Liverpool FC Forum

kazza » Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:05 am wrote:

woof woof ! » Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:12 am wrote:

red till i die!! » Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:09 pm wrote:
if madrid do come for him then it has to be ££££ and up front, no pay half now ***** or worse a loan and payment next season.

Apparently they still owe Spurs a sizable chunk for Modric's transfer and are reportedly £600 million in debt.

Can't wait for the day (if ever) when it all comes crashing down on them.

They sold their old training ground in the heart of Madrid for 200 million to fund their transfers a few years ago. Imagine selling a fantastic asset they have had for so many years for transfers. Awful business sense.

RM have always been dodgy fkrs. The overpriced deal with the local council was nothing more than the government bailing them out.

how the fook are they even complying with the FFP rules ? just goes to show that they were never worth the paper they were printed on.

red till i die!! » Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:22 pm wrote:how the fook are they even complying with the FFP rules ? just goes to show that they were never worth the paper they were printed on.

Don't tell that to FSG... they only bought us on the basis that FFP were real.

red till i die!! » Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:22 pm wrote:how the fook are they even complying with the FFP rules ? just goes to show that they were never worth the paper they were printed on.

FFPR doesn't take effect in full until 2017.

SouthCoastShankly » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:18 am wrote:

red till i die!! » Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:22 pm wrote:how the fook are they even complying with the FFP rules ? just goes to show that they were never worth the paper they were printed on.

FFPR doesn't take effect in full until 2017.

FFP has been introduced already. we are at the end of the 1st monitoring period which runs from 2011/2012 and 2012/2013. the first monitoring period was 2 years and now we have began the 2nd which is 3 years long. the breakeven threshold is  €45mil at the moment but will reduce in 2017 to €30mil.
already clubs have been banned, besiktas, bursaspor, malaga and rapid bucharest. i think malaga is the first to have a playing ban where as the others had prize money held back. the difference between the 2 periods is that the 1st allows you to write off wages that were signed before 2010 where as the 2nd doesnt allow for as that the clubs should have used that time to reduce their wage spend.
There are currently Financial Fair Play rules in place in:
UEFA competitons (for all clubs wishing to take part in the Champions League and Europa League)
The Premier League (from 2013/14)
The Championship (with punishments from 2013/14)
Leagues 1 and 2
The 2013/14 season is a watershed for financial constraint in football. For the first time, all English professional divisions have rules in place that restrict their spending.
all im saying SCS is that there is loopholes that madrid are exploiting atm and even though the rules are supposed to get tougher they will always have loopholes. they are apparently £600 mil in the red and yet they can afford to break the world transfer record again 

OK but what loophole is RM exploiting, it reallydoesn't make any sense, they are effectively bankrupt and yet can "afford" to pay £100 million on a player, it's ruining football and is nonsense and obscene ,especially at a time of economic hardship, in Spain especially.

red till i die!! » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:56 pm wrote:

SouthCoastShankly » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:18 am wrote:

red till i die!! » Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:22 pm wrote:how the fook are they even complying with the FFP rules ? just goes to show that they were never worth the paper they were printed on.

FFPR doesn't take effect in full until 2017.

FFP has been introduced already. we are at the end of the 1st monitoring period which runs from 2011/2012 and 2012/2013. the first monitoring period was 2 years and now we have began the 2nd which is 3 years long. the breakeven threshold is  €45mil at the moment but will reduce in 2017 to €30mil.
already clubs have been banned, besiktas, bursaspor, malaga and rapid bucharest. i think malaga is the first to have a playing ban where as the others had prize money held back. the difference between the 2 periods is that the 1st allows you to write off wages that were signed before 2010 where as the 2nd doesnt allow for as that the clubs should have used that time to reduce their wage spend.
There are currently Financial Fair Play rules in place in:
UEFA competitons (for all clubs wishing to take part in the Champions League and Europa League)
The Premier League (from 2013/14)
The Championship (with punishments from 2013/14)
Leagues 1 and 2
The 2013/14 season is a watershed for financial constraint in football. For the first time, all English professional divisions have rules in place that restrict their spending.
all im saying SCS is that there is loopholes that madrid are exploiting atm and even though the rules are supposed to get tougher they will always have loopholes. they are apparently £600 mil in the red and yet they can afford to break the world transfer record again 

Note the term "in full"

Aren't Real funded by the Spanish monarchy, or government? That, plus massive TV and image rights, probs got a 2 bajillion thousand £ over draught.

Think the loopholes are reasonably easy to exploit and this is why nothing has changed.

You just need a spin off business registered in another name and channel cash through that as sponsorship
revenue for the club which I think counts as income generated by fair means.

Whether FIFA have the authority to rifle through club accounts and transactions I would doubt but will bow
to superior knowledge on the subject as just my interpretation.

To me FFP is a piece of legislation that has no authority in law and FIFA is relying on clubs to adhere to the
'spirit' of it but that was never going to happen frankly.

Even clubs lower down the pyramid are exploiting the loopholes so its safe to say its easy and pretty safe
to do so without any comeback.

RedAnt » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:36 pm wrote:Aren't Real funded by the Spanish monarchy, or government? That, plus massive TV and image rights, probs got a 2 bajillion thousand £ over draught.

Plus the clubs president is reportedly worth around £1.5 BILLION ! 

Stevie G has spoken about the LS situation at a press conference. He said, along the lines of,  'LS knows what I want him to do, that's to stay at LFC........how LFC progress next season depends on whether LS stays or not. Essentially saying that if he goes to Arsew1pes, then it's only going to strengthen them and weaken LFC.

Hopefully, this will sway LS to commit to LFC. Additionally, Wenger states that he is still interested in LS, but wants the negotiations to be amicable with LFC, that is, keep things behind closed doors. Is he having a laugh ?

parchpea » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:47 pm wrote:Think the loopholes are reasonably easy to exploit and this is why nothing has changed.

You just need a spin off business registered in another name and channel cash through that as sponsorship
revenue for the club which I think counts as income generated by fair means.

Whether FIFA have the authority to rifle through club accounts and transactions I would doubt but will bow
to superior knowledge on the subject as just my interpretation.

To me FFP is a piece of legislation that has no authority in law and FIFA is relying on clubs to adhere to the
'spirit' of it but that was never going to happen frankly.

Even clubs lower down the pyramid are exploiting the loopholes so its safe to say its easy and pretty safe
to do so without any comeback.

Yes but normally you set up dummy companies to hide your profits not your losses, in this case I don't see how it would work becuase you'd have a company which was essentially bankrupt at inception. It should be fairly easy to impose proper ffp, all FIFA need is access to the national tax authorities and emply kpmg or whatever to do proper audits on each company, including any dodgy dummy companies etc.

Well, as long as City can spend almost 100 million on 4 decent players I don't give FFP much recognition.
Since 07/08 they have a net spend of over 500 million.

What part of "not far sale" do Arsenal not understand? Unprofessional for Arsene Wenger to say publicly he wants a player who is under contract. If Gareth Bale is worth £85m, Suarez is worth atleast £80m, so Arsenal would need to double their offer if they're serious. Though, selling Suarez to one of our biggest rivals would be madness. It was bad enough selling Torres. If the unthinkable happened and we were stupid enough to sell him to Arsenal, there would be no chance of a top 4 place in the forseeable future.

A guy on the sports news on 5Live has said that source close to Suarez have said that Suarez was an amicable solution to the situation - ie him leaving to a CL or he will either put in a transfer request or go to court to sort out the clause issue as he believes that anything over £40mil allows him to leave