Re: City & FFP (continued)
Chippy_boy said:
Prestwich_Blue said:
meltonblue said:
For all the comments on FFP and the impact it has on competition, I still think more could be said about it not actually being fit for purpose for it's initial stated aim, which was to protect clubs and improve their "financial health". I don't see how it can be when all it takes into account is the profit and loss, and even them some parts are exempt.
I think more should be done to challenge it just on that part, it still allows clubs to be laden with debt.
The competitive side of things, I don't think there will never be answer for in football as long as it is a free market.
That's what Dupont is challenging FFP on - not that it (or financial regulation) is illegal per se but the way in which it seeks to implement that.
The key question is (if your intention is to prevent "another Portsmouth") will it? And the answer is no.
I am not sure that is the basis of the challenge, although it may be part of it.
These are UEFA's stated objectives of FFP, taken directly from UEFA's website:
• to introduce more discipline and rationality in club football finances
• to decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect
• to encourage clubs to compete with(in) their revenues
• to encourage long-term investments in the youth sector and infrastructure
• to protect the long-term viability of European club football
• to ensure clubs settle their liabilities on a timely basis
This is broadly in line with what it says in Article 2(2) of the FFP regulations, but note the 2nd bullet! Surely this has got to be biggest problem and where it's most likely to fall down.
Melton blue makes a valid point. These aims are meant to be so obviously desirable that no-one can take issue with them, but, in fact, they become so vague that no-one really understands what they mean, and M. Dupont will argue that, though regulation of football finances may be a desirable objective, the regulation introduced by these regulations is so harmful that they are contrary to the law and worse than the present framework.
"Rationality" and "discipline" are words which have to be given meaning, because we don't recognise one "thing" as "rational" and we don't only accept one form of "discipline", and we reject completely some forms of both. UEFA has to show that their form of either is acceptable.
Uefa really are in trouble when it comes to "decreasing pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect". The first transfer window of the FFP regime shows that the regulations have failed. Barca have splashed out their record fee for Suarez after paying the fourth biggest fee of all time last summer for Neymar, Manchester United their's for Di Maria and have found a way of buying Falcao now for a record fee but avoiding any trouble with the regulations by a loan with compulsory purchase agreement which defers payment till next year. Real Madrid forked out the fifth biggest fee of all time on James. Three of the 6 biggest transfer fees of all time took place in this window, all by clubs operating within FFP, and the biggest of all time was last season by a club operating within the rules. Far from reducing transfer fees it simply means that only the "magic circle" will be allowed to compete for the best players, and Monaco were forced to sell two of them to avoid a thumping great UEFA fine...
This apparently is to "encourage clubs to compete with(in) their revenues." But it doesn't try to do that at all. There is no encouragement, but a swingeing set of sanctions available to pulverize clubs who don't. Oh, and we have to use the UEFA definition of "revenues" which, if you read on in the regs, doesn't allow investment from the owner. And, of course, the clubs that have been singled out for the heaviest fines ever imposed on sporting organisations are those who don't owe a penny. Very encouraging.
But this will encourage clubs to in "the youth sector and infrastructure." At the Etihad the new £200 million training complex and academy was nearing completion and the cranes had moved in to improve and increase capacity at the stadium, as UEFA decided on a world record fine for the club for... complying with the regulations on spending as they had been explained to the club over a period of 3 years...but not complying with the explanation given over the last 3 months. Very encouraging!
Never mind! The regulations will protect "the long term viability of European club football." Really? What it will do is make sure you can't threaten the preeminence of the "magic circle", but your club can sure as hell ruin itself and there's nothing your owner can do about it but sit and wach. These regs would not have saved Portsmouth or Leeds...and just look at how Fulham are faring right now. Strengthen - by selling all your players!
But it will force Manchester City to "settle their liabilities on a timely basis". But when will all those Spanish clubs have paid all their taxes?
