Are UEFA's Financial Fair Play Rules Behind Chelsea's Slow Transfer Window?
UEFA's rules are slightly opaque to me, so I can't speak with anything approaching authority on the matter, but an article by ESPN Soccernet is claiming that the reason Chelsea have been so slow to complete the David Luiz transfer - and why they've been hesitant to spend ludicrous sums in general as of late - has been owner Roman Abramovich's fear of running afoul of the new Fincanial Fair Play laws, which state (probably) that teams must spend inside their means by the 2012/13 season or risk being disqualified from UEFA competition. In Chelsea's case, assuming that the current form is but a blip, that means no Champions League, one of the major pillars of funding for the club. That would be... bad.
Since transfer fees aren't really done as lump-sum payments very often, any buy now would have to be paid for over the next few years, and spending big this January may well have an effect on the club's bottom line two years from now. ESPN's source on the Luiz negotiations has this nugget for us today:
There is a deep reluctance on the part of Chelsea to pay the full amount demanded by Benfica. The reason is simple ... UEFA's new Financial Fair Play regulations come into force in a year or so, but clubs buying now and paying later will be hit hard if they find they are spending more than they are earning when those rules come in.
-Source: ESPN Soccernet.
Of course, it's not like owner Roman Abramovich couldn't just do things in lump sum payments anyway, so it's hard for me to see why on the face of things this should matter as long as the money doesn't get moved to some later date. In fact, shouldn't the impending rule change be encouraging clubs with vast cash reserves to spend as much money as fast as they can, knowing that this advantage will be denied to them in a few fairly short months? Obviously, managing the wages is a concern, but Chelsea are making strides there already - but it does seem bizarre that transfer fees would have a major impact on their strategy*.
My personal feeling on the Luiz deal is that it's taking so long because Chelsea are doing things properly rather than simply bowing to Benfica's opening demands. The Blues are still chasing the big name players - there's a strong link to Alexis Sanchez as well, and he'd hardly be cheap - but they're don't appear to be doing so out of sheer, lunging desperation. Due diligence seems to me a more likely explanation for Chelsea's slow movement this January than the club living in fear of Michael Platini's new justice.
Update: Here is a comment that explains the Fair Play rules and how they may or may not affect the club.
*Disclaimer: I am trained as a structural/biomechanical engineer, not as an accountant, so I have no idea how this black magic money business all actually works.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Cheers.
I also applaud Chelsea being prudent, but Luiz seems like a guy the club really needs (and a guy they could build around for the future, unlike, say, Gary fucking Cahill) so I hope the deal gets done.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
Interesting topic....
….get TOO chintzy, and the team won’t be good enough to make the top four anyway. Spend too MUCH, get kicked out. The team can afford to look for big names right now because so many of our highly paid players only have a couple more years in them. Chelsea needs to fix a couple things also in order to stay competitive. They need to improve their game day income through a stadium expansion or moving, and they need to improve merchandise sales. That means winning now to improve the brand, IMO. This linke shows 2005-2009 sales. Personally I’m hoping for an expansion because Stamford Bridge is great, but….the neighbors are a problem, aren’t they?
While that doesn’t include last season’s championship, it does include the effects of two championship seasons. And there we are, tied with Arsenal and Liverpool, and behind ManU and the Spanish clubs. Judging from what I see here in California, quite frankly I see Arse and ManU more than anything else (including any American or Mexican clubs).
Good point
They could also increase gameday revenues by selling the naming rights to the Bridge, but I’d rather they move before they did that, because gross.
I think we could have a good discussion on the finances of the club and what they need to do going forward, but I’m pretty woefully ignorant about that side of the club’s operations.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 20, 2011 5:22 PM GMT up reply actions
When it really comes down to it, Chelsea should be just fine (as should Man City)
Here is a link to the actual UEFA financial regulations. When you read the rule in it’s entirity, it seems more focused on stopping teams taking out loans to purchase players than it does stopping a rich owner who wants to invest his own money (largely due to attempting to regulate this being illegal). Here are two intersting parts to read over:
Contributions from equity participants and/or related parties (as specified in
Annex X D) are taken into consideration when determining the acceptable
deviation if they have occurred and been recognised:
a) in the financial statements for one of the reporting periods T, T-1 or T-2; or
b) in the accounting records up to 31 December of the year of the reporting
period T.
The onus is on the licensee to demonstrate the substance of the transaction,
which must have been completed in all respects and without any condition
attached. An intention or commitment from owners to make a contribution is not
sufficient for such a contribution to be taken into consideration.
This is the section of the rule (page 35) which deals with “sugardaddy” contributions. It points you to the end of the rule (page 80) where you find this gem:
1. Acceptable deviation can exceed EUR 5 million up to the amounts described in.
Article 61(2) in a monitoring period only if such excess is entirely covered by
contributions from equity participants and/or related parties.
2. Contributions from equity participants are payments for shares through the share
capital or share premium reserve accounts. That is, investing in equity
instruments in their capacity as shareholder.
3. Contributions from a related party include:
a) Capital contributions being a contribution by a related party: that is an
unconditional gift made to the reporting entity by a related party which
increase the reporting entity’s equity without any obligation for repayment or
to do anything in consideration for receiving them. For example, a waiver of
inter-company or related party debt constitutes a capital contribution, as it
results in an increase in equity; and/or
b) Income transactions from a related party: the amount to be considered as a
contribution will be no more than an amount equivalent to the difference
between the actual income in a reporting period and the fair value of the
transaction(s) in a reporting period as already recognised in the calculation of
the break-even result (see part B(1)(j)). The monies must have been
received by the reporting entity, rather than just some form of promise or
commitment from the related party
Basically what this is saying is that UEFA will allow Roman to invest as much money as he wants into the company, as long as it’s simply invested in the form of a gift and with no expectation of repayment. If Roman wants to invest 25 million pounds of his own today for the purposes of increasing the net worth of CFC, there is nothing any governing body in Europe can legally do about it. As a governing body, UEFA can (and is) legally restricting the amount of debt a club can accumulate, but it can’t do anything to stop a team like Man City if the owner is willing to spend from their own pocket with no expectation of repayment. If we’re seeing a decrease in spending from Abramovich, it’s likely more due to his desire to see the club become self sufficient than any fear of a rule.
by Stephen Schmidt on Jan 20, 2011 5:59 PM GMT reply actions 2 recs
Keep in mind that most of the worry for Chelsea and Citeh came before the actual publication of the rule
Most of the press seems aware of the concept, but ignorant of the actual rule itself. The teams who are really in any sort of jeopardy from this rule are the Real Madrids, Barcelonas, and Manchester Uniteds who have such immense debt accumulated to non-shareholders that needs to be considered via the actual rule. Liverpool with their sale has put themselves in a very rosy (comparatively) situation just due to the fact that Henry didn’t cover his purchase with huge loans.
by Stephen Schmidt on Jan 20, 2011 6:04 PM GMT up reply actions
Also worth noting, the actual punishment is very loosely defined for failure to comply
Article 14 Disciplinary measures against member associations and clubs
1
The following disciplinary measures may be imposed against member associations
and clubs in accordance with Article 53 of the UEFA Statutes:
a) warning,
b) reprimand,
c) fine,
d) annulment of the result of a match,
e) order that a match be replayed,
f) deduction of points,
g) awarding of a match by default,
h) playing of a match behind closed doors,
i) stadium closure,
j) playing of a match in a third country,
k) disqualification from competitions in progress and/or exclusion from future
competitions,
l) withdrawal of a title or award,
m) withdrawal of a licence.
2
A fine shall be no less than EUR 100 and no more than EUR 1,000,000.
While loss of a UEFA license is possible, I’d guess it’s only in an extreme case that this happens. More likely you’ll see UEFA demand to see the club work with it’s creditors to force them to become more financially stable, as banning them from a competition will simply increase the club’s financial difficulties.
by Stephen Schmidt on Jan 20, 2011 6:12 PM GMT up reply actions
In other words, the media is making a tempest in a teacup here
Interesting
by Graham MacAree on Jan 20, 2011 6:14 PM GMT up reply actions
Pretty much
It seems to me that they simply decided that UEFA declared spending lots of money as “bad…m’kay” without actually looking at the rule they laid in place. Really, the rule is just in place to stop owners like the Glazers from mortgaging the future of a club by putting them in a position which they can’t financially sustain. When Abramovich wiped out all that debt to himself the last several seasons, he more or less signaled he’s willing to contribute out of pocket. He seems to genuinely want to become self sufficient, but I doubt he’s willing to do so at the expense of remaining in the Champions League. I’d guess by Monday we’ll be hearing Luiz is a Blue.
by Stephen Schmidt on Jan 20, 2011 6:21 PM GMT up reply actions
And I got suckered into it...
Oh well, at least my skepticism filters made it through intact. Hope you’re right about Luiz.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 20, 2011 6:23 PM GMT up reply actions
I hope so too
That would make for a great birthday
by Stephen Schmidt on Jan 20, 2011 6:25 PM GMT up reply actions
Okay,
so Roman is just using the rules as an excuse, eh? :)
In fairness, I don’t think there’s ever been a quote of him actually using the rules as an excuse not to spend. That’s been pure speculation, hasn’t it?
Arneson said several times that Roman would like the club to become self sufficient
It seems they are working towards that with their reigned in spending, but that is about all we have to work with at this point
by Stephen Schmidt on Jan 20, 2011 8:16 PM GMT up reply actions
My eyes glaze over when I read this
I guess I should learn, huh
by Graham MacAree on Jan 20, 2011 6:06 PM GMT up reply actions
Believe it or not, I read the whole thing when it came out (skimmed it at least)
Nobody seemed to know anything concrete and it was driving me nuts
by Stephen Schmidt on Jan 20, 2011 6:09 PM GMT up reply actions



There is a deep reluctance on the part of Chelsea to pay the full amount demanded by Benfica. The reason is simple ... UEFA's new Financial Fair Play regulations come into force in a year or so, but clubs buying now and paying later will be hit hard if they find they are spending more than they are earning when those rules come in.














