UFFP - Will it work ?

Leiva

So basically starting with this years accounts (2012 ) and gathering data over the next 3 years a club must have a minimum "break even" financial assessment.

In a nut shell clubs must live within their means . No more injections of cash from rich owners and all income accounted for and submitted to UEFA .

Non conformance may result in clubs being ejected from marquee tournaments .

So what do you think ? will it ever happen ? will anyone/club ever be ejected from say the Champions league ?

I have my doubts but the first real transfer window (Jan just gone) was pretty quiet in comparison, so maybe clubs are adhering to the new rules .




Here is the full UEFA guideline:
http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf

spockety

I think we will find that some clubs will be treated differently to others.

Fair Play may be enforced at the lower echelons but maybe not at the top.

So some of the top tier teams in say, Israel or Turkey will have wrists slapped and kept out of the 1st qualifying round of the Champions League, but the likes of Man City and Chelsea will never be ejected from a competition.

gnfnrhead

Not a hope of anyone getting kicked out of the Champions League. Can you imagine the uproar if they tried to kick someone like Man United or Barcelona out? It'll never happen.

Saying that, I think it will work to an extent. Team will be worried about what could happen, so will curb their spending for the next few years. Once it becomes apparent that nothing happens, it'll be back to normal until UEFA grow a set and actually ban someone.

Smegball

I don't think it will last - the big clubs will only keep finding various loopholes to splurge more and more cash into buying the big names.

DoctorGonzo08

I think it will only apply to teams who recieve a cash injection after its inception. The rule is to stop competition of the big teams imo and nothing to do with fair play.

Leiva

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

I think it will only apply to teams who recieve a cash injection after its inception. The rule is to stop competition of the big teams imo and nothing to do with fair play.

??

What do you mean ? ...Is it like closing the gate now so no more sugar daddy's can enter the game , protecting the current ones ?

kippy

Leiva wrote: »

??

What do you mean ? ...Is it like closing the gate now so no more sugar daddy's can enter the game , protecting the current ones ?

Yes, that's pretty much what it appears to be for and one reason it has been allowed by the big 14 clubs to come into play - although some clubs with recent cash injections will need to work fast to ensure the income from "normal streams" starts to ramp up fast.

There is zero chance that any of the top 14 clubs in Europe will get kicked from the CL - revenue for the CL would drop significantly and there would be a strong chance that these clubs could breakaway and form their own leagues.

Mitch Connor

Leiva wrote: »

??

What do you mean ? ...Is it like closing the gate now so no more sugar daddy's can enter the game , protecting the current ones ?

The argument is that the only way to get up to the level of Barcelona or Real Madrid (or United, to an extent) is with billionaire bankrollers, like City, Chelsea and Malaga.

So while United, for example, would be very well off from a FFP perspective and have the potential for big wages and transfers - given our matchday, sponsorship and merchandise revenue - pretty much all other clubs in England wouldn't be able to do much at all. If FFP was strictly enforced City would have to sell most of the their top players (as would chelsea) and wouldn't be able to spend the hundreds of millions that they have been doing. So, United would be able to easily maintain financial superiority over the rest of the league. Same goes, in an even bigger way, for Real Madrid and Barcelona, with the way their TV deals are set up.

That is the argument - that it will make it easier for the already big and relatively financially viable clubs to maintain their power. The only way to compete with them would be through proper building of a clubs revenue streams (as United have been doing over the last 20 years or so) as a massive cash injection like we are seeing at City wouldn't be allowed.

DoctorGonzo08

Leiva wrote: »

??

What do you mean ? ...Is it like closing the gate now so no more sugar daddy's can enter the game , protecting the current ones ?

Yes. Hence why City splurged in such a short space of time as they were aware of the coming restrictions. In order for a team to compete with the top clubs they need an injection of cash. Be it from a very lucky youth pool that comes through or from investment. With the new rules in place, this will not be allowed in the future, so teams like Everton, for example, will never be able to break into the top 4 unless they are phenominally lucky in the talent that comes through their youth academies.

If that is the case, who benefits from the fair play rule? The already rich clubs (yes, including the satan worshipers City).

AnCapaillMor

Smegball wrote: »

I don't think it will last - the big clubs will only keep finding various loopholes to splurge more and more cash into buying the big names.

Exactly, look at city and the etihad sponsorship\stadium deal. Clubs will find some creative way to get around it and if they don't i can't see UEFA punish the top teams.

DoctorGonzo08

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The argument is that the only way to get up to the level of Barcelona or Real Madrid (or United, to an extent) is with billionaire bankrollers, like City, Chelsea and Malaga.

So while United, for example, would be very well off from a FFP perspective and have the potential for big wages and transfers - given our matchday, sponsorship and merchandise revenue - pretty much all other clubs in England wouldn't be able to do much at all. If FFP was strictly enforced City would have to sell most of the their top players (as would chelsea) and wouldn't be able to spend the hundreds of millions that they have been doing. So, United would be able to easily maintain financial superiority over the rest of the league. Same goes, in an even bigger way, for Real Madrid and Barcelona, with the way their TV deals are set up.

That is the argument - that it will make it easier for the already big and relatively financially viable clubs to maintain their power. The only way to compete with them would be through proper building of a clubs revenue streams (as United have been doing over the last 20 years or so) as a massive cash injection like we are seeing at City wouldn't be allowed.

Excellent post.

Morzadec

I think in practice it probably won't work, as clubs will find loopholes to inject huge sums of money into the club, while it appears to be income generated by the club.

In other words, clubs will be sneaky and do what Man City did with the naming rights of their stadium, or what Real Madrid did with their training ground 10 years or so back. The richest clubs will find a way round it, and the slightly less rich clubs will have to fall into line and do likewise in order to not fall too far behind. Those who battle to live within their means will continue to do so, and have almost zero chance of competing at the highest level.

That's my pessimistic prediction anyway, you can't beat those with the money.

Would be delighted if it came into real effect though, it'd be great for football. League's such as La Liga are becoming a bit of a joke at this stage - this year a number of records are about to be set:

- Lowest points total for a third place team
- The difference between Barcelona (2nd) and Valencia (3rd) is greater than any other gap between 3rd and 1st since the new format of the league.
- Lowest points total for a team getting into the Champions League (it will be less than 60)
- Lowest points total for a team getting into the Europa League
- Only 6 teams with a positive goal difference (a difference of 86 goals between Madrid [1st] and Malaga [4th], the nearest team to the big 2 [Valencia] being a whopping 69 goals worse off Barcelona).

La Liga is in danger of becoming unwatchable as it is incredibly boring to watch uncompetitive fixtures. The chances of an upset are slim to none.

I guess my point about La Liga is more relevant to the way TV money is divided in Spain rather than FFP, but it still shows how boring an influx of money for one or two teams can make things. The Premiership could go the same way if free rein is giving to spending like this.

It was only in the last decade that teams like Valencia and Depor were winning league titles and challenging for the CL, relative minnows such as Sociedad even challenging for the league. This gave hope to the likes of Atleti, Sevilla, Bilbao etc... Now there is no hope, no expectation. 4th is all they can hope for.

Gone way off topic, but anyway, the point still stands, the duopoly in La Liga shows what can happen when teams are given an unfair financial advantage, and it would be a real shame if the Premiership or any other league for that matter was to go that way as well, so any rules that can be implemented to stop that happening would have to be welcomed.

I'm just not convinced they will really work in practice.

kippy

AnCapaillMor wrote: »

Exactly, look at city and the etihad sponsorship\stadium deal. Clubs will find some creative way to get around it and if they don't i can't see UEFA punish the top teams.

Apparently there are allowances made for the "sponsorship deals" however I have no idea how they will be policed, if at all.

kippy

Morzadec wrote: »

I think in practice it probably won't work, as clubs will find loopholes to inject huge sums of money into the club, while it appears to be income generated by the club.

In other words, clubs will be sneaky and do what Man City did with the naming rights of their stadium, or what Real Madrid did with their training ground 10 years or so back. The richest clubs will find a way round it, and the slightly less rich clubs will have to fall into line and do likewise in order to not fall too far behind. Those who battle to live within their means will continue to do so, and have almost zero chance of competing at the highest level.

That's my pessimistic prediction anyway, you can't beat those with the money.

Would be delighted if it came into real effect though, it'd be great for football. League's such as La Liga are becoming a bit of a joke at this stage - this year a number of records are about to be set:

- Lowest points total for a third place team
- The difference between Barcelona (2nd) and Valencia (3rd) is greater than any other gap between 3rd and 1st since the new format of the league.
- Lowest points total for a team getting into the Champions League (it will be less than 60)
- Lowest points total for a team getting into the Europa League
- Only 6 teams with a positive goal difference (a difference of 86 goals between Madrid [1st] and Malaga [4th], the nearest team to the big 2 [Valencia] being a whopping 69 goals worse off Barcelona).

La Liga is in danger of becoming unwatchable as it is incredibly boring to watch uncompetitive fixtures. The chances of an upset are slim to none.

I guess my point about La Liga is more relevant to the way TV money is divided in Spain rather than FFP, but it still shows how boring an influx of money for one or two teams can make things. The Premiership could go the same way if free rein is giving to spending like this.

It was only in the last decade that teams like Valencia and Depor were winning league titles and challenging for the CL, relative minnows such as Sociedad even challenging for the league. This gave hope to the likes of Atleti, Sevilla, Bilbao etc... Now there is no hope, no expectation. 4th is all they can hope for.

Gone way off topic, but anyway, the point still stands, the duopoly in La Liga shows what can happen when teams are given an unfair financial advantage, and it would be a real shame if the Premiership or any other league for that matter was to go that way as well, so any rules that can be implemented to stop that happening would have to be welcomed.

I'm just not convinced they will really work in practice.

Sadly I dont think these rules (especially if implemented properly) will help pull together the haves and the have nots. They are designed specifically to do the opposite.

Mitch Connor

kippy wrote: »

Apparently there are allowances made for the "sponsorship deals" however I have no idea how they will be policed, if at all.

as far as I know, Uefa either conducted or are conducting a review in to that deal. When the FFP rules were laid out, loopholes such as sponsorship were marked and they said all deals would be restricted to fair market value. So if the best rate going for naming rights is 10 million a year (example) a deal worth 30million a year wouldn't be allowed from a FFP point of view - 15million might be allowed enter the balance sheet for FFP. Just an example.

That deal was announced a while ago though and I haven't heard anything regarding results of it, so I have no clue if they gave up and swept it under the carpet or if it is still ongoing.

Morzadec

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The argument is that the only way to get up to the level of Barcelona or Real Madrid (or United, to an extent) is with billionaire bankrollers, like City, Chelsea and Malaga.

So while United, for example, would be very well off from a FFP perspective and have the potential for big wages and transfers - given our matchday, sponsorship and merchandise revenue - pretty much all other clubs in England wouldn't be able to do much at all. If FFP was strictly enforced City would have to sell most of the their top players (as would chelsea) and wouldn't be able to spend the hundreds of millions that they have been doing. So, United would be able to easily maintain financial superiority over the rest of the league. Same goes, in an even bigger way, for Real Madrid and Barcelona, with the way their TV deals are set up.

That is the argument - that it will make it easier for the already big and relatively financially viable clubs to maintain their power. The only way to compete with them would be through proper building of a clubs revenue streams (as United have been doing over the last 20 years or so) as a massive cash injection like we are seeing at City wouldn't be allowed.

Very good point and you put a different light on it...

But here's my question - will teams like United, Barca and Madrid who generate a lot of money from merchandising, gate receipts etc...be able to splurge to the same extent that City have, even with their extra cash? In other words, will it not be easier for teams to hang on to their top players as teams may only have budgets of £30m or so, rather than £100m + to spend on transfers?

Will FFP not result in a greater spread of the top talent amongst more teams, even if the big teams stay somewhere near the top?

Like last year City might have gone the scatter gun approach bringing in 5 or 6 top class players for high fees and wages, thus taking away talent from 5 or 6 clubs. But next year they might be only able to add one of said players, and thus the clubs where these players are bought from are not so widely weakened...

I'm not sure if that makes any sense...

kippy

Morzadec wrote: »

Like last year City might have gone the scatter gun approach bringing in 5 or 6 top class players for high fees and wages, thus taking away talent from 5 or 6 clubs. But next year they might be only able to add one of said players, and thus the clubs where these players are bought from are not so widely weakened...

I'm not sure if that makes any sense...

It makes sense but perhaps this club would have preferred the income from the player sales to reinvest in the squad? (its a bit airy fairy but you see where this could have a net negative impact on the "poorer" teams as well)

Mitch Connor

Morzadec wrote: »

Very good point and you put a different light on it...

But here's my question - will teams like United, Barca and Madrid who generate a lot of money from merchandising, gate receipts etc...be able to splurge to the same extent that City have, even with their extra cash? In other words, will it not be easier for teams to hang on to their top players as teams may only have budgets of £30m or so, rather than £100m + to spend on transfers?

Will FFP not result in a greater spread of the top talent amongst more teams, even if the big teams stay somewhere near the top?

Like last year City might have gone the scatter gun approach bringing in 5 or 6 top class players for high fees and wages, thus taking away talent from 5 or 6 clubs. But next year they might be only able to add one of said players, and thus the clubs where these players are bought from are not so widely weakened...

I'm not sure if that makes any sense...

Yes, it would restrict the amount United and the other 'big' sides could spend.

The issue is simply that it allows the big clubs to spend more without penalty.

For example, United could afford a 100million wage bill per season and 50million in transfers, without posting a FFP loss. City may only be able to afford half or a third of that. Numbers pulled out of my ass, just for illustration.

It could and should result in less purchases by any one team, or less big purchases. It could also result in player prices and wages being driven down.

There are plus points to the plan, there are ways it can work for the good of football. You can say that although it will restrict the ways a team can try to compete - it also means they will do it in a financially viable and responsible way - so teams won't do a 'Leeds'.

It isn't all bad, it isn't all good.

Red Crow

What happens if a Swansea wants to build a new stadium? Would that not breach the FFP rules.

A transfer spend salary cap should be imposed.

Teams should be given 3 years to balance the the books.

A lot will be told by how City spend this summer. If Hazard joins City we'll know this FFP is a load of sh1te.

Look at the wages Rooney, Aguero, Tevez, Toure, Messi, Ronaldo, Silva etc are on. It's pure madness.

cson

EU competition law wouldn't allow a salary cap I'm afraid.

mar-z

Eli Manning wrote: »

What happens if a Swansea wants to build a new stadium? Would that not breach the FFP rules.

Afaik spending on facilities is not included in the FFP calculations so there would be no breach.

Mitch Connor

Eli Manning wrote: »

What happens if a Swansea wants to build a new stadium? Would that not breach the FFP rules.

A transfer spend salary cap should be imposed.

Teams should be given 3 years to balance the the books.

A lot will be told by how City spend this summer. If Hazard joins City we'll know this FFP is a load of sh1te.

Look at the wages Rooney, Aguero, Tevez, Toure, Messi, Ronaldo, Silva etc are on. It's pure madness.

Infrastructural debt (new stadium, training ground etc) are not considered with regards to FFP. So, for example, Chelsea building a new stadium wouldn't have any impact negitively. Uefa don't want to stop clubs improving their structures. It is only matchday and on the pitch finances that have an impact as far as I know - so wages and transfer fees are the two biggies.

DoctorGonzo08

Morzadec wrote: »

Will FFP not result in a greater spread of the top talent amongst more teams, even if the big teams stay somewhere near the top?

Like last year City might have gone the scatter gun approach bringing in 5 or 6 top class players for high fees and wages, thus taking away talent from 5 or 6 clubs. But next year they might be only able to add one of said players, and thus the clubs where these players are bought from are not so widely weakened...

That is the ideal goal of the rule I think, but it isn't very clearly stated and hence open to 'loopholes'.

Firstly, the obvious nature in which City spent heavily, while it was allowed to, to bring in big name stars. They really only need 2 players to finish that squad off now imo. They will also now be in a position to use the 'Net Profit' card, as they sell off they're loan signings and reserve players, thus gathering transfer income and a large wage defecit. They have also secured Kit sponsorship with Nike for the following season which will keep a constant balance sheet running against any expenditure. As long as they keep European qualification, it is more income. Hence, the huge spending City have done is quite clever, in business terms. They are now in a position to compete with the top clubs for talent on a level playing field so they will have the oppurtunity to capture top talent.

Outside the spread of the big transfers, it is not clear what the take is on the youth policy. While you have a couple of big names in your starting eleven, can you not recruit some of the worlds top youngsters, which would not fall under this category? This would further hinder smaller clubs from where they are being poached. Even moreso on terms of transfer fees recieved would do little as there would be a limit on how much they can spend.

As cson as said, EU won't allow salary caps, which, unfortunatley is what is required to create a truly level playing field. You would end up with a structure similar to the MLS, which on papar is very fair and encourages competition. However, even this has been 'loopholed' with Beckham's wages allowed to break the rules by deals of endorsement, sponsorship and even deeds to clubs.

Also, if you were to proceed in this vein you would open up the clubs to possible franchise, which would, imo destroy the last bit of pride in the game. It wouldn't be football anymore.

POKERKING

a great source of info is http://swissramble.blogspot.com/.

he shows that city will have no problem conforming to ffp and that its basically as the lads have said closed the loophole for future billionaire takeovers. They are now a thing of the past no more winning lottery tickets which for anyone outside the top4/6 clubs in england is pretty crap.

Exact link to city info:

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/12/manchester-city-masterplan.html

kippy

POKERKING wrote: »

a great source of info is http://swissramble.blogspot.com/.

he shows that city will have no problem conforming to ffp and that its basically as the lads have said closed the loophole for future billionaire takeovers. They are now a thing of the past no more winning lottery tickets which for anyone outside the top4/6 clubs in england is pretty crap.

Exact link to city info:

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/12/manchester-city-masterplan.html

It has to be said, that these rules dont necessarily mean that there wont be a "leeds/portsmouth" again, just that there wont be any new owners going in super fast and spending oodles of money.
There is nothing stopping certain clubs owners pulling the life support from clubs.

dfx-

It'll only work if punishments are carried out, so it's three years before anyone finds out.

Morzadec wrote: »

Would be delighted if it came into real effect though, it'd be great for football. League's such as La Liga are becoming a bit of a joke at this stage - this year a number of records are about to be set:

- Lowest points total for a third place team
- The difference between Barcelona (2nd) and Valencia (3rd) is greater than any other gap between 3rd and 1st since the new format of the league.
- Lowest points total for a team getting into the Champions League (it will be less than 60)
- Lowest points total for a team getting into the Europa League
- Only 6 teams with a positive goal difference (a difference of 86 goals between Madrid [1st] and Malaga [4th], the nearest team to the big 2 [Valencia] being a whopping 69 goals worse off Barcelona).

La Liga is in danger of becoming unwatchable as it is incredibly boring to watch uncompetitive fixtures. The chances of an upset are slim to none.

I guess my point about La Liga is more relevant to the way TV money is divided in Spain rather than FFP, but it still shows how boring an influx of money for one or two teams can make things. The Premiership could go the same way if free rein is giving to spending like this.

It was only in the last decade that teams like Valencia and Depor were winning league titles and challenging for the CL, relative minnows such as Sociedad even challenging for the league. This gave hope to the likes of Atleti, Sevilla, Bilbao etc... Now there is no hope, no expectation. 4th is all they can hope for.

I know this is dealt with in the La Liga superthread, but Barelona will only claim a maximum of four points more than the duopoly in England, there'll only be a two point difference between Valencia and the third place in England and the gap between third and relegation is smaller and hence more competitive than England.

There are also 5-6 teams still in mathematical contention for fourth spot in Spain in comparison to three or four in England and third placed Valencia have struggled to keep third spot as muh as Arsenal or Tottenham.

Newcastle in fifth are 56 goals worse off in GD than the leaders and 48 to second place, Tottenham and Arsenal in third are only 40 goals off.

So La Liga is not a joke.

Richard Hillman

I think its ridiculous to be honest. Without the likes of City, Chelsea and PSG this season, the EPL, Champions League and Lique 1 would have been pants this year. The premier league would have been just Man Utd winning the title since 2005 and unlikey to drop the title again for a long time. The money that went into Chelsea and Man City have been the best things to happen to the EPL in a while. PSG could turn the French league into a buying league rather than a selling league. Malaga could provide competition to Real and Barca in a few years. These new rules are to just to protect the status quo.

In the case of Man City, Sheikh Mansours brother owns a club in the UAE. What is to stop Al Ain buying the City sub keeper for €500 million and the two lads sorting out the cash between them back in the palace. Im sure the ministry of finance (probably run by another brother) will turn a blind eye. I know UEFA have a market value system for sponsorship deals but there is no way they can dictate how much people pay for players and what they are worth.

Even in a lower profile league, if i won the Euromillions and bought my favourite LOI team, i would never be able to invest properly in it. If somebody wanted to buy just say Athlone Town, they wouldnt be able to do a thing with the club until attendances are increased. How is a potential owner going to increase attendances when he has to work off a budget of 200 fans a week.

jive

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I think its ridiculous to be honest. Without the likes of City, Chelsea and PSG this season, the EPL, Champions League and Lique 1 would have been pants this year. The premier league would have been just Man Utd winning the title since 2007 and unlikey to drop the title again for a long time. The money that went into Chelsea and Man City have been the best things to happen to the EPL in a while. PSG could turn the French league into a buying league rather than a selling league. Malaga could provide competition to Real and Barca in a few years. These new rules are to just to protect the status quo.

Strong this. It's a stupid regulation under the guise of being fairplay. If rich owners want to pump money into a club then why should they be stopped? They have the money. I don't agree with not allowing them to spend money because they didn't earn it via the club, it could take decades, if ever, for a club to earn enough money to even compete with the likes of Barca and Madrid. United would win the EPL every year and the monotony of it all would be a bit much.

Good article on it here - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2138085/Sorry-Manchester-City-UEFA-glad-song-make-bitter--Martin-Samuel.html although I'm not a big fan of Samuel... credit where credit is due though!

Sheepy99

Well, has it worked?

The_Kew_Tour

No, not really.

Rayne Wooney

All it has done imo is let a handful of clubs board the arc and leave the rest to sink or swim

If a Bundesliga club got the City treatment it could loosen the stranglehold Bayern have over the league and make it more competitive + in certain cases get smaller clubs far better value from selling their best players

My understanding is it can't happen as it would be impossible make it sustainable in 3 years without cheating

Sheepy99

Yeah, unless a club is willing to take the hit of no European football until its revenues match its newfound performance and transfer output, then the door is shut.

Funny how most of us didn't see that it favoured the already established clubs until it started 'coming into effect' (if you could call it that), and of those who did, nobody passed much heed of what they had to say unless they were willing to do the reading.

I think it's completely changed clubs into thinking in the mainstream as a business venture, I know they already were but everything is geared predominantly toward finance with them at this stage, to the point where it's really fúcked the fans over.

When you think about it, with this new tv deal in England, it'll get to the point where the income from matchdays will count for a miniscule percentage of their revenues for the year, but the fan treatment will remain the same. Fleece 'em for what they got

LuckyLloyd

It has successfully stratified elite football for the next couple of decades. The likes of City, PSG and Chelsea have found ways to be who they are within the constraints. But no - one else will be able to join them.

death1234567

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It has successfully stratified elite football for the next couple of decades. The likes of City, PSG and Chelsea have found ways to be who they are within the constraints. But no - one else will be able to join them.

If you were cynical you could suggest that was the intention all along. I'm sure the incompetent buffoons over at UEFA are more than happy to keep the status quo and have the "big" clubs dominate European football forever.

LuckyLloyd

death1234567 wrote: »

If you were cynical you could suggest that was the intention all along. I'm sure the incompetent buffoons over at UEFA are more than happy to keep the status quo and have the "big" clubs dominate European football forever.

And if I was very cynical I'd also add that the 'champions route' changes to UCL qualification are a convenient political counter to it: 'but look what we've done to share the pie amongst all comers!!' An obfuscation of where there real motivations lie.

As a Liverpool fan I don't really care too much. We're in the circle and will be able to stay competitive. But on a broader level you have to question how interesting / diverse the game is. If you're a fan of a mid size English club your ultimate ambitions are a few seasons in upper midtable with maybe a cup run (or an EL run) to keep it interesting. I'm sure Stoke fans found their ride to the Premiership majorly exciting but how many more midtable Premiership seasons drain your interest? Particularly when it's now seen as acceptable for managers to punt cup runs in order to eke out the points that keep you clear of any relegation threat.

As sports like NFL and Rugby are ably demonstrating, at the sharp end of the game massive diversity is not necessary. It's preferable to build a small and stable line of big brands and have them duke it out year after year. And the knockout stages of the CL are the absolute pinnacle of club football now - nothing else comes close. How odd it seems now to think of the likes of Aberdeen, Ipswich and Aston Villa winning European trophies; or to have a run like 1965 to 1972 where seven different clubs won the league.

And the media and UEFA fooled fans into thinking this was a good thing...:pac:

Beefy78

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

All it has done imo is let a handful of clubs board the arc and leave the rest to sink or swim

Which is exactly what it was designed to do. So, yes, it has worked completely.