I dont think FFP can be judged off its first season. You were never going to get teams thrown out for a first offence. Next season could be different, if no attempt is made to progress towards self sufficiency.
Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions
- Thread starter PlayerOne
- 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.
Cas can only adjudicate on whether UEFA have breached their own rules, not overrule the existence of a rule.
They can make their own rules, they just have to stick to them.
aka City and PSG artificially inflating their commercial revenue streams with sponsorship deals from 'friendly' sources, until UEFA don't ask for bungs (settlement offers) to look the other way anymore.
I thought that the 'settlements' were to possibly include a limit on players that they can include in Europe over what they have spent. My impression was that 'settlements' is a term that they are using for the clubs settling the breach before a punishment is imposed.
From the BBC article:
Presumably this is because FFP is in it's early stages, and this isn't a permanent rule, right? Seems to completely go against the purpose of FFP... Spend whatever you want as long as your owner is outrageously rich
Presumably this is because FFP is in it's early stages, and this isn't a permanent rule, right? Seems to completely go against the purpose of FFP... Spend whatever you want as long as your owner is outrageously rich
If this "settlement" offer is indeed financial, then it will be an absolutely disgusting (although not entirely unexpected) farce, and will shine more light (if any needed shining) on the sheer corruption and greed that plagues UEFA/FIFA.
Essentially FFP will simply become a rule to say "if you are rich enough to spend £x amount of money, you are rich enough to share some of the love with poor old Platini and co."
Essentially FFP will simply become a rule to say "if you are rich enough to spend £x amount of money, you are rich enough to share some of the love with poor old Platini and co."
It is still laughable though. They spent well above their means and the sanction is to pay a fee. They are essentially telling them "Right, lads, you've been overspending, which is fine and all, but now we want our cut".
Didn't expect any better from UEFA and FIFA though, my expectations are really as low as they can get.
If the settlement is financial then they might as well get rid of the FFP, it would become pointless.
Ironic that people are angry on here because FFP is apparently farcical and symptomatic of the corruptness incessant in UEFA yet completely forget the main purpose of its implementation was simply to preserve the status quo in football.
Spot on.
Well this FFP as some balls after all.
That bullshit has been said by City fans too long and is boring now. Look at Atletico and Liverpool getting back 'organically' among top teams. If you want to challenge status quo, do it the proper way. Of course, it is no illegal to have a billionaire owner and buy success like City have done but don't fecking tell us that yours is the right way and the FFP is protecting status quo.
Don't worry, after they reach a decsion, it will be taken to an independent panel who will see if this is fair. They will most likely reject that settlement.
Here is the that part in the rules and regulations.
Here is the that part in the rules and regulations.
It won't be allowed. City and PSG's deal won't pass the scrutiny. PSG and City aren't part of the status quo, which was the real reason behind FFP. If, in two years time neither and anywhere near self sustainable without ludicrious sponsorship deals then harsher penalties will be put in place.
Being banned from Europe is a massive penalty, one which would be very harsh to be used for a first time offence. These fines will act as a warning and won't go into the actul UEFA members pockets. It'll be put back into the game. UEFA make a ludicrious amount of money as it is, hence the reason the prize money is so good for their competitions. They may be greedy but if they personally pocket the money then any clubs punished will set a team of lawyers on their case to prove it and dismantle FFP.
For what it's worth I'm friends with someone who works at UEFA and he tells me they are very confident of winning any court case that may happen.
There's a few people gone quiet on this thread. Some were desperate to believe that City and PSG were getting turfed out of the CL - as if it was ever going to happen.
UEFA don't want any big out of the CL. They will bend the rules, the clubs will make a token effort to comply or pay a fine so it looks like UEFA have some balls and this wasn't just a massive waste of time.
The clubs run football in Europe, not UEFA, it really is that simple and anyone with any common sense knows it. All of this "UEFA have thrown teams out before" or "its their competition and they just wont invite them" rubbish. They have no backbone and are scared stiff that the clubs will revolt and make them (and their well paid, cushy jobs) irrelevant.
UEFA don't want any big out of the CL. They will bend the rules, the clubs will make a token effort to comply or pay a fine so it looks like UEFA have some balls and this wasn't just a massive waste of time.
The clubs run football in Europe, not UEFA, it really is that simple and anyone with any common sense knows it. All of this "UEFA have thrown teams out before" or "its their competition and they just wont invite them" rubbish. They have no backbone and are scared stiff that the clubs will revolt and make them (and their well paid, cushy jobs) irrelevant.
1. Liverpool and Atletico were much much bigger than a team like City. A team of City's standing with FFP have zero chance of ever getting anywhere near the top.
2. Does 'organically' for Liverpool constitute a £50m loss in for the 2012-13 season?
If the FFP isn't protecting the status quo then what is it doing? Don't spout that crap about protecting the clubs like Portsmouth because clubs like that bear no significance to UEFA.
A bit stupid if it's a financial penalty. You got two ends of clubs who don't meet FPP rules: The sugar daddies, and clubs on the brink of bankruptcy who have amassed big losses, like the Portuguese big ones (Sporting seems to be in imminent danger, according to some Portuguese press). For the former, it's irrelevant and paradoxical to fine them for having too much money, for the later, how the hell will an extra financial loss help them get back on their feet?
They 'were' bigger. The way got back had nothing to do with it.
The loss was on account of their horrible transfer dealings in past but again, none of those are part of their success story.
Just because you couldn't grow organically or even achieve what likes of Swansea achieved without money, don't go around telling that there is no other way to grow. There is.
And where are Swansea right now? Forget they had broken into the status quo and challenged for a top 4 place this season.
So their loss is okay because it was just horrible transfer dealings? That is the worst logic I have come across in a long time.
City couldn't grow organically because even if we did the big clubs would take our best players. Like you did with Rooney at Everton. Like Chelsea did with Shaun Wright-Phillips. Like what will happen with Southampton in the summer. As soon as a team has the chance to organically grow, the status quo can just snap up their best players. FFP will ensure that remains the case.
Do you even have basic sense of understanding? Liverpool spent shitloads to get back to top 4, did they though? The losses are from those dealings. The way they got back had hardly anything to do with huge spending.
Swansea is just an example of trophies can still come which your club couldn't get.
The attempts of you guys to justify that FFP is evil are hilarious. If some other club like Everton had been bought by sheikhs, you will be blaming it all the way. Hypocrites.
Liverpool aren't a great example of a club breaking into the top 4 naturally. Regardless of the expensive flops being sold they have still spent a large amount of money and have a high wage bill, not near City's but still high. They also haven't grown organically to do so. They've always been a massive club with a fair bit of cash, it isn't like they plodded along in mid table and used youth products to eventually break into the top 4. They can afford to give Suarez 200k a week to keep him but how many teams could naturally grow to be able to offer wages of that nature? Southampton couldn't. Everton couldn't. It is one gripe with FFP that seasons before European football won't be counted. Couldn't United technically spend a billion this Summer and it wouldn't count?
Their spending power was more than any other team below them. No other team around them could have gone out and spent £35m on Andy Carroll and £20m on Henderson.
Hypocrite? Nope. If Everton had been bought by a Sheikh I would have loved to have seen them break into the status quo. Sure, be a bit envious it wasn't my club but fairplay to them, would be boring otherwise.
Swansea won the League Cup...hardly breaking into the status quo (in a relegation fight up until last week) and is entirely irrelevant in this argument. Read Martin Samuel's articles on FFP, you might learn something.
FFP isn't evil but its only effect is to preserve the status quo or are you too ignorant to see that?
There is no guaranteed status quo preserving. In EPL at least, there are likes of Spurs always knocking on top 4 even before. Too bad they didn't take chance on couple of occasions and were unlucky but a team can easily fall out of top 4 and then struggle. Just like United has. Next year it can be someone else from top 4. It is risk for traditional big clubs because they could fall in their own trap. FFP simply demands spending within your income which clubs like city and PSG don't by a long way.
If you justify spending billion dollars and buying success is some noble activity then there is hardly any point discussing.
I don't know what this bobbymanc has against Status Quo. Cracking wee band: Sweet Caroline, Rocking all over the World and Whatever You Want are all cracking karaoke tracks after a couple of pints and a line or two!
Yes, this narrative of poor Liverpool taking on moneybags team is flawed. Their yank owner has pumped money, not obscene amounts as City and Chelsea but money nonetheless. Money that has resulted them in reporting losses. It would have been even more if they had gotten their targets like Willian.
Biggest challenge to Chelsea and City won't be FFP but their owners themselves.
Look at Milan now, Berlusconi has lost interest after 20 odd years and is unwilling to spend big to bail them out. Chelsea and City will have to at some-point become self sufficient because it only so long owners will keep pumping in millions.
Look at Milan now, Berlusconi has lost interest after 20 odd years and is unwilling to spend big to bail them out. Chelsea and City will have to at some-point become self sufficient because it only so long owners will keep pumping in millions.
Hang on a minute, you are arguing that Liverpool are proof that you can grow organically without big spending power because their horrible transfer dealings in the past don't count? If you spend enough money, keeping your best players and selling your rubbish ones then you'll eventually build a good side. Sides looking to grow organically can't afford to miss, every big money signing has to be a hit. Liverpool have spent over £650m purchasing players in the PL era, and over £150m in the last 3 seasons. They are having a fantastic season granted, but they are not the benchmark for organic growth.
Hang on a minute, you are arguing that Liverpool are proof that you can grow organically without big spending power because their horrible transfer dealings in the past don't count? If you spend enough money, keeping your best players and selling your rubbish ones then you'll eventually build a good side. Sides looking to grow organically can't afford to miss, every big money signing has to be a hit. Liverpool have spent over £650m purchasing players in the PL era, and over £150m in the last 3 seasons. They are having a fantastic season granted, but they are not the benchmark for organic growth.
I know they have spent shitloads of money to be successful but that had nothing to do with this year and that is the whole point. Of course it would be difficult for a club like Villa to attract players like Suarez/Sturridge etc but a club can grow step by step and organically. It might take long but that doesn't justify the spending billions and buying success like City did. It is hilarious and deluded by City fans to say that FFP is there just to maintain status quo. They basically want free license to offer silly transfer fees, wages and thus inflate the market and destabilize it. It is another point that UEFA don't have balls but City should be expelled straightaway from CL next season.
Atletico have made a profit of ~ £50 million in the last two seasons from players sales and they are on the brink of achieving a La Liga and European Cup double, usurping two of the finest sides in the modern era if their quest is successful.
It's an absolute fallacy to suggest that you cannot make strides and achieve success without the injection of petrodollars.
It's an absolute fallacy to suggest that you cannot make strides and achieve success without the injection of petrodollars.
The one thing the majority of the exceptions to the norm such as Dortmund, Liverpool and Atletico all have in common is that they are historically big clubs who have been successful in the past and as such have a pretty big fan base already. Are there any exceptions that don't have historical success?
You really are a terrible poster.
Not content with mis-quoting people, you then state that "There's a few people gone quiet on this thread", when you yourself have added nothing to it until now.
You state that UEFA wish to make their own rules look ridiculous, with no basis.
UEFA HAVE thrown clubs out before. It IS their competition. They CAN refuse entry/license. All of which you state as "rubbish"
The last line is comedy gold.
If this was an object lesson of dumbing down the internet, it is a raging success.
True. It is tough road for those outside but not impossible as clubs of these petro clubs have you believe.
I think you are getting wires crossed with overachieving and growing organically. Liverpool have outperformed expectations this year, which is testimony to the great season they are having, and I agree that any side can overachieve in any given season (Swansea as you pointed out earlier have done it before now too), but that isn't quite the same as growing organically to be able to compete at a much higher level. Overachieving is only ever going to let you compete at a higher level once you get into the top 4, because the financial benefits of CL are significant enough to make a difference in spending power.
Very few teams are capable of overachieving to that extent, and all of the sides who do that already have significant fanbase and/or spending power. @Spiersey has hit the nail on the head for me, Liverpool have already been hugely successful in the past, have a huge fanbase, a large income and are able to spend a significant amount of money. Not every side has the luxury of being in that position, and those who aren't are going to find it near impossible to grow organically to a position which allows them to break into the top 4, and therefore compete at a higher level financially. That's the point being made I think.
The problem is that City are an extreme example of what not having FFP allows.
I do generally have to agree that FFP would serve to protect the status quo - I can't see how that's a deniable fact. People using Atletico and Liverpool as examples really have little idea.
I do generally have to agree that FFP would serve to protect the status quo - I can't see how that's a deniable fact. People using Atletico and Liverpool as examples really have little idea.
If the market was not artificially inflated, would there be the same financial pressure on less glamorous clubs?
Unless wealthy clubs loan out dozens of players (a restriction that could do with being in place), there would likely not be such disparity, with quality players spread about more. Just my opinion of course.
Unless wealthy clubs loan out dozens of players (a restriction that could do with being in place), there would likely not be such disparity, with quality players spread about more. Just my opinion of course.
FFP is not the answer. It has to be wage or transfer cap. I am not sure if that can be done within the EU rules but you have to atleast try.
People may make fun of American sports but their drafting system where weakest team get to pick the best players first makes sense. As does the caps in MLS.
We make fun of it because that is a terrible idea.
How does the current football system where Southampton's best young player in Shaw will be leaving this summer a good idea?
It has become all about money now. If big clubs keep poaching smaller clubs' best players using money be it for wages or transfer fees, you won't have any new clubs out there to cement their legacy in modern era. Only way to do it will be via financial doping ala City or Chelsea or PSG. Or pray you get a genius like Klopp working for your team.