Am I right in that FFP (in a nutshell) is that you can only spend a certain amount proportionate to annual revenue?
If so the game is rigged. The superclubs, Barca, Madrid, Man Utd, Liverpool. Milan and Juve have spent decades building global brands and will sell merchandise across the world in the millions each season even if they perform well below par.
They are then allowed to buy the world's best players solely on that premise whilst clubs like City who are hugely successful (obviously down to spending huge sums comparative to domestic rivals) are almost in a second tier of permissable signings in the CL?
Back to the domestic game how can English clubs ever compete with the big brand clubs by the same standard under FFP? E.g if our owners were to be minted and wanted to put £200m into buying the leagues would they be blocked from doing so because of our revenue whilst Man Utd and Liverpool allowed to?
But those clubs have big gates and lots of fans, built over a period of time, so on that basis have the funds to spend lots of money
There's nothing to stop a team building incrementally, growing their stadium and fanbase to join these clubs, especially in the Premier League, but it has to be long term growth
Divisional salary caps are fine in either franchise sports, or sports with few leagues like Rugby, where the market is capped. In football you can’t stop the arms race unless it’s a global thing, and there is no appetite in the rest of Europe or around the world for it. we can be little England, but we’re just be damaging the Premier League for no good reason
Divisional salary caps are fine in either franchise sports, or sports with few leagues like Rugby, where the market is capped. In football you can’t stop the arms race unless it’s a global thing, and there is no appetite in the rest of Europe or around the world for it. we can be little England, but we’re just be damaging the Premier League for no good reason
Its why the rulings have to come from UEFA rather than the FA - It was the former who implemented the FFP so should be able to enforce anything else if they wanted.
Instead the big clubs will say no and UEFA with no backbone will agree to their demands - If we want true equality amongst clubs they need to just tell the big sides to fuck off, if they want their own Super League then fine with me, bet they'll soon get bored with playing each other every season with nothing else
If they really wanted to level the playing field, it should've been a salary cap.
Clearly they just wanted to protect the old established clubs' long term futures when facing these State-backed new money clubs.
Add a League wide cap on spending too
i.e. Clubs can spend no more than £50m in the Premier League each year - Doesnt matter then if your richer than most, you still cant spend more than anyone else.
Make it adjustable per league which all teams agree on, stops one club from trying to go crazy with their spending and stops clubs buying promotion which would probably save the likes of Bury
Failure to adhere to those rules means instant relegation
Which then puts the PL at a disadvantage in the Champions League, unless all major leagues agree to the same limits.
If they really wanted to level the playing field, it should've been a salary cap.
Clearly they just wanted to protect the old established clubs' long term futures when facing these State-backed new money clubs.
Add a League wide cap on spending too
i.e. Clubs can spend no more than £50m in the Premier League each year - Doesnt matter then if your richer than most, you still cant spend more than anyone else.
Make it adjustable per league which all teams agree on, stops one club from trying to go crazy with their spending and stops clubs buying promotion which would probably save the likes of Bury
Failure to adhere to those rules means instant relegation
Which then puts the PL at a disadvantage in the Champions League, unless all major leagues agree to the same limits.
See above post - Definitely agree it needs to copy FFP where all of Europe adhere's to the rules rather than just England
What about all the other clubs that benifited from city breaking the rules (spending money they shouldn't) Spurs, Leicester, Liverpool, Athletico, Everton, Barca etc etc they should all be band as well
I’d have to look into the exact details but US sports with the drafting system etc are obviously doing something right - as in the weaker clubs get the best young talent, first picks etc. And it feels like more clubs in my lifetime have had their spells at the top. I don’t really understand the reasons behind this and whether or not I’m exaggerating it in my head:
Let’s look at the last World Series winners:
Washington Boston Houston Chicago Cubs Kansas City SF
I’d have to look into the exact details but US sports with the drafting system etc are obviously doing something right - as in the weaker clubs get the best young talent, first picks etc. And it feels like more clubs in my lifetime have had their spells at the top. I don’t really understand the reasons behind this and whether or not I’m exaggerating it in my head:
Let’s look at the last World Series winners:
Washington Boston Houston Chicago Cubs Kansas City SF
Six different winners in the last six years
If you a quarter back in a good college programme you get the choice of playing Pro football in the NFL, playing semi pro in the CFL, XFL, coaching or walking away from the sport. A salary cap works because its a closed sport. The same is true in Rugby league, you either play as a pro in super league or the NRL, or you don't.
If your an 18 year old striker who is widely viewed as the next big thing and your club can't pay what you, your agent or your parents, think your worth you move to a club that will. If you can't, in your own country due to a salary cap, you go to a diffrent country. If its a federation wide cap, you go to another one.
If Fifa introduced one, some clubs, leagues, federations, countries would simply leave fifa. It nearly happened in cricket.
I’d have to look into the exact details but US sports with the drafting system etc are obviously doing something right - as in the weaker clubs get the best young talent, first picks etc. And it feels like more clubs in my lifetime have had their spells at the top. I don’t really understand the reasons behind this and whether or not I’m exaggerating it in my head:
Let’s look at the last World Series winners:
Washington Boston Houston Chicago Cubs Kansas City SF
Six different winners in the last six years
This only stands up to close scrutiny if you don't include sports in which other, significant countries also compete. Would you say that the US system works well for soccer, cricket and rugby? Because, in those sports, the US doesn't appear to dominate.
If there were gridiron teams competing in European competition outside the remit of the NFL, the US draft system would fail.
Worth noting that for all the money they've spent, City have reached 1 champions league semi final and PSG haven't reached any. So it's not as if they've come in and started dominating the champions league.
Let them get on with it i say, if their owners want to spend billions then so be it. City's owners have done wonders for the entire local area around the Etihad.
They (and others), have also inadvertently contributed to the downfall of the likes of Bury and other lower league clubs who are struggling financially because of the billions awash in the game.
Absolutely haven’t, it’s not City Football Groups fault that Steve Dale is a feckless idiot who mortgaged the club to the hilt
I would argue that the money at the top end of the game has had a massive impact on the likes of Bury, because they can no longer be ran in a sustainable manner. Steve Dale is a feckless idiot, but so many lower league clubs are running at eye watering losses. The game sold out long ago and they are the collateral damage
Once my sons have grown up I'm not sure I'll bother with football. It is good for my boys - gives them purpose and a way of seeing the country - but ultimately it is nothing like the game I followed growing up in the late 80s and 90s as a kid.
City are a classic example. They are a mid size club and always will be. They may have invested in Longsight or whatever Mancunian suburb it is, but ultimately they have bought the titles in recent years. They are an embarrassment to the the working class folk who went every week to the Kippax (their east terrace).
This is a slightly 2020s-tinted view of the recent past though, isn't it? There have always been teams who have used their disproportionate financial muscle to win trophies. In the 1990s, Blackburn were buying the Premier League title. And it's worth remembering that Manchester City won the FA Cup before Charlton were founded.
Once my sons have grown up I'm not sure I'll bother with football. It is good for my boys - gives them purpose and a way of seeing the country - but ultimately it is nothing like the game I followed growing up in the late 80s and 90s as a kid.
City are a classic example. They are a mid size club and always will be. They may have invested in Longsight or whatever Mancunian suburb it is, but ultimately they have bought the titles in recent years. They are an embarrassment to the the working class folk who went every week to the Kippax (their east terrace).
This is a slightly 2020s-tinted view of the recent past though, isn't it? There have always been teams who have used their disproportionate financial muscle to win trophies. In the 1990s, Blackburn were buying the Premier League title. And it's worth remembering that Manchester City won the FA Cup before Charlton were founded.
I hear you Chizz. People like me spouting the line that they are sick of football almost sounds like the 'trendy narrative' to follow these days.
But in response to what you put, I don't think City winning the FA Cup before 1905 (?) has any impact on the size of them as a club?Look at Leeds, formed in 1919? In my opinion, they are the third biggest club in the country (Utd, Liverpool, Leeds). How many Arsenal fans are there in other parts of the country? How many Newcastle fans are there outside Newcastle? How many Spuds fans are there outside London etc?
As for Blackburn and Jack Walker, yes, they were the first to really splash the cash, but it was seen as crude at the time. And the rules were not in place then, as well as Sky money being in its early days.
Rose tinted view? Not really. What was better then? Well here you go... Anyone could beat anyone, including lower league against first division first teams in the cups. Stadiums were unique and had terraces. Managers like Clough and Fergie told the media to f#ck off when necessary. Some players were more individual and had personality, like Gazza, Cantona. Floodlight pilons existed more. Fans were not so reactive, and didn't consider players or managers sh#t after 5 minutes. Fans didn't do the fake mental attention seeking reaction after a goal went in at away games, they just enjoyed the moment for what it was. Fans respected other fans more, unless there was a natural and understandable hatred between clubs. Grounds were nearer pubs and railway stations. The atmosphere during a match was generally better. Football on TV was an event. The vidi printer existed. Teletext/Ceefax was an enjoyable go to - page 302, news in brief on page 312. Others I'm sure could extend this homage to the past if necessary.
Back to today, ironically, after all that drivel I've just spewed, I'd say the Championship is surely currently the best league in the world! Anyone can beat anyone. Every team has a chance. Look at Barnsley beating Fulham today as an example. It is a glimmer of hope.
If I were in charge of the EFL I'd build on this and tell the Premier league teams to F off from the EFL CUP and keep it for the champ, league 1 and 2, but still have Europe as the carrot. I'd also be tempted to do the same with the FA Cup, thanks to the behaviour of sh#thouses like Klopp this season.
So I hope the above gives some explanation as to why I'm glad City are in trouble. And funnily enough, it wouldn't surprise me if there were City fans from the pre Sheik era who would agree with me.
Worth following both the Sporting Intel Twitter feed (so you won't have to read the author's Mail column) an The Price of Football which is taking a slightl different stance to Nick Harris (S.Intel). However neither are taking issue with David Conn's perspective, which is absolute must-read.
To take just one snippet from DC's article he lists who actually made UEFA's ruling. Until I read this, I assumed it was true that the ruling was made by a bunch of over-paid faceless UEFA functionaries. In actual fact
The two-stage chambers manned by semi-independent appointees is designed to avoid as far as possible an organisation being the prosecutor, judge and jury that City claim to be the case. The adjudicatory chamber, which heard the charges when they were made by Leterme’s investigatory chamber, is chaired by José Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues, a former general prosecutor in Portugal. After hearings last month, he reached the finding that City were guilty, as did the chamber’s other members: Christiaan Timmermans, a Dutch law professor; Louis Peila, a very experienced Swiss judge; Adam Giersz, a former Polish sports minister; and the English barrister Charles Flint QC. He is president of the UK’s National Anti-Doping Panel and trusted enough in Abu Dhabi’s neighbouring emirate of Dubai to be a director of its financial services authority.
So City’s reaction to the considered conclusion of these distinguished European professionals was to allege that all were biased, and reached a prejudged conclusion signalled by Leterme.
And Yves Leterme is a former Prime Minister of Belgium! So at very least, the armchair wisdom that City's "clever lawyers" are going to piss all over UEFA (which I previously thought might be true), looks a bit less wise now.
To be honest, I thought the whole point was to stop clubs buying success with loans and putting the club's future in jeopardy. There is a real need for FFP in the lower leagues. But in terms of Man City, the rule sems to me to be there to stop clubs challenging Barcelona et all.
A lot here about the old established clubs. Remember Chelsea were keen supporters of FFP. For Roman Abramovich there was a large element of pulling up the drawbridge and not allowing others to finance such huge losses in such a short period of time. Man City signed up to the rules and got caught breaking them once. City took an aggressive stance on that and their approach having been caught again is to shout very loudly and aggressively. Love the football they play but the approach taken by their owners stinks. Email (even hacked ones) that appear to say “don’t worry I’ll give you back most of the sponsorship money that is supposed to come from you” leave UEFA with little choice.
Haven't read every post but isn't their ban because they have been caught allegedly purposely supplying fraudulent information to uefa not that fact they failed ffp once again.
There is buckley's chance this is going to stick. In which universe will the corrupt lunatics at UEFA cobble together a legal case that, on the balance of probability, satisfies an independent arbiter (in this case the Court Of Arbitration For Sport) a rule or rules on funding were breached? It is just about conceivable that somebody within ManCity was complacent enough to funnel money directly in from the owners and just label it as sponsorship/commercial/whatever for the purposes of paying lipservice to UEFA's regulations. Likely? No. Even if there were significant transgressions, UEFA vs the national financial might of Abu Dhabi & China is not a contest. The best UEFA can realistically look forward to is financial ruin after years and years humiliation through the courts.
Full disclosure: in my view regulations aimed at constraining an individual's willingness to piss his own money up the wall funding a football club are preposterous and unenforceable. There is no business in which one may not commit every last cent of one's personal wealth to support its aims. It is however, illegal to trade beyond the point the business can pay its bills or to borrow money when there is no realistic possibility of repaying that debt - not in football of course - dreamers, crooks and lunatics drag clubs into insolvency on a whim and the football "authorities" welcome back some phoenix club phantom with open arms without a nanosecond's consideration for all the defrauded chumps who'll never get their money back; but some super wealthy oil baron/beetroot farmer with practically limitless wealth is prevented from ploughing liquid funds into his football plaything utter utter nonsense - to quote a more qualified legal opinion than mine: "the law in this case is an ass"
You say it will never stick @StigThundercock but again AC Milan struck a deal with UEFA and CAS to serve a one year European Ban for breaking FFPP rules(so it could happen with City)
In the Championship you can put as much money ad you like do long as you are promoted at the end of that season. As the prem and efl are different organisation and the efl have no jurisdiction over premiership teams.
You say it will never stick @StigThundercock but again AC Milan struck a deal with UEFA and CAS to serve a one year European Ban for breaking FFPP rules(so it could happen with City)
What people forget though is that the year before, UEFA hit Milan with a 2 year ban from European football (same as they've done with City). Milan appealed to CAS and CAS reinstated them.
Haven't read every post but isn't their ban because they have been caught allegedly purposely supplying fraudulent information to uefa not that fact they failed ffp once again.
This is true. Listening to Guardian Football Weekly yesterday, they explained that part of it on there.
The reporter drew a comparison to you getting a speeding ticket, only for you to claim your wife was driving, for photo evidence to be found showing you behind the wheel, and the fine becoming a prison stay.
I get the impression there’s a good chance it will stick. I certainly don’t understand the assumption that it won’t, just because... it won’t.
Comments
There's nothing to stop a team building incrementally, growing their stadium and fanbase to join these clubs, especially in the Premier League, but it has to be long term growth
Instead the big clubs will say no and UEFA with no backbone will agree to their demands - If we want true equality amongst clubs they need to just tell the big sides to fuck off, if they want their own Super League then fine with me, bet they'll soon get bored with playing each other every season with nothing else
Let’s look at the last World Series winners:
Washington
Boston
Houston
Chicago Cubs
Kansas City
SF
Six different winners in the last six years
If your an 18 year old striker who is widely viewed as the next big thing and your club can't pay what you, your agent or your parents, think your worth you move to a club that will. If you can't, in your own country due to a salary cap, you go to a diffrent country. If its a federation wide cap, you go to another one.
If Fifa introduced one, some clubs, leagues, federations, countries would simply leave fifa. It nearly happened in cricket.
If there were gridiron teams competing in European competition outside the remit of the NFL, the US draft system would fail.
But in response to what you put, I don't think City winning the FA Cup before 1905 (?) has any impact on the size of them as a club?Look at Leeds, formed in 1919? In my opinion, they are the third biggest club in the country (Utd, Liverpool, Leeds). How many Arsenal fans are there in other parts of the country? How many Newcastle fans are there outside Newcastle? How many Spuds fans are there outside London etc?
As for Blackburn and Jack Walker, yes, they were the first to really splash the cash, but it was seen as crude at the time. And the rules were not in place then, as well as Sky money being in its early days.
Rose tinted view? Not really. What was better then? Well here you go... Anyone could beat anyone, including lower league against first division first teams in the cups. Stadiums were unique and had terraces. Managers like Clough and Fergie told the media to f#ck off when necessary. Some players were more individual and had personality, like Gazza, Cantona. Floodlight pilons existed more. Fans were not so reactive, and didn't consider players or managers sh#t after 5 minutes. Fans didn't do the fake mental attention seeking reaction after a goal went in at away games, they just enjoyed the moment for what it was. Fans respected other fans more, unless there was a natural and understandable hatred between clubs. Grounds were nearer pubs and railway stations. The atmosphere during a match was generally better. Football on TV was an event. The vidi printer existed. Teletext/Ceefax was an enjoyable go to - page 302, news in brief on page 312. Others I'm sure could extend this homage to the past if necessary.
Back to today, ironically, after all that drivel I've just spewed, I'd say the Championship is surely currently the best league in the world! Anyone can beat anyone. Every team has a chance. Look at Barnsley beating Fulham today as an example. It is a glimmer of hope.
If I were in charge of the EFL I'd build on this and tell the Premier league teams to F off from the EFL CUP and keep it for the champ, league 1 and 2, but still have Europe as the carrot. I'd also be tempted to do the same with the FA Cup, thanks to the behaviour of sh#thouses like Klopp this season.
So I hope the above gives some explanation as to why I'm glad City are in trouble. And funnily enough, it wouldn't surprise me if there were City fans from the pre Sheik era who would agree with me.
To take just one snippet from DC's article he lists who actually made UEFA's ruling. Until I read this, I assumed it was true that the ruling was made by a bunch of over-paid faceless UEFA functionaries. In actual fact
The two-stage chambers manned by semi-independent appointees is designed to avoid as far as possible an organisation being the prosecutor, judge and jury that City claim to be the case. The adjudicatory chamber, which heard the charges when they were made by Leterme’s investigatory chamber, is chaired by José Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues, a former general prosecutor in Portugal. After hearings last month, he reached the finding that City were guilty, as did the chamber’s other members: Christiaan Timmermans, a Dutch law professor; Louis Peila, a very experienced Swiss judge; Adam Giersz, a former Polish sports minister; and the English barrister Charles Flint QC. He is president of the UK’s National Anti-Doping Panel and trusted enough in Abu Dhabi’s neighbouring emirate of Dubai to be a director of its financial services authority.
So City’s reaction to the considered conclusion of these distinguished European professionals was to allege that all were biased, and reached a prejudged conclusion signalled by Leterme.
And Yves Leterme is a former Prime Minister of Belgium! So at very least, the armchair wisdom that City's "clever lawyers" are going to piss all over UEFA (which I previously thought might be true), looks a bit less wise now.
About time Rounders England upped their game.
His V sign was him running up to the official shouting: "thats twice now you've not given us something on VAR"
People now taking the piss saying he's actually commenting: "thats two years we're now out the Champions League"
In which universe will the corrupt lunatics at UEFA cobble together a legal case that, on the balance of probability, satisfies an independent arbiter (in this case the Court Of Arbitration For Sport) a rule or rules on funding were breached?
It is just about conceivable that somebody within ManCity was complacent enough to funnel money directly in from the owners and just label it as sponsorship/commercial/whatever for the purposes of paying lipservice to UEFA's regulations. Likely? No.
Even if there were significant transgressions, UEFA vs the national financial might of Abu Dhabi & China is not a contest. The best UEFA can realistically look forward to is financial ruin after years and years humiliation through the courts.
Full disclosure: in my view regulations aimed at constraining an individual's willingness to piss his own money up the wall funding a football club are preposterous and unenforceable. There is no business in which one may not commit every last cent of one's personal wealth to support its aims. It is however, illegal to trade beyond the point the business can pay its bills or to borrow money when there is no realistic possibility of repaying that debt - not in football of course - dreamers, crooks and lunatics drag clubs into insolvency on a whim and the football "authorities" welcome back some phoenix club phantom with open arms without a nanosecond's consideration for all the defrauded chumps who'll never get their money back; but some super wealthy oil baron/beetroot farmer with practically limitless wealth is prevented from ploughing liquid funds into his football plaything
utter utter nonsense - to quote a more qualified legal opinion than mine: "the law in this case is an ass"