clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
But them same loopholes are used by the big teams as well, that keeps them out of reach.
It’s just a mess.
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
The problem being. City have used said loopholes to get to the top table. And it don’t look like it’s gonna end well for one side.
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
Well lets be honest Tash, we dont actually know what City have done to get to the top of the table, only that they must have spent money beyond belief.
I think the fact that Pep is not renewing is telling, genuinely don't know what his next challenge is, he's managed in 3 countries and dominated them all, the only major footballing nation with a great league left for him is Italy and there's no teams there that could afford what pep demands (in terms of players)
Pin-seeker
Well-known member
So apparently Brighton had the highest net spend & Man City the lowest in the transfer window.
Norrin Radd
Tour Winner
City have done what Liverpool, Chelsea, Man Utd did before them, when there were no rules. They spent a lot. But now there are rules, so it's naughty. But it wasn't naughty before, apparently
GB72
Money List Winner
This is why I think that they should just open the floodgates. FFP was meant to stop clubs gong under so you let clubs spend what they like as long it is purely in the form of cash injected into the club with no debt or option to recover, effectively gifting the funds to the club. Then there is no threat going under if the wages for the duration of the contract are put in an escrow account and so there is no need for FFP.
Swango1980
Well-known member
True. A bit like smoking. In the 90's it was fine to smoke in a pub. It is naughty now.City have done what Liverpool, Chelsea, Man Utd did before them, when there were no rules. They spent a lot. But now there are rules, so it's naughty. But it wasn't naughty before, apparently
Apart from Chelsea fans, I seem to remember fans of pretty much every other club moaning that they could buy themselves to rise up the table so quickly and easily. Same with Man City. Lots of moaning.
Now we have conditions in place that partly aim to put some sort of barrier on this type of growth. Now fans seem to be moaning that clubs cannot just spend what they like. I understand that from Newcastle fans, given their ownership. But, not sure it would be good for fans at the majority of clubs, as it is all relative. Their club may be able to spend a bit more without worry of falling foul of FFP, but if there are several clubs around them that can spend vastly more, it'll just leave them in the wake even more than now.
I'm not saying FFP is working brilliantly at all. I hate that points penalties are just brought in randomly (both in terms of time and size of penalty) throughout the season, that it takes ages to investigate and we have to keep hearing about City's 115 charges over and over and over again. But, I can still see it being a decent idea to stop the richest clubs spending even more vast amounts compared to the rest, and I'm sure it must also help reduce the temptation for other clubs trying to compete from taking big risks and overspending, getting themselves into trouble.
@Swango1980 it doesn't stop the richest clubs from massive spending though, does it? They are still the biggest spenders, on the whole. They have just been able to build up their brand over the years and so have greater levels of income, thus meeting the FFP rules more easily. FFP is about protecting those established, richer clubs from the new money, nothing more.
No one wanted City from a corporate perspective before they were winning. Now companies are all over them, they get invites all over the world. That is what success does. If Newcastle and Villa, as examples, want that same success, how did they get to those same levels?
I get the point of it and at EFL level it makes sense. Clubs don't go bust in the PL though.
No one wanted City from a corporate perspective before they were winning. Now companies are all over them, they get invites all over the world. That is what success does. If Newcastle and Villa, as examples, want that same success, how did they get to those same levels?
I get the point of it and at EFL level it makes sense. Clubs don't go bust in the PL though.
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
They need to change the current format of 100% profit from academy players (maybe 25% limit for FFP) and they need to address the amount clubs are allowed to lose and maybe up it by 100m or so.
I know this may sound dumb, but the top clubs probably wont regularly get close to that cap, they'll spend big but generate more, it helps the lower teams more IMO.
Swango1980
Well-known member
This is true. Clubs like Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal have built a brand over many years, have huge global support and attract a lot of investment from big companies. They have a lot of money. Not sure what we do about that? Tell them to give it all away to charity? Get every club to put all their profits into a big pot, and then split it equally among all clubs?
If Newcastle and Villa want the same success as City, how do they do it? Well, not in the same way as City as it is evident most fans did not like this. But, if they could do it the same way as City, how much more money would they have to spend than City did back then, given there is more competition at the top than when the City owners turned up. And, if it works for Newcastle and Villa, who is next to get owners that have almost unlimited money? Does the Top 6 turn into a Top 8, then a Top 10, Top 15, Top 20, etc until the gulf between PL and Championship is many more times than it is now?
There'll always probably be a "Top 6" in any given generation. Well, it has seemed that way for me over the last 30 years, and every now and then one club might slowly drift away and another slowly creep in. I think most in here seem to suggest that money has completely taken over football, and it is worse for it (though not entirely sure about that given how big the PL is and how we love to talk about it). Allowing unlimited spending would surely make this much worse. In all honesty, I'm not sure I'd be dead against it as a Utd fan, as I'm pretty sure Man Utd would continue to be one of the richest clubs in England for most of my lifetime, so it will generally mean that they can just spend more money if needed. I'm sure there were one or 2 other positions (e.g. up front and left back) they could have invested in this summer for example.
Slime
Tour Winner
City have done what Liverpool, Chelsea, Man Utd did before them, when there were no rules. They spent a lot. But now there are rules, so it's naughty. But it wasn't naughty before, apparently
At least L'pool and United did it with funds generated from within their clubs rather than imported money brought in by their mega wealthy new owners.
Pin-seeker
Well-known member
looks like Casimero is off to Galatasaray.
Swango1980
Well-known member
The only thing I see with this is that clubs didn't buy their Academy players, so is it not genuinely pure profit when sold? And, if you put a cap on it, would this severely handicap lower down clubs who sell some top young talent to a bigger club for a huge fee, but this is limited to 25% for FFP?
And, if big clubs are moaning about selling academy players, presumably it is because they are good enough to keep. But, if that is the case, then they need to ask themselves the question why they spent £50-100 million on some other player in the same position, who has never really proven themselves. Maybe they should have shown faith in the young player coming through in the first place?
Why does that matter? Money is money.
In the old days, whoever had the richest, local businessman did well. This is just an extension of that, but includes the rest of the world, not just Joe the butcher from the high street.
A number of the big clubs most definitely do. Look at the geographical backgrounds of the players at big teams now, including the likes of Real, Barcelona as well as English teams.
Pin-seeker
Well-known member
It matters because they didn’t want anyone else sitting at the big table with them.
GB72
Money List Winner
Obviously the ideal option would be an annual spending cap and wage cap but that would never happen.
Swango1980
Well-known member
In fairness, I don't know anything about how clubs sign their Academy players, but have no real issue with Academy players being allowed to go top clubs at a young age. For example, if the next young superstar was born in Bangor, Northern Ireland or Lincoln, I think it would serve them best if they could go to the academy of a top club and try and develop that potential.
But, I wasn't sure they signed them for millions and millions? I think Connor Gallagher was sold for £34 million, which was £34 million profit to Chelsea. I doubt Chelsea acquired Gallagher £25.5 million when he joined at 6 years old? If he had, then only allowing 25% profit on his sale would make more sense (i.e. the post I was replying to)
