muniz
Well-known member
yep but the punishment is not final and can be appealed
Man City charged with multiple breaches of FFP
- Thread starter TeaCider
- Start date
muniz
Well-known member
just a way for the premier league to get a pay off too, uefa tried to hit them for 25m when banned them from champions league, only to have it over ruled and reduced to 9m, but they got the money they came for, I would imagine because its identical case they will go through the same, sporting punishments over ruled and fine reduced
newyddion
Well-known member
Pep walking.. Klopp.. to be kicked?
Chris Wilder must be rubbing his hands right now!
muniz
Well-known member
yeah dont come in to play until the summer though, thats why they hammered it this window, the record breaking transfer using the current rules over 8 years only took 15m of each years FFP limit, so if they all gone like that its really minimised it and probably kept them within FFP.
they really need to clamp down on the holes for sponsorship etc where they can pump in fake revenue, that would make it harder if sponsorship revenue for FFP was capped, would also be very interesting to see who's sponsorship revenue totally dropped off the minute it was capped lol
Caesium137
Well-known member
I honestly don't care about FFP, it is boIIocks. It just allows the biggest clubs to get bigger and outspend everyone. Why is it okay for Real, Barca, Man U etc. with world renowned history and sales to bring in and outspend everyone else, but if Chelsea and Man City spend like them to catch up they're cheating. It's bonkers, if it is legally sourced money and not debt saddle to the club it should be allowed IMO.
If this had always been the case our moment in the sun from the late nineties to early noughties would never have been allowed.
FFP has no effect, clubs spend what they want to, transfer fees and wages keep rising and the same 'super clubs' just keep out spending everyone anyway.
Sportwashing is a thing, it's not going to change.
Limit squad numbers and loan numbers, transfer windows seems to be artificially inflating transfer fees in the last few desperate days too, maybe change those.
But all clubs pretty much spend beyond their means, we're in £140million quid debt to Gibson O'Neil, is that fair to the Rotherhams and Wigans of the world? Should we just be wound up?
Football is fooked, as are we if we don't get a couple of seasons in the promised land.
If this had always been the case our moment in the sun from the late nineties to early noughties would never have been allowed.
FFP has no effect, clubs spend what they want to, transfer fees and wages keep rising and the same 'super clubs' just keep out spending everyone anyway.
Sportwashing is a thing, it's not going to change.
Limit squad numbers and loan numbers, transfer windows seems to be artificially inflating transfer fees in the last few desperate days too, maybe change those.
But all clubs pretty much spend beyond their means, we're in £140million quid debt to Gibson O'Neil, is that fair to the Rotherhams and Wigans of the world? Should we just be wound up?
Football is fooked, as are we if we don't get a couple of seasons in the promised land.
Cardiffdaffs
Well-known member
h_m_boro
Well-known member
Have to agree FFP is bollox, and is weighted massively towards the big European Top Teams maintaining the status quo.
Teams like Boro can't compete (apart from a random season or two) as we don't generate enough dosh..... we're not, not ever will be as attractive as the Man Us and Chelsea's and City's and Liverpool's. Only way we could compete is by joing the billionaires owners club......and personally you can stick that right up your ar*e.
If FFP were alive in the 70s then Forest etc would never have had the success they had. Image a CL final with Hamburg or Malmö?? No, me neither.
Lot of things could very easily be done to sort finances in football - squad size, salary cap, more stringent governance, more money to the lower clubs, suitable "fit and proper owners" tests - but this will never be done as, with society, the rich just want to keep making the £££££ however they can - f*,ck the other league clubs. When millions, billions are never enough ......
And as long as Sky continue to back this model, no change will ever be made.
Teams like Boro can't compete (apart from a random season or two) as we don't generate enough dosh..... we're not, not ever will be as attractive as the Man Us and Chelsea's and City's and Liverpool's. Only way we could compete is by joing the billionaires owners club......and personally you can stick that right up your ar*e.
If FFP were alive in the 70s then Forest etc would never have had the success they had. Image a CL final with Hamburg or Malmö?? No, me neither.
Lot of things could very easily be done to sort finances in football - squad size, salary cap, more stringent governance, more money to the lower clubs, suitable "fit and proper owners" tests - but this will never be done as, with society, the rich just want to keep making the £££££ however they can - f*,ck the other league clubs. When millions, billions are never enough ......
And as long as Sky continue to back this model, no change will ever be made.
Frozen Horse
Well-known member
I think you have to remember that, from UEFA's point of view, Man City are very much new money upstarts. The point of FFP is to stop any more clubs muscling in on the established elite's territory.
The whole point of the Champions League has been to reduce risk and stabilise cash flow.
Might not win the league and qualify each year? Never mind: 4th is good enough now.
Might get knocked out in the first round? OK, we'll have a protracted groups stage, then complain about too much domestic football...
I'd love to get back to the days when an East European team had a chance to win Europe's top competition, but competition has been systematically reduced.
I felt we missed a chance to move those clubs on from domestic football with the European Super League.
muniz
Well-known member
i'd love for FFP to be reduced to if you spend the money and put in a separately monitored bank account money set aside to pay the contract and transfer fees on purchase and you gift that money to the club as its spent from the account (without anything being registered as a debt) then I am fine with that, more money put into football which will trickle down to other clubs too and means unlike presently that clubs are not having to keep the debt on their books even if the owners never are going to cash in on it and expect a return payment.
if owners wanted to do that I have no problem with the rules and think it would be benifical to those who want to spend money to make an impact,
that or every league has set budget for wages and transfer fee combined every year, same for all clubs
if owners wanted to do that I have no problem with the rules and think it would be benifical to those who want to spend money to make an impact,
that or every league has set budget for wages and transfer fee combined every year, same for all clubs
clay
Well-known member
£170m
There are only 2 solutions. No FFP so teams can spend whatever they want or a set spending cap across Europe.
FFP is only there to protect the biggest clubs. It is there to stop teams like Newcastle being able to spend their way above Man Utd & Liverpool.
It was supposedly introduced as a way to stop clubs going bust but we all know it wasn't. It was to protect the finances of the big teams. They don't even compare about the competition. Fans do but the clubs themselves are only interested in the finances.
FFP is only there to protect the biggest clubs. It is there to stop teams like Newcastle being able to spend their way above Man Utd & Liverpool.
It was supposedly introduced as a way to stop clubs going bust but we all know it wasn't. It was to protect the finances of the big teams. They don't even compare about the competition. Fans do but the clubs themselves are only interested in the finances.
I would assume that most fans would want a system that promotes competition which is exactly what the big clubs don't want. There is no chance it will ever happen unfortunately.
Jonny Ingbar
Well-known member
I agree with some of that, but UEFA is pretty much at the behest of the big brand clubs, because they hold all the cards. They attract the big money in sponsorship and TV rights and without them UEFA would lose the majority of its power.
The Super League is a symptom of the elite clubs effectively locking in their success, in monetary terms and it was only due to pressure from fans that it failed and ended up as a huge PR disaster, but it's not dead by any means, only postponed. The Covid losses added to the urgency of the clubs involved, notably the Spanish ones who have crippling debt and no doubt accelerated the timeline, but it will be back on the table in time.
Let them break away. Would be the best thing that could happen to the domestic league in my opinion.
Form a new more competative domestic league with more stringent spending restrictions in place.
The only fans that would lose out is the fans who support those clubs.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
We were talking about this pre match in the pub on sat re Chelsea and juve etc I said Italy gets a lot of stick for corruption but Would the prem ever relegate their goose that lad the golden eggs like Italy did.
As juve makes serie a money relegating cost Italy massively. On and off the pitch
So would the prem ever relegate a big hitter like a Liverpool a Man U or now a Chelsea or Man City ???
As juve makes serie a money relegating cost Italy massively. On and off the pitch
So would the prem ever relegate a big hitter like a Liverpool a Man U or now a Chelsea or Man City ???