snowychap Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 That's why I somewhat agree with rules about clubs not being aloud to lose money, but I don't agree with them not being able to increase their wage bill if they can keep the books balanced. For instance, if Villa had a flukey good year and made the champions league, they might want to bring it better, more expensive players to consolidate their position, not to mention expanding the squad. However, even though they'd be getting like £15m from the UCL and a considerable amount extra in premier league prize money, they could only raise the wage bill £5m, meaning they'd be very unlikely to qualify and the big clubs could regain their position.Clubs can increase their overall wage bill by more than those annual caps if the extra comes from matchday/commercial revenue, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 That's absolutely correct snowychap hence Utd having new sponsors for pretty much everything including the training ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers13 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Oh well that's better at least. I still hate the idea that it's aloud in the rules for Man U or arsenal or Chelsea to spend a certain amount of money, but villa or Newcastle aren't allowed to spend that amount of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Oh well that's better at least. I still hate the idea that it's aloud in the rules for Man U or arsenal or Chelsea to spend a certain amount of money, but villa or Newcastle aren't allowed to spend that amount of money. We 'could' if we were clever, I'm not sure we are though. Nice old Villa, stick right down the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Hold on: nobody knows whether those deals mentioned (such as the Man City's ladies team) are allowed or not. These type of deals/arrangements will be put under the microscope in the next few months by the panel tasked to review them. Let's wait and see*. (*Not like I expect anything to be done, but still). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 13, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 13, 2014 Hold on: nobody knows whether those deals mentioned (such as the Man City's ladies team) are allowed or not. These type of deals/arrangements will be put under the microscope in the next few months by the panel tasked to review them. Let's wait and see*. (*Not like I expect anything to be done, but still). Apparently they're against the spirit of the rule, but UEFA didn't define it, only that they'd investigate deals where they felt the company paying was too closely linked to the club, by not defining what "too closely" meant, they've opened themselves to court cases that they won't win, so they'll most likely turn a blind eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I agree with you outbyeaster. It doesn't stop them amending the rules so that when the deals runs out that new ones will have to adhere to those new definitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Hold on: nobody knows whether those deals mentioned (such as the Man City's ladies team) are allowed or not. These type of deals/arrangements will be put under the microscope in the next few months by the panel tasked to review them. Let's wait and see*. (*Not like I expect anything to be done, but still). Apparently they're against the spirit of the rule, but UEFA didn't define it, only that they'd investigate deals where they felt the company paying was too closely linked to the club, by not defining what "too closely" meant, they've opened themselves to court cases that they won't win, so they'll most likely turn a blind eye. That's not quite true mate. UEFA set up an entirely independent panel so that they could remove themselves from legal action. The only recourse clubs will have is one of appeal; these will be looked at by the Court of Arbitration in Sport. UEFA set the rules; the panel interpret and apply them. Clubs will have no facility to go through the civil courts of their own country either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers13 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I don't think those deals should be banned. If FFP is truly about preventing teams from going bust, stable sponsorship, even if it's related to the owner would help prevent that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted March 13, 2014 Administrator Share Posted March 13, 2014 That's not quite true mate. UEFA set up an entirely independent panel so that they could remove themselves from legal action. The only recourse clubs will have is one of appeal; these will be looked at by the Court of Arbitration in Sport. UEFA set the rules; the panel interpret and apply them. Clubs will have no facility to go through the civil courts of their own country either. That might be considered an illegal restraint of trade though, especially where these rules have been brought in after the fact. You might get both clubs and players suing EUFA in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 No clubs have started legal action on that basis, yet. That's something an agent is trying to do who, as it happens, is using the same lawyer as Jean Bosman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I still hate the idea that it's aloud in the rules for Man U or arsenal or Chelsea to spend a certain amount of money, but villa or Newcastle aren't allowed to spend that amount of money. I'd imagine they'd be trying to keep it quiet. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted March 14, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 14, 2014 Not many people buy football clubs for the profit either? Lerner's own valuation of the club will not have changed whether the money he has put in is a loan or to buy shares? Would Lerner get any personal tax breaks if he changes the money from being a loan to shares? ie could he write off the money against he own tax bill for a £90m loss? Remember the Lerner trust has just received a large amount of money from the sale of the Browns?I am not a US tax accountant, but:Lerner could pay close to 50% of the interest annually in taxes between the feds and New York.He converts it to equity, the tax becomes about 20% on the capital gain (difference between Villa's selling price and what he paid for it).For every year he holds on to the Villa it's about 3 million pounds in tax savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 There is no interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I agree, this thread has gone on so long, that it is now of no interest. To anyone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts