- Yeni teklifler kabul görürse, ilk yıl 50 mn Euro zarar kabul edilebilir olacak, 2. yıl 40, 3. yıl 30 ve son olarak 4. yıl ise 20 milyon Euro zarar kabul edilebilecek.
- Futbolculara ödenen ücret sınırında da değişikliğe gidilebilecek. Şampiyonlar ligi ve AVrupa ligi için farklı sınırlar uygulanabilecek.
- Futbolcu yetiştirmeye %5 bütçe ayıran kulüplerin zarar sınırı yükseltilebilecek
- Borç / özkaynak oranı FFP parametreleri arasına alınacak. Net borç net aktiflerin (özkaynak) 3 katı olabilecek.
- Değişik ülkelerdeki vergi ve sosyal güvenlik ödemeleri hesaplamalarda eşitlik yaratmak amacıyla eşitlenecek. farklı oranların yarattığı etkiler sıfırlanacak.
- Bonservislerde 3. parti (futbolcu bonservis alımlarında kısmi ortakların olması) uygulamasına son verilebilecek.
Financial Fair Play, all requests of clubs to UEFA
The last 13 October was held in Nyon a meeting between the leadership of’Uefa and the main stakeholders (stakeholders) European football to discuss the regulation on financial fair play and check the results after the first year of entry into force. During the meeting, chaired by Michel Platini, which was attended by representatives of the English Football Association (Football Association), European Club Association (ECA), European Professional Football Leagues (EPFL), FIFPro Division Europe, German Football Association (DFL) and several clubs, among which Milan, Ajax, Bayern Monaco, Zenit, Juventus, Manchester City, Olympiacos, Olympique Lyonnais, Paris Saint-Germain and Real Madrid, clubs have submitted to Uefa some observations and proposals to improve the regulation in force, taking into account the context in which it currently the European economy.
At the end of the meeting, Uefa announced that in an atmosphere of total openness, the participants reiterated their support for the club licensing and financial fair play, also talking about possible changes to the system and examining various issues such as investment, debts, crystallization system, fair value of the transactions, financial circumstances / Legal in the various countries and the perceived benefits from the clubs who have not participated in European competitions the previous season. Today Calcioefinanza.it is able to document in detail what were the proposed amendments made by the club, the content of which is summarized in the following slide.
http://www.calcioefinanza.it/2015/01/13/fair-play-finanziario-tutte-le-richieste-dei-club-alluefa/?lang=en
So the club want to revolutionize the Financial Fair Play
Change Financial Fair Play, to encourage investment in new foreign partners in European football. But also introduction of spending limits for players, new incentives for the development of the youth sector and monitoring Uefa well on debt. This would be, has learned from Calcioefinanza.it, the proposal that the member companies to 'European Club Association(Eca) they would get on the table Michel Platini in recent weeks and has already found some first timid opening by UEFA. Although it is said that the evaluation of the proposal, that C&F is able to document in detail, will be discussed already in the next executive committee meeting scheduled for Monday 26 January.
The new FFP, if it were approved by UEFA, would bring important benefits to some Italian clubs, especially for the point that relates to the new investors. On the one hand there are Inter and Rome, which in recent years have been purchased by foreign entrepreneurs who, in the grip of the current stakes of the Financial Fair Play, up to now have not had large maneuvering spaces. On the other side there is the Milan, that after the renewed agreement with Emirates has long been on the hunt for new members, as to enter the capital for at least part of the money needed for the new stadium property. The request of the club does not intend to scuttle the set of rules by Platini wanted to improve the economic and financial capacity of the continental football. The aim is to transform the Financial Fair Play in a more flexible rule, suited to today's economic situation (other than that in which the FFP was elaborated) and best suited to attract new investors.
Erick Thohir
It is no coincidence that Umberto Gandini, director of the organization of sports and Milan vice president ECA, last December has declared that "Financial fair play has brought a bit’ common sense in the management of European clubs. And’ was a success in terms of reductions in overall losses for European football. On the other hand there is, however, to be considered as some clubs because of this are crystallized, There are investors who would like to get into the game but are held back from this very mechanism. In Europe at the moment there are only 5-6 great club, that to which the Uefa should aim is to have at least 20 big club ".
ASK WHAT THE CLUB
Raising the threshold of loss accepted
Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan
The current rules of FFP were designed and approved in a period when the crisis was attacking the European financial stability. To protect the system from possible inflation that the arrival of new investors could generate, so it was decided to accelerate the time of its approval, in September 2009 (exactly one year after the arrival of the sheikhsManchester City). The times have changed, however, and many non-European investors continue to knock on Europe's football. The first point of the document arrived on the table UEFA concerns so called "Welcome Package" (Welcome package). It is new thresholds of maximum loss for the companies controlled by new investors, defined to boost their investments. The proposal provides that clubs in the capital of which entered (or enter) New investors can afford a maximum loss of 50 million euro in the first year, and then decreased to 40 million in the second, to 30 in the third and finally to 20 in the fourth. Also, to ensure stability in the 4 years, the clubs would be asked for a guarantee of 50% compared to the losses that will be proposed in the business plan.
Salary cap for engagements and amortization
Cristiano Ronaldo
The second point in the proposal under review by the Uefa regards the salary cap, ie the cost cap for players. The FFP was developed to curb the excessive increase of the salaries of players, which over the years had caused huge losses to the club. The Uefa however not succeeded in, for two reasons. The first, yes because many clubs have reduced losses, but for their ability to spend less due to the crisis and not for the application of the rules of FFP. The second, because the rules Uefa favored what they wanted to fight, ie the raising of salaries, because of the huge revenues achieved by the big clubs. A fact confirmed by the last comparative report drafted by Nyon on club licensing, where it is explained that "the revenues of European clubs have increased by 42% between 2007 and the 2012, however exceeded the wages of European clubs, increased in turn of the 59% in the same five-year period ". L’Idea, in this case, is to establish a salary cap default gigs and amortization of 200 million euro for the teams involved in the Champions League and 125 million for those in the Europa League.
Is Ac 5% revenues to be allocated to nurseries
In FFP as we know it now, a part of the rules was earmarked for the development of the youth sector. Uefa had in fact excluded the costs for the facilities to be allocated to young players from the "break-even rule", which foresees the achievement of a balanced budget through the coverage of costs with its revenues. Many clubs have used this exclusion of the costs to develop the youth, but to decrease their losses. The new proposal aims to give more certainty on the money to be devoted to young people. This is why the club have asked the Uefa that the 5% revenues of the clubs to be targeted in a binding way to nurseries. With a benefit attached: Who will follow this rule, will enjoy a higher maximum acceptable loss.
Debt / equity ratio between parameters FFP
In the last months of 2014, the part of "Arab" led by ECA Manchester City and Psg, still smarting from the sanctions of the FFP it underwent in May, had led a revolt against the mainly Spanish. The demand for these clubs was to enter the debt between the parameters of the FFP, just to hit the competitors Real Madrid and Barcelona, accused of being too exposed on the front debt. An accusation true in part, because the last accounts of Real, in particular, have shown that the enormous revenues club (549 millions of euro) was accompanied by a reduction in net debt of 21% compared to 2013 (71 million euro in the 2014). But it is true that in these market conditions, the economic sustainability of the teams should be governed by certain indicators of debt. On this point, clubs have proposed that net debt will be 3 times higher than the net assets of the club.
Equalize all clubs belonging to different tax regimes
Andrea Agnelli and Adriano Galliani
Poste differences between countries in terms of social security and taxation on labor costs, clubs have asked the Uefa excluding taxes on labor from the calculation of staff costs. The goal is to equate all football clubs that belong to different tax. A measure, quest’ultima, repeatedly requested by the President of Juventus, Andrea Agnelli, and Vice-President of the Milan, Adriano Galliani, with reference to 'IRAPwhich weighs heavily on the accounts of the club Serie A.
Stop alle Tpo in territorio Uefa
The phenomenon of so-called third-party (Third party ownership, TPO) was growing steadily in recent years. The most sensational case of entanglement between an investment fund and a club that remains between the Dean e l’Atletico Madrid, as part of the purchase of Radamel Falcao. Where the card was purchased from Port to 40 millions of euro, of which only 18 were paid by 'Atletico: the remaining part was covered by Doyen, which then divided them with Mattress 45 million on 60 from the sale of the attacker to Monaco. An operation unclear, that can leave traces on the final year-end. And the difficulty is to precisely track all transactions carried out by investment funds, is to understand the real effects on the budgets of the teams, the Eca asked the UEFA to exclude the OPT from Europe. This would, essentially, to incorporate the norm Fifa, who has decided to ban them officially as of 1 May 2015.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder