Financial Fair Play 2021 Thread - UEFA to amend FFP

Harry Palmr

UEFA have thrown in the towel and we have a near free for all.

https://twitter.com/tancredipalmeri/status/1374636735112560642

Man City full backs ahoy!

eagle eye

Harry Palmr wrote:

UEFA have thrown in the towel and we have a near free for all.

Great to see that. This attempt at monopolising the game by the traditional large clubs in Europe was a major concern.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

eagle eye wrote: »

Great to see that. This attempt at monopolising the game by the traditional large clubs in Europe was a major concern.

This will just make that esaier.

Pauliedragon

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This will just make that esaier.

It won't really. It means that if I'm a billionaire and want to buy a league 1 club I can throw as much money as I want at it and maybe challenge the so called big clubs.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pauliedragon wrote: »

It won't really. It means that if I'm a billionaire and want to buy a league 1 club I can throw as much money as I want at it and maybe challenge the so called big clubs.

... and that club becomes one of the big clubs you dispise so much?

Pauliedragon

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... and that club becomes one of the big clubs you dispise so much?

I didn't mean I despise big clubs I meant if I own a business I should be able to throw as much money at it as I want. FFP was designed from day 1 to keep the big boys happy. It's about time they had some competition. I'd love to see a Premier league where different teams win every year.

~Rebel~

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I didn't mean I despise big clubs I meant if I own a business I should be able to throw as much money at it as I want. FFP was designed from day 1 to keep the big boys happy. It's about time they had some competition. I'd love to see a Premier league where different teams win every year.

The big boys will still be happy, they might just be a slightly different set of big boys, and there will likely be fewer of them.

As for wanting different teams winning every year, this makes that less likely imo. There are only a small handful of entities in the world happy to throw money down a hole with next to no chance of a financial return on investment, and it pretty much amounts to nation states. The Saudi's will probably be the next up, but beyond that, most of the big nation state vehicles with an interest in trying to change their international reputation will be spoken for.

FluffPiece

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I'd love to see a Premier league where different teams win every year.

But in the likes of the Premier League, you'll see Man City able to throw money at it so they win it every year while fielding 50mill full backs in just the league and fa cup, to keep their prime 150 mill fullbacks for PL and CL. That's what bottomless pits of money teams get you in the end.


If you really wanted a competitive league, you'd want transfer & salary caps with restrictions on 3rd party sponserships to stop loopholes around salaries by paying 3rd party sponsership for some makey uppy company as a financial vehicle. That will see a more competitive league as teams would have a fairer chance, but it would mean less money so it won't be brought in.


Scrapping FFP and allowing a free for all from state owned teams will not make it competitive, it will make it bloody boring and predicatable when it eventually becomes a one trick pony league.

Pauliedragon

FluffPiece wrote: »

But in the likes of the Premier League, you'll see Man City able to throw money at it so they win it every year while fielding 50mill full backs in just the league and fa cup, to keep their prime 150 mill fullbacks for PL and CL. That's what bottomless pits of money teams get you in the end.


If you really wanted a competitive league, you'd want transfer & salary caps with restrictions on 3rd party sponserships to stop loopholes around salaries by paying 3rd party sponsership for some makey uppy company as a financial vehicle. That will see a more competitive league as teams would have a fairer chance, but it would mean less money so it won't be brought in.


Scrapping FFP and allowing a free for all from state owned teams will not make it competitive, it will make it bloody boring and predicatable when it eventually becomes a one trick pony league.

I'll agree entirely with that. I'd love to see a salary cap.

FluffPiece

Yes, it's absolutley bonkers how out of tune the modern game is with it's roots. What is the latest rumour for Mbappe's wage proposal by PSG? 1 mill a week or something. At his age? Nuts!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I didn't mean I despise big clubs I mean If I own a business I should be able to throw as much money at it as I want. FFP was designed from day 1 to keep the big boys happy. It's about time they had some competition. I'd love to see a Premier league where different teams win every year.

How is that supposed to happen...? Unless somone comes in with more money than Skeik Mansour? And it's got to happen repeatedly if you want different teams winning evey year?

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I'll agree entirely with that. I'd love to see a salary cap.

Which is it - throw as much money as you want or have it capped?

Pauliedragon

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How is that supposed to happen...? Unless somone comes in with more money than Skeik Mansour? And it's got to happen repeatedly if you want different teams winning evey year?



Which is it - throw as much money as you want or have it capped?

One or the other. Either keep it an open book where clubs can spend whatever they want or have a cap on wages/transfers and I don't mean a percentage of income I mean every club has the same wage bill. This FFP has been proven to be a farce. Even the court of arbitration ruled against UEFA.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pauliedragon wrote: »

One or the other. Either keep it an open book where clubs can spend whatever they want or have a cap on wages/transfers and I don't mean a percentage of income I mean every club has the same wage bill. This FFP has been proven to be a farce. Even the court of arbitration ruled against UEFA.

So you wanted A. Then you picked B in direct contrast to A. Now you don;t care if it's A or B...?

You sound like my 5-year-old Nephew in a sweetshop. Good night!

Louis Friend

It’s not possible because one club can’t hoover up all of the good players.

Pauliedragon

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So you wanted A. Then you picked B in direct contrast to A. Now you don;t care if it's A or B...?

You sound like my 5-year-old Nephew in a sweetshop. Good night!

I mean not some half arsed system which is laughable as PSG and Man City have proven for years. Everyone either has unlimited spending like the old days or a complete cap whereby every team spends the same. Ideally I'd prefer the latter. When I lived abroad the competion I followed had 12 different winners in 18 years out of 16 teams. It was great to watch as a neutral and it has a salary cap. It's not perfect but it keeps it more interesting.

TFBubendorfer

FluffPiece wrote: »

But in the likes of the Premier League, you'll see Man City able to throw money at it so they win it every year while fielding 50mill full backs in just the league and fa cup, to keep their prime 150 mill fullbacks for PL and CL. That's what bottomless pits of money teams get you in the end.

Spending money is a requirement to win the PL but that alone is not sufficient. Have a look at Man United, they have spent a billion since Ferguson left and the team is still ****e compared to City.

No team will win the PL every year, not City, not Liverpool, and not anyone else either. The money argument is flawed, it's just a lazy stick to hit City and their owners.

Also, FFP is getting dumped only because Barcelona and Real Madrid got into difficulties. It was purely designed to keep the Big Boys club intact, now that is stopped working it's getting ditched. It was never there for the benefit of football.

Muahahaha

I read an interesting article a few weeks back that was saying the strategy of Middle East owners is to use their bottomless pit of oil money to send traditional big clubs broke by inflating the transfer market way beyond any kind of affordability. It said the Neymar transfer was part of that strategy, PSGs owners knew it was way off kilter but it served a purpose of inflating the entire transfer market (Coutinho for £140m anyone?). Its an interesting theory and given that Barca are now broke it certainly seems to have borne fruit.

TFBubendorfer

Muahahaha wrote: »

I read an interesting article a few weeks back that was saying the strategy of Middle East owners is to use their bottomless pit of oil money to send traditional big clubs broke by inflating the transfer market way beyond any kind of affordability. It said the Neymar transfer was part of that strategy, PSGs owners knew it was way off kilter but it served a purpose of inflating the entire transfer market (Coutinho for £140m anyone?). Its an interesting theory and given that Barca are now broke it certainly seems to have borne fruit.

So they gave Barcelona well over 200 million with the foresight that Barcelona would spend it really badly and go broke subsequently?

That's quite the theory.

Harry Palmr

PL winners last decade

Manchester United
Man City
Manchester United
Man City
Chelsea
Leicester
Chelsea
Man City
Man City
Liverpool
Man City unless something extraordinary occurs

If City are given free reign then it's very hard to see another winner bar Chelsea until/unless some sort of complacency sets in when Pep leaves. Two horse race at best.

Muahahaha

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

So they gave Barcelona well over 200 million with the foresight that Barcelona would spend it really badly and go broke subsequently?

That's quite the theory.

No, not just Barcelona, the entire transfer market. The idea behind the strategy is to inflate the entire market beyond levels of what they know other clubs can afford given their income. The Neymar transfer undoubtedly inflated the entire market, thats not in dispute. The oil clubs have bottomless pits of money so they can use their vast resources to shift the whole transfer market upwards knowing that other clubs wont be able to compete financially and if they try to they will go broke doing so because they dont have bottomless pits of money. to cover up transfer mistakes.

~Rebel~

Muahahaha wrote: »

No, not just Barcelona, the entire transfer market. The idea behind the strategy is to inflate the entire market beyond levels of what they know other clubs can afford given their income. The Neymar transfer undoubtedly inflated the entire market, thats not in dispute. The oil clubs have bottomless pits of money so they can use their vast resources to shift the whole transfer market upwards knowing that other clubs wont be able to compete financially and if they try to they will go broke doing so because they dont have bottomless pits of money. to cover up transfer mistakes.

I think it played a part, but I think you're perhaps giving that move too much credit for the whole market. The biggest influencer on increased spending was the massive increase in TV money - before the Neymar transfer, we'd already seen Bale and Pogba move for over 100m euros. So that's where the standard was at that stage before Neymar happened.

I really think the Neymar inflation influence was actually quite contained - the big moves that have happened since stemmed directly from that move - Coutinho, Dembele, and Griezmann all going to Barcelona for bigger fees than they perhaps should have (though that's even arguable in Griezmann's case - that move pretty much falls in line with pre-Neymar standards). In turn, the next step was the Griezmann money being spent on Joao Felix, and the Coutinho money being spent on Van Dijk and Alisson. So really, the buck in trend only occured with those that benefitted directly - or secondarily - from PSG's money.

Meanwhile, beyond those few deals the fees have followed their own natural trend from pre-Neymar, growing steadily from then with continuously increasing TV money. I daresay if you work out the ratio between club revenue and market spending, they'll be moving up pretty close to hand in hand for 99% of transfers, both before and after that Neymar deal.

2ndcoming

Pauliedragon wrote: »

It won't really. It means that if I'm a billionaire and want to buy a league 1 club I can throw as much money as I want at it and maybe challenge the so called big clubs.

Pretty much exactly what happened with City then? :pac:

Fitz*

Harry Palmr wrote: »

PL winners last decade

Manchester United
Man City
Manchester United
Man City
Chelsea
Leicester
Chelsea
Man City
Man City
Liverpool
Man City unless something extraordinary occurs

If City are given free reign then it's very hard to see another winner bar Chelsea until/unless some sort of complacency sets in when Pep leaves. Two horse race at best.

if you take out Liverpool, over the last 4 seasons, the gap between Man City and the rest of the league is;

17/18: 19 points
18/19: 26 points
19/20: 15 points
20/21: 14(currently)

And that is with FFP in place. With no FFP in place, how big does the gap get and for how long is it maintained?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Spending money is a requirement to win the PL but that alone is not sufficient. Have a look at Man United, they have spent a billion since Ferguson left and the team is still ****e compared to City.

No team will win the PL every year, not City, not Liverpool, and not anyone else either. The money argument is flawed, it's just a lazy stick to hit City and their owners.

Also, FFP is getting dumped only because Barcelona and Real Madrid got into difficulties. It was purely designed to keep the Big Boys club intact, now that is stopped working it's getting ditched. It was never there for the benefit of football.

I totally agree - but it will concentrate the power.

I;d be all for bringing in a salary cap - let them spend as much as they want on players, but if they can only offer so much in wages it makes it harder to simply bankroll everything and the player might choose a less likely club if his wages are going to be the same.

Morzadec

Harry Palmr wrote: »

PL winners last decade

Manchester United
Man City
Manchester United
Man City
Chelsea
Leicester
Chelsea
Man City
Man City
Liverpool
Man City unless something extraordinary occurs

If City are given free reign then it's very hard to see another winner bar Chelsea until/unless some sort of complacency sets in when Pep leaves. Two horse race at best.

Liverpool will be competitive next year with VVD and other defenders back imo.

It's still the crux of the team that got 97 and 99 points, there's no key player from those teams that has moved into an age range where you'd expect them to decline. Firmino's form is a bit worrying, but other than that all key players I'd be hopeful of performing to the 2018 - 2020 level.

They also have a world class manager who will be motivated to put things right. You might argue that some teams have figured Liverpool out a bit, but this has been a freak season for injuries and the lack of crowd is going to hurt Liverpool and help City a lot. The league position isn't much of a shock when you play 70% of the season with no recognised centre backs.

I don't think you can say City's team is noticeably stronger on paper than Liverpool's once everyone is fit. I wouldn't be so quick to write off Liverpool from mounting a serious title challenge next year.

Harry Palmr

I would if squad depth means anything, City really can field two proper first XI's. Liverpool will have 1.5 at most.

Harry Palmr

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/mar/25/football-financial-fair-play-rules-to-be-ripped-up-after-covid-crisis

~Rebel~

Harry Palmr wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/mar/25/football-financial-fair-play-rules-to-be-ripped-up-after-covid-crisis

Some decent points in fairness, particularly in relation to Covid.

JPA

Muahahaha wrote: »

I read an interesting article a few weeks back that was saying the strategy of Middle East owners is to use their bottomless pit of oil money to send traditional big clubs broke by inflating the transfer market way beyond any kind of affordability. It said the Neymar transfer was part of that strategy, PSGs owners knew it was way off kilter but it served a purpose of inflating the entire transfer market (Coutinho for £140m anyone?). Its an interesting theory and given that Barca are now broke it certainly seems to have borne fruit.

Would Liverpool have won the league and CL without the Neymar transfer...?

DM_7

Mod: Split this off from the Man City not banned from UEFA competitions thread.

Please take care not to offer wild speculation or suggest 'unfair' activities unless you are providing the source for same.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JPA wrote: »

Would Liverpool have won the league and CL without the Neymar transfer...?

I think they would, on the basis that they would have fuinded the Van Dyke and Allison transfers some other way.

Curious to know who sending big clubs broke benefits PSG. Surely they need some opposition to create a business?

gimli2112

JPA wrote: »

Would Liverpool have won the league and CL without the Neymar transfer...?

it's not a bad question, the butterfly effect.

a popular hypothetical situation that illustrates how small initial differences may lead to large unforeseen consequences over time.

never has it been so devastating

ozzy jr

Is the Twitter message in the opening post the only report of this?

Morzadec

gimli2112 wrote: »

it's not a bad question, the butterfly effect.

a popular hypothetical situation that illustrates how small initial differences may lead to large unforeseen consequences over time.

never has it been so devastating

Yeah totally valid question imo, I think you can construct a valid argument to suggest they may not have.

Liverpool haven't historically been a big spending team, only really spending big when selling big - they generally are forced to run close to a neutral net spend. To outlay 75m on a centre back and 67m on a goalkeeper - these are not the types of huge figures Liverpool ever spent before. I think there's a strong argument that they would have gone for cheaper alternatives (or stuck with their current options) without the Coutinho money, and a reasonable argument that VVD and Allison were so crucial to the title winning team that they may not have done it (though nearest competitor was 81 points that season so possible they still would have edged it).

In this specific example I definitely do think Liverpool indirectly benefited from the crazy money injected into the game by billionaire owners.

Lukker-

Just in time for Barcelona and Madrid (who were both about to fail)