Exactly. Add to that City's owners own 3 or 4 teams. Ditto for Leipzig
Le Parisien: UEFA considering creating FFP 2.0, which limits net transfer spending to €100m/season
- Thread starter United_We_Stand
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Exactly. Add to that City's owners own 3 or 4 teams. Ditto for Leipzig
I thought the scousers had a victim complex, turns out the massives do too."... It's an attempt by the established elite to place restrictions on new money..."
I thought it's all about Pep
I thought it's all about Pep
What did I just read..?
Maybe they think the market dynamics it will bring will allow them to acquire stars with lowball offers. All their Ffp suggestions will be aimed at making their upcoming rebuild cheaper.
Also hope no one helps them reach their net spend target by overpaying for the likes of Bale and Ronaldo
Last edited:
If this new verion of FFP 2.0 happens we will see ALOT of free transfers happening in the future and clubs talking to players behind their current club backs even more than now.
Of course it's the rival European sides looking out for themselves. .
Its why English sides weren't too fussed changing the CL regulations but rival leagues fought for it.
Its why UEFA want to hold CL matches on a saturday at 12:45 so they can take over the prime timeslot for Asian countries that the EPL has established and its why they're implementating FFP 2.0
Its why English sides weren't too fussed changing the CL regulations but rival leagues fought for it.
Its why UEFA want to hold CL matches on a saturday at 12:45 so they can take over the prime timeslot for Asian countries that the EPL has established and its why they're implementating FFP 2.0
The inferiority complexes our main rivals hold no bonds. Leeds, Liverpool and City.
David Conn lambasts agents...without mentioning Manchester City (shock):
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/feb/01/agents-gravy-train-curb-excessive-fees
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/feb/01/agents-gravy-train-curb-excessive-fees
Certainly curious given that City were the biggest spenders on agent fees in the Premier League during Pep's first year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39526917
Safe bet we will overtake them this year.
Not sure about that. They have signed 6 players to our 4. I think the fees will be similar overall.
I am pretty sure than Sanchez commission alone would account for all those transfers.
Agent fees and transfer fees or transfers do not always correspond with each other.
This is starting to be ridiculous.
City and PSG are pretty much established now anyway
City earned between 400 and 500 million last season so that's top territory
They have a young enough team as well so don't need to go mad on transfers if that cap does hit they are sorted back to front for the next 5 years with only needing 1 or 2 signings a year
City earned between 400 and 500 million last season so that's top territory
They have a young enough team as well so don't need to go mad on transfers if that cap does hit they are sorted back to front for the next 5 years with only needing 1 or 2 signings a year
I sense that wages are going to skyrocket even more.
The agent fee for Sanchez has been reported between £10 - £15m. City spent £26m on agent fees last year. I think our spend will be around that this season and there’s will be around £20 - 25m
It's an article on the January transfer window, during which City only signed Laporte and that was by activating his release clause, hence no real need for an agent to broker a move like with Coutinho or Sanchez, and Pogba is the only non-January transfer mentioned which is understandable given the unprecedented fee Raiola received. Does it need to shoehorn in something about City's spending in the summer to satisfy United fans who seem to have become obsessed with the idea of a media agenda against them? I'm sure if we'd signed Mahrez that would have been mentioned in the article.
Exactly that's around a half. Plus Lukaku commission will be huge, plus Matic and Lindelof. Sure City also made big signings, but for example that spanish-french guy, they activated his buy-out, so commission to an agent would be quite small if there would be a commission at all.
The way i see it, probably Walker is going to generate like 50% of their agent expenditure, everyone else - the rest. I think it will come just under 20m threshold, while we probably will comfortably be over 20m.
I think they will be within £5m of each other.
Why would stating concern at City doubling their agent fees to a Premier League record in Pep’s first season be ‘shoe horning’ it in.
It is very relevant in the discussion about escalating agent fees, no?
Not sure how this is going to work when even mediocre players are costing £60million.
Big clubs won’t have it
Big clubs won’t have it
It's not a particularly long piece of journalism. The focus is on the January window just gone. It mentions one transfer outside of that, which is Pogba's, whose agent received almost as much as City and Chelsea paid in agent fees combined last season. I presume that's why he went with that example. The journalist isn't writing to satisfy needy fans who feel City's spending simply has to be condemned in every single article about finances, and that if they fail to do so they must be part of some agenda.
So Pep will be out of business.
I thought United wasn’t the highest agent commission paying club last year because they were paying Raiola 17-19M in a few installments?
I'd just ban the whole tranfer thing - enough's enough. Short term contracts and an American style draft.
Did you thought that one through?
Not according to the figures submitted to the football league.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39526917
Edit: sorry I misread. Even if United were paying in instalments then you can bet your bottom dollar City will be using similar accounting practices.
Last edited:
With that post, all I'm hinting at is Conn's longstanding habit of avoiding scrutiny of Manchester City in his investigative journalism. Aside from some lip-service pieces - necessary given City's impact on domestic football financing - his bias on this matter appears obvious. For such a notable & thorough journalist, the omission is curious to say the least.
Well that’s what I am saying. They didnt pay the most last year because they didnt pay Raiola’s fees in full. I read they were paying in 4 or 5 installments. Otherwise, I cant imagine United paying just 2M in fees for Zlatan, Mkhi, and Bailly combined.
It may well be the case but it seems that it would make sense for all clubs to operate in that way to amortise the cost over the length of the contract. Although some agents might demand a single sum.
Whatever the case is, I think we should agree no agent should earn 15-20M for transferring a player to any club!
Fair enough if so, I can't say I've ever paid any attention to his writing. Nevertheless, I really don't believe that article in isolation is particularly telling. It's a short article which seems to just be a pretty generic piece he's probably been asked to do about agent fees in the January window. Given we only signed Laporte, via a release clause, understandable there was no pressing need to refer to City.
Agree on that. Fee should be capped. Thing is though, Raiola is brilliant for his clients. He gets them big moves on big wages. Aruba and Mahrez have been desperate to move for over a season now. One ended up at a Europa League club on a small pay rise and Mahrez is left looking a mug again.
Raiola would have done miles better for their careers.
From Aruba to London, that's a bad deal.
Absolutely. The whole thing is disgusting. The money is disgusting.