UEFA Proposal

[Logic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/8225941.stm

 

IMO this is the best proposal so far coming from UEFA. I'm just about having enough of clubs like Chelsea and ManCity destroying football.

 

A club should grow and increase their revenue by being better run than other clubs in all aspects. Maybe this proposal needs some finer details to become a bit more fair for the smaller clubs but overall I like it.

 

What do you guys think?

[Falconhoof]

whats to stop abramovic or the sheikh at Man City setting up their own sports company that 'sponsors' their team ?

[Logic]

whats to stop abramovic or the sheikh at Man City setting up their own sports company that 'sponsors' their team ?

You could add a rule about transparency and about "connected" companies/owners not being allowed to sponsor their own teams.

[Andy @ Allerton]

Won't happen - if they booted Real Madrid and Manchester United out of the European Cup then they'd lose millions - people would stop sponsering it and the whole thing would collapse.

 

Actually the more I think about it - BRING IT ON!!

 

Yeah!!

[Cam]

There's rules about transparency now (particularly in transfers and wages) and the game's murkier than ever.

 

As Ernest says... City, Chelsea, Real will be the big winners. The debt on the likes of us and the Mancs is a problem that needs addressing but surely these are the clubs that are endangering football. But all that'll happen is City will sign a deal with "Sheikh's Shakes (founded 2012)" for £250m a season. Or sell their training ground for £500m and get to use it rent-free for 100 years.

[Billy Dane]

I'm all for making it fairer, but if spending is based on turnover it just retains the gap between the rich and the poor.

[Rory Fitzgerald]

Football has the benefit of 20:20 hindsight given the way the global financial markets crumbled.

 

I can understand their attempts to try and curb the same thing happening with indebted football clubs.

 

Not sure it will happen, but it would be irresponsible of UEFA if they didnt try to stop it.

 

Some of the saddest footballing stories has come from sorry clubs that have had to fire-sale their players to try and reduced debt and then fall through the divisions.

 

Good initiative, not sure it will work though - greed being the human trait that will stop it and then lament UEFA's failure.

[growler]

probably a better way to manage this, or make the clubs more stable, by:

 

1. Ensuring debt/equity ratio of maximum 40% with X% of revenue to be allocated to capital debt reduction.

2. Owners cannot put debt on the club as interest free loans. Gift money if you like, but not on the books as loans (chelsea and man city both have this)

3. TV revenue to be apportioned to reducing entrance fees for match going fans

4. Debt to be used solely for asset management (stadium, improvements to the ground, systems, etc)

5. Salary to be capped at 50% of turnover

6. Clubs to carry 1 season worth of payroll in current assets

7. Introduce transfer caps (X amount per window for example)

8. Introduce squad sizes ie 18 players over 21, 8 payers 18-21 for example

Edited August 30, 2009 by growler

[Rich Gobey]

probably a better way to manage this, or make the clubs more stable, by:

 

1. Ensuring debt/equity ratio of maximum 40% with X% of revenue to be allocated to capital debt reduction.

2. Owners cannot put debt on the club as interest free loans. Gift money if you like, but not on the books as loans (chelsea and man city both have this)

3. TV revenue to be apportioned to reducing entrance fees for match going fans

4. Debt to be used solely for asset management (stadium, improvements to the ground, systems, etc)

5. Salary to be capped at 50% of turnover

6. Clubs to carry 1 season worth of payroll in current assets

7. Introduce transfer caps (X amount per window for example)

8. Introduce squad sizes ie 18 players over 21, 8 payers 18-21 for example

 

Sounds like the scale of contingency usually reserved for nuclear conflict.