not anymore it did at one time Man City I think was the first to be hit by it then the rules was changed.

2. Permitted Exclusions

I should also point out that the level of loss that a club reports in their financial accounts will not be the same figure as is used in the Break Even calculations. This is because UEFA have allowed clubs to exclude certain expenditure from the calculations. UEFA are keen to develop the game and don't want the FFP rules to constrain clubs from investing and developing - without any exclusions a club building a new stadium or new stand would be hit by an FFP penalty (the cost of the development would mean the club reported a large financial loss). Clubs can therefore exclude infrastructure development costs and youth development/community development costs. Manchester City announced that they should be able to exclude around £10m a year as a result of the youth/community exclusion.

There is one other exclusion that causes most confusion amongst journalists and fans; clubs are able to exclude certain wages for their long-standing players. By way of background; when the rules were first proposed, some clubs complained that they were already committed to paying high wage bills for some players on existing contracts and that they could fail the Break Even test as a result. UEFA therefore introduced an appendix to the rules which allows clubs who have failed the Break Even test to run the test again, but this time deduct the wages paid to players on pre-June 2010 contracts. However clubs can only deduct the wages paid to their long-standing players during one season (2011/12) and can only use the exclusion if they can show their Break Even deficit is reducing each year. Chelsea, for example, will probably find that they are not able to deduct the wages paid to Terry, Lampard, Drogba etc during 2011/12. This is because club losses are likely to increase in 2012/13 (they won the Champions League in 2011/12 and are likely to see their UEFA receipts and commercial income reduced in 2012/13).

(VPN) - [Link]
(Alt VPN) - [Link]

Not true. It will be depreciated which will affect profit. Maybe only 2% per annum but still an affect on profit.

Isn't what Palace doing more along the lines of Liverpool building a "new" stand at Anfield rather than Manchester City or West Ham moving into new stadia that were already built for other purposes. Man City moved into the City of Manchester Stadium, which was built for the Commonwealth Games. They also took over training grounds built for the same purpose. West Ham moved into the London (Olympic) Stadium. I'm sure FFP recognizes the difference and makes allowances for them.

Divorced...And LOVING it!
VJRAM Rev.
CPFC since Boxing Day 1989 CPFC 2-2 CFC
Gregg Berhalter, US International & USMNT Head Coach
Jill Ellis, England International & Retired USWNT Head Coach
Trevor Francis, International PRAT

Thank you.

Divorced...And LOVING it!
VJRAM Rev.
CPFC since Boxing Day 1989 CPFC 2-2 CFC
Gregg Berhalter, US International & USMNT Head Coach
Jill Ellis, England International & Retired USWNT Head Coach
Trevor Francis, International PRAT

There is any number of ways they may do this and it may be related to late accounts. I suspect a separate company (with same share holders) will own ground and rent back to club then none of the "debt" will fall on club. The problem would be that if the company that owned club was sold for any reason this company would have to be part of sale or we could be back in the 2010 situation.

Yes so that is where debt will be so FPP and ground development have no bearing. Also running costs of ground such as repairs, maintenance and associated staff costs etc may be carried by this company. This company could provide a total facilities service providing match services such as tickets, security etc. The companies only income being the rent paid by football club. This maximises income for football club as all gate receipts go to them and the expenses are only direct playing costs plus rent which may be nominal.