Financial Fair Play Discussion

gnfnrhead

Eli Manning wrote: »

That's a pretty rubbish side tbh. Allen is Welsh too.

I assumed it meant British and Irish instead of just English?

J. Marston

Bump.

Uefa offer Manchester City & PSG settlements for alleged breaches of financial fair play #SSN

They'll have pay a fine, I'm guessing.

Kiith

You spent too much on players, but pay us more money and it's grand.

Hmm...

Kiith

Kiith wrote: »

You spent too much on players, but pay us more money and it's grand.

Hmm...

Wouldn't expect anything else from Uefa/Fifa tbh

gosplan

The first major test for FFP is PSG's new sponsor deal.

€200 million a year and it's retroactive so they get paid for each year from 2012 even though it starts next season.

If that gets through, then they've failed already.

kippy

gosplan wrote: »

The first major test for FFP is PSG's new sponsor deal.

€200 million a year and it's retroactive so they get paid for each year from 2012 even though it starts next season.

If that gets through, then they've failed already.

Joke stuff alright!
How many sponsorship deals of this type exist in world football. If the answer is more than 1 then PSG have a case. If not well its joke stuff.

And as for fining them because they have overspent?
Farcical.

M5

Rumours that PSG have been offered a financial solution to FFP.

An absolute joke if true.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Depends on how much the fine is, I suppose (not that I have much faith in it being anything proportaional). I assume anything wothwhiel would be challenged legally though.

JPA

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Depends on how much the fine is, I suppose (not that I have much faith in it being anything proportaional). I assume anything wothwhiel would be challenged legally though.

Or easily pay it. Either way it's a being proven as an unenforceable joke.

Guy:Incognito

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Depends on how much the fine is, I suppose (not that I have much faith in it being anything proportaional). I assume anything wothwhiel would be challenged legally though.

Not really. A fine is completely pointless it has no effect unless it's a hundred million or more. It probably won't even be a million.

Exclusion from Europe is the only card they have and it's not being used so they may just forget the whole thing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JPA wrote: »

Or easily pay it. Either way it's a being proven as an unenforceable joke.

Yeah, but I'm taking if the fine was a good 8 or even 9-figure amount. I have no idea if this is even feasible (probably not) but it would be interesting to see what would happen.

JPA

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Yeah, but I'm taking if the fine was a good 8 or even 9-figure amount. I have no idea if this is even feasible (probably not) but it would be interesting to see what would happen.

Well I don't think that's realistic but if it was it would be UEFA saying, **** it, let's get rich too!

kryogen

Haven't read back through the thread, but saw earlier on SSN ticker that UEFA are to offer City and PSG settlements for FFP breaches? Can they not just kill this lame duck now and be done with it?

pistolpetes11

Will the fine be taken into account on there next set of accounts for the FFP ?

Smithwicks Man

pistolpetes11 wrote: »

Will the fine be taken into account on there next set of accounts for the FFP ?

Does it matter? Sure they can just continue what they're doing regardless.

mike65

Its just a wealth tax.

If UEFA was decent they'd just ban sides from the transfer market for one year at the minimum and chuck em out of UEFA Comp at best.

rob316

You couldn't make it up. A fine for spending too much money.

hadepsx

crock of sh*t is what ffp is

Dempsey

FFP allows for huge clubs to worm their way out of the more serious punishments. These rules will only catch out overspending dysfunctional clubs not slick operators like psg & barcelona

M5

FIFA: You spent way beyond your means and are guilty of cooking your books giving you a huge advantage over other clubs to the tune of about 200 million. I know we said we would ban you from Europe, but we have decided to fine you 250k. That should even things up!



I cant say I'm surprised.

Agueroooo

final nail and all that jazz.

FFP is dead!

SantryRed

So what is the difference between what City and PSG have done, and what the other clubs did that actually got them banned?

Pepe LeFrits

How about waiting until the settlement offers are made public before spazzing out, eh?

Hitting the clubs in breach with the nuclear option straight off guarantees that they'll end up in court. There's logic to offering a lesser punishment as a settlement, as it makes it more likely that the club will accept rather than fight it, and it leaves UEFA with options for the future if the club still doesn't do enough to get its finances in line.

Guy:Incognito

I disagree. It sets s precident and everyone knows they can take the piss.

Lets be honest here, they are and will do everything in their power to keep the big clubs in their competitions.

Dont be at yourself

If they don't want to ban the clubs from European competitions, they need a penalty that's more creative than a monetary fine. The entire reason for the penalty is that they're financially doping, so it's a toothless penalty. A few ideas:

- Remove/handicap their seeding, or group doping teams together in a single group
- Transfer ban or transfer spending cap
- Cup tie new signings or top earners
- Increase number of youth team players required in CL squad
- Salary cap
- Stadium closure on European match days
- Distribute prize/TV money to clubs who finish outside CL places or are eliminated by them in the competition

Iang87

I think its a rubbish system anyway with too many variables to ever succeed in what it wants.

I think the biggest issue will be the sponsorships anyway and the big spending clubs will just take uefa to court for months or years if they even try throw them out of competitions for "colourful" sponsorship deals.

After all isnt something only worth what someone will pay for it and if someone wants to pay Man City 500 million to stick their name on the stadium then how can you argue. I'm aware of the connections between owners and etihad but anything short of them being the same man signing as two different names then uefa cant win in my view.

ciaranmac

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

If they don't want to ban the clubs from European competitions, they need a penalty that's more creative than a monetary fine. The entire reason for the penalty is that they're financially doping, so it's a toothless penalty. A few ideas:

- Remove/handicap their seeding, or group doping teams together in a single group
- Transfer ban or transfer spending cap
- Cup tie new signings or top earners
- Increase number of youth team players required in CL squad
- Salary cap
- Stadium closure on European match days
- Distribute prize/TV money to clubs who finish outside CL places or are eliminated by them in the competition

How about a CL group stage points deduction?

M5

Punishing a club with almost unlimited funds with a fine is a complete and utter waste of time. PSG and Man City both fit in that category and it looks like both will be fined. It makes a mockery of the entire FFP system before it even gets going

pickarooney

Draft all the out of contract players and force PSG to play them?

Pepe LeFrits

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I disagree. It sets s precident and everyone knows they can take the piss.

Lets be honest here, they are and will do everything in their power to keep the big clubs in their competitions.

It's plea bargaining. Offer the club a reduced penalty to encourage them to 'plead guilty' rather than risk going through the courts and receiving a full ban.

It only encourages clubs to take the piss if the settlement offered is too weak. If for example the settlement PSG have been offered is a two-window transfer ban, clubs will take it seriously enough.

UEFA obviously don't want to ban any clubs from Europe; they haven't implemented these rules as an excuse to exact vengeance on the big spenders, they've done it to stop spiraling costs in football.

Guy:Incognito

Of course they will plead guilty. They don't care and the fine is peanuts. We're not talking some guy whos name will be all over the papers for running someone over drink driving. Theres no downside to a club to just throw a few quid at a problem and its probably cheaper than fighting it anyway.

The first thing I said when the FFp thing came up here is that rich owners will find a way to get the money in to the club by "sponsorship" deals etc . Turns out that's the case. If an Abramovich owned business wants to put their name on an advertising board in Stamford Bridge for £100m a season, whats to stop them?

Turtwig

Can we wait until settlements are announced before pissing on UEFA? I'm not optimistic but you never know what they might actually do . . .

Pepe LeFrits

Turtwig wrote: »

Can we wait until settlements are announced before pissing on UEFA? I'm not optimistic but you never know what they might actually do . . .

Guy Incognito has seen them already it seems.

EuropeanSon

People seem very confused. Why is everyone assuming "settlement" means financial payment?

They could have to "settle" for a seeding demotion, or a transfer ban, or a squad restriction. Nobody knows yet, do they?

Agent Coulson

It's not about us the fans.

Corholio

Turtwig wrote: »

Can we wait until settlements are announced before pissing on UEFA? I'm not optimistic but you never know what they might actually do . . .

It's UEFA, when have they ever decided a penalty that was considered 'fair'. From history it's perfectly acceptable to 'piss' on them IMO, anything fair that they do would be a big surprise.

LuckyLloyd

I always said FFP was a load of bollocks. So much rubbish written and spoken about it over the last few years.

LuckyLloyd

lol, Arsenal fans are desperate for FFP to amount to something!! :pac:

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

lol, Arsenal fans are desperate for FFP to amount to something!! :pac:

Meh, would've liked if it did but I wasn't expecting it to. The Arsenal board just want to stick to it so they don't ever have to pay a fine. Kroenke has been up to some suspicious stuff lately and I ain't optimistic about the future.

Beefy78

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The first thing I said when the FFp thing came up here is that rich owners will find a way to get the money in to the club by "sponsorship" deals etc . Turns out that's the case. If an Abramovich owned business wants to put their name on an advertising board in Stamford Bridge for £100m a season, whats to stop them?

Why should anything stop him? FFP is such a load of nonsense. No other business market in the World would put in legislation to curb outside investment. It's absolutely scandalous and would never stand up to any legal challenge.

All FFP was ever designed to do was maintain the status quo and help the elite Clubs of Europe to maintain their position without them needing to spend lots of cash doing it. If UEFA were serious about stopping clubs getting into trouble then they'd concentrate on punishments for clubs spending money that they can't afford rather than saying anything about Manchester City and PSG who could happily afford ten times what they've spent thus far.

Agueroooo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

lol, Arsenal fans are desperate for FFP to amount to something!! :pac:

I fairness it is not just Arsenal fans that would want to see FFP work.

FFP in its current form needs to be enforced, or scrapped, and scrapped quickly.

There is a very worrying spin-off created by FFP in its current form, and that is the practice of stockpiling of youth by the rich clubs, as they turn cash reserves into potential/players.
This practice is detrimental to the game and its future imo.

(eg) Chelsea have over £150million worth of youth out on loan;who are already millionaires by the fee's paid, and earning 10's of thousands a week.Yet some have never kicked a ball for the first team.
That cannot be good for the game of football as some of these 'kids' will have been dulled, and loss of hunger by the wealth already gathered.

I truly belive that if this practice of stockpiling players was around 10-15yrs ago then the likes of (eg) Ronaldo, Schweinsteiger etc might have never reached their potential as they would have been snapped up and made millionaires over night, and shipped out to someone like Vitesse Arnhem.

I have moved away from the main point but FFP needs to be scrapped or enforced as its simply not working in its current anaemic form.

mike65

Telegraph running a story about City,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/10797048/Manchester-City-hit-by-Uefa-with-Champions-League-squad-size-cut-and-fine-for-breaching-financial-rules.html

Will know the outcome later next week at the earliest.

LuckyLloyd

Agueroooo wrote: »

I fairness it is not just Arsenal fans that would want to see FFP work.

FFP in its current form needs to be enforced, or scrapped, and scrapped quickly.

There is a very worrying spin-off created by FFP in its current form, and that is the practice of stockpiling of youth by the rich clubs, as they turn cash reserves into potential/players.
This practice is detrimental the game and it future imo.

(eg) Chelsea have over £150million worth of youth out on loan;who are already millionaires by the fee's paid, and earning 10's of thousands a week.Yet some have never kicked a ball for the first team.
That cannot be good for the game of football as some of these 'kids' will have been dulled, and loss of hunger by the wealth already gathered.

I truly belive that if this practice of stockpiling players was around 10-15yrs ago then the likes of (eg) Ronaldo, Schweinsteiger etc might have never reached their potential as they would have been snapped up and made millionaires over night, and shipped out to someone like Vitesse Arnhem.

I have moved away from the main point but FFP needs to be scrapped or enforced as its simply not working it its anaemic form.

You have two choices really imo:

- you enforce salary caps and control entry into the professional game (i.e. some form of talent draft);
- you limit your rules to incredibly harsh punitive rules applied in the event a club enters Administration, and in terms of player movement make sure legal rules are enforced and there is no fudge in terms of underage labour, etc;

UEFA are trying to exist somewhere in the middle of these two options at present. Their position is bull**** and everyone knows it. The believers in FFP have been banking on UEFA taking a firm stand at the potential short to medium term detriment of their own competitions at great legal risk and expense.

I think a salary cap and theoretical level playing field would be a great thing for the sport. In its absence however, let the chaos of the free market reign. If a multi billionaire wants to try and buy the Champions League, let him. There is certainly no law against such a practise and rightly so.

Agueroooo

mike65 wrote: »

Telegraph running a story about City,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/10797048/Manchester-City-hit-by-Uefa-with-Champions-League-squad-size-cut-and-fine-for-breaching-financial-rules.html

Will know the outcome later next week at the earliest.

I cant really see any PL club taken up this option, can you?

Even if City agree to settle their case, FFP rules allow Premier League rivals such as Arsenal and Everton to challenge any sanction they deem too lenient. The latter clubs could argue City’s breach materially affected their chances of finishing third or fourth in the table, and thus hindered their European qualification hopes.

Agueroooo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In its absence however, let the chaos of the free market reign. If a multi billionaire wants to try and buy the Champions League, let him. There is certainly no law against such a practise and rightly so.

This might be challenged soon enough if the reports and rumours about Everton potentially getting a new owner from the M.E are in fact true.

LuckyLloyd

Agueroooo wrote: »

This might be challenged soon enough if the reports and rumours about Everton potentially getting a new owner from the M.E are in fact true.

Challenged, by who? If Everton become a big player it's all good. Would be great for their fans and great for the EPL to have another strong big spending club in the mix.

I've always laughed at the notion that spending money somehow invalidates a victory in football. It's bull**** stemming from warped nationalism ('British clubs should be British owned') and a desire from fans of already successful clubs to see the status quo maintained ('Utd and Liverpool have what they have naturally, City and Chelsea are artificial'). If an owner wants to make the financial commitment, get the best manager / players / director of football / scouting network / etc money can buy and stick with it until the footballing world is conquered then more power to them, they've earned their success.

Agueroooo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Challenged, by who? If Everton become a big player it's all good.
.

aint there an element of 'pulling up the ladders' in the current FFP policy to prevent anymore Citys etc?

mike65

Every club wants a sugar daddy, the question is whether the said golden tit is sustainable, as many in Portsmouth discovered when its a botched job hundreds are left high and dry.

LuckyLloyd

mike65 wrote: »

Every club wants a sugar daddy, the question is whether the said golden tit is sustainable, as many in Portsmouth discovered when its a botched job hundreds are left high and dry.

It probably won't be in the vast majority of cases.

However, this is nothing new. The scale is just bigger, because the game is far bigger than it was. Charismatic businessmen taking an interest in a club and investing money over the odds has been a feature of the professional game for much of the 20th century. People didn't have a huge problem with it though so long as the boom / bust wasn't too dramatic and, crucially, so long as the businessmen were British or British based.

aint there an element of 'pulling up the ladders' in the current FFP policy to prevent anymore Citys etc?

There might be something written to that effect. Whether it amounts to anything is another matter. How exactly can UEFA prevent the sale of a legal entity like Everton is someone is willing to come in and pay a price agreeable to the current owners?

M5

Beefy78 wrote: »

Why should anything stop him? FFP is such a load of nonsense. No other business market in the World would put in legislation to curb outside investment. It's absolutely scandalous and would never stand up to any legal challenge.

All FFP was ever designed to do was maintain the status quo and help the elite Clubs of Europe to maintain their position without them needing to spend lots of cash doing it. If UEFA were serious about stopping clubs getting into trouble then they'd concentrate on punishments for clubs spending money that they can't afford rather than saying anything about Manchester City and PSG who could happily afford ten times what they've spent thus far.

The crucial difference between football and any other business is that a monopoly or near monopoly is not going to affect sales outside football. A league with literally one team would not be much fun, whereas in business the small fish are taken over or go out of business and that does not effect the over all sales/demand as the larger company fills the void

That said if you look at football clubs as businesses, historically very very few have gone out of business which is in stark contrast to other non sporting businesses. There is a few chapters dedicated to the business aspects of football in soccernomics, well worth a read