Time To Break FFP?

[Goat]

Esks spreadsheets in the mud!

 

[ForeverBlue92]

I think the 3 year cycle would then be 2021 summer where we have a bunch of players out of contract. Also the year 2022 the remainder of our 'unwanted' players contracts will expire.

Im wondering though whether its 3 years then start from scratch or whether it goes to year 2, year 3, year 4 and continues each year.

If it is the end of the 3 year FFP cycle then were really laughing. If however it is year on year then were still stuffed as i think last year was a big spend for us as well.

Last year we done alright - made profits on Gana, Lookman, Vlasic, Onyekuru

 

[Zatara]

Last year we done alright - made profits on Gana, Lookman, Vlasic, Onyekuru

Yeah youre right. Am i thinking of the year before?

Someone posted somewhere that we were down £120+ mil on this 3 year cycle.

I thought it was just 3 years ago and once were through this season we have room to play

 

[Tipp blue]

Mulling over why we haven't got a sleeve sponsor yet....it is not difficult to attract a sponsor so odd that a week out from kick off we haven't announced anything.

Could it be deliberately waiting to see extent of spend before a 'preferred' partner announced for a figure that meets the ffp need?

Obviously not the biggest income but could be packaged in order to raise the value, such as also main sponsor for the women's team and whatever other squads were not in the cazoo deal?

Signing James who's one of the biggest names in Football will add nice few pounds to the sleeve sponsorship deal. Every time he tweets a picture of himself in Everton kit it's potentially reaching 40 million people around the world... he's got 20 times more twitter followers than Everton have.

 

[DaChunk]

FFP is Ours

 

[catcherintherye]

To do it you'd have to have the money.

But I suspect also that if the authorities thought it was a deliberate act, as opposed to what might be argued ( right or wrong) to be mismanagement, they would punish at the upper end of their options.

And there would be no scope for Man City-style appeal.

What is this idiocy. City have already busted FFP. Teams can now do as they want.

 

[number4.]

What is this idiocy. City have already busted FFP. Teams can now do as they want.

I'm not sure how accurate that is Catcher; my reading of the city case is essentially they got their ban lifted due to the time stamping loophole, effectively City dragged things out til the evidence was admissible?

I'm no expert here, but while city clearly "got away with it" or what ever language you wish to use, ultimately I wonder if it weakens FFP in the end, if anything are UEFA learning from their mistakes and will be armed better in future?

Notable that City were relatively restrained in the Transfer window

 

[catcherintherye]

I'm not sure how accurate that is Catcher; my reading of the city case is essentially they got their ban lifted due to the time stamping loophole, effectively City dragged things out til the evidence was admissible?

I'm no expert here, but while city clearly "got away with it" or what ever language you wish to use, ultimately I wonder if it weakens FFP in the end, if anything are UEFA learning from their mistakes and will be armed better in future?

Notable that City were relatively restrained in the Transfer window

You are mistaken here.

They did not get it thrown out due to time, it was one factor of many. Primarily it is not compatible with European regulation. That principle is now established. That is the facts, not an opinion.

Again, City did get away with it. UEFA can do whatever they like, but the precadent has been set. If a case at the same level of City, or indeed in the same ballpark of City happens again, the case gets thrown out. The reality is of course the opposite of what you say. UEFA now know to not pursue costly and unwinnable cases.

City still spent big.

Nobody is getting fined due to FFP. Those days have gone. Like Bosman before them, football has changed forever. It's not my opinion, it's just the facts of the case.

 

[number4.]

You are mistaken here.

They did not get it thrown out due to time, it was one factor of many. Primarily it is not compatible with European regulation. That principle is now established. That is the facts, not an opinion.

Again, City did get away with it. UEFA can do whatever they like, but the precadent has been set. If a case at the same level of City, or indeed in the same ballpark of City happens again, the case gets thrown out. The reality is of course the opposite of what you say. UEFA now know to not pursue costly and unwinnable cases.

City still spent big.

Nobody is getting fined due to FFP. Those days have gone. Like Bosman before them, football has changed forever. It's not my opinion, it's just the facts of the case.

Literally one of the first line in the CAS document is...

"The Cas panel of three European lawyers decided by a majority 2-1, however, that it would not consider the legitimacy of those Etisalat payments, because they were made more than five years before the CFCB charges were brought in May 2019, so were “time-barred”"

Time barring was certainly a factor, I dont think we are clear on the scale of how much they were cleared of and how much was time-barred

 

[random]

What is this idiocy. City have already busted FFP. Teams can now do as they want.

not sure this is correct

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...end-financial-fair-play-rules-due-to-pandemic

some leeway is allowed currently, but that is not the same as it being stopped

 

[gwladysnight]

You are mistaken here.

They did not get it thrown out due to time, it was one factor of many. Primarily it is not compatible with European regulation. That principle is now established. That is the facts, not an opinion.

Again, City did get away with it. UEFA can do whatever they like, but the precadent has been set. If a case at the same level of City, or indeed in the same ballpark of City happens again, the case gets thrown out. The reality is of course the opposite of what you say. UEFA now know to not pursue costly and unwinnable cases.

City still spent big.

Nobody is getting fined due to FFP. Those days have gone. Like Bosman before them, football has changed forever. It's not my opinion, it's just the facts of the case.

Please explain why Guardiola came out and said that City couldn't afford to sign a striker in the last window if FFP is dead ?

 

[catcherintherye]

Literally one of the first line in the CAS document is...

"The Cas panel of three European lawyers decided by a majority 2-1, however, that it would not consider the legitimacy of those Etisalat payments, because they were made more than five years before the CFCB charges were brought in May 2019, so were “time-barred”"

Time barring was certainly a factor, I dont think we are clear on the scale of how much they were cleared of and how much was time-barred

It was a factor, as I said. It was not the only factor though. UEFA can feasibly not get timed out again (thought it will be difficult, as structurally the rules are against them) but they can't overcome the reality that the rules don't match the anti-competition laws that govern European society.

UEFA were stupid to take the case to court, but the precadent has now been set. Every judge will look at what City did and measure in infraction to that. If it's not demonstrably worse, nothing gets done.

It's interesting, if it's just and solely timed out, they would have appealed. They haven't. There is a reason they haven't.

 

[catcherintherye]

not sure this is correct

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...end-financial-fair-play-rules-due-to-pandemic

some leeway is allowed currently, but that is not the same as it being stopped

There is an attempt to keep it going, however the rules are not enforceable.

 

[gwladysnight]

not sure this is correct

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...end-financial-fair-play-rules-due-to-pandemic

some leeway is allowed currently, but that is not the same as it being stopped

What has happened is that two accounting periods have been rolled into one for the purposes of FFP. That allows clubs some leeway. The other thing is that clubs can make deductions for losses due to FFP. That is to compensate for lower match revenues and lower TV revenues. As you say it doesn't mean FFP is dead.

 

[catcherintherye]

What has happened is that two accounting periods have been rolled into one for the purposes of FFP. That allows clubs some leeway. The other thing is that clubs can make deductions for losses due to FFP. That is to compensate for lower match revenues and lower TV revenues. As you say it doesn't mean FFP is dead.

That is the first set of measures. Lets see what further measures are put. When massive losses come in next summer, lets see where we are.

It is also worth noting, in essence the rules are not enforceable.