Could they not make a rule that says a club must register which is the parent club and who the sister clubs are? For example, City are the parent club and New York are a sister club meaning a ruling could say that City could loan to New York (With no fee) but New York could not loan to City. This would stop the issue of loan deals to get around the rules. If there was also some governance in terms of transfer spend + wages against clubs turnover then it would make it harder for the sister club to spend huge fees on players and then sell to the parent club on a free transfer.
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.
If City/PSG had already spent 100 million and still wanted say Dele Alli - technically they could loan a couple of top player in exchange with Spurs such as Aguerro and Foden for a couple os seasons with Dele Alli initially coming on loan while subsidising a chunk of the salaries to those going on loan to Spurs to get around it. Similar to how PSG got around getting Mbappe.
That wouldn't "get around it" though as that would weaken City and improve Spurs so the rule would have worked. Spurs would only agree to the deal if they were happy with it so the new rules would have done their job.
It wouldn't weaken City though if they had already signed say Dybala for 100 million and Aguerro suddenly became surplus.
If anything it penalises financially successful clubs like Manchester United who can spend a lot of money on transfers. Not sure why Madrid are all for it. It sure helps Bayern though as they get all the best German league talent for free with their monopoly.
They should also put a cap on wages too then otherwise like many of you have said it will be just a wage bidding war.
The loan system should be abolished. Its only real benefit is letting big clubs stockpile players without ever giving them a chance.
This FFP 2.0 is somewhat better than the disastrously ill-conceived FFP 1.0 which was just a terrible idea to begin with. But it has obvious flaws, that people pointed out already.
Owners would love that. All that money going straight to their pockets if there's no need to spend much on transfers or wages. Wonderful.
True but it would make it more difficult for them. Aguero or Foden may not accept to go to Spurs, Spurs may not want them etc. It's two players they wouldn't be including in the transfer if it wasn't for the rule.
I thought net spending was an excuse Pool uses to justify their lack of success?
Uefalona given a helping hand...
We need to splurge this summer then.
Sanchez isn't exactly a spring chicken, we'll need more and younger.
Sanchez isn't exactly a spring chicken, we'll need more and younger.
Although unfair on the clubs that generate a profit via legitimate means, anything that evens the playing field for all in involved can only be a good thing. I've long advocated a move such as this.
It's a step in the right direction.
It's a step in the right direction.
How would this affect Barca? As they’ve got 2 teams?
Horse. Stable door. Bolted.
The only way to get effective financial retribution for the actions of Chelsea, City and PSG is to liquidate all three and ban the owners from coming back to manage them. Then give them the same resources they had before they wrecked football on a global level and trashed the entire worlds football economy
The only way to get effective financial retribution for the actions of Chelsea, City and PSG is to liquidate all three and ban the owners from coming back to manage them. Then give them the same resources they had before they wrecked football on a global level and trashed the entire worlds football economy
Read on reddit that City players have bonuses in their contract that don't affect the FFP wage structure. £10k for showing up to training, £30k to show up on match day. So they earn a lot more than what their base salary suggests. These clubs will always find loopholes and be one step ahead of UEFA.
Still too much. 50m might be fine.
I dislike this attitude to be honest because we are cherry picking the aspects of capitalism. From a business perspective, being bought by rich people/companies is perfectly legitimate. I understand the moral objections to, say, City's money, as it's the 'public face' of a system that is rife with human rights abuses - but in itself the idea of a rich businessman/private company pouring their own money into the club is legitimate. It happens in tons of other businesses. Hell, if you really think about it, what's the difference between Abramovich investing a lot of money in Chelsea and Adidas paying a lot of money to United? In both cases private entities decided that they wanted to spend their money on football. Different reasons, sure, but what they get out of it should be irrelevant surely?
I understand the objections to government money and I even agree with that. But fans of traditional clubs treat private investment in football with disdain, too.
I dont think the spending limit will be as low as 100m thats too low considering the financial strength of the top clubs and the general economic impact of a big money transfer. I can see it being 200 or 300 million or maybe they'll say clubs can only spend half of what they earn on transfers etc.
on Reddit, then it must be true £10k for showing up for training ffs
City's salaries are dependent on success, hence KDB only signing a £200k p/w base contract, there a huge bonuses for success on the field which will be included in the accounts at the end of each season
How does this workout for world class players. If you can't spend over 100m, how can a club put a price on world class talent?
Pogba, KDB, Messi, Neymar all 100m? If the clubs value them over 100m wouldn't it be illegal since the player cannot leave, basically?
On the plus side, if it came into effect, after about 6-7 years of tweaking it, it might see club loyalty again. Put a wage cap too and I think it would benefit all clubs. We might see a lot of good clubs keeping their top talents. Like the 90s
Pogba, KDB, Messi, Neymar all 100m? If the clubs value them over 100m wouldn't it be illegal since the player cannot leave, basically?
On the plus side, if it came into effect, after about 6-7 years of tweaking it, it might see club loyalty again. Put a wage cap too and I think it would benefit all clubs. We might see a lot of good clubs keeping their top talents. Like the 90s
I'm not entirely sure why you have so much time to write a thesis at 4am.
What I will say is that, I was only speaking on sponsorship deals that come from your owner.
Yes we all know how to get sponsorship deals, United have basically created the blueprint for it - but a large amount of your early sponsorship deals were propped up, literally, and fiscally, by buddies of your owner.
Sure, since then you have enjoyed a reasonable amount of success so you no longer need to depend on these "sponsors" any more, hence why the numbers have declined. But in light of this new FFP, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a resurgence of such "sponsors" to allow you to remain competitive in the market without disrupting your net spend.
They will just open a separate club / company in a 3rd world country , buy the players from it and rent them to bigger clubs
So we wouldn't be able to spend the money we actually earn? Sick, can't wait to be punished for the crimes of others.
It's net spend. You can spend above 100m but you have to sell in order to do so.How does this workout for world class players. If you can't spend over 100m, how can a club put a price on world class talent?
Pogba, KDB, Messi, Neymar all 100m? If the clubs value them over 100m wouldn't it be illegal since the player cannot leave, basically?
On the plus side, if it came into effect, after about 6-7 years of tweaking it, it might see club loyalty again. Put a wage cap too and I think it would benefit all clubs. We might see a lot of good clubs keeping their top talents. Like the 90s
As an Arenal fan, would love this. Also a wage cap. Also a points penalty for low possession stats.
The only way to achieve real parity would be an (NBA like) wage cap. Current proposal is naive (there's plenty of ways around it) and unfair to clubs who make an honest profit.
I can see why the top European clubs would be for this as it helps cement their place at the table and stops nouveau clubs challenging them.
The selling clubs though (who are the majority) are going to be against this as their financial models rely on income from transfers aided by the free market.
The selling clubs though (who are the majority) are going to be against this as their financial models rely on income from transfers aided by the free market.
Honestly I'd half this and keep transfers around the £50 million mark. Thats already crazy enough money
This is going to lead to players running their contracts down and signing for massive amounts of money, at which point it will make sense to introduce a salary cap like American sports do.
I don't mind a soft salary cap. Not a limit on earnings, but a penalty that is re-invested in the football pyramid.
I'm not having that them 3 clubs wrecked football. The big tv deals, the popularity of the winning clubs abroad and the champions league wrecked football. It robbed football of its competitiveness and it meant 99% have zero hope of ever winning
City Chelsea and PSG haven't wrecked football. They've just pushed their way into the privileged few too. Be even less competive without them
I don't think this could work
Exactly. The term 'galactico' wasn't coined for PSG, for example.
This would require total transparency of club ownership, and restriction of loan deals and some sort of "fair market price" assessment that would be hideously open to interpretation.
The openness of ownership will be resisted by clubs once they realise what will entail. How to avoid players being over-valued to create phantom profits is something that international organisations find ways around all the time. Contracts for intellectual property rights, consultancy services, etc are ways that profits can be moved offshore / onshore as and when required to suit whatever purpose.
This would just create a booming economy for accountants and bureaucrats in the game.
it would truly be difficult to find a fair indicator / measure of spending that would not be open to abuse....
Only spend a certain % of gate receipts....would unfairly restrict larger clubs as gate receipts form only small % of their income
Restrict wages / transfer payments to % of operating profit - the operating profit can be undermined by bogus deals
Restrict players from certain countries - restriction of trade and movement so not allowed.
I suspect this is just blurb to keep things quiet and nothing will change.
The openness of ownership will be resisted by clubs once they realise what will entail. How to avoid players being over-valued to create phantom profits is something that international organisations find ways around all the time. Contracts for intellectual property rights, consultancy services, etc are ways that profits can be moved offshore / onshore as and when required to suit whatever purpose.
This would just create a booming economy for accountants and bureaucrats in the game.
it would truly be difficult to find a fair indicator / measure of spending that would not be open to abuse....
Only spend a certain % of gate receipts....would unfairly restrict larger clubs as gate receipts form only small % of their income
Restrict wages / transfer payments to % of operating profit - the operating profit can be undermined by bogus deals
Restrict players from certain countries - restriction of trade and movement so not allowed.
I suspect this is just blurb to keep things quiet and nothing will change.
It is an even more idiotic than FFP 1.0. But it isn't surprising, when did UEFA do something not stupid?!
What about clubs who generate a lot of money, what are they supposed to do with those money if they can't use them.
UEFA should make rules that defend clubs against bad ownerships, not to punish clubs who do well or owners who throw money at their businesses.
What about clubs who generate a lot of money, what are they supposed to do with those money if they can't use them.
UEFA should make rules that defend clubs against bad ownerships, not to punish clubs who do well or owners who throw money at their businesses.
Would absolutely live this to happen just to spit at UEFA.
Yeah, let's limit transfers and wages for players. In that way the owners of United, Bayern and Co. can get home 300m euros each year. That would be great for the sport.
We need Roger Goodell
How would the culprits circumvent this rule realistically? Including us incase Ronaldo finally wants to come home in 2020