‘I Don’t Understand How FFP Works’


PLEASE READ SLOWLY, I SHALL NOT BE FIELDING QUESTIONS to which the answers lie in this blog, afterwards.

Yesterday I quite clearly asked the Flat Earthers and any other assorted stand up comedians in the audience to justify the endless whining about MCFC and the Financial Fair Play.

Just like links to dog sh*t sites, we need to keep the blog as free as reasonably possible of misinformation, or fake news. Shouting ‘it’s a all a sham’ without making any effort to support the discontent is withering.

So, for Flat Earthers to substantiate the claim that FFP is a joke, the first port of call is to look at the side that played us on Saturday.

Despite this request, a number of you opted to cut and paste duff info.

Then, the next logical step would be to work out which of THOSE players and those players alone were kosher in terns of FFP.

Something else nobody on here attempted to answer.

I began bracing myself for what was going to be a tedious task, but would well worth it if it proved that my belief that winning = turnover = compliance.

If Levy got off his bony ass and tried to win stuff, the club would be more attractive, success boosts revenues across the board.

Thank goodness, I was saved the job. The following is from back in a April this year from the Manchester Evening News

‘Manchester City have been handed a £33m windfall from UEFA after complying with Financial Fair Play measures.

European football’s governing body confirmed City would be refunded 40m euros (£33.4m) after meeting the requirements of sanctions imposed in 2014.

City were fined £49m for breaching FFP regulations.

Sanctions also included transfer restrictions and a reduced squad for the Champions League.

But two thirds of the fine would be returned if City met with the operational and financial measures put in place by UEFA.

In addition City agreed to limiting annual losses to set amounts each year with the purpose of moving towards break-even figures.

They have achieved that comfortably – recording profit two years in succession.’

If you want more information – without employing your own forensic accountancy unit – then this piece from last month in the Guardian picks up some of the detailed slack.

For those that can bothered to stomach these truths, you’ll kindly note the expectations expressed by Ferran Soriano, the MCFC chief executive:

“We are committed to playing beautiful football and to win. Both elements are compatible and the second is a consequence of the first. I am convinced we will see further progress and silverware in the seasons to come. Over the last three seasons, we have tackled another important and strategic challenge: to refresh and rejuvenate the squad that were champions in 2012 and 2014.”

City’s chairman, Khaldoon al-Mubarak added:

“For the third consecutive year our business is profitable and revenues continue to grow to record levels for the ninth successive season, pushing beyond £400m and towards the £500m mark.We also continue to operate with zero financial debt.”

You need to bear in mind that this club, unlike Spurs, is owned and run by people who understand business and have exemplary business track records. People who understand how a football club NEEDS to be run.

You win stuff. You boost your turnover and then, you’re in a position to be compliant with the financial regulations.

Daniel Levy Inc by stark contrast is in the process of spending a billion pounds based upon the frankly quite counter intuitive belief that Spurs fans will turn up in number come hell or high water. Jam tomorrow is the new jam. But with fewer calories!

Most hateful/laughable of all of course, is that when Manchester City’s owners were pumping money into the club willy nilly, before financial fair play was introduced, we had our own billionaire, alas his only inclination was to peel oranges in his pocket.

Being an infinitely better run football club, City have actually rebuilt themselves whilst under the auspices of financial regulators.

Whereas we the eternally damned b*st*ards, are destined to yet more purgatory as the increased revenues will be syphoned off to service the gargantuan debt we’ll be in, quite probably for the wrong end of a decade.

Remember: If you don’t understand FFP, just say ‘I don’t understand FFP’. People respect honesty.

What exactly is FFP?

It was introduced by UEFA to prevent clubs that qualify for its competitions from spending beyond their means and stamp out what their president Michael Platini called “financial doping” within football.

Platini believes the big spending of some clubs is ruining the game and feels that the level of debt carried by many is unsustainable.

What must clubs do to comply with FFP?

Uefa made its first FFP ruling in April based on club accounts from the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons.

Clubs can spend up to 5m euros (£3.9m) more than they earn per assessment period, although, under this monitoring period, total losses of 45m euros (£35m) were permitted as long as clubs had owners who could cover such amounts.

From now on, the assessment will be made over a rolling three-year period.

What is covered by FFP?

Clubs need to balance football-related expenditure – transfers and wages – with television and ticket income, plus revenues raised by their commercial departments. Money spent on stadiums, training facilities, youth development or community projects is exempt.

What are the possible sanctions for clubs in breach of FFP?

“The atomic bomb is a ban from European competition,” said Jean-Luc Dehaene, the first chairman and chief investigator of CFCB, back in 2011 (Dehaene died in May 2014).

The CFCB’s investigatory chamber can offer clubs settlement agreements, with potential punishments including warnings, fines, withholding prize money, transfer bans, points deductions, a ban on registration of new players and a restriction on the number of players who can be registered for Uefa competitions.