Which could always happen.
Or do you think every European Cup winner finished 1st in their league that season as well?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UEFA to propose FFP replacement plan
- Thread starter MCFC1993
- Start date
Which could always happen.
Or do you think every European Cup winner finished 1st in their league that season as well?
They might, but that is still a disadvantage in that they have to pay extra to employ players and that extra goes to their rivals.Will they not just pay the “luxury” tax?Particularly if the Saudi’s buy them.
Georgian Maestro
Well-Known Member
Aston villa finished 11th the year they won the European cup.....and ends up being won by a team that are sixth in their domestic league.
What % are we currently at for wages to turnover?
Around 57%
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 16,726
- Team supported
- FC Zurich (and city of course)
Ffs.Aston villa finished 11th the year they won the European cup.
Why not say that everyone can spend the same? Limit every team to a max of 100m in transfers or limit everyone to 20m in wages or whatever.
Let the well run clubs succeed whether they are Everton or Brentford or United or City or whoever.
Let the badly run clubs disappear into the history clubs. Why is that so bad? We constantly deal with threats in our lives, climate change for example will reshape the world in the next 100 years. Losing the odd club because they weren't good at sums seems OK to me... even if it was City (God forbid).
Football is too fuckin precious.
Let the well run clubs succeed whether they are Everton or Brentford or United or City or whoever.
Let the badly run clubs disappear into the history clubs. Why is that so bad? We constantly deal with threats in our lives, climate change for example will reshape the world in the next 100 years. Losing the odd club because they weren't good at sums seems OK to me... even if it was City (God forbid).
Football is too fuckin precious.
dickie davies
Well-Known Member
According to the financial experts on twitter, about 174%What % are we currently at for wages to turnover?
City has the wages it declares and then there's all the money that isn't
That would leave Barca needing a negative wage bill. Fine by me!Exactly.
Why not have the 70% rule, but that percentage drops by 1% for every 25 million of debt?
Seems such a fair and easy option to implement, which would encourage income to be used to pay down debt instead towards expensive player contracts.
The short answer is that limits on the P&L are unfair since clubs need different strategies depending on their circumstances. For example, Aberdeen would need to pay over the odds wages to attract anybody to the frozen north.Why not say that everyone can spend the same? Limit every team to a max of 100m in transfers or limit everyone to 20m in wages or whatever.
Let the well run clubs succeed whether they are Everton or Brentford or United or City or whoever.
Let the badly run clubs disappear into the history clubs. Why is that so bad? We constantly deal with threats in our lives, climate change for example will reshape the world in the next 100 years. Losing the odd club because they weren't good at sums seems OK to me... even if it was City (God forbid).
Football is too fuckin precious.
The second objection is that it would not protect clubs from debt, which is the real killer. Debt arises from two directions, not just over spending but also lack of enough income.
Football isn't fair and never has been, from day dot the teams with the most money have had an unfair advantage. Add in highly populated areas and you had the recipe for success. What is different about now to literally every other year since the ball was invented is the consequences or lack of them. Huddersfield, Notts County, Man Utd, Liverpool, Leeds, all relegated as a result of poor management. Everyone bar Arsenal has felt the feeling of bad decisions catching up on you. Although they were all owned by rich people (probably the richest people in their area) bad decision on top of bad decision had serious repercussions. When City signed Lee Bradbury for a club record fee the consequences of him being shit are what they should be when you make stupid decisions.The problem UEFA has is that football has never been fair financially and never will be, but because in their hubris they called their attempts to stop new investment in the sport "fair play" they have convinced a generation of fans that football should be fair.
With that name they made a promise they could never and will never be able to keep.
The only way you can have a fair sport is if it exists in a bubble like the American sports - revenue sharing, wage caps, minimum salaries, standardised max contracts.
But even that's not fair because if you play for a team in California you'll pay 15% more income tax then if you're in Texas, so they can pay their players less!
Sport isn't fair, it never has been and people need to accept that instead of pretending that this unfairness is new or contrary to the ideas of the sport.
That consequence doesn't exist any longer for Man City or PSG, it literally doesn't exist. PSG could tack another zero onto Messi's wages and it would have zero effect to them but for the pesky financial rules. They could stick 2 zeros on and not give a shit. While money has always dominated the sport its always had a limit up until this point. They have turned the treadmill up to 50 and asked the history clubs to keep up, Barcelona and Inter have already fallen off, from what I hear Man Utd have rolled the dice and need to get very lucky or they're next. If this doesn't change then you will be the rich kids with the only ball on the street but nobody wants to play with you.