City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

Prestwich_Blue said:
Correct. It doesn’t make sense as it stands so I wouldn’t expect to see it implemented as a pure net spend figure, although nothing would surprise me.

For example, at the end of last season, we released 5 players who were at the end of their contracts. That’s 5 lots of wages off the bottom line so let’s say that’s £25m. That means we could buy a player for £90m (who we’d amortise at £18m a year) and pay him £130k a week (£6.5m a year), meaning we’d be no worse off than we were before. But theoretically we’d be in breach of the net spend limit of €100m (c£86m). That seems daft if implemented in that way & completely contrary to the notion of clubs living within their means.

If they are seeking to control transfer spending then I’d suggest one of two ways to do it:

1) Set out a formula that can be applied to all clubs that balances revenue, profits, fees & wages paid, player sales & profits/losses on those sales. So something like:
(Amortisation + wages on new players) - (amortisation & wages on players sold/released) cannot exceed more than 10% of turnover + 20% of any profits on player trading or minus 50% of any losses.

2) Set out a player pricing formula to be applied across UEFA that set a price based on a number of variables that might include:
  • Player age
  • Player position
  • Number of first team games played
  • Number of caps
  • Nationality (on the grounds that a 25 year old Spanish midfield player with 50 caps is likely to be worth more than a similar Moldovan one)
  • Maybe some sort of Opta rating
Both of those would make it a more level playing field in some ways.
Click to expand...

This would be a good idea but the change is being driven by Real, Barca and Bayern - so guess What?
 
Some of the unintended consequences are interesting:

- if there is an imperative to generate income, no player will ever be allowed to run down a contract.

- If no one is allowed to make a big purchase without offloading a lot of players to balance the books, there will be a natural ceiling on transfer fees. No club will be able to afford to buy Neymar/Mbappe etc at current prices, because they would need to sell in order to do it. Instead, there will be a smaller price gap between the top players and cheaper players. As a result, there will be greater a competition for players, and players and agents will exploit that: if you want too woo a major player, you will have to turn their heads with massive wages. Then they'll put in a transfer request. The selling club will suffer.

- the Chelsea/City model of buying lots of top young players and loaning them out will continue, as it will enable big clubs to make a profit in the transfer market cheaply.

Overall, I'm not convinced these are positive changes.
 
Whats funny about if this FFP2.0 comes in as currently drafted is all these players that have been bought for mega money

Van Dijk
Lukaku
Pogba
Neymar
Mbappe
Courtinho
et al

are now resulted in being in negative equity as Transfer fees are now going to be slashed right back. Our record fee is Laporte today at 55mil, showing how much value we are getting at the moment and correct not to have been throwing mega cash on single players.

City ruining football since forever
 
This FFP nonsense should be subjected to legal challenge. If our premier league collectively had any sense they should challenge it as being in breach of free competition. As it is it may be down to an individual club to present a legal challenge. Personally I don't see why it can't be left to each club to decide on its own financial policy for better or worse, and if it means a club suffers at the hands of a ten bob millionaire so be it and if a billionaire buys Newcastle for example then good luck to them - it makes the league more interesting.
The whole FIFA set up stinks of controlling it for the benefit of a self proclaimed entitled minority and good on Martin Samuels for being one of the few journalists prepared to speak out against it
 
Graceyboy said:
Whats funny about if this FFP2.0 comes in as currently drafted is all these players that have been bought for mega money

Van Dijk
Lukaku
Pogba
Neymar
Mbappe
Courtinho
et al

are now resulted in being in negative equity as Transfer fees are now going to be slashed right back. Our record fee is Laporte today at 55mil, showing how much value we are getting at the moment and correct not to have been throwing mega cash on single players.

City ruining football since forever
Click to expand...


I’m not an expert but haven’t these deals been done by these “elite” clubs now so that they avoid the new rules - because they can’t be backdated. Therefore only transfers from the date the rules come in will count. It just means future transfers will have to take account of the maximum net transfer of 100m. All transfers fees could potentially drop but it will mean players will be cheaper.

I suspect the rags were given the heads up some time ago and thus the Sanchez deal was approved and rushed through.
 
This new wheeze from UEFA is yet another blatant attempt to prevent investment by clubs and falls foul of competition law, as obviously as FFP 1.0 does. I believe cases concerning FFP 1.0 are still making their way slowly through the system and this plan seems likely only to enlarge the numbers queuing to have their day in court. It will reduce the opportunities of mobility open to players and without some control of wages - which really is a can of worms for UEFA - it will only increase the attraction of clubs basking in the PL TV deal. If the PL loses its ability to attract and buy top quality players from Europe (on which much of its global popularity depends) Sky and BT may well test the regulations in court. Win or lose that would not be good news for coverage (and sponsorship) of the CL.

The problem is that UEFA joined the headlong rush with the other pigs to the trough years ago to attract huge revenues and have not given a thought to the consequences for the game. Now a certain club with business nouse, and a concern for the game as a community experience, which far exceeds their own, UEFA's only answer is to pretend the revenues don't exist and can't be spent - apart from their own. Yet again UEFA are showing they are not fit to be the governing body of European football. This scheme is more likely to encourage a breakaway than discourage it.
 
CC1 said:
I’m not an expert but haven’t these deals been done by these “elite” clubs now so that they avoid the new rules - because they can’t be backdated. Therefore only transfers from the date the rules come in will count. It just means future transfers will have to take account of the maximum net transfer of 100m. All transfers fees could potentially drop but it will mean players will be cheaper.

I suspect the rags were given the heads up some time ago and thus the Sanchez deal was approved and rushed through.
Click to expand...

What? You mean someone like, for example, David Gill, in his role as a UEFA executive member, gave the rags the heads up to do this? Don't believe it for one moment.
You'll be telling me next that the governing body is corrupt and only interested in protecting the status quo they had in the past.
 
crazyg said:
What? You mean someone like, for example, David Gill, in his role as a UEFA executive member, gave the rags the heads up to do this? Don't believe it for one moment.
You'll be telling me next that the governing body is corrupt and only interested in protecting the status quo they had in the past.
Click to expand...


So you agree then lol!! It was a strange thing for the rags to do - offering such high wages - needed to be done before new rules come in. I’d be interested to hear Prestwich Blues views. He’s normally spot on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.