Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions

He also tweeted this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...y-for-breaching-ffp-watered-down-9529251.html

UEFA's general secretary Gianni Infantino has now confirmed that instead the clubs will only have to name five home-grown players, a decision which could have a significant impact on City's transfer plans.

Infantino, in Sao Paulo for the FIFA Congress, told Press Association Sport: "It came after a request from the players union FIFPro saying when you take these kind of sanctions and measures you cannot harm the players and the rights of a player who has a contract for the behaviour of the clubs.

"So we looked at it and it was felt appropriate there for the number to be proportionally reduced as well."


If they wanted the number of homegrowns to be reduced proportionately, there would be 7 compulsory home-grown players.
 
What a complete joke. And there I was being the optimist who actually thought FFP was going to be serious, and not just another means of UEFA lining their own pockets.

It really is quite shocking just how blatant the level of corruption is in football.
 
Walrus said:
What a complete joke. And there I was being the optimist who actually thought FFP was going to be serious, and not just another means of UEFA lining their own pockets.

It really is quite shocking just how blatant the level of corruption is in football.
Click to expand...

So you had no problem with the elite clubs putting pressure on UEFA to introduce FFP but you have a problem that UEFA did not go far enough with their punishments?
 
BobbyManc said:
So you had no problem with the elite clubs putting pressure on UEFA to introduce FFP but you have a problem that UEFA did not go far enough with their punishments?
Click to expand...
It isn't particularly sensible to punish a club by allowing them less restriction on who they can pick than other clubs is it?
 
acnumber9 said:
It isn't particularly sensible to punish a club by allowing them less restriction on who they can pick than other clubs is it?
Click to expand...

No it's not. But my point was it is ironic to see someone complain about the punishments displaying corruption in football, as opposed to the reason behind the implementation of the rules.
 
BobbyManc said:
No it's not. But my point was it is ironic to see someone complain about the punishments displaying corruption in football, as opposed to the reason behind the implementation of the rules.
Click to expand...
If UEFA were bending over for the big clubs the way you're implying then the punishment wouldn't be so pathetic. As it is it's not far from making their task easier.
 
City can have up to 21 "Category A" players.
Others can have up to 23 "Category A" players.
For City, of those 21 players, 16 are without further restriction.
For other teams, of those 23 players, 15 are without further restriction.

This is the key joke. Forget percentages and "8 vs 5" and all the other numbers, thats looking at the problem backwards.

City can now have an advantage that other teams do not. They can use 16 (21+ year olds) non-homegrown players, whereas the other clubs can only use 15.

UEFA you are an absolute joke.
 
BobbyManc said:
So you had no problem with the elite clubs putting pressure on UEFA to introduce FFP but you have a problem that UEFA did not go far enough with their punishments?
Click to expand...

I dont think there was any particular pressure put on to UEFA to introduce it. Even if they did, two wrongs dont make a right - its OK to simply ignore or break the rules that you dont agree with?
 
rcoobc said:
City can have up to 21 "Category A" players.
Others can have up to 23 "Category A" players.
For City, of those 21 players, 16 are without further restriction.
For other teams, of those 23 players, 15 are without further restriction.

This is the key joke. Forget percentages and "8 vs 5" and all the other numbers, thats looking at the problem backwards.

City can now have an advantage that other teams do not. They can use 16 (21+ year olds) non-homegrown players, whereas the other clubs can only use 15.

UEFA you are an absolute joke.
Click to expand...
That is a joke, basically removes the only punishment that was going to impact City at all. Plus actually helps them out at the same time
 
rcoobc said:
City can have up to 21 "Category A" players.
Others can have up to 23 "Category A" players.
For City, of those 21 players, 16 are without further restriction.
For other teams, of those 23 players, 15 are without further restriction.

This is the key joke. Forget percentages and "8 vs 5" and all the other numbers, thats looking at the problem backwards.

City can now have an advantage that other teams do not. They can use 16 (21+ year olds) non-homegrown players, whereas the other clubs can only use 15.

UEFA you are an absolute joke.
Click to expand...
Wait, I thought it's a 25 man squad for other teams? Not 23 ......
 
We should just stop worrying about this. City are going nowhere and the rules will not apply to them.These rules only apply to shitty little teams like Leeds.
 
They will still be able to register 4 fewer players than other teams and one fewer non-homegrown player. Obviously you'd expect UEFA to keep the quota and it's strange that they haven't but it's still a decent punishment.
 
BobbyManc said:
No it's not. But my point was it is ironic to see someone complain about the punishments displaying corruption in football, as opposed to the reason behind the implementation of the rules.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but it seems kinda backward that certain clubs have pressured UEFA into setting restrictions that they're not actually going to enforce, don't ya reckon? It's pretty depressing whichever way you look at it I suppose.
 
BarneyLFC said:
It's 25.
Click to expand...
Oh well in that case ignore me.

City HAVE been pubished, the reduction in hone grown players is actually backwards.

City can have up to 21 "Category A" players.
Others can have up to 25 "Category A" players.
For City, of those 21 players, 16 are without further restriction.
For other teams, of those 25 players, 17 are without further restriction.

#punished
 
The initial punishment is relatively weak, but there are aspects of suspended punishments that force the club to work towards operating within FFP rules moving forward, and so it's had the desired effect - you won't see City going out splashing £100m+ this summer, which is ultimately what all the fuss was about. The damage had already been done granted, but what was the expectation that you wanted to see beyond drastically curbing the spending?
 
I thought City were going to go out and spend billions on Messi and Ronaldo and to hell with the FFP rules?

I know it's true because I read it on Bluemoon.
 
As this generally appears to be the main FFP thread now though I'd post this in here.

Pretty much everyone in favour on FFP stated that teams could grow naturally, by spending only what they have and eventually succeed. Examples of these teams included Atletico, Dortmund and some used Southampton as an example.

With two of these teams being ravaged by bigger teams as they can't afford to match the wages other teams offer without outside investment, is it still fair? Do Southampton deserve to lose all their players because United and Liverpool get more money from the Asian market? Do atletico deserve to be torn to shreds after winning the league because we get more tv money?
 
Spiersey said:
As this generally appears to be the main FFP thread now though I'd post this in here.

Pretty much everyone in favour on FFP stated that teams could grow naturally, by spending only what they have and eventually succeed. Examples of these teams included Atletico, Dortmund and some used Southampton as an example.

With two of these teams being ravaged by bigger teams as they can't afford to match the wages other teams offer without outside investment, is it still fair? Do Southampton deserve to lose all their players because United and Liverpool get more money from the Asian market? Do atletico deserve to be torn to shreds after winning the league because we get more tv money?
Click to expand...

Is it relevant? None of those clubs have super-rich owners, so it's not as if they'd be any more able to compete financially without FFP.

EDIT: Also, I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that either Dortmund or Atletico have been 'torn to shreds'. Atletico have lost Costa and Luis. They look to be signing at least two good players, and you can be sure they'll be getting better deals than Chelsea got from them, financially. Dortmund have only lost the pre-agreed Lewandowski, as far as I can see, and they've already brought in Immobile and Ginter.
 
Spiersey said:
As this generally appears to be the main FFP thread now though I'd post this in here.

Pretty much everyone in favour on FFP stated that teams could grow naturally, by spending only what they have and eventually succeed. Examples of these teams included Atletico, Dortmund and some used Southampton as an example.

With two of these teams being ravaged by bigger teams as they can't afford to match the wages other teams offer without outside investment, is it still fair? Do Southampton deserve to lose all their players because United and Liverpool get more money from the Asian market? Do atletico deserve to be torn to shreds after winning the league because we get more tv money?
Click to expand...
Would those teams be so easily deprived of their players if there wasn't sugar daddy clubs?
 
acnumber9 said:
Would those teams be so easily deprived of their players if there wasn't sugar daddy clubs?
Click to expand...

Thats a non point, there is sugar daddy clubs. Without the sugar daddy clubs you would simply have United, Liverpool and Arsenal every year with no one close really.
Brightonian said:
Is it relevant? None of those clubs have super-rich owners, so it's not as if they'd be any more able to compete financially without FFP.
Click to expand...


No, but perhaps they could offer higher wages without ffp or appeal to investors.
 
Spiersey said:
Thats a non point, there is sugar daddy clubs. Without the sugar daddy clubs you would simply have United, Liverpool and Arsenal every year with no one close really.



No, but perhaps they could offer higher wages without ffp or appeal to investors.
Click to expand...
It's hardly a non point when the rules you are talking about prohibit sugar daddy clubs. Those clubs can only have so many players and there would still be another Champions League spot for another club to help them compete.
 
Spiersey said:
Thats a non point, there is sugar daddy clubs. Without the sugar daddy clubs you would simply have United, Liverpool and Arsenal every year with no one close really.



No, but perhaps they could offer higher wages without ffp or appeal to investors.
Click to expand...

Not really. They don't have an un-earned income. So they can offer whatever wages they are financially capable of offering.

By 'appeal to investors' you essentially just mean get a sugar-daddy owner. I'd maintain that that attitude, that if you want success the only way to get it is to whore yourself out to anyone with lots of money, is much more damaging to football than the difficulty of competing with more successful (and therefore wealthier) clubs.
 
Spiersey said:
As this generally appears to be the main FFP thread now though I'd post this in here.

Pretty much everyone in favour on FFP stated that teams could grow naturally, by spending only what they have and eventually succeed. Examples of these teams included Atletico, Dortmund and some used Southampton as an example.

With two of these teams being ravaged by bigger teams as they can't afford to match the wages other teams offer without outside investment, is it still fair? Do Southampton deserve to lose all their players because United and Liverpool get more money from the Asian market? Do atletico deserve to be torn to shreds after winning the league because we get more tv money?
Click to expand...

These things would happen even if there wasn't FFP, and have been happening for many years now.

I see your point but the whole idea behind FFP is to spend within your means, at it's heart I don't think its specifically targeted at sugar daddy clubs but more so to encourage clubs to spend what they have, rather than spending your potential earnings, we've seen what happens when you don't spend within your limits (Leeds, Portsmouth etc) and without FFP these incidents would happen a lot more frequently - and this has the potential to damage football a lot quicker.

Organic growth is slow but it happens, and when it does happen it creates a sustainable business model for many years to come.
The PL for example is competitive enough to say that no one is guaranteed the title this year, and teams like Everton & Tottenham are on the edges of entering the top 4.
But if Chelsea & City were free to spend 150m each year that wouldn't be the case.
 
acnumber9 said:
It's hardly a non point when the rules you are talking about prohibit sugar daddy clubs. Those clubs can only have so many players and there would still be another Champions League spot for another club to help them compete.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Without City, for example, Everton would be in the CL this season. It's taken a long time. Moyes came in to stabilise them, dragged them inch by inch up the table with almost no expenditure, slowly accumulated a gifted set of players and consolidated a good academy set up. Then Martinez came in, built on that foundation in a way Moyes never could have, took that strong talent pool and got them playing the football they were capable of.

That slow progression is exactly why Everton managed to keep their players when Martinez came in, and look certain to do so again this summer. The players know they are not part of some flash-in-the-pan that could easily dissolve next season and see them battling relegation. Many of them have been at the club a long time, and even those who haven't have seen Everton up there in sixth place season after season, causing problems for the big boys. And Martinez brought a positivity, showed them that the club were genuinely capable of fighting for a top four place. They didn't quite make it, but they obviously believe it enough to stay and have another go this season.
 
vi1lain said:
These things would happen even if there wasn't FFP, and have been happening for many years now.

I see your point but the whole idea behind FFP is to spend within your means, at it's heart I don't think its specifically targeted at sugar daddy clubs but more so to encourage clubs to spend what they have, rather than spending your potential earnings, we've seen what happens when you don't spend within your limits (Leeds, Portsmouth etc) and without FFP these incidents would happen a lot more frequently - and this has the potential to damage football a lot quicker.

Organic growth is slow but it happens, and when it does happen it creates a sustainable business model for many years to come.
The PL for example is competitive enough to say that no one is guaranteed the title this year, and teams like Everton & Tottenham are on the edges of entering the top 4.
But if Chelsea & City were free to spend 150m each year that wouldn't be the case.
Click to expand...

FFP would not have prevented what happened at Portsmouth or Leeds. You really think UEFA give a crap about teams like that anyway?
 
Brightonian said:
Exactly. Without City, for example, Everton would be in the CL this season. It's taken a long time. Moyes came in to stabilise them, dragged them inch by inch up the table with almost no expenditure, slowly accumulated a gifted set of players and consolidated a good academy set up. Then Martinez came in, built on that foundation in a way Moyes never could have, took that strong talent pool and got them playing the football they were capable of.

That slow progression is exactly why Everton managed to keep their players when Martinez came in, and look certain to do so again this summer. The players know they are not part of some flash-in-the-pan that could easily dissolve next season and see them battling relegation. Many of them have been at the club a long time, and even those who haven't have seen Everton up there in sixth place season after season, causing problems for the big boys. And Martinez brought a positivity, showed them that the club were genuinely capable of fighting for a top four place. They didn't quite make it, but they obviously believe it enough to stay and have another go this season.
Click to expand...

And their most gifted player, the one who could have made the difference between scraping 4th place and challenging for the title, was duly signed by Manchester United. And how long before Ross Barkley leaves? A team like Everton will never finish above 4th and you can quote me on that (unless they get a rich owner).
 
BobbyManc said:
And their most gifted player, the one who could have made the difference between scraping 4th place and challenging for the title, was duly signed by Manchester United. And how long before Ross Barkley leaves? A team like Everton will never finish above 4th and you can quote me on that (unless they get a rich owner).
Click to expand...

That was yonks ago, and they're still in the strong position I referred to. So more of a one-off. That's like United losing Ronaldo to Madrid, and I don't hear you crying about that.

The point is that it's not systematic. They've kept Barkley for three summers in which everyone expected him to be poached now.
 
BobbyManc said:
And their most gifted player, the one who could have made the difference between scraping 4th place and challenging for the title, was duly signed by Manchester United. And how long before Ross Barkley leaves? A team like Everton will never finish above 4th and you can quote me on that (unless they get a rich owner).
Click to expand...
Would they if City and Chelsea had not hit the lottery jackpot?
 
Did anyone actually think ANYTHING would happen? I knew FFP was a joke since it was announced.
 
Brightonian said:
That was yonks ago, and they're still in the strong position I referred to. So more of a one-off. That's like United losing Ronaldo to Madrid, and I don't hear you crying about that.

The point is that it's not systematic. They've kept Barkley for three summers in which everyone expected him to be poached now.
Click to expand...

Barkley only fully proved his ability last season. He won't be there within a couple of season if he progresses as he should and that is a crying shame. How is it fair that Real Madrid can consistently spend over £50m on a player yet Everton are in a position where they nurture a player and make him world class only for him to be poached by an established side? The only way that can be prevented is a 'sugar daddy' owner taking over them. Look at Southampton right now. One way it can change is the redistribution of champions league money but as Platini admitted, in order to disband the G-14 he had to agree not to reconsider the way the champions league money is distributed for at least a few years.

And you can't compare the Ronaldo situation to the Rooney one. United are hardly mugs, and they were in a position to dig their heels in. It's only because it obviously was more convenient for everyone if he left that it happened. Everton were not afforded that luxury.
 
BobbyManc said:
Barkley only fully proved his ability last season. He won't be there within a couple of season if he progresses as he should and that is a crying shame. How is it fair that Real Madrid can consistently spend over £50m on a player yet Everton are in a position where they nurture a player and make him world class only for him to be poached by an established side? The only way that can be prevented is a 'sugar daddy' owner taking over them. Look at Southampton right now. One way it can change is the redistribution of champions league money but as Platini admitted, in order to disband the G-14 he had to agree not to reconsider the way the champions league money is distributed for at least a few years.

And you can't compare the Ronaldo situation to the Rooney one. United are hardly mugs, and they were in a position to dig their heels in. It's only because it obviously was more convenient for everyone if he left that it happened. Everton were not afforded that luxury.
Click to expand...

If Real Madrid desperately want your player, you can make them pay through the nose. If United want your player, at some point they will say "No. That is too much." then it is the selling club's decision.
What United paid for Rooney 10 years ago, would have allowed Everton to strengthen in many positions. Much more than it would in today's market. So, you can see why Everton thought they had done good business. He could have turned out to be a Robinho! A bit of a disservice, calling Everton mugs.
Bilbao, Porto and Atletico have shown us and everyone else, that if they don't wish to sell, you'll have to bust the bank to get the player.
Did Rodwell not have that potential feel about him? Or were City just trying to be generous to Everton?

Real's money comes from many sources. One of them is a hugely skewed distribution of La Liga TV revenues. Quite how that affects Southampton or Everton, I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.