-
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
Financial Fair Play
- Thread starter NewmarketYid
- Start date
screen nayim
John Gorman
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
I've just checked and I definitely don't have a grain of sympathy for Bolton. Their brand of anti football wasted a prem place for too many years. £186m of debt is a monumental disgrace - they're never going to be able to pay that back from their income streams. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving individual than Gartside.
I think it all started going wrong for him when he burnt down the Phoenix Club tbh.
Seeing it all from block 29.
I've just checked and I definitely don't have a grain of sympathy for Bolton. Their brand of anti football wasted a prem place for too many years. £186m of debt is a monumental disgrace - they're never going to be able to pay that back from their income streams. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving individual than Gartside.
I think it all started going wrong for him when he burnt down the Phoenix Club tbh.
Seeing it all from block 29.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Chelsea announce £49.4m loss but claim financial outlook still bright
• Loss in year to June 2013 follows small profit in 2011-12
• Club confident over financial fair play complianceChelsea have insisted they remain on track to comply with Uefa's financial fair play rules, despite plunging to an annual loss of £49.4m according to their latest financial results.
The figures show that, for all the club's long-stated ambition to operate at break-even following a decade in which they have been subsidised by Roman Abramovich to the tune of more than £1bn, they remain loss making.
Last year, Chelsea posted their first profit of the Abramovich era and claimed it marked a milestone in their journey to self-sustainability, though it later emerged that the profit of £1.4m owed much to a one-off £18.4m share windfall. For the year ending June 2013, however, the results show a return to heavily loss‑making ways.
The £49.4m loss, partly due to new signings and a turbulent season during which the then Champions League holders exited the competition at the group stage, is closer to the £67.7m loss of two years ago than last season's paper profit. But the club argued that a 19% rise in annual commercial income to £79.6m and a record turnover figure of £255.8m showed they were moving in the right direction. Nor do the figures include a recently signed £300m, 10-year kit deal with Adidas.
"For Chelsea FC to achieve a record level of turnover despite our first group-stage elimination from the Champions League shows we have structured our business and are growing in the correct way for long-term stability," said the chief executive, Ron Gourlay. "Our philosophy is we build upon success on the pitch and although in these financial results we haven't repeated the sizeable profits made the previous year from player transfers, we believe the age profile of the existing squad means we will benefit from that investment for many years to come.
"A successful team builds awareness around the world and our increased commercial revenues in 2012-13 and new or extended partnership deals demonstrate we are working hard to capitalise on that."
Despite winning the Europa League under their interim manager, Rafael Benítez, Chelsea's early exit from the Champions League severely hit revenues. The full impact of signings during the period from July 2012 to June 2013 on the club's wage bill will not be apparent until the full accounts are lodged at Companies House next month. Like some other clubs, Chelsea attempt to control the way their results are presented by initially releasing only a limited summary.
Uefa's first monitoring period for its financial fair play break-even rules cover the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons and will be calculated next year. The new rules, designed to cool European football's overheated finances, have proved controversial because some argue they will lock in the established order and others that deals such as Paris Saint-Germain's with the Qatar Tourism Authority make a mockery of them.
Chelsea are confident that despite tumbling into the red again, they will comply with the acceptable €45m (currently £37.5m) "deviation" permitted during the first two-year accounting period once allowable expenditure on youth development, infrastructure and charitable giving is excluded from the total.
The chairman, Bruce Buck, said: "From the very beginning of the current ownership of Chelsea Football Club, a long-term objective was financial sustainability, and the subsequent implementation of financial fair play by Uefa and by the Premier League has brought that to the top of the agenda for football clubs.
"We are pleased therefore that we will meet the stipulations set down by Uefa in their first assessment period, and by our own analysis we are progressing from a commercial viewpoint as well as continuing to add trophies to our collection, which we never lose sight of as our most important goal."
The level of acceptable losses, which must be covered by a club's owner, then falls to €45m over three years for the next monitoring period and then €30m over the following three years.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/dec/31/chelsea-49m-loss-financial-year-june-2013
Chelsea announce £49.4m loss but claim financial outlook still bright
• Loss in year to June 2013 follows small profit in 2011-12
• Club confident over financial fair play complianceChelsea have insisted they remain on track to comply with Uefa's financial fair play rules, despite plunging to an annual loss of £49.4m according to their latest financial results.
The figures show that, for all the club's long-stated ambition to operate at break-even following a decade in which they have been subsidised by Roman Abramovich to the tune of more than £1bn, they remain loss making.
Last year, Chelsea posted their first profit of the Abramovich era and claimed it marked a milestone in their journey to self-sustainability, though it later emerged that the profit of £1.4m owed much to a one-off £18.4m share windfall. For the year ending June 2013, however, the results show a return to heavily loss‑making ways.
The £49.4m loss, partly due to new signings and a turbulent season during which the then Champions League holders exited the competition at the group stage, is closer to the £67.7m loss of two years ago than last season's paper profit. But the club argued that a 19% rise in annual commercial income to £79.6m and a record turnover figure of £255.8m showed they were moving in the right direction. Nor do the figures include a recently signed £300m, 10-year kit deal with Adidas.
"For Chelsea FC to achieve a record level of turnover despite our first group-stage elimination from the Champions League shows we have structured our business and are growing in the correct way for long-term stability," said the chief executive, Ron Gourlay. "Our philosophy is we build upon success on the pitch and although in these financial results we haven't repeated the sizeable profits made the previous year from player transfers, we believe the age profile of the existing squad means we will benefit from that investment for many years to come.
"A successful team builds awareness around the world and our increased commercial revenues in 2012-13 and new or extended partnership deals demonstrate we are working hard to capitalise on that."
Despite winning the Europa League under their interim manager, Rafael Benítez, Chelsea's early exit from the Champions League severely hit revenues. The full impact of signings during the period from July 2012 to June 2013 on the club's wage bill will not be apparent until the full accounts are lodged at Companies House next month. Like some other clubs, Chelsea attempt to control the way their results are presented by initially releasing only a limited summary.
Uefa's first monitoring period for its financial fair play break-even rules cover the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons and will be calculated next year. The new rules, designed to cool European football's overheated finances, have proved controversial because some argue they will lock in the established order and others that deals such as Paris Saint-Germain's with the Qatar Tourism Authority make a mockery of them.
Chelsea are confident that despite tumbling into the red again, they will comply with the acceptable €45m (currently £37.5m) "deviation" permitted during the first two-year accounting period once allowable expenditure on youth development, infrastructure and charitable giving is excluded from the total.
The chairman, Bruce Buck, said: "From the very beginning of the current ownership of Chelsea Football Club, a long-term objective was financial sustainability, and the subsequent implementation of financial fair play by Uefa and by the Premier League has brought that to the top of the agenda for football clubs.
"We are pleased therefore that we will meet the stipulations set down by Uefa in their first assessment period, and by our own analysis we are progressing from a commercial viewpoint as well as continuing to add trophies to our collection, which we never lose sight of as our most important goal."
The level of acceptable losses, which must be covered by a club's owner, then falls to €45m over three years for the next monitoring period and then €30m over the following three years.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/dec/31/chelsea-49m-loss-financial-year-june-2013
Superhudd
Simon Davies
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
European Commission investigates Liberty Stadium funding dealLiberty Stadium The £27m council-owned Liberty Stadium opened in 2005
Swans' 11,000 stadium expansion plan
Stadium losses hit half a million
A deal allowing Swansea City FC and the Ospreys rugby region to play at the Liberty Stadium is being investigated by the European Commission.
Swansea council has been asked to give details over funding arrangements at the council-owned stadium.
The commission is carrying out a Europe-wide investigation into state aid in sport.
State aid rules, policed by the commission, limit how much public money can be given to private companies.
The £27m Liberty Stadium was built in 2005 with the Swans and the Ospreys both playing there.
The clubs pay a peppercorn rent to the Swansea Stadium Management Company (SSMC) - a body running the stadium which is a partnership between the council and the two clubs.
The clubs also contribute over £1m a year to the running costs of the stadium with any profit made being returned to the teams and the local authority.
However, it is understood so far that SSMC has failed to ever return a profit which means the council is yet to see a return on its investment.
State aid
Following a freedom of information request to the council, it confirmed questions had been raised about the agreement and whether it complied with state aid regulations.
The council added there had been no assurances given by the European Commission about whether the deal complied with regulations governing state aid.
A Swansea council spokesperson said: "The European Commission has asked us a number of questions in relation to the Liberty Stadium and currently we are in dialogue with them, as are a large number of sports clubs from across Europe."
If it is proved that the use of the Liberty Stadium breaks European law, then both clubs could face having to pay back money, plus interest.
A spokesperson for Premier League Swansea City said: "The club is aware that the European Commission is currently in discussions with Swansea City Council in relation to the Liberty Stadium.
"We have asked to be kept informed of any future development."
The Ospreys have been contacted for a response.
The European Commission investigation is looking into alleged illegal state aid involving several clubs including Spanish giants Barcelona and Real Madrid.
European Commission investigates Liberty Stadium funding dealLiberty Stadium The £27m council-owned Liberty Stadium opened in 2005
Swans' 11,000 stadium expansion plan
Stadium losses hit half a million
A deal allowing Swansea City FC and the Ospreys rugby region to play at the Liberty Stadium is being investigated by the European Commission.
Swansea council has been asked to give details over funding arrangements at the council-owned stadium.
The commission is carrying out a Europe-wide investigation into state aid in sport.
State aid rules, policed by the commission, limit how much public money can be given to private companies.
The £27m Liberty Stadium was built in 2005 with the Swans and the Ospreys both playing there.
The clubs pay a peppercorn rent to the Swansea Stadium Management Company (SSMC) - a body running the stadium which is a partnership between the council and the two clubs.
The clubs also contribute over £1m a year to the running costs of the stadium with any profit made being returned to the teams and the local authority.
However, it is understood so far that SSMC has failed to ever return a profit which means the council is yet to see a return on its investment.
State aid
Following a freedom of information request to the council, it confirmed questions had been raised about the agreement and whether it complied with state aid regulations.
The council added there had been no assurances given by the European Commission about whether the deal complied with regulations governing state aid.
A Swansea council spokesperson said: "The European Commission has asked us a number of questions in relation to the Liberty Stadium and currently we are in dialogue with them, as are a large number of sports clubs from across Europe."
If it is proved that the use of the Liberty Stadium breaks European law, then both clubs could face having to pay back money, plus interest.
A spokesperson for Premier League Swansea City said: "The club is aware that the European Commission is currently in discussions with Swansea City Council in relation to the Liberty Stadium.
"We have asked to be kept informed of any future development."
The Ospreys have been contacted for a response.
The European Commission investigation is looking into alleged illegal state aid involving several clubs including Spanish giants Barcelona and Real Madrid.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Notice Chelsea trying to sneak out their results on a busy newsday so they get glossed over. They did this 2 years ago with the last big loss referred to in the article. Funny they didn't do it wit their profit last season.
Unbelievable how they can still make a loss after being gifted a billion to sort themselves out.
Notice Chelsea trying to sneak out their results on a busy newsday so they get glossed over. They did this 2 years ago with the last big loss referred to in the article. Funny they didn't do it wit their profit last season.
Unbelievable how they can still make a loss after being gifted a billion to sort themselves out.
K.D.D.D.D.Soc
Paul Walsh
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
This is why I always argue with people who say football is a business, no business could be run this way or the way most clubs are run either through being a rich man's vanity project or just lack of income.
This is why I always argue with people who say football is a business, no business could be run this way or the way most clubs are run either through being a rich man's vanity project or just lack of income.
SteveAWOL
Colin Calderwood
The 2014 Deloitte Football Money League
We remain 14th in the overall Deloitte Football Money League and 6th in the Premier League...
BBC News - Man Utd pushed out of football rich list top three
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/...ball/deloitte-football-money-league/index.htm
We remain 14th in the overall Deloitte Football Money League and 6th in the Premier League...
BBC News - Man Utd pushed out of football rich list top three
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/...ball/deloitte-football-money-league/index.htm
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
I've consistently maintained that Levy's focus on the United States as a revenue generator is a masterful idea given the growing interest in football stateside, the relatively more substantial disposable income available to the average 'soccer' viewer and the stronger protections for copyright and licensing rights (precluding large-scale illegal shirt/merchandise sales) in the States as opposed to in Asia or Africa. However, it is somewhat disheartening to note that despite the Bale tie ins and the summer marketing blitz we conducted there, we apparently remain unable to leverage said exposure to secure the kinds of 20 million+ shirt deals Levy seems to be looking for (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...HARLES-SALE-FA-fire-womens-super-leagues.html), and will for the foreseeable future remain a club with revenues only marginally larger than Real Madrid's routine summer net spending on transfers alone. We should be thankful, I suppose, that we're at least on this list (can't say the same for everyone else in the PL bar the current top four), and the success of clubs like Roma and Atletico in recent times does prove that success can be achieved on a smaller budget....but I'm still somewhat discouraged when I look at that yawning gap even between us and Liverpool, whom we have managed to finish above for the last four seasons running.
We dearly need another CL run to generate the exposure necessary to pull that zombie stadium project out of the ditch it's seemingly stumbled into. Even our focus on the States as a Spurs-branded market is just swimming against the tide to an extent, because apparently (http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/relegationzone/id/1365?cc=5901) we're not even in the top four most supported English clubs there, as United and Chelsea steadily gain ground and City establish themselves via their tie-ins with the likes of New York City FC.
Come on, Full-time Tim. Lead us on into the light again.
I've consistently maintained that Levy's focus on the United States as a revenue generator is a masterful idea given the growing interest in football stateside, the relatively more substantial disposable income available to the average 'soccer' viewer and the stronger protections for copyright and licensing rights (precluding large-scale illegal shirt/merchandise sales) in the States as opposed to in Asia or Africa. However, it is somewhat disheartening to note that despite the Bale tie ins and the summer marketing blitz we conducted there, we apparently remain unable to leverage said exposure to secure the kinds of 20 million+ shirt deals Levy seems to be looking for (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...HARLES-SALE-FA-fire-womens-super-leagues.html), and will for the foreseeable future remain a club with revenues only marginally larger than Real Madrid's routine summer net spending on transfers alone. We should be thankful, I suppose, that we're at least on this list (can't say the same for everyone else in the PL bar the current top four), and the success of clubs like Roma and Atletico in recent times does prove that success can be achieved on a smaller budget....but I'm still somewhat discouraged when I look at that yawning gap even between us and Liverpool, whom we have managed to finish above for the last four seasons running.
We dearly need another CL run to generate the exposure necessary to pull that zombie stadium project out of the ditch it's seemingly stumbled into. Even our focus on the States as a Spurs-branded market is just swimming against the tide to an extent, because apparently (http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/relegationzone/id/1365?cc=5901) we're not even in the top four most supported English clubs there, as United and Chelsea steadily gain ground and City establish themselves via their tie-ins with the likes of New York City FC.
Come on, Full-time Tim. Lead us on into the light again.
Robbo
Les Ferdinand
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
And the result of this totally fair financial practice (left to right): 3rd, 1st, 5th, 1st, 10th, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 9th, 7th (in the Championship).
Spot the odd one out.
And the result of this totally fair financial practice (left to right): 3rd, 1st, 5th, 1st, 10th, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 9th, 7th (in the Championship).
Spot the odd one out.
jaysea67
Erik Edman
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Last year Emirates Marketing Project's financial results were released on a Friday afternoon just before Christmas, which some cynics suggested was timed to avoid the glare of publicity on their £98m loss. I've been waiting for several weeks for the release of their 2012-13 results, intrigued to see how they explained that they were meeting the FFP rules. They still haven't been released but, in the meantime, some clues here:
Deloitte Football Money League report: Emirates Marketing Project FFP hopes lifted by revenue hike (The Independent)
Deloitte's Rich List gives sneak preview of Emirates Marketing Project's accounts (financialfairplay.co.uk)
Even with a £40m increase in revenue and all the costs that can be legitimately excluded under the FFP rules, it's going to take some creativity to keep their combined loss for the two years below the necessary £38m. But, as Ed Thompson notes on the financialfairplay website, "Emirates Marketing Project appear to have been briefing journalists that they are on track to pass the FFP test." I can't imagine they'd be doing so unless they were confident.
Last year Emirates Marketing Project's financial results were released on a Friday afternoon just before Christmas, which some cynics suggested was timed to avoid the glare of publicity on their £98m loss. I've been waiting for several weeks for the release of their 2012-13 results, intrigued to see how they explained that they were meeting the FFP rules. They still haven't been released but, in the meantime, some clues here:
Deloitte Football Money League report: Emirates Marketing Project FFP hopes lifted by revenue hike (The Independent)
Emirates Marketing Project appear set to pass Uefa's Financial Fair Play test – and avoid a Champions League ban – having increased revenues by £40m.
and here:Deloitte's Rich List gives sneak preview of Emirates Marketing Project's accounts (financialfairplay.co.uk)
Even with a £40m increase in revenue and all the costs that can be legitimately excluded under the FFP rules, it's going to take some creativity to keep their combined loss for the two years below the necessary £38m. But, as Ed Thompson notes on the financialfairplay website, "Emirates Marketing Project appear to have been briefing journalists that they are on track to pass the FFP test." I can't imagine they'd be doing so unless they were confident.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
any word on how they have gone about doubling ticket revenue? attendance figures can't have changed much since Begiristain came in, last year was it?
any word on how they have gone about doubling ticket revenue? attendance figures can't have changed much since Begiristain came in, last year was it?
DublinSpur
Scott Parker
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
If a club has a rich sugar-daddy, they will always find some loophole to syphon funds from the owner into the club. The rich can buy their way around the rules... it's the way of the world (not just football).
If a club has a rich sugar-daddy, they will always find some loophole to syphon funds from the owner into the club. The rich can buy their way around the rules... it's the way of the world (not just football).
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Probably sold some VIP boxes to some of the owner's relatives.
Probably sold some VIP boxes to some of the owner's relatives.
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Ticket revenue doubled, attendance stayed the same and they have some of the cheapest tickets in the league... Something doesn't quite add up here!
Ticket revenue doubled, attendance stayed the same and they have some of the cheapest tickets in the league... Something doesn't quite add up here!
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
I'm pretty sure there's some small print in the rules about revenue being at some kind of reasonable value.
Sent from my HTC One using Fapatalk
I'm pretty sure there's some small print in the rules about revenue being at some kind of reasonable value.
Sent from my HTC One using Fapatalk
jts1882
Dean Richards
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
How many of the £299 season tickets are there? The price is often mentioned, but the number never seems to be for some reason.
How many of the £299 season tickets are there? The price is often mentioned, but the number never seems to be for some reason.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Yes, sponsorship is supposed to represent fair market value, but how do UEFA determine what is fair. While a reasonable man can see why Real Madrid or Manchester United or Bayern Munich will get large sponsorships, how can they determine that Emirates Marketing Project, Chelsea and PSG aren't entitled to similar deals? How do you weigh the importance of history against the product on the pitch?
We will see if FFP is serious or not in how UEFA deal with PSG. They have come from commercial nothings to top dog, surpassing Bayern, in a few years. It's not as if they have done much in the CL yet. Clearly they are not being sponsored on fair market value but how do UEFA determine this definitively so it avoids legal challenge. I suspect they will wave it through.
There is something about the PSG sponsorships being backdated 5-10 years. This could mean it is a one-off or it could open the doors for further backdating. Perhaps there is someone interested in sponsoring St Mark's (West Gorton) FC in the 1880s, maybe the commerical value will strike a cord in Abu Dhabi.
Sent from my laptop using Firefox
Yes, sponsorship is supposed to represent fair market value, but how do UEFA determine what is fair. While a reasonable man can see why Real Madrid or Manchester United or Bayern Munich will get large sponsorships, how can they determine that Emirates Marketing Project, Chelsea and PSG aren't entitled to similar deals? How do you weigh the importance of history against the product on the pitch?
We will see if FFP is serious or not in how UEFA deal with PSG. They have come from commercial nothings to top dog, surpassing Bayern, in a few years. It's not as if they have done much in the CL yet. Clearly they are not being sponsored on fair market value but how do UEFA determine this definitively so it avoids legal challenge. I suspect they will wave it through.
There is something about the PSG sponsorships being backdated 5-10 years. This could mean it is a one-off or it could open the doors for further backdating. Perhaps there is someone interested in sponsoring St Mark's (West Gorton) FC in the 1880s, maybe the commerical value will strike a cord in Abu Dhabi.
Sent from my laptop using Firefox
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Yeah.
Was mentioned on a podcast I listened to the other day (either football weekly or second captains, can't remember) that one of PSG's sponsorship deals will grow in the next couple of years to where that one deal will be worth more than Manchester United's entire current sponsorship revenue. And that one deal doesn't even get that company on PSG's shirts. And the deal even included back payment for a previous season before the company actually sponsored PSG.
There isn't a more clear cut test of UEFA's market value fairness whatever clause. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.
Yeah.
Was mentioned on a podcast I listened to the other day (either football weekly or second captains, can't remember) that one of PSG's sponsorship deals will grow in the next couple of years to where that one deal will be worth more than Manchester United's entire current sponsorship revenue. And that one deal doesn't even get that company on PSG's shirts. And the deal even included back payment for a previous season before the company actually sponsored PSG.
There isn't a more clear cut test of UEFA's market value fairness whatever clause. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.