Arsenal Rumours Archive December 15 2012

15 Dec 2012 20:02:41
CAVANI will not leave NAPOLI until he has broken Maradonna's SCORING RECORD.
He will not leave for less than £40 million and he won't go to a team, not in the Champions League.

Right. Thanks for that revelation!

15 Dec 2012 16:33:24
Ed, is there any interest from Arsenal, for young defenders Liam Moore of Leicester City or Luke Shaw of Southampton? {Ed002's Note - Don't know about Moore but I understand that Arsenal is one of the clubs interest in the "not for sale" Luke Shaw.}

When a club let's it be known they have an interest in a player who is not for sale, it indicates to me they are only trying to con their supporters!
Don't worry, you are not alone-Chelsea, and those two little clubs from Manchester have been told the same.

If Southampton were promoting they had an interest in Messi, what would you think?

I know your boss is under pressure but he seems to have lost it a bit recently.

Is this a saints fan.

15 Dec 2012 14:03:36
Adrian from Atletico Madrid. Most likely coming to Arsenal.

Zaha to Arsenal is done.

Sliced Bread

Exactly how is Zaha to Arsenal done?

As in a deal has been agreed.

There's a huge process behind every deal.
Formalities will be completed when the window opens.

Sliced Bread

So if the formalities have yet to be completed then it's not done.

I think everyone hear would love a pound for every time we've read on here that a deal is done. We'd be able to afford an over-priced Ivorian winger by now!

Not Adrian Durham?

If you put a pound on this happening you'll thank me later. Zaha's done. Irrespective of what some people on a rumours site think :)

Sliced Bread

I hope not !!!!!!!!!!!!

We need proven experienced players not more could be good be good in 2-3 seasons

we need to sign players like Ben Afra. M'villa

Sign Zaha, if we wait his price will skyrocket and he'll go to chelsea or man city/united

15 Dec 2012 11:40:54
to be honest i don't care if huntelaar is off to inter milan. like i said in a previous post if we've been promised substantial funds then break the bank and buy someone like cavani not a 29 year old who's been here there and everywhere. i know there's a split decision on here about huntelaar but ive never rated him. we could even get demba ba for 7 million in jan if his get out clause still is the same. i'm also not that excited about us supposedly wanting pepe reina from liverpool, we don't need him at all the only liverpool player i'd be excited about is sterling if we got him and i'd also love us to launch a bid for fellani. but we probably won't sign anyone exciting because i see wenger in a interview yesterday and he said he has a strong squad and a good group of players so let's not get our hopes up about anything exciting happening in jan.

another thing if we beat reading on monday that won't make a blind bit of difference because the problems are still there. we should really win our next four games but can't see it happening but if we do i've got a feeling that wenger will feel there's no need to strengthen the squad in jan

gooner mark

Is wenger going to say any different? He can't say he's got a terrible squad and no quality.

15 Dec 2012 07:49:08
{Ed002's Note - From reading a number of recent messages it seems that this would be an appropriate time to reprise the FFFR post:

The Demystification of the Financial Fair Play Rules (FFPR)
Introduction
I will try and simplify and summarise the FFPR and give examples where I can.
Putting aside all of the �mother country� fluff, the fundamental purpose of the FFPR is to:
(1) Ensure that clubs are operating within their means with transparent financial reporting. Example: Arsenal has debt which they can manage from the money they make as a club (good). Anzhi has a very low turnover given the amount of money they spend on players through donations from wealthy owners (bad).
(2) Protect creditors. Example: When Portsmouth went bust they owed money for players (the extreme case being Glen Johnson who had moved to Liverpool but Portsmouth still owed Chelsea for), money to local businesses (tradesmen who had worked at the ground, newsagents etc.), utility companies, the police et al (bad).
(3) Encourage responsible spending. Example: Liverpool under Hicks and Gillett borrowed money against the value of the club in order to buy players (bad).
(4) Protect the long-term viability of European club football. Example: They want to avoid the scenario of clubs entering administration or going out of business.
The FFPR apply to all UEFA club competitions and will actively come in to force from the end of June 2014 taking account of the financial monitoring period (the season just finished) and the two prior reporting periods (the two seasons before that). So when they first start, the FFPR will look at the 2013/2014 returns, and they will give consideration to the 2011/12 and 2012/13 figures.
I should make clear that it is not the full accounts of a club that are being considered, but just the �relevant� income and the �relevant� expenses. �Excluded� expenses are critical to the FFPR calculations. To this end, all clubs will need to effectively produce two sets of accounts. An audited set which are provided to Companies House and the relevant revenue organisations, and a second audited return laying out the �relevant� income and the �relevant� expenses for the purpose of the FFPR.
Relevant Income
(1) Match day gate receipts. Example: The money made by the club from paying fans attending games. This includes income from cup games when played away from home � where a proportion of the gate money goes to the away side.
(2) Broadcasting rights. Example: Television income for games, money provided for radio broadcasting.
(3) Income from commercial activities. Example: Sales of bobble hats and rattles, club shop income, licensed income (e.g. DVD sales). In the future you can expect to see income from other media (e.g. streaming of games on a pay-per-view basis to the web and phones) increase.
(4) Prize money. Example: income from the Premier League, Champions League etc..
(5) Sponsorship. Example: Shirt sponsors (Standard Chartered, Samsung etc.), shirt manufactures (Adidas, Warrior etc.).
(6) Advertising. Example: Companies who buy time on video screens during games or hoardings at the stadium.
(7) Other operating income. Example: Payments made to a club for playing friendly matches in the Far East.
(8) Income from transfers: Example: All income from the sale of a player regardless of payment being due to previous clubs, the player himself etc. as they are allowable expenses which will later be deducted.
(9) Excess proceeds on the sale of tangible fixed assets. Example: The money Arsenal from converting part of Highbury in to apartments and selling them.
(10) Other income: Example: Interest on investments.
Relevant Expenses
(1) The costs of running the business (confusingly referred to as �the cost of sales� by accountants etc.). Example: Wages, ground maintenance, lighting, telephones, IT equipment, travel costs, policing costs etc..
(2) Employee related benefits and associated costs. Example: Costs of providing insurance, dental care, medical, employer NI contribution, housing, loyalty bonuses etc..
(3) Other operating expenses. Example: Payments for advertising, legal fees, agent fees, accounting fees, payments to players in relation to transfers, payments to player�s previous clubs, etc..
(4) Amortisation or transfer costs. Example: The total amount of money paid to another club to transfer a player or, if a club decides to do so, the amortised cost for that year (where a club is spreading the cost of the transfer out over the length of his contract for accounting purposes).
(5) Finance costs. Example: Bank charges, interest on loans etc..
(6) Dividends. Example: The owners may take a dividend from the profits a club makes as income.
Excluded Expenses
(1) Depreciation of tangible fixed assets. Example: The loss, if any, in value of the stadium, cars, IT equipment etc..
(2) Costs associated with the intangible fixed assets (other than player registrations). Example: goodwill, franchises, trademarks, copyrights etc..
(3) Expenditure on youth development activities. Example: All youth development expenses (housing, schooling, travel, medical etc.) are excluded from the calculations.
(4) Community development activities. Example: Outreach programmes, donations to the local community and charities, provision of equipment etc..
(5) Tax expenses. Example: Monies paid to the Inland Revenue, VAT etc..
(6) Finance costs related to construction of tangible fixed assets. Example: The interest on the £300M loan to build a new stadium.
(7) Interest payments on old loans (pre June 1, 2011). Example: Any interest due on a loan taken out for whatever purpose before June 1, 2011 is excluded from the calculations.
(8) Certain expenses from non-football operations. Example: This does not really apply to British clubs, but in other European countries clubs are often �sporting clubs� and have basketball, football, hockey team etc. all under one business.
The Calculation
FFPR calculates from a club�s �relevant� income and the �relevant� expenses whether the club is running at a surplus (profit) or deficit (loss) within a Monitoring Period (e.g. 2013/14). From this the FFPR decides if a club has met the �break even� requirement or not. This is not met if the �relevant� expenses exceed the �relevant� income by more than 5M euros (an acceptable deviation).
If the club exceeds this acceptable deviation, the owners of a club may contribute toward correcting it to a maximum of 45M euro over a rolling three year period (30M euro from 2015/16 on). Example: If Club X made a loss of 50M euro in 2013/14 due to the purchase of players, the calculation will ignore the first 5M euro and assume an owner contribution of 45M euro and there would not be an issue. However, for the two years following, there would be no allowable owner contribution as the full allocation had been used. If Club Y made a loss of 30M euro in 2013/14 due to the purchase of players, the calculation will ignore the first 5M euro and assume an owner contribution of 25M euro and there would not be an issue. But in this case, for the two years following, there would still be 20M euro allowable as owner contribution to cover further losses.
The Punishment
The Threat: If a club has been determined to have violated the �break even� requirement for a season it may be excluded from the next season�s UEFA competitions.
Likely Situation: If a club can show it has been moving in the right direction and doing what it can to overcome financial issues, perhaps brought on by a recession (e.g. in Spain) then I would expect a strongly worded letter as a warning. Perhaps by then end of the 2016/2017 season, If a club has been determined to have violated the �break even� requirement for several seasons then it may be excluded from the next season�s UEFA competitions.
UEFA are willing to make some exceptions to the rule and have already said they will consider:
(1) The quantum and trend of the break even result. Example: Chelsea has spent a lot this summer rebuilding an aging squad, so even with considerable additional income from winning the Champions League it could violate the �break even� requirement. However, spending less next season will show the club moving in the right direction. Expect a strongly worded letter in a couple of years time.
(2) Debt situation. Example: A possible �get out� for Barcelona, Real Madrid and Manchester United should they have a bad season and need to violate the �break even� requirement. Consideration will be given to the existing debt and the ability of the clubs to service that debt. The trend of the debt reducing and an excuse of �one bad season� and �need to rebuild the team� would likely result in a slapped wrist.
(3) Fluctuating exchange rates. Example: All non eurozone countries need to report the FFPR figures in euros which could fluctuate due to the exchange rate, whereas a number of the UEFA figures are fixed amounts (e.g. the 5M euro acceptable deviation).
(4) Projected figures. Example: UEFA will allow clubs to show that they are moving in the right direction if they provide projected figures showing that the �break even� requirement will be met in the following season.
(5) Force majeure. Example: Any extraordinary events or situation arising that is beyond the club�s control will be taken in to account.
(6) Until then end of 2014/15 only - Ongoing reductions in wage costs. UEFA will be flexible over the �break even� requirement if a club can show that their wage bill has been reducing and with the exclusion of wages of players signed before June 1, 2010 they would have met the �break even� requirement. Example: An escape route for the likes of Chelsea prior to this season with Drogba, Anelka, Bosingwa, Kalou, Cech, Terry, Lampard etc. wages excluded from the calculations. A possible future escape route for the likes of Barcelona.
The Issues
There are a number of matters that UEFA still need to figure out and a number of concerns that certain clubs and certain national associations have. Off the top of my head:
(1) Loopholes: Whilst UEFA has done what it can to block any potential �loopholes� it is well aware that exclusion of wages for players signed before June 2010 is one it has introduced itself, and one that will be popular with the higher paying clubs as a short term escape route through to the summer of 2015. The matters of excessive sponsorship will be addressed via a cap to thwart the concerns over the likes of Manchester City abusing the rules. The cap has yet to be finalised but will require ratification.
(2) Soft Sponsorship: UEFA are concerned at the aggressive approach to obtaining sponsorship some clubs are taking. Questions are being asked about the ethics in clubs having airline travel partners, photocopier partners etc.. The Spanish clubs have raised this as a concern.
(3) National Sponsorship Variations: As we have seen tobacco sponsorship leave Formula 1 UEFA would like to see alcohol sponsorship out of football. We already have a situation where sponsorship by alcohol related businesses are forbidden in certain countries. Wealthy breweries are now focussing their sponsorship in other countries thereby creating a perceived imbalance in what income clubs are able to obtain in sponsorship. The French and Russian clubs have raised this as a concern.
(4) National Financial Distribution Variations: Concerns exist in countries where different models are used for distributing prize money, contributing to the grassroots game and distributing income from television and other media broadcasting. This led to an original request (rejected) from a number of clubs to restrict the FFPR to only the wealthiest of clubs, those with a turnover in excess of xM euros.
(5) National Taxation Variations: There is a considerable difference across UEFA nations in taxation, and this is seen to be reflected in the wages paid to players. The Spanish clubs have raised this as a concern.
(6) Third Party Ownership: Countries that allow third party ownership of players are seen to have a distinct advantage in being able to keep the costs of transfer fees low as they are only paying for a proportion of a player. The English clubs have raised this as a concern.
The Great Fear
Without going in to too much detail: (a) A number of clubs take the opportunity a once or twice a year to discuss various issues including changes in rules, television rights, the power of UEFA, exploitation issues for new technology streams, etc.. These discussions, the last of which were in late August, also always turn to the possibility and structure of a breakaway pan European league. Several are ex-G14 clubs, several are not, and some clubs decline involvement in such discussions. (b) The plan is that at some point a number of clubs would break away from their national leagues and UEFA. They accept that they would be banned from all existing club competition and the players would initially be banned from all FIFA competitions as well, but know that FIFA would be looking to negotiate in any case. It would be the end of UEFA in all probability and UEFA are very aware of this. It would also result in a restructuring of many of the national leagues. (c) The clubs would renegotiate their television rights, rights of distribution via other streams etc.. (d) It remains the greatest fear of UEFA and all major national authorities that one day this will happen.
}

15 Dec 2012 14:55:33
Crikey, that was a good read!

So, as I take it, in summary. You can break the rules if you want/have to in order to stay competitive as long as you can prove that there is a good enough reason and you don't do it too often.
There is no way in Hell that this is going to be able to be policed properly. They (FIFA) may as well accept that the power lies with the clubs and not them.
There are so many points that a half decent lawyer hired by any club could argue against that half of the rules will not be enforceable....waste of time.
Arsenal will just be seen as a the 'teacher's pet' of the classroom with everyone still eligible to make the grade at the end of the year.
Rules will be bent. Playing fair in an I unfair world may give you the moral high ground, but that does not equal trophies against others who clearly flout
Rules.

Kermit79
Kermir79