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

[Jam]

Nah.

Just means owners will end up rolling in profit and not investing it in the club. You'd see a lot more owners interested in money.

Wages would go berzerk. It'll be the new transfer fee since its a more level playing field, woo the player with £500,000 a week.

 

[1Manchester]

those owners treating clubs as subsidiaries for their bigger and better club would likely not last long.

Despite the fact both Real Madrid and Girona compete in the Spanish Football Leagues, a competition which permits B Teams to compete in (which both teams also have). Not that I am against the concept (if anything I support their introduction to my nations domestic league), but it is hypocrtical for you to compain about City treating Girona as a "subsidiary" when Real Madrid (and even Girona) do the exact same thing to their B Teams and worse make no attempts to hide this.

First, they'd lose allfan support

Not if CFG offered additional financial support to sign players (as well as improve their facilities/academy) which they would actually be able to use, not bad compensation for being used for the good of football to break the El Classico monopoly on both Spanish and European Football.

and their participation in whatever league would be a farce

You do realise that 5 City players ended up getting loaned out to the club last season, so that stage has kind of been reached already. Likewise if you are that concerned about LaLiga becoming a farce, would you back any moves to kick out Barcelona B, Atlético Madrid B, Sporting de Gijón B, Bilbao Athletic, Real Madrid Castilla, Celta Vigo B and Real Sociedad B from the Spanish Football League System? Because based on your views on B/Farm/Subsidary Teams, you might as well support all of them getting kicked out as well.

If Girona sign Isco for half a billion and then send him to city for 1 pound the following day, Tebas and the Rfef kick them out of the league and their fans would even support that decision.

Only because Perez would send enough brown envelopes in their direction, thus if we are going to go down the road of "f**k due process and lets just see who can bribe the most" then the Sheikh's can simply outbribe them.

Anything to get the cancerous owners out

If we are going to look at getting such owners out of football, we can start with Perez first and formost (yes I know he does not actually own RM, but he sure acts like he does...) for all that he has done to both football and the club which he runs.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

feck Madrid, PSG and City

/thread

\thread you missed pool

 

[giorno]

You would have a case to ban Girona from European competition (which would be largely pointless since the prospects of them even getting into the Europa League are not that high), but since Man City themsevles would have not violated FFP (1) there are no grounds to ban them as well. Especially when UEFA seem to change the rules on multiple club ownership on a case by case basis.

Note

(1) Since they themselves did not spend the £230 million on buying Kane not do they technically own a majority stake on Girona, so they have neither directly bought him nor indirectly bought him but merely loaned him from Girona instead.

Believe UEFA have some ground to do it, or at least they can find it. There was a lot of talk in italy when Suning bought inter about them using their chinese club to indirectly fund inter and UEFA pretty much told them don't even think about it

Moot point as i said anyways, since no sane owner would do it. Small things like favorable loans, helping youngsters development, etc, are one thing and it already kinda straddles the line. Go overboard and there will be consequences.

Doesn't the FA itself have some rules in place against it? Remember something coming up between chelsea-vitesse and udinese-watford

 

[giorno]

Despite the fact both Real Madrid and Girona compete in the Spanish Football Leagues, a competition which permits B Teams to compete in (which both teams also have). Not that I am against the concept (if anything I support their introduction to my nations domestic league), but it is hypocrtical for you to compain about City treating Girona as a "subsidiary" when Real Madrid (and even Girona) do the exact same thing to their B Teams and worse make no attempts to hide this.

B teams can't compete in the same division as the A team. And i'm not complaining. Just stating my opinion. Girona wouldn't last as an extension of city without getting equal value in return.

Not if CFG offered additional financial support to sign players (as well as improve their facilities/academy) which they would actually be able to use, not bad compensation for being used for the good of football to break the El Classico monopoly on both Spanish and European Football.

They would need to be able to compete in UEFA competitions in that case, which means everything would have to go on the books. CFG can't just pump their own money into the club.

To expand on this: Girona signing Messi and then swapping him with City for De Bruyne and Aguero? No problem with that i think

You do realise that 5 City players ended up getting loaned out to the club last season, so that stage has kind of been reached already. Likewise if you are that concerned about LaLiga becoming a farce, would you back any moves to kick out Barcelona B, Atlético Madrid B, Sporting de Gijón B, Bilbao Athletic, Real Madrid Castilla, Celta Vigo B and Real Sociedad B from the Spanish Football League System? Because based on your views on B/Farm/Subsidary Teams, you might as well support all of them getting kicked out as well.

Loaning talented young players to a small team is one thing. City also excercised very little control over their playing time. There's nothing much wrong with that. Girona is still Girona, not an extension of Manchester City. That would be a farce. And it's never happening.

B teams are an entirely different matter and ALL spanish clubs can have them. They're basically the reserves teams. They're not different clubs

If we are going to look at getting such owners out of football, we can start with Perez first and formost (yes I know he does not actually own RM, but he sure acts like he does...) for all that he has done to both football and the club which he runs.

Eh, if only.

Though i never said anything about getting rich owners out of football.

 

[stevoc]

The best teams helped invent FFP to ring fence success for only themselves. Without it any club would have the chance of success as long as they got some billionaire to buy into they idea of them as a good toy to play with...Which for me is fair.

It would be anything but fair, without some sort of regulation in place the likes of PSG and City's owners could spend 2-3 times what every other legitimately run club could spend each and every summer. (they almost do already) Without FFP it's possible we would have had even more oil state backed clubs by now as well.

They would be hoovering up and stockpiling talent and turning national championships and the champions league into a closed shop dominated by 2-4 financially doped clubs. I think in that scenario european club football would become nothing more than an Arab state pissing contest. With the rest of the clubs looking in from the outside unable to compete.

The current state of European football is not ideal nor exactly fair to some of the smaller leagues, but at least it's allowing outside investment in clubs while keeping the state funded clubs in check to a degree.

 

[1Manchester]

Don't think joint leagues such as Iberian or Atlantic ever made any sense tbh. The cultural aspects of national leagues are the core of football and there's a reason every single country bar micro states play their own league.

Single Nation Leagues (no matter how small said nation was) worked in the age of the European Cup, the 3 Foreigner Rule, the lack of a Bosman Rule and the lack of wealthy owners. But for better or worse that age is long gone and it would be very hard to bring that age back.

So in an age when the Big 4 Leagues are becoming more and more dominant, one has to review the merits of maintaining the independence of the Portuguese Football Leagues considering these factors (the fact only 3 teams can win Primera Liga).

 

[JPRouve]

Was it not the case though because they where one of the few French teams to achieve any major sort of success both at home and in Europe? A situation which is no longer the case sadly, I mean one would question is OM is even the best team in their home region with the recent rise of AS Monaco.

Thus with the combination of PSG having a large potential "home" market of all the French teams alongside their recent sucess, I would not be surprised if they end of being the "biggest" (in terms of support) club in France in the near future, if it is not the case already.

Monaco's rise isn't recent, it's a big french club since the 60s and they have never been close to Marseille in terms of support. The south east is all about football at the exception of Toulon and most people support Marseille outside of Nice and Monaco which means that their home base is relatively big(From Montpellier to Menton), they also take fans everywhere in France. Paris is divided, first because the city isn't made of people from Paris and football isn't the only big sport in town, there is a lot of Rugby fans with two big clubs, you also have loads of Handball, Volleyball and Basketball fans. It's also important to know that it's not that common for people to support teams that aren't from their region, so Paris would have to steal fans from other clubs which isn't a given.

 

[goober88]

City/PSG spending is not the issue. The problem was there way before them and Chelsea. Teams like United, Bayern, etc have been monopolizing domestic and European football for a long time. Even this summer you took our most promising prospect for peanuts. Clubs from minor leagues have zero chances of competing because we can never hang on to our players and build a solid foundation. Every year there's a revolution in the squad and start all over from scratch.

Dalot had a release clause; is that mandatory in Portugal like it is in Spain? Dalot leaving could be partially your fault, if so.

Anyway, what should happen is that the part of the Bosman ruling that allows players to move for free when their contract runs out is rolled back. That would return the power to the clubs and allow them to get more for their players.

It would also help if players could only move within the EU at the age of 18 just like how it is with transfers from South America to Europe/contracts for young players should be done differently to stop bigger clubs poaching 16 year olds before they've signed their first professional deal e.g. Fabregas and Pique.

 

[1Manchester]

Believe UEFA have some ground to do it, or at least they can find it. There was a lot of talk in italy when Suning bought inter about them using their chinese club to indirectly fund inter and UEFA pretty much told them don't even think about it

And which grounds/rules/regulations ban clubs from buying world class players and then selling them on the cheap (or loaning them out) to another club? Even if (in legal terms) they don't have the same common ownership.

Moot point as i said anyways, since no sane owner would do it. Small things like favorable loans, helping youngsters development, etc, are one thing and it already kinda straddles the line. Go overboard and there will be consequences.

If they (the owners of PSG and City) want to get the return (be it profits or a good amount of PR/Ego boosting) they want out of the billions they spent, they have to usurp the El Classico clubs and become the dominant clubs of Europe. Which they can only do by (whatever the cost) bypass FFP or even get it abolished. So they have to resort to such drastic means.

Doesn't the FA itself have some rules in place against it?

The FA does ban clubs from setting up B Teams in the Football League (Although there are some exceptions to the rule when it comes to Non-League, for example Plymouth Argyle's B Team competes in the 10th tier of English Football), as far as I am aware though it does not ban teams like Chelsea and City from establishing partnerships with the likes of Vitesse and Girona (and thus make them B Teams in all but name), teams who play outside the English Football League system.

Remember something coming up between chelsea-vitesse and udinese-watford

Chelsea still loan out players to Vitesse to this day, however the Udinese-Watford relationship has more or less ended despite the two clubs still having the same owners.

B teams can't compete in the same division as the A team. And i'm not complaining. Just stating my opinion.

I am aware of this (and for the record City and Girona don't compete in the same leagues either, unless the latter ends up in the CL), however your issue was seeing Girona be treated like subsidary club of City (like a B Team funny enough) more than anything else. A view which I found hypocrtical to say the least.

Girona wouldn't last as an extension of city without getting equal value in return.

What about Hundreds of Millions of Euro's to improve their facilities and to spend money on players (to challenge the El Classico for the La Liga title)? (1)

They would need to be able to compete in UEFA competitions in that case, which means everything would have to go on the books. CFG can't just pump their own money into the club

Not if I want Girona to give the El Classico clubs a hard time in La Liga and the Copa Del Rey alone, thus it would not matter if Girona were banned from European competition.

Loaning talented young players to a small team is one thing. City also excercised very little control over their playing time.

CFG own 44.3% of Girona FC while Pep's brother owns another 44.3%, so if City wanted to assert more control over the affairs of the club, it would be able to do so despite not actually owning a majority shareholding on said club.

There's nothing much wrong with that. Girona is still Girona, not an extension of Manchester City. That would be a farce. And it's never happening.

B teams are an entirely different matter and ALL spanish clubs can have them. They're basically the reserves teams. They're not different clubs

The fact is though, CFG has treated (though using it as a way to give their youths game time, in the same way Real Madrid does with it's B Team) Girona as if it is their B Team even if the clubs remain legally seperate.

Thus it is no more of a farce than many of the B Teams that already compete in the Spanish Football League system, despite the fact many of them orginated as seperate clubs to their parent ones (for example Real Madrid Castilla began life as AD Plus Ultra while FC Barcelona B was formed out of the merger of Atlètic Catalunya and CB Condal).

Notes

(1) A rather useful bargining chip to use against the El Classico monopoly in getting FFP abolished.

 

[1Manchester]

It would be anything but fair, without some sort of regulation in place the likes of PSG and City's owners could spend 2-3 times what every other legitimately run club could spend each and every summer. (they almost do already) Without FFP it's possible we would have had even more oil state backed clubs by now as well.

They would be hoovering up and stockpiling talent and turning national championships and the champions league into a closed shop dominated by 2-4 financially doped clubs. I think in that scenario european club football would become nothing more than an Arab state pissing contest. With the rest of the clubs looking in from the outside unable to compete.

Nothing stopping the likes of Real Madrid getting addtional government support or for that matter consortium's of billionaires from investing into other football club's. Likewise scrapping FFP would if anything increase the amount of competition at the highest levels of club football since it would force teams to invest in transfers/youth development or face the prospects falling further behind their rivals and in turn alienate their own fans.

Certainly beats what we got now that's for sure...

The current state of European football is not ideal nor exactly fair to some of the smaller leagues, but at least it's allowing outside investment in clubs while keeping the state funded clubs in check to a degree.

Because giving the El Classico clubs the god given right to monopolise both La Liga (and the Copa Del Rey and the Champions League (alongside Bayern and Juventus with their domestic competitions) is such an amazing idea compared to clubs all across Europe investing massively to outcompete with each other.

 

[Skills]

Sounds like a great idea. If you limit the clubs spend, why do the club's need as much of the prize money from UEFA competitions? More money for UEFA.

 

[Hausen]

Not a fan of this.. typically, when you outright ban something it ends up causing unintended consequences or people trying to “get around it”.

I couldn’t imagine if there was an association of restaurants and the head of the association tells the restaurant owners “you can only invest x amount max into your restaurant, no more”. Wtf?

It’s also due to these teams that have invested tremendous amounts of money into their team that we’ve seen football reach places it hasn’t gone before, and also forces smaller clubs to find innovative ways of trying to keep up and search for/produce more talent.

 

[stevoc]

Nothing stopping the likes of Real Madrid getting addtional government support or for that matter consortium's of billionaires from investing into other football club's. Likewise scrapping FFP would if anything increase the amount of competition at the highest levels of club football since it would force teams to invest in transfers/youth development or face the prospects falling further behind their rivals and in turn alienate their own fans.

Certainly beats what we got now that's for sure...

Scrapping FFP completely would only lead to Oil funded clubs inflating the transfer and wage markets way more than they already have, it would eventually get to the point where any non state funded club simply couldn't compete and all that would be left is the likes of City, PSG and whichever other club is potentially bought out by an arab state winning everything. Yeah that sounds great if you happen to be a City or PSG fan like yourself, but to the majority of fans of any other club it does not.

The idea that allowing the owners of City and PSG to spend whatever they like would increase competition is nonsense in my opinion.

 

[1Manchester]

Scrapping FFP completely would only lead to Oil funded clubs inflating the transfer and wage markets way more than they already have, it would eventually get to the point where any non state funded club simply couldn't compete and all that would be left is the likes of City, PSG and whichever other club is potentially bought out by an arab state winning everything. Yeah that sounds great if you happen to be a City or PSG fan like yourself, but to the majority of fans of any other club it does not.

The idea that allowing the owners of City and PSG to spend whatever they like would increase competition is nonsense in my opinion.

Again you seem to think clubs like Real, Barca, Bayern, Juventus, Man United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and the Milan clubs would be unable to find additional investment to properly challenge the likes of City and PSG. A view which is a highly incorrect one.

I mean take Inter Milan for example, scrapping FFP would enable their owners to properly invest into the club rather than be constrained by FFP (They can also merge with AC Mlian as well) (1), Bayern could simply go cap in hand to their sponsors for additional funds, Real Madrid can go back to what they always do and get the Spanish Government to financially support them (and thus force the Catalans to do the same with Barca) while the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea and Man United surely have enough wealthy fans to seek investment from, I mean I am surprised Woodward has yet to talk about getting Jim Ratcliffe to invest into the club (since he is a Man United fan from the Greater Manchester area) rather than waste his time buying Chelsea FC...

Notes

(1) Especially when Milan clearly cannot sustain 2 major European club anymore, what with even Liverpool and Juventus making more revenue than both clubs combined.

 

[Eboue]

They can also merge with AC Mlian as well

What?

 

[stevoc]

Again you seem to think clubs like Real, Barca, Bayern, Juventus, Man United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and the Milan clubs would be unable to find additional investment to properly challenge the likes of City and PSG. A view which is a highly incorrect one.

I mean take Inter Milan for example, scrapping FFP would enable their owners to properly invest into the club rather than be constrained by FFP (They can also merge with AC Mlian as well) (1), Bayern could simply go cap in hand to their sponsors for additional funds, Real Madrid can go back to what they always do and get the Spanish Government to financially support them (and thus force the Catalans to do the same with Barca) while the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea and Man United surely have enough wealthy fans to seek investment from, I mean I am surprised Woodward has yet to talk about getting Jim Ratcliffe to invest into the club (since he is a Man United fan from the Greater Manchester area) rather than waste his time buying Chelsea FC...

Notes

(1) Especially when Milan clearly cannot sustain 2 major European club anymore, what with even Liverpool and Juventus making more revenue than both clubs combined.

You are either fecking bonkers or on a wind-up mate. So your ideas for clubs to compete with City and PSG include the Milan clubs merging, Bayern asking their sponsors for more money, Real and Barca asking for state aid and Man Utd asking rich fans to have a whip round

feck sake mate, all those clubs could do all of that and they still wouldn't be able to compete with clubs financially backed by gulf states that are worth Trillions.

Currently under FFP Manchester United are apparently the worlds richest football club. And yet they simply cannot match the spending in one summer of clubs like City and PSG. You think without FFP that gap would close?

 

[zenith]

Whatever they decide to come up, it should increase the equality between all the clubs across leagues, rather than just the historical big clubs and the sugar daddy ones. There is no point in that

 

[Ecstatic]

@1Manchester

Excellent post. I will comment tomorrow

 

[FreakyJim]

I've never read so much nonsense in only 2 pages in my life.

 

[1Manchester]

What?

Yep I hold the view that FFP or no FFP, the only way the Milan clubs can challenge Juventus and the other big European clubs is if they join forces. Simply because the fact AC Milan these days make less money than even the likes of Lyon, Everton, Napoli, Southampton and West Ham United while Inter makes less money than Leicester City, Atletico Madrid, Dortmund and Spurs. Heck even Juventus, Chelsea and Liverpool make almost as revenue as both clubs combined while 8 clubs (PSG, Arsenal, Man City, Bayern, Barcelona, Real Madrid and Man United) make more revenue than both clubs combined.

In other words both clubs seperately are a long way off from competing financially with the elite of Europes clubs and FFP further undermines any attempts to address this gap, hence why they need to merge. Thus it is no surprise that their recent decline has been so dramatic since 2011.

Now I am going to get a lot of fans of both clubs who will criticise me for saying this, but what I will ask them is this. Is maintaining your hate for each really worth sustaining when all it ends up doing is enabling Juventus to win their 8th title in a row, as well as make it more likely that Napoli will win the title before either club does once more and even renforce the El Classico dulpoly on the CL?

You are either fecking bonkers or on a wind-up mate.

So says someone who is fundamentally against the establishment of a possible PSG-City Dupoly on European Football, but who seems to be ok with a El Classico one.

So your ideas for clubs to compete with City and PSG include the Milan clubs merging

Which they need to do anyway, more so if FFP is still in place.

Bayern asking their sponsors for more money

To be fair, one of the main reasons why they have both dominated German Football and have become of the richest clubs in Europe is precisely due to the amount of commerical revenue (which is more than what any othe club gets per season) they get every season. So Bayern is in a good postion to increase the amount of money they get from the Major German Corporations who want to be associated with their continued success, especially if they want to maintain it.

Real and Barca asking for state aid

To be fair, Real Madrid would not have become the Great European Side they have become without state aid/support (and people think PSG and City were both the first to do this). So it is not unreasonable to see the Spanish state back them again once more (How do you think they got the first generation of Galacticos in the first place?)

Man Utd asking rich fans to have a whip round

In all seriousness, getting someone like Radcliffe to spend £1 billion on Man United instead of spending it to buy Chelsea would be no laughting matter. After all with £1 Billion to spend on transfers, you could get Alaba, Sandro, Kimmich, Alderweireld, Vertonghen, D.Sanchez, Alli, Kante, Erriksen, Mahrez and Kane. All of which would give you a squad that would not only seriously challenge City, but help break the El Classico monpoly as well.

feck sake mate, all those clubs could do all of that and they still wouldn't be able to compete with clubs financially backed by gulf states that are worth Trillions.

The thing is though, The Governments/Rulers of Qatar and Abu Dhabi need to use those trillions to fund their own lifestyles, those of the other members of their ruling elites and find ways to sustain their economies after oil/gas does run out, in other words FFP or no FFP it is unlikely they will spend trillions on transfers and wages. Now with no FFP they might be willing to spend tens of billions, but I don't see them spending more than that...unless they have a strong and irrational desire to make players like Neymar and agents like Mendes the richest people in the world.

Currently under FFP Manchester United are apparently the worlds richest football club. And yet they simply cannot match the spending in one summer of clubs like City and PSG.

You could have done (with no addtional investment) if the Glazers had not taken so much out of the club in the time they have owned it, and I am far from the one who holds that view:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...1billion-from-manchester-united-10244576.html

Hence why I feel for United to properly challenge City, the Glazers removal would go a long way to doing that.

You think without FFP that gap would close?

It can if Ed Woodward puts an effort in getting people like Radcliffe to invest in Man United, that and removing the Glazers from leeching off the club.

 

[Mart1974]

Can't wait for PSG and City to find a loophole in this.

Buy 3 or 4 smaller clubs and rinse players through on loans...

 

[Kapardin]

The thing is though, The Governments/Rulers of Qatar and Abu Dhabi need to use those trillions to fund their own lifestyles, those of the other members of their ruling elites and find ways to sustain their economies after oil/gas does run out, in other words FFP or no FFP it is unlikely they will spend trillions on transfers and wages. Now with no FFP they might be willing to spend tens of billions, but I don't see them spending more than that...unless they have a strong and irrational desire to make players like Neymar and agents like Mendes the richest people in the world.

Dunno about Qatar, but Abu Dhabi's riches are not dependent on oil alone. Yes, they made their fortune with oil, but now they have another trump card which works better - tourism. And tourism not just in Abu Dhabi, which is still developing in that area, but Dubai.

Dubai has always been a tourist hub and its' wealth does not come from oil. During recession, Dubai Ruler grew overambitious and blew boatloads of cash on excessive projects like Palm Jumeirah which flopped hard. Dubai ran into debt and it was basically Abu Dhabi who bailed them out. Wisely realizing that oil wouldn't last forever, they helped out Dubai on condition that a lot of hot properties in Dubai be signed over to them -- notable being the Burj Dubai, tallest building in the world whose name was changed to Burj Khalifa once Abu Dhabi took over a majority stake.

Word is, Abu Dhabi even demanded a majority stake in Emirates Airlines, but Dubai refused as that was just a bit too much for them.

When the oil dries up, Abu Dhabi Sheikhs will still be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[stevoc]

Yep I hold the view that FFP or no FFP, the only way the Milan clubs can challenge Juventus and the other big European clubs is if they join forces. Simply because the fact AC Milan these days make less money than even the likes of Lyon, Everton, Napoli, Southampton and West Ham United while Inter makes less money than Leicester City, Atletico Madrid, Dortmund and Spurs. Heck even Juventus, Chelsea and Liverpool make almost as revenue as both clubs combined while 8 clubs (PSG, Arsenal, Man City, Bayern, Barcelona, Real Madrid and Man United) make more revenue than both clubs combined.

In other words both clubs seperately are a long way off from competing financially with the elite of Europes clubs and FFP further undermines any attempts to address this gap, hence why they need to merge. Thus it is no surprise that their recent decline has been so dramatic since 2011.

Now I am going to get a lot of fans of both clubs who will criticise me for saying this, but what I will ask them is this. Is maintaining your hate for each really worth sustaining when all it ends up doing is enabling Juventus to win their 8th title in a row, as well as make it more likely that Napoli will win the title before either club does once more and even renforce the El Classico dulpoly on the CL?



So says someone who is fundamentally against the establishment of a possible PSG-City Dupoly on European Football, but who seems to be ok with a El Classico one.



Which they need to do anyway, more so if FFP is still in place.



To be fair, one of the main reasons why they have both dominated German Football and have become of the richest clubs in Europe is precisely due to the amount of commerical revenue (which is more than what any othe club gets per season) they get every season. So Bayern is in a good postion to increase the amount of money they get from the Major German Corporations who want to be associated with their continued success, especially if they want to maintain it.



To be fair, Real Madrid would not have become the Great European Side they have become without state aid/support (and people think PSG and City were both the first to do this). So it is not unreasonable to see the Spanish state back them again once more (How do you think they got the first generation of Galacticos in the first place?)



In all seriousness, getting someone like Radcliffe to spend £1 billion on Man United instead of spending it to buy Chelsea would be no laughting matter. After all with £1 Billion to spend on transfers, you could get Alaba, Sandro, Kimmich, Alderweireld, Vertonghen, D.Sanchez, Alli, Kante, Erriksen, Mahrez and Kane. All of which would give you a squad that would not only seriously challenge City, but help break the El Classico monpoly as well.



The thing is though, The Governments/Rulers of Qatar and Abu Dhabi need to use those trillions to fund their own lifestyles, those of the other members of their ruling elites and find ways to sustain their economies after oil/gas does run out, in other words FFP or no FFP it is unlikely they will spend trillions on transfers and wages. Now with no FFP they might be willing to spend tens of billions, but I don't see them spending more than that...unless they have a strong and irrational desire to make players like Neymar and agents like Mendes the richest people in the world.



You could have done (with no addtional investment) if the Glazers had not taken so much out of the club in the time they have owned it, and I am far from the one who holds that view:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...1billion-from-manchester-united-10244576.html

Hence why I feel for United to properly challenge City, the Glazers removal would go a long way to doing that.



It can if Ed Woodward puts an effort in getting people like Radcliffe to invest in Man United, that and removing the Glazers from leeching off the club.

Did it take you a week to write all that mate?

It's still all bonkers.

 

[1Manchester]

Did it take you a week to write all that mate?

Nope, it is just that I have been rather busy of late.

It's still all bonkers.

So says the guy who would rather result to cheap insults than make the case (to myself) about to why a El Classico dupoly (which is really what you are advocating, even if you claim its about FFP) on European Football is such a good idea.

 

[stevoc]

So says the guy who would rather result to cheap insults than make the case (to myself) about to why a El Classico dupoly (which is really what you are advocating, even if you claim its about FFP) on European Football is such a good idea.

Cheap insults?

Take it easy mate no need to be so sensitive, i never insulted you personally at all. I just think some of your ideas on this stuff is bonkers, thats my opinion. Come on you're suggesting fierce rivals merging and celebrity whip rounds to compete with some of the richest countries in the world.

If the Abu Dhabi lot had bought Everton instead and the Qatari's had bought Liverpool instead of City and PSG. Would you be ok United and City merging to compete, i think not.

And i don't really think there is an El Classico duopoly, not a permanent one anyway. Barca won a few over the last decade by having what most consider the best player and club side in history and Real have just managed an incredibly rare feat of winning the European Cup 3 years in a row, something that hasn't been done in over 40 years. Before that over 10 years there were different winners every year with no team retaining, it will soon go back to that i would imagine as i don't see another team winning 2-3 in a row any time soon. It also goes in cycles, German and Dutch teams in the early 70's winning 3 in a row, the late 70's early 80's it was English teams dominating, late 80's early 90's Italian teams, English teams winning and getting to the final for 8 years in a row in the late 00's and recently it has been Spanish teams. With no FFP there would be no cycles at all it would be the same Oil state backed clubs winning it year in, year out.

 

[Carolina Red]

I am aware of this (and for the record City and Girona don't compete in the same leagues either, unless the latter ends up in the CL), however your issue was seeing Girona be treated like subsidary club of City (like a B Team funny enough) more than anything else. A view which I found hypocrtical to say the least.

Wait a minute...

Real’s B team is a legitimate part of Real Madrid CF. It’s their reserve team. Man City has a reserve team too... NYCFC and Girona ain’t it.

How you’re comparing the likes of NYCFC and Girona to the likes of RM’s Castilla is beyond me.

 

[1Manchester]

Cheap insults?

Take it easy mate no need to be so sensitive, i never insulted you personally at all. I just think some of your ideas on this stuff is bonkers, thats my opinion.

My issue is not about you being personal towards me. The issue I have is that after I posted a respose to your orginal "your ideas are bonkers" post, you simply repeated the claim that my ideas are "bonkers", even after I had showed why it was not the case.

Still at least you put a decent response this time round, so credit where is due!

Come on you're suggesting fierce rivals merging and celebrity whip rounds to compete with some of the richest countries in the world.

I am suggesting that both clubs accept the cold hard predicement (and stop a common enermy from contining to dominate Serie A) they have found themselves in and join forces to get themselves out of that horrid siutation. Especially when there is a serious prospect AC Milan might not even make it to the Europa League...

Likewise these "celebrity whip rounds" I am adovcating involve getting wealthy owners putting billions into the so called "established" football clubs, not getting the likes of Rashford and Lukaku to host a telethon to raise a few million or so .

If the Abu Dhabi lot had bought Everton instead and the Qatari's had bought Liverpool instead of City and PSG. Would you be ok United and City merging to compete, i think not.

Being completely honest about this, if such a siutation did occur then I would be in favour of it (as well as recruiting wealthy investors into such a combined club). Simply because while I am supported of City for almost all my entire life, I am consider myself a proud Mancunian first and City fan second. So regardless the rivalry between our our clubs, the prospect of Merseyside dupoly over European Football would be horrifying for myself (and many other fans of both clubs).

Thus under those circumstances I would be willing to do whatever it took to break that dupoly, including joining forces with United. Because regardless of the differences between each other, none of us want to see Liverpool and Everton win every PL and CL going for the next few decades or so.

Wait a minute...

Real’s B team is a legitimate part of Real Madrid CF. It’s their reserve team.

How you’re comparing the likes of NYCFC and Girona to RM’s Castilla is beyond me.

Because in reality, both teams (most of all the latter) are de facto reserve teams for Man City. Why else would CFG loan out Man City youth players to these clubs (alongside the senior players who are on the respective clubs books) and for that matter have Man City be the club that Frank Lampard was contracted to over NYCFC?

 

[Carolina Red]

Because in reality, both teams (most of all the latter) are de facto reserve teams for Man City.

So in reality, they’re not reserve teams at all, you just like to call them that because otherwise your point falls flat.

 

[1Manchester]

So in reality, they’re not reserve teams at all, you just like to call them that because otherwise your point falls flat.

To be fair, I did go into some detail into why they are basically reserve teams for Man City in all but name. Especially when there is no avenue for any football club playing Premier League/Football League/National League to establish a B Team within the League System and thus properly replicate a club like RM Castilla.

 

[Carolina Red]

To be fair, I did go into some detail into why they are basically reserve teams for Man City in all but name. Especially when there is no avenue for any football club playing Premier League/Football League/National League to establish a B Team within the League System and thus properly replicate a club like RM Castilla.

I know you went into detail, but it didn’t help your case.

NYCFC, Girona, Melbourne, etc. are not reserve teams. The B teams in Spain are. It’s silly to try and say they’re doing the same thing.

 

[1Manchester]

I know you went into detail, but it didn’t help your case.

NYCFC, Girona, Melbourne, etc. are not reserve teams. The B teams in Spain are. It’s silly to try and say they’re doing the same thing.

I did not say they were reserve teams on paper, I said they are subordinate to Man City (within the CFG at least) for the reasons stated in that post and thus they are de facto reserve teams in all but name.

Besides my main issue I had with that poster was that he/she accused me of wanting to make Girona a "subsidiary club" of Man City (for advocating its use as a way to bypass FFP) and thus their pacipitation in the Spanish Football League System would become a farce. I responded to that claim by saying that Girona was already a de faco B Team for City (why else did CFG send all those Man City Youth Players to the club?) and brought about the fact many of the big Spanish Clubs already have B Teams.

And i don't really think there is an El Classico duopoly, not a permanent one anyway. Barca won a few over the last decade by having what most consider the best player and club side in history and Real have just managed an incredibly rare feat of winning the European Cup 3 years in a row, something that hasn't been done in over 40 years. Before that over 10 years there were different winners every year with no team retaining, it will soon go back to that i would imagine as i don't see another team winning 2-3 in a row any time soon. It also goes in cycles, German and Dutch teams in the early 70's winning 3 in a row, the late 70's early 80's it was English teams dominating, late 80's early 90's Italian teams, English teams winning and getting to the final every year in the late 00's and recently it has been Spanish teams.

It's all well and good saying that the dupoly will die down (1), but the question that no one has yet to ask is how exactly will it be broken? Especially when FFP prevents any challenge club (2) from building a squad that can break their dominance. I mean even when Real Madrid and Barcelona are doing poorly by their own recent standards, one of them still managed to win the competition at the end of the day despite doing poorly in their own Domestic League.

With no FFP there would be no cycles at all it would be the same Oil state backed clubs winning it year in, year out.

That would only happen if firstly the "established" clubs where all collectively stupid enough to not think of ways of getting additional financial support to fund their fightback and secondly if they can deal with the high levels of fan pressure that endless years without sucess would bring to those clubs.

Notes

(1) By the El Classico dupoly on the European Cup/Champions League is stronger (dominance wise) than any other era of the competition since the Di Stéfano led 5 in a row (by Real Madrid). I mean sure Dutch and German clubs (or rather Bayern Munich, Ajax and Feyenoord) dominated the competition thoughout most of the70s , but at least it was broken by Liverpool and Nottingham after 7 years or so. Likewise in the 80s, English clubs did quite well at the start of the decade, but it did not stop Juventus and Hamburg from winning it even before the English clubs got banned after 1985.

As for those other periods of dominace you mentioned, even during the late 80s/early 90s period (When the Italian clubs were at their most dominant in Europe), the likes of Red Star Belgrade, Barcelona and Marseille (even if they bribed their way to victory) managed to win it as well. And no getting 1-2 English teams in a final for 5 times in a row does not constitute an era of dominance since only twice did it lead to victories (and one of them might as well be called a miracle in footballing terms).

So the fact Real and Barcelona have managed to dominate this competition for 10 years now (with really only Bayern Munich sucessfully able to break that dupoly) is a pretty remarkable feat if you ask me, which is why it has been so hard to break it for good.

(2) Especially one from the Premier League, of which they would need a squad containing at least 2 World Class XI's to enable them to properly challenge the El Classico clubs in the Champions League while also able to win the Premier League on a regular basis.

 

[Carolina Red]

I did not say they were reserve teams on paper, I said they are subordinate to Man City (within the CFG at least) for the reasons stated in that post and thus they are de facto reserve teams in all but name.

That’s the thing. On paper they’re completely separate entities, not inferior ones. CFG are being dishonest if they’re operating the clubs as international B teams.

Besides my main issue I had with that poster was that he/she accused me of wanting to make Girona a "subsidiary club" of Man City (for advocating its use as a way to bypass FFP) and thus their pacipitation in the Spanish Football League System would become a farce. I responded to that claim by saying that Girona was already a de faco B Team for City (why else did CFG send all those Man City Youth Players to the club?) and brought about the fact many of the big Spanish Clubs already have B Teams.

It doesn’t matter that they do. They’re not legally separate entities being used as reserve teams.

 

[stevoc]

It's all well and good saying that the dupoly will die down (1), but the question that no one has yet to ask is how exactly will it be broken? Especially when FFP prevents any challenge club (2) from building a squad that can break their dominance. I mean even when Real Madrid and Barcelona are doing poorly by their own recent standards, one of them still managed to win the competition at the end of the day despite doing poorly in their own Domestic League.

Time.

Messi and Ronaldo are both over 30 now, It's highly unlikely they will be replaced with players of equal quality. Aside from that most both Real and Barca's better players are aging as well. Thats how cycles go, it will take both of them time to rebuild sides capable of winning multiple Champions leagues.

Especially when FFP prevents any challenge club

How exactly does FFP stop teams from challenging?

With Man City and PSGs inflated sponsorships which are allowed within FFP it seems. They are already competing, in fact i'm fairly certain both PSG and City have probably spent more than Real and Barca respectively over the last few years.

So how much do you think City and PSG need to be able to spend exactly?

 

[padr81]

First off Girona are not our B-Team nor will they ever be nor NYCFC nor Melbourne. Our B-Team are out B-Team or Elite Development Squad (horrible name I know). I suggest people look into Soriano's plan for CFG and what he had planned previously at Barcelona. This is not a one team with loads of B-Team operation but yes the goal is to have Manchester City as the flagship club for lack of a better word. City Football Group is about a bunch of clubs under one banner/franchise and a very, very different thing.

Girona were not and never will be City B, they were under no pressure to play any of our players and Maffeo aside (whose no longer a City player) we had zero regulars in the first XI, what our loan players offered there was depth and game time but not huge game time. It was mutual benefit.

Aleix Garcia was the second most used City player there and he played 931 minutes over 21 appearances, so he averaged 44 minutes per game for roughly half their games. 30% of so of the possible game time available. Douglas Luis less than half that time 450 minutes so 9 games. Kayode 4.5 games and Moreno just over 2 games. We had one player in their 14 most used players.

 

[Kilmonger]

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.

Players like De Bruyne, Lukaku, Salah and co are a product of that system (and to our detriment as well). How this is some sort of problem for you lot is beyond me. It's a perfectly legal way for us to make extra revenue since we're not backed by an entire bloody state and are trying to be self sufficient. 7 times outta 10, the players we buy in that process are bang average anyway and we take losses on the resale other times.

It's not like we're forcing these players to sign under duress. Get over yourselves.

 

[André Dominguez]

Is it going to be 100M€ total value or objective clauses do not count? Otherwise, easy loophole to explore.

 

[André Dominguez]

Girona buys Joe Nobody for £40m. Done.

Some clubs have done this here in Portugal. A random club buys a player and then he gets loaned to a bigger club. Nothing new.

 

[Murray3007]

Not sure this should be able to come in to force, why should teams not be able to spend money ? my biggest gripe about football is the amount of debt the top clubs have and yes it might be managable but with the amount of money thats in the game at the moment we shouldnt be allowing clubs to be in debt,

 

[We need an rvn]

If they do implement this, which I think is not a bad thing, then the simple way around it would be a lot more player swaps. Ie. we want Sandro, you want Martial - let's trade. If the other team doesn't want a trade then the buying club will have to fork out. Think it's a good thing if honest as fees are getting crazy