Time To Break FFP?

[number4.]

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.

all very fair, my point is in reality we have no idea how much was time barred and judges went 2 to 1, it wasnt rubbished by CAS; I think they (UEFA) will look for a "kill" & I think clubs will push the limits rather than smash it out the door, if that makes sense.

Only time will tell, in reality the only markers we have at the moment is PSG and Man City, who despite endless reserves seem to be relatively restrained in the market since their token slap on the wrists

 

[number4.]

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.

all very fair, my point is in reality we have no idea how much was time barred and judges went 2 to 1, it wasnt rubbished by CAS; I think they (UEFA) will look for a "kill" & I think clubs will push the limits rather than smash it out the door, if that makes sense.

Only time will tell, in reality the only markers we have at the moment is PSG and Man City, who despite endless reserves seem to be relatively restrained in the market since their token slap on the wrists

 

[gwladysnight]

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.

The rules clearly are enforceable Milan got banned for a year and City paid a 10m fine. As for losses next summer as I have explained losses will be fine if they are as a result of the pandemic. If they are as a result of increased spending on transfers and wages they will not.

 

[catcherintherye]

all very fair, my point is in reality we have no idea how much was time barred and judges went 2 to 1, it wasnt rubbished by CAS; I think they (UEFA) will look for a "kill" & I think clubs will push the limits rather than smash it out the door, if that makes sense.

Only time will tell, in reality the only markers we have at the moment is PSG and Man City, who despite endless reserves seem to be relatively restrained in the market since their token slap on the wrists

Well the report stated that otehr factors were present. In a way though, it's irrelevent. When the next case is viewed, they look at what City did, and measure against that. The precadent has been set.

As for restraint, City spent close to 200m in the middle of a pandemic, and explored signing the best player in the world as well (and had he wanted to come would have done a deal for him). So I would hardly say that was being restrained.

I don't see us going out and blowing FFP. It's pointless. I also don't think, as the OP i commented on, that UEFA are going to be punishing us to the maximum degree if we continue on the path we are. That is lunacy. We are far behind what City have done, and what City have done was thrown out of court. Not only that, but UEFA have not even appealed the decision, so even they accept they were wrong to bring charges against City.

 

[gwladysnight]

Well the report stated that otehr factors were present. In a way though, it's irrelevent. When the next case is viewed, they look at what City did, and measure against that. The precadent has been set.

As for restraint, City spent close to 200m in the middle of a pandemic, and explored signing the best player in the world as well (and had he wanted to come would have done a deal for him). So I would hardly say that was being restrained.

I don't see us going out and blowing FFP. It's pointless. I also don't think, as the OP i commented on, that UEFA are going to be punishing us to the maximum degree if we continue on the path we are. That is lunacy. We are far behind what City have done, and what City have done was thrown out of court. Not only that, but UEFA have not even appealed the decision, so even they accept they were wrong to bring charges against City.

It doesn't work like that. City escaped on a technicality on a split decision. It is like tax avoidance you escape on a technicality. That doesn't mean people can stop paying tax it means the authorities just tighten the rules up.

As for UEFA appealing the decision that is the whole point of CAS it is the Court of Arbitration for Sport. UEFA's rules mean that the ultimate decision maker is CAS.

The only possible legal remedy would be the Swiss courts but to do that UEFA would have to argue that their own rules were not fair.

 

[gwladysnight]

As for City's spending they spent £154 million in the last window. That £154m is amortised over the players contracts so that works out at around £40m per season. That entire spend was offset by the sale of Sane and Otamendi who were worth virtually nothing on the books.

City almost certainly didn't breach FFP last season.

 

[bluenorthwarrior]

As for City's spending they spent £154 million in the last window. That £154m is amortised over the players contracts so that works out at around £40m per season. That entire spend was offset by the sale of Sane and Otamendi who were worth virtually nothing on the books.

City almost certainly didn't breach FFP last season.

I've always wondered about the argument of making enough ffp profit in a window to pay the first year's amortization for players bought that summer. It was often mentioned with regard to our potential spending this summer.

The issue I have is that in this case if city have added a 40m per year amortization bill this window then it impacts long beyond this year (which has been 'balanced'), so before they spend a penny next year they already have to sell 40m worth of profit to cover this ongoing cost, and the same the next year and on until the original contract is up. Multiply this by several years and the argument of balancing one window by using full profits received but only a proportion of the spend that window is incorrect.

Surely the reality is that the accounting start point every year is already tens of millions of amortization from previous years so it isn't as simple as trying to balance one year in this way.

Hope this make sense, it did in my head!

 

[Terrarian]

Know bugger all about accounting me, I'll leave that to people on the staff paid to care. I do want to be competitive though, can't take much more of some of these lads, I hope we accelerate the plan or we'll go nowhere then lose Richarlison.

January spend needed in my opinion. I can't wait to see the back of some players, never disliked a bunch of players as much, the constant let downs and abject performances are draining on the morale. I'm frankly sick of all the money in the game, it has ruined it.

 

[gwladysnight]

I've always wondered about the argument of making enough ffp profit in a window to pay the first year's amortization for players bought that summer. It was often mentioned with regard to our potential spending this summer.

The issue I have is that in this case if city have added a 40m per year amortization bill this window then it impacts long beyond this year (which has been 'balanced'), so before they spend a penny next year they already have to sell 40m worth of profit to cover this ongoing cost, and the same the next year and on until the original contract is up. Multiply this by several years and the argument of balancing one window by using full profits received but only a proportion of the spend that window is incorrect.

Surely the reality is that the accounting start point every year is already tens of millions of amortization from previous years so it isn't as simple as trying to balance one year in this way.

Hope this make sense, it did in my head!

No it makes perfect sense.

There are a few caveats though extending a players contract extends the amortization period. Another one is that you don't have to sell players to meet the negative effect amortization has on your balance sheet you can just treat it as a cost.

The biggest one though is that Academy costs are excluded from FFP calculations. So you can follow the Chelsea model in which you hoover up young talent whose transfer fees are excluded from FFP and then sell them on at a later date to boost the balance sheet.

In the last window City bought 4 teenagers for the academy with fees ranging between £4m and £9m with a total outlay of £26m. Then you look at them selling past Academy players like Iheanacho
for £25m and Diaz for £15m and it solves a hell of a lot of amortization problems.

 

[riddick]

No it makes perfect sense.

There are a few caveats though extending a players contract extends the amortization period. Another one is that you don't have to sell players to meet the negative effect amortization has on your balance sheet you can just treat it as a cost.

The biggest one though is that Academy costs are excluded from FFP calculations. So you can follow the Chelsea model in which you hoover up young talent whose transfer fees are excluded from FFP and then sell them on at a later date to boost the balance sheet.

In the last window City bought 4 teenagers for the academy with fees ranging between £4m and £9m with a total outlay of £26m. Then you look at them selling past Academy players like Iheanacho
for £25m and Diaz for £15m and it solves a hell of a lot of amortization problems.

I know the situations aren't really comparable but, man, our academy really is poor in these regards. It's doubtful we would get more than £7m for Kenny and that would be the top end of who we could sell from our academy right now. I honestly doubt Davies would even go for £5m..

 

[gwladysnight]

I know the situations aren't really comparable but, man, our academy really is poor in these regards. It's doubtful we would get more than £7m for Kenny and that would be the top end of who we could sell from our academy right now. I honestly doubt Davies would even go for £5m..

It shows though that we don't have to break FFP and risk the future of the Club though. There is nothing to stop us bringing in World class youngsters for the Academy and showing a bit of patience.

 

[tonka1878]

Break, separate into atoms? Yeah, sod Europe, what is the league punishment other than $$$?

 

[DaChunk]

Break the wheel Mosh

 

[gwladysnight]

Break, separate into atoms? Yeah, sod Europe, what is the league punishment other than $$$?

Deliberately break FFP for one accounting period you make it almost impossible to meet the break even for the next two seasons. In effect, you are banning Everton from Europe for 3 years.

Why would really top players join a Club that cannot compete in Europe for three years. Why would Richarlison commit himself to 3 years without European competition during the peak years of his career.

 

[tonka1878]

Deliberately break FFP for one accounting period you make it almost impossible to meet the break even for the next two seasons. In effect, you are banning Everton from Europe for 3 years.

Why would really top players join a Club that cannot compete in Europe for three years. Why would Richarlison commit himself to 3 years without European competition during the peak years of his career.

If we finished 1st and won trophies yes.