freddielong
Tour Winner
I agree this is the only way forward if you want to level the playing field and stop financial doping.
FFP
- Thread starter Papas1982
- Start date
I agree this is the only way forward if you want to level the playing field and stop financial doping.
Foxholer
Blackballed
I don't believe they want to 'level the playing field'! The current 'wealthy' clubs will still be able to out-buy the 'poorer' ones. But at least that shares the money around (somewhat). It's simply imposing a little prudential assistance on clubs in order to stop the 'buying a trophy' from getting out of hand, while still encouraging competition.
I don't believe there will be any points deducted or licences declined this time around, but the threat of being able to do so has already had an effect on the way Clubs already in Europe work. And, more importantly imo, the process will feed down to lower leagues - where more clubs are in a parlous state, but are still trying to be competitive.
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
First and foremost as a man city fan most of the suggestions re fines, point deductions, missing transfer windows etc etc could apply to us. We never asked for a sugar daddy and like every other club certainly were not going to turn sheik mansour down.
however whilst everyone is disgusted with the over spending in football, I can never remember it being an issue when Spanish and Italian football was ruling the roost by paying massive fees for players.
if city had not paid as much out in fees for players how much would arsenal ( our feeder club) have missed out on in fees for, adebayor, toure, clichy and Nasri. Incidentally, players which they themselves had bought.
city have paid massive fees for players, but in the same sense paid a pittance by today's standards for. Kompany, zabaletta and joe Hart.
lets just imagine for one minute that clubs did make a profit, ask the fans of Man utd, Newcastle and Blackpool what they think of there owners using there club as personal piggy bank.
i along with many other fans am bogged off re how much it costs to watch my team although my season ticket in two years time of £450, is more than acceptable, however a team like ours was never ever going to compete with the likes of Chelsea and utd unless mr sugar daddy came along. A monster had already been created before we came along, how you cage it well I have not got a clue.
re clubs already going bust, it already has, ask Pompey and rangers to name but a few.
however whilst everyone is disgusted with the over spending in football, I can never remember it being an issue when Spanish and Italian football was ruling the roost by paying massive fees for players.
if city had not paid as much out in fees for players how much would arsenal ( our feeder club) have missed out on in fees for, adebayor, toure, clichy and Nasri. Incidentally, players which they themselves had bought.
city have paid massive fees for players, but in the same sense paid a pittance by today's standards for. Kompany, zabaletta and joe Hart.
lets just imagine for one minute that clubs did make a profit, ask the fans of Man utd, Newcastle and Blackpool what they think of there owners using there club as personal piggy bank.
i along with many other fans am bogged off re how much it costs to watch my team although my season ticket in two years time of £450, is more than acceptable, however a team like ours was never ever going to compete with the likes of Chelsea and utd unless mr sugar daddy came along. A monster had already been created before we came along, how you cage it well I have not got a clue.
re clubs already going bust, it already has, ask Pompey and rangers to name but a few.
I don't think Ffp is out to stop clubs like man city Etc. They are doing it to stop these clubs manipulate their books. Clubs are being allowed to make loses, and have extra sponsorship from the owners. Just not take the p. the players that you bought from your feeder clubs may well have been sold to others or helped them win trophies and raise cash so you've not done arsenal any favours.
The clubs or Spain and Italy didn't do it with sugar daddies. Although Madrid have some suspicious arrangements.
Surely the way forward is to follow the US example in American football, basketball, ice hockey and baseball and install a salary cap. Buy and pay within the limits or face the serious repurcusions they have if you don't
Foxholer
Blackballed
Over 100 years too late for that!
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
agnelli family own juve and berlisconi owned ac Milan to name but a few.
glad to see athletico Madrid make the final having not spent millions.
Al fayed owned Fulham too but he wasn't moaned about. The two you mention are people that own clubs, but still ran them as businesses. They're not sugar daddies.
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
The agnelli family weren't sugar daddies either when juve resorted to cheating and fixing games to win championships.
they ran a business but did not know what was going on ?
could just imagine if that was man utd or Chelsea etc.
berlosconi, look in the oxford dictionary under worlds no1 crook and you will see siilvino berlosconi.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
Now that makes a good read
why does sheik mansoor and other owners in football through there companies pay X amount of pounds but mike Ashley's sports direct.com pay nowt towards Newcastle ?
freddielong
Tour Winner
I think the thing that riles people with Man City is the sense of entitlement that Man City fans have you have to remember the only only reason you are successful now is because you were for sale no other reason no association with the club it could have been almost any club that he bought, Chelski are the same Roman was very close to buying the Spuds but decided to buy Chelski as WH lane was a dump.
Arsenal could go down that path but have chosen to keep our billionaire Russian at Arms length.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Certainly demonstrates that Liverpool will have to be careful about the way they spend the extra Broadcasting Income they will get, while ManU have quite a buffer of below threshold losses to offset the much lower income this year, so could have quite a war chest - provided the owners aren't concerned about debt!
Arsenal, West Brom and probably a couple of others show how 'Football as a profitable business' should be run.
Chelski and City are just toys!
Of course, none of the figures separates the FFP numbers from discountable ones - such as Stadium developments.
But it will be 'intereting' to see the sanctions applied to the likes Man City and PSG. If they are too weak, FFP will be ignored.
It's scary how so much depends on the TV income - and how much more that is compared to gate receipts!
C
c1973
Guest
Wow! That is some amount of debt floating around the EPL. It will be interesting indeed to see how the FFP is implemented and enforced.
bladeplayer
Money List Winner
Lifted from Sky News (take from that what you will)
Manchester City face a £50m fine and having to limit their Champions League squad to just 21 players next season, instead of the normal 25, after breaching Uefa Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules, Sky News understands.
Under sanctions which the club are contesting, City will also have to cap their spending on Champions League players so spending does not exceed this year's total.
The reduction in the size of the Champions League squad to 21 could hit City hardest, as they will have to continue selecting eight "home-grown" players in the squad.
City are contesting the Uefa sanction, but if they do not agree to the sanctions, set out in an initial "settlement offer", they face even stiffer penalties.
In the two seasons tested by Uefa 2011-12 and 2012-13, City's combined losses were almost £150m, with losses of almost £200m in 2010-2011.
While some of those losses can be legitimately written off - for example City are building a £100m playing campus next to the Etihad Stadium - Uefa have concluded not all of their losses are legitimate under the terms of FFP.
Manchester City face a £50m fine and having to limit their Champions League squad to just 21 players next season, instead of the normal 25, after breaching Uefa Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules, Sky News understands.
Under sanctions which the club are contesting, City will also have to cap their spending on Champions League players so spending does not exceed this year's total.
The reduction in the size of the Champions League squad to 21 could hit City hardest, as they will have to continue selecting eight "home-grown" players in the squad.
City are contesting the Uefa sanction, but if they do not agree to the sanctions, set out in an initial "settlement offer", they face even stiffer penalties.
In the two seasons tested by Uefa 2011-12 and 2012-13, City's combined losses were almost £150m, with losses of almost £200m in 2010-2011.
While some of those losses can be legitimately written off - for example City are building a £100m playing campus next to the Etihad Stadium - Uefa have concluded not all of their losses are legitimate under the terms of FFP.
Cherry13
Head Pro
I might be in the minority on this but I'm against FFP, I do believe that something needs to be done about some issues within football like the farming of players and ridiculous loan system. But I don't believe FFP is the answer.
If a sheikh wants to spend a couple of billion on a club then so be it, I genuinely dont believe it will result in one club dominating, just look at R.Madrid.
Heard a good suggestion on radio tonight, it was for a loan system that operated like the draft. Any player that belonged to a prem lge club who then subsequently wasn't registered for the forthcoming season would be entered into a pool they would then be drafted in the same way as the US with lowest ranked club going first based on prev season.
If a sheikh wants to spend a couple of billion on a club then so be it, I genuinely dont believe it will result in one club dominating, just look at R.Madrid.
Heard a good suggestion on radio tonight, it was for a loan system that operated like the draft. Any player that belonged to a prem lge club who then subsequently wasn't registered for the forthcoming season would be entered into a pool they would then be drafted in the same way as the US with lowest ranked club going first based on prev season.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
So for racist abuse UEFA and FIFA fine whole countries FA's around £28 grand , but spend too much money and you will get fined £50mil
bladeplayer
Money List Winner
Foxholer
Blackballed
That's about right!
Notwithstanding the obscene difference in penalties....
It's a case if being able to identify who is actually responsible for the the offence.
No problem with the sanctions on the clubs breaching FFP rules. Absolute disgust at FIFA's/UEFA/FA's. inability/reluctance to take action/impose appropriate fines for the likes of racist abuse!
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
Good point well put.
for people to say that what man city and other clubs are doing is bad for the game, well am not to sure, and certainly think that the FFP is a load of cack. As a city fan I am accused of expecting success because of the money spent. Being a fan of "typical city" a tag we are still trying to shake off you learn the hard way to expect nowt. In fact you learn to be grateful for owt. You do not win nowt for 40 years and then in the space of few years expect world dominance. One thing we have done is appreciate where we have come from in the space of a few years. And by that firstly I mean Maine Road. I loved that place but it was a dump. Now I go to a world class stadium/ council house, that has being improved in its short history from a 48,000 seater to a 60,000 seater. Now where did that money come from ? The upshot of that is mr and Missis tash will be buying a season ticket for the season after next for £450 each. Affordable footy me thinks. The area of Beswick where Bradford pit used to be (me old man used to work there) was an industrial blot on the landscape, with hardly any brass spent there apart from the stadium, which initially held the commonwealth games, on the proviso that city leased the stadium once the games were finished, no lease no games as manchester city council did not want this stadium to be left empty like others that have held Olympic events in the past ala Barcelona and Toronto.
yes city have spent excessive but other clubs have benefited from money that was not in the game in the first place. What city and there fans have learned to expect is bitterness from other "top table"clubs and the UEFA that do not want the status quo upsetting.
re UEFA implementing this FFP, I'm not to sure where this is going to end up, Football is a business, it's now big business, the days of the local business man running his local club appear long gone. Businesses go bust every day and so have football clubs. Is that down to too much money being spent, or the money they have not being spent correctly. I would love to hear the views of Portsmouth and Blackpool on that one.
One of my main griefs with money in football is the amount that goes out of the game and does not stay in it, ie agents fees.
for UEFA to impose a fine of 50 million to a club that has over spent is laughable at the least especially when it cannot explain where this money will be going, furthermore when it's fines clubs 50 million for not breaking any EU laws yet fines clubs loose change for racial abuse, it loses any respect from the people it is trying to serve.
