13 Sep 2013 12:40:20
Ed 002 Do you see FFP as a viable long term scheme or do you think it will become quickly discredited and fail due to clever accountants and dubious commercial deals?
Thanks {Ed002's Note - Things like "clever accountants" and "dubious commercial deals" are nothing that you will be seeing or will be having anything to do with the FFP. It will be viable until any major exclusions are attempted and then there might well be issues.
There are a number of matters that UEFA still need to completely figure out and a number of concerns that certain clubs and certain national associations have:
(1) Loopholes: Whilst UEFA has done what it can to block any potential “loopholes” it is well aware that exclusion of wages for players signed before June 2010 is one it has introduced itself, and one that will be popular with the higher paying clubs as a short term escape route through to the summer of 2015. The matters of excessive sponsorship will be addressed via a cap to thwart the concerns over the likes of Manchester City abusing the rules. The cap has yet to be finalised but will require ratification.
(2) Soft Sponsorship: UEFA are concerned at the aggressive approach to obtaining sponsorship some clubs are taking. Questions are being asked about the ethics in clubs having airline travel partners, photocopier partners etc.. The Spanish clubs have raised this as a concern.
(3) National Sponsorship Variations: As we have seen tobacco sponsorship leave Formula 1 UEFA would like to see alcohol sponsorship out of football. We already have a situation where sponsorship by alcohol related businesses are forbidden in certain countries. Wealthy breweries are now focussing their sponsorship in other countries thereby creating a perceived imbalance in what income clubs are able to obtain in sponsorship. The French and Russian clubs have raised this as a concern.
(4) National Financial Distribution Variations: Concerns exist in countries where different models are used for distributing prize money, contributing to the grassroots game and distributing income from television and other media broadcasting. This led to an original request (rejected) from a number of clubs to restrict the FFPR to only the wealthiest of clubs, those with a turnover in excess of xM euros.
(5) National Taxation Variations: There is a considerable difference across UEFA nations in taxation, and this is seen to be reflected in the wages paid to players. The Spanish clubs have raised this as a concern.
(6) Third Party Ownership: Countries that allow third party ownership of players are seen to have a distinct advantage in being able to keep the costs of transfer fees low as they are only paying for a proportion of a player. The English clubs have raised this as a concern.
None of these will have an impact immediately but they are all areas that will continue to be monitored and we could see further change happening.}
Thanks for taking the time to map out the situation Ed 002 its greatly appreciated.
Thank you once again for your erudite explanation of all things financial in the world of football.The one thing which I believe is strikingly obvious but gets very little mention is the fact that we probably have the best owner of a football club bar none.I can well remember when Roman took over Chelsea the sarcastic and somewhat patronising comments of " how he (Roman would get bored in a year and be off playing with a new toy " yet here we are 10 years on and I believe though if you say different ED 002 I would not dare to argue in a stronger financial position than practically if not all other Premiership clubs.So once again thanks for your invaluable insights and next time you see Roman please pass on the thanks of myself and I am sure many thousands of others for the way he has transformed the club. {Ed002's Note - Financially Chelsea are well placed going forward - hence the investment in Thorgan Hazard, Courtois, Lukaku, Cuevas, Pirez et al.}