Gemmill 44107 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Chelsea is facing legal curbs on its vast spending power. New rules which could be brought in next season would end the club's ability to buy the biggest stars with ease. There is growing anger at the unfairness of Chelsea's wealth among football bosses, the game's governing body in Europe Uefa and EU sports ministers. Their main objection is that Chelsea FC is allowed to run up massive losses as a business while spending hundreds of millions on players because the club is bankrolled by Roman Abramovich. Sports minister Richard Caborn attended a Brussels meeting which discussed reining in Chelsea. He said: "There is support for the idea of introducing a better relationship between income earned by clubs and the amounts spent." Since Mr Abramovich took over the club has spent £276 million on players and made losses of £228 million. Ministers believe they can act against clubs because the massive losses run up by the biggest spenders - especially Chelsea - are effectively subsidies which are subject to normal company laws. They say any other industry handed the same kind of subsidies as some football clubs would face investigations from the European bodies which regulate competition. There is growing support across Europe for a new licensing system which would limit how much a club could spend on players and salaries. The exact spending limits have yet to be finalised but they are likely to be a ratio of a club's turnover or profit. The spending limits are being drawn up by UEFA and the governments of Europe's leading football nations - Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, France and Portugal. The licensing rules, which would have legal status in Europe and be policed by UEFA, also include new regulations on agents and the financial structures of clubs as well as a "fit and proper" persons test for club owners. The regulations are expected to be discussed by European prime ministers at a meeting in Finland and could be introduced in time for the start of next season. Chelsea FC's spending on players dwarfs its turnover. Its signings this summer alone included Andriy Shevchenko at £30million and Michael Ballack who came on a free transfer but is paid a record £130,000 a week. Since the Abramovich takeover Chelsea has bought, among others, Claude Makelele for £16.6 million, Michael Essien for £24.4 million, Ricardo Carvalho for £19.8 million and Didier Drogba for £24 million. Mr Abramovich, 39, is Britain's second richest man and 11th richest in the world. He made his fortune, estimated at £10.2 billion, when he became majority shareholder in oil company Sibneft after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Chelsea refused to comment today. But it is understood that the club is frustrated that they are regarded as Europe's big spenders when other clubs such as Real Madrid and Inter Milan are also very active in the transfer market. Mr Caborn said he hoped an agreement on the new EU licensing system would be reached by the end of the year. He said the new system would bring in " quality governance and quality regulations" to stop the sport being tarnished. Mr Caborn said it was for the Football Association and the Premiership to investigate allegations of widespread corruption in the English game made in the Panorama. Spotted this on NO from the Evening Standard. Sounds like a viable means of putting an end to their ridiculous spending and making it a slightly more level playing field - if things continue as they are the Premiership is going to get very boring, very quickly (even more so than at present). Anyway, what do we reckon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44107 Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share Posted September 20, 2006 By the way, I had no idea they spend £19.8m on Carvalho. Jesus Christ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Maul 0 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 It would hinder the small clubs aswell though, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Shirley this would mean the big clubs will just set up their own 'superleague' outside of uefa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Maul 0 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Shirley this would mean the big clubs will just set up their own 'superleague' outside of uefa. Aye, the G-14 could just branch off and play each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44107 Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share Posted September 20, 2006 It would hinder the small clubs aswell though, wouldn't it? Don't think so. All it's asking is that clubs spend within their means and don't receive huge cash injections for players whilst making massive losses a la Chelsea. The small clubs already live within their means - even if you're taking on debt to finance transfers, as long as the debt is manageable and you can find someone to loan you it, then you could still go ahead with it. I don't think it would affect smaller clubs at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30166 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Shirley this would mean the big clubs will just set up their own 'superleague' outside of uefa. I think the pressure is coming from the EU so setting up outside UEFA wouldn't make a difference. I've been saying this is the way it should be done for ages, either this or spending power is determined by how northern within its country a club is based. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44107 Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share Posted September 20, 2006 Shirley this would mean the big clubs will just set up their own 'superleague' outside of uefa. Aye, the G-14 could just branch off and play each other Not really cos most of the G-14 aren't in the position that Chelsea are in. Do you think Man United would rather join a superleague that allowed Chelsea to spend £150m every summer, and walk this superleague every year, or allow UEFA to put a stop to Chelsea's ridiculous spending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Shirley this would mean the big clubs will just set up their own 'superleague' outside of uefa. I think the pressure is coming from the EU so setting up outside UEFA wouldn't make a difference. I've been saying this is the way it should be done for ages, either this or spending power is determined by how northern within its country a club is based. the article said any regulations would be policed by uefa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 As I mentioned on N-O, didn't Fiorentina get relegated after this was brought in in Italy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Maul 0 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 As I mentioned on N-O, didn't Fiorentina get relegated after this was brought in in Italy? I thought they were just in a bad state financially anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 As I mentioned on N-O, didn't Fiorentina get relegated after this was brought in in Italy? I thought they were just in a bad state financially anyway. Aye, but they had to put their financial house in order otherwise they faced relegation. Or so I thought anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44107 Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share Posted September 20, 2006 I don't know much about the Fiorentina story, but did they not just go bankrupt or something? Matt knows the craic re Fiorentina so if he's on later he'll fill us in. Per Wikipedia: 2001 heralded major changes for Fiorentina, as the terrible state of the club's finances was revealed; they were unable to pay wages and had debts of around USD 50 million. The club owner, Vittorio Cecchi Gori, was able to raise some more money, but even this soon proved to be insufficient resources to sustain the club. Then, Fiorentina were relegated at the end of the 2001-2002 season and went into judicially controlled administration in June 2002. This form of bankruptcy (sports companies cannot exactly fail in this way in Italy, but they can suffer a similar procedure) meant that the club was refused a place in Serie B for the 2002-2003 season, and as a result, effectively ceased to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3788 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Shirley this would mean the big clubs will just set up their own 'superleague' outside of uefa. Aye, the G-14 could just branch off and play each other Not really cos most of the G-14 aren't in the position that Chelsea are in. Do you think Man United would rather join a superleague that allowed Chelsea to spend £150m every summer, and walk this superleague every year, or allow UEFA to put a stop to Chelsea's ridiculous spending? The G-14 give empty threats year after year. They know that if they split from their leagues they wouldn't get the best players (they wouldnt be elligible for their country). And the league would be popular for a week. Man u fans don't give a toss about playing real madrid and the others week in week out. And before anyone says the intl marketing crap. Let's see what happens to the first team to operate without it's fans. Oh yeah that would be the MK Dons now residing in League 2. I know this isn't an exact comparison but they were in the EPL not that long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Why stop there? Why not just enforce the removal of all financing from football, and reunite under a One World Socialist Order, with the benevolent Chancellor Renton at its head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1217 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 This sounds like the big European clubs are crying because they are no longer the teams the most money and are trying to get UEFA to do something about it. Surely lots of Europe's elite have been bankrolled by someone or another. Weren't Madrid shit deep in debt until the government bought their training ground off them for some ridiculous amount? Not that I'm against the principle of curbing Chelski's spending like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordieshandy 0 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Chelsea aren't in the G14 though are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Isn't there something already in place sort of? as Hartlepool couldn't buy any players because there wages ratio to income was over a certain amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1217 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Isn't there something already in place sort of? as Hartlepool couldn't buy any players because there wages ratio to income was over a certain amount. I think that's right but surely Chelski must we way over this. Ballack, Shevchenco, Lampard, Terry & Cole must all be on about £100k+ a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima 0 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Chelsea aren't in the G14 though are they? No. Even so, the G-14 will never let this happen. They hold all of the cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaser 1199 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 If Abramovich is Britains 2nd richest man, who is the richest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 If Abramovich is Britains 2nd richest man, who is the richest? That steel magnate bloke. He's Asian / of Asian descent. Forgotten his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima 0 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 (edited) Lakshmi Mittal. Maybe I shouldn't have named him, he'll be inundated with e-mails advertising golf courses Edited September 20, 2006 by Sima Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Bless you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30166 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Shirley this would mean the big clubs will just set up their own 'superleague' outside of uefa. I think the pressure is coming from the EU so setting up outside UEFA wouldn't make a difference. I've been saying this is the way it should be done for ages, either this or spending power is determined by how northern within its country a club is based. the article said any regulations would be policed by uefa. It may be UEFA drawing up and implementing new rules but the pressure is coming from the EU and our government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now