You clearly haven't heard of inflation.
psg laughing at ffp
- Thread starter VoetbalWizard
- Start date
Really? I remember on the topic here that players like Hazard and Oscar, at least, were not included on the balance. Marin was bought before. But I may be wrong...
Thanks.
I'm not sure now mate, you've made me question myself!
Stop bringing up things that have no importance to anyone. Minor details I say.
Mission accomplished.
How anybody can deny theres nothing fishy about this deal or any of the City deals is beyond me its as obvious as the tool on jimmy hills chins head
Doesn't about 80% of City's sponsorship come from the Middle East?
In my opinion, FFP was long developed and created by UEFA more so to deal with situations like Rangers and other clubs from going bankrupt than to deal with sugar daddy clubs. But because of the backlash surrounding sugar daddy owners, the focus shifted on what the real intent of FFP was and people thought it was more about stopping City and PSG than helping Rangers, Atletico Madrid and a host of Italian clubs from going under. Under the real intent of FFP, it is a very good thing and should help some clubs from going under.
But lets not kid ourselves and think that FFP was designed to stop City and PSG. As long as their is compliance of the rules like City and PSG do with shady sponsorships, UEFA won't care as long as they do comply and no punishment will occur. But for the clubs which FFP was designed for to help, have no choice but to conduct their business better and do things differently because they don't have the benefit of some angel throwing hundreds of millions into a sponsorship deal to bail them out of trouble and help them comply with the rules.
Sure UEFA says they'll look into these sponsorship deals and talk about fair market value, but thats all it is; talk. Like any smart organization they'll take a hot topic and vow to do something. It's like Obama saying he's looking into Gun Control laws in the wake of the tragedy in Connecticut. Something small might be done, but it's not going radically change the gun culture in the US.
But lets not kid ourselves and think that FFP was designed to stop City and PSG. As long as their is compliance of the rules like City and PSG do with shady sponsorships, UEFA won't care as long as they do comply and no punishment will occur. But for the clubs which FFP was designed for to help, have no choice but to conduct their business better and do things differently because they don't have the benefit of some angel throwing hundreds of millions into a sponsorship deal to bail them out of trouble and help them comply with the rules.
Sure UEFA says they'll look into these sponsorship deals and talk about fair market value, but thats all it is; talk. Like any smart organization they'll take a hot topic and vow to do something. It's like Obama saying he's looking into Gun Control laws in the wake of the tragedy in Connecticut. Something small might be done, but it's not going radically change the gun culture in the US.
There's no inflation when shit teams buying shit players, it's only when the sugar daddies club are involved that they jack up the price.
I believe if you list all the purchase from a normal teams it still reflects the market price.
Andersred said this when analysing City's finances, seeing Comercial revenues grow 100% in one season:
We all know the answer to that one.
You're right. I forgot the part that Abu Dhabi is part of UAE.
Why should they stop it though, as far as I can see, it's good for the UEFA, it raises their prestige and reputation when the league is filled with stars and every matches is a big match
Besides, the only qualm we have with sugar daddies is just that it's not fair winning things that way, but officially and legally speaking, there's not much wrong in what they do, they don't rob, they use their own legally (at least on paper) acquired capital for investing in the club they claim they love.
Nobody cry fouls when Al'Fayed bought Fulham? or Berlusconi buying Milan
Investor invest and enhance their investment to gain benefits (and not necessarilly monetary, people like Roman and Sheikh will easilly fork out 400-500M for a global PR campaign to make them known throughout the world)
Ramshock
You are quite clearly the 'tool head'.
I never said that these deals were legit. I simply stated that there is no point in crying about UEFA not doing anything when it has not come to the point where they would be doing anything.
UEFA have already banned Bestikas from European competition for two years for FFP breaches. I am skeptical but hopeful that they will take action against PSG AND City.
UEFA have neither officially accepted or rejected the City or PSG deals. Your crying is moot.
What FFP potentially does is preserve the integrity of domestic and European competition. You are right that some money will trickle down to the smaller clubs, but another consequence is that those same clubs will have to either enter the capital markets or be saddled with larger amounts of debt to compete.
Face it, they never be able to compete with sugar daddies
They can compete better with the economy though, as the trickle down effect will allow them to face daily bills better, improving academies, contracts and wages
Off course without sugar daddies they're moving much slower, but the development in averaged out among the smaller clubs
Why the hell are you being so aggressive towards him? Everything he did was mocking all the FFP bullshit.
Like I have said, I am skeptical but hopeful that UEFA will do something about it.
I am hopeful because they took action against teams who did not settle their debts, two Turkish have already been banned under the FFP rules. I am skeptical because I feel that enforcing the rules will be extremely difficult in practice. Clubs like City and PSG will bury these deals in a sea of accounting and legal bullshit. From an outside observers point of view, PSG do seem to be being a lot more blatant about about it than City.
I don't think that it is a publicity stunt. I feel that it may turn out to be an ill conceived ideal in practice though.
Why is waiting for UEFA to make their position clear on the matter, instead of assuming that they will do something with no evidence for that assumption, being an 'arrogant know all'?
They won't have to find a way around it because they won't kick clubs out of the CL. It'll damage the brand. Simple as that.
I sincerely question this idea of UEFA babysitting clubs models of business. Owners, fans and "sócios" have to take responsibility. If their club goes down the drain then though luck.
As I predicted, this crap will end up impacting more on Porto, than the likes of City or PSG. We have a risky business, yes, but we have to take responsibility for our own doings. So far, we've been excellent in this business model, if it goes tits up, though luck. If the alternative is ceasing to be a top 10-ish European club to become more "stable" than I don't want it.
We were never gifted anything by anyone.
Also would like to add, that from what I read, I can't see what there is to investigate in this PSG deal. UEFA doesn't decide what clubs can receive or not. They just do their separate "accounting" with the concept of "fair" value when evaluating commercial dealings, something that doesn't deviate from the market trends. This deal is obviously a joke, a club with a relatively modest following in the 5th European League (on their way to 6th in UEFA coefficient rankings) can't be worth this much from a commercial perspective. Essentially UEFA either enforces what they said or they don't, there is nothing to "investigate" here.
As I predicted, this crap will end up impacting more on Porto, than the likes of City or PSG. We have a risky business, yes, but we have to take responsibility for our own doings. So far, we've been excellent in this business model, if it goes tits up, though luck. If the alternative is ceasing to be a top 10-ish European club to become more "stable" than I don't want it.
We were never gifted anything by anyone.
Also would like to add, that from what I read, I can't see what there is to investigate in this PSG deal. UEFA doesn't decide what clubs can receive or not. They just do their separate "accounting" with the concept of "fair" value when evaluating commercial dealings, something that doesn't deviate from the market trends. This deal is obviously a joke, a club with a relatively modest following in the 5th European League (on their way to 6th in UEFA coefficient rankings) can't be worth this much from a commercial perspective. Essentially UEFA either enforces what they said or they don't, there is nothing to "investigate" here.
150 million a year ? haha
They are not being even discreet about it. If UEFA allow this then FFP is dead.
They are not being even discreet about it. If UEFA allow this then FFP is dead.
Don't think they are spending money from the GDP or the Budget/tax net though.
You're right, that cannot include their Summer transfers because players aren't written off just like that. They are amortised over the length of their contract, which is why costs will be much higher for Chelsea next year. This year the amortisation of Hazard and Oscar wasn't incuded because report was obviously based on 2011.
They don't need to, either.
PSG 'lost' 5M euros last year. So it was bollox all along. Sugar sugar, honey honey, loadza money.
Have to see if anything is done I suppose, can't see them enforcing any punishments etc in reality, will just be warning's after warnings of one day, if it's passed, and approved.. you MIGHT find it harder to keep taking the piss financially...
I don't think FFP was ever there to punish clubs like PSG as a main objective. It was to stop smaller clubs going out of business.
PSG improved their turnover by 120% in a year... mostly due to the money from Qatar airlines. That cannot possibly represent fair value.
FFS - What a moronic comment.
This is just PSG's own accounts. There is nothing to conclude whatsoever about FFP from that. We have to wait for UEFA to examine them later this year and decide what goes into the FFP accounts and what doesn't.
They've been audited by DNCG you wanker (not that you know who they are).
There is probably nothing wrong with their accounts. Sugar daddy income is still income.
UEFA now has to make the distinction on which parts of that income represent fair market value and which parts don't, and take their conclusions if they are following regulations or not. I think it's obvious they're not, their sponsorship contracts are ridiculous.
Your point will probably be proven right, but the fact they lost 5m last year and have been audited to confirm it says nothing about FFP.
'... UEFA introduced an EU level supervisory system whose objectives are based on those of the DNCG (Financial Fair Play) . The financial position of clubs in Europe could justify the creation of similar organizations in countries other than France in the near future'.
So their accounts are legit. Of course they would be. How does DNCG being their auditors and DNCG being responsible for FFP come into it? Auditing a club to make sure their books are legit is not related to reviewing whether their sources of income match the requirements necessary to pass FFP. It's really not that hard to spot the difference.
Exactly, all the auditors have done is said that the account information is a true reflection of what has happened. It's not their job to say whether the actual income is allowed to be included in the FFP calculations for PSG, that is for UEFA to assess.