Forums / Manchester United
Order: Newest / Oldest
Potential Impact Of Upcoming Manchester United IPO, And Impact Of FFP In The Future
[account-removed] 4 years ago
As we all know, there is a planned floatation of 25-30% of Manchester United shares in the Singapore Stock Exchange. What follows is my analysis of how it might impact United.

Why launch the IPO in Singapore?

-the Glazers have apparently wanted to float these shares for at least a year now. They tried to float the shares last year but the markets were deemed too volatile, so the Glazers fearing the IPO(Initial Public Offering) will not be a success due to the market conditions decided to delay the launch till this autumn. The rumoured launch date is expected to be in October, according to Singapore Stock Exchange officials.
-the Glazers chose the Far East region to launch the share due to the following reasons:
1.) previous success of other major IPOs launched in the Singapore SE in the past few months e. G. Prada.
2.) huge numbers of Manchester United fans present in this region, and they are banking on a good amount of the shares to be bought by the fans because of the honour of owning Manchester United shares and they will not see that they are being ripped off. *(more on this is detailed below)
3.) the Glazers are trying to monitise the support of the large United fanbase in this region.
4.) Singapore Stock Exchange has recently been rated at the Stock Exchange with the highest ratings for Corporate Governance, and presumably the fact that Singapore SE has given the Glazers permission for the go-ahead would give investors, share-buying-United fans, and all United fans in general that what the Glazers plan to do with the money generated will go to the cause that they have promised in this IPOs prospectus.
5.) the Singapore Stock Exchange gives the Glazers options that the bigger Hong Kong Stock Exchange doesn't, namely, the Singapore SE allows the Glazers to launch the shares using a two-tier method which the Hong Kong SE doesn't allow.

What will this mean for the Manchester United ownership?

-the shares are being launched in two forms, ordinary shares(this gives the owner of the shares the right to influence how the club will be run) and preference shares (this will not let the owner of the shares have any say in how the club is run, but in return they get a fixed percentage of profits from the club annually before the ordinary shareholders get their dividends)
-this format will help the Glazers keep full control, or at least majority control over the club, since they will still own 70-75% of the shares thus making them the dominant shareholder in Manchester United.
-this is a very popular format in the US sports industry since it allows the club to operate efficiently since it only has to consult one major shareholder(Glazers) in any matter (e. G. Transfers, commercial deals, etc)

Trivia about this IPO.

-the Glazers are valuing the 25-30% of the Manchester United shares at 600 million pounds sterling. This valuation has been met with widespread disapproval since this would mean that the Glazers value Manchester United at 2 billion pounds sterling. Investors are of the opinion that the Glazers are vastly over-valuing the club and are using the Forbes recent valuation of the club as proof that the Glazers valuations are wrong.
-the investors feel that the Glazers are banking on the United fans in the Far East buying with their hearts and not their minds because they feel the valuation of the IPO and all the United shares in general is too high.
-they feel the Glazers actions are desperate and are trying to raise as much as money as possible to meet their promises as stated in the IPO prospectus.
-since the valuation of the club and the shares on offer at the IPO is too high according to market experts, brand experts and investors, they feel the IPO could fail if the Glazers are not willing to lower their valuation should the IPO not meet success in the first few days of its launch.
-however, the Glazers are confident that the IPO will be a success and are using the recent financial results and global fan survey as proof that Manchester United is in a strong position and is only going to grow stronger and stronger, so they admit that the valuation is unrealistic at present time, but are trying to monetise their valuation of what they believe the club will be worth some years down the line, namely 2 billion pounds sterling, as evidenced by the increasing strength of the United brands with recent deals like the Chevrolet deal that is rumoured to be at 20 million pounds sterling every season for the next 5 years.
-majority of the proceeds from this IPO will go towards paying off the debt placed on United, but not all the proceeds will go to United. A sum will go to the Glazers for their other business interests, most likely to service their toxic debts and loss making businesses in other parts of their portfolio.

What are the Glazers planning to do with the money?

-in the IPO prostectus the Glazers have promised investors and all United fans that the majority of the money will go towards paying off a substantial amount of the debt.
-the Glazers are worried about the spending power of clubs like Manchester City, Chelsea, PSG, Barcelona and Real Madrid and want to make Manchester United competitive in the transfer market. They plan to do this by cutting the club’s borrowings, rather than servicing the Glazers’ personal financial commitments.
-this could mean one of 2 things:
1.) either the debt will be cut with the IPOs proceeds, but United will still be paying 45-50 million pounds sterling per year, but these payment will end a lot faster should this IPO go through.
2.) the debt could be reduced significantly and new interest rates could be negotiated by United, so the club will instead be paying a lot less than 45 million pounds per season. (**)
3.) it is possible that the Glazers could take up the 45 million pounds payment per season on Uniteds behalf. So, the Glazers will use the IPOs proceeds to pay the interest payments that were placed on United ever since the Glazers completed their leveraged buyout in 2005.

The 3 options placed above are all possibilities and which option the Glazers will take up is up for debate and can only be confirmed until:
1.) the IPO takes place and the Glazers announce which option is being taken up
2.) the next Manchester United financial results after the IPOs launch will help determine which path is taken even if the Glazers do not publicly announce it beforehand.

What does this mean for the future of Manchester United in terms of player transfers, wage structure, etc?

-should option 2 be used, marked above by (**), then this should mean that there will be more money available for transfers from the summer of 2013, or at the earliest from winter 2012-2013 (but this is unlikely since Sir Alex doesn't favour doing business in this transfer window overall, nor do CEOs like it since new budgets usually have to be drawn up)
-in theory this should mean that United will be more competitive and equals to the likes on Manchester City and Chelsea in terms of spending power regarding transfer fees and agent fees since money that in the past was directed towards interest payments could now be used to increase the size of the transfer budget and payment of football agents fees.
-however, despite this improvement in transfer spending power, Manchester City and Chelsea hold the upperhand since they are bankrolled and financed by billionaires and the respective clubs that they own can further inflate transfer fees, agent fees and wages by paying even higher than a stronger-transferwise-United would be willing to pay after the IPO is launched. So say, if United could match Hazards wages, agent fees and transfers fees (To Lille) that Chelsea are offering, then Chelsea could increase their offer in all 3 fields since they are bankrolled by a lenient and rich owner.

So, the IPO is useless then! Answer: Not Quite

-the elephant in the room that all clubs are aware of is, the Financial Fair Play rules, which is the brainchild of non other than UEFA President Michel Platini, and almost certainly the next FIFA President. Despite FFPs sceptics and critics, all signs indicate that Michel Platini and UEFA are dead serious about the FFP rules and are willing to impose them whether or not there is some resistance from some clubs e. G. Manchester City, Chelsea, PSG, etc.
-the FFP is said to be imposing a "soft salary cap" and that too discreetly. The concept that UEFA has taken up, break even concept whereby clubs can only spend what they earn, and other approaches like fair value concept, are stealthly going to cap the salary levels that football clubs pay to footballers, and also make sure that transfer fees are more reasonable.
-this is because clubs can only spend what they earn and will not be able to use the owners money as heavily in the past. Clubs likely to suffer because of this rule are namely clubs like City, Chelsea, PSG, Anzhi, etc.
-clubs likely to benefit from this are, any club that is run on sound financial and viable models e. G. Manchester United, Arsenal, Newcastle United, Bundesliga clubs, etc.
-therefore, taking the impact of the upcoming IPO and FFP rules, the well run clubs will return to the top of the food chain in terms of transfers fees, player wages offered, agent fees, etc.
-there is the possibility that clubs like City and Chelsea could also share the position at the top of the food chain along with United, Arsenal, etc if they manage to:
1.) develop their brands at a faster pace in order to keep pace with Manchester United, who are widely regarded as the leaders in the brand value war. This is a major battleground that will determine whether the Chelsea and Citys are capable of operating at a sound financial level that will see them rub shoulders with the likes of Manchester United, Barcelona, Real Madrid, etc. Should the sugar daddy clubs fail to match the current brand value leaders by the time the FFP sets in, then it will be a struggle for the Chelseas, Citys, PSGs, Anzhis, etc to overthrow the Uniteds, Barcas, Madrids, etc.
2.) develop sound financial models. This is unlikely even in the long term. E. G. Chelsea, although their coffers have been boosted significantly by the Champions League win to the tune of maximum 100 million pounds sterling, they have already gone out and spent the vast majority of it on transfer fees this season, assuming the Hulk transfer goes through, and this is without even factoring in the agent fees that Chelsea have reportedly paid and the salaries that their new signings command e. G. Hazard. So, it is widely expected that even by the time the full FFP rules come into play clubs like City and Chelsea will still be operating unethically and with poor financial models as they are currently doing which could lead to punishments handed down to clubs like Chelsea, City, etc
3.) some of these rules are fines (unlikely since Chelsea, City are super rich, bans from Europe (likely), reduction in their Champions League squads by 5 players (more likely), withholding of champions league prize and TV money (very likely), etc
4.) in conclusion regarding the FFP rules, these rules are friendly to those football clubs that are run with financially sound models, and are hostile to clubs that rely on the depth of their sugar daddys pockets.

Future of Manchester Uniteds ownership?

-it is widely regarded that the Glazers are not looking to hold on to Manchester United for the long term on their portfolios. Football as a sport that needs United to spend in order for United to be at the top of the food chain. Thus, it is expected that Glazers plan to sell Manchester United completely in the future when Manchester Uniteds debts have completely finished and there at least a few years of record high profits, obviously since the interest payments will no longer need to be paid when the debts finish. Thus, it is expected that when the debts finish, and as United grow even stronger in the global brands war, e. G. The Chevrolet deal, the overall value of Manchester United will skyrocket closer to the 2 billion pounds sterling. But, in my opinion, the Glazers will in the future, some years from now, launch a full IPO and will charge a premium price greater than 2 billion pounds sterling, probably closer to the 2. 5 billion pounds sterling mark, where they will be hoping investors and fans buy up shares with their hearts and not their minds. Therefore, it is expected that in the future Manchester United will revert back into a PLC (Public Limited Company), especially because I can't see how any corporation will be willing to part with 2-2. 5 billion pounds sterling to takeover an entity that has to invest its profits back into the entity and its industry (football) in order for it to be the top dog in every aspect of the sport (football). Most likely the clubs shares will be broken up and a sizeable amount will be owned by fans and various corporations.

Honourary Mention

-special mention should go to clubs like Arsenal, Bayern, Newcastle, Dortmund, etc since they also use sound financial models and they should greatly benefit in the long run when the FFP rules come in and they will jump to the front of the queue in many aspects e. G. Transfer fees, agent fees, player wages.
-Arsene Wenger deserves great credit for his long term vision and sacrificing short term gains and short term trophies in order to solidify Arsenals future as one of the leading clubs for trophies in the long term after the FFPS rules set in. Maybe I will do an analysis for Arsenal after FFP rules if any Arsenal fans approach me and are interested in my viewpoint.


Sorry, this ended up longer than I thought, but I wanted to share my view of how the future of Manchester United after the IPO, and the FFP will impact us. Thanks for reading.
Northgreen (AC Milan) 4 years ago
I see that you are writing about how this new FFP rule will affect the Sugar Daddy clubs like you like to call them and I feel the need to inform you that the FFP rules is setup with several loop holes, and could easily be avoid and as long as the sugar dad still got the money, he could easily spit them into a club by taking use of a 3rd part.

Example on what I am talking about.

Club A, from now on called Footy, is owned by an Owner we can call Sugar daddy. This Sugar Daddy is also rich and owns many different companies, let us now call one of these companies for Oily.

Now after the FFP rule kick in, Footy is in financial problems, but Sugar Daddy will now use Oily to make a sponsor ship deal with Footy worth lets say 70m£ a year, or whatever figures he would need to spit in to make the balance go to 0. Now he wouldn't just spit money into the club Footy as he used to, but he will also get a boost in the sale of his Oily to the producers/clients/customers as Oily now get a marketing boost with this new Oily sponsorship Sugar Daddy established with Footy.

So don't think the FFP will make you in the charge seat easily because it only affects the club which has a finacial spending that their club/owners can't really afford. Owners like the one of City, PSG, Chelsea, Anzhi etc. Can easily afford what they are doing and will therefor just reinvest through one of the loopholes making the marketing go like they need to.

THere are no rules against how good sponsorship deals a Club is allowed to make through the FFP rule and therefor I just used this an example as it is the easier loophole to spot in this new rule.

The FFP will more affect Italians club which are run on money they or their owners don't have or those who try to spend more in order to get a position and then earn more like Rangers did. Not the Sugar daddy clubs.

(You don't need a Bachelor/Master in economy to see this, a glance at the FFP rule was enough to find this very obvious hole. And I can assure you that the clubs are already aware of this. Many of them rather let this be a play for the media as it makes it look like the teams/federation are making grips to get rid of the unhealthy way economy is been spent in the sports these days, but in reality, it won't stop any of those who can afford this. They are free to spit as much money into the game as they like as this keeps improving the brand Football is as well, and it stops those who can't afford it as that does hurt the brand football is.

FFP is a rule set to make a positive publicity for the fans and attract more fans if possible as well as keep the doors open for those who want to spit their savings into their club and thereby the game and further more expand the value of the sport. Not to get rid of the unhealthy (economical speakin) way some clubs are run these days
Joeymac (Manchester United) 4 years ago
Some little simple man wisdom here for a proposal to control spending:

Yes, I'm American, and in American sports, they have something called a "salary cap. " Simply, it limits the salary you can pay your team overall. So I say, why don't we do something like a "transfer cap, " where clubs only have "X" amount (net) to spend in a transfer window? Money not spent could roll-over to the next season and be added to the set sum of what you're allowed to spend per window.

This would keep the league competitive because the big rich clubs couldn't go on spending sprees unless they sell. It would also still give the financially smaller clubs a chance to grow and spend, but not because they were taken over by an oil tycoon that lets them spend 100 million a season. It would be a more gradual process that would eventually make the league more competitive, top to bottom.
Northgreen (AC Milan) 4 years ago
I hear many talks highly about it but I kind a like the free model where the money go to the athletes in the game who entertain us rather than to the pocket of the owners who get rest of the money which comes above the salary cap set.

Lets say we have a wage budget of 100 000 000. Then all makings after that would end up in the pockets of the owner of the club and the sport would get much more influenced by those business people who are there just to make profits which we already seems to generally dislike as fans.

I don't like the idea too much as you can see because we would either have to set the roof so high that one couldn't make money on the game which would mean we have the same problem, or so low that business people would see an opportunity to make money by running the football clubs.

I can see your general goal with it, but I don't think the model really will achieve that and I don't see it achieving that in the american sports either as many claims it did. To me, football is far more entertaining than any of the other sports, even if we have some problems with those who kind a overspend on the transfers
Joeymac (Manchester United) 4 years ago
It certainly has kept American sports more competitive. There are certain teams that are usually good, but a club can go from last to first in a season. You don't see that fluctuation in the BPL without big-money takeovers.
And it's understandably different as far as sport and region. But I'm sure some football owners do pocket the change that they make, so would it make this much different?

But in the United States it is a business of course, and owners would profit off of it. It's a matter of what you want for the league, and what sacrifices you are willing to make to get what you want. It's a different way of operating for sure
[account-removed] 4 years ago

Technically speaking, the FFP rules are a "soft" cap on transfers and salaries since clubs can only spend what they earn. In order for there to be a "hard" cap on transfers and salaries, it will have to go through the European Union and European Commission, and a "hard" will most likely never happen in football, at least not in European football.

Uefa tried to use "transfer embargo" as a form of punishment if clubs broke the FFP rules, but after UEFA consulted its lawyers, they backed off and decided to not use that form of punishment since they are certain that if clubs decided to take legal action against that form of punishment, the the EU will almost certainly rule in the clubs favour because of the "freedom to work" rules where a citizen of the EU can take up employment in any member state. So, UEFA can't deny an athlete the chance to join the Citys, Chelseas, etc with a transfer embargo, but they can instead use other viable methods like

1.) ban from UEFA competitions.
2.) withhold UEFA competition prize money
3.) trim clubs UEFA squad that broke FFP rules by 5 players.
4.) etc, etc
[account-removed] 4 years ago
You have written some very interesting points, both in this thread and in the Manchester United forum regarding the topic that we are discussing.

1.) totally agree, the FFP rules have loopholes, plenty of them.
2.) there are ways to go around the rules and exploit them.

But, there are some points that need to be considered here.

1.) the example that you mentioned above about Club A, Oily, and Sugar Daddy is a good example, but this loophole is technically speaking closed. It comes under the term "related party transactions" and this is not permissible at all under the UEFA FFP rules. Such deals will not be allowed, unless it is done at fair value. So, even if Club A manage to secure such a deal with Oily, they will not be able to use the total money received from such a deal in the calculations of the Break-Even Rule that is used by UEFA in the FFP calculations. UEFA will consider the deal, but will use industry benchmarks and "fair value" to determine the true value of the deal. So, such a deal between Club A and Oily is in theory not possible because even if Oily pay Club A 10 million or 1, 000 million in order to sponsor Club A's players socks, UEFA will compare this deal with other deals of similar nature in the football industry and come up with the true value of the deal between Club A and Oily. So say if Oily pays Club A 1, 000 million to sponsor its players socks, but UEFA using industry benchmarks says the "fair value" of the deal after consulting industry benchmarks, brand experts, lawyers, sports lawyers, etc will say, "no the deals fair value is 5 million pounds and they will only use this in the break even calculation regarding FFP.

2.) you mentioned elsewhere another example about Nike sponsoring City, but the money that Nike pay City is discreetly coming from the Citys owners, namely the Abu Dhabi royal family. This is a good point, but this is again covered by UEFA in their "fair value" calculations. So, say in theory,

If NIKE receive 20 million pounds in money from Abu Dhabi to sponsor Citys gloves, and NIKE use that money to pay City and win the sponsorship contract to sponsor Citys gloves with NIKE insignia, etc, then they still can't bypass the "fair value" rule.


Because UEFA will again use industry benchmarks, brand experts, etc to determine if the NIKE-City deal for gloves sponsorship was done at fair value. If UEFA determines that the deals fair value is worth only 5 million pounds, then only that 5 million pounds enters the Break Even calculation of the FFP, and the rest of the 15 million is ignored. Those are the rules.

Some important points to consider.

-uefa has greatly increased its legal department and has hired a lot more lawyers, brand value experts, etc. This will help them keep an eye on the clubs that are trying to break the rules and be well prepared should club(s) decide to challenge UEFA on any matter regarding FFP

-another very important point is that the FFP rules have the backing of the EU(European Union) and the (EC) European Commission, to the extent that they have said that should clubs decide to challenge the FFP and UEFA, then they will first have to go face to face with the EU and the EC and win their case against them (not easy in my opinion) and only then will they have a chance to fight UEFA in court. The EU and the EC favour UEFA's FFP rules and welcome what it is trying to accomplish. Many people are actually surprised the UEFA and Michel Platini managed to bring the FFP rules so far that they got widespread approval from the EU and EC.

-a side point, but a point none-the-less is that the FFP rules is Michel Platinis personel brainchild and lots of viewers say that Platini will stop at nothing to make the FFP rules a reality. Politically, he needs the FFP rules to be a success as well otherwise he will look like a fool if the FFP rules are broken by clubs like City, Chelsea, etc. More importantly however, the smaller Eastern European countries are only favouring Platini and willing to give them their votes and supports in the future FIFA elections if he makes the FFP rules a success. The reason the smaller European countries, in terms of football stature, like Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, etc want the FFP rules to be a success is because it will give clubs from Eastern European countries the chance to perform better in UEFA competitions (Champions League and Europa League).

Overall, I don't think the FFP rules are a farce. I actually think Platini and UEFA are actually serious about this, and this belief further increased after they actually had the guts to ask for EU and EC support, and not only did they ask for it, they actually got their complete support. This is a huge win for UEFA and "ethical, non-financial doping" football in general.

But, I agree there are loopholes, but I don't think they are actually loopholes. In my opinion, these loopholes is more like the "easy-easy approach". UEFA wants to apply the FFP rules, but not too quickly, because if they really were stupid enough to be too hasty, then the complete FFP rules would have already started. Instead the FFP rules have slowly been phased in and will take a few years before they are completely phased in, thus giving time for clubs like City and Chelsea to comply. Also, UEFAs agreement with the big European clubs expires in 2014, so imo, that is also one of the reasons why UEFA is taking the easy easy approach. But, even if they annoyed Chelsea, City, Anzhi, PSG, etc UEFA will still have more than enough support from many clubs like Manchester United, Bayern, Dortmund, Arsenal, Liverpool, Inter(recently), etc to make stop the challenge from the sugar daddy clubs and make them comply with FFP rules and regulations.

Also, UEFA has said in the past that they will do whatever is necessary in order to make the FFP rules a success. In the past they prevented Malaga and other clubs from participating in UEFA competitions because of the state of their finances, and this was before the FFP rules were even in place, so I feel UEFA hard stance on the FFP rules is for real and clubs that break it must watch out because if UEFA doesn't punish the clubs that broke FFP rules, then the clubs that obey the FFP rules can possibly take legal action against UEFA for loss of revenue (e. G, UEFA TV revenue) saying that since they obeyed FFP rules they couldn't compete against those teams that didn't comply with FFP rules. City, Chelsea, PSG, Anzhi will not only be squaring off against UEFA, EU and the EC, but they will also be up against Manchester United, Bayern, Arsenal, Liverpool, Dortmund, Lyon, Marseille, Inter, Juventus, etc. There is already proof that there is a lot of friction between clubs that comply with FFP rules and those that don't.... E. G

1.) Bayern and Manchester City have had a very public spat about FFP and both clubs have become quite hostile to one another, which is one of the reasons supposedly why Bayern might not be able to get Dzeko off City for a cut price due to this boardroom rivalry/war.

2.) Arsenal vs Chelsea&City. Arsene Wenger has been very critical of these 2 clubs spending in the past few years. He even said that what Chelsea and City do is "financial doping"

3.) Manchester United vs Chelsea&City. Sir Alex Ferguson has stated many times that Arsene Wengers views on the FFP are right
Northgreen (AC Milan) 4 years ago
First of I have no doubt that FFP will take action where it sees it possible. What I do believe is those who have the money to spit into the club, will always be able to do so in one way or another.

I don't think the Italians club would necessarily fall in under the group along with United, Arsenal and Germans clubs quite yet. I don't know that much about the french clubs to say something there but from what I've heard, they will also in general have problems with FFP, not only PSG. (Montpellier is an excuse but they arent really to be regarded as a stabile performer yet). The italians it is no clubs (except Juventus) who own their own stadium and they all have big problems with making profits which would be acceptable under the FFP rulings. Sure, Milan got Berlusconi who could find a way to get money into the club into these loop holes, and so do some of the other top clubs as well and Juventus is connected to Ferrarri so you know they survive) but still, until the clubs can get their own stadiums and get the audience back to them, Italian teams will generally struggle to both keep within the limits of FFP ruling and be competive with English, Spanish and German clubs who generally have much better settings for making money.

(As you see from my last post in the United page, it wouldn't really be possible for investigators to figure out if the money is from the owner or if it legit. Sponsor was just an example, but they could also use it to expand the jersey salesment, buying tickets in loopholes (Season tickets been sold several times in given loopholes which would be nearly impossible to investigate. You would think checking the Stadium capacity would be enough, but if one buy season tickets, then cancel it, then somehow avoid the refunds (would anyway not be 100% refund) the same ticket could be sold again. Buying Supporters effect. Arrange concerts on the stadium which require they rent the stadium+gives % of the infunds back to the club. Buying players with special contract will opens up for future payments which would be payed with moneys from other parts than the actual club (this could also be very hard to keep track of if it is the club money or something else that is been used). And in the end, all these different factors set in order in a special model would make it nearly impossible to track if you know about it. And in reality, as you wouldn't know exactly how and where to look, it would be impossible. Picture the Einstein riddle, and add that instead of 5 unknown, you got 5000 unknowns, and in 400 factors. And then you have to set the puzzle together. Given that you wouldn't know that the one piece you are looking for (in riddle it was the fish) and add to that, you wouldn't have access to all the transfers which has been done (has to do with private information of clients and etc.) Then you see. These loopholes might be very complicated to get around at best, but they will always be possible to get around with the right amount of creativity.

Now, the FFP will add much which is sensible and it will make it look better publicity. I just think clubs like City PSG Anzhi Chelsea will find ways to keep been richer than the rest despite it
[account-removed] 4 years ago
I agree with the point that are trying to imply, but in my opinion, making such a model is very hard to do. But more importantly, such models that you have described will eventually get solved, and in that case UEFA will take serious action against the offending club(s), because if UEFA don't take action, then every single club that obeys FFP rules will join together and take UEFA to court over this matter. UEFA will lose such a court case, so they would have to take action against those clubs that break FFP rules, at least so that UEFA doesn't become the laughing stock of world football.

It is precisely for these reasons that UEFA has beefed up their legal department. Imo, UEFA are dead serious about this FFP rules. It will take time for it to take full effect, but it will be in place completely in a few years only, and UEFA has prepared and are still preparing for closing loopholes, legal action from offending clubs, etc.

What "Glory" says is also true. Also, clubs like City should and imo they would know better than to use such tricks to bypass UEFA, because if they get caught using such models, which they definitely will, then they won't have many friends to lean on. Even fellow sugar daddy clubs will fear to support City type clubs for fear of what the bad press will do to their PR, brand value, possible investigation by UEFA, etc

I agree the traditional Italian clubs e. G. Milan, Inter, Roma, etc will find it hard to compete initially under FFP rule, even Juventus will struggle even with their new stadium. Actually, I tell you what, I will write a separate thread about the Italian clubs impact under FFP. Would you be interested in reading it? I can have it ready in one or two days
Northgreen (AC Milan) 4 years ago
I don't think many italian club fans really care for anything beyond what happens on the pitch that much, and I've read myself up on the subject already in some other sites, but if you want to, you can do it.

I guess only time will show if they can close all the loopholes, personally I think it is rather a question about who be more creative, them closing loopholes, or the others finding the loopholes

Kick4Life - changing lives through football