A question about the new rules on spending and the Champions league.

I mean those new financial fair play rules that are coming in soon, meaning a that a club can only spend what it earns to be eligble to play in the CL and Europa League. Will this ruling be applied to the game(when the ruling actually comes into force that is)?

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11945_6175730,00.html

its a very complex system where by teams with no debt can continue to spend. i cant be botherd to go into the details mate ive been told different things by so many people but the common theme is that teams like city can continue spending. but i would be very impressed if SI manage to put this into the game it seems very complicated

Basically it won't stop a Chelsea or a Man City as people suggest. It doesn't stop rich owners ploughing money into their club.

What it will stop is debt ridden clubs overspending in order to get into the European competitions, risking their future - a la Portsmouth.

Basically it won't stop a Chelsea or a Man City as people suggest. It doesn't stop rich owners ploughing money into their club.

What it will stop is debt ridden clubs overspending in order to get into the European competitions, risking their future - a la Portsmouth.

it will. its not very complicated clubs need to break even after 3 years. all expenses that aren't related to improving infrastructure (stadium+ facilities) will be taken into account. this includes transfers, wages, pretty much all other operating expenses. if the clubs revenues don't match the expenses then the club does not qualify for any european competition. i heard they'll allow teams to register a loss of 5 million euros up until 2018.

they will allow owners to inject money into their club for the first few years. it'll start with a cap at 15 million/year, then 10 finally 5. something like that. i guess bigdanio is right in the sense that it won't stop Chelsea and City immediately but it will eventually. they'll only be able to spend what they generate putting them on an equal footing with the rest of the big clubs. they are also going to make sure none of the clubs try anything funny by analysing the accounts making sure that the revenue is legitimate.

What's to stop Abramovich using say one of his non-football buisnesses to sponsor Chelsea to the tune of say £60m per year though?? That £60m being 'genuine' club income??

I ask out of interest only, but surely it's a very difflcult rule to enforce.

What's to stop Abramovich using say one of his non-football buisnesses to sponsor Chelsea to the tune of say £60m per year though?? That £60m being 'genuine' club income??

I ask out of interest only, but surely it's a very difflcult rule to enforce.

Yeah that's precisely the problem with trying to enforce it. Big clubs with huge spending power won't be bullied by UEFA, and who can blame them.

What's to stop Abramovich using say one of his non-football buisnesses to sponsor Chelsea to the tune of say £60m per year though?? That £60m being 'genuine' club income??

I ask out of interest only, but surely it's a very difflcult rule to enforce.

From what I've read I thought there are specific clauses within the rules to prevent that happening.

So its ok for Real Madrid to spend £193 million on kaka, ronaldo and zlatan its fine but when Chelsea spend £50 million on torres and Liverpool spend £35 million on carrol its too much!

UEFA are ruining the game.

Abramovich could make a 'loan' to a completely seperate Russian company which he has no personal interest or investement, who then 'loan' that money onwards to another, who then 'sponsor' Chelsea. Or a Russian club buys a Chelsea youth player (who is Russian, and never visited London) for an obscene amount.

Not to imply that corruption is rife in Russia, but good luck to UEFA chasing that little money trail.

Man City owners could do the same. Surely these guys are the experts at getting around laws far more robust (i.e. tax laws) to get their way in the end.

I await with interest how this pans out. Chelsea will be screwed, surely?? Their income can never match their outgoings with 40k gates in and pop star wages out.

So its ok for Real Madrid to spend £193 million on kaka, ronaldo and zlatan its fine but when Chelsea spend £50 million on torres and Liverpool spend £35 million on carrol its too much!

UEFA are ruining the game.

if anything those transfers have highlighted the problem within football and have forced UEFA to act, i would say in the long run this will save football not ruin it.

It will save football, theres no doubt about it. Real Madrid and MAn Citys recent spending sprees, and I'd imagine the decline and near on bank ruptcy of Portsmouth have had a say in this happening.

Thing is, it's all fine and dandy having oil rich owners who plough money into transfers, give the players 250k a week and maintains the clubs bank balance so they're debt free..but what happens when said owner withdraws their funding? Or they leave the club entirely and let it rot? Theres nothing to stop Man City's owners eventually getting bored and buggering off

So its ok for Real Madrid to spend £193 million on kaka, ronaldo and zlatan its fine but when Chelsea spend £50 million on torres and Liverpool spend £35 million on carrol its too much!

UEFA are ruining the game.

Don't be silly. These measures have been in the pipeline for several years now; spending this January has nothing to do with it.

There's no evidence to suggest that Platini is in some way 'anti-English', despite what many of our jingoistic football fans seem to think.

So its ok for Real Madrid to spend £193 million on kaka, ronaldo and zlatan its fine but when Chelsea spend £50 million on torres and Liverpool spend £35 million on carrol its too much!

UEFA are ruining the game.

not only have these plans been in place long before chelsea and liverpool's recent transfers, but real madird buying zlatan? Do you know what you're talking about?

Why not use a variation of the Major League Baseball rules whereby owners who spend too much are taxed on the excess spending with the money going to the other teams in the league. This is a suggestion for the real world--not FM 2018.

it will. its not very complicated clubs need to break even after 3 years. all expenses that aren't related to improving infrastructure (stadium+ facilities) will be taken into account. this includes transfers, wages, pretty much all other operating expenses. if the clubs revenues don't match the expenses then the club does not qualify for any european competition. i heard they'll allow teams to register a loss of 5 million euros up until 2018.

they will allow owners to inject money into their club for the first few years. it'll start with a cap at 15 million/year, then 10 finally 5. something like that. i guess bigdanio is right in the sense that it won't stop Chelsea and City immediately but it will eventually. they'll only be able to spend what they generate putting them on an equal footing with the rest of the big clubs. they are also going to make sure none of the clubs try anything funny by analysing the accounts making sure that the revenue is legitimate.

So Abramovic buys a sheet of A4 from Chelsea FC for £2bn. That is turnover.

I appreciate what you are trying to say, but you need to think a bit more logically.

People with money will always be able to put money into football.

So Abramovic buys a sheet of A4 from Chelsea FC for £2bn.

Absolute bargain compared to some of the amounts being spent on very average players in the EPL. And no, that's not a dig a Liverpool and Carroll, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

The intent of the changes is worthwhile and to be applauded, but I can't see it changing anything precisely because of the number of loopholes and work-arounds.

So Abramovic buys a sheet of A4 from Chelsea FC for £2bn. That is turnover.

I appreciate what you are trying to say, but you need to think a bit more logically.

People with money will always be able to put money into football.

he won't be able to do that. uefa claim thatl the clubs' finances will be studied when they apply for a license to determine if everything is on the up and up. if anything sticks out like a sponsorship deal that is too good for today's market they won't give them a license. assuming abrohimovic can sponsor his club - i'm not sure if he'll be able to - it'll have to be in line with united's, madrid's, barcelona's and or liverpool's who are all known to have a bigger fan base. at the very least their financial muscles will be as big as the other club's not bigger.

clubs will try to find ways around this but uefa should be able to adapt rather quickly. we'll see how serious uefa are about this as time passes.

does this mean (if implemented into the game) that people playing FM would be unable to sign big star names for less, or is payments over a number of months not included in the new rules?

does this mean (if implemented into the game) that people playing FM would be unable to sign big star names for less, or is payments over a number of months not included in the new rules?

ANY spending will be taking into consideration.

it will. its not very complicated clubs need to break even after 3 years. all expenses that aren't related to improving infrastructure (stadium+ facilities) will be taken into account. this includes transfers, wages, pretty much all other operating expenses. if the clubs revenues don't match the expenses then the club does not qualify for any european competition. i heard they'll allow teams to register a loss of 5 million euros up until 2018.

they will allow owners to inject money into their club for the first few years. it'll start with a cap at 15 million/year, then 10 finally 5. something like that. i guess bigdanio is right in the sense that it won't stop Chelsea and City immediately but it will eventually. they'll only be able to spend what they generate putting them on an equal footing with the rest of the big clubs. they are also going to make sure none of the clubs try anything funny by analysing the accounts making sure that the revenue is legitimate.

This is 100% correct

How SI integrate this into the game will be a challenge

However I can predict the complaints from people managing clubs that have just scraped a European place but are dropped for financial reasons

Hey, hang on a minute that happened to Pompey this year. as FA Finalists we should be in Europe this season. So we get penalised for having no money, we qualify for Europe and a chance of making some money but we are denied the chance. Great thinking

he won't be able to do that. uefa claim thatl the clubs' finances will be studied when they apply for a license to determine if everything is on the up and up. if anything sticks out like a sponsorship deal that is too good for today's market they won't give them a license. assuming abrohimovic can sponsor his club - i'm not sure if he'll be able to - it'll have to be in line with united's, madrid's, barcelona's and or liverpool's who are all known to have a bigger fan base. at the very least their financial muscles will be as big as the other club's not bigger.

clubs will try to find ways around this but uefa should be able to adapt rather quickly. we'll see how serious uefa are about this as time passes.

I know this is how its reported but believe me UEFA will not be auditing accounts in that manner. Who are they to say what is a good deal and what is a fake deal when it comes to sponsorship. Mike Ashley uses his company to sponsor the stadium - UEFA can't ban this.

So all Abramovic has to do is sponsor the stadium = increased revenue. Who are UEFA to say that he can't?

They will never, ever risk upsetting the big clubs for fear of breakaways.

Do you think the big clubs would risk a break away, lets not forget we are only really talking about a few clubs in England and Real and Barca who will really feel the effects of this rule change, most of the Italian clubs have already curbed their spending habits and clubs in Germany have had to follow strict financial rules for a few years now, i couldn't see the likes of Chelsea and Man City risking a breakaway, what would they set up? The champs league generates these clubs tens of millions each season and that's before you take into account the ludicrous sums of money sky pay the EPL, would they risk losing that money and perhaps alienating their own fans? I cant see Man City fans being happy not having two huge games against their biggest rival each season.

i think most of this is being brought in because of the crazy money going about in England right now, and the fact that almost every week we are reading about a club in England going bust or close too it, chairmen chasing the dream of getting into the prem league i personally think is ruining football clubs down south. The money some of the championship teams pay for second rate players is crazy.

i think the problem in england really is a lot of the smaller clubs have to answer to debts even though they owe less than the equivilant of a months wage for yaya toure. that really does show the gap in wealth between the premier league and league 1. the premier league and champions league have allowed clubs to just get even richer at the top end but some clubs dont have 2 coins to rub together further down.

like people have said though, these clubs will still find a way round it. if roman abramovich wants to sponsor stamford bridge for 50m a season then theres very little that uefa can do, after all it would be classed as income. while i agree with the idea, there must be other ways to control what all clubs spend

A good article to read on the rules can be found here...

http://off-the-bench.co.uk/2011/01/what-exactly-is-financial-fair-play-part-one/

Might help explain the loopholes and what have you.