-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Éperons said:
Glad I'm not the only one highly suspicious of UEFA over things like this...
It was like an article I read on FIFA history once put it… the arrival of Havelange to the scene turned FIFA from a racist and corrupt organisation to just an astonishingly corrupt organisation. They can't help themselves; the only way they can make money is through the World Cup, so dammit, they will.Reptile_16 said:
UEFA I imagine might be a little less corrupt, simply because they actually do much more and have far more balls in the air. I can't see Platini going to the mat with a nation's government over that nation's decision not to sell beer in stadia, for example, while he's busy with two super leagues as well as a quadrennial tournament and a quadrennial qualifiers tournament, etc.
But they're cut from the same cloth…
Exactamundo.
PSG has been in the CL a total of 5 times and not since 2004–2005. The CL has done just fine without them. I'm confident that UEFA would not have resorted to trickery to get Chelsea into the CL if Bayern had beaten them.mad said:
I also suspect that if Man U were to stumble to fifth, UEFA would also not move heaven and earth to put them in the CL. But consider it this way: For the discussion of a CL without Man U to even begin, they have to be a fourth/fifth-place team. Wrapping one's head around that proposition is nearly impossible in this day and age. Death, taxes, and Man U in the group stages of the CL…
Remains likely that Citeh will prove to be the benchmark for all the other clubs, don't think there is any way they can make the FFP for the first period that is covered due to the wages they have.
So fine most likely first time out. No point banning teams first time out, they won't make the revenue and then you have a vicious circle.
There are a few options for UEFA.
Reprimand / Warning
Fine
Deduction of Points
Withholding of Revenue from UEFA competition
Prohibition to register new players for UEFA competitions;
A restriction on the number of players that a club may register for UEFA competitions
Disqualification from a competition in progress
Exclusion from future competitions
So fine most likely first time out. No point banning teams first time out, they won't make the revenue and then you have a vicious circle.
There are a few options for UEFA.
Reprimand / Warning
Fine
Deduction of Points
Withholding of Revenue from UEFA competition
Prohibition to register new players for UEFA competitions;
A restriction on the number of players that a club may register for UEFA competitions
Disqualification from a competition in progress
Exclusion from future competitions
Premier League player wages have reached an all-time high - a worrying trend with clubs now subject to UEFA's financial fair play rules.
The latest annual review of football finance by analyst Deloitte show the increase in wages outstripped the growth in revenues.
It has resulted in a wages/revenue ratio of 70 per cent in the Premier League - a record figure having crept up from the low-to-mid 60s five years ago.
Wages went up by £201million in 2010-11 to almost £1.6billion, a 14% rise, and overall revenues rose by 12% to £2.27billion. This was mostly driven by a rise in income from the new TV deals, especially from overseas rights.
Alan Switzer, director in the sports business group at Deloitte, said wage control was paramount for good business.
He said: "If the wages to revenue ratio is 70% or higher it's very difficult to make an operating profit.
"In our view it is too high as a league and the clubs need to be edging back to the low 60s. Every 1% that it drops should increase operating profits by £20m to £25m."
The wage rises at some of the bigger clubs have been offset by significant rises in commercial income at some sides, including Manchester United, Liverpool and Manchester City.
The figures are for the 2010-11 season so are the last ones before UEFA start taking them into account for their financial fair play (FFP) calculations where clubs in European competition have to break even.
Switzer said Manchester City and Chelsea faced the greatest challenges in conforming to the FFP rules.
"Chelsea and Manchester City are the clubs which have recorded the biggest losses so they are the two which have the most to do, and to be fair to them they have been pretty public about needing to take action," he added.
"A significant number of clubs around Europe have some distance to travel on the road towards compliance."
The Deloitte report does not cover the most recent season, but it does show the effect of the 50% tax band coming into play - the 92 league clubs paid nearly £1.2billion in tax, up 20%.
The report also shows almost half of top-flight clubs had a reduction in matchday revenue reflecting the fact that many have been cautious about raising ticket prices during the current economic climate.
Other points highlighted by the report include:
- Combined pre-tax losses among Premier League clubs were £380m, while transfer spending increased by £210m (38%), to a record level of £769m.
- Total revenue in the Championship increased by £17m (4%) to £423m, partly caused by an increase in the solidarity payments from the Premier League.
- The wages/revenue ratio in Championship clubs was an even-more worrying figure of 90%.
- The Bundesliga remained Europe's most profitable league with operating profits of £154m, a 24% increase. In the Premier League, overall operating profits decreased by £16m to £68m.
- Net debt in Premier League clubs fell by £351m (13%) to £2.4billion, the lowest level since 2006. Of that, 62% (£1.5billion) is in non-interest bearing 'soft loans', most which relates to three clubs Chelsea (£819m), Newcastle (£277m) and Fulham (£200m).
So the PL and CL winners are the ones flounting the rules, in full knowledge they wont make the FFP, and in full knowledge they wont be punished. Just scrap this bullshit "rule" now, and carry on, because thats exactly whats happening anyway.
The latest annual review of football finance by analyst Deloitte show the increase in wages outstripped the growth in revenues.
It has resulted in a wages/revenue ratio of 70 per cent in the Premier League - a record figure having crept up from the low-to-mid 60s five years ago.
Wages went up by £201million in 2010-11 to almost £1.6billion, a 14% rise, and overall revenues rose by 12% to £2.27billion. This was mostly driven by a rise in income from the new TV deals, especially from overseas rights.
Alan Switzer, director in the sports business group at Deloitte, said wage control was paramount for good business.
He said: "If the wages to revenue ratio is 70% or higher it's very difficult to make an operating profit.
"In our view it is too high as a league and the clubs need to be edging back to the low 60s. Every 1% that it drops should increase operating profits by £20m to £25m."
The wage rises at some of the bigger clubs have been offset by significant rises in commercial income at some sides, including Manchester United, Liverpool and Manchester City.
The figures are for the 2010-11 season so are the last ones before UEFA start taking them into account for their financial fair play (FFP) calculations where clubs in European competition have to break even.
Switzer said Manchester City and Chelsea faced the greatest challenges in conforming to the FFP rules.
"Chelsea and Manchester City are the clubs which have recorded the biggest losses so they are the two which have the most to do, and to be fair to them they have been pretty public about needing to take action," he added.
"A significant number of clubs around Europe have some distance to travel on the road towards compliance."
The Deloitte report does not cover the most recent season, but it does show the effect of the 50% tax band coming into play - the 92 league clubs paid nearly £1.2billion in tax, up 20%.
The report also shows almost half of top-flight clubs had a reduction in matchday revenue reflecting the fact that many have been cautious about raising ticket prices during the current economic climate.
Other points highlighted by the report include:
- Combined pre-tax losses among Premier League clubs were £380m, while transfer spending increased by £210m (38%), to a record level of £769m.
- Total revenue in the Championship increased by £17m (4%) to £423m, partly caused by an increase in the solidarity payments from the Premier League.
- The wages/revenue ratio in Championship clubs was an even-more worrying figure of 90%.
- The Bundesliga remained Europe's most profitable league with operating profits of £154m, a 24% increase. In the Premier League, overall operating profits decreased by £16m to £68m.
- Net debt in Premier League clubs fell by £351m (13%) to £2.4billion, the lowest level since 2006. Of that, 62% (£1.5billion) is in non-interest bearing 'soft loans', most which relates to three clubs Chelsea (£819m), Newcastle (£277m) and Fulham (£200m).
So the PL and CL winners are the ones flounting the rules, in full knowledge they wont make the FFP, and in full knowledge they wont be punished. Just scrap this bullshit "rule" now, and carry on, because thats exactly whats happening anyway.
teekosey said:
our turnover was higher than City's in the last financial year
Platini is Blatter's 'heir apparent' and is consequently nothing more than a lap dog to his masters bidding. UEFA and FIFA are linked by the same morality issues of power and money corrupting the sport.Habanero said:
For both it is not necessarily important to actually affect change, so much as being perceived to affect change.
Basically what they need something they can tell their sponsors about introducing legislation to encourage the behaviours which in turn will lead to a more 'level playing field'.
They know full well that the clubs can afford bigger and better lawyers to circumvent the regs (like using the capital / infrastructure investment clauses and the 'commercial deals' arrangements)
It can never really be fully implemented as their (UEFA/FIFA) revenue streams relies too heavily on those who would seek to flout it.
Cynical? Moi?
yiddo2786 said:
No idea, but it's listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_F ... ney_League
yiddo2786 said:
No. This was the season we were in CL and they weren't. They will start to pull away now in terms of revenue, especially once this deal is factored in as well.
Latest reports suggest City would be fined 50m for breaching FFP rules
So . . . the punishment for breaking financial regulations is, wait for it, - a massive 'financial' fine, which of course would be a joke in the first place for a rich club.
I thought these rules were meant to
- limit clubs' debt
- limit reckless spending
- offer a viable level playing field for less financially sound clubs
- curb some of the rich clubs advantage
?
So the fix for all that is paying a massive fine? Especially since most of the clubs breaking those regulations have billionaire owners who probably keep that kind of change in their car ashtrays? I'm sure most of those nouveau-riche clubs would be more than happy to pay a few mil every year and continue signing mercenaries on 300k/week while completely destroying the transfer market.
Or for a poorer club - that would mean additional debts
Am I the only one seeing the sheer hypocrisy here?
What an utter, utter joke
http://www1.skysports.com/football/...-50m-and-restrict-champions-league-squad-size
:llorisserious:
So . . . the punishment for breaking financial regulations is, wait for it, - a massive 'financial' fine, which of course would be a joke in the first place for a rich club.
I thought these rules were meant to
- limit clubs' debt
- limit reckless spending
- offer a viable level playing field for less financially sound clubs
- curb some of the rich clubs advantage
?
So the fix for all that is paying a massive fine? Especially since most of the clubs breaking those regulations have billionaire owners who probably keep that kind of change in their car ashtrays? I'm sure most of those nouveau-riche clubs would be more than happy to pay a few mil every year and continue signing mercenaries on 300k/week while completely destroying the transfer market.
Or for a poorer club - that would mean additional debts
Am I the only one seeing the sheer hypocrisy here?
What an utter, utter joke
http://www1.skysports.com/football/...-50m-and-restrict-champions-league-squad-size
:llorisserious:
It'll never have any affect on teams who can afford to break the rules.
As much use as a chocolate teapot
As much use as a chocolate teapot
PSG have also apparently had a sponsorship deal reduced to 100 million from 200 million, a 60 million dollar transfer limit set, 21 players instead of 25 in the Champions League, blocked payroll and a 60 million dollar fine.
http://www.lequipe.fr/Football/Actualites/Paris-sait-a-quoi-s-en-tenir/462690
http://www.espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1811094?cc=3436
http://www.lequipe.fr/Football/Actualites/Paris-sait-a-quoi-s-en-tenir/462690
http://www.espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1811094?cc=3436
This website offers a good explanation: http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/
City's punishment is actually pretty harsh, certainly harsher than I'd expected first time round.
You might think that a £50m fine doesn't matter to them because of their owners, but in reality if they had the appetite for just writing off such large debts they would have done so before the end of 2013 and passed all of the profits tests.
City's punishment is actually pretty harsh, certainly harsher than I'd expected first time round.
You might think that a £50m fine doesn't matter to them because of their owners, but in reality if they had the appetite for just writing off such large debts they would have done so before the end of 2013 and passed all of the profits tests.
