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.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
gouldybob
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Couldn't this actually help us?
If third party ownership disappeared Portuguese, Italian and to some extent Spanish clubs couldn't afford to buy some of the up and coming South American players. This would give us the opportunity to pick up some talent before it has a £30M buy out clause, if Porto or one of the other clubs are skint use them as a feeder club to get them up to quality before we bring them over here.
moomba said:I think 3rd party ownership does have an impact on FFP. We buy a £30m player on a five year contract and it costs £6m a year plus wages. Porto buys a £30m player on a third party deal and it costs them much less as a large part of the transfer fee and wages is borne by the third party.
In reality though it's just one of the ways FFP is unfair, it shoukd be getting banned for reasons other than FFP.
Couldn't this actually help us?
If third party ownership disappeared Portuguese, Italian and to some extent Spanish clubs couldn't afford to buy some of the up and coming South American players. This would give us the opportunity to pick up some talent before it has a £30M buy out clause, if Porto or one of the other clubs are skint use them as a feeder club to get them up to quality before we bring them over here.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Definitely
gouldybob said:moomba said:I think 3rd party ownership does have an impact on FFP. We buy a £30m player on a five year contract and it costs £6m a year plus wages. Porto buys a £30m player on a third party deal and it costs them much less as a large part of the transfer fee and wages is borne by the third party.
In reality though it's just one of the ways FFP is unfair, it shoukd be getting banned for reasons other than FFP.
Couldn't this actually help us?
If third party ownership disappeared Portuguese, Italian and to some extent Spanish clubs couldn't afford to buy some of the up and coming South American players. This would give us the opportunity to pick up some talent before it has a £30M buy out clause, if Porto or one of the other clubs are skint use them as a feeder club to get them up to quality before we bring them over here.
Definitely
danebanksheik
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Not sure it would help but for an entirely unconnected reason. UK work permit rules would not allow us to buy many of these South American youngsters. Portugal has significantly lower tolerances and the historical connection with Brazil and other "colonies" helps them in that regard with languages and acceptable passports.
Third party ownership is wrong in that it is so open to abuse and financial fraud especially in the South American countries and for me it is right that FIFA do something about it but its a shame that Blatter is doing it because everything he does stinks and will end up with a ham-fisted solution that wont actually solve the problem.
All i ask is they get on with it and then move to the final pieces of the jigsaw to bring in some real fairnness
-making financial adjustments to clubs benefitting from single and not league based TV deals
-stopping clubs operating with leveraged or long term debts
moomba said:gouldybob said:moomba said:I think 3rd party ownership does have an impact on FFP. We buy a £30m player on a five year contract and it costs £6m a year plus wages. Porto buys a £30m player on a third party deal and it costs them much less as a large part of the transfer fee and wages is borne by the third party.
In reality though it's just one of the ways FFP is unfair, it shoukd be getting banned for reasons other than FFP.
Couldn't this actually help us?
If third party ownership disappeared Portuguese, Italian and to some extent Spanish clubs couldn't afford to buy some of the up and coming South American players. This would give us the opportunity to pick up some talent before it has a £30M buy out clause, if Porto or one of the other clubs are skint use them as a feeder club to get them up to quality before we bring them over here.
Definitely
Not sure it would help but for an entirely unconnected reason. UK work permit rules would not allow us to buy many of these South American youngsters. Portugal has significantly lower tolerances and the historical connection with Brazil and other "colonies" helps them in that regard with languages and acceptable passports.
Third party ownership is wrong in that it is so open to abuse and financial fraud especially in the South American countries and for me it is right that FIFA do something about it but its a shame that Blatter is doing it because everything he does stinks and will end up with a ham-fisted solution that wont actually solve the problem.
All i ask is they get on with it and then move to the final pieces of the jigsaw to bring in some real fairnness
-making financial adjustments to clubs benefitting from single and not league based TV deals
-stopping clubs operating with leveraged or long term debts
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
It wouldn't stop us buying them, we just couldn't immediately play them. They would simply do exactly what they do now which is to play in Portugal for 3 seasons while getting experience/EU passport/national team appearances to enable them to get a UK work permit. That said with the academy looking promising it should only be for the occasional possible superstar.danebanksheik said:moomba said:gouldybob said:Couldn't this actually help us?
If third party ownership disappeared Portuguese, Italian and to some extent Spanish clubs couldn't afford to buy some of the up and coming South American players. This would give us the opportunity to pick up some talent before it has a £30M buy out clause, if Porto or one of the other clubs are skint use them as a feeder club to get them up to quality before we bring them over here.
Definitely
Not sure it would help but for an entirely unconnected reason. UK work permit rules would not allow us to buy many of these South American youngsters. Portugal has significantly lower tolerances and the historical connection with Brazil and other "colonies" helps them in that regard with languages and acceptable passports.
Third party ownership is wrong in that it is so open to abuse and financial fraud especially in the South American countries and for me it is right that FIFA do something about it but its a shame that Blatter is doing it because everything he does stinks and will end up with a ham-fisted solution that wont actually solve the problem.
All i ask is they get on with it and then move to the final pieces of the jigsaw to bring in some real fairnness
-making financial adjustments to clubs benefitting from single and not league based TV deals
-stopping clubs operating with leveraged or long term debts
citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 13,194
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Maybe in the short term, but would it in the longer term? At the moment, when they sell someone, they only get a small part of the fee. In the future they'd get it all, giving them more money to buy the next batch of South American youngsters
moomba said:Atletico for example will fall away if 3rd party deals are scrapped. I think about 3/4's of their squad are owned by someone else.
What makes your opponents weaker ...
Maybe in the short term, but would it in the longer term? At the moment, when they sell someone, they only get a small part of the fee. In the future they'd get it all, giving them more money to buy the next batch of South American youngsters
citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 13,194
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I think it's more likely they'd be able to buy fewer players initially, but doubt they'd be unable to afford any
moomba said:But if they can't afford to pay the full price for the player in the first place they can't sell for a big profit.
I think it's more likely they'd be able to buy fewer players initially, but doubt they'd be unable to afford any
Re: City & FFP (continued)
And how would they then be able to compete with the likes of Real Madrid, who (Real Madrid) are 600m Euros in debt but can afford to purchase players via sponsorship, etc?
citizen_maine said:moomba said:But if they can't afford to pay the full price for the player in the first place they can't sell for a big profit.
I think it's more likely they'd be able to buy fewer players initially, but doubt they'd be unable to afford any
And how would they then be able to compete with the likes of Real Madrid, who (Real Madrid) are 600m Euros in debt but can afford to purchase players via sponsorship, etc?