Can anyone explain the fair play financial rule

It's not that I don't understand it as I have read the basics spend what you earn blah blah.Then I see Monaco promoted from French 2nd division have spent £164 million on transfers never mind wages i doubt Falcao is on a threppny bit (oldies only will get that).As the Louis stade 11 stadium has a capacity of 20-000 they obviously are being funded by billionaires.Which when DF is crying about Spearing and how he has to be careful with the clubs money.1.5 million speculate to accumulate Dougie.So where is the parity if Monaco can spend that much.I thought the FFPR were brought in so the likes of what City,Chelsea have done was no longer possible.Am I blind ,stupid or both,am I missing something. 

Its the English football league's financial fair play (Championship to Division 3) - Does apply to anyone else...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Michel Platini has said Monaco can spend as much as they want until they qualify for a European competition, I don't understand it either.

If the accounts relevant to this season show losses of more than £3m, the club will be penalised, but that limit could increase to £8m provided Eddie Davies is willing to pay the difference.

I find it worrying.

Thanks for that very confusing.When they say penalties does that mean point reduction.Open to corruption IMO.

I can explain it very easily, send me £50 and that will be fair play.

So unless you're a rich club that can pay fines you're fucked.

Born to be a wanderer wrote:Thanks for that very confusing.When they say penalties does that mean point reduction.Open to corruption IMO.

It depends on whether the club wins promotion or not. If it doesn't, it will be subject to a transfer embargo. If it does, it gets taxed on the amount by which it exceeded the loss limit. It's to stop clubs gambling ridiculously on getting to the PL.

scottjames30 wrote:So unless you're a rich club that can pay fines you're fucked.

Primarily, it's about spending less than you have coming in.

I think it'd be good for the game if it weren't so easy to manipulate for some clubs.

When you think how much money Megson and to a lesser extent Coyle spent relative to revenue, it seems a cheat that we can boast as many as eleven consecutive years in the Prem. Not that we're the only club guilty of this. Far from it.

Is the repayment of Eddie's existing debt going to put us into loss and thereby send us down the spiral? Presumably it'll be on the Balance Sheet and P & L?
If so, the more we pay off our debt to Eddie, the less we can invest.
It's going to be tough.
We need to attract more fans, sell more merchandise but invest less and keep wages under control.
Big ask that will affect all clubs, especially those who already have debt owed to Banks.
Quite a leveller that puts a greater emphasis on managerial skill and youth development as far as the team is concerned.

I think clubs like Monaco are getting round it because their owners are using their companies to sponsor the club in some way for ridiculous money. It's just another way of funnelling money into the club which can be treated as revenue.

So taking ownership of the hotel and investing in the new schools etc around the stadium are coming at a good time then? Shame that cock up with the shirt sponsorship cost us £2million!