Possible Sanctions Against Mcfc?

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.

In the last two seasons Liverpool have a net spend of £61,600,000.

What do you mean 'it covers not clubs who are not in Europe'?
 
In the last two seasons Liverpool have a net spend of £61,600,000.

What do you mean 'it covers not clubs who are not in Europe'?
Liverpool wasn't in Europa League or CL, so the over-spending rules do not apply.

They will apply next year, though, with Liveepool in CL. Understand?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kinkladze
In the last two seasons Liverpool have a net spend of £61,600,000.

What do you mean 'it covers not clubs who are not in Europe'?

As far as the spending limit goes (ie how much you can spend over what you make, not some of the other provisions which deal with how much debt is being accumulated and is meant for the lower clubs) that only applies as I understand to clubs which are competing in Champions League or Europa League. So FFP didn't even examine Liverpool's books for this season; Liverpool will have to be examined for next season because it will be in the Champions League.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kinkladze
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?

Yeah, I think so. From there the only argument would be a kind of pro-capitalism argument about whether FIFA has any busy stopping the giants from being giants but as I've always complained that MLB has driven away its young fans by not instituting a salary cap to ensure that clubs not from New York or Los Angeles have a better chance to be competitive, you'd have to argue with someone other than me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kinkladze
UEFA is a total joke. They're TERRIFIED of the big clubs breaking away. They won't enforce a damn thing.

They didn't punish Atletico in 2012. They aren't punishing Barcelona. They won't punish MCFC or PSG, I assure you.
 
FFP is intended to stop a Portsmouth happening. Trouble is, Portsmouth won't be in Europe any time soon, so FFP does not apply to them, so they can spend what they like and perhaps go bankrupt.

Great thinking, is that.

Then we have the domestic FFP, which is similar in nature to the European one. It went to a vote and the majority voted for it (City did not). However by doing so they (the likes of Everton) have effectively ended any chance they had of breaking into the top four. Any new owner can now no longer pile money into the club as that would be against the rules.
 
  • 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.
£35 Million for Carroll. Yea, Liverpool spend wisely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kinkladze
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.
Man U spent a fortune in the late 80s. Money they did not have. They were LUCKY enough to have out together a top team with that money they didn't have right around the time the premier league broke away and the money became big. Oh, and MCFC has no debt. None. ZERO
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kinkladze
They will apply next year, though, with Liveepool in CL. Understand?
Yup, got it.
How is investment with no debt bad yet debt saddled on clubs is good?
Sorry I don't understand what you're asking.
£35 Million for Carroll. Yea, Liverpool spend wisely.
Yup, that wasn't a great purchase but that was under Hodgson (ugh) and not Rodgers and only a month or two into the ownership of Fenway Sports Group.

Man U spent a fortune in the late 80s. Money they did not have. They were LUCKY enough to have out together a top team with that money they didn't have right around the time the premier league broke away and the money became big. Oh, and MCFC has no debt. None. ZERO
The Sheikh wiped £305million debt away! Very nice of him by all accounts.
 
Last edited:
Yup, got it.

Sorry I don't understand what you're asking.
You praised FFP. I'm asking why is it frowned upon when an owner invests in the club and surrounding geographical area, yet clubs that are saddled with debt get a free ride? How in any sense is that fair?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kinkladze
You praised FFP. I'm asking why is it frowned upon when an owner invests in the club and surrounding geographical area, yet clubs that are saddled with debt get a free ride? How in any sense is that fair?

I took it at face value that Financial Fair Play would be a way of making football finance fair! Seems naive now. I have since admitted that there seems to be some serious failings if you read back.

I see what you're saying. The same man who has invested hundreds of millions of pounds in players is also the same man that has wiped the debt clean and invested millions in the surrounding area. The club has lost nearly £150m in the last two years year and has spent nearly £150m on players in the last two years. Something doesn't seem right there. I've said I'm proud of Liverpool's attempt at spending wisely recently but I'm sure we're spending outside of our means too (especially given our lack of European football) and that the same would go for Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea etc.

It looks like, from what people are saying, that this FFP is just utter bollocks and doesn't really go any way to making anything fairer. In fact, it makes things less fair. What I'm saying then is that I'd support a genuine FFP that favours no one and is unfairly to the detriment of no one.
 
Liverpool are not being accounted for FFP, because as you said, they haven't been in Europe so the rules don't apply. That said, if they were, then they would be falling foul of them due to losing a hell of a lot of money.

Now they have to try and build a decent side that can compete in the PL and compete in the infinitely more difficult CL at the same time, without bursting the bank.

Y'see how this FFP works now? It's a cartel and nothing more. City had to spend massive amounts of money just to break through the wall before the door slammed shut forever. They managed it. Just.
 
I think I'm probably fairly unique among Liverpool fans. I wouldn't want us to break the bank to compete in the CL next year. I'd like us to do well but if that means breaking our wage structure or our philosophy on buying players then I don't think it's worth it. As I say though, I'm probably alone in that!
 
I took it at face value that Financial Fair Play would be a way of making football finance fair! Seems naive now. I have since admitted that there seems to be some serious failings if you read back.

I see what you're saying. The same man who has invested hundreds of millions of pounds in players is also the same man that has wiped the debt clean and invested millions in the surrounding area. The club has lost nearly £150m in the last two years year and has spent nearly £150m on players in the last two years. Something doesn't seem right there. I've said I'm proud of Liverpool's attempt at spending wisely recently but I'm sure we're spending outside of our means too (especially given our lack of European football) and that the same would go for Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea etc.

It looks like, from what people are saying, that this FFP is just utter bollocks and doesn't really go any way to making anything fairer. In fact, it makes things less fair. What I'm saying then is that I'd support a genuine FFP that favours no one and is unfairly to the detriment of no one.
I agree with you. Any real fair rule would be welcomed. As it stands it just protects the "elite" cartel
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coop and Kinkladze
The further that Financial "Fairplay" goes on I am becoming more and more in favour of adopting the American-style salary and transfer rules here in Britain just so that this shambles will be put to an end and we will be freed from UEFA's corruption just that little bit. I draw the line at single entity though.