Ffp

[chef]

Interesting take on the matter, can't see it ever happening though.

EXCLUSIVE: Martin Samuel reveals Arsenal's big idea to hand the title to Manchester United and cream off the profits in a plot which could destroy English football

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz2HvhApHfT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Can someone change the title to FFP please.

[Topdog]

Re: Ffp

LOL what a terrible piece of "journalism"

[Twodogs]

Re: Ffp

I cant think of one Arsenal supporter who wouldnt agree with the folowing statement;

Ivan Gazidis, the man whose vision has helped make Arsenal the club they are today

He took us from a powerhouse to a joke. I'd shoot him on sight.

[Twodogs]

Re: Ffp

Oh and I tried to change the header but it wont let me.

[westdog54]

Re: Ffp

Oh and I tried to change the header but it wont let me.

Oddly enough I can't seem to either.

[GVGjr]

Re: Ffp

I don't think it likes a 3 letter thread. What should it be?

[westdog54]

Re: Ffp

I don't think it likes a 3 letter thread. What should it be?

All of the letters should be capitalised, however it seems to autocorrect back to lower case.

I even tried F.F.P and it still autocorrected.

[GVGjr]

Re: Ffp

All of the letters should be capitalised, however it seems to autocorrect back to lower case.

I even tried F.F.P and it still autocorrected.

Hope I have the right title now.

[westdog54]

Re: Ffp

Hope I have the right title now.

That'll do.

[chef]

Re: Financial Fair Play

Thanks for the effort guys

[chef]

Re: Financial Fair Play

Been voted in to the EPL, with only objections from Aston Villa, Fulham, WBA and Man City(needed 14 votes to pass). Allowed 105 mil loss over a 3 year period.

[chef]

Re: Financial Fair Play

New financial rules for EPL

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/news/1140098/

Top-flight clubs will face a points deduction if they breach new spending controls agreed by the narrowest majority at a Premier League chairmen's meeting.


The 20 club chairmen voted by 13 to six - with one abstention - to implement two significant controls - to limit players' wage bills from next season, and longer-term measures that will restrict the amount of losses clubs can make to £105 million ($160.46 million) over three years.

Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52 million ($79.46 million) will only be allowed to increase their wages by £4 million ($6.11 million) per season for the next three years, though that cap does not cover extra money coming in from increases in commercial or matchday income.

The effect of the financial controls should prevent hugely wealthy owners achieving the almost-overnight success of Chelsea and Manchester City.

Any club breaching the rules will face tough sanctions - and Premier League chief executive Scudamore said it would be pushing for points deductions.

Scudamore told reporters: "As all things in our rulebook you will subject to a disciplinary commission.

"The clubs understand that if people break the £105 million we will looking for the top-end ultimate sanction range - points deduction.

"Normally we stay silent on sanctions as the commission has a free range, but clearly if there is a material breach of that rule we will be asking the commission to consider top-end sanctions."

It emerged, however, that the vote for the financial regulations could hardly have been closer - only 13 of the 20 clubs voted in favour, six against with Reading abstaining. It meant that the 'yes' vote only narrowly achieved the necessary two-thirds majority of the 19 votes cast.

Clubs sources say Fulham, West Bromwich Albion, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea City and Southampton all voted against. Chelsea, which had initially been viewed as an opponent of financial fair play regulations, voted in favour.

Of the 20 clubs in the top flight, only Manchester City, Chelsea and Liverpool have reported losses of more than £105 million over the last three years, according to the most up-to-date published accounts.

Scudamore said there would be an 'absolute prohibition' on clubs reporting losses of more than £105 million over the next three years with the first sanctions possible in 2016. He said that the measures would mean it will take longer for benefactor owners to achieve success - but that it would still be possible.

He said: "The balance we have tried to strike is that a new owner can still invest a decent amount of money to improve their club but they are not going to be throwing hundreds and hundreds of millions in a very short period of time.

"While it has worked for a couple of clubs in the last 10 years, and I am not critical of that, if that's going to be done in the future it's going to have to be over a slightly longer term without the huge losses being made.

"I think at £105 million you can still build a very decent club with substantial owner funding but you have to do it over time, you can't do it in a season."

Chelsea won the Premier League two years after Roman Abramovich's takeover, and Manchester City's title success came three years after Sheikh Mansour's takeover.

Any club making any loss of over £5 million a year will have to guarantee those losses against the owner's assets.

"In some ways that's the most significant part, this is a three-year rolling system of secure funding - it's one year at the moment," Scudamore added.

The ceiling when the wage increase restrictions kick in will be £52 million next season, £56 million ($85.59 million) the following year and £60 million ($91.7 million) in 2015-2016. Only seven of the current top-flight clubs would be under that ceiling at the moment.

The Premier League's legal advisers will now work on the detailed proposals and these will be brought back before the chairmen in April to be ratified.

In a statement, Chelsea claimed it is supportive of moves that promote financial stability.

The statement read: "Premier League clubs today reached an agreement to introduce financial stability rules and wage controls for the league. Chelsea Football Club is supportive of moves that promote financial stability in football. We are already subject to UEFA's financial fair play principles and will comply with those.

"The new rules will be subject to further detailed discussions before they are brought in and we will play our part in those to ensure implementation is fair for all clubs in the league."

West Ham United's co-owner David Gold said the proposals would prevent Portsmouth's descent in administration happening again.

He said: "It's not a salary cap - it's a restraint on over-spending. If clubs increase their revenues then they can increase their spending.

"We have got restraint - that's the important thing. What's driving the whole thing is we've got to avoid another Portsmouth."

Premier League's new financial rules Q+A

Q: Will the Premier League now have a salary cap?

A: Not in the strict sense of the word. Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52 million will only be allowed to increase their wages by £4 million per season for the next three years.

Q: So the likes of Manchester United are limited to a £4 million a year total wage increase?

A: Not quite - the restriction only applies to the income from TV money. If clubs boost their income through extra sponsorship deals or matchday income, they can spend that on wages too.

Q: What do the new financial fair play (FFP) rules mean and which clubs will it effect?

A: These will put a ceiling on the amount of losses each club can make to £105 million over three years, but these have to guaranteed by owners.

Q: How does that compare to UEFA's FFP rules?

A: UEFA's are more stringent - losses over three years are limited to 45 million euros ($58.67 million).

Q: Which clubs fall foul of the £105 million losses over three years figure?

A: On the most recent figures, Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Aston Villa have all reported higher losses than £105 million, but the trend is towards cutting losses and this will not apply until the three years before 2016.

Q: If a club's official annual figures show losses of £110 million ($168.13 million), will they automatically be in breach of the regulations?

A: Not necessarily - spending on academies, facilities and stadiums can be offset.

Q: What will happen if a club is found guilty of breaching the salary and spending regulations?

A: They are likely to have a points deduction.

Q: Has the final decision now been taken by the Premier League?

A: The principle of the regulations, and the figures involved, have been agreed. They do still need to be ratified at a meeting in April however.

Q: Is that just a rubber-stamping exercise?

A: It will probably go through - but the vote could not have been closer with only 13 of the 19 votes cast in favour, just scraping past the necessary two-thirds majority.

Q: Why did some clubs viewed as being well-run and not making losses vote against the regulations?

A: Some of them believe the Premier League should be a free market, are proud of the way they have run their clubs on a sustainable basis and resent being told what to do.

[Twodogs]

Re: Eff Eff Pee

I don't think it likes a 3 letter thread. What should it be?

All of the letters should be capitalised, however it seems to autocorrect back to lower case.

I even tried F.F.P and it still autocorrected.

Hope I have the right title now.

That'll do.

I did it!!!!!

Thanks for the effort guys

No worries. There's no way I was going to let a mere machine beat me.

[chef]

Re: Eff Eff Pee

Exclusive: Manchester City facing new threat of Champions League expulsion

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/exclusive-manchester-city-facing-new-threat-of-champions-league-expulsion-9101725.html

We be interesting to see if the 5th place team does anything. Prefer that Chelsea/Jose just worry about themselves.

[chef]

Re: Ffp

Sounds like both PSG and City are in a bit of strife in regards to FFP.