Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions

Would be great if City, PSG, Monaco etc set up their own league, where arab and russian billionaires can have dick measuring contests played out on a football pitch on a weekly basis. Sounds like a load of fun for the people who would be interested in watching that type of thing.
 
BobbyManc said:
And that's exactly why UEFA won't punish them.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. You're forgetting a key thing here. The majority of clubs, indeed all the biggest clubs, are not owned by sugar daddy billionaires. Only a handful are. Some, like Real Madrid and Barcelona, can never be owned by oil billionaires - they are membership clubs and cannot be bought.

That's one of the reasons that FFP keeps moving forward. All the most powerful clubs want it to. They don't mind new clubs like City arriving - but if there were no FFP City could, literally, offer double the transfer fee and 5 x the wages to any player Real Madrid wanted. Like the look of that Benzema-Ronaldo-Bale front line? Offer them £5 million pounds a week. Messi? £100M transfer fee, Barca would soon buckle. That kind of gross distortion of the game is what the clubs fear, and what UEFA is trying to avoid.

UEFA really don't want PSG to leave, so they would only expel them as an extreme last resort. It won't happen in practice, but that's not because UEFA lack the power, but because PSG don't want to go.

At the same time, what possible incentive is there for PSG to leave? Who would join their tournament? If they quadrupled the prize money perhaps Real Madrid or Man United would consider it - then everyone would realise that since some of the clubs in there would have double, or triple, their spending power they'd have no chance of winning it.

It'd be like when your mate invited you round to play some computer game you've never played before, and he's spent all summer holidays playing it. There's only so many times you want to get your arse handed to you by Sagat, even if the guy has got biscuits and lemonade on offer.

The truth is that PSG need UEFA at least as much as the reverse, and for all the pressure PSG can put on UEFA, the old guard in football can put on more. They may strut and moan, but a split is not a very viable threat.
 
BobbyManc said:
The only concern of UEFA in implementing FFP was maintaining the status quo. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
I keep on hearing this but how can it possibly be that? If the current situation is domination by the likes of city and PSG, and this changes the situation so clubs without sugar daddies can compete, how can that possibly be maintaining the status quo? Plus, the ability to earn your own money is not restricted by FFP. I keep hearing all these things being trotted out - the same things time after time, when they are clearly not true:
  • it's a chance to have a go at the English clubs (first teams sanctioned were Spanish)
  • it's about debt (it's about making a loss - very different things)
  • we have the money to employ the best lawyers (so do UEFA and anyone seriously think they haven't anticipated legal challenges and checked them in the wording of the regulations?)

There's a lot more to the Fair Play regs. that most people dot even know exist. Things like making sure clubs pay their taxes. That there has to be a youth programme. That medical care has to be available at matches. All these things we might take fr granted, but the whole package should be seen in the light of the diversity of provision across Europe. It's much more complex than most realise - but there's an awful lot of good stuff in there.
 
Ducklegs said:
Why would Uefa care if PSG and and City set their own league up?

Nobody else would.
Click to expand...

It was a Real Madrid president, Perez, who initially pushed for the idea of a European super league. UEFA are genuinely concerned at the prospect of this and if City and PSG lead a movement for it, it could create a momentum that they wouldn't want to risk happening. Sponsors, for one, will put immense pressure on UEFA if they expel any big teams.
 
thegregster said:
A league with PSG,City,Chelsea and Monaco wouldn't be much fun. Unless the other big clubs agree to join it wouldn't take off. Dont see why the likes of United,Real,Bayern,Barca would want to join a league were their rivals could always outspend them.

Their arent enough billionaires around with an interest in football to get a good size league going.
Click to expand...

I want to reduce the [Italian] league to 16 teams and to create a large European Cup that would bring together the five biggest teams from the five best European leagues.

One week would be devoted to the national championship, the other to the European championship with teams like Manchester United, Real Madrid, PSG, Bayern, Milan.

Napoli President said that.

Madrid's president previously championed the idea.

It is not simply about billionaire owners.
 
I'll also point this out:

Sky Sports reports, contrary to the Telegraph claims, that there is no suggestion City have yet been found guilty of breaching FFP rules.
 
Uefa would be worried about Bayern,Barca,Real,Milan,Manchester United etc. breaking away and forming a super league.

City and PSG not so much i would imagine.
 
BobbyManc said:
I'll also point this out:

Sky Sports reports, contrary to the Telegraph claims, that there is no suggestion City have yet been found guilty of breaching FFP rules.
Click to expand...

Good. As I said if City follow FFP it suits UEFA - and us.
 
BobbyManc said:
It was a Real Madrid president, Perez, who initially pushed for the idea of a European super league. UEFA are genuinely concerned at the prospect of this and if City and PSG lead a movement for it, it could create a momentum that they wouldn't want to risk happening. Sponsors, for one, will put immense pressure on UEFA if they expel any big teams.
Click to expand...

Theres a key difference in the teams there, one is a historical power house of world football, with a global fan base and a fanatical regional fan base, who have had some of the greatest players the world have ever seen playing for them, have won multiple domestic and European titles and is one of the worlds most glamorous clubs.

The other is Manchester City, a club that rents a stadium it doesn't fill for most of its home matches.
 
A European super-league is much more complex than many people realise. The costs are horrendous - travelling every other week for a game - the costs and hotel accommodation for players and other staff alone over a season would be millions. Plus the impact of all that travelling time would mean that fewer games would be available for teams to play, further reducing income streams from other competitions. TV funding is an interesting one and really more complex than many think - but would be essential to offset the extra costs involved with such travelling and the reduced number of games in a season. Few national companies could cover it so it would be necessary for a multi-national like Sky to tender for it - with the lack of opposition from national TV their is a significant chance that the bids might be much lower than many people expect. The impact on other streams could be significant. Why would Real and Barca (who get the lions share of TV rights in Spain) negotiate away their virtual monopoly of TV money as would happen if they were in a European super league? - because the other teams in this new league would not allow Real and Barca to have such a lucrative cut as they currently do. The volume of TV audience would be difficult to gauge, especially if terrestial TV were still showing national leagues/cups etc.. The draw of some of the clubs mentioned has not been great in European terms - so just how do you pick the teams? Success on the pitch - that would rule United out this season - and their massive worldwide TV audience - this would not be popular with sponsors, tv companies or advertisers. Clubs who have the best audience figures - popular with sponsors etc. but means successful clubs would be dropped to make way for teams that can attract huge audiences. There are many other problems with it but this post is already too long. The main issue is it's just too simple to say a European Super League will happen if we don't get our own way - it's much more complex than many fans think.
 
BobbyManc said:
It was a Real Madrid president, Perez, who initially pushed for the idea of a European super league. UEFA are genuinely concerned at the prospect of this and if City and PSG lead a movement for it, it could create a momentum that they wouldn't want to risk happening. Sponsors, for one, will put immense pressure on UEFA if they expel any big teams.
Click to expand...

It was his way of ensuring that 'the best always play the best'. That does not, I think its fair to say, mean running off with Manchester City, Monaco and PSG.
 
So Uefa's solution to clubs gambling their future financial security is to... Make them more financially insecure by fines? That's amazing.

Eboue said:
So again, what we are saying is that Manchester United deserve to spend money and win titles because 1) their period of success was timed perfectly with the Premier League and the explosion of televised matches 2) daytrippers spend a lot of money in the pro shop 3) The Glazers hired great marketing people who have promoted the club well and increased popularity across the world.

Is that it?
Click to expand...

Yes, apparently because we were lucky enough to have the greatest manager of all time during a period where Football exploded on an International level we deserve to perpetually be able to spend £100m more than anyone else in the League. Bayern/Barcelona/Real Madrid should also be put on a pedestal above everyone else.

This is obviously what's best for a competitive league...
 
thegregster said:
A league with PSG,City,Chelsea and Monaco wouldn't be much fun. Unless the other big clubs agree to join it wouldn't take off. Dont see why the likes of United,Real,Bayern,Barca would want to join a league were their rivals could always outspend them.

Their arent enough billionaires around with an interest in football to get a good size league going.
Click to expand...
Because the tv revenues would be astronomical for a true European super league and so would the commercial deals you could do ad well... It would see profits increase and isnt there a legal obligation (plus greed from the glazers) to maximise returns on investments

A mid week league of 16 top clubs in Europe and dont play in any UEFA competitions would possibly appeal to a lot of clubs financially without the need to leave your domestic league
imagine a league of:
real barca athletico psg Monaco Dortmund bayern chelsea United Liverpool city arsenal juve ac inter Ajax

A midweek game each week almost guatanteed to sell out - no collective tv deal so the likes of United and bayern can exploit their true value... No squad limit no ffp holding people back - they could make it a closed shop like the nfl and teams aka franchises would be worth even more - so yeah I could see the glazers going for that
 
Last edited:
bishblaize said:
It was his way of ensuring that 'the best always play the best'. That does not, I think its fair to say, mean running off with Manchester City, Monaco and PSG.
Click to expand...

City and PSG aren't in the top 16-20 teams in the world? Ok then.
 
I think Wenger was probably right when he said a European Super League will happen in the next 10 years. I think it is inevitable to be honest, but maybe not in that time frame. The fact is if there is an option available that is more financially lucrative every single owner will jump at the opportunity.
 
BobbyManc said:
I think Wenger was probably right when he said a European Super League will happen in the next 10 years. I think it is inevitable to be honest, but maybe not in that time frame. The fact is if there is an option available that is more financially lucrative every single owner will jump at the opportunity.
Click to expand...
Live internet streaming and individual broadcast rights make it very plausable imo
 
sun_tzu said:
Because the tv revenues would be astronomical for a true European super league and so would the commercial deals you could do ad well... It would see profits increase and isnt there a legal obligation (plus greed from the glazers) to maximise returns on investments

A mid week league of 16 top clubs in Europe and dont play in any UEFA competitions would possibly appeal to a lot of clubs financially without the need to leave your domestic league
imagine a league of:
real barca athletico psg Monaco Dortmund bayern chelsea United Liverpool city arsenal juve ac inter Ajax

A midweek game each week almost guatanteed to sell out - no collective tv deal so the likes of United and bayern can exploit their true value... No squad limit no ffp holding people back - they could make it a closed shop like the nfl and teams aka franchises would be worth even more - so yeah I could see the glazers going for that
Click to expand...
I'd seriously question the financial model you are proposing there - the publication of viewing figures for tv audiences in European games show a major variation between the most popular and the least. League games often attract nowhere near the figures often touted (which are usually for the final) - there is no evidence to expect such viewing figures would be replicated in a new format . Clubs like Monaco, PSG and City have all had relatively poor viewing figures in the early stages of the Champions League - why this should change in a propose European Super-League I do not know. Advertisers have walked away from these league games in the past, with revenues being amongst the lowest received.
 
sun_tzu said:
Because the tv revenues would be astronomical for a true European super league and so would the commercial deals you could do ad well... It would see profits increase and isnt there a legal obligation (plus greed from the glazers) to maximise returns on investments
Click to expand...

But again it comes back to the point - why would United, Barca, Real and co join up for a league where four or five of the clubs had 2 or 3 or 4 times the spending power? Would they realistically join in just to come 5th or 6th/get knocked out a the quarters each year, simply because the TV money was better?

Very doubtful.
 
bishblaize said:
So a 32 team competition contained too much cruft, but 20 teams is now the creme de la creme? Okay then.
Click to expand...

That's because the 32 team competition is a knockout tournament, the European Super League would be like a normal league, only European and Super. Hence, it would contain no more than 20 teams.
 
bishblaize said:
But again it comes back to the point - why would United, Barca, Real and co join up for a league where four or five of the clubs had 2 or 3 or 4 times the spending power? Would they realistically join in just to come 5th or 6th/get knocked out a the quarters each year, simply because the TV money was better?

Very doubtful.
Click to expand...
And of course continually being also rans in the competition would seriously impact on the financial pulling power of your own brand. It could have serious financial implications for the club - and many others in similar positions - long term.
 
BobbyManc said:
That's because the 32 team competition is a knockout tournament, the European Super League would be like a normal league, only European and Super. Hence, it would contain no more than 20 teams.
Click to expand...

Cept that isn't what Perez was proposing.
 
bishblaize said:
But again it comes back to the point - why would United, Barca, Real and co join up for a league where four or five of the clubs had 2 or 3 or 4 times the spending power? Would they realistically join in just to come 5th or 6th/get knocked out a the quarters each year, simply because the TV money was better?

Very doubtful.
Click to expand...
so the glazers are not in this for the money?
 
bishblaize said:
Cept that isn't what Perez was proposing.
Click to expand...

What Perez proposed is just one conception and he was never going to suggest the most radical concept of the European Super League considering it was the first real notion of such an idea. The more recent people clamouring for it, De Laurentis at Napoli and Galatasray's owner, have both suggested it would be a 16-20 team league.
 
bishblaize said:
But again it comes back to the point - why would United, Barca, Real and co join up for a league where four or five of the clubs had 2 or 3 or 4 times the spending power? Would they realistically join in just to come 5th or 6th/get knocked out a the quarters each year, simply because the TV money was better?

Very doubtful.
Click to expand...

Real have as much spending power as City and PSG. United with willing owners could also match the spending and Barca are hardly short of cash.
 
BobbyManc said:
Real have as much spending power as City and PSG. United with willing owners could also match the spending and Barca are hardly short of cash.
Click to expand...

But they only do because of FFP. Otherwise City and PSG could literally outspend them by a factor of 2, or 3, or 5, if that's what it took.

Remember, Real and Barca (and most German teams, and several other Spanish teams) are membership clubs ie fan owned - they cannot be bought. They are unable to have sugar daddies, by constitution.
 
BobbyManc said:
Not set in stone. With the lawyers City and PSG could afford, I wouldn't rule against this being challenged successfully.
Click to expand...

Infra-red said:
UEFA could afford the same lawyers. But it doesn't matter anyway, if City and PSG get away with a fine, the punishment is immediately rendered utterly meaningless.
Click to expand...

City/PSG etc could challenge whatever they feel like but the Champions League and Europa league are invite only competitions so if Uefa don't want them they simply don't get to participate.
 
bishblaize said:
You're using the exception.

The better question would be are all the other teams not in it for the glory?
Click to expand...
Yes I remember when it was said clubs wouldn't form the premier league because what is a bit mf money compared to the history and glory of the league championship
Having worked in the city im afraid im far too synical to believe that people dont have a price... Once that price is reached then its over... Say real joined and barca didnt - with the extra money real could win the league for a decade... Would barca stand by and let that happen... Even the briefest of understanding of game theory shows that it it very unlikley they would trust each other not to enter
 
bishblaize said:
But they only do because of FFP. Otherwise City and PSG could literally outspend them by a factor of 2, or 3, or 5, if that's what it took.

Remember, Real and Barca (and most German teams, and several other Spanish teams) are membership clubs ie fan owned - they cannot be bought. They are unable to have sugar daddies, by constitution.
Click to expand...

What about the spending of Madrid prior to FFP? City and PSG are yet to spend more than they spent on Zidane in 2001. Madrid have always had incredible financial strength.

A European Super League would also have financial restrictions in place, obviously.
 
sun_tzu said:
Nope... Just like the premier league broke away from the football league its members could break away from UEFA and impose their own rules which could or more likely not have financial restrictions
Click to expand...

Given the number and names of clubs who support FFP, this is highly unlikely.
 
The potential sanctions facing City according to the Daily Mail...
This is a list of UEFA punishments that any club breaching FFP rules could be hit with:

a) warning
b) reprimand
c) fine
d) deduction of points (in Champions League or Europa League)
e) withholding of revenues from a UEFA competition
f) prohibition on registering new players in UEFA competitions
g) restriction on the number of players that a club may register for participation in UEFA competitions, including a financial limit on the overall aggregate cost of the employee benefits expenses of players registered on the A-list for the purposes of UEFA club competitions
h) disqualification from competitions in progress and/or exclusion from future competitions
i) withdrawal of a title or award
Click to expand...

The bold is the best option in my opinion. If UEFA are serious about Financial Fair Play, then that is the only option that really makes sense. Do City and PSG care about a fine? Doubtful. Removing them from Europe entirely could be considered 'harsh' (first offence, new rules), and you aren't left with many options then.

And yet, even that isn't really "fair". If City receive a 3 point penalty, win 5/6 games but finish second in their group instead of first, it would very harsh for a club who won their group to be drawn against them. They are one of the best teams in the tournament and the punishment has all but disappeared.


 
bishblaize said:
Wait, wait, wait. Financial restrictions? So why have a breakaway? Wasn't the point to get away from FFP restrictions?
Click to expand...

And who decides what the restrictions are? Who imposes them? Are teams kicked out of the Super League and sent back to UEFA?

Strange stuff.
 
rcoobc said:
The potential sanctions facing City according to the Daily Mail...


The bold is the best option in my opinion. If UEFA are serious about Financial Fair Play, then that is the only option that really makes sense. Do City and PSG care about a fine? Doubtful. Removing them from Europe entirely could be considered 'harsh' (first offence, new rules), and you aren't left with many options then.

And yet, even that isn't really "fair". If City receive a 3 point penalty, win 5/6 games but finish second in their group instead of first, it would very harsh for a club who won their group to be drawn against them. They are one of the best teams in the tournament and the punishment has all but disappeared.
Click to expand...

City haven't even been found guilty of breaking the rules yet but you are already clamouring for a heavy punishment. As things stand we are set to completely comply with FFP and break even in the upcoming year. We won't face a big punishment even if we are found guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.