On the other hand, the discourse on the colonisation agreement that occurs when the European football organisation verifies that a club does not meet the requirements of financial fair play, that is to say losses of 30 million over three years. In this case, sanctions are provided according to the size of the deficit. Fines range from economic amounts to restrictions on the number of players in international competitions and the obligation to reduce signatures. Such an agreement was sealed by Inter Milan and Rome. Milan, UEFA will examine in October whether a voluntary agreement for the UEFA FPF is only ready to grant a voluntary agreement if there are three situations: a project based on reasonable grounds, business continuity and the irrevocable commitment of the largest shareholder to financially support the association throughout the period. It does not include fines or penalties, unless the agreement is respected. KITE. The Rossoneri`s economic line seems clear, even in light of the recent market crashes: use the so-called „Frank Year“, thanks in particular to the postponement of the voluntary agreement with Uefa to October, thus fully strengthening the short list, even at the cost of a 20% increase in the salary increase. That is, the date set by Uefa to decide on the proposed settlement agreement. But on this occasion, the investigating chamber of the uefa clubs` financial control body granted the settlement agreement to the Nerazzurri. If the accounts of AC Milan can not be considered brilliant from an economic point of view (the difference between turnover and costs) (The 2017-2018 financial year, By Fassone`s admission himself, if he were to close with a red for 80 million), the new objectives set by the management at the assembly of May 2 (and probably also called Uefa) seem more realistic than those of recent months (-55/60 million in 2019 and draw in 2020) and therefore within the reach of the association. Voluntary-Regulation-Fair-Play-Fair-Play In the meantime, today`s edition of corriere dello Sport has made it clear what the difference is between the voluntary agreement and the agreement (where Milan will be admitted in case of non-agreement). The first is a request that has been made up to the 31st It will be to provide only clubs that did not qualify for the European Cups or those that changed ownership last year.
This type of agreement has a maximum duration of four years and is based on a series of obligations defined on the long-term activity parameter. To take an example, Thohir es Inter, at the meeting of the concord agreement, was in a very similar situation to that of Milan today (it was born from years of significant budget losses) and had a slightly higher financial debt (220 million) than today`s Milan. It is the same justification that, last December, rejected Milan`s request for a voluntary agreement. One can imagine, however, that the request for a voluntary agreement withdrawn was only formal that of Fininvest, but that in the meantime the underlying financial plan had been modified. According to media reports, Fassone held talks with Uefa in April (shortly after its conclusion on 14 April) and in May. Admittedly, this is a point that needs to be clarified. It is controversial. When, on 9 June, it was announced that Uefa had decided to consider AC Milan`s request for a voluntary agreement in the autumn, almost all news agencies (including Calcio and Finanza) invoked Uefa`s alleged concerns about the club`s industry and, in particular, the amount of revenue expected from China. which would have been deemed too high.. .