Hodgson's picks look like he just took 3 names out of a hat.

I'll bow to better knowledge of FFP but there is nothing to stop related party transactions, they just have to appear to be carried out at a fair value and I'm sure smarter folk than me can massage the figures to get that result if they want.

I'm sure they could, every club/company in the world, including us, fiddle with figures.

 

The benefit of them doing this however is minimal at best and would be pretty obvious and easy to stop after a while. Certainly not worthy of "creating an internal market". They would be better off investing in their academy, stadium, local community and other clubs to boost their sponsorships and exposure, which is what they are doing, as they get exemptions from FFP. 

Mascherano? Hodgson went for mascherano? What the F

 

This decision alone should warrant immediate dismissal.  CR7 believes Ramos the best player in the world ... really Cristiano?

Here's the voting list. Always an interesting read

http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/ballon-dor/playeroftheyear-men/02/50/58/45/fboaward_menplayer2014_neutral.pdf

Kompany went for Courtois and Hazard 1 and 2.

Lloris went Benzema at 2.

This is fascinating reading. There are countries on that list I didn't know had national teams. Do they all play qualifying rounds? Man...

If you only watched the World Cup then it might make a bit of sense because he was incredible.

 

Just shows that Hodgson is remarkably out of touch with most of football. Quelle surprise.

 

Also didn't Mascherano play for Hodgson when he was gaffer @ Lpuke?

Here's the voting list. Always an interesting read

 

http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/ballon-dor/playeroftheyear-men/02/50/58/45/fboaward_menplayer2014_neutral.pdf

 

Kompany went for Courtois and Hazard 1 and 2.

 

Lloris went Benzema at 2.

 

So much bias in that list.

So much bias in that list.

 

Same as the PFA list. Most just vote for their mates, if they bother to vote at all.

Also didn't Mascherano play for Hodgson when he was gaffer @ Lpuke?

No. Mascherano had gone well before the owl had his disastrous spell with us.

But CFG and Chelsea's relationship with Vitesse are in no way comparable. I don't think you've bad accountants indeed I think they are very smart. The problem as I see it with CFG's multiple club ownership is that it allows City to purchase players through the US/Aussie club and then loan them to City which keeps their purchase off City's books. They can also negotiate FFP friendly salary terms for the stay in Manchester and pay bumper salaries when the player returns to the US/Australia to make it a sweet deal for the player. They are in fact creating an internal market. It's a perfect set up. Whoever thought it up is pretty smart.

exactly they could go and pump 300 million notes into melbourne buy who they want, and just loan the players to city, without regard to FFP as it's outside the jurisdiction of uefa, it f**king stinks.

exactly they could go and pump 300 million notes into melbourne buy who they want, and just loan the players to city, without regard to FFP as it's outside the jurisdiction of uefa, it f**king stinks.

 

No, they can't. As Remodez explained above, transactions between related parties are covered by the FFP legislation. The A-League and MLS are also salary-capped leagues with only two players allowed to be outside that cap.

 

 

I'm sure they could, every club/company in the world, including us, fiddle with figures.

 

The benefit of them doing this however is minimal at best and would be pretty obvious and easy to stop after a while. Certainly not worthy of "creating an internal market". They would be better off investing in their academy, stadium, local community and other clubs to boost their sponsorships and exposure, which is what they are doing, as they get exemptions from FFP. 

 

 

It's arguable whether this is a loophole (it is more likely a deliberate concession from UEFA to FIFA to ensure that clubs are contributing to the overall development of the sport) but it is exactly City's strategy and it does allow them to bypass player wage restrictions to a certain extent.

The legislation (Article 58.2 for reference if you have the PDF)  allows the cost of "community development activities" to be excluded from FFP assessment in the same way donations to charity are excluded from taxable income. I can't speak with certainty for NYCFC's situation but when presenting their case for a licence here in Australia CFG's legal team emphasized the 'philanthropic' nature of their venture. UEFA has seemingly allowed CFG's operations to be considered community development initiatives and therefore the not-insignificant cost of these ventures is entirely deductible from assessable expenses.

 

So while they cannot directly loan a player from their sister-clubs without having to account for it, they can write off a large portion of income by declaring it as an community development expense.

Bradley's face was a picture

Bradley's face was a picture

Ha ha how the hell did she think they'd get an ice cream van on the pitch during the game?

Ha ha how the hell did she think they'd get an ice cream van on the pitch during the game?

To be fair, some teams can get buses onto the pitch and park 'em :-)

No, they can't. As Remodez explained above, transactions between related parties are covered by the FFP legislation. The A-League and MLS are also salary-capped leagues with only two players allowed to be outside that cap.

 

 

 

 

It's arguable whether this is a loophole (it is more likely a deliberate concession from UEFA to FIFA to ensure that clubs are contributing to the overall development of the sport) but it is exactly City's strategy and it does allow them to bypass player wage restrictions to a certain extent.

The legislation (Article 58.2 for reference if you have the PDF)  allows the cost of "community development activities" to be excluded from FFP assessment in the same way donations to charity are excluded from taxable income. I can't speak with certainty for NYCFC's situation but when presenting their case for a licence here in Australia CFG's legal team emphasized the 'philanthropic' nature of their venture. UEFA has seemingly allowed CFG's operations to be considered community development initiatives and therefore the not-insignificant cost of these ventures is entirely deductible from assessable expenses.

 

So while they cannot directly loan a player from their sister-clubs without having to account for it, they can write off a large portion of income by declaring it as an community development expense.

I agreed with all that and it's what I meant in my previous comment, albeit not as detailed. Can't really respond without repeating what you have said.

I agreed with all that and it's what I meant in my previous comment, albeit not as detailed. Can't really respond without repeating what you have said.

 

Would you say it is down to mostly FIFA/UEFA for not breaking down on clubs? Well certain clubs should I say, they are lenient with the top clubs.

 

I don't know much on the FFP situation, which is why I haven't said anything on the City matter, but from what I'm reading here it sounds interesting.

Edited January 13, 201511 yr by Slawth

I agreed with all that and it's what I meant in my previous comment, albeit not as detailed. Can't really respond without repeating what you have said.

It's not for you, it's for the tin foil hat brigade   

 

Would you say it is down to mostly FIFA/UEFA for not breaking down on clubs? Well certain clubs should I say, they are lenient with the top clubs.

 

I don't know much on the FFP situation, which is why I haven't said anything on the City matter, but from what I'm reading here it sounds interesting.

 

Firstly we have to remember FFP is a UEFA directive. It's important to remember that FIFA and UEFA are distinct organisations with distinct and often conflicting agendas when trying to look at the politics of a situation. In the last ten years, we've seen UEFA break FIFA ranks. While the US, Latin America and Asia are considered to be FIFA's moneyspinners, UEFA have learned to leverage the fact that they are the product these markets want to buy- EPL, La Liga and the Champions League in particular. So FIFA can't necessarily commit to policies that would upset UEFA (e.g. winter World Cup) because UEFA could easily break-away from FIFA and leave them up sh*t creek. Likewise within UEFA, you have the big Champions' League clubs (such as ourselves) and the EPL and Bundesliga who are powerful political forces, and in turn put pressure on UEFA to maintain policies that suit them. UEFA can't really do much to hurt these clubs because in the long-run it affects their revenue and their political sway within FIFA.

FFP is the sort of half-arsed, bar steward policy child of the vocal morally righteous brigade and bureaucrats. It starts with a high moral principle of equality and fairness as its aim which ends being a mere smokescreen for what lies within. The fingerprint of the former G20 of Europe's elite is all over the policy, as it essentially traps in place the established order. The policy itself is quite restrictive, but the richer your club, the more degrees of freedom they have to move within those restrictions.

Take for example this situation with City and community development. From a moral perspective, it's actually a fairly decent idea. It rewards clubs who take  money from football and give it back to society as opposed to taking money from society and lining the pockets of agents and fat cats, which is essentially what normally happens. As we look closer however it begins to get a whole lot more murky; while the law permits any club to take advantage of the loophole, only the truly rich have the resources to make it practical.

 

It's not for you, it's for the tin foil hat brigade   

 

 

Firstly we have to remember FFP is a UEFA directive. It's important to remember that FIFA and UEFA are distinct organisations with distinct and often conflicting agendas when trying to look at the politics of a situation. In the last ten years, we've seen UEFA break FIFA ranks. While the US, Latin America and Asia are considered to be FIFA's moneyspinners, UEFA have learned to leverage the fact that they are the product these markets want to buy- EPL, La Liga and the Champions League in particular. So FIFA can't necessarily commit to policies that would upset UEFA (e.g. winter World Cup) because UEFA could easily break-away from FIFA and leave them up sh*t creek. Likewise within UEFA, you have the big Champions' League clubs (such as ourselves) and the EPL and Bundesliga who are powerful political forces, and in turn put pressure on UEFA to maintain policies that suit them. UEFA can't really do much to hurt these clubs because in the long-run it affects their revenue and their political sway within FIFA.

FFP is the sort of half-arsed, bar steward policy child of the vocal morally righteous brigade and bureaucrats. It starts with a high moral principle of equality and fairness as its aim which ends being a mere smokescreen for what lies within. The fingerprint of the former G20 of Europe's elite is all over the policy, as it essentially traps in place the established order. The policy itself is quite restrictive, but the richer your club, the more degrees of freedom they have to move within those restrictions.

Take for example this situation with City and community development. From a moral perspective, it's actually a fairly decent idea. It rewards clubs who take  money from football and give it back to society as opposed to taking money from society and lining the pockets of agents and fat cats, which is essentially what normally happens. As we look closer however it begins to get a whole lot more murky; while the law permits any club to take advantage of the loophole, only the truly rich have the resources to make it practical.

 

 

I've got 2 classes later on, and that's probably the most I'll learn about anything today

 

Cheers.

It's not for you, it's for the tin foil hat brigade   

 

 

Firstly we have to remember FFP is a UEFA directive. It's important to remember that FIFA and UEFA are distinct organisations with distinct and often conflicting agendas when trying to look at the politics of a situation. In the last ten years, we've seen UEFA break FIFA ranks. While the US, Latin America and Asia are considered to be FIFA's moneyspinners, UEFA have learned to leverage the fact that they are the product these markets want to buy- EPL, La Liga and the Champions League in particular. So FIFA can't necessarily commit to policies that would upset UEFA (e.g. winter World Cup) because UEFA could easily break-away from FIFA and leave them up sh*t creek. Likewise within UEFA, you have the big Champions' League clubs (such as ourselves) and the EPL and Bundesliga who are powerful political forces, and in turn put pressure on UEFA to maintain policies that suit them. UEFA can't really do much to hurt these clubs because in the long-run it affects their revenue and their political sway within FIFA.

FFP is the sort of half-arsed, bar steward policy child of the vocal morally righteous brigade and bureaucrats. It starts with a high moral principle of equality and fairness as its aim which ends being a mere smokescreen for what lies within. The fingerprint of the former G20 of Europe's elite is all over the policy, as it essentially traps in place the established order. The policy itself is quite restrictive, but the richer your club, the more degrees of freedom they have to move within those restrictions.

Take for example this situation with City and community development. From a moral perspective, it's actually a fairly decent idea. It rewards clubs who take  money from football and give it back to society as opposed to taking money from society and lining the pockets of agents and fat cats, which is essentially what normally happens. As we look closer however it begins to get a whole lot more murky; while the law permits any club to take advantage of the loophole, only the truly rich have the resources to make it practical.

 

Some very good points, very well put.

To see whether FFP really aims for financial equality and fairness or not you only have to raise and answer the age old question, cui bono?

hope this hasn't been posted elsewhere

Don't like West Ham anyway but one of my colleagues supports them and he's just a f*cking arrogant knob who flirts with s woman old enough to be his mother (she's no f*cking better) so I hope they're trounced.

Lukaku does the customary against the irons, popping bubbles all over east london!  Everton now 2-1 up.

Miralles is brilliant when he's on form, it's just a shame he isn't consistent enough. 

Could be going to pens.

 

Another chance to see a sublime Lukaku pen.