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

[Henkeman]

The problem they have with getting this through is that quite a few of the old G14 will be strongly against it - specifically the English clubs. Last time it was unanimous as the target was plainly City and PSG and it was in the interests of the likes of United to try and stop them. This time it would hamper United every bit as much as anyone else. They might only have one vote each, but the dubious legality of such a scheme allied to the strongest league in UEFA being opposed means I can't see how it could get through as proposed. They were sailing so close to the wind in legal terms last time - something so obviously in the self-interest of a few and aimed squarely at preventing competition has serious problems.

 

[schfc6]

So what will the limitation of transfer expenses really do?

1. There will be players who can not change clubs anymore, because they will cost more than 100 million.
2. Wages will go up, as it will be the way for the big clubs to attract the best players.

It looks to me like the best players will still end up at the biggest clubs, and it will be even more difficult for smaller clubs to grow bigger. All in all nothing new it seems.

If it's based on net spend as mooted, then we will see most clubs adopting the Chelsea model. Have 30-40 players out on loan and hope 20% of them make an impact and get sold for big money.

 

[BlueAnorak]

For FFP to work as originally intended:
Available spend = Income- debt.
Salary Cap = Same max across the board based on available spend.
Net Transfer Cap = Same max actoss the board based on available spend.
Mandatory transfer fee for players winding down contracts in leagues with minimal completion for the main prize.

But that isn't going to happen is It?

 

[dickie davies]

For FFP to work as originally intended:
Available spend = Income- debt.
Salary Cap = Same max across the board
Net Transfer Cap = Same actoss the biard.
Mandatory transfer fee for players winding down contracts in leagues with minimal completion for the main prize.

But that isn't going to happen is It?

A salary cap can't be implemented because of currency exchange rates
And I think the same applies to transfers

 

[Eds]

Yeah think they saying 90m net but how we going to sell a player for 150m when that club can’t spend more than 90m net? It will mean that club will have to sell first as well it’s a shambles.

Thanks - seems bonkers if you ask me. Why don't they just go out and say that there is a transfer fee and salary cap for all clubs wearing blue who play in a stadium in Manchester.

 

[scousemanc]

Thanks - seems bonkers if you ask me. Why don't they just go out and say that there is a transfer fee and salary cap for all clubs wearing blue who play in a stadium in Manchester.

You could get a job with UEFA

 

[Mid Wales blue]

It's 100M. You would need to sell a player for 10M to make the limit.

This could have bosman ramifications.
If say a club can’t spend more than the 90 million net, in any financial year, then this will have knock on affects to the contracts a player signed.
Any club can put an out of reach price on all players that they don’t want to lose. And in doing so restrict the contracted players progression.

Currently clubs (apart from the elite) buy players, not only as playing staff for the here and now, but as a future investment. These players are also using the club as a developing place, and also a shop window.

At the moment this works both ways fairly well. But as soon as the maximum spend comes in, then the players won’t want to go to a development club, as fear of having to see out a contract, due to what the club value that player at.

More contracts will be signed over longer periods for young players, currently average 4 to 5 years, probably increased to 6 to 8 years. Any players who for some reason, feel their playing time is being restricted, or have not settled at a club, will be stuck there, due to spend and squad caps.

With smaller squad size, comes the problem of less players available to choose from, thus increasing the value of “all players across the board”.

Restrictions placed on the football clubs of Europe, will end up with a league that mirrors the MLS. TV revenue will soon leave the game as it will become as sterile as Soccer in the States.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

There are no new rules yet. There is a proposal without many details.

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.

 

[Eds]

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.

Your last sentence means it will never be implemented how you suggest...

 

[Blue Mist]

Martin Samuel has done a great article and he highlights why this is likely to come in. It is to stop us. Last I heard Samuel was not part of the Manchester City Conspiracy Forum that regularly gets slagged off on here. He is an independent, well respected journalist and he says quite simply it is to stop us (and PSG)