To be fair I don't think anyone is arguing FFP will be scrapped but it is possible the break-even aspect of it will have to be amended, should Dupont win his case. As far as I'm aware it is the only aspect of FFP he is challenging.
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.
To be fair I don't think anyone is arguing FFP will be scrapped but it is possible the break-even aspect of it will have to be amended, should Dupont win his case. As far as I'm aware it is the only aspect of FFP he is challenging.
without the breakeven rule, FFP becomes meaningless.
Why, because it means that the elite clubs in European football can have their status challenged?
Because its a centerpiece of the legislation. It doesnt matter if you are in favor of FFP or not, but its fairly obvious, that FFP without the break-even rule has little effect.
But the EU has laws in place for a reason and if the break-even aspect goes against them then they rightly have no place in football.
BobbyManc, I'll reply to your post about that Professor later on as I'll need to read his articles on it first.
What aspects of FFP are there asides from break even?
What aspects of FFP are there asides from break even?
If the ECJ decides, that the breakeven rule is legally void, FFP becomes meaningless. Even you have to see that, right? FFP is all about this rule.
So again, my argument is still the same: Why should the UEFA in cooperation with the European commission try to establish a set of rules, where the core idea violates European laws in such a obvious way? Only complete morons would do so.
Nobody in the caf can really evaluate the legal thoughts about this. FFP might be (partially) illegal or not; but its surely not as obvious as you state.
I was never very good at football at school, so I never got scouted, never got to Man Us academy and never made it as a professional footballer. Whatever combination of brains and brawn were required, I didn't have. The system is such that those who have specific natural advantages got the chance while I didn't. Now one point of view is that that's unfair. And to be honest, yes it is. The kids who are good at football get to be professional footballers, those who aren't don't. Just because I was born with two left feet (figuratively), does that mean I can never earn £250K per week and play at Old Trafford? Well, yes, it does. But is that fair? Probably not.
Football as a business is rather like that. Mostly, the clubs who benefited from the TV money boom in the 90s were already the richest and biggest clubs around (though there was an element of right place right time for some clubs). They compounded their existing advantage by having access to financial resources that others didn't have, and many would never be able to have. Much as the good kids got to go to the Academy with coaches, trainers and dieticians, while I had to kick a tennis ball around hullard park and ate smash mash and beans. It merely widened the gap.
What City and PSG are doing, though, is akin to giving kids who weren't quite good enough steroids to make them better. Except that its steroids that only they get to have, and its super-steroids. Now not only are they good enough, but continued use of steroids will make them untouchable.
So the problem is that two very different issues are being conflated here
- Is it fair that only the fittest, most skilful kids get to be paid as professional footballers? Its no-one's fault for being born as they are, so why discriminate?
- Regardless of point one, is it fair that some kids get to take steroids when the rest don't?
I think arguing that financial doping (so called) is an acceptable way of stopping the big clubs becoming untouchable is like arguing two wrongs make a right. Whatever reasonable moral argument is made about the unfairness of point 1, it is not resolved by point 2.
I see what you are saying but you are basically implying that we should just accept that teams like United, Bayern, Madrid etc. are virtually untouchable at the top of football. Put simply, in spite of what people will try and claim, no team was ever going to seriously threaten the likes of United and Arsenal without a wealthy owner. Any team that tried to grow naturally would get to a point where they were a threat then the established clubs just sign their best players. Simple as that. City and Chelsea and Madrid have all spent exorbitant sums of money that hasn't resulted in either continually swatting aside the competition. The notion that without FFP City and the likes would dominate is silly. FFP has prevented the only way a team like United could have been challenged (citing Dortmund or Atletico Madrid as examples are way off the mark).
I refuse to believe anyone genuinely believes UEFA brought in FFP to prevent clubs such as Portsmouth and Rangers suffering the collapses that they have.
Of course you will. You haven't had an independent thought throughout this thread.
It would be more intellectually honest of you to simply say "I really really want Dupont to win, because our sugar daddy era is loads more fun than before" rather than try and argue for a case you barely grasp, let alone comprehend enough to have an informed opinion on, like some sort of barely sentient e-bot.
Do I want Dupont to win because it would benefit Man City? True.
Do you want Dupont to lose because it would benefit Liverpool? True.
I have next to no knowledge on the issue so I have researched it. I have read what people with experience in the subject have said. What would be better, for me to read what people on Bluemoon and Redcafe say and just believe it all or actually research stuff for myself? If Dupont has publicly come out and stated what aspects he feels contravene EU law then there must be an element of truth behind what he is saying for he is hardly going to make himself look like an absolute idiot before the case has even begun. The fact is, people uninvolved in the case in respected positions have explicitly stated that superficially aspects of FFP appear to go against EU law. Clearly, there is a case to be heard, but you can just sit there denying it and focusing on my own lack of knowledge instead of the respected opinions of people experienced in such matters.
UEFA aren't restricting anything though. City are welcome to go and spend as much as they want, UEFA aren't stopping them from doing so. That's why it can't be seen as a restriction.
End of the day, I think this is what it comes down to.
If City want to go and spend 500m this season, they can. If they want to pay Yaya 1m p/w, they could.
But UEFA don't want clubs like that in their competition.
UEFA has a right to invite whoever they want to their competitions, just like I have the right to invite anybody to my party, and the right any bouncer has of refusing somebody into a club because they have a stripe on their t-shirt.
The only thing I can see happening is this.
City accept the fine. UEFA open their doors.
City reject the fine. UEFA close their doors.
End of the day, the EU law could come into play that, the fine is harsh cause it's not for UEFA to decide who should fine who and for what.
But UEFA could say, well fine, we won't allow them to play in our competition. This is our trophy, it's up to us who we allow to play in it.
I law surely cannot force UEFA to accept teams they don't want, as it's an invite competition.
Again, the only other thing this law could go against is the wage cap, but again, UEFA could say, if they don't like our rules, then they don't have to enter our competition.
At the end of the days, these are not laws UEFA have made, these are requirements that they want teams to fulfill.
That bit isn't strictly true. UEFA can only refuse to invite a team on reasonable grounds. As things stand, FFP is just that. The issue is if it is proven to contravene EU Law. In that case they cannot refuse a team entry into UEFA based on such criteria.
UEFA certainly won't close their doors if City do choose to appeal. That would be a battle neither party has any desire to face.
If you think that its so unfair that there's an elite in football, then simply adding City to that elite is not solving the problem. How does that help Spurs, Everton, Villa, Southampton or anyone else? In truth it makes no difference at all to those clubs. You're like the South American revolutionary who cries freedom, but really wants to live in the big mansion smoking cigars too.
Remember there are so few people in the world with enough money to subsidise a football club at the top level that I'd be surprised to see even 5 more clubs get taken over across all of Europe in the next decade or two. The idea that sugar daddies are breaking up the elite is rubbish. They're simply expanding it ever so slightly to include them.
Its worth pointing out that there aren't many Liverpool fans coming on here saying that FFP is a terrible idea and that City should be able to spend what they want. They want a fairer crack at united, not another team vastly outspending them.
Sugar daddies haven't made things fairer. They have, at best, reinforced that status quo, and in some ways perhaps made it worse. Over the next 5 years its a fair bet that nearly every season City, Chelsea, United and Arsenal will finish in the top 4 in some order. Rather than two teams battling it out for the league and two CL places up for grabs, now teams will be battling each other hoping for that one season in a (ahem) blue moon when one of them has a bad year. Combining that with escalating transfer fees and wage inflation means that it's now harder, not easier, for clubs like Everton to make the breakthrough.
Since Abramovich and Chelsea first won the league in 2004-2005, the only club to stop City or Chelsea winning the league was United, the worlds richest club with one of the greatest managers of all time. Liverpool and Arsenal have managed one second place each in that time. Hardly backs up your claim.
And remember, City agreed to FFP in 2009 and have been managing their accounts in order to try and meet it this year. What you're seeing from City is spending under FFP. Without it the spending would no doubt have been far greater, particularly in the summer after you won the league.
No, its prevented a way that they could be challenged. Not at all the same thing. What its prevented is the specific way that benefitted City but will benefit few others.
If you read the uefa FFP objectives you'll see there are several of them. They clearly state that preventing financial doping is one objective, and making sure clubs live within their means is another. They're not hiding , they're open in stating that the approach City and co have taken is, in their view, harming the game and should be controlled. The fact that you're hung up on the break-even/related party element partly speaks about your self-interest in the rules. Few City fans complained when Malaga were banned from European competition under FFP.
I assume City agreeing to FFP then failing it is reasonable ground though?
They didn't have to agree to it in the first place.
I also don't think they would close their doors on City, but if it came down to FFP failing completely or kicking one team out of the CL, I think they would take the risk
Malaga is a pointless example, they were banned for not paying debts. Not at all related to City's example.
There have been 5 Premier League winners. Three of those have won it through what you would call financial doping. If it hadn't been for Abramovich, Walker and Mansour the only league winners would have been United and Arsenal. Liverpool are the only team who you could argue may have won a league in that time period without the competition of City and Chelsea.
It is literally impossible that a team like Everton or Southampton could ever challenge United regularly without a wealthy owner.
You're like the South American revolutionary who cries freedom, but really wants to live in the big mansion smoking cigars too. - I also disagree with this. Everyone wants to live in the big mansion but I wouldn't begrudge anyone else who gets to live in one. If Everton got taken over tomorrow and started to challenge City, Chelsea, United etc. I would be all for it. I'd be happier if they didn't obviously but at the same time why do Everton fans deserve to watch a team consigned to finishing at best 4th or 5th every season?
I don't think it will help City's case if they choose to take UEFA's punishment all the way but if Dupont wins his case it is all irrelevant anyway as the break-even rule would have to be amended.
UEFA wouldn't have any qualms about kicking City out, it's just I seriously doubt they would want to deal with the ensuing battle that would naturally follow, and neither would City of course.
Yeah that was precisely my point, that most City fans are not actually concerned with FFP, you're concerned with the one rule that affects City.
This is the biggest flaw in your whole argument. A brief glance at the Forbes rich list shows there are only a handful of people in the world rich enough to do what City have done, we're very unlikely to see many more takeovers.
Its not literally impossible for Everton or Southampton to challenge United, its just very very unlikely.
Its not literally impossible for Everton or Southampton to be taken over by a billionaire, its just very very unlikely.
I don't see that as an improvement. Buying two lottery tickets technically increases your chances of winning the jackpot, but it doesn't make it a fair way of eradicating poverty. The truth is that billionaire takeovers are simply so rare that they just don't qualify as a mechanism for sorting out the unevenness in the game, morally or financially.
Making out that sugar daddies are levelling the playing field is just a self-serving fantasy used by City fans to justify their indignation at the thought of it being taken away from them. Any argument you make about the unfairness of some clubs having more financial power than the rest is an argument against sugar daddies, not for them.
If its unfair that 2 clubs have huge financial power, its worse having 4. If its crap having 2 bullies in your school, its worse having 4. Saying "you could be a bully too" does nothing to solve the problem. The emergence of City and Chelsea have made it worse for Everton and Spurs, not better. Saying "they could be taken over too" when the chances are slim to nil is facile.
Its only fair if its a system that gives a fighting chance to every club, or at least stops clubs at the top compounding their existing advantage. And as I said, whatever merit there may be to sorting out one inequality, adding another inequality is a backwards way of doing it.
The Malaga example is still completely different, they were kicked out for something that you can't really argue against. However, whether an owner should be fined for putting his own money into a club can clearly be debated.
Again, no. How much has Sheikh Mansour spent on City? There are enough people in the world who can afford that if they wish to. For one, a lot of the money he has invested has been in the infrastructure of the club, developing the surrounding area etc. That stuff is a huge bonus and highly beneficial to the club but it is not necessary. Also, he had the wealth to turn City around quickly. Another owner with less money could do it but he just wouldn't bring success as quickly as Mansour, although if they took over a club like Everton who are clearly a level ahead of where City were in 2008 then there is no reason why spending, say £100m in the Summer, couldn't turn them into title challengers.
Stop the 'very unlikely' nonsense as well, it is impossible a team like Southampton could ever naturally grow to compete with United. Absolutely impossible. They would have needed a miracle influx of youth players who were completely loyal to the club or signed 5/6 cheap players who became world class and also were incredibly loyal. Like I said, wasn't going to happen. However, as City, Blackburn and Chelsea have shown, a wealthy owner can make a team compete with the established clubs. Where will Shaw and Lallana be going in the summer? To a wealthier club already established at the top no doubts. However, if they had an owner like Mansour, he could convince them to stay with improved contracts and the promise of signing better players too. Without that wealthy owner, any club like Southampton will just have their best players picked off.
Billionaire takeovers were the only way possible. FFP is closing that route. It is not their fault that was the state of football. If two clubs have unrivaled spending power the only way to compete is through a wealthy owner. So 4 clubs competing at the top because of their wealth is still better than 2, but the situation is far from ideal.
The very fact Abramovich supports FFP, and Mansour probably would have had it been introduced a couple of years later, tells you everything you need to know about it.
"But the refusal of senior club officials to publicly acknowledge FFP – the regulations were not even mentioned in City’s annual accounts – is a clear indication of their belief that the regulations contravene European law.
City’s lawyers have been building a case to destroy FFP in its current guise for the last three years."
Taken from a Daily Mirror article. Looks like UEFA may have a fight on their hands
City’s lawyers have been building a case to destroy FFP in its current guise for the last three years."
Taken from a Daily Mirror article. Looks like UEFA may have a fight on their hands
Where were Dortmund ten years ago? They still lost Lewandowski and Gotze to Bayern, but slowly but surely their financial clout is increasing, and it is increasing by playing attractive football, bringing in more fans and increasing revenue. In the short run, bayern may be whooping them, but Dortmund will be on par in a matter of time.
That to me is a far fairer model for football clubs to follow than to find a billionaire for every club. It looks unlikely that Mansour and Abrahamovic will break Even any time soon. They still continue to plough money in because Chelsea is a plaything for Abrahamovic, while City is a marketing tool for Mansour. How many billionaires would have sub a motive? Not many, I imagine.
"Building a case"
Pretty much this. City are basically saying they don't give a stuff about the rules that other clubs are abiding by. Even clubs like Chelsea are moving towards compliance.
In the end, it won't matter because there will be a few briefcases of cash surreptitiously sent to the senior management within UEFA and all sanctions will be dropped.
Some interesting comments in there. Tell me, how much do you think City have spent under Mansour to date?
And how much do you think it would cost to take a club like Aston Villa to the top of the table.
I think a big problem about this discussion is it's between a City fan and some United fans.
At the end of the day, United would love to see City fail FFP, and yes, it probably would keep us top of the pile, but on the flip side, BobbyManc is arguing Citys corner, and if they win the appeal, it would keep the top of the pile.
We both have the clubs interests as a priority, and the ethics stake a back seat.
But if you look at it from an outsider. Lets look at a team like Everton first of all. Are they happy a club like City exist in its current form?
A club that has flirted with the CL on so many occasions. Lets look at what they could have done without City
1 Champion league spots
3 Europa league spots
And that is in 5 seasons. So 4 out of 5 season Everton have missed out on some sort of European football. I could probably do similar things for the likes of Liverpool and Tottenham. I know that isn't all down to City, as clubs like Chelsea, United and Arsenal have been there also, but it's the way how City are going about it (I could say the same about Chelsea, but they are trying to comply with FFP at least)
Imagine City where not around with the money they have. Everton would have been a near permanent fixture in Europe. It attracts better players, more money, bigger sponsorship etc, but as a club, who have been run the right way, they have suffered because of a club that have come in with their billions and have knocked Everton back down the ladder that they was climbing.
As I said, it's probably also pulled back Tottenham and Liverpool, while when they came about, the bought half of Arsenal to.
At the end of the day, success isn't just about trophies, but its about prize money. For these clubs without the huge investment, the money is much more important. Finishing 4th over 5th etc is huge for these clubs
Like I said before, this scenario is great for BobbyManc, but look at all the teams it has affected.
His argument is, it keeps the best at the top, and the rest stand still, but if you look at it differently, Everton would have more money, so would Liverpool and Tottenham.
They'd have an easier time challenging without City, than with.
Of course Bobby and other City fans can argue, without this investment, they would never have this opportunity. Granted, but you are one team, affecting a few teams.
****************************
Now City is one a few Unique teams that have an owner who has a dream, and has fulfilled it, so they are lucky
Look at other owners. Tan, The Portsmouth owner, Liverpools old owners, the Fulham owner.
They came into clubs, with these big ideas to do this, that and the other, but all they have done/did was break the club down and do nothing but good to them. Want to spend X amount then think, oh wait, I want that money back now.
Look at Malaga, came in, with a big dream, things didn't go as planned, and now are a struggling team.
Now, you argue that these rules stop teams competing. As UEFAs rules go, a billionaire can come in and spend however much they want, UEFA don't look at that. What they do look at, is teams coming into Europe.
If a team wants to dominate in their League, they can, UEFA won't do anything about that, so you cannot claim a team can never compete because of these rules, because they can.
The difference is, the Prem are/have already introduced their own set of FFP rules also (not sure what they are, or when they start), so you could blame the FA as much as UEFA in the coming years.
The models in other countries can show that teams don't necessarily need billionaire owners to rise up the tables.
I truly believe that FFP has been put in place to do go for clubs, but because of the magnitude of the likes of City and PSG, that will over shadow it to an extent
Sorry for the TL;DR post
At the end of the day, United would love to see City fail FFP, and yes, it probably would keep us top of the pile, but on the flip side, BobbyManc is arguing Citys corner, and if they win the appeal, it would keep the top of the pile.
We both have the clubs interests as a priority, and the ethics stake a back seat.
But if you look at it from an outsider. Lets look at a team like Everton first of all. Are they happy a club like City exist in its current form?
A club that has flirted with the CL on so many occasions. Lets look at what they could have done without City
1 Champion league spots
3 Europa league spots
And that is in 5 seasons. So 4 out of 5 season Everton have missed out on some sort of European football. I could probably do similar things for the likes of Liverpool and Tottenham. I know that isn't all down to City, as clubs like Chelsea, United and Arsenal have been there also, but it's the way how City are going about it (I could say the same about Chelsea, but they are trying to comply with FFP at least)
Imagine City where not around with the money they have. Everton would have been a near permanent fixture in Europe. It attracts better players, more money, bigger sponsorship etc, but as a club, who have been run the right way, they have suffered because of a club that have come in with their billions and have knocked Everton back down the ladder that they was climbing.
As I said, it's probably also pulled back Tottenham and Liverpool, while when they came about, the bought half of Arsenal to.
At the end of the day, success isn't just about trophies, but its about prize money. For these clubs without the huge investment, the money is much more important. Finishing 4th over 5th etc is huge for these clubs
Like I said before, this scenario is great for BobbyManc, but look at all the teams it has affected.
His argument is, it keeps the best at the top, and the rest stand still, but if you look at it differently, Everton would have more money, so would Liverpool and Tottenham.
They'd have an easier time challenging without City, than with.
Of course Bobby and other City fans can argue, without this investment, they would never have this opportunity. Granted, but you are one team, affecting a few teams.
****************************
Now City is one a few Unique teams that have an owner who has a dream, and has fulfilled it, so they are lucky
Look at other owners. Tan, The Portsmouth owner, Liverpools old owners, the Fulham owner.
They came into clubs, with these big ideas to do this, that and the other, but all they have done/did was break the club down and do nothing but good to them. Want to spend X amount then think, oh wait, I want that money back now.
Look at Malaga, came in, with a big dream, things didn't go as planned, and now are a struggling team.
Now, you argue that these rules stop teams competing. As UEFAs rules go, a billionaire can come in and spend however much they want, UEFA don't look at that. What they do look at, is teams coming into Europe.
If a team wants to dominate in their League, they can, UEFA won't do anything about that, so you cannot claim a team can never compete because of these rules, because they can.
The difference is, the Prem are/have already introduced their own set of FFP rules also (not sure what they are, or when they start), so you could blame the FA as much as UEFA in the coming years.
The models in other countries can show that teams don't necessarily need billionaire owners to rise up the tables.
I truly believe that FFP has been put in place to do go for clubs, but because of the magnitude of the likes of City and PSG, that will over shadow it to an extent
Sorry for the TL;DR post
Just over 10 years ago Dortmund won the Bundesliga and a few years before that the Champions League. Hardly comparable to City lingering in the third and second divisions.
Look how easy Dortmund got brushed aside this season. Why? Because Bayern can afford to pick off their best players? Gotze was one of their best players. Bayern sign him. Then Lewandowski. Who next? Don't be surprised to see another Dortmund star playing for Bayern next season as well. Yeah, what a great model that is
However, if Dortmund had the financial power of Bayern they could keep stars like Lewandowski and Gotze at the club. That is that state of football at the minute.Abramovich broke even the season Chelsea won the Champions League. City seem confident that next season we will break-even or at worst fall into the losses permitted by FFP. And then City and Chelsea will become part of the status quo and FFP will seal their place there. Abramovich supports FFP, like I said, that tells you everything you need to know about it. He knows it will prevent another rich person doing exactly what he has done.
I thought it was just under a billion spent by Mansour but like I said, that includes spending on the infrastructure that other owners can choose to avoid. Also, he wanted quick success, another owner could take a slow approach and spend £50-100m one summer then gradually improve the squad each window signing one or two players each time.
It's hard to say how much it would take to turn Aston Villa into a team that can challenge at the top. Luck would play a huge factor and a very good manager could probably get them challenging for the top 5 or 6 with only one season of heavy spending. They can build on that from there.
Instead of focusing on how much it would take a team to spend to get to the top, you should be asking why is it the case that a team has to spend so much to get to the top?
Wonder where the fine money goes? Uefa will be sponsored by Lexus this summer.
I don't think it is a fine. UEFA don't have the power to fine a club over FFP from what I've read but they can withhold prize money which is what the fine would come in the form of. Therefore, UEFA would just keep hold of the money themselves I presume.
Dortmund didn't get easily brushed aside this season, they competed in all competitions until injuries hit them incredibly hard and even then they still outperformed City in the CL, almost kicked Real out and now play on a very high level again for weeks and will certainly give Bayern a game in the cup final. City could learn a lot from that Dortmund team instead of just throwing money at all the problems and cry and moan about maybe not being allowed to outspend everyone in Europe in the near future.Look how easy Dortmund got brushed aside this season. Why? Because Bayern can afford to pick off their best players? Gotze was one of their best players. Bayern sign him. Then Lewandowski. Who next? Don't be surprised to see another Dortmund star playing for Bayern next season as well. Yeah, what a great model that is
Ok. So you think it is realistic to say City could have won the league title without spending much money?
Yes of course it is. Liverpool could still theoretically win it today and while Bentiez spent like a hooker with a coke problem, they're not currently the most expensive team in the world.
The idea that because success cannot be obtained over night that the only realistic expectation is that only a sugar daddy can do it, is bollocks. It takes a good team, a good chairman, good buys and a good manager and a sensible but progressive level of investment and doing what Liverpool have done isn't beyond many of the top-half (not necessarily by league position this year but teams generally considered 'top-half' teams) to achieve similar within the next 5-10 years.
Stopped reading when you mentioned Liverpool as an example of what City could have achieved without spending. Jesus Christ.
To be fair though some could say....Earn the right to be where you are.
Athletico
Dortmund
Liverpool
3 clubs who have had outstanding seasons without the financial clout
It can be done
Again, this is so tedious. Atletico, Dortmund and Liverpool are worlds apart from the state of City pre-Mansour.
I wasn't saying otherwise, but they stilled earned the place they are today, whether they earned it from 5 years of past, or 50
I suspect you stopped reading at the first polysyllable
So are you suggesting because City didn't earn their place when football became commercially huge that they should be resigned to the status of a yo-yo club?
Good one. Anyone who can use Liverpool, a team who lost £50m last year, have spent £35m on Carroll, £20m on Henderson etc. as an example of what City could have achieved without exorbitant spending is either stupid or being deliberately stupid.