Fine, let's say I was duped by the PR. That I didn't read the reams of paperwork and official documents and spend weeks researching FFP. Where's the evidence to back up your assertion? Any links to documents I can read? What are these 'own reasons'? Any reports from credible sources? I'm being deadly serious. If there's anything of substance you can share I'd love nothing more than to have a look and let the facts guide me.
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.
You're clearly in another stratosphere than the rest of us, so I won't bother to respond to your laa laa land fantasies. But i'll comment on this tiny part of your drivel.
I can't believe, that you used strength in depth as an excuse for losing these matches. You even had the league wrapped up at the time, so you could rest your best players at no risk, when you wanted to. We didn't have that luxury, remember?
You brought in Aguero at Etihad ffs.. We had the likes of Solanke, Ings, Moreno, Klavan, etc on the bench.
Lack of depth, my a*se
So that's why you lost three times to us? You simply lacked strength in depth? I'll tell you why you lost.. Because our first team was better than your first team, and our manager was better than yours in these matches. It had nothing to do with strength in depth.
I can't believe, that you used strength in depth as an excuse for losing these matches. You even had the league wrapped up at the time, so you could rest your best players at no risk, when you wanted to. We didn't have that luxury, remember?
You brought in Aguero at Etihad ffs.. We had the likes of Solanke, Ings, Moreno, Klavan, etc on the bench.
Lack of depth, my a*se
In general you'll find con merchants don't send you a letter explaining how they're doing it at the same time.
Answer this, why does FFP not consider money put directly into clubs by wealthy people as income? If the intention was really to avoid bankruptcies they should welcome it.
If that were the case then Uefa would have punished City and PSG way more severely than they have for their FFP violations.
Add to that they have and continue allow both clubs to inflate their income with obviously fake sponsorship deals as long as they don't take the complete piss. FFP doesn't stop someone buying a club and pumping money into it.
Well thats the sort of thing that can cause bankruptcies mate. A billionaire comes along and decides they want to buy a football club so they do and pump say £200-300-500m or whatever into it, buying players for huge fees on huge wages. But then the billionaire gets bored and sells the club or just neglects it, most likely the clubs own revenue can't sustain the level of spending/wages/debt built up when they were being funded externally by the billionaire.
So what happens in that scenario?
This is why FFP allows wealthy parties to externally fund building up a clubs infrastructure, stadium, training ground, academy etc. Things that will benefit the club and not be a financial burden if the owner decided to piss off.
Last edited:
I quite agree they chickened out and FFP hasn't worked. They seemed to lose interest round about the time PSG got rich for some reason.
Thats one way of looking at it i suppose, another is that FFP was never designed specifically to hold back oil state funded clubs. Part of it is to keep them in check yeah but thats about it, PSG and City are both still spending shit loads every year.
Yes this could happen, but the idea that Uefa went through all the hassle of FFP to prevent the possibility is just naive I'm afraid. To paraphrase Sir Alex, when Fifa or Uefa tell you it's pasta on the plate, check under the sauce to make sure.
Yes it could and very likely would have if more and more billionaires came out of the woodwork to buy football clubs as a plaything to keep them amused for a few years. FFP has pumped the breaks on that to an extent, so that answers your question as to why FFP doesn't allow owners to directly fund transfers with external money.
Also believe it or not Uefa do try to protect clubs and european football in general for the most part. I know some like to think of them as a faceless organization only out for their own gains, and that may be partly true. But FFP was created primarily to help/force clubs to run themselves by more sustainable means and avoid Leeds type situations. Because at the end of the day if too many clubs go belly up and football starts struggling in general so does Uefa.
As i was saying earlier FFP doesn't stop outside investors buying clubs and pumping money into them, they just have to do it in a sustainable manner now. Either funding directly into infrastructure, or even indirectly through bloated related party sponsorship deals way above market value. Uefa allow those types of deals as those sponsorships at least give clubs guarantees of funding for the periods of the contract as opposed to a wealthy owner pumping money in directly and then deciding one day to cut it off at a whim and leaving a club in financial trouble.
Not even bloated, if you look at PSG, in theory they have a huge market but bad ownership led to poor marketing exploitation. FFP allows QSI to sponsor the club based on its theoretical market and exposure, what they can't do is surpass that theoretical threshold.
And you are right about the rest, the real story about FFP is that it was initially exclusively intended to avoid cases like Zaragoza, Parma, Strasbourg, Le Mans, Portsmouth or Leeds. The initial plan included the use of an administration comparable to the DNCG in France and on top of some of the tools currently used by the FFP. But some FAs were against it and some big clubs lobbied for an anti-City plan instead. IIRC Real Madrid and United don't give a damn about FFP and never pushed for it, it's the other usual suspects.
Ok but they did try to take the piss with their sponsorships initially didn't they? Didn't Uefa discount a lot of their income from sponsorship deals as it was way above market value?
Yup, the UEFA reduced it by 50% but that's still a lot of money.
Not going to lie i haven't read into this new FFP idea much, nor have i read every post on here....but i think it would be a positive if they brought in a limit on net spend during a season or window.
Obviously as it's been mentioned in here, clubs would find ways to work around it so it might just not work anyway.
However, i do find it amusing that if you go over to the LFC thread, netspend is just an "excuse" according to UTD fans and a fake theory....yet it's being suggested as a potential FFP method to control vast spending...
Obviously as it's been mentioned in here, clubs would find ways to work around it so it might just not work anyway.
However, i do find it amusing that if you go over to the LFC thread, netspend is just an "excuse" according to UTD fans and a fake theory....yet it's being suggested as a potential FFP method to control vast spending...