A fine would be utterly pointless. But a transfer embargo would work nicely. It would be handy to have City/PSG out of the market along with Barca while we attempt to rebuild ourselves.
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.
Absolutely nothing will happen.
UEFA are a joke.
Even a transfer embargo is not strong enough a punishment. So what if PSG and City miss a couple of transfer windows? They've already got top quality squads.
And how are they supposed to fix those problems with their hands tied in the transfer market? The main talking point is those fake sponsorship deals they got from the companies associated with their owners, which allowed both clubs to show they're not only complying, but are gaining serious income.
The real punishment would be informing PSG and City that those deals aren't considered legit and until they get things right, they're out of UEFA competitions. I doubt Platini have balls for that, though.
And how are they supposed to fix those problems with their hands tied in the transfer market? The main talking point is those fake sponsorship deals they got from the companies associated with their owners, which allowed both clubs to show they're not only complying, but are gaining serious income.
The real punishment would be informing PSG and City that those deals aren't considered legit and until they get things right, they're out of UEFA competitions. I doubt Platini have balls for that, though.
Last edited:
A transfer embargo seems a fitting enough punishment for city.
I am surprised UEFA are not throwing everything they have at PSG though. I don't see how it is even possible to disregard the rules more than they have.
I am surprised UEFA are not throwing everything they have at PSG though. I don't see how it is even possible to disregard the rules more than they have.
IIRC, there is a softer punishment option along those lines as well - Ie, the offending club only being allowed to register players up to a sum affordable within their means. In very rough terms, if a club had a budget of 20m expenditure, spent 120m on players, they'd only be allowed to register 20m worth of players for Europe.
Arsenal collapse, late United surge and we get 5th.
Then we become loudest neighbour ever and complain, complain, complain.
20th season in a row.
Then we become loudest neighbour ever and complain, complain, complain.
20th season in a row.
It's a basic human concept that decides who deserves what.
Jebus! This old chestnut.
UEFA competitions are by invitation. If the Sheikh wanted to go to the Royal wedding without an invite, no legion of lawyers is going to make that happen.
Same here.
UEFA competitions are by invitation. If the Sheikh wanted to go to the Royal wedding without an invite, no legion of lawyers is going to make that happen.
Same here.
It seems this thread is debating the validity of the whole FFP process, not this latest story.
With regards to this particular story, a fine would be laughable. It is, however, the most likely outcome. A transfer embargo may be enforced but it would be appealed and then suspended for a year or two, in which City would get their numbers where they need to be.
With regards to this particular story, a fine would be laughable. It is, however, the most likely outcome. A transfer embargo may be enforced but it would be appealed and then suspended for a year or two, in which City would get their numbers where they need to be.
Lets just throw it out there for a second... if City were kicked out of the Champions League and we finished 5th... See where i'm going lads?
The thing is, surely they wouldn't be able to just go out and spend a shit load this summer to counter a transfer ban the following year, wouldn't it just dig them deeper into this FFP hole?
On the wider issue I think there's going to have to be a high-profile catastrophe before people are shaken out of their "why can't they spend what they want?" malaise. I'm talking about a big club finding itself obligated to wages and transfer fees it cannot afford and then has a sugar daddy who walks away or somehow loses interest. As funny as that'd be from our perspective were it to happy to City it would, objectively, be very bad for football to see a team just spiral into administration as they inevitably would.
There's no quick way out of it either in that case. You can sell players but the premiums you get will be from clubs aware of your financial peril. You can cut the wage bill but if the reserve left back on 300,000 a week doesn't want to halve his pay to move elsewhere, he'll stay where he is.
Really do think it'll take something like this happening to make people realise why FFP needs to exist.
There's no quick way out of it either in that case. You can sell players but the premiums you get will be from clubs aware of your financial peril. You can cut the wage bill but if the reserve left back on 300,000 a week doesn't want to halve his pay to move elsewhere, he'll stay where he is.
Really do think it'll take something like this happening to make people realise why FFP needs to exist.
Is the reality.
Either prove this or sod off.
Even I'm not worried, yet. 
If those fines are significant and directly support the international competitors of City & PSG, then I don't mind.
It's not fair though, everything was gravy before Chelsea and PSG came onto the scene. Or something
The problem is, is that if City, PSG etc.. and their sugar daddies suddenly disappear, then the club is pretty much guaranteed administration. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. Being able to legitimately balance the books will prevent that from happening.
Owners are still allowed to inject cash into facilities and infrastructure, which promotes long term growth.
If FFP didn't come about, even though they haven't done anything yet (and who knows if they ever will), we'd have likely seen even more sugar daddy clubs - and changes then increase of one walking away and leaving the club in the shit.
I'm all for investment, but it needs to be investment in the right things. If a rich owner turns up with FFP in play, they know from the off that they need to be there long term and to invest wisely. That is surely more beneficial to everyone?
The FFP are a good thing. But they also need to be able to punish those that disregard it. PSG have made a total mockery of it and should be punished the most severely. City have 'somewhat' made an effort (ie. no longer buying a new squad every year), but it is still there ridiculous sponsorship that is trying to circumvent the rules. And if the owner disappears on the last year of the sponsorship then the club still goes into administration. The FFP are there to stop this from happening.
(I've not included the obvious benefit to smaller teams that have spent too much and faced administration).
UEFA are an annoying organization. Who are they to stop a billionaire from spending his cash? FFP is a shit rule that would help the already top clubs maintain their status quo. No one else can climb the ladder, if they want, as per this rule.
If anything, they should try to bring in a salary cap and other measures to create a level playing field.
If anything, they should try to bring in a salary cap and other measures to create a level playing field.
The whole thing is a farce unless teams are kicked out.
Look at Monaco. They can take part in next seasons CL. They wont be investigated this season. So they can spend what they like now and win the CL next season. Then in summer 2015 they get a transfer ban/fine. Too little to late by then.
Look at Monaco. They can take part in next seasons CL. They wont be investigated this season. So they can spend what they like now and win the CL next season. Then in summer 2015 they get a transfer ban/fine. Too little to late by then.
Last edited:
Same with Liverpool. They made a combined loss of around £90m in the last two seasons. But since they were not in Europe this season, those figures won't be counted until next to next season. It's fecking preposterous. The whole thing is a sham.
I sort of agree. Not really with you on the stopping billionaires part but I still think FFP is something that makes it harder for clubs to overtake the big fish than it already is.
A salary cap wouldn't make it easier for clubs to overtake the big fish. If all the top clubs in Europe are limited to pay someone say 200k a week - then as a top player to you join someone like Bayern, or teams with no history but the sudden ability to also pay you 200k a week?
The only reason why the sugar daddy clubs can climb the ladder so quickly is by paying players much more than they'd get elsewhere.
It doesn't solve the problem that the clubs are still fecked if they walk away and have 30 players earning 200k on their books but only being able to cover a small percentage of that legitimately.
Oh, to clarify I wasn't advocating a salary cap like @Shinjisan. What I agree with him on is that in its current format FFP harms smaller clubs more than it helps them. I think UEFA have been clear though that this scheme is more about protecting clubs from being run into the ground than it is to create a level playing field so I guess criticising FFP for something it never set out to do isn't fair.
My suggestion of how to help smaller clubs would be things like controlling loans better so clubs like Chelsea don't have the opportunity to stockpile players, meaning the smaller clubs can actually buy top talent themselves at affordable prices while retaining full control over them.
Fascinating development. FFP is certainly the most interesting thing to happen in football off the field since Abramovich took over Chelsea and ushered in the billionaires age.
The fact that they have cast the net wide enough to include City in this first round imo signals a real intent to make this happen. It would have been easy to stick with banning clubs like Atletico Madrid and offering them an easy way to get the ban lifted, or to set the bar so high that only PSG and (next season) Monaco are included. By making this list 20 or so teams strong they're making it clear that this isn't just for wild offenders, they're rounding up all teams in breach of the rules (by the way Liverpool would be in this list if they were in a UEFA competition this year).
The important thing to remember about FFP is that it is not a punitive measure. It is a preventative measure. The difference is crucial. Yes its true that no preventative measure will ever be truly successful without the threat of punitive action behind it, but it makes a big difference in what constitutes a good outcome for UEFA.
The best outcome for UEFA is that all the teams in its tournaments follow FFP criteria. The worst outcome for UEFA is that they expel high profile teams.
So that means a few things. Firstly no-one is going to get kicked out this time round, and probably ever. Kicking teams out will only be for serial offenders who refuse to take on board the need to meet FFP criteria. Every team will be given multiple opportunities to get back on track.
Fines are far more damaging than they sound. If your owner is worth billions, whats a few million, right?
Here's the thing. If you're limited to £30M losses over 3 years then, say, a £5M fine is actually a bit of a pain. Its no problem for some billionaire to pay. But the point is that the billionaire can't pay it, as FFP prevents sugar daddies from dipping into their pocket every five minutes. The only people for whom fines don't matter are those who are flagrantly ignoring the rules, in which case the fines will only be the first stage of an escalating fall out between them and UEFA. For those that are trying to meet FFP, fines are a major irritant and teams will want to avoid them.
I guess transfer embargoes will be for those that are not really taking any meaningful action to get their house in order, as a half way step to expulsion. It doesn't force them to sort the problem out, but it partially sandboxes the club in financial terms and at least prevents things from getting worse. I suspect this will happen only a few times for the worst offenders and in practice will be the real worst punishment.
Expulsions will probably never happen. But again, UEFA don't want it to happen. If PSG. The notion of the expulsion of clubs is just because you need the threat to make the whole system work.
Its important to recognise how much FFP has already changed things. Look at Chelsea. Why didn't they go in for Cavani and Falcao last season? Part of it was waiting for Rooney, who was half the price, but part of it was that those kind of splurges are now rare treats for them and we now know that FFP was the reason for that. Mourinho has made it clear that selling Mata was at least in part due to FFP. City may be breaching FFP right now, but they're trying to meet them at least in theory. There seems to be a general acceptance that clubs need to meet FFP - at the very least, no one wants to be closest to the whip.
As for our club - well frankly this is good news, though I feel a bit guilty about it. However it all works out its clear that the majority of clubs are now making efforts to meet FFP, or at least look like they are. Even if the lines UEFA have drawn are a little more flexible than they admit, the simple fact is that we are in a elite group of clubs that, basically, can spend more on players than other clubs. Even the most avid red in me recognizes that its pretty unfair. But its an advantage nonetheless.
The fact that they have cast the net wide enough to include City in this first round imo signals a real intent to make this happen. It would have been easy to stick with banning clubs like Atletico Madrid and offering them an easy way to get the ban lifted, or to set the bar so high that only PSG and (next season) Monaco are included. By making this list 20 or so teams strong they're making it clear that this isn't just for wild offenders, they're rounding up all teams in breach of the rules (by the way Liverpool would be in this list if they were in a UEFA competition this year).
The important thing to remember about FFP is that it is not a punitive measure. It is a preventative measure. The difference is crucial. Yes its true that no preventative measure will ever be truly successful without the threat of punitive action behind it, but it makes a big difference in what constitutes a good outcome for UEFA.
The best outcome for UEFA is that all the teams in its tournaments follow FFP criteria. The worst outcome for UEFA is that they expel high profile teams.
So that means a few things. Firstly no-one is going to get kicked out this time round, and probably ever. Kicking teams out will only be for serial offenders who refuse to take on board the need to meet FFP criteria. Every team will be given multiple opportunities to get back on track.
Fines are far more damaging than they sound. If your owner is worth billions, whats a few million, right?
Here's the thing. If you're limited to £30M losses over 3 years then, say, a £5M fine is actually a bit of a pain. Its no problem for some billionaire to pay. But the point is that the billionaire can't pay it, as FFP prevents sugar daddies from dipping into their pocket every five minutes. The only people for whom fines don't matter are those who are flagrantly ignoring the rules, in which case the fines will only be the first stage of an escalating fall out between them and UEFA. For those that are trying to meet FFP, fines are a major irritant and teams will want to avoid them.
I guess transfer embargoes will be for those that are not really taking any meaningful action to get their house in order, as a half way step to expulsion. It doesn't force them to sort the problem out, but it partially sandboxes the club in financial terms and at least prevents things from getting worse. I suspect this will happen only a few times for the worst offenders and in practice will be the real worst punishment.
Expulsions will probably never happen. But again, UEFA don't want it to happen. If PSG. The notion of the expulsion of clubs is just because you need the threat to make the whole system work.
Its important to recognise how much FFP has already changed things. Look at Chelsea. Why didn't they go in for Cavani and Falcao last season? Part of it was waiting for Rooney, who was half the price, but part of it was that those kind of splurges are now rare treats for them and we now know that FFP was the reason for that. Mourinho has made it clear that selling Mata was at least in part due to FFP. City may be breaching FFP right now, but they're trying to meet them at least in theory. There seems to be a general acceptance that clubs need to meet FFP - at the very least, no one wants to be closest to the whip.
As for our club - well frankly this is good news, though I feel a bit guilty about it. However it all works out its clear that the majority of clubs are now making efforts to meet FFP, or at least look like they are. Even if the lines UEFA have drawn are a little more flexible than they admit, the simple fact is that we are in a elite group of clubs that, basically, can spend more on players than other clubs. Even the most avid red in me recognizes that its pretty unfair. But its an advantage nonetheless.
Agree - a fine is pointless.
Journo on Talksport this morning was on abut PSG who apprently have not assisted in the UEFA investigation into the legitimacy of the deal. Suggestion is however they will pay a large fine.
Hope UEFA follow through on this, but I'm not overly convinced they will.
Salary cap as a limit to the amount you can spend on wages for a squad. It doesn't mean a maximum limit on the weekly wage of any individual.
Salary caps don't limit the amount you could pay one single player, they impose a limit on your total squad salary. For example, NBA's current salary cap is something like $58m. This means that all the teams in the league have that much money to spread out among the entire team salary. The main outcome of this is that most teams can't have more than a couple superstars in their team, unless they are willing to take substantial pay cuts.
So in the case of City, they would only be able to give a few guys (probably Aguero, Toure and Kompany) big contracts, and players like Silva, Hart, and Nasri would either have to accept a lot less money or go to another club that hasn't exceeded their salary cap. I think some type of salary cap would be brilliant for European football, and is a much fairer way to monitoring club spending than FFP.
Sunderland have more chance of staying up this season than UEFA have of banning a top team from their tournament. I guarantee it will never, ever happen.
Done.
A fine makes sense... if it more than covers the amount of money they've sneaked in. Which it obviously won't. It won't cover 1% of the money.
This is a method of punishment well tried and tested by MPs found to have fiddled their expenses. If you steal £100k, they'll fine you a couple of grand and you'll certainly never do it again.
This is a method of punishment well tried and tested by MPs found to have fiddled their expenses. If you steal £100k, they'll fine you a couple of grand and you'll certainly never do it again.
Thank you!
I'm still mystified that City aren't coming under scrutiny for the amount of homegrown players in their first team squad. The minimum requirement is eight, but do they even meet that? They are seemingly set to offload a lot of those players such as Lescott, Barry and Richards in the summer also.
I actually like that element. It gives a club the ability to spend to catch up to the top level but then have to slow right down once they get there.
Having a billionaire add money into a lower club (like City) is a good thing as it creates more competition. It is just a problem when it goes TOO far.
They cant.
What they can do is decide the entry requirements for their competition and deny anybody who doesnt meet them entry into that competition.
City can pay all their players a billion pounds a week and have a roster of a thousand players if they want, they just wont be able to play in any competitions.
Thats the difference between sport and industry, Sport is almost entirely qualification or invitation with rules set around the circumstances you can and cant qualify of the grounds under which you will be invited.
If clubs like City and PSG want to spend unlimited funds on players, there is absolutely nothing stopping them setting up their own league and playing in that.
Also, the point is that the money can't be paid off by money coming from a sugar daddy. That would be a further breach of FFP, which would be cyclical.
The only people for whom fines are not a pain are clubs cocking their snoot at UEFA. So far only PSG are positioning themselves like that.
Good point. A few clubs have muttered about legal threats if threatened with expulsion. Seems to me you may as well sue UEFA for only being able to have 11 players on the pitch.
And that's exactly why UEFA won't punish them.
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.