UEFA To Exclude Debt-Ridden Clubs

[FNU]

08/10/2008 14:07 UEFA To Exclude Debt-Ridden Clubs

UEFA delivered a warning to heavily-indebted clubs today with the announcement that teams may be excluded from competition as a result of their financial mismanagement.

Following the chairman of the FA's announcement on Tuesday that English clubs are £3billion in the red comes UEFA general secretary David Taylor's caveat that the most debt-ridden clubs on the continent face exclusion from European competiton.




Taylor is concerned about the impact of the 'white knight' attitude that is prevalent among many clubs, whereby a solution to soaring debts is expected or hoped for in the form of a Abramovich-esque benefactor, and no steps are taken by the club in question to alleviate financial meltdown.

As a result of his concern with a continental-wide problem, Taylor stated that UEFA is ready to penalise offending clubs by banning them from Europe's top competitions.

He told the Leaders in Football Conference: "There would be forms of communication, even warnings, even reprimands before one would ever get to a situation of exclusion but it's absolutely possible.

"We are looking at strengthening the minimal financial criteria and other forms of self regulation that may impose greater standard on clubs that want to compete in European competitions and beyond that club football."

Peter Staunton

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h5uvoIsskQIMYF9FTK5_47jCt0fg

[FNU]

The Times
October 9, 2008
Michel Platini turns up the heat with attack on ‘foreign invasion’ at leading clubs

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article4909792.ece

[sinner78]

False thread title.
They "may" exclude teams .Which translated means they wont do sh1t.
Just like they dont do anything about crowd violence ,match fixing ,racist chants ,etc

[FNU]

True, but if they're going to say they're "going TO do something" but haven't specified anything nor any dates, then it's essentially the same way. I only copy pasted the title from GOAL.com.
Anyways, some things are easier to control than others. Those things you mentioned can't really be used in comparison. I think something like the implementation of technology would be a better example.

[SportBoy333]

Now that I think about it, they havent even been able to enforced the 6+5 rule yet so they probably wont be able to get this done either.

[FNU]

Now that I think about it, they havent even been able to enforced the 6+5 rule yet so they probably wont be able to get this done either.
That's a good example. UEFA is just trying to level the playing field a bit, and will essentially give more power back to the clubs being bullied by player's agents and ridiculous wages.

[M]

This is almost certainly a legal non-starter.

[AFCA]

False thread title.
They "may" exclude teams .Which translated means they wont do sh1t.
Just like they dont do anything about crowd violence ,match fixing ,racist chants ,etc


Match fixing would be quite hard, as their are billions to be made. So it's an uphill battle, no matter how you choose to deal with it. Also, I believe the actual size of this problem is only recently becoming known.

Crowd violence? Most of it takes place outside, which makes it the responsibility of the local authorities and at most of the home and visiting club. There seriously is nothing UEFA can do about it except ban all visiting fans.

Even then, outside the CL I doubt this would hold in any court if the clubs do not agree.

Racist chants are a problem, but the problem is mostly confined to certain regions. OTOH, nasty chants are a part of football, and if racism is accepted in a certain place, it will take more than a ban to sort that out.

But they might want to set some sort of standard punishment for these things. As it is, nobody ever knows what to expect.

[The Jitty Slitter]

This is almost certainly a legal non-starter.

why?

[Young Gunner]

False thread title.
They "may" exclude teams .Which translated means they wont do sh1t.
Just like they dont do anything about crowd violence ,match fixing ,racist chants ,etc
I agree...not to mention the amount of money they would lose themselvs - causing furhter debt for uefa and clubs. a CL without arsneal, real madrid,manchester united, liverpool, milan etc is not a cl at all. its just pratnini getting in a huff because the prem is better and too strong for la liga, seria a, ligue 1 etc

[FNU]

I agree...not to mention the amount of money they would lose themselvs - causing furhter debt for uefa and clubs. a CL without arsneal, real madrid,manchester united, liverpool, milan etc is not a cl at all. its just pratnini getting in a huff because the prem is better and too strong for la liga, seria a, ligue 1 etc
UEFA is in debt? :confused:

[Wastl]

Well, it's about time they do something about it. Not that they will, but they should. The way many clubs don't care about debts is disgraceful. It's one thing to have a bit of debt because you improved your infrastructure, it's something completely different to buy players with money you don't have.

It's not acceptable that teams live way beyond anything they can afford. There are plenty teams which are only close to the top because they are buying players on credit and then proceed to make money through the CL. If they don't have the money themselves, they shouldn't be able to buy these players. If that means no CL, well, tough luck, other teams don't play CL as well, but they live without it.
If it ruins a known club, bad job by management, see you a few leagues lower. UEFA doesn't exist to save financially inept teams. It would be ludicrous to suggest that the UEFA should treat a team with debt better than a team that actually tries to cope with their financial limits. Teams shouldn't get an exception from having an positive financial balance just because they have a big name.

[thepremierleague]

America has 10 trillion in national debt, all countries are in debt, it doesnt mean you cannot function.

Top clubs make profits each year despite their debts. Same as America makes money despite its debt. As long as you can repay the debt over time thats what loans are for.

[zippy85]

. There are plenty teams which are only close to the top because they are buying players on credit .
Like who?

Exclude Chelsea because they are a special case.

[The Jitty Slitter]

America has 10 trillion in national debt, all countries are in debt, it doesnt mean you cannot function.

Top clubs make profits each year despite their debts. Same as America makes money despite its debt. As long as you can repay the debt over time thats what loans are for.

Except arguably 3 clubs, Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea cannot.

[johan neeskens]

The problem is that the rules are different from one UEFA member to the next. It is highly unfair to have a situation where in one country clubs are not allowed to run up a big debt, whereas in the next they can.

[zippy85]

The problem is that the rules are different from one UEFA member to the next. It is highly unfair to have a situation where in one country clubs are not allowed to run up a big debt, whereas in the next they can.
True they should change for us.

I also don't think its fair that in countries like Holland the government pay for certain club stadiums to be built wheras in this country the clubs have to go into debt for it.

[johan neeskens]

True they should change for us.

I also don't think its fair that in countries like Holland the government pay for certain club stadiums to be built wheras in this country the clubs have to go into debt for it.

Up to a certain extent that's a fair point Zippy. But the amounts of money that local governments in the NL pay to help clubs out with their stadium are pitiful compared to the debt that English clubs are allowed to get into. The loan my club got for its stadium is a lot less than the physical assets (i.e. bricks & mortar) of the club are worth, and actually equates with the club's annual turnover, so from a business perspective, there's nothing wrong with that. How by contrast does an English 800 million debt compare to their assets and annual revenue?

You could also argue that local government helping to subsidise a local club is underscoring that said club is important to the local community. It's like the BBC paying an x amount of money for the premiership broadcasting rights. What message though does allowing a club to rack up 800 million in debt give to the world of football?

[johan neeskens]

And again I believe the financial management rules should be uniform throughout the entire UEFA region.

[zippy85]

What message though does allowing a club to rack up 800 million in debt give to the world of football?
A good one for world football, if United had a normal owner they would be spending close to Real Madrid levels on players and wages.