Talk:UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations

Europe Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football High‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Success?

There is a lot of criticism but very little talk about its overall impact on club finances, one of the main reasons for its implementation. What has been in the impact on the debt of clubs? What about the effect its had on clubs going under? There is quite a lot of research on this topic, and UEFA has a lot of positive stats (how accurate they are and whether FFP is the cause is up for debate). I think it would be useful to show its impacts in a clear an concise way with argued positives to counteract the criticisms. As right now the article just lists examples of when/how it has been used and lists some criticisms and does not really touch the wider impacts it has had on football. - 193.193.82.34 (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lazio

Lazio did had a installment plan on overdue tax (VAT, salary tax) created by inflated/overheated transfer market by the previous owner. But Lazio only shown a table that how many tax the club paid in recent year, including tax occurred that season and overdue one, so it just reflect the club had paid 100 million tax in recent year, not installment.

While Roma had installment plan on tax liability for 2003 tax, partially from the VAT of inflated player exchange in order to create false asset to avoid re-capitalization. However in club level the club still re-capitalized (may be the holding company borrow money) and the VAT had to in installment.

In the (draft translated) report wrote

in March 2007, the Company was allowed to defer payment, in 54 monthly

instalments, beginning on 30 June 2007, of €2.8 million in assessed unpaid taxes, primarily consisting of penalties and interest on VAT liabilities that arose in 2004 and 2005, which had already been recognized among tax liabilities in the previous year; 49 periodic instalments had been paid at the reporting date in accordance with the related payment schedule and the final installment is set to come due in November 2011;

in February 2008 the Company was allowed to defer payment, in 46 monthly

installments, of its residual back VAT liability of approximately €7.7 million, including the interest accrued, beginning on 31 March 2008; 40 periodic instalments had been paid at the reporting date on the basis of the related payment schedule and the final instalment is set to come due in December 2011;

in February 2009 the Company was allowed to defer payment of its 2001-2002 IRAP

liability of €3.9 million, in addition to interest and collection fees, in 36 monthly instalments, beginning on 31 March 2009; 28 periodic instalments had been paid at the reporting date on the basis of the related payment schedule and the final instalment is set to come due in February 2012;

in February 2009 the Company was allowed to defer payment, in 36 monthly

instalments, beginning on 31 March 2009, of the liability of €1.8 million associated with an assessment notice for an IRAP amnesty payment (amnesty pursuant to art. 8 of Law 289/2002) already paid by the Company in the subsequent amnesty of 2004 (art. 9-bis of Law 2089/2002, extended by Law 350/2003). In June 2008 a formal appeal was submitted before the Provincial Tax Commission against this renewed claim, which was then reduced by €1,250 thousand in the first half of the previous year and decided in the Company's favour on 12 July 2011. Accordingly, the Company is awaiting recovery in full of the credit of €562 thousand, in addition to the associated interest accrued;

in January 2010 the revenue authority approved the deferred payment of the

assessment notice of €1.6 million served on 19 November 2009 in connection with 2002 VAT and IRPEF and 2002-2003 IRAP. The instalment plan calls for the debt to be paid in 60 monthly instalments beginning on 1 March 2010 at an annual interest rate of 4%. Pending the decision of a formal appeal filed by A.S. Roma, the Company elected to apply for conversion to an instalment plan to limit the resulting effects on the Company’s financial position, inasmuch as the Company remains confident of a favourable resolution of the dispute or, in the worst case, of a possible insignificant negative outcome for the Company. The dispute was settled in November 2010 with the payment of €0.2 million. The five instalments paid in the previous year and three instalments paid in the reporting year, in the total amount of €0.2 million, along with the associated interest, were refunded in full by the revenue authority;

in May 2010 the revenue authority approved the deferred payment in 12 quarterly

instalments of the liability associated with the petition for assessment with composition for 2004 IRPEF in connection with the irregularities arising from the audit of sports agents by investigators concluded in November 2009. The instalment plan for the total liability of €261 thousand, plus interest, calls for payment in 12 quarterly instalments beginning on 31 May 2010 and ending on 28 February 2013 at an interest rate of 4% per annum. At year-end five periodic instalments had been paid in accordance with the associated payment schedule.

Which also not exceed 50 million. Matthew_hk t c 10:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portsmouth

As i did not had 2009-10 Financial Report and Accounts of the companies house in hand, the data may be incorrect as this interim report show the club had £9X million total debt [1], with a shortfall (negative equity of £30 million) Matthew_hk t c 16:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Penalty

Article 16 – General

With the exception of those defined in paragraph 2 below, the criteria defined in

this chapter must be fulfilled by clubs in order for them to be granted a licence to enter the UEFA club competitions.

Non-fulfilment of the criteria defined in Articles 22, 23, 26, 35, 39, 41 and 42

does not lead to refusal of a licence but to a sanction defined by the licensor according to its catalogue of sanctions (see Article 8).

The regulation clearly stated the penalty was refused register in European competitions (22, 23, 26, 35, 39, 41, 42 were not related to FFP). But it may harmful to exclude all clubs (current only 13 or 6 clubs failed) which UEFA sport merit wild card was the key of the scheme. Matthew_hk t c 13:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League

Premier League debt. As my guess was right, Aston Villa had debt http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt Just likes Cheslea owe the Russian shareholder loans. I need the original research report in order to know Deloitte use the football club itself to compare (ignoring the inter-group debt settlement) or use the whole group. (But such as Manchester United, the smaller group was Manchester United Ltd. and the largest group was Red Football Shareholder Ltd.) Matthew_hk t c 14:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew_hk - I am unable to agree or disagree with you on many of these edits because I'm afraid there are so many errors with the English grammar that I am unable to follow most of what has been written. While I appreciate that there was room for improvement and that you are keen to improve the references & the accuracy of some of the figures cited I believe you have in some cases gone into too much detail and the reader will struggle to follow a lot of it.

I also feel that a number of people will be offended by your highly derogatory references on my talk page to the Glazers as 'The Jews' This is completely unnessessary, whatever your views of the takeover. --Godwhale (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the note on Aston Villa debt; fair enough - I have altered the note at the beginning of the paragraph. I hope it now meets your approvalGodwhale (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nag banner - This article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text.

Can whoever placed the banner at the beginning of the article kindly clarify what their exact concerns are so that we can debate them and hopefully sort them out? Thanks--Godwhale (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split artical into two separate articles

As this article is now becoming quite large - and will no doubt become larger as time passes and the FFP regulations unfold, I propose to split it into two; one as a summary of the rules and the basic background, and another illustrating how they unfold season by season, ie 'History of Financial Fair Play'. What does everyone think?--Godwhale (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they are two different things. The rules and his real world application--Threeohsix (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

La Liga's lack of competitiveness: Deletion

It is very well written, referenced and true but it has nothing to do with UEFA's finacial fair play regulations. --Txuriurdin (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs huge amounts of work

I'm not good with Wiki so not sure of the decorum around here but there is so much biased and irrelevant stuff within this article and it doesn't actually say what FFP does nor the history of its development. In addition, there's no links to numerous "website" sources and some of it is factually incorrect. I'm going to have a bash at it first then maybe others can show where I've gone wrong?

BMDamo (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Hi, if you have additional info by all means add it and if you think something is wrong then change it. But if you are a fan of a particular club you need to be careful to be neutral, which I fully appreciate is hard for some people to do because people are so passionate about their club. I myself do not support a club because i live in the football dead zone known as the West Country where there are no Premiership clubs. Regarding Man City, I have tried to add stuff in there to give the views of fans that they think its unfair for balance. I don't really understand what you mean in saying that the article doesn't say what FFP does or its history, as that is explained in the early sections - again if you can add something that makes it better add it. Essentially FFP was agreed quite quickly and implemented in 2009 soon after the Man City takeover at the behest of Italian clubs who were dismayed at their reducd position and spending power, having always been the biggest spenders. Ironically Italian clubs have had sugar daddies since the thirties but could no longer keep up with the money generated by the Sky deal. I actually had a great article where one of the Italian club owners was quite up front that that was what it was about, but annoyingly i lost it. The section explaining the actual rules could be expanded a bit but it is awkward because the rules do change, and for that reason I added a link to the full UEFA regs for people to download. if you want to add greater detail by all means do so.[reply]

One suggestion would be to have two articles, one with an outline of FFP and the latest situation and another the history, season by season. That would make the main page much simpler, but its doing it. If you want to have a crack at splitting the article dive in. Best wishes--Godwhale (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section about premier league clubs donating money is a bit incomplete. While it is true that clubs in Germany don't donate in the same way, they do not get any direct tv money either. In Germany the TV rights are sold by the dfl, wich distributes the money further between clubs of the top three leagues and some regionalliga clubs, based on 5 year performance averages. In addition, even UEFA TV money for German clubs is distributed between all clubs in the top two flights, even the ones that have never played European club championships. So while they don't donate, they get less money. I don't understand how this system disadvantages British clubs, the money counted as expenditure is part of real TV money in, so it is just as if they were given less money in the first place. Maybe at least the German situation (I have no idea how the Italian, Spanish and French systems work, maybe someone can elaborate) can be clarified in the article.109.189.6.8 (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change it then!--Godwhale (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313161745/http://www.realmadrid.com:80/cs/Satellite/en/1330014560397/noticia/Noticia/Real_Madrid%E2%80%99s_gross_revenue_increases_8.6%_to_reach_442.3_million_euros.htm to http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/1330014560397/noticia/Noticia/Real_Madrid%E2%80%99s_gross_revenue_increases_8.6%25_to_reach_442.3_million_euros.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article status

This article has to be one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. No coherent structure and full of rumour and speculation which reads like a hatchet job contravening many Wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:VER. Stevo1000 (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]