UEFA target Loserpool

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/clubs/liverpool/article4214782.ece

Loserpool could have £7m whithheld for breaching FFP rules.

Please let me sit down for a minute, as surely this can't be right. The darlings of Europe being investigate over their financies, well, well, well.

Kick the Scouse gits out of the competition i say

Why wasn't this done already? Why couldn't they have been banned from the CL this season? I know it's more onerous than our punishment, but UEFA screwed us over. Or why can't Liverpool be fined £50M like us?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/11114984/Liverpool-could-face-FFP-penalty-as-Champions-League-qualification-opens-them-up-to-scrutiny.html


More info on the article...The Times needs subscription.

Not much more meat on the bones and the slime that comment, well, what a bunch of wankers they are.

If these clubs are defined as "at risk" how does fining them massive amounts of money and then giving that money to their CL opponents help them? 

No idea, MCM.  I don't think it's supposed to.  It's meant to discourage them from spending beyond their means.  Or, in this case, to prevent them from spending money given to them by their owner, as opposed to the bank.

leopold wrote:No idea, MCM.  I don't think it's supposed to.  It's meant to discourage them from spending beyond their means.  Or, in this case, to prevent them from spending money given to them by their owner, as opposed to the bank.

Problem is, as a business owner you can borrow money off the bank to 'speculate' and invest in equipment, offices etc...that's what 'most' teams do, however, the likes of United run up debts of £350m....but because they can service their interest payments and the books show a profit each year, it's acceptable.

However, a team like Liverpool can post £35-50m losses 3 seasons running...but because their income will increase by £100m, they think that's OK.

FFP should be that clubs should be working harder to clear debts, and not spending any money until the debt is cleared...rather than this draconian rule of £30-50m per quota losses being allowed.

The simple rule should have been this:

As of......whatever date......clubs entering the CL or UEFA Cup competitions cannot spend money that isn't theirs. ie, you have losses of £50m, the money earned from thr PL/La Liga etc and the CL revenue, can be used to clear any existing debts first, then when the debts have been cleared, whatever money is left in the kitty can be used for transfers.

Should a club choose not to accept these conditions, then the club can opt out of the competition with the club below them automatically being offered their place.

That way, the likes of United, Liverpool etc will become debt free and not work on a false budget under current FFP rules, where the clubs like ourselves and Chelsea: if the owner invests money into the clubs accounts and that money is used to spend £500m on players, then so be it, but the money is not owed.

It goes against all corporate law rules of business trading.

And we get punished for owing nothing, but falling foul of some Pratini-driven, made-up nonsense.

And this is why you'll never be in charge of anything, Bluey.  That's just far too sensible a solution!

It does make you wonder doesn't it....thank god I run my business sensibly. Though, be bloody marvellous to be able to throw £50m at an employee and not have to worry about it! I wish!

Ah...  It appears that you are in charge of something...    But you know what I mean.  It seems some of these organisations are just geared up to make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Leo....they only care about bringing in ridiculous rules to radicalise 'something' that reflects on their inflated salaries and show they actually have done something for their money....but as we know with Greg Dyke...just bringing in rules doesn't always mean it helps or makes sense for the game....but as long as they keep their jobs, they're happy and don't really care if it's sensible or not.