Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions

acnumber9 said:
They came and went through bad management. You've acted like Utd spent vast, unmatched funds for years and cherry picked players from all their rivals. They didn't. You've painted a completely inaccurate picture of what actually happened. Plenty of clubs had the funds to compete with Utd. They just didn't have a great manager and so those clubs fell away due to the nature of the sport. For City and Chelsea it matters not if they spend badly. They'll buy their way out of it regardless of how well run they are.

They have less risk. Not zero risk that Chelsea an City operated in for years. That's the big difference.

It's strange that all these clubs you're crusading for don't agree with the benefits of billionaire owners given they have voted in favour of FFP.
Click to expand...

Again, the "risk" argument is a non-starter for me. There will always be have's and have nots in football and that's pretty much how it's always been. United can spend more money that Newcastle, who can spend more money than Palace who can spend more money than Burnley, and so it goes on. This isnt something new. This "risk" argument is just a way to justify arguing that United are fine to spend big money but other clubs arent.

And I'm not "crusading" for anyone - I'm being pragmatic and realisitc. For me the PL is more entertaining than it ever has been right now and as a football fan, I like that, so I have no issue with them spending their owners money. These clubs are not lashing £500 million on one player, nor paying their players massively above the sums other clubs are paying. If they want to commit their money then that's their business as far as i'm concerned.

Its hardly surprising that these clubs are, on the face of it, in favour of FFP - they now have their place at the top table and will want to stop anyone else doing the same as them, so it doesn't take a genius to work out why. United will be supprting it for their own ends as well. The clubs will only act in their own best interests - that's hardly a startling conclusion.

At the end of the day having money and being able to buy players doesnt guarantee success. Clubs need to get the balance right and build a sisde with a manager in charge who knows what he's doing. That's hwat makes the game so interesting to me.

You have your opinion and fair enough. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.

But for me, the issues United face right now are little to do with these clubs. They've bought top players, perhaps raised the bar, but United can easily compete given the money they generate. These sides are not running away with the league every year, or turning it into a two horse race a la the former old firm in Scotland so I don't see what all the fuss is abaout. Indeed, had these clubs not come in with big money its arguable that United would be so far ahead of the field the league as a spectacle could be a much worse proposition.

Fact is, people can dress this up however they like but it just smacks to me of jealousy. No United fans had their knickers in a twist about the "good of the game" and the "madness of modern football" when we were pushing wages up, or breaking transfer records for what were, at the time unheard of amounts of money - and nor should they. Their team was doing what it took to win titles, entertain the fans and build a legacy.

I suspect few fans will be moaning if we go out and spend £200 million in the summer and a re sitting pretty at the top of the tree come May 2015 - even though there would be a strong argument that we "bought the title" rather than developing a side "organically".

I'll bow out now, because we're going in circles here.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
The EU laws we're talking about here are general ones, right? There aren't EU laws that pertain specifically to sports and tournaments? So, the laws would be the ones ensuring the famed free flow of goods and services, plus well nigh generic laws which protect against the emergence of monopolies and whatnot.

If the above is more or less right I can't see how FFP would violate EU laws. It's a restriction or regulation imposed by the host of a certain event, one that is designed for a specific purpose, namely to combat what is deemed an unhealthy trend. And that trend isn't sugar daddyism, but rather overspending. Seems legit to me.

EDIT Didn't see Habeas' post above. Yes, this is what I was getting at. You can have regulations and restrictions - that in itself isn't contrary to the laws.
Click to expand...

Laws often contradict one another and its usually only when things are challenged that there is a determination, or clarification as to what they mean and how they apply. This is especially the case in pan-European legislation which in itself contradicts or sits uneasily with domestic law.

People put far too much emphasis on the comments from the EU Commision and UEFA. I'm sure they believe that these laws are well drafted and fit for purpose, and I'm sure they will fight anyone who says otherwise - buit they would of course say they're all fine and water tight. They are still answerable to legal challenges that are made.

As I said long back on this thread, anyone challenging these laws could pay a very expensive QC (or the equivalent in whatever country they are in) who specialises in the field to advise on wehther he or she beleived there was a challenge to be made. The laws may be well drafted and totally watertight and that would largely be that, but they also may not be. Said QC might come up with a very clever way of challenging it and in theory a case could be brought for the evidence, and the challenge to be heard.

All of this would be very expensive and time consuming and given that nobody is getting kicked out of the CL I suspect the clubs won't want to risk making things worse for themselves by going down that route. I suspect they'll pay the fine and try to comply because its the easier option. They still get the CL revenue and thats the most important aspect to them I suspect.
 
RedRover said:
Laws often contradict one another and its usually only when things are challenged that there is a determination, or clarification as to what they mean and how they apply. This is especially the case in pan-European legislation which in itself contradicts or sits uneasily with domestic law.

People put far too much emphasis on the comments from the EU Commision and UEFA. I'm sure they believe that these laws are well drafted and fit for purpose, and I'm sure they will fight anyone who says otherwise - buit they would of course say they're all fine and water tight. They are still answerable to legal challenges that are made.

As I said long back on this thread, anyone challenging these laws could pay a very expensive QC (or the equivalent in whatever country they are in) who specialises in the field to advise on wehther he or she beleived there was a challenge to be made. The laws may be well drafted and totally watertight and that would largely be that, but they also may not be. Said QC might come up with a very clever way of challenging it and in theory a case could be brought for the evidence, and the challenge to be heard.

All of this would be very expensive and time consuming and given that nobody is getting kicked out of the CL I suspect the clubs won't want to risk making things worse for themselves by going down that route. I suspect they'll pay the fine and try to comply because its the easier option. They still get the CL revenue and thats the most important aspect to them I suspect.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the members of the ECA signed an agreement that they would not challenge FFP when it came in. City are members of it, which is why neither them nor PSG can challenge it in the ECJ. However a third a party can, such as DuPont.
 
ravelston said:
"UEFA is a voluntary organisation."

"UEFA can make the powerful argument that FFP only curtails participation in competitions arranged by them and by invitation by them and that it does not infringe on any laws that they set requirements for receiving such invitations."

Where is the restraint of trade? City are welcome to do whatever they want in terms of paying their players. They've known since 2010 that, to get invited to play in UEFA competitions, they would have to abide by a common set of rules. They failed to do so and have been given other, specific, actions that, if undertaken, could mitigate their noncompliance - it's their choice. There is no "right" to play in UEFA competitions - it's by invitation only. If you choose to not follow the rules you don't get invited.
Click to expand...
I'd think any rules that try to artificially restrict wages would be open to challenge by players and agents as it potentially limits their ability to earn.
 
verminater said:
They have no restriction on earning ability as undividuals. It is how the club decides to cut the pie, that determines that, and the size of the squad they wish to maintain.
Click to expand...

If FFP results in clubs reducing wages then it can be legitimately challenged. FFP doesn't have to explicitly state that wages must be reduced for it to fall foul of EU Law.
 
RedRover said:
You're dead right. He moved fir money and success because United, as a rich club could offer him both.

It is what it is - money has changed the game at the end of the day and It did so long before Roman or the Oil Sheikhs got involved.
Click to expand...

By losing these players, the poorer clubs are deprived of a chance to improve their performance on the pitch, and earn more money through success.

Everton probably lost money by selling Rooney. He could have made the difference between 6th and 4th at least a couple of those years and the champions league money would have mattered greatly to them.

I always think that if a player is so good, so talented, why can't he stay and make his club better? Show how good you are and drag Blackburn up the table.
 
Americano said:
By losing these players, the poorer clubs are deprived of a chance to improve their performance on the pitch, and earn more money through success.

Everton probably lost money by selling Rooney. He could have made the difference between 6th and 4th at least a couple of those years and the champions league money would have mattered greatly to them.

I always think that if a player is so good, so talented, why can't he stay and make his club better? Show how good you are and drag Blackburn up the table.
Click to expand...

Talented young players moving to higher profile and more succesful clubs has always and will always happen for the obvious reasons. Players have a limited career and want riches and success - so they go where they are most likely to find it. That's just human nature I'm afraid.

And the flip side is a Matt Le Tissier type - a player gets accused of lacking ambition or being happy as a "big fish in a small pond".

There is nothing wrong with ambition and the reality is that a player never knows what's around the corner so will likely take a big chance when it comes along.

He may have made the difference fir Everton - but the best players should be plying their trade at the very top level.

At the end of the day if have made the same choice if I were Wayne Rooney - he has mega millions more than he would have, legendary status a top club and a cupboard full of medals. I suspect you'd make the same decision too.
 
RedRover said:
At the end of the day if have made the same choice if I were Wayne Rooney - he has mega millions more than he would have, legendary status a top club and a cupboard full of medals. I suspect you'd make the same decision too.
Click to expand...

I understand the reasons behind the choice, but it does violate my romantic notion of how football "could be".

We have such a different system here in the US with our sports. The worst teams get the best incoming young players to redistribute talent more evenly. The best players can make loads of money even playing in smaller cities because the leagues operate as more of a collective and the clubs are very profitable. I'm not saying this would be perfect for football/England but it would be refreshing to see every football club have a shot at greatness instead of just a few dominant predators.
 
BobbyManc said:
If FFP results in clubs reducing wages then it can be legitimately challenged. FFP doesn't have to explicitly state that wages must be reduced for it to fall foul of EU Law.
Click to expand...
Do you seriously believe the stuff you write?
If my company was fined for producing a product that cheated the consumer, do you think that I could sue for not getting a rise, due to a loss in profits?
Nevermind that. My company did make a profit, and I never got a rise. Who do I write to?

Edit: One of FFP's founding principles is the prevention of wage inflatio (beyond the means of the clubs/fans).
 
verminater said:
Do you seriously believe the stuff you write?
If my company was fined for producing a product that cheated the consumer, do you think that I could sue for not getting a rise, due to a loss in profits?
Nevermind that. My company did make a profit, and I never got a rise. Who do I write to?

Edit: One of FFP's founding principles is the prevention of wage inflatio (beyond the means of the clubs/fans).
Click to expand...

"The rules create a number of restrictions, like limiting investments and limiting transfers. Clubs will employ fewer players and will pay lower wages. It also affects the right of free movement of capital, workers and providing services. - Dupont.

I'm inclined to side with Dupont over yourself, thanks though. Not saying everything Dupont says is gospel on the matter but if he thinks that the reduction it will cause in wages is an issue then I'll take his word for it.
 
BobbyManc said:
If FFP results in clubs reducing wages then it can be legitimately challenged. FFP doesn't have to explicitly state that wages must be reduced for it to fall foul of EU Law.
Click to expand...

Did you not read any of the stuff posted by an actual law student who knew what he was talking about before? UEFA's rules are not being applied to an industry, they're being applied to a voluntary invitational tournament. No-one has to reduce their wages, it's just that certain clubs won't be invited to join the competition if they don't. Nothing that can be legitimately challenged there.

If you don't like the rules, don't take part in the tournament - it doesn't legally qualify as an industry, a dominance or a monopoly so the privity of contract applies - EU law has no say over what rules UEFA chooses to apply within their competition.

I mean, he also gave plenty of other reasons why you're talking bollocks, but that's the fundamental one, and I've yet to see you offer anything even close to a counter-argument.
 
Brightonian said:
Did you not read any of the stuff posted by an actual law student who knew what he was talking about before? UEFA's rules are not being applied to an industry, they're being applied to a voluntary invitational tournament. No-one has to reduce their wages, it's just that certain clubs won't be invited to join the competition if they don't. Nothing that can be legitimately challenged there.

If you don't like the rules, don't take part in the tournament - it doesn't legally qualify as an industry, a dominance or a monopoly so the privity of contract applies - EU law has no say over what rules UEFA chooses to apply within their competition

I mean, he also gave plenty of other reasons why you're talking bollocks, but that's the fundamental one, and I've yet to see you offer anything even close to a counter-argument.
Click to expand...

UEFA can only create rules that conform to EU law, the law-student agreed with that point. The Bosman ruling proved as much, regardless of the differing circumstances with that and FFP.

And why is a law-student's opinion worth more than Dupont's? All the stuff I have said I have taken from Dupont mostly and some of Thompson and Szymanski.

Is Dupont going to come out and publicly state that a decrease in wages of players and agents is an example of FFP's alleged illegality if it isn't arguably true? Is he that stupid that he would publicly make himself look like an idiot before the case has even started?
 
Last edited:
Americano said:
I understand the reasons behind the choice, but it does violate my romantic notion of how football "could be".

We have such a different system here in the US with our sports. The worst teams get the best incoming young players to redistribute talent more evenly. The best players can make loads of money even playing in smaller cities because the leagues operate as more of a collective and the clubs are very profitable. I'm not saying this would be perfect for football/England but it would be refreshing to see every football club have a shot at greatness instead of just a few dominant predators.
Click to expand...
I'm no expert, but from what I've read (mainly about the NBA) the top players still look for contracts in the big cities because their individual sponsoring deals are significantly higher if they play in one of the big markets. You rarely see top players stay at small clubs throughout their career. The Champions League is probably a better comparison to NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL than the domestic leagues. It's the toughest football competition in the world with 32 top teams taking part. Since its introduction in 1992 13 different teams have won it and no team more often than 3 times. During the same time only 9 different clubs have won the NBA and 3 teams have won it at least 4 times (I haven't checked the numbers for the other US leagues, because I don't follow them, but I doubt it's significantly different). I really don't see how you could say that more teams have a shot at greatness in the US system?

There's also no promotion/relegation in the US, so it's only a very limited number of teams that's allowed to play at the top level, while in the European leagues a huge number of teams has a shot to make it into the top competitions. Every year 'small' teams get a chance to move up in their country and in Europe. Every year, you have a few surprises in the knockout stages of the European competitions. Every football club in Europe is part of the system and has a chance to develop, a chance that simply doesn't exist in the US for most clubs.

I like the idea of a salary cap and a draft, but it can't ever work in a league system with relegation and promotion. You would have to create a European Super League with 32 fixed teams and no one wants that, it would ruin all the great domestic competitions. And even then, it's far from a given, that all those 32 teams have equal chances to win, because like the US leagues show, there are still a few teams that dominate.
 
Last edited:
BobbyManc said:
UEFA can only create rules that conform to EU law, the law-student agreed with that point. The Bosman ruling proved as much, regardless of the differing circumstances with that and FFP.

And why is a law-student's opinion worth more than Dupont's? All the stuff I have said I have taken from Dupont mostly and some of Thompson and Szymanski.

Is Dupont going to come out and publicly state that a decrease in wages of players and agents is an example of FFP's alleged illegality if it isn't arguably true? Is he that stupid that he would publicly make himself look like an idiot before the case has even started?
Click to expand...

Dupont's arguments consist that it limits investment and the free movement of workers. That isn't true though. UEFA aren't stopping anyone from spending a £1 billion a season at all. Teams are welcome to do it, they just won't be welcome in their invitational tournament.
 
Brightonian said:
Did you not read any of the stuff posted by an actual law student who knew what he was talking about before? UEFA's rules are not being applied to an industry, they're being applied to a voluntary invitational tournament. No-one has to reduce their wages, it's just that certain clubs won't be invited to join the competition if they don't. Nothing that can be legitimately challenged there.

If you don't like the rules, don't take part in the tournament - it doesn't legally qualify as an industry, a dominance or a monopoly so the privity of contract applies - EU law has no say over what rules UEFA chooses to apply within their competition.

I mean, he also gave plenty of other reasons why you're talking bollocks, but that's the fundamental one, and I've yet to see you offer anything even close to a counter-argument.
Click to expand...
But, Dupont said.
 
acnumber9 said:
But, Dupont said.
Click to expand...

The words of Dupont, Thompson and Szymanski are more valuable than those of the economic experts on Redcafe, no? All three argue there is definitely a case to be heard. That's good enough for me. Those are just three prominent figures who have said FFP can reasonably be challenged in court. I'm sure there are others.
 
BobbyManc said:
The words of Dupont, Thompson and Szymanski are more valuable than those of the economic experts on Redcafe, no? All three argue there is definitely a case to be heard. That's good enough for me. Those are just three prominent figures who have said FFP can reasonably be challenged in court. I'm sure there are others.
Click to expand...
And the prominent people involved in the joint statement mean less? Basically any time you've been questioned on it your response has boiled down to 'but, Dupont said'. He is a man not the oracle.
 
acnumber9 said:
And the prominent people involved in the joint statement mean less? Basically any time you've been questioned on it your response has boiled down to 'but, Dupont said'. He is a man not the oracle.
Click to expand...

The EU Commission statement counts for little right now, FFP can and is being challenged in court. Until the verdict of Dupont's case is delivered then not much can be said on the issue.

I don't refer to Dupont as though he is the oracle, I refer to him whenever people state with 100% certainty that FFP is not in any way illegal. That is an opinion but the fact that prominent figures believe it possibly is proves it isn't as clear cut as people on here would have you believe. To quote an article from Szymanski - "our results demonstrate that the break-even rule could be construed as a means to raising profitability and therefore an anti-competitive vertical restraint under EU competition law". The very fact Szymanski, an economics professor and well-respected figure, is not involved in any legal case against FFP yet considers it to contravene EU law demonstrates this. He also argues that FFP can reasonably justify this, but the point is the people on here posting that FFP and UEFA are unchallengeable are living in a dreamland.
 
Spiersey said:
I assume thats from a thread on here? Got a link? Reminds me of the video of Baz and his wall:lol:
Click to expand...

Lurking that Baz and his wall thread is probably the most I've ever laughed at an internet forum topic.
 
BobbyManc said:
The EU Commission statement counts for little right now, FFP can and is being challenged in court. Until the verdict of Dupont's case is delivered then not much can be said on the issue.

I don't refer to Dupont as though he is the oracle, I refer to him whenever people state with 100% certainty that FFP is not in any way illegal. That is an opinion but the fact that prominent figures believe it possibly is proves it isn't as clear cut as people on here would have you believe. To quote an article from Szymanski - "our results demonstrate that the break-even rule could be construed as a means to raising profitability and therefore an anti-competitive vertical restraint under EU competition law". The very fact Szymanski, an economics professor and well-respected figure, is not involved in any legal case against FFP yet considers it to contravene EU law demonstrates this. He also argues that FFP can reasonably justify this, but the point is the people on here posting that FFP and UEFA are unchallengeable are living in a dreamland.
Click to expand...

The EU statement counts for little but Dupont's word should be taken as gospel?
Also have you read the EU Competition laws?
 
Spiersey said:
The EU statement counts for little but Dupont's word should be taken as gospel?
Also have you read the EU Competition laws?
Click to expand...

Nope. Dupont's posturing and the EU statement both count for relatively little right now. Until the case has its day in court then there is nothing to be gained arguing the worth between the two.

I haven't read the EU competition laws in depth but Szymanski will have and I have provided you with a quotation from him. Instead of arguing against me, why don't you argue against his point? Or do you avoid that because you are aware that in all likelihood he is much more well-informed than you or I on the subject and what he says is a perfectly valid point. Dupont may not win his case but the absolute denial that he doesn't have one is ludicrous.
 
BobbyManc said:
Dupont's posturing and the EU statement both count for relatively little right now. Until the case has its day in court then there is nothing to be gained arguing the worth between the two.
Click to expand...

The most sensible thing anyone (including me) has said in this thread. Lets all come back in 18 months, and see what happened.
 
BobbyManc said:
Nope. Dupont's posturing and the EU statement both count for relatively little right now. Until the case has its day in court then there is nothing to be gained arguing the worth between the two.

I haven't read the EU competition laws in depth but Szymanski will have and I have provided you with a quotation from him. Instead of arguing against me, why don't you argue against his point? Or do you avoid that because you are aware that in all likelihood he is much more well-informed than you or I on the subject and what he says is a perfectly valid point. Dupont may not win his case but the absolute denial that he doesn't have one is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

its fairly obvious that both sides have an argument. Nobody claims to be 100% certain. Still you answer almost every single post with the same "but dupont has a case". We got it.
Common sense tells me, that its very unlikely (not impossible), that FFP gets completely overruled. Tweaked/changed; sure thats possible. Why?
1) The Uefa made a big effort and with the backing of the European commission, they wont just create a shitty rule with obvious flaws, that can be easily challenged.
2) Even PSG already accepted their penalty; why should they do that when "dupont has such a strong case"?
3) The EU/ECJ has little interest to get involved in these matters. The Bosman-case had a different quality.
 
Dargonk said:
How exactly have PSG managed to get a lower punishment than City??
Click to expand...

We don't know enough details to say really. Could be that city tried to hide their losses behind sneaky accounting while psg were more open.
 
Balu said:
I'm no expert, but from what I've read (mainly about the NBA) the top players still look for contracts in the big cities because their individual sponsoring deals are significantly higher if they play in one of the big markets. You rarely see top players stay at small clubs throughout their career. The Champions League is probably a better comparison to NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL than the domestic leagues. It's the toughest football competition in the world with 32 top teams taking part. Since its introduction in 1992 13 different teams have won it and no team more often than 3 times. During the same time only 9 different clubs have won the NBA and 3 teams have won it at least 4 times (I haven't checked the numbers for the other US leagues, because I don't follow them, but I doubt it's significantly different). I really don't see how you could say that more teams have a shot at greatness in the US system?

There's also no promotion/relegation in the US, so it's only a very limited number of teams that's allowed to play at the top level, while in the European leagues a huge number of teams has a shot to make it into the top competitions. Every year 'small' teams get a chance to move up in their country and in Europe. Every year, you have a few surprises in the knockout stages of the European competitions. Every football club in Europe is part of the system and has a chance to develop, a chance that simply doesn't exist in the US for most clubs.

I like the idea of a salary cap and a draft, but it can't ever work in a league system with relegation and promotion. You would have to create a European Super League with 32 fixed teams and no one wants that, it would ruin all the great domestic competitions. And even then, it's far from a given, that all those 32 teams have equal chances to win, because like the US leagues show, there are still a few teams that dominate.
Click to expand...
Why can't a salary or transfer cap work in domestic leagues? You simply have different caps for different tiers. If a side is promoted their salary and transfer cap increases as per the division they are in
 
crappycraperson said:
Why can't a salary or transfer cap work in domestic leagues? You simply have different caps for different tiers. If a side is promoted their salary and transfer cap increases as per the division they are in
Click to expand...
Problem with that is if a league doesn't have the cap. All the best players will slowly flow out of the country and into the league without the cap or with the highest cap.
 
Dargonk said:
Problem with that is if a league doesn't have the cap. All the best players will slowly flow out of the country and into the league without the cap or with the highest cap.
Click to expand...
That's why it has to come from UEFA for the whole Europe.

Initially it would not yield results since the rich clubs like United or Madrid would either build up massive case reserves or it would be pocketed by owners/investors. Eventually though when such clubs won't be able to get super teams by just spending big, they will have to start investing the money into getting better talents coming though their own youth system. Something that would be helpful for the game. Other clubs who may suffer initially due to lack of big transfer fees coming in, would also progress when they get the results by keeping their best players which in turn would lead to more money after success.
 
crappycraperson said:
Why can't a salary or transfer cap work in domestic leagues? You simply have different caps for different tiers. If a side is promoted their salary and transfer cap increases as per the division they are in
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if the sideeffects don't hurt the game more than that they actually help. Clubs with great youth academies would then still loose their best players because they aren't allowed to pay them all equally. You can keep 2 or 3 top players, the rest will leave. You have to balance it throughout Europe, which is almost impossible with different taxes in each country, different ownership models. And clubs like Real, United, Bayern will still get the best players because if you play for them, your individual sponsoring deals will be significantly higher. Companies will invest in players, not in clubs anymore and would want their stars to play for the big clubs in the big markets. Then there's the question of what happens with all that money? In England you have the owners who happily use clubs to make money, take it out of the game, fair enough. But in Spain and Germany, there usually is no owner? You don't have natural growth anymore, no need for longterm plans, no consistent development. The benefits of youth academies are way smaller for the club.

And let's not forget that in the US (at least in the NBA) most clubs don't make any money. They needed a lower salary cap, so that the owners of most clubs didn't have to invest their own money anymore to keep the clubs alive. They also not only have a maximum cap, they have a minimum as well to make sure that there is enough competition and owners are forced to build a quality team. Clubs are way simpler in their structure. No youth academies, rarely you have longterm identification between fans and players. There's no real investment outside of the squad. And still, you have a few clubs dominating.

How will you find a number that makes sense? Let's say we cut it down to 50m in the 4 top leagues in Europe. I'm sure you have around 50 clubs in Spain, Italy and Germany that don't have the revenue to pay so much anyway? It's impossible to make that work in Europe. It's already a nightmare to find a solution in the US for a league with 30 clubs who all play by the same rules and all have the same ownership structure, it's absolutely impossible in European football, in my opinion.
 
Balu said:
I'm not sure if the sideeffects don't hurt the game more than that they actually help. Clubs with great youth academies would then still loose their best players because they aren't allowed to pay them all equally. You can keep 2 or 3 top players, the rest will leave. You have to balance it throughout Europe, which is almost impossible with different taxes in each country, different ownership models. And clubs like Real, United, Bayern will still get the best players because if you play for them, your individual sponsoring deals will be significantly higher. Companies will invest in players, not in clubs anymore and would want their stars to play for the big clubs in the big markets. Then there's the question of what happens with all that money? In England you have the owners who happily use clubs to make money, take it out of the game, fair enough. But in Spain and Germany, there usually is no owner? You don't have natural growth anymore, no need for longterm plans, no consistent development. The benefits of youth academies are way smaller for the club.

And let's not forget that in the US (at least in the NBA) most clubs don't make any money. They needed a lower salary cap, so that the owners of most clubs didn't have to invest their own money anymore to keep the clubs alive. They also not only have a maximum cap, they have a minimum as well to make sure that there is enough competition and owners are forced to build a quality team. Clubs are way simpler in their structure. No youth academies, rarely you have longterm identification between fans and players. There's no real investment outside of the squad. And still, you have a few clubs dominating.

How will you find a number that makes sense? Let's say we cut it down to 50m in the 4 top leagues in Europe. I'm sure you have around 50 clubs in Spain, Italy and Germany that don't have the revenue to pay so much anyway? It's impossible to make that work in Europe. It's already a nightmare to find a solution in the US for a league with 30 clubs who all play by the same rules and all have the same ownership structure, it's absolutely impossible in European football, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

There is never going to be a perfect system. I just think the current one is untenable. It is a testament to how deeply football culture in ingrained in European society that clubs from lower divisions are as well supported as they are. It is simply not fair that a club side in English football can not even think of winning the league title now without financial doping. It will eventually result in such clubs losing support with people just flocking to see few top teams in the country. CL money has been a game changer and allowed top clubs to cement their status.

The example you gave, like I explained above, in short terms Glazers would take out the cash from the club but eventually they would need success to get more money and since they won't be able to throw 100m+ to get a team like they plan to do now, they would have to invest in youth academy and scouting network to get top talents across the world. Less success might be good for top clubs anyway since it could result in rationalization of revenues across the board. Not to mention similar caps should be brought forward for tickets. Heck even TV subscriptions should be cheaper. People gloat about the mega deals PL makes without realizing that all this extra cost is being transferred to the 'consumers'. Here in India, you already have the broadcaster trying to get people to buy HD channels to watch Premiership.

As far as lower clubs losing young players, they already do that now. A cap could limit the amount of players they do though. Coming up with such a system won't be easy ofcourse, it would have to much more complex than what anyone can describe in a few posts on a forum.
 
crappycraperson said:
There is never going to be a perfect system. I just think the current one is untenable. It is a testament to how deeply football culture in ingrained in European society that clubs from lower divisions are as well supported as they are. It is simply not fair that a club side in English football can not even think of winning the league title now without financial doping. It will eventually result in such clubs losing support with people just flocking to see few top teams in the country. CL money has been a game changer and allowed top clubs to cement their status.

The example you gave, like I explained above, in short terms Glazers would take out the cash from the club but eventually they would need success to get more money and since they won't be able to throw 100m+ to get a team like they plan to do now, they would have to invest in youth academy and scouting network to get top talents across the world. Less success might be good for top clubs anyway since it could result in rationalization of revenues across the board. Not to mention similar caps should be brought forward for tickets. Heck even TV subscriptions should be cheaper. People gloat about the mega deals PL makes without realizing that all this extra cost is being transferred to the 'consumers'. Here in India, you already have the broadcaster trying to get people to buy HD channels to watch Premiership.

As far as lower clubs losing young players, they already do that now. A cap could limit the amount of players they do though. Coming up with such a system won't be easy ofcourse, it would have to much more complex than what anyone can describe in a few posts on a forum.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I don't see how a salary cap is the solution. Natural growth is part of the game and makes it interesting, because it rewards good work and it's still not that easy to stay at the top for years. Several top clubs have gone down the drain because of mismanagement or at least suffered significantly. The best solution would be, if UEFA distributes the CL money between all clubs in the leagues and not only the few participants in the competition (similar to how the money from the domestic tv deals is distributed and the smaller clubs in England and Germany get a fair share). UEFA need to do the same, reward the whole league for the performances of their top teams, not just the top teams. Soft steps towards a fairer system, not changing it from one extreme to the opposite one.
 
City signed up to and agreed to this rule. They cannot equitably challenge on the grounds that they no longer like them because they've been sanctioned under them. They may have some success appealing the sanctions but you can't agree to something and then decide later you've changed your mind because you've been punished under the same rules that you agreed to being implemented.

Did City think perhaps it'd be okay for others to be punished but now it's them they want the whole thing thrown out? Not a terribly easy position to defend.
 
Plugsy said:
City signed up to and agreed to this rule. They cannot equitably challenge on the grounds that they no longer like them because they've been sanctioned under them. They may have some success appealing the sanctions but you can't agree to something and then decide later you've changed your mind because you've been punished under the same rules that you agreed to being implemented.

Did City think perhaps it'd be okay for others to be punished but now it's them they want the whole thing thrown out? Not a terribly easy position to defend.
Click to expand...

City's argument is firstly that under the rules they are of the opinion they haven't failed it. Secondly, they feel even if they are adjudged to have broken the rules the punishment is extremely excessive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.