Liverpool and Chelsea will be kicked out of the Champions League

[Vincent Vega]

Liverpool and Chelsea will be kicked out of the Champions League | Mail Online

 

Liverpool and Chelsea will be kicked out of the Champions League

 

By Rob Draper, Mail on Sunday Chief Football Writer Last updated at 1:11 AM on 28th February 2010

 

Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester City all face the extraordinary prospect of being excluded from the Champions League and Europa League in two years because of the huge financial losses they continue to suffer.

 

European football chiefs insist they will enforce a ban on those clubs unless they radically reduce their multi-million pound losses.

 

And though Manchester United will escape censure despite their £716million debt, because they are still making a profit at present, Liverpool's precarious financial state means they face a huge crisis if they wish to meet UEFA's tough new rules.

 

The regulations will be published this summer in a bid to prevent further clubs going into financial meltdown, as Portsmouth have done this week, and will outlaw the kind of support that owners Roman Abramovich and Sheik Mansour have provided Chelsea and City.

 

UEFA general secretary Gianni Infantino insists that the bodies set up to regulate the new rules will not baulk at throwing out clubs who cannot balance their books, whether they be Real Madrid or Liverpool.

 

Infantino said: 'It is not our objective to exclude clubs, but if there are rules, it is our objective that those rules will be respected. For this reason we have established the club financial control panel, chaired by Jean Luc Dehaene, who is the former Prime Minister of Belgium. I don't think somebody like him would be afraid of anything.

 

'They are independent to oversee the rules and pass any potential sanction to the disciplinary committee, which is also independent and which will decide the sanction.

 

'But the rules will be the same for everyone and of course they will be enforced the same for everyone.'

 

UEFA's drive for what they call financial fair play is the biggest shake-up of elite football since the formation of the Champions League in 1992 and represents a direct challenge to the Premier League's financial model, which has allowed excessive borrowing and rich benefactors to fund many clubs, factors which caused the demise of Portsmouth.

 

The renewed threat from UEFA, who will finalise their new rules this summer, will wholly undermine Manchester City's plans to spend further millions this summer.

 

City recorded a loss of £92.6m last year and that figure is likely to balloon still further after the extraordinarily expensive signings of Gareth Barry, Emmanuel Adebayor, Carlos Tevez, Joleon Lescott and Kolo Toure.

 

UEFA are likely to demand that by the time the 2012 regulations come into force, City are on course to break even, which seems highly unlikely, unless they slash their wage bill and decline to enter the transfer market.

 

Liverpool, too, are at huge risk given that last year they posted losses of £42m and had to pay £36.5m interest on their debts, which the Anfield club claim have now been reduced from £350m to £237m.

 

UEFA will give clubs two years to put their accounts in order and will allow a transitional period in the first two years of the scheme, but they insist that clubs such as City and Liverpool cannot simply continue as they do now and expect to be cleared for competition.

 

Infantino added: 'The rules come into force in 2012-13 and at the beginning there will be some sort of transitional period, which we are defining. But it doesn't mean that a club cannot be excluded in 2012 if the situation is extremely bad and getting worse.

 

'From this summer the clubs will know what the rules are going to be and if a club doesn't do anything and think that rules will only apply after 2012-13, that's a wrong calculation.'

 

Infantino confirmed that, at present, United would meet UEFA's criteria because last year they made a profit, even though their enormous debts cost them £68.5m in interest payments.

 

'United is, of course, very well managed by David Gill and as long as they can still make a profit at the end of the year, it's fine. In the long term, though, the question is whether they can still afford this debt.'

 

Liverpool though have been warned that their financial model will have to change, putting owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks under further pressure to secure new funding.

 

'They have to look at not making these £40m losses every year. And one of the ways of not making them is to reduce the debt, or to reduce the salary of the players, though that has sporting consequences.'

 

Chelsea have at least embarked on a campaign to wean themselves off the funding of Abramovich, having reduced their losses from a staggering £140m in 2006 to £44.4m last year and, if they can continue at a similar rate, would be likely to meet UEFA's criteria.

 

Infantino said: 'Chelsea is a good example as a few years ago they said that their objective was to break even and now it will be underlined by some rules. If everyone plays by the rules this inflation which raises higher salaries and transfer fees, will decrease. It will be a big change and I don't think the owners will be unhappy. On the contrary, what they are saying to us is that they would be happy of they don't spend their personal fortune on this.'

 

When the rules are applied, UEFA will assess a club's accounts over a three-year period so that making a loss for a single season would not be punished.

[Vincent Vega]

Won't the Mancs have to sell someone for £80m every summer to make a profit then?

 

First whiff of sponsors walking away because of lack of English clubs and this will go tits up.

[PaulMcC]

I'd like it.

 

Ot'd make everyone sort themselves out.

[coachpotato]

The G14 might have been disbanded but i'm sure the prospect of a breakaway to form a seperate Europe League would raise it's head again if UEFA tried to ban clubs based on their debts, especially clubs as big as us and chelsea.

Platini might have a dislike of English clubs and some in Europe might not like the domination that English clubs have had in the latter stages of the CL in recent years, but i'm certain the sponsors might have something to say also if their premier club competition didn't include teams who deserved to be there from a playing perspective.

[Wor Horse]

That's it! Disqualified from League of Champions

[discuit]

Daily Mail.

 

About as credible as the Sunday Sport these days

[Maldini]

worse tits though

[Guest Ulysses Everett McGill]

So UEFA are going to exclude Real Madrid, Liverpool, Chelsea and possibly Manchester United from their competition

 

I can just see it now

 

Actually, no, no I can't

 

At all

 

Ever

[Newport]

I wish this was true and not just Sunday bollocks, because it would put a lot of pressure on the YCs.

[The Special One]

Yea OK.

[Cardie]

Didn't we also make a profit?

[piscinin]

Didn't we also make a profit?

 

Yeah we did, but with the holding company structure stuff, it's too complicated for a simple journalist to work out :whistle:

[TommyW]

We won't be in it by then anyway

[halewood pete]

nothing european football chiefs do surprise me,choice of venues for major finals etc..we need change of ownership,and quick.

[TaksimRakiClub]

You can sympathise with the objectives but that particular article is a load of fucking shite - the Mail getting their usual digs in at us and they're obviously on some moral crusade against Chelsea because of Terry and Cole's latest escapades.

 

We all know that the horrible greasey-haired frog in charge of UEFA has got it in for english clubs: Chelsea because of Abramovich; us because of 1985 - fair enough if that's the way he wants to look at it. Fits right in with the paper's little agendas as well.

 

How come, though, Real Madrid have never been brought to book over the support they've received from the Spanish government stretching back nearly 60 years since Franco nicked De Stefano off Barca?

 

Then we had the sale of their training ground to the government to fund the first galactico era and the shopping spree last summer.

 

The big clubs - add Inter, Barca, Juve and Milan - have all got the same vested interest in maintaining the staus quo and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Financial transparency will never happen because there's too much money to be made.

[Section_31]

It'd be a good idea which would put football above money-making, which is why it won't happen.

[hamstrung]

We'll need to qualify for it first.

[Guest Super Sub]

Wont make any difference to us anyway cause the way we're going we wont be in the CL.:drool:

[piscinin]

It'd be a good idea which would put football above money-making, which is why it won't happen.

 

It is happening. It starts in 2012/2013. The replacement for the G14, the ECA, have approved it, as have the players association.

[ali]

From The Sunday Times

February 28, 2010

Euro millions for Arsenal and Arsene Wenger

Nick Harris

 

ARSENAL’S buoyant economic position — underlined by half-yearly figures that show debt plummeting and profits up — will allow them to compete with Europe’s major spenders for top players this summer, according to sources with knowledge of the club’s finances. Arsenal are notoriously reluctant to talk up their spending power and Arsène Wenger claimed earlier this month they “cannot afford” to follow a policy that involves both “high transfers” and “high wages”.

 

But a source with detailed inside information said: “If Wenger wants to sign two £20m players on £80,000 per week each this summer, he has the means to do so.” Arsenal’s burgeoning status as one of the Europe’s major financial players will be underlined this week when accountants Deloitte Touche release their annual review of the continent’s richest clubs.

 

It will show that Real Madrid are still top, with income of £347.9m in 2008-09, ahead of Barcelona (£312m), Manchester United (£278.5m) and Bayern Munich (£230m). Then comes the most significant move within the English game, with Arsenal (£225.1m) up to fifth, overtaking Chelsea, who have also fallen below Juventus and are scrapping to keep pace with others, Milan included.

 

Arsenal’s position has strengthened even since the release of figures for 2008-09 on which Deloitte’s report is based. Their half-yearly numbers show debts have fallen by almost £100m to £203.6m, and they made £35.2m in pre-tax half-year profits.

 

“Cash reserves have also increased by £25m to £100m and while some of that is earmarked for ongoing debt repayments, there is a big kitty for the summer, if Wenger wants to spend,” a source said. The club’s non-executive chairman, Peter Hill-Wood, wrote in his half-year report that “the next couple of years will see our property activities delivering surplus cash” but added he wouldn’t speculate on the “exact quantum”. Insiders expect property-related loans arising from redeveloping Highbury Square to be cleared this year (from £12.9m), and that the “surplus” from sales will be around £50m over two years. Much of this should go to Wenger for players’ fees or wages.

 

Insiders are also certain that Arsenal will sign Bordeaux striker Marouane Chamakh, 26, on a free transfer this summer. Arsenal had an £8m offer rejected last year but appear to have beaten off competition from rivals Liverpool for his signature. The Morocco international will join a squad in which 17 players, including Theo Walcott and Robin van Persie, have recently signed improved contracts. These deals have led to a 17% increase in the half-year wage bill, to about £58m, but the long-term picture is rosy.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/arsenal/article7043918.ece

 

The premier debt league

 

1 Manchester United £716.5m

2 Liverpool £237.0m

3 Arsenal £203.6m

4 Fulham £197.0m

5 West Ham United £110.0m

6 Aston Villa £73.0m

 

Arsenal are now below Liverpool in the rankings of top-flight borrowers

 

Arsenal ready to spend in summer spree | Arsenal - Times Online

[sir roger]

Have I missed something with Fulham ?.

Why are they only £40m less than us in debt ?

Al-Fayed doesn't seem to spend much .

[Wor Horse]

Two £20m players at 80k a week is nothing, they won't be able to compete with Chelsea, United and City.

[Newport]

Arsenal is a perfect example of what we need the most, a new and bigger stadium so we can start profiting from being one of the biggest clubs in the world. The fact that the people who have been running the club for the last 15 years still hasn't made a proper effort to make it happen. I'm sure there are plenty of decent buyers who would be glad to do it for us, but thos debtriding shitehawks are abusing the club so bad that I wouldn't be surprised we're fucked by all means before it happened.

[Jose Jones]

Have I missed something with Fulham ?.

Why are they only £40m less than us in debt ?

Al-Fayed doesn't seem to spend much .

 

Premier league wages and hardly any fans.

[Troubadour]

Arsenal genuinely don't have the money. They just leak that they've got plenty every so often to keep the fans onside. Happens once every three months as soon as anyone even dares to mention that maybe they're not the example of fucking sweetness and light they pretend they are.

 

I'd back UEFA introducing these rules, but UEM's spot on. There's too many big clubs laden with debt to make it feasible. Plus there'll defo be a loophole to let them shovel it all in to holding companies and all that jazz.

 

But this is the sort of thing we should be welcoming. Debt is bad. That's the point of wanting new owners. All measures should be taken to make clubs sustainable, especially if they're draconian and might shock the game into action.