A look at Uefa' FFP, what they mean for Everton and how we solve our problems

It boils down to us having a manager, instead of a little boy, that can get a tune out of this squad. We have the up and comers (we know who they are), and then those that haven't hit the heights but we paid a kings ransom for (and we know who they are too).

In my opinion we have a good mix of age, experience and will... and of course we need Schneiderlin and Walcott to keep their form going. Regardless of FPP l actually think things have turned for the blues.

I'm looking up! Niasse and Tosun can go... to make way for a couple more. Apart from that l'm fairly happy with what we have and the improvement we expect to see. FPP will then take care of itself.

Add a bit more deadwood on top and the task of rebuilding would be made simpler, if not easier - finding a replacement to Richarlison notwithstanding

The crux of 2019/2020 results lies in the PL's assessment of the naming rights option with USM. If that is approved, the club is going to be fine on both the EPL and UEFA FFP fronts.

Also, this was always going to be the worst 3 year period as the massively bloated wage bill in 2018 and 2019 ate into all the gains in turnover & player trading the club has made. I expect to see a player trading profit from the period 2019-2020 as the book loss on Klaassen was more than offset by book gains on Vlasic, Lookman, Robinson, Williams

With the offloading of many players all projections point towards us being in better shape going forward.

European FFP in my view is softer than EPL FFP rules. The fact is that when we play in the competition, our 2019/20 (T) and 2020/2021 (T+1) results will show a positive trajectory compared to previous years. In the FFP debate I posted an extensive account of how the rules do view positive trading trajectory in a good light.

The harshest penalties have been imposed on clubs showing a negative trajectory. I need to find an article which listed all the clubs who were not break even and yet had not been sanctioned due to one of the myriad of exceptions that are available.

Also, City's ban as I understand it is because they apparently fiddled with their figures:

"..overstating its sponsorship revenue in its accounts and in the break-even information submitted to Uefa between 2012 and 2016", adding that the club "failed to cooperate in the investigation".

The crux lies in this naming options approval - if it is (a) allowed and (b) included in normal operating income we should be fine.

I am doubtful we will sell Richarlison in the summer.

Much of whether a player stays or goes depends on the players agent.

It seems, apparently, that Richarlison's agent is the Iranian Kia Joorabchian who is very good mates with Moshiri. Bernard's too.

The one I worry about (ironically) is Moise Kean. If he comes good, I suspect Raiola will engineer a move.

If you haven't read it already, I would urge you to check out Martin Samuel's response to City's punishment. He revelas how Liverpool and United enjoy special privileges and leverage with the footballing authorities that even other elite sides, like City, are denied.

Personally, I would be all for letting LFC, Utd, Real, Barca, Juve and Bayern go off and from their own super league and let the rest of us reclaim football. Since those overlord clubs feed on success at the expense of us underlings, it wouldn't take long before they get upset and hurt at finding themselves not winning big every year or, most likely, having to endure Real Madrid win everything 9 years out of 10, seeing how even among the elite, Real seem to be top banana.

1. Why Ancelloti is persevering with all the players we don't like. We need these players to come good because the high volume buying and selling is unsustainable financially and bad for team spirit / footballing stability too. Fortunately Ancelloti is getting performances out of those written off entirely. Only Sigurdsson is yet to show some form (and at least he's working hard / not sulking).

2. Why only one signing in Jan - and why that signing was under £1m for a 17 year old.

3. Why Brands has been chopping deadwood as best he can since he's been here. Lots more still to chop from a weird first team squad and even weirder u-23 squad with players who are miles off the first team having contracts into their mid 20s.

4. The rumours of a Richarlison sale. That would be deeply shit. As Richarlison is possibly our one player in the attacking third who looks Champions League ready.

All in all, this reinforces the buy young and buy cheap strategy + development of the academy. Happily that also makes sense from a football point of view also. Hungry young players on the up who we can flog for no loss (often profit as per lookman, vlasic and onyekuru) even if it doesn't work out.

Maybe no big signings this summer then - which would be a shame as we certainly need about 2 quality players to lift us to the next level (in addition to return for Gomes, Gbamin and Gordon coming good).

Hopefully we can hang on to Richarlison at least one more season - as success seems like the only other way to help balance the books and allow a bit of transfer trading on quality players.

For fear of banging the old drum it is so annoying to reflect on the amount of money that has been 'blown' on ridiculous transfers for very mediocre players, and the equally ridiculous contracts and wages.

While it's no use crying over spilt milk, or wishing to reverse the water that has flown under the bridge, we can only look to the future and trust that any future business will be conducted more wisely.

The fact we now at long last have a World Class Manager who is happy to be with us, is definitely a bonus and does augur well for the future of Everton Football Club.

Only Brands and Ancelotti are guilt free when it comes to wasting money on shite. The rest of the people who authorised that idiotic spree are still in their roles...

I'm hoping, like everyone else, that between Brands and Ancelotti they can fix us. But, I do worry certain powerful characters up high will somehow fuck us again and cause Brands and Ancelotti to leave early..

Winning will help enormously. Qualifying will help enormously. I suppose we just have to roll with the punches

Everton need a large sponsorship from a fair value source. That fair value is the stadium. Other clubs have used airlines for transformative deals. However if USM can be connected with Moshiri (and a cursory glance says they easily can be) then they are no good.

Jay, can you post a link to the Samuels article please?

The ‘water that has flown under the bridge' was presumably off a duck's back.

This is what we, or any other ambitious club, are facing if we ever seriously challenge the status quo. It's a closed shop, a cartel where the law of Omerta is practised.

I have no particular feelings towards Man City but the established super powers are out to destroy them. The same clubs that have been cheating for decades. The same clubs who make and break the rules to their own benefit. The same clubs who have a veto over European and world football. The same clubs who introduced FFP to protect themselves.

We should be worried about this, very worried.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005751/Financial-Fair-Play-UEFA-protection-racket-payback-clubs-hate-Manchester-City.html

If this triggers up update in ffp so much the better.

This is EFCs time and no screw ups can be afforded. Take the lessons learnt from previous clubs with FFP, breeches.

What's happening at City we don't want to see happening here, now nor never. There could also be a space now in the so called a Sky Top Six.

EFC must get geared up to step up to the plate on the park, in the board room, and overall as a club, galvanised to move forward and progress.

Everton counts, it's our time and with Carlo and Dunc, with some luck we can qualify for Europe this season.

Let's beat Arsenal, and see where we are in the league. No doubt VAR will be massive in the run in.

We need a few slices of luck.

The whole situation seems a minefield in terms of trying to predict where Everton stand on this. I shudder at the thought that we might get rid of somebody like Richarlison to help us with FFP. I'm more encouraged by the point about "positive trading trajectory" and "the myriad of exceptions" (as per Amit).

If Carlo can get a regular tune out of Walcott and Schneiderlin, that would really save us having to go into the transfer market for replacements. Tosun is probably done with us now although one can only hope he scores a few in South London so we can sell him on.

What has happened at City goes to show that we need to be careful. While we haven't spent as much as them and were starting out from a better place when the new money came in if you look at league position and size of fanbase, they had their new ground which meant they could accelerate their business faster.

I reckon the next two years will have to be modest: acquiring bargains where possible (Mr Brands will be important there) perhaps seeing a couple of big money sales and not doing what we did in the summer of 2017. The age of the squad must be kept down so there doesn't come a time when there's a necessity to replace a handful of players simultaneously. Fortunately we have brought in plenty of names under 27 during the last 2 years.

This should ensure that we are cash rich enough to go out and buy when Carlo needs specific positions filled due to age or injury.

It's not sexy nor exciting but we've been there and look what happened. You can't spend like we did over the course of 2 years and finish outside the Top 4 while paying out compensation for 3 sacked coaches. It's not sustainable.

Funnily enough, we might now be in a position where we return to the model under Moyes (albeit less austere) putting emphasis on the exceptionally well paid coach to get the best from what he has.

In that respect I am positive as under Moyes and Martinez - who was asked to operate in a similar fashion - we were exposed to taking punts on the likes of Drenthe and McGeady. Thankfully we've upgraded beyond that now and just have to bide our time.

I don't care about Man City only the unfairness of these rules, and I hope that when they take it to the court of arbitration it is thrown out. Then they can challenge the existence of these rules. Problem is that they will still have the cartel voting for the status quo.

I have also been keeping a close eye on Lewis Gibson on loan at Fleetwood. He will save us a fortune. Joey Barton has done nothing but rave about him. They have won all five games since he arrived, they hadn't won in 4 before. He's formed a very solid partnership with a certain Callum Connolly. They have only conceded 1 in the time he has been there and that was yesterday against a free-scoring Peterborough. One thing we know is Mr Barton will be making sure he has a nasty edge to him during games!

I think with him being placed in the first-team squad next season, Ancelotti may be happy with our centre-back options next season. Maybe just look to swap Keane for another.

I'll correct my earlier references to PSG. They 'got away with it' because UEFA broke their own rules during their pursuit of them and lost the decision in arbitration because of that.

When people cite governing bodies as toothless for so long, don't be surprised when they grow teeth. Breaking the rules, then carrying on breaking them with contempt is the main issue here.

No sympathy from me.

It does look as if the strategy (Ancelotti / Brands) is to develop and bring through more of the U23s.

All the top clubs dominate by cheque book – not just Man City.

Barton has said we have a serious player on our hands many times. Connolly was apparently struggling at right-back for Fleetwood until Gibson arrived and they went three at the back, Connolly moved central also. Since then, they have both received huge amounts of praise from the manager. It seems Gibson plays to the left and by all accounts is pretty quick across the ground.

It seems to confirm what a few people on here were saying about him needing to play regularly as they had seen glimpses of a serious player in him. The league he's playing in will obviously also prepare him physically!

Do we really need to waste 12 million on Sidibe when we have JJK?

Do we really need to go out and spend God knows how much on a centre half when we have Feeney and Gibson just waiting for a chance to prove themselves. We have to give our youngsters a shot before we bin them

Nobody wants to sell our best players but if we have too we have to be more savvy in their replacements
Sell Richie for 100 million then spend that amount on the new Niasse? Crazy

If Celtic can find Dick Van Dijk and Odsonne Edouard why can't we?
We missed a great opportunity on a steal like McGinn we don't have to keep spending millions on nomarks

City have been arrogant and aggressive in their dealings with UEFA since this case came up, when all the leaked documents were published in Der Spiegel. The ones I've read has them bang to rights in their attempts to deceive UEFA about the amount of money they've been receiving from their owners. Some the arrogance in the internal emails is breathtaking.

Even their rebuttal on Friday dripped arrogance. I struggle with the idea of City as victim in this case. The problem seems to be that they don't just disagree with the accusation but they don't accept the whole existence of FFP and the ability of UEFA to regulate them, period.

You can argue that the whole FFP is rigged by the established elite clubs with the collusion of a venal UEFA, and it may well be true, but that doesn't make the alternative of untrammelled investment by the Royal Families of Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Saudi, and any others, plus the uncontrolled input from oligarchs etc i, any more likely to achieve a desirable outcome.

Multi billionaires, especially from omnipotent oil dynasties probably don't like being told what to do I guess.

Everton have their own issues to manage, and those are the ones I'll be focusing on

The RS have the biggest wage bill in the league, Utd the second. Maguire, Lukaku, Allison, Van Dijk and Keita all cost more than any player City have ever bought. FFP and the CL were both invented to ensure UEFA could protect the brands of the clubs that make the men in suits even wealthier than they already are and it has killed the game.

They've got more money than UEFA and the desire to do it, for sure.

If anyone will, they will. I won't hold my breath for a fair and balanced outcome though.

It will possibly get very messy, when you consider what Samuel reports, and it's also possible that City's owners and their lawyers, will have looked at everything, before deciding to carry on flouncing the rules.

Imagine the court-case? We owe nobody a penny, but our neighbours are in £700,0000 debt, and yet this is acceptable? I'm not sure the outcome will be straight-forward.

The reason Man City is on the crucifixion block is because they engaged in fraud, and lied about their numbers intentionally to dodge FFP rules and regulations.

They cheated. They're getting called on it now. It has nothing to do with making sure Liverpool stay at the top. Liverpool is, hate to say, one of the best run sports franchises on the globe. They are run by a company who have no equal in the sports management and ownership landscape. No equal, they are, simply, the best at it. That's your dose of cold hard reality from the American, take it of leave it.

Finally, and almost as an aside, the first thing I thought of after reading this expertly written piece by Casper the Friendly Ghost, is?

We're going to sell Jordan Pickford to balance our books and finance one midfield acquisition this summer.

Will be interesting to see how our ‘sponsorship' income from USM is treated as its hard to argue this is arms length imo. However, whatever happens we need to be successful to move forwards and clear a lot of the deadwood wage bill. Time will take care of some of the latter and Ancelotti will hopefully take care of the former.

If City's ban means effectively 5th is CL this year, then that's a whole new target to aim for. We've got a though 4 games coming up but if we can get through these with 6-7 points then we'll be in a great position to push for 5th as most of the big games will be behind us.

As usual it's one game at a time but the City situation has really put a new perspective on the season. Worry about FFP if/when we actually get to Europe.

The likes of Holgate and DCL cost us buttons but would get large fees if sold. There's also always the family silver in Richarlison who'd wipe out any FFP issues in a stroke if really needed. Hopefully we can sell more marginal players for a decent fee if needed. We really need to put more effort into signing youth and bringing players through the academy.

I don't really like City anyway, and I've seen my own club suffer from injustice in the past, so if we could claim 5th and get into the Champions Lge, I wouldn't care about City, but if they do end up having to take on EUFA, then I Hope City's lawyers tie them up in fucking knots!

Viewing FFP as the implementation of a control source to keep the big boys in power is flawed, for me.

I only used Liverpool as an example, as they were mentioned earlier.

It's very, very easy to come to the conclusion that it's a system of control. It is run by a corrupt organization. Uefa is corrupt, FIFA is corrupt, they're all, to one degree or another, corrupt.

But FFP was put in place to curtail ridiculous spending by a few monied rich, so there's some control over the parity of competition, not to keep traditionally big clubs at the top. It was also put into place to ensure clubs don't overspend and end up in Administration.

You can argue all you want about whether or not it's a good system to achieve these ends. But the concept it was put in place to keep Real, Manchester United, Liverpool, Barcelona, etc. at the top is folly. I don't buy it for a second.

A really interesting take on all this. It all feels like one member of a crooked gang has been shafted by the rest of the gang. So as an honest (?) Joe (Everton), which dodgy gang member do I side with? I like the look of what those gang members get, and I could actually replace that rotten gang member that's been shafted. And I've got my own (Uzbeki) minder.

Wasn't FFP brought in AFTER the mentioned clubs had invested hundreds of millions in large squads etc as well as ground improvements ? What should have happened is that the so called big clubs should have been shackled by FFP so that other clubs could strengthen their position which would have made the Leagues more competitive. However, Liverpool, United, Chelsea, Real Madrid etc bring so much money into football, especially in the Far East, that the threat to their domination is unwelcome.
The Samuel article mentioned earlier that appears in the Mail is enlightening.

My own view is that this could change things forever, and when you look at the teams who have come from nowhere in the recent past, I'm not sure any of them have ever gone into administration, and I'm just a lunatic Evertonian, and not one of these billionaire lawyers, that City will no doubt be using.

I see the argument you posed in another thread: debt vs. deficit.

Also, I read about conspiracy and conjecture - the red power group of the Premier League.

Regarding Man U and their debt vehicle, it's manageable debt. FFP doesn't address debt structure, it addressed profibility (or the lack of it). I hear a lot of free market, right-wing speak defending owner's rights to spend as they please, but no "tilt of the cap" acknowledgment of savvy businessmen growing while borrowing a managable figure, allowing them to show "less loss" or an actual profit, as income outstrips liabilities with the loan payments.

Now, I'll readily admit that's me talking a bit of bollocks, as you might say. I do not like any business model that includes large sums of "managable debt." In fact, I detest it. I've mentioned before, I have a small business. It started in 2006, and with the economic correction and the seemingly impossible task of just surviving and not closing the doors, I simply had to borrow. The last decade all I've done is eradicate that debt. Every waking moment that was the goal.

So personally I'm not a fan. But Man U are on an entirely different level. If they can manage their debt and be profitable, what's the harm in that?

The bottom line is we have a Sheik who thinks rules don't apply to him. He brazenly ignored the rules, has been previously fined, lied about his injections of capital into Man City, and has now been caught.

Don't take your eye off the ball. This is about Man City, Man City's deception, and Man City's cheating the system. They need to be punished severely so this situation doesn't happen again.

And that's what FFP is there to do. It's not some conspiracy theory, Big Club invention. It's a very imperfect system to stop unethical business activities and keep some semblance of parity.

Most important thing to note? The above is my opinion, not fact.

For instance if you take a player like Ritchie who we paid around 40 million it probably would not sell for much under 100 million then for the accountants out then how much is he worth? Or what about a players like Gordon or Simms who at the moment cost development money but if they blossom to become absolute worldies ( which would be how it happens in Roy-of the Rovers) what is to say they are not worth 200 million.

FFP could have been adopted in the year 1567 of Our Lord, and you'd still be able to say:

Wasn't FFP brought in AFTER the mentioned clubs had invested hundreds of millions in large squads etc as well as ground improvements ?

They've been doing that forever. Any year FFP was brought into existence, pick one, your claim would still be valid. That's not a point to make if you're arguing FFP is an implemented, skewed system of control to keep those bigun's in power.

I'll take the former, not the latter, thank you very much.

😜

Thing is, Jamie, I'm not sure yet which side of the argument I come down on. As I say, a gang member falling out with a gang? now a place in that gang for us? Kenwright wearing his Peaky Blinders cap; DBB his moll.

That made me laugh. By the way, outstanding show the Peaky Blinders. Just brilliant.

Mike Gaynes @ 57 - swing and a whiff?

FFP is fundamentally flawed in that it focuses on an artificial construct - profit! As a result the leading clubs push their income generation to the extreme. Matchday, sponsorship, commercial are maxed. Directors of football have to generate player trading profits. When that's not enough to meet their costs the accountants and lawyers become creative in the first instance, and ultimately dishonest in extremis.
I agree totally with Jamie this second verdict and punishment is a reflection of City being found guilty of dishonesty and deception.

The PL response to their investigation will equally interesting

I don't agree Jamie. The escalation in transfer fees etc began with Abramovich and his Chelsea adventure. Prior to that plenty of clubs could afford players and wages but the sheer scale of Chelsea's spending took everybody by surprise. In the Premier League United And LFC were required to join in. Real Madrid and Barca etc also have a stranglehold in Spain. It's these clubs that bring in the cash and I believe it's in UEFA, and the FA's interest the they keep a status quo. Football is, again in my opinion, corrupt. If you're one of the people who think football is beyond corruption read the articles on corruption in Italian football that I mentioned on a thread last week. Since Sky money started pouring into football the temptation to cream some off has been there. It's existed in other sports why not football?
If you're in any doubt, is what City have done on anyway corrupt? If the answer is “ Yes” then there you are. Corruption in football. They've been caught, maybe others haven't.

Both have a similar recent history on the pitch -- rampant success in league play, utter failure in Europe. Both have spent wildly, although PSG has never been profitable while City has. And both have generated resentment by their virtually unlimited resources. So why, then, is PSG apparently a member of the "club" while City is considered an outsider? Is it because City has a powerful in-country enemy in the venerable and despicable ManUtd while PSG does not? Or does PSG just have better connections?

Also, if I understand correctly, what City did wrong that PSG didn't -- or rather, what Abu Dhabi did wrong that Qatar didn't -- was lie about the source and amount of their primary revenue stream. Assuming City understood the rigged nature of the FFP structure and knew they would be targeted, weren't City's owners really stupid to set themselves up for this by presenting the cadre with a golden opportunity to gut them? Especially since they'd been caught and punished before? Did they really think they wouldn't be caught again?

The article Brent linked included this quote: "It is possible to acknowledge City's wrongdoing but still hold nothing but contempt for the system that has found them guilty." But shouldn't there be a healthy serving of contempt for City's ownership as well? How is it they have again stepped on the well-marked land mine that PSG have avoided for so many years? Help me out here.

Jamie, I inadvertently submitted this before completing it, so deleted it and resubmitted.

PSG were very lucky.

City have broken the rules, received a paltry fine and continued to break the rules. The leaked emails suggest some institutional contempt for UEFA and it's rules, which I think has a bearing on the punishment.

I'm not convinced by the 'biased in favour of the elite' argument in this case (though not in others!). Milan were banned and I don't accept City are a poor, downtrodden club. Their billionaire owners have flagrantly flouted the rules. They are guilty. They deserve maximum punishment.

Surely the FA aren't going to retrospectively deduct points from City, thereby handing last years to LPL?

If they do, I'm done with football. If they take the title from City, then it should just be void.

On reflection, the happiest person here could be Guardiola. He departs, blaming UEFA, while another poor sap has to replace a large part of an ageing squad, while finding a top-notch centre-back and striker.

Ray I always remember a time that a banker in my weekend slip always let me down and it was always an Italian match.

Then I saw an article in which the legendary vialli was asked why at the end of the Serie A season the bottom placed teams seemed to go on tremdous runs! After his answer I have never bet on Italian football after the month of Jan again. He said that in Italy it is seen as disrespectful of a team that had met its objectives for the season eg champions league or Europa league, to play their full strength side or to their maximum capacity against a team fighting for points to secure survival. Basically if a team has nothing to play for, against struggling teams they don't bother!

We're in that period of time now. Once the euro qualification is secured in Italy, watch the results! This year may slightly differ due to them actually having a title race with 3 teams involved. But historically you can predict it!

Presumably Everton have clever financial experts working hard to make sure the club does not fall foul of either Premier League or EUFA FFP rules, and the recent City judgement will reinforce the importance of that. My understanding is that while owners are prevented from subsidising an operating loss, sponsorship income from a third party is acceptable provided it's at a commercially justifiable level. Assuming Usmanov is already financially involved with Moshiri's ownership of EFC, does that explain why he (Usmanov) doesn't have a declared ownership interest? Do they believe that income by way of sponsorship from Usmanov companies will be acceptable to the Premier League and EUFA provided Usmanov himself is not part of the ownership structure? If so that seems to be a very high risk strategy as it would only need one leaked email linking Usmanov to the club's ownership to bring down the whole house of cards. Can you reassure me that I'm worrying unnecessarily?

I understand that costs associated with stadium development are discounted from the FFP calculation. Does that mean the fee for the option to secure naming rights at BMD cannot be shown as income for the purposes of the FFP calculation?

I have to bow to your knowledge of this, as it's before my time.

I would ask though, how would you respond to the "Merseyside Millionaires" buying a title? Doesn't that quip / title alone back the claim that money has been buying success for years in footy?

Chelsea and the Russian aside?

Jamie 43 - FFP was put into place as a precautionary safeguard to prevent teams from spending beyond their means. Because the richest teams are the ones who generate the most revenue - through table finish, biggest sponsorship deals, most TV games, regular European competition, huge merch sales from gigantic global fanbases - they can spend the most, which has resulted in FFP now "protecting" them. Make the most money, be able to spend the most. Stockpile the world's best players. Meanwhile the very same FFP regulations prevent every other team from improving because they generate far less revenue. You only need to look at the revenue gap between Tottenham (6th most) and Everton (7th most); it's $100s of $1000s of dollars.

The REAL problem is the corruptness of the UEFA. Everything they do is geared towards ensuring the final 16 teams in the CL - a huge global moneymaker - are pretty much the 16 "best"/richest clubs in the world. UEFA doesn't want a Porto vs Sevilla CL finals.

Until there's a salary cap for every flight governed by UEFA, this will just go on and on and on. I find it frustratingly maddening that there's no salary cap like there is in every other major professional sports league.

Ray 47, 61 - spot on.

It would appear to me there was a ridiculously simply solution Man City could have employed to dodge FFP implications.

Their ownership have, basically, untapped wealth.

They could have started a financing company, and made a substantial loan to Man City Football Club, with payment terms being manageable and keeping them profitable.

A thirty year loan of 500 million Euros payable in monthly installments, keeping Man City's P&L in the black, financed by Abu Dhabi Investments, Inc.?

Maybe that's breaking FFP but I don't think so? If not, why in the world didn't they do that? Private financing seems to be the massive loophole, or am I missing something?

Carl, Good post, Italian football has been tainted by corruption for decades. I can't believe that it's only in Italy that they have had this problem. It's only in Italy that it's surfaced. I believe that, in years to come, there will be a major scandal in football. Too much money, too many dodgy agents, too many people on the gravy train.
Blatter, Platini, Infantine. No corruption? Yeah. Right.

He also helped out Liverpool, in the signing of Yeats, St. John, Milne and Thompson, at the very least. As well as providing management and accountancy expertise from Littlewoods. It got them promoted.

A lot was made of it at the time, especially by the London press, but Everton spent less than Spurs and Man U, both of whom spent a fortune on the likes of Greaves and Law from Italy.

So nothing much changes.

City's core issue was that player amortisations & wages were enormous relative to bona fide revenues.

It appears that UEFA thought that they inflated revenues via questionable sponsorships.

Finding money was not the problem. The problem was not having a big enough revenue stream.

The chess board is rigged in favour of those not likely to fall foul of the rules. New Money clubs will not be allowed to gatecrash the party.

For this reason, after City's experience, it ie worth keeping an eye on RB Leipzig's rise.

I have to say I find it difficult to see how we can do so in the absence of significant player sales.

Regarding Usmanov, it is USM that is the connected party not Usmanov. Usmanov has no direct connection with Everton. USM is connected because Moshiri is both Chairman of USM, a 10% shareholder and obviously majority shareholder in Everton.

Thus because USM is connected the value of the sponsorship deals have to be at fair value, or if not, any calculations for profit and loss (as calculated by the PL and UEFA) would only include the fair value element.

Regarding the 㿊 million payment by USM for a right of first refusal on Bramley-Moore, that deal was put before the PL prior to it being signed. The club are not expecting any issues regarding this either with the PL or UEFA.

Regarding infra-structure spending - the element that is ignored for FFP purposes is the financial costs associated with the building of the stadium. Thus for argument's sake if our interest costs are 㿀 million a year when we draw down our debt to build the stadium that interest cost would not be included in the profit and loss calculation

It's well documented now in a couple of books. Try ‘Money Can't Buy Us Love' and a prior one by a Liverpool historian, Tommy Allen. It certainly wasn't common knowledge at the time. I recommend both.

His Everton shares came through the Grantchester family, via his daughter, Betty. The Liverpool shares, came via his brother Cecil, and ended up with the idiot, Peter, who sold them to the Cowboys.

The FFP and Profit & Sustainability rules focus on profitability, ie the relationship between our costs (cash and non cash) and our income. Hence the importance of maximising turnover and the creative ways clubs are taking (including Everton) to increase turnover wherever possible.

It was a surprise to me as well.

It all comes down to performance on the pitch, and the background to building success. Even trying to achieve something in the near future, is hampered by previous actions.

FFP rules are going to feature as a consideration in any future plans and plotting a course around them is going to take wit and ablity. With Ancelotti, Everton stand a chance, because only a Manager of his experience and ability would be fit to hold up his end of the plan in such circumstances.

Everton will come under scrutiny, hopefully someone knows what they are doing.

Both players have already been replaced with more, young, hungry players. They took a risk on Schick after his big move “failed” and he's already scoring for fun for them.

Once teams have a reputation for playing and trusting young players they flock to a club. Leipzig and Dortmund are 2 excellent examples. Buy young and cheapish, sell 2 years later for huge sums.

Dortmund's balance sheet must look amazing! It will also get another huge boost when Sancho leaves this summer. Turning £6m into £120m in 2 years is insane. They did it with dembele also!

It seems the key to not having to worry about FFP is really having an amazing scouting network that find these guys the big big clubs have looked at but Ummm and arrrrr over.

If that's the case, I'm worried for my surfer boi, Tom Davies. He of fantastic, rockin', purple shoe fame.

Many think he isn't what we need. I argue otherwise. It may all be a moot point because someone will surely buy him for a pretty penny. If we adopt this young talent model - and look at our players they are all relatively young - we could sell 1-2 every year to balance the books, and back fill with up and coming talent. I think Tom could be a candidate for the sacrificial lamb.

I'd argue Pickford could be sold at a bigger profit, and I don't see a massive change of fortunes with or without him. As much as I do like him, if we have to make a move, and I were in charge, he'd be the one to go as I think it makes the most financial sense / is the most savvy "sell/profit to performance dip ratio" move we could make. We'd make good money, and I don't think it would affect our performance as much as others leaving the squad.

Who knows. All of this is fascinating to me, but it's honestly so out of my league. I'm pissin' in the baby pool, while these business decisions are swimming in the adult deep end.

Amit -

Good point about the P&L. You're correct about the interest affecting the P&L only. I honestly forgot that. I might add quite thankfully as I was drawing in part on personal, albeit limited, experience.

And the winner is...

PSG, Man City etc. have the funds but essentially cannot spend them, yet Man Utd are millions in debt but will never be restricted by FFP in the same way they or Everton are.

I guess this links back to the stadium and is the key point: the bigger the ground, the bigger our commercial footprint. It's not something I agree with and have long thought we should go ahead a spend, ignore FFP because eventually Man City or club with enough clout will take Uefa to court and blow the regulation to pieces, in effect doing the heavy lifting for a club like Everton. We aren't getting into Europe anyway under the current rules because we cannot spend on what we want when we want, so ignore them.

Man City have long been scoffed at for increasing their capacity and the Etihad is often seen only partly full, a futile attempt from them to grow beyond their natural hinterland. It hasn't worked.

The FFP regulation will be defeated; however, the need for reasonable financial control is still there. Let's face it, Moshiri could wake up tomorrow and take his ball with him because FFP, as it stands, is preventing him from bankrolling Everton. He could ask for his money back, à la Portsmouth; we don't have those funds, we would be ruined in one stroke. So what good is FFP? It's pretty much a restrictive trade practice.

FFP, I read, was about prevention of terminal debt. It feels like many clubs have stagnated and withered anyway because, as soon as they get good, they cannot spend (especially wages to retain their players) unless they sell their best asset, any success is fleeting and hence no clubs in our bracket have gotten near to challenging the elite under FFP. We cannot grow organically enough to compete.

I hope Man City destroy Uefa in court.

I have no confidence in Uefa's or Fifa's skill or will to get things right... I mean, look at VAR.

Any club should be allowed to live and die by legitimate sources of finance. If a club gets into bed with a nefarious benefactor, it's on the club for not doing proper due diligence, and if it's illegal by the law of the land, then take your punishment like a man.

Imagine Man Utd coming 5th, then imagine how messy this will become, and if cheating is wrong, maybe it's only because the masters make the rules – for both the wise men and the fools, in this instance!

City are like Everton, both of them have got huge fan-bases in their own country but, to become a super-club, you have to go and win in Europe's main competition.

I personally think City have got a lot of class as a football club right now, which is an absolute contradiction to the human rights issues that exist in their owners' land.

I couldn't believe they got off the bus and played at Anfield after what happened to their coach on the way into the ground two years ago, because I'm not sure any other club, would have went and done the same thing. And look at the paltry fine our neighbours got, probably because Man City just got on with it...

Whether the rule regarding seeding in the Champions League, or the 3rd-placed club in the Champions League groups being allowed to enter the Europa League. This is all done to protect the chosen few.

Now if they really wanted to produce a level playing field, then it's simple: bring in a salary cap, which includes player purchases and player wages.

They much like ourselves are hamstrung, very few clubs can sustain an incremental rise in line with FFP, because the top teams will always take you best players, because you aren't progressing fast enough (a top players career at the elite level might be only 10years) then they will leave. Therefore, the only realistic way is to catapult yourselves up there, which can only be achieved through a massive cash injection from sports groups or billionaires.

Whilst City might, we certainly cannot, so what hope a Forest or Villa, both previous champions of Europe? FFP stacks the deck to suppress growth in the name of preventing debt. The market place is meant to be free and dynamic in this case it prevents the mobility of a club to reach the top.

Look at social mobility, house prices have long since gone beyond the normal reach of regular people, that only they very rich can afford to buy and so the gap grows and very few now have the chance to make it big and bridge the gap. This feels like transfer fees which are a big problem. So inflated are the fees that it's impossible for Everton or others to have a competitive team. As such the big 12 can still buy under these market conditions more players than Everton can without it affecting their FFP, much like the richest can buy houses. The gap in both cases is so wide is now impossible to bridge unless you go outside the rules.

It's mad and very depressing, because really we don't stand a chance under these. Ask Paul if we wanted to increase our spending by say $50m (the price of one mega player?), what would the increased turnover be? I bet, with our footprint, it's almost impossible to generate enough money to stay compliant.

It could be bluff and bluster, but it looks like Man City have probably been preparing their case for a long-time. It wouldn't surprise me if they come out smelling of roses, especially because this case is really about money. It's not easy trying to suppress somebody who has plenty of money, although I'm not sure it's going to be a test-case for Usmanov, because I'm not sure it's going to go that far...

The Qatar World Cup investigations played a big part in his downfall. We can only speculate that a large part of the strategy and related information was provided by members of the ruling party of Qatar, helping to remove a perceived enemy of the ruling party of Abu Dhabi.

They are both from the same tribe.

Arrogant to the point of, "We don't like your rules. We aren't going to follow them. And we're so rich the rules don't apply to us because we can buy our way out of it. We're going to do whatever we like."

If you met a human being who thought this way, only one word would pop into your mind.

Douche.

I hope they fry.

These out-dated laws (imo) are about protecting certain clubs (again, imo). I always remember, after English clubs were allowed back into Europe, that they introduced a law that said clubs could only play 3 foreign players, which was fair enough... But it was definitely designed to stop the English (imo) because an Irish, Scottish or Welshman, were all deemed to be foreigners, and it possibly stopped Man Utd winning that trophy a few times during that era...

Rules change, and very rarely because of an injustice, Jamie, so this is why I find this intriguing and have gone on about it a bit too much. I wouldn't be surprised to see Uefa back down a bit, because Man City have got a lot of money, which definitely brings power? As if an American wouldn't know that!

By the time City's lawyers are through with Uefa, they'll have have wet themselves and given in. Bribes will be paid and, above all, the subjectivity of the process still gives Uefa its room for generosity towards City.

After all of Uefa's recent corruption scandals, only a few high-profile types were given the chop. The same crooks in the background are still running the show; it's still corrupt to the core.

Whether this is more sabre-rattling remains to be seen, but they're not known as a dynasty to pussy-foot around. The strong belief within the club is that the only way to deal with Uefa is with strong aggression. They're certainly doing that. Rob is more than likely right that the fix will also be going in.

One thing it says that it is strongly rumoured is that they've compiled/are compiling a pretty powerful dossier of the activities of other clubs, whether purely to do with FFP or other activities is not clear. Now that might be worth seeing.

The World Cup revenue makes the Premier League look poor! Where does all that money go? Why isn't it published and broken down?

Fifa earn $1.2 billion dollars a year profit! Where does it all go?

Where does it all go?

Swimming pools, jacuzzis, yachts and hookers!

We all know they're crooks and live on backhanders. Sheikh Mansoor has the resources to blow them away.

They are being investigated for breaking FFP rules again and again, even after being fined and warned multiple times. On top of this they have been uncooperative and have fiddled the books. FIFA had no other option but to be firm with them.

Liverpool have shown with clever buys in the right positions and the right manager you don't have to spend billions to get a well organised talented squad.

I do fear Richarlison will be sold for close to £90M in the summer though, unless we gain entry to Europe it will be hard to keep him.

Remember the Brazil world cup, where ranking FIFA officials were actually caught openly selling bundles of WC tickets to touts?

The Brazilian authorities, themselves no angels when it comes the movement of cash under the table were so embarrassed by this they had them arrested.

Qatar's "winning" bid for the WC?

I feel absolutely sure there everything was above board and not a single brown envelope was passed under the table for that one.

Another Sporting body with only the interests of mankind at heart, the IOC was investingated by the FBI and the results were interesting. The FBI investigated the finances of IOC members with children at American universities. It was found that the costs of education and their material worth (houses, cars etc), where often way in excess of their salaries.

And strangely enough they all had a Porsche 911 registered to their close relatives at the same time?

I've also always felt that some rules are there to be broken, especially rules that protect the elite few.

I understand that thought process and sentiment 100%. I'd argue that axiom is a wonderful one, outside of sport.
When the rule is set inside the construct of a game, you're looking at rich dudes thinking they can do whatever they want.

And think about what Daniel Johnson says:

I do fear Richarlison will be sold for close to £90M in the summer though, unless we gain entry to Europe it will be hard to keep him.

Why do we fear losing him? Because Everton are playing by the rules. A team that didn't kept a bunch of superstars, and because they ignored the rules and felt they were so high and mighty and entitled to, they won the league. Everyone else around them, sans Chelsea, played by the rules. And they suffered for it while Man City won a title, and pulled off a treble, by assembling an amazing squad they otherwise shouldn't have been allowed to assemble. They cheated.

Everything I need to know I learned in Kindergarten.

Cheating teams hurt those that don't cheat. That ain't right.

Fry. In hot oil, they need to fry.

I want Everton to be the best of the best but it may never happen, but I don't want Everton to be LFC MkII, we are who we are and they are who they are, quite separate entities and some would argue quite different in character.

Why should we sell Richarlison, why should he leave if he is happy? We'll never build a team if we constantly sell our best players prematurely.

You're right no one should be above the law and City aren't, but the laws laid down by UEFA are so elastic and open to interpretation, I would be surprised if this two year ban happens.

A clever legal team and even more brown envelopes will see city through this.

John Pierce talks about the inability of smaller clubs to attempt to make the leap upwards under FFP, and he's right. And whereas I'm arguing Man City should be harshly punished - and they should - I've consistently said the system is imperfect and severely flawed.

Uefa need to implement a salary cap. Pick a number that contracts / squeezes the top 10 to 12 clubs just a bit, adjust annually for inflation, and viola!

You have a competitive playing field at the top, new owners of smaller clubs can pump as much money as they like into the Club (gifts, NO LOANS by the way), and you've created a structure that loosely makes owners adhere to fiscal responsibility. They can't overpay the crap out of a bunch of players and buy a mega-team.

We have them here in the States. I'd argue they work pretty well.

I fully understand if you don't want to "Americanize" footy. But take the Stars and Stripes out of it, and it's a solid foundation to implement.

As long as you don't play Welcome to the Jungle at every sporting event at 200 decibels, you'll keep your independence from Uncle Sam's reach.

One was a team expensively assembled and brimming with players all 㿨M+ and the other team played by the rules and had Troy Deeney up front. These were two Premiership teams but the gulf in class was apparent and as City smashed in goal after goal it sat uneasy with me about how unfair and unjust it all was. I felt genuinely sorry for Watford at the time.

City have flaunted the rules and acquired a squad at great expense, a squad which has won them every trophy they could buy except the one where they come up against fellow crooks and rule flaunters (the champions league).

I 100% hope they do get punished.

I said the same thing in post 100. This is not about trying to have a level playing field, as a salary cap would do that very easily but Barcelona couldnt pay Messi £600,000 plus per week and Real couldnt pay Bale £600,000 per week. But FFP was brought in by the cartel and maintained by the cartel, to stop upstart clubs like City acquiring a rich owner wanting to pump millions into his football club.

Football is a business and I cant think of a business outside of sport that prevents the owners from pumping millions of their own money into their business. As I say if you want to have a level playing field a salary cap will do it, but I hope Citys lawyers drive a horse and cart through the FFP rules.

I should have also added that I would make it a law of the land that anybody who takes over a football club and pumps millions into the club, must also be made to have a bond that will stop them walking away from the club and transferring the debt to the club. So they will then by law have to leave the club financially no worse off than when they took it over.

I missed your comment at 100 - sorry! Didn't mean to plagiarize!

I love your idea of a bond needing to be issued for new owners.

No matter how this pans out, one thing is for sure, it's going to be very interesting to see how the CAS rules in this matter. The saddest thing is that due to the corruption in Uefa and FIFA, no matter what happens, the cynics will win. Payoffs, personal vendettas, etc. will always be spun due to Uefa's horrific history dealing ethically.

Credibility - a vastly underrated business trait.

Where in the world is the EDIT button, Lyndon and Michael?

Poor Lyndon spent an hour (probably) on one of my posts a day or two ago, cleaning the damn thing up.

Bring back that edit button! Not for me, for you!

The current punishment relates to the sponsorships prior to 2016 and to City falsifying evidence.

Could get messy.

See David Conn, again in the Guardian. He gas a pretty good track record in these investigative reports

Money spoils all.

When is a foul, not a foul? Usually when the ref doesn't give it, or when it's an ex-Liverpool player in the studios!

Listening to Robertson, is better, because he's telling everyone how to beat them, first you've got to just get under their fucking skin! Goodnight.

Their silence speaks volumes.

A can of worms escaped from the genie's bottle when they opened this FFP pandora's box.

Jamie @ 124: Edit;...see, it does work. Uncle Sam in the form of the almighty Dollar or Pound or Euro is already here.

Who do we cheer for – bent Uefa for attacking bent City?

Or bent City for standing against the stupid status quo bent FFP rules... and that's before we even get to the bent VAR of the bent Premier League.