Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions

crappycraperson said:
How does the current football system where Southampton's best young player in Shaw will be leaving this summer a good idea?

It has become all about money now. If big clubs keep poaching smaller clubs' best players using money be it for wages or transfer fees, you won't have any new clubs out there to cement their legacy in modern era. Only way to do it will be via financial doping ala City or Chelsea or PSG. Or pray you get a genius like Klopp working for your team.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the current situation in the premier league is perfect.

To be fair though, Shaw will be leaving to a bigger, more established club because he has shown he is good enough to play for one and Southampton won't try and stop him. More even distribution of the money would be the best way to go but when you have teams like Chelski and City or teams like us, it's going to be hard to achieve.
 
Ryan's Beard said:
I didn't say the current situation in the premier league is perfect.

To be fair though, Shaw will be leaving to a bigger, more established club because he has shown he is good enough to play for one and Southampton won't try and stop him. More even distribution of the money would be the best way to go but when you have teams like Chelski and City or teams like us, it's going to be hard to achieve.
Click to expand...

You did not really answer anything there.

If a championship club aims to be a top European club in 20 years. Can it achieve that without doing a City or Chelsea? No chance. That's not good for football. It is good for top clubs now since they can maintain status quo bar clubs like PSG breaking in. Heck even Chelsea is in favor of FFP now :lol:. That says it all.

It would get even worse if and when the collective PL deal will be broken and top clubs will make their own TV deals ala Spain. You can not stop clubs from earning more money, you can limit how much they can spend though. If you do, it would eventually mean that top clubs can only buy so many players. A lot of players would stay at their parent clubs rather than warming the bench at big clubs. This would in turn strengthen those clubs and allow them to progress further and cut better financial deals themselves that come with success.
 
crappycraperson said:
You did not really answer anything there.

If a championship club aims to be a top European club in 20 years. Can it achieve that without doing a City or Chelsea? No chance. That's not good for football. It is good for top clubs now since they can maintain status quo bar clubs like PSG breaking in. Heck even Chelsea is in favor of FFP now :lol:. That says it all.

It would get even worse if and when the collective PL deal will be broken and top clubs will make their own TV deals ala Spain. You can not stop clubs from earning more money, you can limit how much they can spend though. If you do, it would eventually mean that top clubs can only buy so many players. A lot of players would stay at their parent clubs rather than warming the bench at big clubs. This would in turn strengthen those clubs and allow them to progress further and cut better financial deals themselves that come with success.
Click to expand...

Why would I answer anything? I've already said I don't think the current PL system works. At system where money is more evenly shared around the league would obviously be the best. People continuously bring up the idea of a salary cap, which is, again, obviously a good idea, but we're regularly reassured that it's against EU law so it's pointless.
 
Ryan's Beard said:
We make fun of it because that is a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

The draft or salary cap?

The salary cap ensures all clubs have a fair starting point, no matter market and revenue size and owner's wealth.

The draft actually infringes on free trade but it will never cease to exist in the US.

I don't see how either could work in Europe with multiple leagues and levels of play. The US sporting leagues are a closed system, so it's far easier to impose such restrictions (note: I find the MLS draft a travesty and should be abolished which would force a higher emphasis on academy growth and benefit the American players far more than the college system). However, a salary cap could be implemented by UEFA (the only way it would work) through a variety of factors. It never will though, as the top clubs and the sugar daddy clubs will never allow such. They would break away and form their own league.
 
crappycraperson said:
How does the current football system where Southampton's best young player in Shaw will be leaving this summer a good idea?
Click to expand...

I know, it would be wonderful to see young stars develop at "lesser" clubs and elevate those teams. As soon as anyone has a good season, or emerges with potential, they are snapped up and added to oversize squads and hardly get a game. The game would be more exciting as a whole if talent was more widely dispersed instead of concentrated and stored like grain in a few locations.

On a different note, why should UEFA offer a settlement to these clubs? If they are found to have violated the regulartions, then just apply the penalty... let the clubs decide how to react.
 
Americano said:
I know, it would be wonderful to see young stars develop at "lesser" clubs and elevate those teams. As soon as anyone has a good season, or emerges with potential, they are snapped up and added to oversize squads and hardly get a game. The game would be more exciting as a whole if talent was more widely dispersed instead of concentrated and stored like grain in a few locations.

On a different note, why should UEFA offer a settlement to these clubs? If they are found to have violated the regulartions, then just apply the penalty... let the clubs decide how to react.
Click to expand...

Yeap. Bayern picking off Dortmund's best talent year after year is the worst thing possible for football. Just because Klopp is a genius who can still get Dortmund performing does not make it right. Imagine if they buy Reus next summer now :wenger:
 
Ryan's Beard said:
We make fun of it because that is a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

It's actually an excellent idea for a system where there is no relegation and the emphasis is on competition from top to bottom of the league.

I don't think a draft is a terrible idea for world football, it's just impossible to implement sensibly or fairly at this point. I can't see any way a draft could work now. So, some other measure(s) to improve competitive balance, and the distribution of talent, domestically and internationally, would be welcome in my eyes. Why does Chicharito rot on the bench for us when he could start for so many other clubs? Just one example of a system that falls short in some ways for fans and players.
 
MrMarcello said:
The draft or salary cap?

The salary cap ensures all clubs have a fair starting point, no matter market and revenue size and owner's wealth.

The draft actually infringes on free trade but it will never cease to exist in the US.

I don't see how either could work in Europe with multiple leagues and levels of play. The US sporting leagues are a closed system, so it's far easier to impose such restrictions (note: I find the MLS draft a travesty and should be abolished which would force a higher emphasis on academy growth and benefit the American players far more than the college system). However, a salary cap could be implemented by UEFA (the only way it would work) through a variety of factors. It never will though, as the top clubs and the sugar daddy clubs will never allow such. They would break away and form their own league.
Click to expand...

I think the salary cap is a sound idea since that is what really allows nonsense clubs like City and PSG to ruin the market. The draft is daft though, it is entirely incompatible with the way football works, the way people (used to) choose which club to represent etc. Plus, we actually train players at clubs in football, rather than poaching them from schools.
 
verminater said:
You really are a terrible poster.
Not content with mis-quoting people, you then state that "There's a few people gone quiet on this thread", when you yourself have added nothing to it until now.
You state that UEFA wish to make their own rules look ridiculous, with no basis.

UEFA HAVE thrown clubs out before. It IS their competition. They CAN refuse entry/license. All of which you state as "rubbish"
The last line is comedy gold.

If this was an object lesson of dumbing down the internet, it is a raging success.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a real axe to grind on this thread.

And you've totally missed my point. I don't dispute that they have done those things, my point previously was that those examples were in utterly different circumstances and therefore should not be relied upon in terms of what would likely happen here. That seems obvious to me, perhaps I need to make it more clear.

Throughout our back and forth on here the point I was making was that in my opinion, and contrary to what other people seemed to think, I did not believe that any club would be thrown out of the Champions League for failure to comply with FFP and that as ever, UEFA would fudge it to the benefit of all concerned. As it turns out I was right, as disappointing as it is.

And think what you like about my quality as a poster. I really don't care.
 
Last edited:
Ryan's Beard said:
I think the salary cap is a sound idea since that is what really allows nonsense clubs like City and PSG to ruin the market. The draft is daft though, it is entirely incompatible with the way football works, the way people (used to) choose which club to represent etc. Plus, we actually train players at clubs in football, rather than poaching them from schools.
Click to expand...

The fear with a salary cap, for me, I'd what it might do long term to the game.

It works well often in sports with a limited market. A top NFL player can only really ply his trade in the NFL if he wants to play at the top level, he's captive in that environment.

It might be possible however, for a league outside Europe to attract the best players and pay mega salaries, over and above what they can earn in Europe if a salary cap is in place.

Perhaps it's a small risk. In the early stages the best players wouldn't want to go to the states for the money alone. That said, you probably wouldn't have imagined Russia or Ukraine would be attracting as many players as it has.
 
Ryan's Beard said:
It'd have to be a FIFA sanctioned cap, which is one of the many reasons why it's a pipe dream at best.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It's an interesting idea.

It would have to linked to turnover or something similar to make it viable, rather than be an arbitrary sum each year - that would simply allow clubs to borrow up to the salary cap limit each year, which undermines the whole point of a regulation designed to create financial stability. It could work in theory.
 
crappycraperson said:
You did not really answer anything there.

If a championship club aims to be a top European club in 20 years. Can it achieve that without doing a City or Chelsea? No chance. That's not good for football. It is good for top clubs now since they can maintain status quo bar clubs like PSG breaking in. Heck even Chelsea is in favor of FFP now :lol:. That says it all.

It would get even worse if and when the collective PL deal will be broken and top clubs will make their own TV deals ala Spain. You can not stop clubs from earning more money, you can limit how much they can spend though. If you do, it would eventually mean that top clubs can only buy so many players. A lot of players would stay at their parent clubs rather than warming the bench at big clubs. This would in turn strengthen those clubs and allow them to progress further and cut better financial deals themselves that come with success.
Click to expand...

I have to say, I agree largely with this.

I think its easy to assume that smaller clubs would love FFP to be applied on a hardline basis because in theory, it helps them keep their best players and progress. But it isn't that simple. A club like Southampton can sell a player like Luke Shaw to a big side for mega money and then re-invest that in improving the squad or improving facilities, hopefully building and moving them on a level further down the line. Spending by the big clubs does trickle down to lower clubs and there is now moremoney in the game.

Clubs losing their best players to "bigger" clubs is nothing new - its always gone on because players want to be playing for the best sides and competing for trophies. How "big" is defined has evidently changed, its not just about history but wages as well and that is the part that is distateful for a lot of people, but its argubaly no different to players moving to Liverpool in the 1980's when they were hoovering up the best talent.

And the clubs will only ever look out for themselves. United dont support FFP because it's good for the future of football - its because it might help them remaiin succesful if other clubs cant spend money they havent earned themselves. Nothing wrong with that per se, they will always have their own agenda.
 
Imagine if they were deducted points, it'd be literally the only time ever that we can't laugh. :lol:
 
you've been bad and spent too much money you don't have, have a fine to learns you. ridiculous, it'd be like a bank fining you for going into your overdraft.
 
I can't help thinking the Glazer family have done far more harm to the "football business" than the likes of Chelsea/City/PSG. The owners of those clubs have put money IN to the market, whereas United's owner have just taken huge amounts OUT.

But i realise that is not the objective of the FFP sanctions.
 
Spiersey said:
The one thing the majority of the exceptions to the norm such as Dortmund, Liverpool and Atletico all have in common is that they are historically big clubs who have been successful in the past and as such have a pretty big fan base already. Are there any exceptions that don't have historical success?
Click to expand...

Exactly. How on earth can someone cite Liverpool, Dortmund and Atletico Madrid as examples of how a team can grow organically? The difference in status, revenue and wealth of those clubs compared to a team like City pre-Mansour is ridiculous. They are not comparable examples. Even Dortmund now are getting their best players picked off by Bayern, which just goes to show how organic growth is bollocks. Everton could have become good if they could have kept players like Rooney but that was impossible because a member of the status quo went and signed him.

Southampton have immense potential with their team but where will Lallana, Shaw, Rodriguez all be playing next season? Be surprised if even one of them is still their after the summer. Quite simply, a team like Southampton will never ever challenge the status quo because of FFP. Without it, City and Chelsea have challenged it successfully, with Chelsea now breaking into it and City set to do so in the near future; that is beneficial for football. The way the TV money and Champions League money was distributed the only way a team like City could have won trophies and stayed at the top is a sugar-daddy owner.
 
crappycraperson said:
It would get even worse if and when the collective PL deal will be broken and top clubs will make their own TV deals ala Spain.
Click to expand...

There's almost no chance of that happening. Across football, the trend is moving in the other direction - towards ever more equitable joint deals which spread the money out. The Bundesliga's system, the most evenly-spread amongst the major leagues, is widely held up as a shining example of how things should be done. La Liga's is increasingly a laughing stock, and is actually beginning to do damage to the value of the TV deals to the top teams there.

In the PL, the current system is extremely popular. The top teams regularly vote/speak in favour of it, and any movement is likely to be in the other direction than you suggest, further democratising the process and spreading the money. They all understand that the quality of competition is what has the PL TV deals skyrocketing at the moment.
 
RedRover said:
Fair enough. It's an interesting idea.

It would have to linked to turnover or something similar to make it viable, rather than be an arbitrary sum each year - that would simply allow clubs to borrow up to the salary cap limit each year, which undermines the whole point of a regulation designed to create financial stability. It could work in theory.
Click to expand...

It ties into combined revenues shared. The only salary caps I know of (hard- NFL, NHL; soft- NBA, MLS) are based off a league-wide revenue sharing scheme that allots xx% of defined gross revenue to be used for player compensation, as agreed by the league's owners and players union. The hard caps do not allow loopholes and exemptions to exceed the cap while a soft cap does allow such. MLB has no cap but does have a salary tax system that taxes clubs that exceed a certain payroll level and that money is distributed to the lesser clubs (NBA too has a salary tax in addition to a soft cap). I have no idea how the Rugby caps work.

Simply tying into a club's turnover still only benefits the big clubs. It would have be a continent/world-wide cap of say 50m per club, regardless of turnover, and with or without revenue sharing. I could envision big clubs ultimately accepting a salary cap but they would never agree to revenue sharing across the board. I can't imagine Barca, Real, Juve, Milan, Bayern, and about 6-8 English clubs (the top revenue producing clubs in the world) agreeing to give up 20-40% of their revenues for the whole of the continent/good of the game (and that's not counting the other revenue producing clubs also giving up the same percentage).

Perhaps a salary tax system would be easier to implement. A dollar for each dollar above a certain level that then goes back into the leagues/game in some form and/or fashion. It's all a pipe dream - FIFA and UEFA don't care.
 
RedRover said:
It would have to linked to turnover or something similar to make it viable, rather than be an arbitrary sum each year - that would simply allow clubs to borrow up to the salary cap limit each year, which undermines the whole point of a regulation designed to create financial stability. It could work in theory.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how FFP works at the mo, to all intents and purposes.
 
MrMarcello said:
It ties into combined revenues shared. The only salary caps I know of (hard- NFL, NHL; soft- NBA, MLS) are based off a league-wide revenue sharing scheme that allots xx% of defined gross revenue to be used for player compensation, as agreed by the league's owners and players union. The hard caps do not allow loopholes and exemptions to exceed the cap while a soft cap does allow such. MLB has no cap but does have a salary tax system that taxes clubs that exceed a certain payroll level and that money is distributed to the lesser clubs (NBA too has a salary tax in addition to a soft cap). I have no idea how the Rugby caps work.

Simply tying into a club's turnover still only benefits the big clubs. It would have be a continent/world-wide cap of say 50m per club, regardless of turnover, and with or without revenue sharing. I could envision big clubs ultimately accepting a salary cap but they would never agree to revenue sharing across the board. I can't imagine Barca, Real, Juve, Milan, Bayern, and about 6-8 English clubs (the top revenue producing clubs in the world) agreeing to give up 20-40% of their revenues for the whole of the continent/good of the game (and that's not counting the other revenue producing clubs also giving up the same percentage).

Perhaps a salary tax system would be easier to implement. A dollar for each dollar above a certain level that then goes back into the leagues/game in some form and/or fashion. It's all a pipe dream - FIFA and UEFA don't care.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's about protecting teams that have those big fan bases but no sugar daddies. Real, Barca, United, Liverpool, Juventus, Milan, Bayern, Dortmund, these teams should benefit the most, if the sugar daddies actually abide by it. And of course it will take several years to see the effect, the sugar daddy clubs are already wells stocked up for the present and near future.

If the sugar daddy clubs get away with spending over the limit it will of course be meaningless.
 
RedRover said:
I have to say, I agree largely with this.

I think its easy to assume that smaller clubs would love FFP to be applied on a hardline basis because in theory, it helps them keep their best players and progress. But it isn't that simple. A club like Southampton can sell a player like Luke Shaw to a big side for mega money and then re-invest that in improving the squad or improving facilities, hopefully building and moving them on a level further down the line. Spending by the big clubs does trickle down to lower clubs and there is now moremoney in the game.

Clubs losing their best players to "bigger" clubs is nothing new - its always gone on because players want to be playing for the best sides and competing for trophies. How "big" is defined has evidently changed, its not just about history but wages as well and that is the part that is distateful for a lot of people, but its argubaly no different to players moving to Liverpool in the 1980's when they were hoovering up the best talent.

And the clubs will only ever look out for themselves. United dont support FFP because it's good for the future of football - its because it might help them remaiin succesful if other clubs cant spend money they havent earned themselves. Nothing wrong with that per se, they will always have their own agenda.
Click to expand...

You disagree you mean.

Clubs did lose their best players before but not as many as they do now, simply because super clubs have huge squads now. Look at the bench of Madrid, Barca, United, Chelsea, City.

As far as money tricking down argument, ask Dortmund if they would rather have the money or the 3 players they lost in consecutive seasons. Or if they want money or Reus for considerable future. Heck, even Spurs would rather have Bale now than gazillions they got for him. They could have realistically qualified for CL with him in the team, which would have been better for the progress of club that any money they received.
 
Brightonian said:
There's almost no chance of that happening. Across football, the trend is moving in the other direction - towards ever more equitable joint deals which spread the money out. The Bundesliga's system, the most evenly-spread amongst the major leagues, is widely held up as a shining example of how things should be done. La Liga's is increasingly a laughing stock, and is actually beginning to do damage to the value of the TV deals to the top teams there.

In the PL, the current system is extremely popular. The top teams regularly vote/speak in favour of it, and any movement is likely to be in the other direction than you suggest, further democratising the process and spreading the money. They all understand that the quality of competition is what has the PL TV deals skyrocketing at the moment.
Click to expand...

It looks like it won't happen in PL but I won't say it could never happen. Glazers are able to service our debt fairly comfortably it seems otherwise I am certain the would have explored all avenues for it be it breaking the TV deal or renaming the stadium
 
crappycraperson said:
It looks like it won't happen in PL but I won't say it could never happen. Glazers are able to service our debt fairly comfortably it seems otherwise I am certain the would have explored all avenues for it be it breaking the TV deal or renaming the stadium
Click to expand...

IIRC to break the current PL agreement would need a significant majority to agree, something like 18 from 20 clubs. Given that everyone outside the top handful of clubs would fare worse under a negotiate your own agreement policy, that's very very unlikely to happen.
 
crappycraperson said:
You disagree you mean.

Clubs did lose their best players before but not as many as they do now, simply because super clubs have huge squads now. Look at the bench of Madrid, Barca, United, Chelsea, City.

As far as money tricking down argument, ask Dortmund if they would rather have the money or the 3 players they lost in consecutive seasons. Or if they want money or Reus for considerable future. Heck, even Spurs would rather have Bale now than gazillions they got for him. They could have realistically qualified for CL with him in the team, which would have been better for the progress of club that any money they received.
Click to expand...

Dortmund - a club with a Europen reputation, regular CL football and a high level of income may feel like that - but other clubs don't have that luxury. They don't need the money and haven't lost their players to "rich" clubs anyway - so I don't see the relevance.

Most clubd aren't Dortmund and arent competing for league tities. Leagues are mostly made up of sides who can't compete with the top 3 or 4 on most levels. The money in the game has inflated transfer fees allowing them to sell players for big money. Some clubs need that money - to reinvest in players, perhaps to get other players tied down to better contracts, perhaps to invest in youth - done just to pay the wages.

FFP might in theory allow clubs to build a side to compete for titles (although I doubt they could still hold into the really top players) - but some might also go out if business without the fees from transfers, especially at the lower levels of football where clubs like my local club have to sell a player every couple if years to keep the gates open. An example - United bought Zaha - Palace had cash to but the kid from Peterborough - they had cash to buy Hartlepool's best player - Pools survive another season.
 
RedRover said:
Dortmund - a club with a Europen reputation, regular CL football and a high level of income may feel like that - but other clubs don't have that luxury. They don't need the money and haven't lost their players to "rich" clubs anyway - so I don't see the relevance.

Most clubd aren't Dortmund and arent competing for league tities. Leagues are mostly made up of sides who can't compete with the top 3 or 4 on most levels. The money in the game has inflated transfer fees allowing them to sell players for big money. Some clubs need that money - to reinvest in players, perhaps to get other players tied down to better contracts, perhaps to invest in youth - done just to pay the wages.

FFP might in theory allow clubs to build a side to compete for titles (although I doubt they could still hold into the really top players) - but some might also go out if business without the fees from transfers, especially at the lower levels of football where clubs like my local club have to sell a player every couple if years to keep the gates open. An example - United bought Zaha - Palace had cash to but the kid from Peterborough - they had cash to buy Hartlepool's best player - Pools survive another season.
Click to expand...

My simple question to you is if Southampton want to win the league any time in the future. What do you think they can do, other than get a cash injection from some billionaire?
 
crappycraperson said:
My simple question to you is if Southampton want to win the league any time in the future. What do you think they can do, other than get a cash injection from some billionaire?
Click to expand...

I think Southampton realise that realistically they won't win the league.

The PL had been won by a handful of teams - either traditional powerhouses or newly Cash rich clubs. United have dominated, traditionally paying bigger wages and signing players for a lot on money - before Chelsea and City had massive money.

There is an argument that Southampton are no worse off now than they were before newly rich clubs came along.

15 years ago a top club would still have bought Luke Shaw, because the best young players move to bigger clubs. Now, because of the huge money in the game his price is forced up because there is more than one or two rich clubs who can afford him.

I understand the point you are making and it's a noble idea that clubs can be self sufficient and compete with the top sides. It's a nice idea but in modern football - unrealistic.

Whilst I see the problems the new money clubs can cause I personally think that trying to limit this will entrench the top sides as the only ones who can spend big, whilst leaving the rest in the cold.

I'm sure most Southampton fans would not be unhappy if their billionaire owners spent £200 million to try and get then into the top 4 - they would just see themselves doing what other sides do. That said, if you want organic growth what better way to find it than by selling players at a huge profit and perhaps uncovering two more with the money?

My major concern is that if the spending goes down too far a lot if clubs may go to the wall as a result.
 
RedRover said:
I think Southampton realise that realistically they won't win the league.

The PL had been won by a handful of teams - either traditional powerhouses or newly Cash rich clubs. United have dominated, traditionally paying bigger wages and signing players for a lot on money - before Chelsea and City had massive money.

There is an argument that Southampton are no worse off now than they were before newly rich clubs came along.

15 years ago a top club would still have bought Luke Shaw, because the best young players move to bigger clubs. Now, because of the huge money in the game his price is forced up because there is more than one or two rich clubs who can afford him.

I understand the point you are making and it's a noble idea that clubs can be self sufficient and compete with the top sides. It's a nice idea but in modern football - unrealistic.

Whilst I see the problems the new money clubs can cause I personally think that trying to limit this will entrench the top sides as the o my ones who can spend big, whilst leaving the rest in the cold.

I'm sure most Southampton fans would not be unhappy if their billionaire owners spent £200 million to try and get then into the top 4 - they would just see themselves doing what other sides do.

My major concern is that if the so ending goes down to far a lot if clubs may go to the wall as a result.
Click to expand...

My point is that modern football has done awry for that very reason. You have no way of reaching that top without spending obscene amount of money. Some money would always be needed but it should not required the 200m-300m or so City needed.

I did not ask for Southampton to win the league in next 2 years or even 5 years. Let's say that they draw a 20 year plan. What possible one can they make up which does not involved mega money?

You had sides dominating before 90s as well but you had clubs like Villa and Everton also winning titles. Not possible now.
 
The way to punish city would be to ban them from signing anyone over the summer.......but seem as PSG have emerged and are french as is Platini...the sanctions suddenly have become basically a slap on the wrist
 
Would the money taken out of city as fines be taken into account for next year when they look at the bank balance? Would it be a revolving door?
 
Bader said:
Would the money taken out of city as fines be taken into account for next year when they look at the bank balance? Would it be a revolving door?
Click to expand...

I imagine fines may be taken in the form of withholding prize money for next seasons competition so that it would show up in future FFP.
 
I hate this Financial Fair Play bullshit. Find it ludicrous how this idea was sold and accepted. Or not, as we football fans are all hypocrites. I'm not happy at all watching clubs like Monaco having more financial capability than Porto, but don't find it more unfair than Porto having more financial capability than Sporting for example.

The issue for me is the hypocrisy of the name. There's no fair play in football. Since the early days of the European Cup we see clubs with power to grab every player that moves. I don't give a shit about where the money came from. Is it getting worse and needed a break? Well, why not start by ending other stuff that we've come to so easily accept just out of being around for so long?

Football's biggest problem is that it's becoming a boring and repetitive oligopoly. Good days when playing against the likes of Newcastle would make anyone scared just because of an Alan Shearer. Or even in Portugal where a club like Setúbal could boast an African Player of the Year (Yekini) that scored goals for fun against the likes of Benfica or Porto.

This "loan" thing for example. The ability of big clubs to buy everything that moves, keep them under their books, and release them if they're shit, keeping them if they come good? Does this make any sense? Limit the number of players a club can have to a set squad limit. If there's no room for a player he should be released, not kept rotating in lesser clubs until he's eventually needed or comes good due to the playing time others gave him. At least talent would be more spread out. Clubs would then need to take a hard thought before buying everything that moves, as it would mean a choice between an unproven youngster and a possibly uninspiring but reliable veteran. As it is, it's win-win if you've already developed the financial health to pull it off. You're going to tell me that a club like United doing this is in any way more "fair play" than Chelsea spending 50m in Torres without breaking a sweat? Right.

History? Historically, what has United done that much better than Liverpool? To me, the biggest difference among the status and power of both clubs seems to be that one was on top during a worldwide financial boom in the sport, whilst the other was was on top a little too early. It established a difference that could Liverpool decades to even out (this might be an ill-thought idea to which I expect rebuttal, but nevertheless threw it out there).

The argument of saving poorly managed clubs from bankruptcy sounds like a poor excuse to me as well. This is an issue that should police itself. How the hell is a threat from UEFA bigger than a threat from bankruptcy itself for the likes of Sporting (who may very well fail FFP as it stands). I'm sure as soon as soon as a few clubs started to shut down their neighbors would wise up. That cataclysmic scenario of everyone going bankrupt looks like stupid conjecture to me.
 
Last edited:
There is never going to be parity between leagues but uefa should at least try to promote some sort of wealth share within the leagues first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.