Just heard about this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/foo...icle7078254.ece

English football’s super-rich owners, including Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour, face drastic curbs on their influence under Uefa proposals.

The extent of the crackdown on “financial dopingâ€, championed by Michel Platini, the Uefa president, is laid bare in a 60-page document seen by The Times. In it, Uefa sets out its detailed plans to force clubs towards break-even, allowing them to spend only what they earn.

Owners would be allowed to inject cash to cover losses for a transitional period, but the amounts will be restricted and closely monitored.

Over the initial three-year period of regulation up to and including 2015, owners would be allowed to cover losses totalling "45 million (about £40 million). The “acceptable deviation†from break-even would then fall to £30 million over three years and then less, with the amount to be determined.

In other words, an owner such as Sheikh Mansour would eventually be permitted to put less than ¤10 million a year into Manchester City on average, unless the money is spent on infrastructure or the youth team, which have no limits on investment. That compares with City’s most recent loss of £89.69 million.

While Platini has talked for months about introducing “financial fair playâ€, the working draft has brought those proposals into sharp focus.

The European Club Association continues to haggle with Uefa for concessions. It is arguing for a five-year accounting period, rather than three, and for owners to be allowed to invest extra funds through equity rather than debt.

Platini is determined to bring in regulations that will mark a watershed in the English game.

While the proposals will be phased in over several years, many clubs will have to make significant changes — drastic in the cases of Chelsea and City — if they are not to fall foul of the new regulations and face a possible ban from European competition.

It's a bit funny they mention us and City and not Real Madrid. City I can understand, but we have hardly spent more than we've earned lately. All the while Real Madrid keeps "borrowing" money (I saw borrow, but from what I've heard they don't really give it back :unsure: )

What do you all think about this?

Platini is just c**t thats all I got to say.

Its the paper thats not mentioning RM, not Platini...I actually heard him single out RM in press conference a few months ago.

But that doesnt mean he isnt still a tosser.

By this rule, half of the top teams in Europe will be bankrupt within the first two years. In the England, I can only see Arsenal making this rule out of the top teams; in Spain, I don't think any of the top league teams would be able to cover their debts; in other words, French and German teams would be on top financially, surprising ain't it :D

Time for Roman to buy an executive box ticket to all Chelsea games for 50million pounds a season.

This rule will be easilly bypassed by any owner with half a brain.

Apparently Platini will be standing for re-election to serve another term. Can Peter Kenyon please oppose him :D

Time for Roman to buy an executive box ticket to all Chelsea games for 50million pounds a season.

This rule will be easilly bypassed by any owner with half a brain.

He might even fancy a signed Lampard kit for 100mil

Ridiculous how much they charge for those things these days :D

Hire Drogba as a coach for his son one arvo for 30mil?

Edited March 27, 201016 yr by Guest

Platini is just c**t thats all I got to say.

I'm impressed, I couldn't have put it better myself

I saw this week he renominated for UEFA President. I'm sure every top club in Europe is currently working out who they'll be nominating against him.

The top clubs love this, it allows them to close the shop and stop other clubs such as Man City challenging their positions. Just look at the Champions League, the seeding system is a massive massive advantage to the established elite and against the smaller clubs. Just look at how long and hard we had to work to get a top seeding, it took like 4 seasons.

I think its underestimated how hard it is to break into the elite group of clubs. It cost us the best part of 200 million in a time when other clubs weren't spending. Man City have spent a similar amount already and haven't even made it.

What a cock Platini is.

It might seem that the flipside to the large scale investment-driven success of clubs like us or Man City is the fate of Portsmouth and Leeds who look promising and then melt down due to disastrous overspend. You could be forgiven for thinking that the latter examples demonstrate that allowing teams to spend borrowed money is the root of all evil, and that those without money should resrict themselves to mediocrity for the sake of stability. But you'd be wrong. Debt isn't necessarily unsafe.

This rule can only hamstring ambitious clubs and prevent challenges to the established powerful clubs, and that will just make football more boring. Why on earth any sound-minded, trustworthy, honest FIFA president would look to make the game more boring is a mystery to me... oh wait

He has got some front hasn’t he ???

Sits on top of the “Champions League “ and then bangs on about proper fiscal management ??? for f*cks sake .Where he created a European Super League where only the biggest financial clubs can compete ?

Bring it on and in 5 years time I can see TV and advertising execs breaking his door down to cover the Wigan v FC Utrecht final . Will they f*ck . This is not meant to sound elitist but the great football watching public will only tune in for recognized names ………..and that is where the money is

The proposals won't introduce a level playing field. They will just perpetuate that status quo. If you have to make a profit then your ability to compete is entirely dependent on the revenue that you can raise. That in turn is directly related to success on the field, the size of your stadium and support and the marketability of the club. So the rich get richer and the rest can carry on making up the numbers.

Funny how they call it, fair play. As I see it, it seems more like locking the big boys club to any 'smaller' clubs. Hmmm.