Le Parisien: UEFA considering creating FFP 2.0, which limits net transfer spending to €100m/season

Madrid asking for it? The club that invented the term galacticos?
 
Funny how Madrid are now complaining after years of out spending everyone. What a fking shithouse of a club.
 
Multiple club ownership + indefinite loan periods incoming.
 
Something needs to be done to be fair, other wise the transfer market will inflate too point where non-oil clubs can't compete. It will also increase the need to produce decent academy players and buy players with a long term future at the club.
 
They buy smaller clubs, like say Girona, and Girona buy their cast offs for infalted prices up to the value of about €100m say. Which then gives the club that owns Girona €200m to spend.

Whilst 1.0 seemed more to stop clubs going bust, this seems more to level the spending playing field? If they implemented the spending an agreed percentage of your turnover properly, that would be the best solution I think.
 
Read somewhere that Barcelona knew about this coming up in the Summer(possibly) hence went ahead and got Coutinho immediately.
 
Maybe Wenger was right, maybe we'll see more and more players running down their contracts and refusing deals longer than 2-3 years so that they can move freely and pick up signing bonuses along the way.
 
Skills said:
Madrid asking for it? The club that invented the term galacticos?
Click to expand...
Quite ironic really. Blew clubs out of the water with reckless spending, now City and PSG are the big daddies and Perez has to rejuvenate his team, he'll struggle because Real aren't what they were.
 
Anustart89 said:
Maybe Wenger was right, maybe we'll see more and more players running down their contracts and refusing deals longer than 2-3 years so that they can move freely and pick up signing bonuses along the way.
Click to expand...
Watch wages spiral out of control.
 
So transfer fees get shifted onto players contracts. More legislation that does feck all like FFP because there are easy ways around it.
 
So clubs will compete with wages rather than with transfer fees. If anything that means the smaller clubs will get more fecked. Or you know just structure deal in a way that you can show spending over multiple seasons.

City also already seem in a position to take the advantage with that City group or whatever it is.
 
The reason I have never really complained about Clubs like UTD, Real etc spending big is because at least they are big clubs who spend money they make through legit (most of the time) revenue, while clubs like PSG and City are nothing clubs artificially pumped and created through having an entire state backing them
 
Bit late now they've already built their team's from it.
 
Thats not even two fullbacks for City.
100m euros seems a bit low for English sides though, we'll just pump up wages to price out rivals so we'll have the same result.
 
If the limit is put to 100m only, the whole scale of transfers will change and prices of top player won't exceed 50-60m then.

Can't make my mind about this. It will have benefits but will hinder the number of players signed per summer.

Better to put it on 150m or something like that.
 
Would be better to make it a rolling period of say 3-5 years, otherwise you basically force a team to immediately spend their money. Say like Barcelona you get €300M in one transfer period and you don´t use it all. Next season you can only spend €100M, although you have €300M in the bank.

Other point that should have long been adressed is the buy-loan to profit concept of Chelsea. They take away young talented players with cheap release clauses and expiring deals, just to make a bargain profit. The primary objective is not to add these players to the active roster, but to loan them out and turn a profit. If they actively blocked a roster spot and those were limited to say 28 per season, then Chelsea couldn´t send 10-12 players on loan every year, cause they´d only have 16-18 active players.
 
NotBrendanRodgers honest said:
The reason I have never really complained about Clubs like UTD, Real etc spending big is because at least they are big clubs who spend money they make through legit (most of the time) revenue, while clubs like PSG and City are nothing clubs artificially pumped and created through having an entire state backing them
Click to expand...
Exactly. A bit late to change the rules now after City have spent £1.4Bn and PSG have just bought Neymar and Mbappé. All this will do is give massive state backed organisations which own multiple clubs, like the one which owns City, a massive advantage.

Would prefer this to happen after we have completed our rebuild.
 
Melbourne City FC buy the next big thing for €100m. Sell him to Manchester City for free.

Manchester City sell one of their duds for €100m to Melbourne City FC.

Manchester City have a €100m profit and can spend €200m after getting the next big thing for free.

Yup. Seems like a good plan.
 
That would also limit the spending of clubs like United, no?
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Exactly. A bit late to change the rules now after City have spent £1.4Bn and PSG have just bought Neymar and Mbappé. All this will do is give massive state backed organisations which own multiple clubs, like the one which owns City, a massive advantage.

Would prefer this to happen after we have completed our rebuild.
Click to expand...
It's very typical of UEFA to be reactive rather than proactive
 
Just means shit players will go for inflated fees to feeder/co-owned clubs.

City/psg sign dyabla for €200mil. They sell Toure, Foden and Delph to feeder/co-owned club for a combined fee of €100mil, you get a Net €100mil.

Just takes more financial doping.
 
Instincts say that it just means more money to players and agents. Limiting players probably means more satellite clubs. It just feels too easy to circumvent and it's hard to see how it does more than just encourage the trend towards shorter player contracts.

If they want to try measurable things like - 25 man squad, no more than 5 changes per year - then I can see how that would be enforced. I'm not sure I can see how the measures suggested right now can be enforced, and I doubt they will really impact either competition or financial sustainability.
 
The idea would be good for the game. Greater parity and competition across the leagues will produce a more interesting product. Not good for Utd and the other financially dominant teams but the long term health of the sport is the question.
 
It won't work like this. Single players cost this much, or you'll at least be lucky to purchase two players per window. Clubs will make buy-out clauses that make it impossible for any club to sign them. And why should clubs that can generate more than this through their own means (selling players, ticket sales, commercial activities) not be allowed to spend their disposable profit?

It's all nonsense and won't happen.
 
This is stupid, should just go for a harder FFP on those clubs that use ownership money to work around it

Also new ownerships should be given more leeway on initial investments
 
You must log in or register to reply here.