Uefa's planned restrictions on signing players

Headshot

FA chief executive Ian Watmore welcomes Manchester City’s 'new money'

European football’s governing body is trying to implement rules that would force teams to make transfer fees and players’ salaries proportionate to their income as a condition for entry to the Champions League.

However, Watmore has dismissed those plans as unfeasible and unenforceable.

“Anything that makes the competition stronger and more deep, I think has got to be welcomed,” Watmore said. “We don’t want to see the Premier League becoming a top- four procession every year.

“If in the process of the new money coming into Manchester City — and some interesting, I think different, strategies that people like Aston Villa are adopting — we can get to seven or eight clubs that realistically have a chance of breaking into the top four, it can only strengthen the Premier League, which is to our mutual advantage.”

personally I would like to see somthing changed,i see where watmore is coming from thou

would like to see the PL turn into somthing like the Bundesliga

JPA

Anything based on income is biased towards the bigger clubs, something could be done but not that.

stovelid

JPA wrote: »

Anything based on income is biased towards the bigger clubs, something could be done but not that.

Maybe limiting your transfer activity until your debt reaches a particular ratio to your income/turnover.

JPA

stovelid wrote: »

Maybe limiting your transfer activity until your debt reaches a particular ratio to your income/turnover.

What would that achieve? What about Man City? No debt, spend whatever they like.

Headshot

JPA wrote: »

What would that achieve? What about Man City? No debt, spend whatever they like.

exactly that's the tricky part

how to limit Cl sides and billionaire clubs with hurting the league

Mitch Connor

They could simply set a cap on the amount you are allowed to spend, net.

So if it was set to 50million for example, a team could spend 100million on players but they would have to get 50million for players they sell.

I don't see how turnover based caps can work as they would favour a club like United and Bayern Munich massively. Debt related caps would be a good idea but teams like City would get away scott free and be able to outspend everyone in the market with ease (suppose they can already!)

The Rooster

JPA wrote: »

What would that achieve? What about Man City? No debt, spend whatever they like.

I'd imagine the City model is similar to Chelsea. Every cent put in by the owners is a loan therefore large debts will arise, just like at Chelsea. However Abramovich's loans are interest-free so they don't have the big interest payments to fund like ManU, Liverpool, Arsenal.

Mitch Connor

The Rooster wrote: »

I'd imagine the City model is similar to Chelsea. Every cent put in by the owners is a loan therefore large debts will arise, just like at Chelsea. However Abramovich's loans are interest-free so they don't have the big interest payments to fund like ManU, Liverpool, Arsenal.

Also, chelsea haven't had to pay any money back as far as i know. However, we don't know that it is the same with City. I haven't read anything indicating that it is.

LuckyLloyd

Limit every top tier team (i.e. a team playing in a league that provides Champions League and Europa league spots) to a maximum squad size of 25 registered players for all competitions (with the ability to make two alterations in January transfer window / add players if 25 not filled). And bring in a maximum salary cap for all those divisions also (probably pitched something like 60% of the current level of Real / City / Utd, etc). Solved.

stovelid

JPA wrote: »

What would that achieve? What about Man City? No debt,

City do have debt. Unless it's been cleared since this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt

You are right though. Conditional limitations (based on income as in OP) would favour big clubs.

JPA

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Limit every top tier team (i.e. a team playing in a league that provides Champions League and Europa league spots) to a maximum squad size of 25 registered players for all competitions (with the ability to make two alterations in January transfer window / add players if 25 not filled). And bring in a maximum salary cap for all those divisions also (probably pitched something like 60% of the current level of Real / City / Utd, etc). Solved.

But sure who really uses more then 25 players anyway? Maybe some young guys won't get a game.
And La Liga already has a 25 player squad limit.

JPA

stovelid wrote: »

City do have debt. Unless it's been cleared since this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt

You are right though. Conditional limitations (based on income as in OP) would favour big clubs.

That's actually out of date though, before Sheikh Bigpockets took over.

Mitch Connor

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Limit every top tier team (i.e. a team playing in a league that provides Champions League and Europa league spots) to a maximum squad size of 25 registered players for all competitions (with the ability to make two alterations in January transfer window / add players if 25 not filled). And bring in a maximum salary cap for all those divisions also (probably pitched something like 60% of the current level of Real / City / Utd, etc). Solved.

I would possibly agree with that, but it could limit youth players chances. If you specified CL type rules (B squad of home grown players etc) then yet.

I would also point out that United already operate on a 55% or 60% turnover/wages ratio, which is very good, and which the (old) G14 are supposed to abide by, don't know how many of them do at this point.

I don't see the justification for a potential 40% reduction in the wages United spend as they are reasonable in so far as the turnover of the club. United are not in debt because because of overspending on players, be it transfer fees or wages, they are in debt only because of the takeover. We still have possibly the best operating profits in football. A reduction to 60% of the current wage structure would not be justified from a footballing perspective imo.

Mitch Connor

JPA wrote: »

But sure who really uses more then 25 players anyway? Maybe some young guys won't get a game.
And La Liga already has a 25 player squad limit.

Yeah, but any player registered for the B team is also available for the first team - so they can have 50 registered players, for instance. there squad is not limited to just those 25 players registered in the first team squad.

Helix

Mitch Connor wrote: »

They could simply set a cap on the amount you are allowed to spend, net.

So if it was set to 50million for example, a team could spend 100million on players but they would have to get 50million for players they sell.

thatd lead to even more inflated player prices

Mitch Connor

Helix wrote: »

thatd lead to even more inflated player prices

So? Surely it is the money spent overall we are trying to reduce, not just the money spent on one player?

The Rooster

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Also, chelsea haven't had to pay any money back as far as i know. However, we don't know that it is the same with City. I haven't read anything indicating that it is.

Chelsea have debts of over £700, of which around £600m is an interest-free loan from Abramovich. This is repayable on demand, but Abramovich must give 18 months notice.

Helix

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So? Surely it is the money spent overall we are trying to reduce, not just the money spent on one player?

itll mean the already massive gap between the huge clubs and the rest becomes impossible to bridge

Mitch Connor

Helix wrote: »

itll mean the already massive gap between the huge clubs and the rest becomes impossible to bridge

I don't think so, and i don't agree either.

If clubs are forced to work to a transfer limit, they will need to get better deals for the players they do buy - the negotiations would be tougher.

Real couldn't have spent the 220million they have spent this summer, for instance, cause they aren't going to get 170million back on the players they sell.

stovelid

JPA wrote: »

That's actually out of date though, before Sheikh Bigpockets took over.

Apologies. Debt is indeed zero %

PHB

I think this would be a very welcome investment. Why? Because I think its so unfair to Everton and Villa that City have come in and just leapfrogged them. It just becomes a game of luck to people.

Beyond that, it encourages bad ways to run a football club. Before the Glaziers came in, Manchester United was run the way most clubs should be run. Barca the same. Strong sense of fiscal restraint, long term planning, and moving forward bit by bit. Overpsending in the hopes of success is an extremely bad idea and really bad for football as a whole.

Transfer spend as a proportion of income makes sense to me. But it could get very messy, and the rules would need an awful lot of exceptions and such.

While it might **** us over now, had their been a rule in place that transfer spending had to be limited based on income and and debt ratio, it might have stopped United being saddled with crippling debts. Debt restrictions are desperately need to stop what happened to United, a perfectly run football club, becoming a complete financial mess.

Smegball

I read somewhere that this summers transfer funds to City were a " gift " and don't have to be payed back.

spockety

They'd never do this in a million years, but the amount of money you are allowed to spend on players could be inversely proportional to your previous seasons league position.

So last placed in the league is allowed to spend 100m on transfers, and top place is allowed to spend 10m, with everyone in between separated by 5m increments. Would make the league more competitive in the long run and in about 30 years you could find that all the teams are really even going into any given season and lord only knows who would be fighting for top spots.

Mr. Guappa

Any kind of transfer limit would be extremely difficult to implement because soccer is run totally different to sports like American Football where salary cap restrictions are in place. A league (say the Premiership) is not going to impose a salary cap or transfer limit because it would put its own clubs at a disadvantage in terms of attracting the best players, so it would be up to UEFA to impose such restrictions, and such a plan would be very hard to police and enforce, especially a salary cap where "sponsorship" deals and the like can easily be arranged by the clubs to top up a players wages but not affect the salary cap.

I agree that some kind of restrictions would be great for the game but I just cant see anything happening in the forseeable future.

Bandit12

Not sure what the answer is (wage cap possibly) but something needs to be done before it's to late. Totally unfair to the likes of the Villas and Everton's of this world who are trying to run their clubs the right way. (coming from a liverpool supporter). Imo it's not inconcievable that one of the big clubs will fold before long either way. If the money men are correct one of either LFC,Arsenal or ManU are one champions league qualification failure away from going into financial freefall.

DM_7

spockety wrote: »

They'd never do this in a million years, but the amount of money you are allowed to spend on players could be inversely proportional to your previous seasons league position.

So last placed in the league is allowed to spend 100m on transfers, and top place is allowed to spend 10m, with everyone in between separated by 5m increments. Would make the league more competitive in the long run and in about 30 years you could find that all the teams are really even going into any given season and lord only knows who would be fighting for top spots.

That would encorage teams to try and finish lower in the league when they are out of contention to win anything.

It would be like struggling NBA teams playing bad and or trading their best player to get worse and improve the odds of getting a good draft pick.

Headshot

sorry to bump this thread but this may interest posters

Premier League clubs have told to either curb their spending or risk losing their license as UEFA looks to deal with spiraling losses.

Almost a quarter Europe's top division clubs reported large losses last year, with a third of the teams in the rich and successful English Premier League having losses of at least 20 per cent of income.

In an attempt to contain the crisis, UEFA has imposed new rules for clubs to break even on football-related businesses by 2012 or be robbed of its license.

The governing body of European football appointed former Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene to lead its campaign to control excessive spending.

On Thursday, the European Union, often at loggerheads with football when it comes to imposing sports-specific rules, embraced UEFA's efforts.

'I welcome and support these,' EU Sports Commissioner Jan Figel said. 'I look forward to the implementation.'

Of the major five leagues in the world, the Premier League was in by far the worst position when it came to the number of clubs with major losses, standing fifth overall among the 53 European federations.

It trailed only Romania, Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Poland.

Italy was in 15th position on the 2008 club losses list, with Spain ranked 35th and France and Germany among the best scorers.

UEFA figures showed six of the 18 clubs investigated in the Premier League reported large losses, despite reporting an average income per club of £122 million.

Germany, Italy and Spain are its closest competitors when it comes to average club income, all three hovering around the £75 million mark.

Across Europe, 22 per cent of top division clubs report losses of 20 per cent or more of income, with a further 27 per cent reporting smaller losses. Barely half break even or make a profit.

The financial problems are there despite a massive tripling of income for clubs since 1997, largely through marketing and media revenue. But while income rose by 5 per cent last year alone, player costs increased 9 per cent.

'The huge spending on players produces constantly an inflationary effect with consequences on the whole club football movement,' said UEFA's secretary David Taylor.

On top of that,''the current financial crisis has exacerbated the situation.'
This off-season alone, Real Madrid and Manchester City combined spent more than $487 million (£330 million) on new talent.

Taylor said the system will teach leading clubs to compete for European titles with their revenues instead of their debt and protect the long-term future of the sport in Europe.

UEFA's financial fair play policy has also been endorsed by most club owners.
Early this week, the Premier League also announced a new financial regime to regulate its 20 clubs.

The league will take temporary control of clubs that run into financial problems and ban them from buying players or raising salaries.

Clubs will have to submit accounts each March to ensure they can begin the next season in August.

from the dailymail so take it with a pinch of salt

A Primal Nut

spockety wrote: »

They'd never do this in a million years, but the amount of money you are allowed to spend on players could be inversely proportional to your previous seasons league position.

So last placed in the league is allowed to spend 100m on transfers, and top place is allowed to spend 10m, with everyone in between separated by 5m increments. Would make the league more competitive in the long run and in about 30 years you could find that all the teams are really even going into any given season and lord only knows who would be fighting for top spots.

That sounds very like the draft method in the American sports; also players are traded rather than bought. But each team is a franchise under the same business so its not a problem.

A lot of these rules are very hard to implement due to free trade among seperate businesses in the EU, etc.