With Uefa's financial fairplay on the horizon, I came across this article on Goal.com which I found to be somewhat interesting and decided I'll give it a post:
http://www.goal.com/en/news/755/europe/201...-with-financial
Full Version: Uefa Financial Fairplay
No Inter, I like it. 
This rule is pretty much the final nail in the coffin for any club without a huge fanbase/wealth. 
UEFA just making sure the top clubs monopolise.
UEFA just making sure the top clubs monopolise.
I'm curious to know what everyone's alternative solution would be, because like you all, I myself am not impressed with the new rule.
QUOTE (Dracoris @ May 12 2011, 06:39 AM) 
I'm curious to know what everyone's alternative solution would be, because like you all, I myself am not impressed with the new rule.
Rules are never 100%, you will always find flaws ... But from a general perspective, this new rule will ultimately level the playing field. You will no longer see Madrid offering multi-million packages and you will no longer find clubs paying exaggerated transfer prices.
Ofcourse none of you are impressed, as many clubs will implode, while others will bear the fruits of a new era. It all depends on the clubs strategy ... Milan for the past two years have started work on restructuring their cost components across the board, this is projected to take full affect on the club's financials in 3 or 4 years time. The same will gradually reduce our YoY losses and in turn make the club semi - self sufficient.
UEFA's implementation of the financial fairplay rule will enlarge the pool of competitive clubs. Genoa might compete for the Scudetto in 3 or 4 years time, as would Villa in the EPL, and Villareal in Spain.
With the above in mind, I am strongly in support of it.
QUOTE (Rossoneri7 @ May 12 2011, 07:52 AM)
But from a general perspective, this new rule will ultimately level the playing field.
I don't see that at all.
Look at Spain, for example. Valencia have been relatively successful this past decade, the only team that has really challenged Barca and Madrid. It put them into a huge debt though, which they're still recovering from. Now, with these laws, Madrid and Barca become untouchable. They already monopolise the tv rights and qualify for the CL year after year. These 2 things give them huge sums more than other clubs in the league, that's without their global appeal and huge - full - stadiums every week. How do teams possibly compete with them now?
Last year Chelsea earned $200m than Villa. Now we could take a risk and go into debt to try and help us compete on the pitch, after the rule is passed we can't and we have to accept that every year they get a $200m head start on us as well as already having a superior squad.
I had always hoped I'd get to see Villa acheive something. This rule really is the final nail in the coffin for clubs like us. Not many clubs run a profit and the ones that do are the big spenders.
It's a great rule for the very top, it'll benefit Milan. But it's just UEFA looking after their own interests and it's disgusting. Certain clubs make them the most money, they're making sure those certain clubs qualify for their competitions every year.
Yep, this makes football worse, no doubt. Because you can only spend what you earn, meaning the bigger clubs with the bigger fanbase etc are going to earn more where as the smaller ones aren't, resulting in their ability to spend more. No investors are going to be able to put money into a club to push it into the next level.
Makes absolutely no sense at all the way they've done it. Top job UEFA, top job
Sorry this is good for Milan, but I'm not so selfish for us & the sport in general to realise this is ultimately a terrible, terrible decision. If we are going to cap things the cap should be the same for everyone, this just makes the well off clubs relatively untouchable.
Though like Kurt says certain teams make the CL money, just look at the Europa League now, barely much interest. This is why they are doing it.
Makes absolutely no sense at all the way they've done it. Top job UEFA, top job
Sorry this is good for Milan, but I'm not so selfish for us & the sport in general to realise this is ultimately a terrible, terrible decision. If we are going to cap things the cap should be the same for everyone, this just makes the well off clubs relatively untouchable.
Though like Kurt says certain teams make the CL money, just look at the Europa League now, barely much interest. This is why they are doing it.
QUOTE (kurtsimonw @ May 12 2011, 10:25 AM)
I don't see that at all.
Look at Spain, for example. Valencia have been relatively successful this past decade, the only team that has really challenged Barca and Madrid. It put them into a huge debt though, which they're still recovering from. Now, with these laws, Madrid and Barca become untouchable. They already monopolise the tv rights and qualify for the CL year after year. These 2 things give them huge sums more than other clubs in the league, that's without their global appeal and huge - full - stadiums every week. How do teams possibly compete with them now?
Last year Chelsea earned $200m than Villa. Now we could take a risk and go into debt to try and help us compete on the pitch, after the rule is passed we can't and we have to accept that every year they get a $200m head start on us as well as already having a superior squad.
I had always hoped I'd get to see Villa acheive something. This rule really is the final nail in the coffin for clubs like us. Not many clubs run a profit and the ones that do are the big spenders.
Look at Spain, for example. Valencia have been relatively successful this past decade, the only team that has really challenged Barca and Madrid. It put them into a huge debt though, which they're still recovering from. Now, with these laws, Madrid and Barca become untouchable. They already monopolise the tv rights and qualify for the CL year after year. These 2 things give them huge sums more than other clubs in the league, that's without their global appeal and huge - full - stadiums every week. How do teams possibly compete with them now?
Last year Chelsea earned $200m than Villa. Now we could take a risk and go into debt to try and help us compete on the pitch, after the rule is passed we can't and we have to accept that every year they get a $200m head start on us as well as already having a superior squad.
I had always hoped I'd get to see Villa acheive something. This rule really is the final nail in the coffin for clubs like us. Not many clubs run a profit and the ones that do are the big spenders.
Well Big clubs generate Big revenues, that is why they are termed Big. But aside from that, this rule is not meant to divide the top four from the rest, it is to make football in Europe self-sufficient. As such, the Big clubs are the ones who will be hurt the most. As they are the ones who need to cut back the most.
Chelsea generating 200MM more than Villa, does not mean they are better off. They generate losses every year, which is due mainly from the high expenses on their books. For Chelsea to commit to the new UEFA rules means that they have to cut off a LOT of expenses, which will inevitably reduce the overall quality of the team.
You need to understand that this will first be implemented in the 2012/2013 season ... Then it will take another 3/4 years to adjust the clubs to function within this new framework. There is no black/white about it, UEFA will take matters in as a case-by-case basis and help clubs to be self-sufficient, so you need not worry but look forward to a brighter future.
Outside of the big 4 and Spurs, nobody even really runs a profit. The 2nd tier of teams will practically have to sell assets every year just to break even, which in turn will no doubt affect attendances.
At the end of the day, the top clubs usually earn around $200m more than the rest. That's a huge red flag there. But as I said, it's not about making football fair, it's UEFA looking after it's own interests. If they wanted fair they would force in a salary cap, like rugby here has.
At the end of the day, the top clubs usually earn around $200m more than the rest. That's a huge red flag there. But as I said, it's not about making football fair, it's UEFA looking after it's own interests. If they wanted fair they would force in a salary cap, like rugby here has.
I don't know why they just don't cap external investments and Player Wages.
QUOTE (kurtsimonw @ May 12 2011, 09:16 PM)
Outside of the big 4 and Spurs, nobody even really runs a profit. The 2nd tier of teams will practically have to sell assets every year just to break even, which in turn will no doubt affect attendances.
At the end of the day, the top clubs usually earn around $200m more than the rest. That's a huge red flag there. But as I said, it's not about making football fair, it's UEFA looking after it's own interests. If they wanted fair they would force in a salary cap, like rugby here has.
At the end of the day, the top clubs usually earn around $200m more than the rest. That's a huge red flag there. But as I said, it's not about making football fair, it's UEFA looking after it's own interests. If they wanted fair they would force in a salary cap, like rugby here has.
So what is UEFA's interests then ?
QUOTE (Rossoneri7 @ May 13 2011, 12:16 AM)
So what is UEFA's interests then ?
Their prize competition, the Champions League, I would consider their biggest interest. Which is why they want the clubs that draw the fans and money to play in it. This rule guarentees the high profiled clubs with all the money make it in for sure.
QUOTE
I don't know why they just don't cap external investments and Player Wages.
Platini always brings up the myth that salary capping is against EU law. Despite the fact rugby uses a salary cap. It would easily be the best way to do it. I think teams could still spend as much as they want on transfers, but it would drive tranfer fees and wages down.
Can't understand your arguments kurt. Lesser clubs CAN be successfull without generating massive debts. Plus, most of the clubs you mentioned, like United, Chelsea, Madrid or Barca gained their recent success on the basis of the reckless generation of debt. Chelsea and United alone have a debt of one billion Euro! A competition between such teams and teams like Milan and Bayern who actually try to run a football club like a successfull company which can generate profit is not fair. Plus, the financial rules in every league are different. Barca or Madrid might have already been thrown out of the Bundesliga considering their debt. UEFA tries to establish a fair economic playing field for ALL european clubs.
Also, I disagree when you say, that clubs who aren't successfull right now will have a harder time gaining on the big clubs now. First, it's always harder to make it to the top, than to fall down. If I were to found a car company today, I couldn't compete with Volkswagen or Toyota. Not now, and not even in ten years (besides, if I were to generate as much debt as United does, I had to close that company very soon). Because in such a market, and football nowadays is a market, the big ones never sleep. They copy successfull strategies of smaller clubs to stay at the top (for example).
Second, it IS possibles to catch up with the big ones without generating debt. Just look at Serie A and the Bundesliga. Look at Napoli and Borussia Dortmund. Those were both teams which, in the 90ies and 80ies became successfull by ruining their finances. They both payed the price for it and weren't able to compete for almost a decade. And now they're back and they're not generating massive debt.
Third, this is Europe and not the United States. It's not easy to establish a salary cap in dozens of different countries with dissimilar labor law.
Also, I disagree when you say, that clubs who aren't successfull right now will have a harder time gaining on the big clubs now. First, it's always harder to make it to the top, than to fall down. If I were to found a car company today, I couldn't compete with Volkswagen or Toyota. Not now, and not even in ten years (besides, if I were to generate as much debt as United does, I had to close that company very soon). Because in such a market, and football nowadays is a market, the big ones never sleep. They copy successfull strategies of smaller clubs to stay at the top (for example).
Second, it IS possibles to catch up with the big ones without generating debt. Just look at Serie A and the Bundesliga. Look at Napoli and Borussia Dortmund. Those were both teams which, in the 90ies and 80ies became successfull by ruining their finances. They both payed the price for it and weren't able to compete for almost a decade. And now they're back and they're not generating massive debt.
Third, this is Europe and not the United States. It's not easy to establish a salary cap in dozens of different countries with dissimilar labor law.
Somewhat agreed, but people seem to have very, very short memories. United haven't run up this debt, the Glaziers gave it to them 
Just look in recent years, they really haven't spent much. Bearing in mind they sold a £80million player. How do you think Milan have competed this year in the Serie A, it certainly wasn't without money. I'm afraid that's what the game boils down too nowadays, it's not the same as it was 20 years ago.
Just look in recent years, they really haven't spent much. Bearing in mind they sold a £80million player. How do you think Milan have competed this year in the Serie A, it certainly wasn't without money. I'm afraid that's what the game boils down too nowadays, it's not the same as it was 20 years ago.
True. Whoever sold his United shares to Glazer was an idiot. Instead of giving some money to the club to make it more competitive, the Glazers are trying to squeeze every last bit of money out of the club...
QUOTE (LaPalma @ May 13 2011, 02:42 PM)
True. Whoever sold his United shares to Glazer was an idiot. Instead of giving some money to the club to make it more competitive, the Glazers are trying to squeeze every last bit of money out of the club...
Yep, that's why the United fans were so pi$$ed at the deal, and I can see their point.
Sure they may have been making a minor loss before (I'm not 100% on that) but the Glaziers saddled them with extortionate amounts of debt. They had the fanbase to allow them to buy the big names previously, it's not like Chelsea where an owner who has come in spent loads without them earning it and built the team etc. The common consensus was the Glazier's just wanted to make money out of it, and that really does seem to be the case.
I mean I complained about Roman when he first came over here but most times he's at the games at least and really seems to enjoy it as a fan, ok a very rich one but the love of the game is there at least, and the amount of money he has put into that club he can't expect to make a profit.
I can't agree, LaPalma. I'm just being logical. Teams that earn more can spend more. The teams that earn more already have a superior team. Having a superior team plus the opportunity to spend more means the gap will only get wider.
It's a stupid law because it punishes teams for their location. How can a team like Blackburn ever succeed? More people go to Villa Park every week than even live in Blackburn, they never get good attendances because the town is so small, they aren't a very marketable team. They make a loss every year, they're fortunate the owners just pay the difference for them not to go into huge debt.
It's not going to work and in a few years down the line when it changes nothing, people will see it. Nowadays some teams do break the bank a little to keep their top players by offering them new, big, contracts. Now about 14 Premier League clubs will just become feeder clubs for the top 6 or so, because they're the only clubs that make enough money to actually buy someone.
It's a stupid law because it punishes teams for their location. How can a team like Blackburn ever succeed? More people go to Villa Park every week than even live in Blackburn, they never get good attendances because the town is so small, they aren't a very marketable team. They make a loss every year, they're fortunate the owners just pay the difference for them not to go into huge debt.
It's not going to work and in a few years down the line when it changes nothing, people will see it. Nowadays some teams do break the bank a little to keep their top players by offering them new, big, contracts. Now about 14 Premier League clubs will just become feeder clubs for the top 6 or so, because they're the only clubs that make enough money to actually buy someone.
QUOTE (kurtsimonw @ May 13 2011, 01:14 PM)
I can't agree, LaPalma. I'm just being logical. Teams that earn more can spend more. The teams that earn more already have a superior team. Having a superior team plus the opportunity to spend more means the gap will only get wider.
It's a stupid law because it punishes teams for their location. How can a team like Blackburn ever succeed? More people go to Villa Park every week than even live in Blackburn, they never get good attendances because the town is so small, they aren't a very marketable team. They make a loss every year, they're fortunate the owners just pay the difference for them not to go into huge debt.
It's not going to work and in a few years down the line when it changes nothing, people will see it. Nowadays some teams do break the bank a little to keep their top players by offering them new, big, contracts. Now about 14 Premier League clubs will just become feeder clubs for the top 6 or so, because they're the only clubs that make enough money to actually buy someone.
It's a stupid law because it punishes teams for their location. How can a team like Blackburn ever succeed? More people go to Villa Park every week than even live in Blackburn, they never get good attendances because the town is so small, they aren't a very marketable team. They make a loss every year, they're fortunate the owners just pay the difference for them not to go into huge debt.
It's not going to work and in a few years down the line when it changes nothing, people will see it. Nowadays some teams do break the bank a little to keep their top players by offering them new, big, contracts. Now about 14 Premier League clubs will just become feeder clubs for the top 6 or so, because they're the only clubs that make enough money to actually buy someone.
But in all fairness, the plan was never to allow the Blackburns of the world to buy WC players. I think small towns teams expect less from big city teams. For instance, the Italian side of my family comes from Pescara, and i can tell you i almost love Marco Verratti as much as Pato. Different standards lead to different expectations. In italy this might workout because fans will have to crowd the stadiums to actually help finance their team. Obviously that last point was a tad overly optimistic, but it could work in Serie A's favor.
QUOTE (il_diavolo_mtl @ May 13 2011, 07:19 PM)
But in all fairness, the plan was never to allow the Blackburns of the world to buy WC players. I think small towns teams expect less from big city teams.
So unless you're from London, Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool you might as well give up?
Bolton under Sam Allerdyce had a good 5 or so years. They are a small market team, they don't have many fans. But, they made a gamble bringing in some popular names, the likes of Jay Jay Okocha, Fernando Hierro. It put them into debt, but the increase in attendances and better results on the field resulted in a larger financial gain. It allowed them to sustain a pretty damn good league position for quite some time. Because teams aren't allowed to do this anymore, it means the likes of Bolton and Ipswich finishing in the top 6 again isn't likely at all.
I think it will make football worse, alot worse. It's not very competitive as it is, now it won't be at all. I don't agree with teams spending themselves into stupid debt.
I thought the World had grown up enough not to pass laws and rules that are only beneficial to the rich.
There will always be disparities kurt. That's the way economy works. Luxemburg will never be able to establish an economy as strong as the UKs, because, well, they're just a tiny little country. Same goes for football.
To put this into a quite radical example: My hometown in which I grew up has just 10.000 inhabitants and therefore only plays in the 9th league. Now, the best club of my new home, Berlin, plays in the Bundesliga. And the simple reason for this disparity is: Berlin is one of the biggest and most important cities in Europe. It's our capital, the seat of the government and the registered office of many major companies. How in the world can a city with 10.000 inhabitants compete with this environment?
Also, it's possible to make your way to the top WITHOUT generating debt. With a more organic growth. Look at Napoli, look at Dortmund, look at Sevilla. You simply have to work properly instead of looking for an easy way.
Financial fairplay is not for the benefit of the rich, but for the benefit of the sane. Normal companies can't make crazy debt, why should football clubs be able to do it?
To put this into a quite radical example: My hometown in which I grew up has just 10.000 inhabitants and therefore only plays in the 9th league. Now, the best club of my new home, Berlin, plays in the Bundesliga. And the simple reason for this disparity is: Berlin is one of the biggest and most important cities in Europe. It's our capital, the seat of the government and the registered office of many major companies. How in the world can a city with 10.000 inhabitants compete with this environment?
Also, it's possible to make your way to the top WITHOUT generating debt. With a more organic growth. Look at Napoli, look at Dortmund, look at Sevilla. You simply have to work properly instead of looking for an easy way.
Financial fairplay is not for the benefit of the rich, but for the benefit of the sane. Normal companies can't make crazy debt, why should football clubs be able to do it?
QUOTE (LaPalma @ May 14 2011, 08:24 AM)
Also, it's possible to make your way to the top WITHOUT generating debt. With a more organic growth. Look at Napoli, look at Dortmund, look at Sevilla. You simply have to work properly instead of looking for an easy way.
Financial fairplay is not for the benefit of the rich, but for the benefit of the sane. Normal companies can't make crazy debt, why should football clubs be able to do it?
Financial fairplay is not for the benefit of the rich, but for the benefit of the sane. Normal companies can't make crazy debt, why should football clubs be able to do it?
But normal companies do go into debt before they're able to really push themselves on. A company can't really start without debt unless they're started by someone rich. This rule is for the benefit of the rich, you can't argue that. What's wrong with what Villa and City are doing? The only debt we have is to our owners and if they're happy to be out of pocket, that's their choice. Admittedly they're spending on a ridiculous scale, but what they're doing isn't really wrong. But UEFA are crapping themself at the sight of what City and Spurs are doing, God forbid one of the big 4 doesn't qualify every year. It's simple logic really. Have you seen how much tv money Barca/Madrid earn compared to the rest of the league? The arguement of "well run your club better" holds no water at all. How can you possibly compete with the teams you're trying to catch are literally gifted ridiculous amounts of money more than you?
It's a disgraceful rule. We'll see in a few years time when the EPL becomes more like La Liga with the top clubs being stupidly superior to everyone else. At least now there isn't as much disparity, anyone can beat anyone on their day. In Spain that isn't really the case bar one fluke result every 3 or 4 months.
If they bought in salary capping, or even a spending cap, then fine. But the way they're doing it is just them looking after their own interests. It's my last post on the matter. My interest in European competition is pretty much over.
QUOTE
How in the world can a city with 10.000 inhabitants compete with this environment?
But this is agreeing with what I'm saying. Why should your home town club suffer just because they're from a small area with few people? Why is it that a billionnaire who grew up there can not come in and give this team a chance? Financial FairPlay is basically making it a law that your home team can never be successful, because rich owners are now rendered pointless and they can't make a gamble as they're not allowed to be in debt. Whereas without this law, tiny towns can be successful, Blackburn has a population of around 30,000 people and they've won a league title. They made a gamble with finances and it paid off.
First, I don't think that a small towns club should be able to compete because they have some bored billionaire as President who spents big. I love stories of small towns becoming big in football. But it should happen because they have better ideas, not because they have the better billionaire. In Germany we have Kaiserslautern, the club of Germanies legendary captain Fritz Walter, which was able to challenge Bayern and Hamburg.
Also, who made the most debt in the past decade? It was the big clubs! United, Chelsea, Madrid, Barcelona or Inter. Financial fair play will hit those clubs even harder than the small clubs whose advocate you seem to be.
About companies: Yes, most companies have to make debts here and there. But if you only generate a revenue of 400 million Euro and have a debt of 600 million, it just doesn't work. No company in the world would survive that. And no football club shouldn't either. The regulation we have today boost the chances of those who spend without sanity and decreases the chances of those who actually try to run a decent company.
About England: How did the big 4 become the big 4? by spending crazy amounts of money in the past decade (except Arsenal). By generating massive debt. Which they aren't allowed to do in the future. Can't see how Financial Fairplay would be a benefit for those teams.
Also, I think European competitions will be much more interesting in the future. But domestic competitions were and always will be more interesting.
Also, who made the most debt in the past decade? It was the big clubs! United, Chelsea, Madrid, Barcelona or Inter. Financial fair play will hit those clubs even harder than the small clubs whose advocate you seem to be.
About companies: Yes, most companies have to make debts here and there. But if you only generate a revenue of 400 million Euro and have a debt of 600 million, it just doesn't work. No company in the world would survive that. And no football club shouldn't either. The regulation we have today boost the chances of those who spend without sanity and decreases the chances of those who actually try to run a decent company.
About England: How did the big 4 become the big 4? by spending crazy amounts of money in the past decade (except Arsenal). By generating massive debt. Which they aren't allowed to do in the future. Can't see how Financial Fairplay would be a benefit for those teams.
Also, I think European competitions will be much more interesting in the future. But domestic competitions were and always will be more interesting.
QUOTE (LaPalma @ May 14 2011, 09:22 AM)
About England: How did the big 4 become the big 4?
By getting more money than everyone else. The Champions League killed English football.
QUOTE
PSG Should Buy Players at Home or Risk Boring Fans, Aulas Says
Paris Saint-Germain, the biggest- spending club in European soccer this offseason, should buy players from French rivals to boost their revenue and ensure a competitive domestic league, Lyon President Jean-Michel Aulas said.
PSG, backed by an investment arm of the Qatari government, spent 140 million euros ($181 million) on players including AC Milan duo Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Thiago Silva as well as Argentine attacker Ezequiel Lavezzi from Napoli. Brazilian forward Lucas Moura, a player wanted by Manchester United, will join from Sao Paulo in January. The only new arrivals from France were two youngsters from an amateur league while four joined from Italian teams.
Buying players from French clubs would stimulate the local soccer economy, allowing teams to reinvest cash from PSG into improving their rosters, said Aulas. He’s taken Lyon from the second division to the top league, where it secured a record seven straight championships between 2002 and 2008.
“Paris Saint-Germain needs competition,” Aulas said in an interview in Geneva. “If not, the product isn’t very interesting. That’s why Spain and England have interest from abroad. Spain has two or three very big teams and in England there’s at least four or even five with Tottenham.”
Before the Qataris arrived in Paris, Lyon was regularly among the league’s biggest spenders, using revenue from playing in the Champions League to outbid rivals for talent.
“It reminds of what we did during a certain period,” said Aulas. “We bought a lot but we bought French.”
Foreign Teams
Still, it was by buying players from foreign teams, including Brazilians Juninho Pernambucano, Cris and Giovane Elber, to play alongside French stars such as Karim Benzema and Florent Malouda that helped Lyon dominate its rivals.
PSG couldn’t immediately comment on Aulas’s views. Its spending comes at a time where the majority of top European teams are paring costs to meet new financial control regulations established by European soccer’s governing body. Breaches of the rules that are designed to stem losses could lead to sanctions including a ban from the Champions League and Europa League from the 2014-15 season.
“Some clubs are continuing to buy a lot of expensive players,” said Aulas, who this summer cut 30 percent of player costs by selling some established stars, including French national team goalkeeper Hugo Lloris to Tottenham. “I think everybody knows what they need to do. What we’re seeing is perhaps the moment when those who continue to invest are saying to themselves, ‘It’s the last year that we can.”’
Financial Evaluation
Clubs will be evaluated ahead of the 2014-15 season by a UEFA panel. Losses of as much as 45 million euros across three previous seasons or a maximum single-season loss of 15 million euros can be covered by an equity investment. The maximum loss will be reduced to 30 million euros for the following seasons.
Lyon last year finished fourth in the French championship, 18 points behind winner Montpellier. The club had a loss of 25 million euros on revenue of 120 million euros, according to Aulas. He said the new regulations have prompted a new approach at his team, where lower salaries and focus on youth have replaced buying big names.
Losing Lloris’s 4.4 million-euro annual salary and getting 15 million euros from Tottenham was “very good,” he said.
Explaining the transition to fans that only care about success isn’t easy.
“It’s very important to explain the reality and the truth,” said Aulas, who’s personally invested 50 million euros into Lyon. “The truth is we can’t carry on having expenses that are greater than revenues. It’s very important that we drop our wage bill.”
Youth Academy
Lyon spent 10 million euros on a youth academy that opened two years ago and plans to move to a new stadium by 2015, according to Aulas. South Korean car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Co. signed as the team’s partner and may even put its name to Lyon’s planned 61,556-seat Stade des Lumieres, according to Aulas.
The plans have attracted investment offers, Aulas said, and he may cash in once the team moves to its new home.
“Today I am the main shareholder and we have some offers from some very good investors because we have the stadium, because we have the academy and the team,” he said.
Bloomberg
Paris Saint-Germain, the biggest- spending club in European soccer this offseason, should buy players from French rivals to boost their revenue and ensure a competitive domestic league, Lyon President Jean-Michel Aulas said.
PSG, backed by an investment arm of the Qatari government, spent 140 million euros ($181 million) on players including AC Milan duo Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Thiago Silva as well as Argentine attacker Ezequiel Lavezzi from Napoli. Brazilian forward Lucas Moura, a player wanted by Manchester United, will join from Sao Paulo in January. The only new arrivals from France were two youngsters from an amateur league while four joined from Italian teams.
Buying players from French clubs would stimulate the local soccer economy, allowing teams to reinvest cash from PSG into improving their rosters, said Aulas. He’s taken Lyon from the second division to the top league, where it secured a record seven straight championships between 2002 and 2008.
“Paris Saint-Germain needs competition,” Aulas said in an interview in Geneva. “If not, the product isn’t very interesting. That’s why Spain and England have interest from abroad. Spain has two or three very big teams and in England there’s at least four or even five with Tottenham.”
Before the Qataris arrived in Paris, Lyon was regularly among the league’s biggest spenders, using revenue from playing in the Champions League to outbid rivals for talent.
“It reminds of what we did during a certain period,” said Aulas. “We bought a lot but we bought French.”
Foreign Teams
Still, it was by buying players from foreign teams, including Brazilians Juninho Pernambucano, Cris and Giovane Elber, to play alongside French stars such as Karim Benzema and Florent Malouda that helped Lyon dominate its rivals.
PSG couldn’t immediately comment on Aulas’s views. Its spending comes at a time where the majority of top European teams are paring costs to meet new financial control regulations established by European soccer’s governing body. Breaches of the rules that are designed to stem losses could lead to sanctions including a ban from the Champions League and Europa League from the 2014-15 season.
“Some clubs are continuing to buy a lot of expensive players,” said Aulas, who this summer cut 30 percent of player costs by selling some established stars, including French national team goalkeeper Hugo Lloris to Tottenham. “I think everybody knows what they need to do. What we’re seeing is perhaps the moment when those who continue to invest are saying to themselves, ‘It’s the last year that we can.”’
Financial Evaluation
Clubs will be evaluated ahead of the 2014-15 season by a UEFA panel. Losses of as much as 45 million euros across three previous seasons or a maximum single-season loss of 15 million euros can be covered by an equity investment. The maximum loss will be reduced to 30 million euros for the following seasons.
Lyon last year finished fourth in the French championship, 18 points behind winner Montpellier. The club had a loss of 25 million euros on revenue of 120 million euros, according to Aulas. He said the new regulations have prompted a new approach at his team, where lower salaries and focus on youth have replaced buying big names.
Losing Lloris’s 4.4 million-euro annual salary and getting 15 million euros from Tottenham was “very good,” he said.
Explaining the transition to fans that only care about success isn’t easy.
“It’s very important to explain the reality and the truth,” said Aulas, who’s personally invested 50 million euros into Lyon. “The truth is we can’t carry on having expenses that are greater than revenues. It’s very important that we drop our wage bill.”
Youth Academy
Lyon spent 10 million euros on a youth academy that opened two years ago and plans to move to a new stadium by 2015, according to Aulas. South Korean car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Co. signed as the team’s partner and may even put its name to Lyon’s planned 61,556-seat Stade des Lumieres, according to Aulas.
The plans have attracted investment offers, Aulas said, and he may cash in once the team moves to its new home.
“Today I am the main shareholder and we have some offers from some very good investors because we have the stadium, because we have the academy and the team,” he said.
Bloomberg
Interesting read.
QUOTE
Renowned economist Jose Maria Gay has expressed his concerns with the state of Spanish football, in his annual report on the financial developments in Europe's top five leagues.
Gay feels that Barcelona and Real Madrid are the only two Liga teams that are making steps forward, while adding that the remaining teams have made no progress whatsoever in the past five years.
"The Primera Division is not moving forward. Barcelona and Real Madrid are the only two clubs that are growing. All the other teams are still in the same situation as five years ago," Gay told reporters.
"Spanish football is dying if you ask me. They are five years behind the other big leagues. The poor state of the stadiums is the main reason."
Gay then went on to voice his opinion that the Premier League's financial model doesn't have a future either, whereas Germany and France are the example to follow.
"The model of the Premier League is bankrupt from a financial point of view. It is based on club ownership, and losses are financed through holding companies.
"Football is a true reflection of a country's economy, and France and Germany are leading the way at the moment," he stated.
Gay feels that Barcelona and Real Madrid are the only two Liga teams that are making steps forward, while adding that the remaining teams have made no progress whatsoever in the past five years.
"The Primera Division is not moving forward. Barcelona and Real Madrid are the only two clubs that are growing. All the other teams are still in the same situation as five years ago," Gay told reporters.
"Spanish football is dying if you ask me. They are five years behind the other big leagues. The poor state of the stadiums is the main reason."
Gay then went on to voice his opinion that the Premier League's financial model doesn't have a future either, whereas Germany and France are the example to follow.
"The model of the Premier League is bankrupt from a financial point of view. It is based on club ownership, and losses are financed through holding companies.
"Football is a true reflection of a country's economy, and France and Germany are leading the way at the moment," he stated.
I wonder if that has anything to do with the tv money Madrid/Barca get in comparison to the rest? Nah, surely not.
It does absolutely. Not to mention the inordinate credit lines banks advance them.
QUOTE
UEFA cracks down on 23 clubs by withholding prize money
(CNN) -- Some of Europe's leading clubs -- including Europa League and European Super Cup winners Atletico Madrid of Spain -- have had a taste of just seriously UEFA is taking the idea of Financial Fair Play after the European governing body temporarily withheld the payment of prize money to 23 clubs.
UEFA Club Financial Control Body's investigatory chamber, chaired by former Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, handed out the punishment after identifying that the clubs owed money to either other teams, their employees or had failed to pay taxes.
Atletico's fellow Spanish club Malaga, which is taking part in the Champions League for the first time this season, is another of the 23 clubs that has had the payment of prize withheld.
Financial fair play too late for some?
Footballers' salaries surge
Manchester United goes public
Sporting Lisbon, Hajduk Split, CSKA Sofia, Rubin Kazan and Fenerbahce are some of the others major clubs to have been sanctioned.
Atletico thrash Chelsea in Super Cup
"I am still very worried about the current situation," Dehaene told the European Club Association's (ECA) general assembly. "The Financial Fair Play Regulations are known for more than two years, but I have the impression that some clubs still need to do their homework."
ECA Chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge added: "It seems that quite a few clubs have not understood the message. Time has come to take the new rules seriously. ECA will continue to support Financial Fair Play."
UEFA said the measure would remain in place until the clubs had paid the money they owed and have asked the 23 teams to provide an update on their finances by the end of September.
In a UEFA report published last year, it was estimated that about 50% of top European clubs were losing money and 20% were recording sizable deficits.
UEFA's Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules apply now but will come fully into force in 2014 and provide Europe's governing body with sweeping powers, including exclusion from the lucrative Champions League, if clubs fail to meet the regulations.
Fair play? Football clubs seek to beat financial offside trap
Under the new rules, owners can only contribute a maximum of $55.5 million for the 2013-14 and 2015 seasons together, and $37 million during the period covering 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18.
Current rules state that should clubs incur losses in excess of $60 million over a three-year period, they will be hit with sanctions as well as exclusion from the Champions League and Europa League.
All clubs taking part in UEFA's competitions for the 2012/2013 season had to provide Europe's governing body with details of any "overdue payables" by the end of June.
(CNN) -- Some of Europe's leading clubs -- including Europa League and European Super Cup winners Atletico Madrid of Spain -- have had a taste of just seriously UEFA is taking the idea of Financial Fair Play after the European governing body temporarily withheld the payment of prize money to 23 clubs.
UEFA Club Financial Control Body's investigatory chamber, chaired by former Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, handed out the punishment after identifying that the clubs owed money to either other teams, their employees or had failed to pay taxes.
Atletico's fellow Spanish club Malaga, which is taking part in the Champions League for the first time this season, is another of the 23 clubs that has had the payment of prize withheld.
Financial fair play too late for some?
Footballers' salaries surge
Manchester United goes public
Sporting Lisbon, Hajduk Split, CSKA Sofia, Rubin Kazan and Fenerbahce are some of the others major clubs to have been sanctioned.
Atletico thrash Chelsea in Super Cup
"I am still very worried about the current situation," Dehaene told the European Club Association's (ECA) general assembly. "The Financial Fair Play Regulations are known for more than two years, but I have the impression that some clubs still need to do their homework."
ECA Chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge added: "It seems that quite a few clubs have not understood the message. Time has come to take the new rules seriously. ECA will continue to support Financial Fair Play."
UEFA said the measure would remain in place until the clubs had paid the money they owed and have asked the 23 teams to provide an update on their finances by the end of September.
In a UEFA report published last year, it was estimated that about 50% of top European clubs were losing money and 20% were recording sizable deficits.
UEFA's Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules apply now but will come fully into force in 2014 and provide Europe's governing body with sweeping powers, including exclusion from the lucrative Champions League, if clubs fail to meet the regulations.
Fair play? Football clubs seek to beat financial offside trap
Under the new rules, owners can only contribute a maximum of $55.5 million for the 2013-14 and 2015 seasons together, and $37 million during the period covering 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18.
Current rules state that should clubs incur losses in excess of $60 million over a three-year period, they will be hit with sanctions as well as exclusion from the Champions League and Europa League.
All clubs taking part in UEFA's competitions for the 2012/2013 season had to provide Europe's governing body with details of any "overdue payables" by the end of June.
FFP in action. Neither Malaga nor Atletico will receive any prize money from UEFA competitions unless they tend to the norms of FFP regulations.
Portsmoth and Rangers (now Rangers NewCo) were declared bankrupt because of their excessive use of external funding to support their eroding business model.
It's kind of funny, because it won't work with some teams.
Do you think Man City would care about losing £30m or so from the CL? Would they hell "Oh okay, we'll just spend another £30m of our owners money instead!"
Great way of keeping their marketable clubs in the CL and stopping others getting in though. Judos to UEFA, just when you think they can't ruin the sport anymore.
Do you think Man City would care about losing £30m or so from the CL? Would they hell "Oh okay, we'll just spend another £30m of our owners money instead!"
Great way of keeping their marketable clubs in the CL and stopping others getting in though. Judos to UEFA, just when you think they can't ruin the sport anymore.
Prize money... LMAO. I expected something more serious. we'll see if they'll ban such teams from CL/EL in 2016.
QUOTE (Zed.D @ Sep 25 2012, 04:14 PM)
Prize money... LMAO. I expected something more serious. we'll see if they'll ban such teams from CL/EL in 2016.
The problem is that "such teams" are not really the big money draws for UEFA. I'll believe in this when Man U, Real, Barca, et al come under scrutiny.
Banning Atletico, Galataseray, Malaga, etc won't convince me of anything
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.