• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Premier League Club Accounts

@SwissRamble: Are Chel53a's many years of big losses behind them? #CFC http://swissramble.blogspot.ch/2015/01/Chel53a-hey-hey-my-my-

B7IRQz4IQAAq_Jj.jpg


@SwissRamble: Chel53a's 2013-14 revenue of £320m only behind Man Utd £433m & Emirates Marketing Project £347m in England http://swissramble.blogspot.ch/2015/01/Chel53a-hey-hey-my-my-into-black.html … #CFC

B7IR94fIIAEBL9s.jpg:large


@SwissRamble: Chel53a 2013-14 wages of £193m behind #MUFC £215m & #MCFC £205m, but ahead of #AFC £166m http://swissramble.blogspot.ch/2015/01/Chel53a-hey-hey-my-my-into-black.html … #CFC

B7ISfiUIQAEhPX8.jpg:large
 
UEFA assigned a significantly reduced value to PSG's contract with the Qatar Tourism Authority and penalised PSG for failing to meet the FFP rules.
 
jaysea67 said:
UEFA assigned a significantly reduced value to PSG's contract with the Qatar Tourism Authority and penalised PSG for failing to meet the FFP rules.
Click to expand...
But they're still in the CL, still challenging for the French domestic League title, so what was the penalty? Because if it was dosh, and dosh alone, well that might line the pockets of Uefa officials very nicely thank you but how will it punish owners that have zillions of the stuff?
 
Spur of the moment said:
But they're still in the CL, still challenging for the French domestic League title, so what was the penalty? Because if it was dosh, and dosh alone, well that might line the pockets of Uefa officials very nicely thank you but how will it punish owners that have zillions of the stuff?
Click to expand...

FPP was always a way to protect the status quo .. to let the top 10 stay the top 10.

It was also always too convoluted to work, and is likely to die via legal challenges anyway. Ideas like that might work in single country but trying to enforce business rules on clubs because you think spend should be whatever across multiple countries? not a lawyer, but seems like a disaster.

Think about it, Levy could probably make a case that Spurs needs to invest a billion dollars over next 3 years (citing Cheat$ki & City as precedents) to allow Spurs to compete for title and CL, which would mean significant increase in revenue. Due to the nature of Spurs ownership, that actually would not mean that the club is genuinely at fiscal risk (if ENIC and Lewis backed it), but would run foul of FPP rules. Hence a case could be made that FPP is denying Spurs the opportunity to compete (earn revenue) and is protectionist towards the clubs with already established success. Completely hypothetical of course but how would FPP manage that type of legal challenge?
 
Spur of the moment said:
But they're still in the CL, still challenging for the French domestic League title, so what was the penalty? Because if it was dosh, and dosh alone, well that might line the pockets of Uefa officials very nicely thank you but how will it punish owners that have zillions of the stuff?
Click to expand...

UEFA identified the false nature of PSG's Qatari sponsorship and concluded that the club hadn't complied with the FFP rules.

The penalties are detailed in the settlement agreement. They included fines, restrictions on transfer spending and a reduced CL squad size. Whether the punishment should have been more severe is another discussion.

Incidentally, it was reported that the proceeds from fines would be distributed to other clubs: Uefa to redistribute FFP fines among other European clubs
 
How are Emirates Marketing Project earning more than Chelsea and Arsenal who are both in London and well established in the CL and must earn way more in gate revenue etc. Dodgy sponsorship again?
 
P.D. said:
How are Emirates Marketing Project earning more than Chelsea and Arsenal who are both in London and well established in the CL and must earn way more in gate revenue etc. Dodgy sponsorship again?
Click to expand...
Very dodgy sponsorship.

Their case was that they were top of the PL and, when compared to the sponsorship deal of a team at the top of their comparable league (Real in La Liga) it wasn't all that big. UEFA bought it and then drove home in their shiny new Lamborghinis with some very pretty Russian girls in the passenger seats.
 
scaramanga said:
Very dodgy sponsorship.

Their case was that they were top of the PL and, when compared to the sponsorship deal of a team at the top of their comparable league (Real in La Liga) it wasn't all that big. UEFA bought it and then drove home in their shiny new Lamborghinis with some very pretty Russian girls in the passenger seats.
Click to expand...
Bloody google ads
 
is that just the 25 man squad or all the seniors at the club, the number seems remarkably low to me, to take arsenal as an example I doubt there is a player in their regular starting 11 who isn't on at least double that as basic
 
galeforce said:
is that just the 25 man squad or all the seniors at the club, the number seems remarkably low to me, to take arsenal as an example I doubt there is a player in their regular starting 11 who isn't on at least double that as basic
Click to expand...

its probably an average of the senior players. and for every arsenal, theres a burnley who may not even have one player on £43k.
 
Raziel said:
FPP was always a way to protect the status quo .. to let the top 10 stay the top 10.

It was also always too convoluted to work, and is likely to die via legal challenges anyway. Ideas like that might work in single country but trying to enforce business rules on clubs because you think spend should be whatever across multiple countries? not a lawyer, but seems like a disaster.

Think about it, Levy could probably make a case that Spurs needs to invest a billion dollars over next 3 years (citing Cheat$ki & City as precedents) to allow Spurs to compete for title and CL, which would mean significant increase in revenue. Due to the nature of Spurs ownership, that actually would not mean that the club is genuinely at fiscal risk (if ENIC and Lewis backed it), but would run foul of FPP rules. Hence a case could be made that FPP is denying Spurs the opportunity to compete (earn revenue) and is protectionist towards the clubs with already established success. Completely hypothetical of course but how would FPP manage that type of legal challenge?
Click to expand...

It does protect the status quo to some extent, but not nearly as much as the development of the "super clubs" due to the financial impact of CL football had already done to a huge extent. But it also removes a huge part of the incentive for owners to gamble with a club's future by spending money the club doesn't have in the hopes of getting into the CL regularly. I think the financial health of clubs around Europe has improved as a result, although I can't show any numbers to support that.

I don't think it was ever intended to be a system to allow for a level playing field to allow smaller clubs to challenge for more titles.

Legally. I have no idea. I'm guessing UEFA have decent lawyers, they managed to get both Emirates Marketing Project and PSG on this. Clubs like Chelsea have seemingly stopped some of their crazy spending to comply with FFP. Like you say it does work as a protection for the status quo, so I don't think most big clubs would actually want to challenge it.

For clubs our size investments can be made into infrastructure like stadiums, training grounds, academies etc. A much more healthy way to build a club (assuming there's the potential there for growth). It does stop both gifted donation type billionaire spending along with the reckless spending seen from some owners. If that's a good thing or a bad thing is probably more a question of preference. I don't mind.
 
wages.png


Meanwhile, Liverpool have signed a new three-year deal with Standard Chartered Bank to continue as the Premier League team’s shirt sponsor. The bank’s logo has appeared on Liverpool shirts since 2010, and the contract extension runs until May 2019. The current deal is worth about £20m a season, but financial details of the new contracts were not disclosed.

edit: Latest report say 30 million.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back