Discussion in 'The Football Stadium' started by Mark1989, 13 Aug 2019.
It was always going to be overturned.
CAS members being interviewed this morning.
This wasn't UEFA's idea for FFP. UEFA wanted financial controls on clubs that were getting into huge debt. As ever though UEFA had to compromise with the established elite clubs that didn't give a **** about debt or your Leeds & Portsmouth's almost going under, they wanted to keep their seat at the top table as cheaply as possible. They wanted a system that's a closed shop, making it as hard as possible for anybody to join their club.
It's only a matter of time before we either have a European Super League or the Champions League is reformatted in a way that protects the interests of the top 5-10 clubs.
Adam in what world can a club like Everton build to be in a position where they can compete with the top sides in Europe without outside financial help? The top European sides pressured UEFA into changing FFP so that it put a glass ceiling between them and those trying to break into their elite club. Under FFP Everton can only spend what they generate, which is far far less than the elite sides, so they cannot buy the best players and when they do find bargains that become the best players, they cannot afford to pay them the going rate and are ultimately forced to sell them to the elite clubs. FFP makes it nigh on impossible for anybody outside the top 10 sides in Europe to ever establish themselves. As I saw somebody say on twitter, FFP was initially designed to stop another Peter Risdale but ended up stopping another Jack Waker.
As for your Ajax and Porto's. That has nothing to do with your City's and PSG's. They've had their bones picked by Utd and Real for years and years, well before any arab state thought about buying a football club.
And finally your point about what City have done for grass roots football. Well they've built the best academy in the world, with facilities better than most PL sides first team set-up. In Sancho and Foden we've already seen them produce two of the most exciting English talents in recent years and I'm sure there will be more to come, whether they break through at City or elsewhere. For all the criticism of City for their disregard of rules (whether you agree with them or not), they've pumped hundreds and hundreds of millions into football (as well as the area). Just down the road you then have the Glazers who have taken hundreds and hundreds of millions out of football and put a club in massive debt. It's mad to think it's City's owners that UEFA are trying to stop and not the likes of the Glazers.
Really not sure why anybody is shocked by this (I'm slightly surprised as I thought it'd just get reduced to 1 year) but money talks in football and it's one of the most if not the most corrupt sports in the world.
As BaZ87 mentioned FFP was brought in by the previous established clubs to stop the likes of Chelsea, PSG and Man City but it has completely failed and is mainly just lip-servie now.
The rest of your post BaZ87 summed up my feelings exactly. As for the quote above, probably as a result of ManU for years using financial muscle to take what they wanted when they wanted. Look at the figures they paid for Ferdinand at the time or even rooney adjusted for today's money. Then they pushed up wages time and time again until Arsenal fell away with their wage structure. Then along came Chelsea, prepared to spend vast sums to counter that, they can afford it why shouldn't they. Then you have united spending 300/400k per week on players.
I'm all for fair play, whack a limit on total each year that can be spent on wages and transfers and see lets see the table not be dominated by the same teams year in year out. See what coaches can do with players brought through and not have a player just go to united because he gets a 90m transfer and 300k per week.
That would hold some weight if United were just buying the best players from any club that was challenging them which they weren't. United paid Everton a lot of money for the brightest prospect in football. United paid £25m for Rooney and Everton had rejected a £20m bid from Newcastle. The mighty and uber rich Newcastle. Everton weren't a rival to United at the time. For a very long time United really didn't spend much under Ferguson. Even when City were going nuts they didn't spend massively. When Chelsea were doing the same, they didn't spend massively.
City are literally just going to buy the PL season after season now. They are talking about a rebuild after this season. A rebuild from what? Having the most expensive squad ever with a second 11 that would compete for europe in the PL.
The problem in football now is that there is so much money and if you put in a cap on transfers and wages you would just get clubs working their way around it and all the TV rights money would just go to shareholders in the form of bonuses. They wouldn't make tickets cheaper or invest the money, it would just go somewhere else to the super rich.
FFP was a sensible compromise.
Man Utd's last starting 11 had 3 home grown players with another 3 on the bench. Man Utd's financial clout in the 00's was because of their success which came from home grown acadamy players. Wolves and Leicester have both proven you do not need vast sums of money to be successful.
And before the 00's when Utd were regularly breaking transfer records? Oh, they floated on the stock market and received a huge injection of capital - pretty much no different from City or Chelsea receiving a capital injection from their owners.
This obviously had nothing to do with the fact that Utd were in the middle of a £500m debt juggling act, with hugely expensive interest payments and having to refinance deals every 18 months and your capitalist owners saw no reason to spend a penny more than needed while you were qualifying for the CL.
The idea that FFP was brought about to stop the massively inflated transfer fees and wages is a joke too. Real, Utd & Barca have all paid higher transfer fees than City have and all pay bigger wages than City have! And it was these clubs that pressured UEFA into changing what FFP was meant to be. FFP has been made what it is today to make it as difficult as possible for any side out of the elite to break through.
Any financial controls that allow a Glazer type takeover and still wouldn't prevent a Portsmouth (or Bury) type situation but prevents owners injecting capital into their clubs is no less of a farce than the CAS decision today.
The above doesn't mean that clubs being state owned is right and that something doesn't need to be done to control spending but FFP in it's current form isn't the answer and it was only ever designed to protect the big boys. If people want fair and sensible then why don't we start looking at spending caps that are equal to all sides? Don't worry though, your Liverpool's, Utd's, Real's etc won't stand for that.
Man Utd broke the transfer record once in the 90's with Any Cole. Liverpool also broke the record for Stan Collymore. Lol.
Wouldn't use Leicester as an example of anything.
How many times did they go into admin to clear debts.
Plenty of clubs know the time limits and are doing their best to drag proceedings out in regards to FFP
Swfc and derby FC two examples.
First of all, I'm not excluding Liverpool from Utd in this. Secondly I assume you're looking at record fees paid & received by British clubs because the fee for Keane (for example) was a record fee paid by a British club, Paul Parker would have been the most expensive defender and not far off the record fee paid when Utd signed him too. Utd were paying very big fees before the 00's as you tried to suggest. And again, how did they do this? Utd floated on the stock market and raised £6-7m in 1991. To put that into perspective, that's around 3x Utd's record transfer fee at the time and around their entire wagebill. What is both 3x Utd's record transfer fee and also pretty much the same as their wagebill now? Approximately £300m.
Can you explain why it was ok for Utd to raise capital back in 1991 to fund their growth but not for City's owners to do the same now?
You are trying to make it sound like United was some super rich club in the 90's. Liverpool, Arsenal, Newcastle, Blackburn, Leeds etc were all spending similar amounts of money. Utd just spent a lot better.
No, I'm explaining that Utd (and others) raised equity to fund their growth in the 90s and it is fundamentally no different from City's owners injecting equity into their club to fund their growth.
There is nothing you can accuse City of doing, in terms of investment and buying players & wages, that Utd didn't do before. Utd funded their growth through equity injections and were able to spend big fees at the time, breaking transfer records and paying more than anybody else in wages, albeit not massively more than others. On the back of their growth they then went on to spend even more, paying fees and wages well in excess of their rivals in the early to mid 2000s. City have only done the first part, they just were able to do it quicker, with Utd still paying at least as much if not more on wages and fees.
United have broken the transfer record once. Ever. If you are talking purely PL and want to go for the 90s onwards we have done it with Andy Cole (£7m), Veron (£28m), Ferdinand (£29m) and Pogba (£89m). Thats 4 times in 30 years. Once in the 90s, twice in the 00s and once in the last 10 years.
Also explain to me how being bought out by the glazers and then saddled with massive debts by that buyout has given us a huge injection of capital? We have been paying ~£60m a year in debt for the last 15 years. You're suggesting that without the glazers takeover we would be worse off financially which is utterly bizarre.
All three of those clubs make massively more in revenue than City. What would happen if the owners of City stopped putting money into the club randomly at some point in the last 5 years. The club would have to try and offload their star players on wages that most clubs can't pay or they would go bust. Its supposed to protect clubs from a business model that relies on external money that could stop at any point in time.
If I inject £100m into a company I am usually not risking the future of that company if I walk away from it in a years time and stop piling money in. Thats not the case in football.
Because the difference in supporters, appeal etc is massive between the largest clubs and the smallest clubs. Literally a single country that broke these rules would clean up the best footballers the world over. FFP is not perfect but trying to put in wage caps and spending limits flatly across the PL is ridiculous.
I've covered most of this in my reply above to Adam. I think you've got very confused in the 2nd paragraph - I certainly wasn't talking about Utd being better off because of the Glazer takeover, I thought I made that clear in my reply to you. I was referring to how Utd raised money in 1991. Utd raised equity to fund their growth, just like City have done.
"What would happen if the owners of City stopped......", what would happen if Utd failed to qualify for the CL over the next 3 seasons and PL TV money was cut by 30% due to a recession? Utd would be more likely to go bust than City because they don't just have a £300m odd wagebill that they'd struggle to shift but are hundreds of millions in debt too.
City are spending what they can afford to spend now, whether that's based on their revenue or outside help, no different to Utd, Liverpool or 99% of other clubs. If Utd or Liverpool overstretch themselves and become too reliant on CL & PL money then they will go the same way as Leeds if that revenue dries up. FFP wouldn't have saved Leeds afterall.
There is however a very simple answer to this issue and it's one that only owners like City's could give and that would be guarantees by the owners on financial commitments they sign up to. If FFP is about protecting clubs then make owners guarantee £3 for every £1 lost. That would provide a 3 year buffer for clubs if funding dried up. City as a club would then be far more financially secure than Utd, if they weren't already.
Why does it matter if City have less supporters? Your argument began by saying FFP was to control wage and transfer fee inflation, putting a spending cap in place solves this issue. It also provides a fair and even playing field. It allows your Jack Walkers, your Abramovic's etc to take a club from mid table and help them compete at the top.
Allow Utd to spend £330m on wages and average £100m per season on transfer fees but allow Chelsea and City to do so too. Coupled with my suggestion of financial guarantees it would be perfectly safe and fair. Why wouldn't you do this? Because it leaves big spending clubs that have been run poorly at risk of being displaced at the top table.
It's funny how ffp was brought in when English clubs started getting oodles of cash yet the Italian and Spanish clubs were freely spending in the 80's and 90's with other people's money and uefa didn't mind at all.
Separate names with a comma.