Regarding the FFP rules?
Basically you can't lose anymore than 45m in the next 2 seasons. Granted it doesn't include contracts signed before 2010 I believe, however, Chelsea already loses 75m a year WITH Champions League footy. Champions League revenue is worth a little over 50m a season in TV rights and tickets so that's a huge problem right there if you fail to qualify.
Before you say it doesn't matter if you aren't in europe anyway, it does matter. The punishment will not come next season but in 2013/14. Not having the champions league revenue in that year means less money and therefore at risk of not qualifying for the champions league again. It's a vicious circle.
Now there are some arguments that UEFA will go easy on clubs because they don't want another competition forming. This could very well be true but it depends on how many UEFA will ban from Europe. Remember, they do not have to ban all of them. They can make an example out of just 1. What they will be looking for is how much progress a club is making toward breaking even. Sadly for Chelsea, they are not even close. The dismissal of so many managers and a reckless lifestyle, will no doubt be taken into consideration. As things stand, you are the most vulnerable of clubs. Banning Real Madrid/Barcelona etc would be controversial but banning Chelsea, a club not in the champions league and who have a reputation, would not be controversial.
Platini is also under huge pressure to enforce these rules. Nobody forced UEFA to create these rules, they were voluntary. Platini sees it as the only way to save football from certain destruction.
Will UEFA let Chelsea off the hook?
posted on 30/3/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/3/12
Banning from palying in Europe is the ultimate sanction.
Unlikely for a 1st offence only teams failing year on year with no plan to reduce costs will be banned.
Chelsea and Man C will be fine for a few seasons.
posted on 30/3/12
No one is getting banned, imo especially if you make tangible efforts to reduce your running cost, Chelsea have demonstrated that in recent seasons by refusing to pay over the odds for Modric and Neymar
posted on 30/3/12
to pay over the odds for Modric and Neymar
________________________________
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story
posted on 30/3/12
Our losses were £68m and in this £48m were one-off items
We are allowed £38m loss during the current first monitoring period and should easily be compliant
Our revenues are increasing and wages of players with contracts signed before June 2010 are not counted for FFP
There are also various other allowances
The only outcome form FFP will be that no other club will be able to do what CFC ,Man City,etc. have done
The long-term result of this will be that an elite clique is established and smaller clubs will suffer with some going to the wall
Transfer fees will decrease and so will players wages and individuals who want to invest money in clubs will be discouraged
Well done UEFA
Would have been better focusing on large clubs saddled with hundreds of millions of debts
posted on 30/3/12
Will building a new stadium help us to be compliant?
posted on 30/3/12
^
Maybe in the long run, but stadiums cost money, as Arsenal found out.
posted on 30/3/12
Constructing a new stadium or increasing capacity at SB is a tangible fixed asset and as such is free from FFP
But this will increase revenue so is a sure-fire winner as far as FFP is concerned
posted on 30/3/12
You can build a new stadium for as much money as you want as this does not count towards the FFP.
posted on 30/3/12
Big Bang Theory
Sheldon is legend