case.

6) As always a lot depends on how much money Usmanov wants to throw in. I can't answer that. I'd expect a range of things to be sponsored, (potentially with the womens team) and slowly to start increasing most of the existing sponsorship if we hit any mile stones. Don't rule out a "now Everton in Europe USM have doubled their sponsorship in x,y,z to account for the added exposure." I suspect they will stick to sponsorships to keep us the right side of the line for FFP.

7)I don't think we will see instantly transformative spending, but a continuation of reasonable funds being made available, for a better manager.

8) As for the final question, I don't know what business regulations would be about gifting money to one company, to inflate it's value. I'm sure it would be in a grey area. It's not my area of understanding. It's why I suspect he will do so via his companies.

Thats my sumary, but if any questions emerge, do ask away.
Click to expand...
Is there anything stopping USM sponsoring City £100m and City sponsoring us £100m to get around the rules ? would suit both clubs
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register
Back
Top