FSG..believe no believe?

Will they be able to do so if the FFP is introduced. The FFP relates to ''Capital gearing'' Supposing Chelsea pay 80% of the revenue in wages and then attempt to spend 50% of revenue on players, then they are breaking the rules. Therefore they will be restricted.

Think logically before posting, you cannot spend £100 million on players if you only make £240 million and your wage bill is £180 million.

^ capital gearing eh, wow, we've got a financial wizard in the house.

You've missed the point though mate, the point is they can spend what they like (funded by their benefactor owners) , same as they done for years, if the penalty for falling foul of FFP isn't enforced i.e. being banned from UEFA competitions, which you've already agreed is never going to happen. So maybe you should take your own advice & "think logically" before posting. xx

Obviously they aren't going to be banned from Europe, However instead UEFA can put in a rule stating that they must be ''self sufficient''.
However, UEFA missed a trick with these rulings and that is with sponsorship. Sponsorship is as we all know generated income, and if certain rules are put in place, sponsorship is the way around them.

So, what they should have done is limit the number of sponsors any club may have. There is far too many loop-holes that clubs can use, not only Manchester City and Chelsea.

The rule means nothing without the punishment for falling foul of it being enforced, we've already agreed that it won't be. City have already flouted FFP with their naming rights deal, which is way OTT in terms of the real market value, but UEFA will do nothing about imo, as they can't, their threat of sanctions has no teeth.

''Real Market value''
What is that supposed to mean? Citys deal is legal, its one of their owners companies sponsoring another. Its as dodgey as the deal Manchester United signed with DFL.
As I've said, if UEFA want to implement their overall strategy correctly, they must cap the number of sponsors. Market value is determined by the sponsor.,.not Manchester United.

The number of sponsors is irrelevant. City could have one sponsor, Abu Dhabi Airlines (Eithad) & they could agree to pay £250M a year for shirt & stadium sponsorship. Job done.

Don't be rediculous, its not £250 million a year its £400 million over 10 years.

I was giving you an example of why your idea of limiting the number of sponsors wouldn't work, the figures were irrelevant, haha.

Your example is ludricrous, and obviously UEFA wouldn't allow such a thing. There is sponsorship as generated income, but it has to be realistic, but has nothing to do with ''Market value' as someone else suggested. The only reason ''Market value'' was mentioned was to suggest nobody can have bigger sponsorship deals in England than Manchester United, wihich is bull. They seem to think so, because Paul Scholes has ginger hair.

I'm guessing you work with your hands mate?