Uefa's version of FFP requires that clubs break even, spending only what they earn from commercial sources, rather than relying on benefactors such as Roman Abramovich injecting huge sums to underwrite losses.
Under the Uefa rules, club owners can underwrite losses of up to €45 milliion (£36.3 million) over the first three seasons of FFP. Any Premier League version of the rule will have to allow for greater losses, if it is to gain the support of 14 clubs required for a change in the regulations.
While 16 clubs support a break-even rule, their definition of what it should be in detail, and crucially how much clubs should be able to lose, varies widely.
At one end of the spectrum are those with most to gain from a strict break-even rule, Arsenal and Manchester United, whose large grounds and well-developed commercial programmes deliver profits, as well as Liverpool. They would like to see the league stick to the Uefa system, with clubs allowed a period of adjustment to the rules before adhering to a strict break-even rule.
At the other end are Chelsea, who say they support break-even but want to reserve the right for Abramovich to inject unlimited funds, as long as it is in the form of equity rather than loans. Last week the club declared a profit of £1.4 million, the first of the Abramovich era, but also announced that the owner had converted £166 million of loans into equity.
In the middle is a rump of clubs who want the security that FFP might provide, as well as the competitive benefits, but do not want to tie their hands should they be the target of the next super-rich investor who eyes a Premier League club.
City and Fulham object because they rely so transparently on rich owners, and Everton do not want to do anything that might harm Bill Kenwright's chances of selling the club. West Bromwich Albion, who adhere to a break-even model, are understood to believe it is up to each club to set their own course.
No comments:
Post a Comment