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

[Theengelbert]

I guess if you look outside of it being some agenda against city and PSG then it is aiming to bring some normality to the transfer market. If you cap it at £100m as the most you can spend at one time (which should be about right) then hopefully the rest fall in line.. so eg JFE’s isn’t a £30m player anymore he’s a £10m player. It has gone just ridiculous recently I agree with that part of it.

Interestingly I feel like with our squad, youth policy and £100m per year in a changed market we’d still do very well. Looking at some of our big signings that generally are around the £50m mark then two of them a year would do nicely. We’re managing fine without galacticos

 

[aguero93:20]

When will they do something about clubs in debt?

They won't if the article is accurate. Talk of the allowed deficit (currently 30m) being changed to a percentage of turnover which would just allow the two most indebted clubs in football (rags and Madrid) to plunge themselves further into debt than they can now under current rules.

 

[aguero93:20]

I guess if you look outside of it being some agenda against city and PSG then it is aiming to bring some normality to the transfer market. If you cap it at £100m as the most you can spend at one time (which should be about right) then hopefully the rest fall in line.. so eg JFE’s isn’t a £30m player anymore he’s a £10m player. It has gone just ridiculous recently I agree with that part of it.

It won't work. WBA can look for that kind of money for a player like Evans because they've got premier league income. Price is as much affected by the sellers need to sell as it is the buyers need to buy.

In any case, better 27m to WBA and 3m to the agent than 10m to WBA and 20m to the agent.

 

[Theengelbert]

It won't work. WBA can look for that kind of money for a player like Evans because they've got premier league income. Price is as much affected by the sellers need to sell as it is the buyers need to buy.

In any case, better 27m to WBA and 3m to the agent than 10m to WBA and 20m to the agent.

Yep fair point.. there’s no way of stopping this in a fair way.

I always feel like any restrictions don’t harm us hugely anymore because of how established we are. The ones that suffer are sleeping giants that want to break into the top 4. Say if Everton or West Ham suddenly got bill gates as their owner soon they may not be able to do a City or a Chelsea and that seems unfair

 

[aguero93:20]

Yep fair point.. there’s no way of stopping this in a fair way.

I always feel like any restrictions don’t harm us hugely anymore because of how established we are. The ones that suffer are sleeping giants that want to break into the top 4. Say if Everton or West Ham suddenly got bill gates as their owner soon they may not be able to do a City or a Chelsea and that seems unfair

Yeah the original rules were aimed at stopping that as well but have fallen squarely on their arses ever since the gruesome twosome in Milan needed foreign investment. Which is proof if ever needed that the whole thing was a sham concocted to ossify a market and protect the market leaders of the time.

This seems more targeted at PSG and the Premier League as they've largely sidestepped the revenue based restrictions by being miles ahead of their European counterparts commercially. But UEFA are in no position to regulate a market, they can't for instance tell a club that made £300m in their last financial year that they can only have an outlay of £88m on player transfers. All they're doing is trying to protect Madrid, Barca, Bayern and Juve from being overtaken as the financial powerhouses. They should be telling those clubs to stop whinging and to pull their fingers out and get to work on their own finances. Barca complaining about Premier League's spending power when they've got 5 of the top 10 transfer fees paid and have just handed a player an €80m signing on bonus and close to a million a week in wages? Fuck off :)

 

[Henkeman]

That would be a clear restraint of trade I'd have thought.

 

[SWP's back]

Wouldn’t this rule just encourage clubs to stockpile and loan younger players to then sell on which is pretty much what Chelsea do (and us to a lesser extent)?

 

[aguero93:20]

Wouldn’t this rule just encourage clubs to stockpile and loan younger players to then sell on which is pretty much what Chelsea do (and us to a lesser extent)?

No, not if the article is correct and they want to limit professional registrations to 25 per club. Although that would just be an unmitigated disaster for young players as nearly all of them would be released at 17.

That would be a clear restraint of trade I'd have thought.

It is, but so was version 1.0

 

[Andrew___K]

Wouldn’t this rule just encourage clubs to stockpile and loan younger players to then sell on which is pretty much what Chelsea do (and us to a lesser extent)?

Just read the article. They suppose to restrict the number of players on the clubs' books.

 

[SWP's back]

No, not if the article is correct and they want to limit professional registrations to 25 per club. Although that would just be an unmitigated disaster for young players as nearly all of them would be released at 17.

What a fucking stupid rule.