no sanctions this season so clubs can still essentially do what they like for another year?
That was built in from an early stage - sensibly it allows teams a period of acclimatisation to the new rules. However clubs that don't sort their finances out now (or start the process now) will be in real trouble in two season's time and they won't have the excuse that they didn't have any time.
I also read somewhere the uefa were taking a tough stance on sponsorship that could in anyway be linked to ownership (not sure if that applies to championship clubs but don't see why not)
Sort of, UEFA were going to examine sponsorship deals to ensure that a sponsor isn't paying over the market rate and effectively circumventing the rules, but they aren't going to prevent say one of Abramovich's companies from sponsoring Chelsea or acquiring the naming rights to Stamford Bridge. Legally that would be problematic - EU law would prevent it for one thing.
Regarding what is "market rate" also seems very vague to me - what is the market rate for say stadium or shirt sponsorship? The Premiership has a global reach and Sky are happy to pump billions in to the game and broadcast the EPL as a loss leader. Why should a sponsor not pay a few million extra compared to say Etihad's deal with Man City to have the right to name Stamford Bridge after their company? Supposedly an "expert panel" will scrutinise such deals and deduct the excess from the club in questions accounts.
Through the 90s, most of Italy's big clubs were owned by big, big businessmen, all Italian as well. That's how it attracted the very best players in the world for a while. Parma had Parmalat's owner (dairy), Lazio Cragnotti who I think had a fruit company, Milan Berlusconi and his media empire, Fiorentina's I can't remember... When they withdrew funding, that's how Serie A was toppled from being the best league in the world.
I don't know how much input the Agnelli family now have in Juventus, but I'm pretty sure Fiat now own Jeep, hence the sponsorship.
BFR I imagine that comparisons will be made where possible. If, for example the club sells it's executive boxes for £100k a season but the owner takes one for his family for £25m a season it would stick out. Something unique, like sponsoring the stadium, would be more difficult to challenge, but they could ask the club for the details (and evidence) of the best offers they received from other parties for the sponsorship. If, for example, they were offered sums from £5m - £10m a season from the market and the Chairman's ow company offered to pay £100m then they would have a case.
However, there will always be instances where a 'cheat' will go through. I don't, really, think that UEFA are looking for a level playing field as much as they are looking for financial stability across the whole game. If a Billionaire really does want to drop £250m a season on his club then that is, probably, in the grand scheme of things, ok. What they don't want is anymore borrowing or setting up the clubs to fall apart if the money is cut off. For this reason I suspect that capital injections will be negotiable as long as they don't lead to an unsustainable level of costs that can't be unwound in the future when the money dries up.
There are, also, obviously, many more ways the super rich can cheat the system. The Chairman could give all his players a contact to do 'consultancy' work with another company he owns. Wayne Rooney is not going to care if he earns £200k a week from Man City or £10k a week from Man City and £190k a week from a Hedge Fund that requires him to do one photo shoot a year.
Comments
That was built in from an early stage - sensibly it allows teams a period of acclimatisation to the new rules. However clubs that don't sort their finances out now (or start the process now) will be in real trouble in two season's time and they won't have the excuse that they didn't have any time.
I also read somewhere the uefa were taking a tough stance on sponsorship that could in anyway be linked to ownership (not sure if that applies to championship clubs but don't see why not)
Sort of, UEFA were going to examine sponsorship deals to ensure that a sponsor isn't paying over the market rate and effectively circumventing the rules, but they aren't going to prevent say one of Abramovich's companies from sponsoring Chelsea or acquiring the naming rights to Stamford Bridge. Legally that would be problematic - EU law would prevent it for one thing.
Regarding what is "market rate" also seems very vague to me - what is the market rate for say stadium or shirt sponsorship? The Premiership has a global reach and Sky are happy to pump billions in to the game and broadcast the EPL as a loss leader. Why should a sponsor not pay a few million extra compared to say Etihad's deal with Man City to have the right to name Stamford Bridge after their company? Supposedly an "expert panel" will scrutinise such deals and deduct the excess from the club in questions accounts.
I don't know how much input the Agnelli family now have in Juventus, but I'm pretty sure Fiat now own Jeep, hence the sponsorship.
However, there will always be instances where a 'cheat' will go through. I don't, really, think that UEFA are looking for a level playing field as much as they are looking for financial stability across the whole game. If a Billionaire really does want to drop £250m a season on his club then that is, probably, in the grand scheme of things, ok. What they don't want is anymore borrowing or setting up the clubs to fall apart if the money is cut off. For this reason I suspect that capital injections will be negotiable as long as they don't lead to an unsustainable level of costs that can't be unwound in the future when the money dries up.
There are, also, obviously, many more ways the super rich can cheat the system. The Chairman could give all his players a contact to do 'consultancy' work with another company he owns. Wayne Rooney is not going to care if he earns £200k a week from Man City or £10k a week from Man City and £190k a week from a Hedge Fund that requires him to do one photo shoot a year.