They actually will adress that now.
"Another side note to the report is that they also hope to limit senior squads to 25 professional players, in order to prevent clubs like Chelsea or Manchester City having up to 60 players under contract." (marca)
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.
"Another side note to the report is that they also hope to limit senior squads to 25 professional players, in order to prevent clubs like Chelsea or Manchester City having up to 60 players under contract." (marca)
As others have said, City and PSG will find ways to circumvent the new system. I do like the idea of clubs registering fewer players though. It’s tiresome seeing Chelsea hoarding some of the best talent around in recent years only to see them inevitably go to waste.
I think Wenger is usually right about the state of football and what needs to be addressed.
Surely the rules will have to be a lot more detailed, outlawing transfers between satellite clubs and imposing wage restrictions for a start.
As an aside, it could better better for the development of home grown talent.
I think Wenger or another manager spoke of the worrying trend of clubs totally reliant on state sponsorship. That for me was most telling. Imagine a CL final between PSG and City, might as well be two states slugging it out to promote their PR exercise.
Exciting oil clubs OUT... proper working class clubs like Burnley... IN!
Great news. That will help the 2nd tier clubs more than any other rule. They get to keep top talents until they are actually ready to occupy a top 25 spot at an elite club and then the 2nd and 3rd tier clubs can expect a proper compensation for a "finished article", rather than buying them cheap and early to stash them.
There are so many others ways though. The secondary club could buy primary club’s fringe players for inflated price and reduce their net spend.
Also, bigger clubs aka PSG can just loan a couple of star players aka Mbappe from smaller clubs. It doesn’t need to be a whole lot of players, just a few will do.
Will it though, the transfer of young players can happen at an age when they qualify as home grown in a foreign country.
There'll no doubt be ways to circumvent it as there always is and to the benefit of a select few clubs.
Workaround: Multiple season loan with big penalty in case the buying club cancel the deal by the end of term.
Considering it doesn't really take a genius to come up with that idea maybe UEFA have an idea of how to deal with it?
You can just get around this through trades. Similar to Sanchez for Mkhitaryan.
I’m just glad they’re doing something about the insane, inflated transfer fees.
I’m just glad they’re doing something about the insane, inflated transfer fees.
So long as Bayern and Real can continue to win the European cup everything will be alright.
These changes backed by the club that's reportedly preparing a £200m offer for Kane? That's rich.
They can tinker around the subject all they like, but its not going to stop until they ban state ownership of football teams.
They created this mess by allowing this cheating to go ahead in the first place.
They created this mess by allowing this cheating to go ahead in the first place.
You say that but we sit here with a FFP 1.0 that had glaring loopholes that we could all figure out as soon as it was introduced.
UEFA’s track record is poor, filled with corruption. It’s normal for anyone to be sceptical of their intentions and ability to govern football.
Yes they can, but you are limited by the amount of available roster spots. You think Chelsea will buy 10 unfinished prospects and have them on their active 25 men roster, while 15 guys play their season? They are already having a meltdown, because they "only" have 24 year old Batshuayi as a back-up striker.
It says net spend
Real asking for this is like City claiming higher ground with the Sanchez deal.
@JustFootballFan
I see what you are saying. Is it after age 21 home grown players have to be named in the official squad?
I see what you are saying. Is it after age 21 home grown players have to be named in the official squad?
I think FFP UEFA was just misrepresented. I mean old powers have seen it as an opportunity to put a stop to PSG, City rise. But is it fair? I don't think so. I did not bat an eye when we signed Rio and others. Back then, when you look at our revenue it was shitload of money, like a 100m right now, if not more. We spent quite a lot of money and way back in 90s if i remember correctly Keane was a record transfer back then. Cantona probably was not, but i think his overall package, fee plus wages was huge for early 90s. So i think it's kind of hypocritical to complain that Chelsea or City can spend big money.
Especially not for United, but for Bayern. Honestly these guys are well-known financial scavengers, they basically pillaged Bundesliga for years.
In my opinion the whole idea of FFP was not to cut PSG, City from owners money, that could be easily done with other set of rules. But the main idea was to structure stuff like ownership, revenues, to give clubs more financial stability. For example UEFA restricted loses, so these "new money" started rely not on loans or share buy-out from owners but on sponsorhips money from companies associated with owners. Sure it's basically the same money. But any financial guy will tell you that the second way is more secure, it's better for football as an industry, it's more revenue, more taxes, more stability. And UEFA has to think about stability for players and other staff.
Simply cutting PSG's money off would be restricting investment. And in a that way FFP has worked, the revenue is up, bottom loses are down, Real and Barcelona were heavily in dept around 2010, they are both fine now. Our dept did not come from football activity, so that's another story.
But right now these permutations are complete, the clubs sorted out their financial state, well most of them. And new set of rules should be discussed. Right now the problem is competitive balance. PL has it reasonably okay, but there are huge problems in other top leagues. I would actually take a page from USA sports, we can't have the draft system obviously, that's a dead end. But we can have a system that restricts transfers and while idea of a level ceiling for everybody, like a 100m is a nice one, i think the much better idea is to give a little bit more edge to teams who finish lower. So for example champions will get like a 85m limit, 2-4 teams 100m limit, 5-10 will get 120m and so on. Of course the exact numbers should be thought through better. But the idea is to give some edge to teams that finish lower, so that next year they can be better.
Especially not for United, but for Bayern. Honestly these guys are well-known financial scavengers, they basically pillaged Bundesliga for years.
In my opinion the whole idea of FFP was not to cut PSG, City from owners money, that could be easily done with other set of rules. But the main idea was to structure stuff like ownership, revenues, to give clubs more financial stability. For example UEFA restricted loses, so these "new money" started rely not on loans or share buy-out from owners but on sponsorhips money from companies associated with owners. Sure it's basically the same money. But any financial guy will tell you that the second way is more secure, it's better for football as an industry, it's more revenue, more taxes, more stability. And UEFA has to think about stability for players and other staff.
Simply cutting PSG's money off would be restricting investment. And in a that way FFP has worked, the revenue is up, bottom loses are down, Real and Barcelona were heavily in dept around 2010, they are both fine now. Our dept did not come from football activity, so that's another story.
But right now these permutations are complete, the clubs sorted out their financial state, well most of them. And new set of rules should be discussed. Right now the problem is competitive balance. PL has it reasonably okay, but there are huge problems in other top leagues. I would actually take a page from USA sports, we can't have the draft system obviously, that's a dead end. But we can have a system that restricts transfers and while idea of a level ceiling for everybody, like a 100m is a nice one, i think the much better idea is to give a little bit more edge to teams who finish lower. So for example champions will get like a 85m limit, 2-4 teams 100m limit, 5-10 will get 120m and so on. Of course the exact numbers should be thought through better. But the idea is to give some edge to teams that finish lower, so that next year they can be better.
Get a real guilty pleasure from seeing the spanish superclubs realise the days of bullying everyone with galactico spending is over.
But on the other hand something does need to be done about state backed clubs. They'll soon inflate the market to the point where only they can afford young world class players
But on the other hand something does need to be done about state backed clubs. They'll soon inflate the market to the point where only they can afford young world class players
Real Madrid being one of the clubs asking for it makes no sense.
Are they trying to grab Harry Kane now, hoping FFP 2.0 goes into effect from next season?
They need to put a wage cap in place too.
Also not fair for the big non-oil based clubs that they can't send their hard earned money.
Also not fair for the big non-oil based clubs that they can't send their hard earned money.
Have United ever gone over £100m net spend on transfers per season?
Just means FU to oil rich clubs (City/PSG) and means the likes of United/Madrid/Barcelona will be able to hand pick all the worlds best talent, right?
Just means FU to oil rich clubs (City/PSG) and means the likes of United/Madrid/Barcelona will be able to hand pick all the worlds best talent, right?
I don´t know how they´d structure it, but it´s certainly something that should/could be established in a way that the amount of players a team can carry is limited. Thinking about it again, unfortunately then you´d probably get models like RB Salzburg and RB Leipzig or City buying stakes in Girona. They´d just have these clubs buy the talented young players and whoever is ready gets sold on to the parent club.
Scenes when Girona buys Fabian Delph for £100m.
Yes. And? You don't see the irony? And it means that they will be looking for some suckers to buy their rejects. So how about some good old collusion from other clubs not to buy Madrid players. If no one buys their players, they can't spend more than €100m right?
Got to say I do find it amusing that Utd fans feel there's an unfair financial playing field
Surely a €100m net spend limit would be good for us at the moment, given we are currently the best side in the league. It’d make it harder to catch us. It’ll always favour the team furthest ahead, whoever it is at the time its introduced.
Yeah it's not like our finances were built on the back of decades of success. Have a seat
Only allow clubs to spend money they actually earn, such as gate receipts, megastore sales, competition winnings and revenue generated from preseason tours/tournaments.
No longer can clubs sign a dozen different random sponsorships just to say so and so is the official tissue of x club for 10m a year. It’s ridiculous.
No longer can clubs sign a dozen different random sponsorships just to say so and so is the official tissue of x club for 10m a year. It’s ridiculous.
Kinda stupid, if clubs can only spend 100M per season, they can start buying and selling at still huge fees, that would be paid over a set amount of years.
There's a reason most successful clubs are based in the biggest cities of Europe, you could say having a whole country buying a club and bankrolling them it's as fair as basically having an edge since the start because you're based in a 2M population City like Barcelona, and not a 300k or 80k town.
"Fair" is something hard to describe in this sense
There's a reason most successful clubs are based in the biggest cities of Europe, you could say having a whole country buying a club and bankrolling them it's as fair as basically having an edge since the start because you're based in a 2M population City like Barcelona, and not a 300k or 80k town.
"Fair" is something hard to describe in this sense
Spanish release clauses might be an issue, since technically players trigger them and not clubs, though I guess an issue as obvious as this can be figured out.
It also wouldn't just affect oil clubs. United net spent roughly €150m for the past two seasons.
It also wouldn't just affect oil clubs. United net spent roughly €150m for the past two seasons.
Not saying the fees involved are not ridiculous, but is selling advertising spots not a legitimate way to "earn" money?
Real Madrid advocating for this when they have the biggest rebuilding job coming? Guess is they will spend 300m this summer and enforce the same from next year. Just like Barca.
I do hope we also become proactive and address all the weakness this year.
I do hope we also become proactive and address all the weakness this year.
Such a United fan thing to say, can’t beat them on the pitch then eliminate them off it. Unrivalled competition sure sounds fun. How would this proposition be good for the sport?
You do realise under the current rules United still have the largest advantage given you generate the largest revenue and that’s the only thing that currently caps spending. It’s ridiculous that you think this is the way to fix the sport.