Possible Sanctions Against Mcfc?

Andy

Registered
Mar 19, 2014
607
344
63
60
Speculations really, can´t say that a fine and/or a reduced CL squad would make a fan of any club loose much sleep.
I´d like to se the full list though as 20-30 clubs are said to have "failed" but what I´d really would have preferred is the whole FFPR having been thru the courts before being introduced.
As it is now we might get a judgement years from now that it´s not permitted in the EU.
 
It ain't but nothing. Probably something like remove €10m of players from the CL, which would essentially amount to EDS fringe players, who were unlikely to have featured any way.

As for FFP as a whole, you will discover very little as one of the rules state (unbelievably) that things are to be kept secretive, and only the club in question and UEFA are to know exactly what's what.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christian

Christian

Registered
Seasoned Supporter
Apr 21, 2014
343
302
63
42
Just like Barca were going to barred from two transfer windows. UEFA has no real power other than the threat of power. It's all about shaking clubs down.
 

MikeDatTiger

Registered
Mar 21, 2014
1,372
1,471
143
New Orleans, Louisiana
I'd love them to lose. I don't see how FFP is anything but a good thing.

Because it entrenches the football hierarchy who are already profitable whereas clubs who are looking to invest resp0nsibly (ie not take on debt) are punished for trying to spend on a level with the traditional giants.

Looking at the articles about Liverpool's current financial situation, I wonder if you'll be as pro-FFP when they start coming after Liverpool, who escaped notice because they're out of Europe this season.
 

Coop

Registered
Seasoned Supporter
Mar 26, 2014
134
65
28
35
Liverpool
Because it entrenches the football hierarchy who are already profitable whereas clubs who are looking to invest resp0nsibly (ie not take on debt) are punished for trying to spend on a level with the traditional giants.

Looking at the articles about Liverpool's current financial situation, I wonder if you'll be as pro-FFP when they start coming after Liverpool, who escaped notice because they're out of Europe this season.

I'd welcome any sanctions against Liverpool. I'm incredibly proud of Liverpool trying not to rely on massive investment and trying to buy and nurture young talent rather than spend big on existing talent. Anything that reinforces that is only a good thing to me even if it might affect the club adversely in the short term. Having said that, I know there would be a lot of Liverpool fans disagreeing with it!

I hate what I see at City, Chelsea and PSG (to name but a few). I hate the concept that you can buy success. Is FFP not putting a dent in that concept? I'm not as well read on it as you I'm sure since it hasn't particularly been a threat to Liverpool recently but what I do hear is that City/Chelsea etc are having to curtail their spending and give more thought to their financial futures. This is only a good thing to me.

I'm curious and hopefully you can shed some light but how does it entrench the football hierarchy? How are clubs being punished for investing responsibly? I'm genuinely asking because I'm sure you know more than me.
 

Christian

Registered
Seasoned Supporter
Apr 21, 2014
343
302
63
42
Do you know who the biggest proponent of FFP is? It's not a small club who's being run over the by the big spending suddenly rich clubs. It's Bayern Munich. You know who's the next biggest supporter of this? It's Manchester United.

These clubs are perched far above the rest of the clubs because they've had long term success and stability and have grown into their nations hegemony. They have certainly earned this success. No one is questioning or denying them anything. It's an incredible accomplishment and I give them all the respect that deserves.

That said, they want to keep the status quo. They don't want anyone coming to the table and disturbing their balance. Sheikh Mansour saw MCFC as an undervalued asset and bought it and invested into it like any other business person would. It will take time for his investment to reach fruition as any business venture would for anyone.

If no one can come in and try to take on these juggernauts then what's the point? Can you develop youth and branding over time? Certainly. In the meantime the ball will keep rolling along and while you wait for that development the big clubs will still be steamrolling to cups and titles and money.

Should there be a degree of responsibility? Of course. Look at what MCFC have done to encourage this. Building out and around The Etihad. Developing other clubs around the world. Taking the team out on tour. All these things are good for the brand and will help them get into line with being responsible spenders.

This idea of having to be suddenly balanced after being taken over by someone who wants to pour billions into the vitalization of a club and a community is absurd.
 

MikeDatTiger

Registered
Mar 21, 2014
1,372
1,471
143
New Orleans, Louisiana
I'd welcome any sanctions against Liverpool. I'm incredibly proud of Liverpool trying not to rely on massive investment and trying to buy and nurture young talent rather than spend big on existing talent. Anything that reinforces that is only a good thing to me even if it might affect the club adversely in the short term. Having said that, I know there would be a lot of Liverpool fans disagreeing with it!

I hate what I see at City, Chelsea and PSG (to name but a few). I hate the concept that you can buy success. Is FFP not putting a dent in that concept? I'm not as well read on it as you I'm sure since it hasn't particularly been a threat to Liverpool recently but what I do hear is that City/Chelsea etc are having to curtail their spending and give more thought to their financial futures. This is only a good thing to me.

I'm curious and hopefully you can shed some light but how does it entrench the football hierarchy? How are clubs being punished for investing responsibly? I'm genuinely asking because I'm sure you know more than me.

First I think NYCFC is proof that MCFC is trying to develop talent. A significant chunk of MCFC's debt is due to infrastructure at the academy and purchasing NYCFC. I don't know how much if wage-related, but a significant chunk is not. I don't know if Chelsea or PSG have made similar investments.

Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "investing responsibly." Do you mean not spending as much on transfer bills? I'm not sure that's investing responsibly but just not investing. Do you mean spending on infrastructure?

To me, spending responsibly in this context ought to mean spending money that the club can afford to pay. Saddling a club with debt vis-a-vie Pompey is wrong. An owner spending money he has is not irresponsible. Now, you can make bad decisions and spend the money you have on players not worth the cost, but I'm not sure that's the domain of the FFP.

As far as entrenching, I'll take the example of MCFC v. Man United. Man United has built up years of following and routinely purchase top players (there are plenty of other clubs that fit this bill too). As a result, they have more favorable positions in the UCL seeding. This allows them to go farther in competitions, earning more. it also allows them to attract more fans and command higher sponsors. Now, for City they have to work their way to earn that kind following and positioning in the leagues, especially UCL. Man U's past success gets them Pot 1 and the top team in their group whereas City get Pot 3 at the moment and have been drawn into tough groups each year they've been in the competition.

That's a long way of saying that teams that haven't been giants have a long trek ahead of them in order to command the kind of profits that would allow them to spend like giants under FFP. However, in order to get that to that level they have to spend that kind of money. If Man City operated under the tight budgets FFP gave them, they would have a hard time winning the EPL or advancing out of the group stages of the UCL, which are the kind of accomplishments that help create fans both home and especially abroad and which bring in prize money.

Now, you can say "Oh, well they just want to short track success. they need to invest in development and wait until the players develop and then they can compete." I have a few issues. First, is why should they have to wait? Why does it make sense for FIFA or UEFA to say "hey, you'd like to invest in football? How about no, you just can own a mediocre team for a while." Second, let's say you do that and it takes what 5, 10 years for an academy to produce top flight results. In that ten years, the gap between you and the giants has continued to grow as the giants earn more trophies, more history, more success, more fans, more sponsors, more stadium seating, etc. So you have developed the next Messi. Messi Jr. graduates and sees some top flight playing time. He's good in his debut and...he is immediately signed away after a season or maybe even two to a giant club, because they are in a better position to help him attract sponsors, buy other players to field a well-rounded team, play in the competitions he's dreamed of since he was a lad.

You see, spending on success now helps create the atmosphere and culture where they can more easily retain top developed players. Even if City and PSG aren't winning the Champions League, they've been able to compete for trophies.

I guess to me if the Sheiks or Romans or whoever are willing to take a significant short-term loss in hopes of creating long-term success, that's their decision and as long as no one other than them would suffer the consequences of that risk not working out, that's ok.
 

MikeDatTiger

Registered
Mar 21, 2014
1,372
1,471
143
New Orleans, Louisiana
And just to note, City and Chelsea's U21 squads are in the semis (Chelsea just won on penalties) while ManU and Liverpool's squads are in the other side of the semis. So it's not like City and Chelsea have been ignoring development.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kinkladze

Christian

Registered
Seasoned Supporter
Apr 21, 2014
343
302
63
42
You can find Liverpool's spending here: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/liverpool-transfers.html

I'm not saying Liverpool don't have the money to spend because I don't know or care enough about it but not being in European football means they escape the spotlight as was mentioned before.

Let's all stop pretending that successful clubs are fielding all youth developed squads because they're not. Everyone is spending. The difference is there are clubs who are spending but developing an entire infrastructure.
 

Coop

Registered
Seasoned Supporter
Mar 26, 2014
134
65
28
35
Liverpool
There are too many point been made in these comments for me to respond to all of them. They were all valid points and really educated me on the topic so thank you. It all boils down to something very simple for me. This comment in particular highlights my thoughts (which have become more open in light of all your words).

I guess to me if the Sheiks or Romans or whoever are willing to take a significant short-term loss in hopes of creating long-term success, that's their decision and as long as no one other than them would suffer the consequences of that risk not working out, that's ok.

It's this concept of someone coming in and buying a club, taking a short term loss and turning a team into a huge trophy winning side. It turns football success into a lottery in my opinion. If your club is bought by a billionaire then enjoy! You'll not only have short term success but they will turn your team into a long term force with other investment (which, as you've said, City are doing).

If your club isn't bought up by a billionaire then there's one more team rocketing above you and one more team you have to worry about buying up your best players at whatever the cost.

Does it not negate the talents of those at the club? Look at Martinez and what he's done at Everton. Kenwright doesn't give him any money and with the skill of the manager, scouts, coaches, players and countless others the club is doing incredibly well. A team with money can simply buy the best players and the best manager and roll with it. Of course there's more skill to it than that but I'd call Everton's achievements this year a greater accomplishment than those of City's and Chelsea's.

I'm half playing devil's advocate now and half touting my own opinions. These opinions have been softened by your comments though so please don't feel like I'm just here for an argument.
 

Falastur

Registered
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Mar 20, 2014
3,389
4,580
353
35
Herts, UK
The problem with your argument is that FFPR doesn't change that at all. Sure, it prevents billionaire owners from helping their clubs to "win the lottery" but it also means that all the wealth is increasingly concentrated at the top because the smaller clubs are not allowed to spend it. Sure, there might be an Everton - who are not making a profit, FYI, and will probably start selling players for cash in the next 12 months - every now and again, but without FFPR Everton would've been free to wager success on buying a few higher-profile players, say from La Liga or Serie A, but instead they ended up loaning four players who they will not have access to next season, and then scrabbling for players Martinez had a history of managing or knew about from his Spanish connections and could get a deal on.




I think the most telling thing about FFPR is this: it was originally introduced when United's debt was a major story, as a way to stop clubs from going out of business by rampant loan debt. United, obviously, didn't like that too much, and then Arsenal and Bayern got involved too, and now FFPR is no longer about debt but is about spending money you didn't actually earn.

It was a similar story. The PL board met a couple of years ago to discuss making the Fit And Proper Persons test - the test which is supposed to stop dodgy people from taking control of football clubs - tougher. Then Arsenal handed in a paper counter-signed by the heads of United, Chelsea and Spurs. The meeting ended with the PL having agreed that clubs from now on are only allowed to increase their wage budgets by 4% each season. You may argue that that can only mean good things in respect to rampant player wages. What it actually means is that a United or Chelsea can increase their wage budget by around five times more than a Cardiff or Norwich can. Who exactly is that benefiting?

Here, take a read of this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...Persie-John-Terry-instead-sell-sell-sell.html
 

Andy

Registered
Mar 19, 2014
607
344
63
60
To be honest I don´t think FFPR will make any difference whatsoever in Europe.. The big change happened decades ago when sports became a money game meaning that successful teams from small "markets" which in Europe might mean everything from sleepy mill towns to poor neighbourhoods became a thing from the past.

Will teams like Burnley and Pompey ever dominate football in England again? Will Coruna win La liga and reach the CL-semis like 15 years ago ever again?
Would Green Bay be given a NFL team today..?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kinkladze
I'd welcome any sanctions against Liverpool. I'm incredibly proud of Liverpool trying not to rely on massive investment and trying to buy and nurture young talent rather than spend big on existing talent. Anything that reinforces that is only a good thing to me even if it might affect the club adversely in the short term. Having said that, I know there would be a lot of Liverpool fans disagreeing with it!

I hate what I see at City, Chelsea and PSG (to name but a few). I hate the concept that you can buy success. Is FFP not putting a dent in that concept? I'm not as well read on it as you I'm sure since it hasn't particularly been a threat to Liverpool recently but what I do hear is that City/Chelsea etc are having to curtail their spending and give more thought to their financial futures. This is only a good thing to me.

I'm curious and hopefully you can shed some light but how does it entrench the football hierarchy? How are clubs being punished for investing responsibly? I'm genuinely asking because I'm sure you know more than me.

Over £300m in the last couple of years or so. Brendan kept making mention of not spending, which of course is total bollocks.

Oh, and stay away from the Daily Mail - you will learn nothing from there.

FFP was set up to merely to protect those at the table. Trouble is, City and PSG (and maybe Malaga, but we can forget them) stormed said table. Now there is panic. Especially seeing as though United may not even make Europe at all, and Atletico may win their league and possible the CL.

It is a cartel and nothing more. They are in it in to protect themselves. They said that FFP was to protect from bankruptcy, yet it covers not clubs who are not in Europe. This should tell you all you need to know.
 

MikeDatTiger

Registered
Mar 21, 2014
1,372
1,471
143
New Orleans, Louisiana
There are too many point been made in these comments for me to respond to all of them. They were all valid points and really educated me on the topic so thank you. It all boils down to something very simple for me. This comment in particular highlights my thoughts (which have become more open in light of all your words).



It's this concept of someone coming in and buying a club, taking a short term loss and turning a team into a huge trophy winning side. It turns football success into a lottery in my opinion. If your club is bought by a billionaire then enjoy! You'll not only have short term success but they will turn your team into a long term force with other investment (which, as you've said, City are doing).

If your club isn't bought up by a billionaire then there's one more team rocketing above you and one more team you have to worry about buying up your best players at whatever the cost.

Does it not negate the talents of those at the club? Look at Martinez and what he's done at Everton. Kenwright doesn't give him any money and with the skill of the manager, scouts, coaches, players and countless others the club is doing incredibly well. A team with money can simply buy the best players and the best manager and roll with it. Of course there's more skill to it than that but I'd call Everton's achievements this year a greater accomplishment than those of City's and Chelsea's.

I'm half playing devil's advocate now and half touting my own opinions. These opinions have been softened by your comments though so please don't feel like I'm just here for an argument.

Not all, this has been a very pleasant discussion.

Although you couch your objection in terms of "one more club racing by you" it seems to me like the bigger problem you have is with giants in the first place. After all, Everton aren't just fighting oil-rich Man City and PSG. they're also fighting Man U and Arsenal. If the problem really is we don't like how much all of these clubs can spend, and these newly rich clubs just make it worse, then my question is why does FFP just target the newly rich? Why not target all of the giant clubs?

There are a number of ways one can do this, as we know from American sports. The Salary Cap is an extremely effective tool to ensure parity. If that's too drastic, then you can impose a luxury tax to make it much more expensive to spend over a certain limit. You could also limit the number of transfers (almost like MLS fantasy!) to prevent too much movement, etc.

And that's my problem. FFP doesn't make Everton's life easier. It makes Manchester United's life easier, Manchester City's life harder and Everton's life just the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kinkladze

MikeDatTiger

Registered
Mar 21, 2014
1,372
1,471
143
New Orleans, Louisiana
To be honest I don´t think FFPR will make any difference whatsoever in Europe.. The big change happened decades ago when sports became a money game meaning that successful teams from small "markets" which in Europe might mean everything from sleepy mill towns to poor neighbourhoods became a thing from the past.

Will teams like Burnley and Pompey ever dominate football in England again? Will Coruna win La liga and reach the CL-semis like 15 years ago ever again?
Would Green Bay be given a NFL team today..?

Green Bay would never get a team. The team would be moved if it wasn't close enough to Milwaukee and don't think for a second the NFL would have a problem if the Packers decided to dump Lambeau for Los Angeles.
 

Coop

Registered
Seasoned Supporter
Mar 26, 2014
134
65
28
35
Liverpool
Not all, this has been a very pleasant discussion.

Although you couch your objection in terms of "one more club racing by you" it seems to me like the bigger problem you have is with giants in the first place. After all, Everton aren't just fighting oil-rich Man City and PSG. they're also fighting Man U and Arsenal. If the problem really is we don't like how much all of these clubs can spend, and these newly rich clubs just make it worse, then my question is why does FFP just target the newly rich? Why not target all of the giant clubs?

There are a number of ways one can do this, as we know from American sports. The Salary Cap is an extremely effective tool to ensure parity. If that's too drastic, then you can impose a luxury tax to make it much more expensive to spend over a certain limit. You could also limit the number of transfers (almost like MLS fantasy!) to prevent too much movement, etc.

And that's my problem. FFP doesn't make Everton's life easier. It makes Manchester United's life easier, Manchester City's life harder and Everton's life just the same.

I think I'm now in agreement with you. Correct me if I'm wrong! FFP doesn't do enough. I like the way it will limit newly rich clubs like City and stops clubs being able to 'buy success' buy I don't like how it nurtures those already in a position of success. Am I getting a handle on it?