Rich, this is how clever accountants bypass your FFP rules

[Brentwood]

'City's income also included £47m from selling "intellectual property", including £22m-worth to related City companies. These sales were not explained further in the accounts.'

They sold some intellectual property to one of their sister companies in the US to reduce their own losses :hehe:

Don't for one minute think there aren't 1000 other clever loopholes they'll exploit

[Nicosia Gooner]

billionaire crooks didn't get their by being incompetent and nice people; they are ruthless cnuts and will use every mean to achieve their targets, no doubt about it.

[Rich]

So they can sell it for £1billion if they like. It still won't help them.

[Brentwood]

Do they really explicitly exlude IP in their rules?

Read section 5b of this:

http://www.academia.edu/3577361/_The_UEFA_financial_fair_pla y_regulations_FFP_implemented_in_2009_and_commence d_in_2012_ is_effective_in_encouraging_financial_fair_play_an d_the_long _term_survival_of_European_Clubs_ (http://www.academia.edu/3577361/_The_UEFA_financial_fair_play_regulations_FFP_impl emented_in_2009_and_commenced_in_2012_is_effective _in_encouraging_financial_fair_play_and_the_long_t erm_survival_of_European_Clubs_)

[Nicosia Gooner]

[Peter]

Dont be surprised to see them utterly complicit in any and all attempts to get around it. They and fifa are as corrupt as any iinstitution in the world.

Look at the ultimate sanction- removal from uefa competitions. Why on earth would uefa want a competition without the biggest clubs and players? It would be a disaster for them. Small **** clubs will be made an example pf but there is not a hope in hell of the likes of city being sanctioned for snything. As it proceeds, i suspect city will stop even pretending to comply.

I could be wrong of course. :-)

[Brentwood]

Real Madrid, Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd, PSG, Monaco. But don't worry viewers, because we've got WBA vs FC Sheriff coming right up for you!"

[Peter]

Perhaps uefa will prefer to hit these mega rich clubs where it really hurts- in the pocket!

A 200 grand fine is going to seriously f**king hurt alongside that 60 million quid a year loss :hehe: :hehe:

[Brentwood]

believe that it could be enforced. Imagine the court cases that will ensue once they start to issue punishments.They'll be ****ting themselves that the big clubs will just form a breakaway European league as well

[Rich]

Only a club’s outgoings in transfers and employee benefits (including wages) will be counted over income from gate receipts, TV revenue, advertising, merchandising, sales of players and prize money is included in the assessment. Any money spent on infrastructure, training facilities or youth development will not be included.

Let me know if you need me to read it for you, I suspect it might be necessary.

[Rich]

the extreme.

The other side of your coin is that everyone in France, England, Spain and Italy that isn't financially doped could say 'f*ck this, we'll make our own league where things are fair.' That would leave City, Chelsea, Madrid, PSG, Monaco and maybe a couple of others on their own.

Sure, they could form their own league - but I don't beleve it would be a hit because of how few teams were in it. Plus fans won't be keen because it will mean travelling overseas nearly every other week.

I think that side of said coin is potentially far more damaging than your side, tbh.

How do you propose UEFA will answer questions in 2016 when someone says, here are the rules, these clubs have brazenly flouted them but have no penalties, why? Of course they are going to do something about it.


Why do you think City are putting so much into youth development? Because they know they can't keep spending. Those Turkish teams already had their liceces suspended by Fifa.

[Brentwood]

and even less commercial experience

Advertising is included:


Quote:



Although rich owners are prevented by the FFA from funding their teams, someclubs like Manchester city and PSG have secured large amounts of sponsorshipdeals, and the companies that sponsor the large clubs have close affiliation withthe owners of the respective clubs. Although the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) would look intosponsorship deals that are “unrealistic�, such a definition is unclear.Furthermore the sponsorship deals received by Manchester City are commercially reasonable.
Owners can easily pump in fresh capital in the sponsoring companies’ they own
and utilize it to sponsor their clubs.





Merchandising is included:



Quote:



Another concern is that rich football clubs are investing their capital in non-football related investments. Therefore it is unclear that whether such revenue is allowed to be taken into consideration and how to determine what the proximity of football association. Although Article 58(1) includes what relevant income is, it is very the vague. For example, one would argue that the Real Madrid Resort targeted for football fans of the club (commercial activity seen in article 58(1)) but it is in fact a hospitality service provider with little or no football relations. Therefore if the limitation on what is deemed as a“relevant income� is vague, then the rich clubs can easily diversify their investments and use the returns to fund their extravagant salaries and transfers







This Real Madrid example is identical to my golf course example that you couldn't answer. Now get back to removing corns from the feet of 90 year olds

[Luis Anaconda]

yet you have the temerity to call Brentwood a cretin

[Rich]

know it will make some difference.

[Luis Anaconda]

I don't think it will work but it might have some effect. People would be whining if Uefa did nothing. Trouble is they have started this **** about 20 years too late

[Brentwood]

do something about it

[Nicosia Gooner]

[Peter]

Look as though they are doing something sbout it.

In a sense, rich is correct in that there is little or no point in us endlessly discussing whether it will work or not. We may as well wait and see what happens. Currently these discussions are merely a reflection of our own starting points- our general cynicism versus rich's unshakeable faith in institutuions and the rule of law.

[Peter]

I dont know that they are. I know exactly why they might wish to say That they are.

On your other point, of course uefa would have to challenge blatant flouting of the rules. They wont have to as the clubs and probsbly uefa themselves will ensure it isnt blatant.

[Brentwood]

"here are the rules, these clubs have brazenly flouted them"

In law, it is practically impossible to define a set of strict laws that are not vague and bypassable in some way. That's why legalese is so difficult for the layman to understand. Lawmakers try to make laws watertight, but their colleagues on the other side devote their whole working life trying to find ways to bypass them.

Financial law is even more difficult to enforce. The govt/HMRC are constantly trying to close loopholes, only for clever accountants to find new ones. Man City get sponsorship from Abou Diaby companies, which many suspect their owner is involved with in some way. How can UEFA track money flowing between UAE companies?

Do you know that Ikea is a registered charity that ships items to different ports around the world with the sole intention of paying next to nothing in tax?

http://www.economist.com/node/6919139

Starbucks in the UK buy their coffee beans from "Starbuck Coffee Beans of Luxemborg" at stupidly high prices. This means that they minimise the profit they make in their shops and maximise the profit they make in a tax haven.

[Rich]

need to do something.

[Classic Jorge]

[redgunamo]

25 league titles, Liverpool 18, Real Madrid 32 and even the Arsenal have won 13; whereas they themselves have won only three, like Huddersfield, Wolves and Preston and fewer than Sheffield Wednesday and Sunderland.

In fact, City and Chelsea have won fewer titles between them than Everton.