21 Aug 2015 02:50:10
Right I have seen ed2 knocking about today so I have to ask.

What I will point out first is;

I am an ordinary fan absolute no inside knowledge of the finances or latest transfer rumours

I am trying to make it seem sensible by just using a simple logic, which I understand can simply infuriate ed2

But

Actually quite a few questions but bare in mind my above comments

Has ffp been relaxes this year and is it looking likely to be relaxed in the future seasons. Does this apply to only teams under ffp restrictions or all teams?

How can (and yes I know the dosh got divided up between player and old club) Liverpools bringing in of 49mil and only spending out 80 mil bring us within any real major issues.

I get there is added on fees for taxes, agents, pay offs on contracts and everything else you have given us over the years.

But how exactly and how much does it work for this transfer window

Is it more the equivalent of about 100 million spent including all the extra fees and how much of sterling's money can we actually put down as income?

An db back to ffp I thought it was meant to be only the clubs money that could be spent, getting rid of sugar daddy's and pretty much solidifying all the clubs in the there positions by there income.

Pretty much making the United, bayerns, barcelonas, reals of this world the complete top dogs.

Bringing me back to city whose 100 odd mil is actually getting spent on these players? Is it the owners?

Ed I've gone on there I do apologise and tbh the most of it seems childish at best but it's just getting on my nerves now not completely knowing the whole situation

Thanks if this gets answersed

And no thanks if I end up on the other posts page. Haha (gives a little laugh in the hope ed will answer this because I'm such a likable fella)

I

{Ed002's Note - (a) The relaxations were the dropping of costraints on three sides that had been imposed regarding the differential between buying and selling players - regardless of income. As an example, if a club had £100M available to spend on players in addition to sales, it was limited to less than that so they could not simply go out and buy. The second aspect relates to UEFA trying to deflect a legal challenge from a Spanish club and are looking to relax the investment that can be made – but are still aware that they need to deal with other issues, most notably the capping of television income and sponsorship. UEFA has spoken to a number of clubs but have generally not found them supportive – all three English sides spoken to are against the plans to relax the investment cap. However, UEFA has now turned to the association of European clubs and they are keen to have some input. They are traditionally ignored but they have been actively discussing this issue with UEFA. However, they are excluded from the discussions that UEFA and specific clubs have with each other – and it is that forum that will eventually settle on the more critical television revenue and commercial sponsorship caps. The relaxation that has been proposed related to a club providing advanced warning (by the end of the previous year that they have additional money to invest that will breach the FFP regulations but it will be a one off event. There will regardless be a relaxation this summer, but it may not be sustained without ratification – and that won’t happen anytime soon. None of this will be good for the English sides. The worry UEFA has is that the two potentially largest beneficiaries both play in the French league and they may be accused of favouritism. It will benefit Manchester City as well - as the deficit constraint has been removed. (b) Liverpool are going to be in breach again this season unless they can get significant additional income - and the way to do that is to sell players or find additional sponsors who will stump up cash right away. (c) The whole point is that clubs should move toward being self-sufficient - and not like Liverpool which has built very significant debt in recent years - borrowing against future income. (d) One downside of FFP is that it has for now created a gap between those clubs that have money and are self-sufficient (Arsenal, MAnchester United, Chelsea, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid and Barcelona notably) and those below them and then everyone else. This is the reason for providing the new money relaxation - so if Liverpool were sold to, for example, Red Bull, in October of 2016 and they wanted to pump even more money in to the club in the summer of 2017 then they coukd inform UEFA by December 31, 2016 and that would be allowable. (e) Manchester City have significantly higher income than many sides - and much of that comes from "sponsorship" which is currently uncapped - this is an ongoing issue that will again be discussed in Monaco at the end of next weeks by those clubs who are trying to work to stop UEFA simply appling new regualtion without full consideration. But right now the MC spending can be accounted for by the lifting of the limitation between spending and selling, and the additional income they have through various forms of sponsorship.

Additionally, meetings have been held including representatives of the French FFF and Spanish RFEF to discuss their concerns over the new EPL television deal and the deal Real Madrid and Barcelona has in Spain. They approached UEFA with a view to capping TV income in the same way as commercial sponsorship for the purposes of FFP. No resolution is in place. This upsets EPL clubs, Bundesliga clubs, Real Madrid and Barcelona. The other get support from other nations such as Italy and the Netherlands should they ask for it. The further complication relates to what happens when the breakaway clubs run for the pan-European league. The Spanish club know that opens up the Real Madrid and Barcelona second string sides to La Liga - so they want assurances that (a) they can only use the extant stadia, and not the main stadia, and (b) the television rights will then be shared equally - regardless. This has been raised in a meeting of the breakaway sides in Monte Carlo last year with UEFA present and an unbiased journalist sat in to moderate - at the agreement of all parties. It remains partially resolved only. Two clubs are still looking to accelerate the pan-European league breakaway - and are now proposing this again using the recent FIFA issues as an excuse. They will lose that vote next week.}

1.) 21 Aug 2015
21 Aug 2015 20:48:44
Ed002 you say that Barcelona are one of the clubs that are self-sufficient, yet i remember Ed001 saying they are in major debt too a bank and would almost go under if the bank recalled the debt? Any chance you could clear this up please?

{Ed002's Note - They are entirely self-sufficient due to their annual revenue being around €600M - which is more than double that of Liverpool. It is nothing to do with debt.}

2.) 21 Aug 2015
21 Aug 2015 22:18:01
Firstly thanks for such a great reply.

Now I imagine it is the lower end clubs from the leagues which are trying to get commercial and TV revenue deals capped, I wouldn't be surprised to see maybe the Munichs in there aswel because when you hear from any of there board members they have always seem to have a moan about the English clubs money etc.

How and can they do this? Will this not make more clubs challenge for changes to all ways of making money?

Will there not be pushes then for caps spent in transfer windows and wages.

I ask because the clubs that are pushing for these types of issues to be dealt with are fighting for a more even playing field but by putting limits on the big clubs spending they will also be restricting themselves as the bigs all make more money.

Will this impact the fans and make them try to make more money through tickets sales and shirts. To make up the difference on what can be lost in the capped revenue streams or will it all be affected?

Is this any sort of conspiracy for when this all gets passed and the blockers get put on all revenue streams that the bigger clubs will go oh f this and try and force the pan league with the hope that the fans will be more open with the anger they will have at all the caps coming into place.

I have gone on an again ed and I do apologise.

I have more to ask but have gone on so much I have forgot if it comes back to me I'll post again.

Thanks again for the reply above :)

{Ed002's Note - (a) More than half of the top twenty ranked teams in Europe are pushing for TV and commercial income caps for the purposes of FFP. (b) There are caps on the money that can be spent on transfers already. (c) There are caps on the total amount of wages clubs can pay in some countries (e.g. France). (d) UEFA want to introduce a sponsorship cap for FFP but have so far been unable to agree an annual figure - so the clubs that meet regularly to discuss a number of issues have been trying to agree a figure themselves, knowing that UEFA would agree to that figure. The clubs are meeting at the end of next week and it will no doubt be discussed again. To date the clubs have been arguing between two figures, but there are two clubs that will likely continue to vote against an agreement as it is not in their best interests. (e) Match-day income through ticket sales is not as significant for many clubs as fans think - it provides about 20% of Liverpool's revenue at the last count as I recall. (f) Clubs do not get the money from shirt sales The money from shirt sales goes to the manufacturer, the distributor and the retailer, who can make extra adding numbers and names to the shirts. If the club are the retailer (club shop, club website etc.) then they get the retailers cut. The manufacturer (Adidas, Umbro, Nike etc.) pay the club an amount each year which allows them to manufacture and sell the shirts using the correct logos etc.. That is how they justify the money given to the club. So if you walk in to a high street store and buy a Liverpool or Arsenal shirt - nothing goes to the club. There are a few clubs that have negotiated different deals with manufacturers (Real Madrid with Adidas and Barcelona with Nike are the two obvious examples) based upon joint reselling ventures. So the income from shirts is fixed to the £xM or whatever Adidas, Nike etc. pay the club plus a small amount for reselling through the club retail outlets (shop, web)). (g) The blocks are not on the revenue streams but the use of the money for calculating FFP figures and therefore what clubs can spend on transfers.}

3.) 21 Aug 2015
21 Aug 2015 22:45:52
Thanks very much for sharing this insight into the higher echelons of the game Ed.
There is simply nowhere else that the ordinary fan on the street could even hope to have an idea of how matters are developing on these sorts of issues.

{Ed002's Note - You are welcome.}