Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions

[Arruda]

There is never going to be parity between leagues but uefa should at least try to promote some sort of wealth share within the leagues first.

I find it unfeasible that UEFA could find a way to transfer money from richer leagues to poorer ones. The CL money is still quite meaningless compared with the revenues from the big leagues, and they have no say in what the PL or La Liga do with their own money. But in regards to the smaller ones they could at least let them sort themselves out. Look what they denied a chance to exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_League_(football) If people really value the historic side of football they should be happy to see clubs like Ajax or Benfica having the ability to fight on equal terms like they done for most of their history.

 

[coolredwine]

Even if City agree to settle their case, FFP rules allow Premier League rivals such as Arsenal and Everton to challenge any sanction they deem too lenient. The latter clubs could argue City’s breach materially affected their chances of finishing third or fourth in the table, and thus hindered their European qualification hopes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...t-and-fine-for-breaching-financial-rules.html

Don't think Arsenal, Spurs, Everton will let them easy now.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

So The Telegraph are reporting that City's 'settlement' includes player restrictions for next years Champions League.

If true, do the Caftards find that an acceptable initial measure that will act as a future deterrent?

 

[antihenry]

I imagine fines may be taken in the form of withholding prize money for next seasons competition so that it would show up in future FFP.

But what's stopping City or PSG from getting another sponsorship deal with Etihad Swanky Shoes or Quatar Snowmobiles to make up for those losses?

 

[Brightonian]

IIRC to break the current PL agreement would need a significant majority to agree, something like 18 from 20 clubs. Given that everyone outside the top handful of clubs would fare worse under a negotiate your own agreement policy, that's very very unlikely to happen.

Yup, exactly right. There's literally no desire to break it in the Premier League. From the top clubs down to the bottom clubs, everyone benefits from the current system, which is more successful in terms of revenue than ever before. And they all know it too. United are a particularly strong supporter of it, and were one of the loudest voices behind the recent increase in the amount of money getting down to the Championship (in the form of parachute payments etc) and to grassroots enterprises.

 

[Spiersey]

But what's stopping City or PSG from getting another sponsorship deal with Etihad Swanky Shoes or Quatar Snowmobiles to make up for those losses?

Nothing is stopping them getting it. However UEFA choose how much of it can be considered fair and thus count as part of their income for FFP. They may get a billion a season from etihad but it counts for nothing if only 15 million is taken into consideration.
UEFA have a team of experts who will decide what is fair although I'm not sure how it'll stand up in court. PSG's ludicrious backdated £200 million sponsorship is a clear joke. If that gets past, either initially or through court, then FFP will officially be useless.

 

[Brightonian]

Anyone who knows a bit about City's finances: does the fact they've been found to have broken FFP regs mean that UEFA have discounted their big dodgy Etihad deal? Were they making their big losses even including that money, or are the losses only real if you discount that income? Or do we not know enough to say either way?

 

[bishblaize]

Anyone who knows a bit about City's finances: does the fact they've been found to have broken FFP regs mean that UEFA have discounted their big dodgy Etihad deal? Were they making their big losses even including that money, or are the losses only real if you discount that income? Or do we not know enough to say either way?

That's not yet been disclosed.

 

[Brightonian]

That's not yet been disclosed.

UEFA haven't disclosed it, no, but I was wondering if it can be deduced from their financial situation in the way I suggested. I mean, if that money prevented them from making big losses, then that would prove that UEFA have discounted it.

 

[hungrywing]

The problem with FFP is that it's a 'long-term' solution applied to a potentially short-term problem. It's why you get so many people pointing out that the current 'big clubs' have no problem with its obvious inability to deal with any 'status quo' in place.

The system should have been designed to prevent players going to sugar-daddy clubs. Forget fines/point-docking/competition bans etc. Long story short that boils down to putting the cart before the horse. You need to make it so that even the dumbest, thickest, absolutely most stupid - but clearly top-tier - player being presented with a eighty-kajillion/week contract says, "Lol, no thanks! If I go to you I no play in Europe for X amount of years." (I have no doubt that some of the smarter caftards would be able to work out the details.)

AKA potential club competition bans/fines was the product of sort-of-smart-but-not-actually-smart people thinking that such measures would be enough when push came to shove. That plus whatever political pressures there may have been behind the scenes and obviously there would have to be measures in place to counter any possible circumvention.

Basically it's a well-meaning system that failed to think things through properly.

Also, a salary cap is not the way to go. It's on the level of trying to kill a mosquito with a flame thrower.

 

[Manchester Dan]

Anyone who knows a bit about City's finances: does the fact they've been found to have broken FFP regs mean that UEFA have discounted their big dodgy Etihad deal? Were they making their big losses even including that money, or are the losses only real if you discount that income? Or do we not know enough to say either way?

I'm pretty sure we failed it anyway.

With the level of sponsorships that have come out since our deal, it's difficult for UEFA to argue that £30m per year is beyond fair value.

It's not even close to PSG's £200m per year sponsorship from Qatar Investment Authority.

 

[RedRover]

My point is that modern football has done awry for that very reason. You have no way of reaching that top without spending obscene amount of money. Some money would always be needed but it should not required the 200m-300m or so City needed.

I did not ask for Southampton to win the league in next 2 years or even 5 years. Let's say that they draw a 20 year plan. What possible one can they make up which does not involved mega money?

You had sides dominating before 90s as well but you had clubs like Villa and Everton also winning titles. Not possible now.

Money has certainly effected modern football - and you can argue that's why its gone "awry". Some might argue that the game is more entertaining in the modern era. Even if you dont feel that football is better now, as noble as yearning for the old days is, its not realisitc.

The Chelsea's and City's are a symtom of modern football, not the cause. The traditional big clubs recognised how much money could be made and the likes of United, taking them into the PLC era and driving the development of the financial side of the game. These clubs were so succesful at it that it soon attracted the foreign owners looking to gain fame and sometimes fortune. Its started here because the PL is argubaly the best marketed, but its now happening in leagues elsewhere as well. That's progress I'm afraid, like it or lump it.

I'm not saying FFP is a bad thing per se - but it is, in my opinion more complicated than some seem to think. Shaw at Southampton is a good example. He's clearly a quality player who the top sides would be after. He will evidently want to move to a "bigger side" when the chance comes along. That would have happened 20 years ago regardless - only now, Southampton can command £30 million for an 18 year old - and that is the benefit to them of the huge sums of money in the game.

It'd be great if a side could keep all their young players and develop a great side - but to me it isnt realistic. There are sides which will regularly lose their best players, as they always have done in the past - only now they can demand obscene compensation for the trouble.

They can then potentially invest that - perhaps be a better side than they were before hand, maybe quailify for europe and increase their income, perhaps buy better players the next year. Eventually, having gone through that cycle fora number of years they might then be able to keep their young stars and have a chance of competing with the big boys.

Everyone wants to see clubs grow "organically" - but they arguably need money to do so - indeed some need the money just to surivie and will be happy simply playing in the PL.

 

[Brightonian]

With the level of sponsorships that have come out since our deal, it's difficult for UEFA to argue that £30m per year is beyond fair value.

I strongly disagree. Your independent sponsorships (i.e. not the ones arranged between your owner and his brother) have not reflected the same top-tier brand value. And well they shouldn't - the Etihad deal would suggest that your brand is almost as globally valuable as United's, which is very obviously not true. City is nowhere near as recognisable or marketable as the top tier of clubs in that regard.

It's not even close to PSG's £200m per year sponsorship from Qatar Investment Authority.

Only because their deal is even more obviously crooked than yours.

 

[BobbyManc]

I strongly disagree. Your independent sponsorships (i.e. not the ones arranged between your owner and his brother) have not reflected the same top-tier brand value. And well they shouldn't - the Etihad deal would suggest that your brand is almost as globally valuable as United's, which is very obviously not true. City is nowhere near as recognisable or marketable as the top tier of clubs in that regard.



Only because their deal is even more obviously crooked than yours.

Someone felt Andy Carroll was worth £35m. Are we now going to investigate Liverpool for financial doping towards Newcastle? Point is, UEFA simply cannot state what is an acceptable value for sponsorship. A sponsorship deal is worth whatever the investor values it at. It is also ironic that they are strongly against family ties concerning the investments.

I have also read that there is a loophole too in that the sponsorship of a training ground, for example, counts towards revenue but is exempt from the same scrutiny that stadium and shirt sponsorship sponsorship deals are under.

 

[peterstorey]

Point is, UEFA simply cannot state what is an acceptable value for sponsorship. A sponsorship deal is worth whatever the investor values it at.

Of course they can, there are market rates for these things. If a linked company pays way over the odds it's clearly an illegal way of funding the club in breach of FFP.

 

[BobbyManc]

Of course they can, there are market rates for these things. If a linked company pays way over the odds it's clearly an illegal way of funding the club in breach of FFP.

The issue is whether or not they deem the family involvement to be breaking the rules. However, if they deem the deal to not be market value and that is their only issue, I fully expect PSG to contest that and take it to court. What if a businessman thought PSG were going to dominate world football for the next 10 years and that a £200m sponsorship deal was what he was willing to pay to sponsor that team and be a part of its legacy? It's his money and if he thinks that is what the deal is worth then he should have every right to pay it.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Of course they can, there are market rates for these things. If a linked company pays way over the odds it's clearly an illegal way of funding the club in breach of FFP.

Of course they can make the distinction but fundamentally what's the difference between Chevrolet wanting to spend £65m on sponsoring United because it'll help their brand awareness, and some Sheik wanting to spunk their money on City because it helps build their profile or whatever? The rich owners have to be doing it for some reason.

 

[peterstorey]

Of course they can make the distinction but fundamentally what's the difference between Chevrolet wanting to spend £65m on sponsoring United because it'll help their brand awareness, and some Sheik wanting to spunk their money on City because it helps build their profile or whatever? The rich owners have to be doing it for some reason.

Fair enough if they pay £50 or even £65M for the very roughly comparable brand awareness but if they chuck in £400M it's clearly a fix.

 

[antihenry]

Someone felt Andy Carroll was worth £35m. Are we now going to investigate Liverpool for financial doping towards Newcastle? Point is, UEFA simply cannot state what is an acceptable value for sponsorship. A sponsorship deal is worth whatever the investor values it at. It is also ironic that they are strongly against family ties concerning the investments.

I have also read that there is a loophole too in that the sponsorship of a training ground, for example, counts towards revenue but is exempt from the same scrutiny that stadium and shirt sponsorship sponsorship deals are under.

Transfer fees have nothing to do with it, so your Carroll example is irrelevant here.

As for market values, when it comes to sponsorship deals, here's an interesting piece of information.

Spoiler

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways

Manchester City will bank up to £400m under their new sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, making it the largest deal of its kind in sport and reinforcing City's position as a football club with unprecedented financial power.

The 10-year agreement, which means City's ground is renamed the Etihad Stadium, will be worth more than twice the previous record, JP Morgan Chase's $300m (£187m) for the new Madison Square Garden, while simultaneously demonstrating the growing disparity between the top clubs in English football.

To put it into context, the deal Arsenal struck with Emirates in 2004 was valued at £90m over 15 years. Around £48m of that came via shirt sponsorship, with the naming rights worth only £2.8m a year. Chelsea and Tottenham have both scoured the market for a deal in the region of £10-15m a year but found no serious interest.

 

[BobbyManc]

Transfer fees have nothing to do with it, so your Carroll example is irrelevant here.

As for market values, when it comes to sponsorship deals, here's an interesting piece of information.

Spoiler

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways

Manchester City will bank up to £400m under their new sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, making it the largest deal of its kind in sport and reinforcing City's position as a football club with unprecedented financial power.

The 10-year agreement, which means City's ground is renamed the Etihad Stadium, will be worth more than twice the previous record, JP Morgan Chase's $300m (£187m) for the new Madison Square Garden, while simultaneously demonstrating the growing disparity between the top clubs in English football.

To put it into context, the deal Arsenal struck with Emirates in 2004 was valued at £90m over 15 years. Around £48m of that came via shirt sponsorship, with the naming rights worth only £2.8m a year. Chelsea and Tottenham have both scoured the market for a deal in the region of £10-15m a year but found no serious interest.

400m over 10 years = 40m a year. Juventus earn 35m a year from their sponsorship deal. Our revenue is higher than that of Juventus. The Etihad deal is perfectly reasonable, and if it isn't, then neither is Juve's, who are sponsored by Jeep who are owned by the Agneli family who own Juve (correct me if I'm wrong but I remember reading it somewhere).

Also, this sponsorship involves "financial backing for what will be known as the Etihad Campus, a vast area of land around the stadium that already includes the City Square fans' village, and has other major development planned, including a new training ground and sports science centre". The other sponsorships merely covered shirts + stadium.

 

[Manchester Dan]

I strongly disagree. Your independent sponsorships (i.e. not the ones arranged between your owner and his brother) have not reflected the same top-tier brand value. And well they shouldn't - the Etihad deal would suggest that your brand is almost as globally valuable as United's, which is very obviously not true. City is nowhere near as recognisable or marketable as the top tier of clubs in that regard.

Only because their deal is even more obviously crooked than yours.

Well that's not quite true, given the Etihad deal covers Shirt Sponsorship, Stadium Sponsorship and Campus sponsorship (surrounding areas). It's all rolled into one big deal, which is why it's probably running closer to market value than you give it credit for. Depending which reports you believe, your shirt sponshorship with Chevrolet is worth more than that alone - so it doesn't put us on parity with United in that regard. Our commercial income is higher than you'd perhaps expect even when you remove the 'crooked' £30m Etihad deal, so we obviously have some appeal somewhere. Sponsorship's know we'll be challenging for years to come and it seems that comes at a price. (Disclaimer: I know City are not nearly as marketable as United).

 

[Manchester Dan]

I stand corrected, it's £40m per year, not £30m (reading the report posted above).

 

[bishblaize]

It comes back to the original problem with FFP - if you accept that having football clubs as billionaires playthings is a bad idea, then you have to police it. And since the first thing they'll do is funnel money to it through other avenues, you then need mechanisms for dealing with that.

Is that a good system? Not really. But whats the alternative? Given the original premise its about as good as you can come up with.

 

[BobbyManc]

It comes back to the original problem with FFP - if you accept that having football clubs as billionaires playthings is a bad idea, then you have to police it. And since the first thing they'll do is funnel money to it through other avenues, you then need mechanisms for dealing with that.

Is that a good system? Not really. But whats the alternative? Given the original premise its about as good as you can come up with.

You can go back over 100 years and still find examples of what people would call 'buying the league' through heavy investment from a wealthy owner. It is only in recent years, following the establishment of a status quo through the commercialisation of football with the TV deals and Champions League money, that people have decided it is a problem because now this outside investment posed the only possible threat of disrupting the status quo.

Look at the Champions League winners for the past 15 years. The only two teams you could claim were not part of the status quo were Chelsea who have achieved it through heavy outside investment and Inter who largely gained the opportunity only because members of the status quo were caught cheating and duly punished, building on that and with the wonderful management of Mourinho, without him they have already dropped off. Look at the Premier League winners. You take away the outside investors and we would have seen 2 different winners in all those years.

 

[Siorac]

I hate this Financial Fair Play bullshit. Find it ludicrous how this idea was sold and accepted. Or not, as we football fans are all hypocrites. I'm not happy at all watching clubs like Monaco having more financial capability than Porto, but don't find it more unfair than Porto having more financial capability than Sporting for example.

The issue for me is the hypocrisy of the name. There's no fair play in football. Since the early days of the European Cup we see clubs with power to grab every player that moves. I don't give a shit about where the money came from. Is it getting worse and needed a break? Well, why not start by ending other stuff that we've come to so easily accept just out of being around for so long?

Football's biggest problem is that it's becoming a boring and repetitive oligopoly. Good days when playing against the likes of Newcastle would make anyone scared just because of an Alan Shearer. Or even in Portugal where a club like Setúbal could boast an African Player of the Year (Yekini) that scored goals for fun against the likes of Benfica or Porto.

This "loan" thing for example. The ability of big clubs to buy everything that moves, keep them under their books, and release them if they're shit, keeping them if they come good? Does this make any sense? Limit the number of players a club can have to a set squad limit. If there's no room for a player he should be released, not kept rotating in lesser clubs until he's eventually needed or comes good due to the playing time others gave him. At least talent would be more spread out. Clubs would then need to take a hard thought before buying everything that moves, as it would mean a choice between an unproven youngster and a possibly uninspiring but reliable veteran. As it is, it's win-win if you've already developed the financial health to pull it off. You're going to tell me that a club like United doing this is in any way more "fair play" than Chelsea spending 50m in Torres without breaking a sweat? Right.

History? Historically, what has United done that much better than Liverpool? To me, the biggest difference among the status and power of both clubs seems to be that one was on top during a worldwide financial boom in the sport, whilst the other was was on top a little too early. It established a difference that could Liverpool decades to even out (this might be an ill-thought idea to which I expect rebuttal, but nevertheless threw it out there).

The argument of saving poorly managed clubs from bankruptcy sounds like a poor excuse to me as well. This is an issue that should police itself. How the hell is a threat from UEFA bigger than a threat from bankruptcy itself for the likes of Sporting (who may very well fail FFP as it stands). I'm sure as soon as soon as a few clubs started to shut down their neighbors would wise up. That cataclysmic scenario of everyone going bankrupt looks like stupid conjecture to me.

This post. Absolutely spot on.

 

[Siorac]

You can go back over 100 years and still find examples of what people would call 'buying the league' through heavy investment from a wealthy owner. It is only in recent years, following the establishment of a status quo through the commercialisation of football with the TV deals and Champions League money, that people have decided it is a problem because now this outside investment posed the only possible threat of disrupting the status quo.

Look at the Champions League winners for the past 15 years. The only two teams you could claim were not part of the status quo were Chelsea who have achieved it through heavy outside investment and Inter who largely gained the opportunity only because members of the status quo were caught cheating and duly punished, building on that and with the wonderful management of Mourinho, without him they have already dropped off. Look at the Premier League winners. You take away the outside investors and we would have seen 2 different winners in all those years.

Also, Inter (and Milan) heavily profited from their owner's personal wealth. Moratti struggled to keep up in recent years, hence his decision to sell but he spent massive amounts for long years.

 

[Red Shorts]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ons-League-salary-cap-squad-restrictions.html

Not just a fine, but Salary caps and squad restrictions. Now that is more like punishment!

 

[BobbyManc]

This post. Absolutely spot on.

Only just read that but have to agree. Perfect post that sums the situation up perfectly.

If Mansour, Abramovich, the Qatari owner at PSG, had taken over the clubs and ran them into the ground and made them collapse as clubs like Portsmouth did would UEFA have done anything whatsoever? Not a chance, doesn't concern them. It's only because they are proving successful and threatening the elite teams that FFP has been brought in. It's absolutely laughable listening to interviews with Platini where he cites Rangers and Portsmouth as examples for bringing FFP in.

 

[BobbyManc]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ons-League-salary-cap-squad-restrictions.html

Not just a fine, but Salary caps and squad restrictions. Now that is more like punishment!

Seen the caption for the picture? Seeing red: Pablo Zabaleta (left) is sent off during the Champions League final defeat by Barcelona in March

That's the quality of journalism at the Daily Mail. Not that what they are reporting isn't true, they and all the other papers have clearly been briefed on what is happening by someone at UEFA, same way the press was told about Moyes. Find it hard to believe City and PSG can face the same punishment though, no way we have been as 'bad' as they have.

 

[bishblaize]

You can go back over 100 years and still find examples of what people would call 'buying the league' through heavy investment from a wealthy owner. It is only in recent years, following the establishment of a status quo through the commercialisation of football with the TV deals and Champions League money, that people have decided it is a problem because now this outside investment posed the only possible threat of disrupting the status quo.

Look at the Champions League winners for the past 15 years. The only two teams you could claim were not part of the status quo were Chelsea who have achieved it through heavy outside investment and Inter who largely gained the opportunity only because members of the status quo were caught cheating and duly punished, building on that and with the wonderful management of Mourinho, without him they have already dropped off. Look at the Premier League winners. You take away the outside investors and we would have seen 2 different winners in all those years.

The modern game is incomparable with the older game in terms of financial models, so there's no value in looking for historical precedent. The money in the game now is vast compared to even 20 years ago, never mind in the post European Cup era. In 1993 our turnover was about £25M. Now its around £400M. That means the risk to someone trying to bankroll a team at the highest level, or more importantly the risk to that team if they stop, is vastly greater.

Jack Walker invested a few tens of millions over 4 or 5 years to make Blackburn league champions. For City it was, what, half a billion invested, much of that on the playing staff? When Jack Walker stopped bankrolling Blackburn, they had to sell their better players and faced mid-table obscurity, with some yo-yoing afterwards. But if QTA suddenly stop bankrolling PSG, or Sheikh Mansour & his family stop bankrolling City, the club will face such massive insolvency that they probably wouldn't even have time for a fire sale. Swift administration followed by a winding up order is by far the most likely outcome.

That's the crux of it. The stakes are so much higher these days that very existence of the club is at risk. It may be crap if your team used to challenge at the top and now, after a backer leaves, you bumble around the lower leagues. But at least your club exists. The risks these billionaires are taking with clubs are so great that the club closing is almost the only possible outcome if it ends messily.

I may have a laugh at City but the existence of any club with such a fan base just shouldn't be toyed with. In my eyes anybody who takes risks with the future of clubs (including the glazers) is an enemy of football. City have been around for well over 100 years. Should they, or any other club, be put in a position where they are only ever 12 months from bankruptcy in the event of a single backer changing their mind?

That for me is that crux of this particular problem. Its worth saying by the way that if City or PSG closed down next season in flames, all football fans would want FFP. Its only because the worst hasn't yet happened (and because no-one ever liked Leeds anyway) that FFP is contentious.

 

[I_live_cement]

I find it unfeasible that UEFA could find a way to transfer money from richer leagues to poorer ones.

I know, that's what I said. I've no idea how to sort out overall inequality.

They should however promote an equal distribtion of tv money, for instance, within each individal league.

 

[crappycraperson]

Seriously, which genius thought of fining clubs that don't comply with FFA? It does not make sense on any level. Clubs like City, it would not matter even if the fine is in millions. Clubs like Rangers, it makes no sense to fine them since it would make their financial state even worse.

 

[B20]

Someone felt Andy Carroll was worth £35m. Are we now going to investigate Liverpool for financial doping towards Newcastle? Point is, UEFA simply cannot state what is an acceptable value for sponsorship. A sponsorship deal is worth whatever the investor values it at. It is also ironic that they are strongly against family ties concerning the investments.

They can start by asking what is the losing bid. Oh, you never have another....

 

[bishblaize]

Seriously, which genius thought of fining clubs that don't comply with FFA? It does not make sense on any level. Clubs like City, it would not matter even if the fine is in millions. Clubs like Rangers, it makes no sense to fine them since it would make their financial state even worse.

I think its a perfectly reasonable approach.

If the club is trying to meet FFP (or at least look like it) then a fine then hurts the club in the same way that limiting their squad selection or offering a transfer ban does. It forces them to tighten their belt, probably by signing fewer players or finding a way to lower their overall salary bill. It also means that whatever competitive advantage was gained from overspending in one season will be countered by forced underspending in the coming season.

Also, don't forget that fines (and FFP more generally) is supposed to dissuade clubs from overspending, not punish them for doing it. A fine may hurt Rangers now, but they know the rules and would have knowingly overspent in order to fall foul of them. Bear in mind too that had FFP rules existed 10 to 15 years ago then Rangers would have found it much harder to have got into the financial problems they did and probably wouldn't have gone into administration & been liquidated.

Obviously if the club in question doesn't give a fig about FFP then fines are irrelevant, but in that case its going to be an escalating process leading up to eventual expulsion anyway.

 

[Manchester Dan]

I think its a perfectly reasonable approach.

If the club is trying to meet FFP (or at least look like it) then a fine then hurts the club in the same way that limiting their squad selection or offering a transfer ban does. It forces them to tighten their belt, probably by signing fewer players or finding a way to lower their overall salary bill. It also means that whatever competitive advantage was gained from overspending in one season will be countered by forced underspending in the coming season.

Also, don't forget that fines (and FFP more generally) is supposed to dissuade clubs from overspending, not punish them for doing it. A fine may hurt Rangers now, but they know the rules and would have knowingly overspent in order to fall foul of them. Bear in mind too that had FFP rules existed 10 to 15 years ago then Rangers would have found it much harder to have got into the financial problems they did and probably wouldn't have gone into administration & been liquidated.

Obviously if the club in question doesn't give a fig about FFP then fines are irrelevant, but in that case its going to be an escalating process leading up to eventual expulsion anyway.

Some clubs don't choose to over spend, they get into trouble because their owners make terrible financial decisions to run the club. You could see one person destroy a club from the inside and an extra fine could all but push the club over the edge. I think a fine has to be a very selective punishment for those who choose to overspend, rather than those who find themselves in real financial difficulty. The latter would soon fall out of European competitions, mind you.

 

[Richard Cranium]

You can go back over 100 years and still find examples of what people would call 'buying the league' through heavy investment from a wealthy owner. It is only in recent years, following the establishment of a status quo through the commercialisation of football with the TV deals and Champions League money, that people have decided it is a problem because now this outside investment posed the only possible threat of disrupting the status quo.

Look at the Champions League winners for the past 15 years. The only two teams you could claim were not part of the status quo were Chelsea who have achieved it through heavy outside investment and Inter who largely gained the opportunity only because members of the status quo were caught cheating and duly punished, building on that and with the wonderful management of Mourinho, without him they have already dropped off. Look at the Premier League winners. You take away the outside investors and we would have seen 2 different winners in all those years.

Any on the scale of City though? It was pushing on for £1bn when you first won the league. Total investment must now surely be closer to £2bn than to £1bn? That's a ridiculous amount of money. It isn't about preventing clubs gaining investment, it's about preventing the unsustainable levels of investment. How is it fair that teams who have been at the top for decades and world recognised names with legitimate commercial turnover should be outspent by a small club like City because some Arab got bored and decided to spend his family's money?

 

[SolidState]

Having clubs like City and PSG in the Champions League is embarrassing to the game. As a United fan it pains me to say it but id much rather have Liverpool and Marseille in there.

Only this year Dani Alves was quoted as saying he never realized there were two clubs in Manchester, I mean how can we have this ridiculous joke of a sugar daddy club in the CL representing English football, its not a big game Bayern vs City means nothing compared to Bayern v United even at the same level of the competition. Its almost like us vs Cluj just another team to pack in the numbers for the group stages.

Im probably being too harsh and bias but simply spunking ridiculous amounts of money consistently is just anti-football. 2bn?! seriously, thats insane, they should be winning the CL every year to justify that outlay.

 

[bishblaize]

Some clubs don't choose to over spend, they get into trouble because their owners make terrible financial decisions to run the club. You could see one person destroy a club from the inside and an extra fine could all but push the club over the edge. I think a fine has to be a very selective punishment for those who choose to overspend, rather than those who find themselves in real financial difficulty. The latter would soon fall out of European competitions, mind you.

Certainly you need to use fines selectively to avoid becoming part of the problem.

On the other hand you can't have a situation where clubs who are slightly badly run get harsher treatment than those who are very badly run.

 

[LondonRed]

Seriously, which genius thought of fining clubs that don't comply with FFA? It does not make sense on any level. Clubs like City, it would not matter even if the fine is in millions. Clubs like Rangers, it makes no sense to fine them since it would make their financial state even worse.

Well I understand your point for Rangers but the fine for City makes sense. Clearly the money is not an issue but it will be an additional expense. E.g. in their quest to break-even (Or at least to lose only £37m) this will be another cost they have to juggle. So indirectly it puts more stringent controls on their spending for the next financial year.

At least so long as the fine counts and isn't excluded from total expenditure,.

 

[Siorac]

Any on the scale of City though? It was pushing on for £1bn when you first won the league. Total investment must now surely be closer to £2bn than to £1bn? That's a ridiculous amount of money. It isn't about preventing clubs gaining investment, it's about preventing the unsustainable levels of investment. How is it fair that teams who have been at the top for decades and world recognised names with legitimate commercial turnover should be outspent by a small club like City because some Arab got bored and decided to spend his family's money?

Legitimate commercial turnover means nothing else than some companies decided to spend their money on football. Their motivation to do so might be different to Arab sheikhs who also decided to spend their own money on football.

I fail to see how it is unfair that owners spend their own money on their football club. If UEFA were concerned about the financial well-being of clubs they would outlaw leveraged takeovers or owners loaning funds to the club. But of course they do not care about anything like that. They're not as honest as you are though: at least you admit that you want the big clubs to stay big and you don't want small clubs ever challenging them. Why do you wrap that in the guise of "fairness" I'm not sure though.