[Jack Sparrow]

But Jack, sponsorships are included in revenue. These clubs are making massive losses after doing what you have outlined above.

I do think it's purely a money making exercise for UEFA and they pick and choose stuff. PSG had a sponsor that wasn't allowed to go through by UEFA as it wasn't deemed "fair value", I believe it was less than £170m. United and Barca have both been allowed deals that make PSGs looks like pennies. Funny that.

Yes. Actually only PSG and Man City have really flouted norms. None of the other clubs have. And both of them have been given some harsh slaps on the wrist. With the warning to shape up or things get worse. So it's not as bad as you think. Monaco are shipping people out like anything. Chelsea are well within norms. Man Utd are doing swell financially and will need to go at least two more seasons without CL to be in trouble. Real and Barca are also comfortable.

So who else ? Which big club do you actually feel is spending more than it can earn?

[kurtsimonw]

Yes. Actually only PSG and Man City have really flouted norms. None of the other clubs have. And both of them have been given some harsh slaps on the wrist. With the warning to shape up or things get worse. So it's not as bad as you think. Monaco are shipping people out like anything. Chelsea are well within norms. Man Utd are doing swell financially and will need to go at least two more seasons without CL to be in trouble. Real and Barca are also comfortable.

So who else ? Which big club do you actually feel is spending more than it can earn?

What do you mean "norms"? Chelsea were up around £100m loss and that was before they made all these summer signings. Man City and PSG you're talking far more than that and they basically were not punished. UEFA proved it's all a money making exercise. Giving people with billions a £50m fine for overspending is like telling a rich guy if he enters a FIFA tournament for money, he'll be given a £50 fine for using cheats. I'm sure he'll happily pay it.

[Jack Sparrow]

What do you mean "norms"? Chelsea were up around £100m loss and that was before they made all these summer signings. Man City and PSG you're talking far more than that and they basically were not punished. UEFA proved it's all a money making exercise. Giving people with billions a £50m fine for overspending is like telling a rich guy if he enters a FIFA tournament for money, he'll be given a £50 fine for using cheats. I'm sure he'll happily pay it.

Once again. This is not the only punishment. PSG showed a reduction in expenses, just not enough to satisfy the FFP norms. What PSG have been told is - "Here's a 50 million fine. Your net spend on transfers is now cut to 60 million this year. Your CL squad will now be limited to 21 players opposed to 23 with no change on the homegrown quota AND if you don't improve further things get worse. We'll be auditing you next year. "

So as far as first year punishment for non-compliance goes, I think that's pretty harsh.

Chelsea? I think you underestimate just how well Chelsea are being managed. They closed excellent deals with Gazprom and adidas. I think the Samsung deal comes to a close soon and there will be even more money coming in. The amount of youth players they have moved on for serious money is crazy.

I mean Kevin De Bruyne who couldn't even get a game has moved to Wolfsburg for more money than Balotelli (25 million). They've sold Lukaku for 35 million euros and you already know the story of David Luiz.

No Chelsea is doing spectacularly well with FFP. They might not turn massive profits like Arsenal, but they're very self sufficient.

[kurtsimonw]

Doesn't change the fact they Chelsea have made losses of £75m-£100m over the past few years and nothing has happened.

[Rossoneri7]

This is a good explanation of how chelsea complied. Clicky

[Danny]

Chelsea losses were 49.4M.

Ours are 15.7M.

http://acmilanfinance.com/2014/07/14/the-2...milan-accounts/

We're 'adhering' to FFP just fine if these numbers mean what I think they are.

That could change next season when clubs must keep losses to £37.2m over three seasons instead of two.

Debt is a different thing btw - that's accumulated debt over years, similar to that non-critical energy debt everyone gets into now and again.

Net losses are the one that matter - the essential difference between overheads and income. And if these numbers are accurate and I'm not misunderstanding them, we're perfectly in line for FFP.

[Rossoneri7]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/fiesta.gif)

[Jack Sparrow]

Our problem is we're stretched just to stay in line with FFP. Other clubs are within FFP and still got money to spend.

Chelsea has spent a ton to get reinforcements in needed areas and with good players too. All they did was sell one non-essential player to PSG for big money to finance their other transfers.

Now what about Milan? Is there really anyone else we can realistically sell for big money? SeS and De Sciglio are our last remaining big assets and they won't bring in anything more than 25 million euros imo.

[kurtsimonw]

Our problem is we're stretched just to stay in line with FFP.

Welcome to the real World of football. Most clubs make next to nothing. Not that UEFA care, it's about creating a glass ceiling.

[Rossoneri7]

Welcome to the real World of football. Most clubs make next to nothing. Not that UEFA care, it's about creating a glass ceiling.

Its only the first monitoring period under FFP, too early to tell.