Villa and Everton would be relegated if they had Wenger mucking about with Ligue 1 and Segunda players.

Caligula wrote:

Villa and Everton would be relegated if they had Wenger mucking about with Ligue 1 and Segunda players.

So Ferguson's a better manager than Wenger because he persistently finishes ahead of us.

But O'Neill and Moyes are better despite finishing persistently behind us?

Keep the debate real! Either league position's a factor or it isn't.

Guys, the relegation thing was a joke. Of course, Wenger's better than the current managers of those teams.
Let's not bring the fighting spirit from the stands into the forum :-)

otfgoon wrote:

y va marquer wrote:

That is not my understanding oft.

The article (written into the rules) that I refer to details the acceptable deviation from the break-even requirements AFTER the first two years have passed.

This is from the article you're talking about:

The acceptable deviation is EUR 5 million. However it can exceed this level up
to the following amounts only if such excess is entirely covered by contributions
from equity participants and/or related parties:
a) EUR 45 million for the monitoring period assessed in the licence seasons
2013/14 and 2014/15;
b) EUR 30 million for the monitoring period assessed in the licence seasons
2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18;

The bit you quoted was just an Annex that goes into more detail about equity

Yes.
Looks like until the end of 2017 / 2018 season clubs can deviate quite significantly from the acceptable loss levels if they have an independently wealthy owner who can make a capital contribution?

I wouldn't say an average of £8m per season from 2015 to 2018 is all that significant. Even the £40m over the first two years isn't enough for the losses that City and Inter are posting, which are 5 to 6 times that amount.

Caligula wrote:

Guys, the relegation thing was a joke. Of course, Wenger's better than the current managers of those teams.
Let's not bring the fighting spirit from the stands into the forum :-)

Heh. I was drunk at the time, but you're right. However there's a fine line between shrill hyperbole and jokes around here. Fair play

I'll be more careful. These are edgy times. Even Wenger was on edge in his press conference. I'd like to see us OMT folk having this debate in a room. We might come to blows. Of course, we'd then all go out for a scotch and that cherry beer that Y Va and Biggus like so much.

No I said my wife likes it, it's a chicks drink.

Caligula wrote:

Let's not bring the fighting spirit from the stands into the forum :-)

It should be on the pitch not in the stands or forum's.

Read this on another forum concerning Man City;

We won't fall in line by 2013, we won't even be close. That's not the point though. There is plenty of breathing space and there are clauses which allow UEFA to be lenient - such as that which says if there is a positive trend towards compliance and a clear strategy for achieving compliance, there should be no sanction. I've been put at ease about this whole thing by the positive noises coming from UEFA since our meetings with them

I contacted the BBC about 6 months ago correcting a few of the common errors that they have continued to work into their 'calculations' and the response was.............zilch.

I have spent ages reading up on the FFPR and am on a one man mission to make it clear that the FFPR are NOT a concern to City other than in the last 2 and next 2 'accounting periods' IF income were not to increase, in CIty's case significantly.

Being dead broke prior to HH Sheikh Mansour's timely purchase of City is now working in the clubs favour big time.

Each year we can show income growth and explain why investments have had to be made.

If UEFA were to ban City on the basis of the improvement and investments made since a new owner came on board then nobody would ever invest in football again as there would be no point.

On the point of hotels etc then I do wish people would accept (as it is written in the exceptions to revenue etc etc in the FFPR) that ANY product of service that trades on teh clubs name - IRRESPECTIVE OF LOCATION - the revenues gemerated from that can be included for FFPR purposes.

On the point of the Hotels etc near the stadium - there is no specific distance in metres or kilometers stated in FFPR but it has to be 'adjacent' to the stadium - where does the stadium boundary end?

Is the stadium inclusive of car parks? It hasnt nade that clear.

Is the stadium inclusive of training facilities?It isn't clear, yet.

The rule of thumb though on 'adjacent' to the stadium will turn out to be any unbroken physical link to the stadium. (I know that because I have spoken to UEFA about it)

Now have a think about what City are planning ( See the Las Vegas thread for all you need to know on that) and you will see the impact of FFPR in action, City will have an 'unbroken physical link' connecting about 300 acres of land 'adjacent' to the stadium with room for further additional expansion afterwards.

On revenues derived from services and products trading on the clubs name I would point to the newly opened Abu Dhabi City store as the clearest example of how easy it is to make money abroad.

City hotel anyone, City car hire?

And finally if anyone on here wants to rid COMS of 'the cheese' think on this - for a 'brand' to be saleable and be allowed under FFPR it has to have a recognisable link to the club.

That is why they are pushing Bluemoon so much as they can, in furture, use that as a secondary brand.

BlueMoon Hotel by mcfc

If the likes of Chelsea and Man City with their spending won´t be in trouble with the UEFA rules then it truly is a pointless regulation. If you can´t get at the very clubs that are destroying football - what´s the point?

The golden rule Rexy.

Whoever has the gold makes the rules.

@Humble: You tend to forget that the primary goal isn't to stop clubs from spending money they do have (as City and Chelsea do). It's to stop the Portsmouths from spending money they don't have and embarrassing the FAs and UEFA.

All the reports seem to suggest that the likes of City are being forced to change their spending plans in response to the FFP rules so they're probably working to the extent that can be expected.

Pepe: yes, but clearly City themselves are in no danger of spending beyond their means, unless someone invents a free non oil-based energy source tomorrow.

My take is that UEFA and other FAs would like it if competition was less distorted by financial disparity, but what really worries them is the devaluation of the leagues that occurs when clubs are placed in administration halfway through the season.

Oh, I agree about the post from the City guy as well. Mostly handwaving.

What European football needs is a salary cap in addition to FFP. Just tell teams they must manage their wage bill to a maximum (eg) £120m or 50% of turnover, whichever is lower, by 2015. And if the owners make a profit, good for them.