It's all very well saying we should follow the US model, but as I'm sure you're aware the US leagues are all franchises, and there are no other leagues elsewhere in the world that are nearly as competitive.RoyalBlue wrote:If you want to create a level playing field you are more likely to be able to do this by following some of the practices our US friends adopt for some of their sports.
I'm pretty sure they've put something in place to stop this, although I'm not sure how entirely. I seem to remember something along the lines of an independent review assessing a fair market price for the sponsorship etc and they can't go to far over that. I've no idea how they intend to police it, or make it stick under pressure from the first club that wants to test it in court though as it sounds ridiculous (so much so I may have made it up!).RoyalBlue wrote: As someone has already pointed out - what's to stop one of Anton's or his dad's companies deciding to pay a fortune for hospitality, stand naming rights, sponsorship etc.?
That does sound familiar - the power they have isn't to stop the club from accepting the money, but they can disallow the excess from within the FFP calculations and then take whatever sanctions are allowed under FFP.Hoop Blah wrote:I'm pretty sure they've put something in place to stop this, although I'm not sure how entirely. I seem to remember something along the lines of an independent review assessing a fair market price for the sponsorship etc and they can't go to far over that. I've no idea how they intend to police it, or make it stick under pressure from the first club that wants to test it in court though as it sounds ridiculous (so much so I may have made it up!).RoyalBlue wrote: As someone has already pointed out - what's to stop one of Anton's or his dad's companies deciding to pay a fortune for hospitality, stand naming rights, sponsorship etc.?
We'll see how far they go. Sponsorship deals, naming rights and other "lubricants" to the system will enable the clubs to get round things. Currently, not only are some of the PL's bigger clubs selling these rights way over real-world commercial values, they are also provided by companies with both direct and indirect links to the club's owners. I've a feeling the whole issue will be fudged, and UEFA will back down when push comes to shove.Alexander Litvinenko wrote:That does sound familiar - the power they have isn't to stop the club from accepting the money, but they can disallow the excess from within the FFP calculations and then take whatever sanctions are allowed under FFP.Hoop Blah wrote:I'm pretty sure they've put something in place to stop this, although I'm not sure how entirely. I seem to remember something along the lines of an independent review assessing a fair market price for the sponsorship etc and they can't go to far over that. I've no idea how they intend to police it, or make it stick under pressure from the first club that wants to test it in court though as it sounds ridiculous (so much so I may have made it up!).RoyalBlue wrote: As someone has already pointed out - what's to stop one of Anton's or his dad's companies deciding to pay a fortune for hospitality, stand naming rights, sponsorship etc.?
Could be but here comes the next cart and horses/ London Bus. What's to stop Anton's or his dad's companies deciding to sponsor 20+ different things at fair market prices?Hoop Blah wrote:I'm pretty sure they've put something in place to stop this, although I'm not sure how entirely. I seem to remember something along the lines of an independent review assessing a fair market price for the sponsorship etc and they can't go to far over that. I've no idea how they intend to police it, or make it stick under pressure from the first club that wants to test it in court though as it sounds ridiculous (so much so I may have made it up!).RoyalBlue wrote: As someone has already pointed out - what's to stop one of Anton's or his dad's companies deciding to pay a fortune for hospitality, stand naming rights, sponsorship etc.?
I'm sure they could find loads of other things to sponsor and, I suspect, if they were to pay 25% more than current sponsors would still be able to get away with claiming the deal was within market value.Hoop Blah wrote:Playing devils advocate, because I agree there will be ways round these rules that the clubs will find and exploit, but if these 20 things they sponsor have a going rate and they sponsor them then I can't see how that's articifically inflating the income of the club.
After shirt, shorts, ground and training ground what else is there that they'll sponsor with any significant market value? If it has a market value then chances are it's already being sponsored.
They could sponsor all the players tie-ups or boots, but that's not going to pay for Samuel Eto'os wages!
Good planmaffff wrote:Let's launder all our money through the hotel 'other income' then.
BZ can rent a room for £1m p/w.
Ian Royal wrote:As far as I can tell, there's only one person's posts worth reading on the subject RFC and the transfer deadline. And that's Hoop Blah.
No. He's much more articulate and certainly at least a bit smarter. I'd guess he puts more effort in too.P!ssed Off wrote:Ian Royal wrote:As far as I can tell, there's only one person's posts worth reading on the subject RFC and the transfer deadline. And that's Hoop Blah.![]()
Even you don't rate your own posts...
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 39 guests