FFP - 21 Man Squad Restriction & Homegrown Quota

[I'm no cynic but...]

I've just spoken to the head of media at UEFA. Although not specifically stated in the rulings, the 4+4 rule will apply to both Paris and City even though the squad size is reduced to 21. I asked her to send me an email confirming, which she said she will do. I won't be holding my breath but lets see.

Well, that seems pretty conclusive. That's a definite restriction on us then, there will be some high profile, highly paid individuals watching the Champion's League from the stand this season then. I simple can't see how this wouldn't affect our summer transfer prospects.

As the media seem to be saying the same, I guess it will be this. I wrote earlier that UEFA will punish us for market activities, in which case it would be 13+8. However, I've had a bit of a rethink. The thirteen, yes, the four HG developed by the club, again yes, but where I'm left scratching my head is the remaining four players. Going by the money we have paid these past few years for players such as Milner, Barry, Lescott and Rodwell suggests that buying from abroad is a better way of working the transfer market, and to restrict City from including cheaper imports than is available at home is puzzling. Plus it is racist, although fines dished out for this is something that is barely recognised by UEFA.

 

[George Hannah]

I've just spoken to the head of media at UEFA. Although not specifically stated in the rulings, the 4+4 rule will apply to both Paris and City even though the squad size is reduced to 21. I asked her to send me an email confirming, which she said she will do. I won't be holding my breath but lets see.

Well, that seems pretty conclusive. That's a definite restriction on us then, there will be some high profile, highly paid individuals watching the Champion's League from the stand this season then. I simple can't see how this wouldn't affect our summer transfer prospects.

As the media seem to be saying the same, I guess it will be this. I wrote earlier that UEFA will punish us for market activities, in which case it would be 13+8. However, I've had a bit of a rethink. The thirteen, yes, the four HG developed by the club, again yes, but where I'm left scratching my head is the remaining four players. Going by the money we have paid these past few years for players such as Milner, Barry, Lescott and Rodwell suggests that buying from abroad is a better way of working the transfer market, and to restrict City from including cheaper imports than is available at home is puzzling. Plus it is racist, although fines dished out for this is something that is barely recognised by UEFA.

It sounds easy to put out a really good team and bench with these restrictions but it isn't. We just don't have the scope for quality cover no matter which way you slice it.

 

[Centurions]

I've just spoken to the head of media at UEFA. Although not specifically stated in the rulings, the 4+4 rule will apply to both Paris and City even though the squad size is reduced to 21. I asked her to send me an email confirming, which she said she will do. I won't be holding my breath but lets see.

Well, that seems pretty conclusive. That's a definite restriction on us then, there will be some high profile, highly paid individuals watching the Champion's League from the stand this season then. I simple can't see how this wouldn't affect our summer transfer prospects.

As the media seem to be saying the same, I guess it will be this. I wrote earlier that UEFA will punish us for market activities, in which case it would be 13+8. However, I've had a bit of a rethink. The thirteen, yes, the four HG developed by the club, again yes, but where I'm left scratching my head is the remaining four players. Going by the money we have paid these past few years for players such as Milner, Barry, Lescott and Rodwell suggests that buying from abroad is a better way of working the transfer market, and to restrict City from including cheaper imports than is available at home is puzzling. Plus it is racist, although fines dished out for this is something that is barely recognised by UEFA.

Ahh, but there's the rub...

The media seem as divided as Bluemoon on the issue. On the 17+4 side we have Setanta and on the 13+8 side we have the Daily Fail, SSN I think edited there take on it from 13+8 to now say 4 to 8 HG which seems a bit like fence sitting to me. I can't see anywhere where SSN was quoted to confirm that but they did edit it. The article itself is here :- http://www1.skysports.com/football/...ards-among-stars-set-to-leave-manchester-city

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Question for Platini....

Have you asked Sky, ITV, and other broadcasting media, plus advertising agencies and corporate sponsors for their views on broadcasting a substandard competition to diminishing masses, based purely on a fit of pique?

 

[Cobwebcat]

It's all illegal


Last week, City was hit with an $82 million fine and squad restrictions for next season's Champions League, while PSG also received a heavy financial punishment.
Dupont argues clubs won't risk taking UEFA on in the courts because it might lead to their expulsion from the Champions League or the Europa League and disrupt their transfer activities.
Additionally, they have the feeling that the political cost would be high, said the Belgian lawyer. It's a threat that has ensured UEFA has faced little opposition over FFP.
"Pay me €60 million or I will expel you from competitions, which will cause you an even bigger damage," said Dupont.
UEFA rejects Jean-Louis Dupont argument

1. FFP is similar to financial prudential rules e.g. capital adequacy rules imposed on banks

2. FFP enhances competition through improving managerial incentives in football

3. Clubs are encouraged to invest in training and infrastructure rather than "payroll-gambling"

4. The break-even rule does not prevent clubs competing for the services of players

5. It simply ensures that such competition is not distorted by clubs living beyond their means

6. FFP rules emerged from a wide-reaching consultative process involving all relevant stakeholders in European football. As such, there is no doubt that the rules have democratic legitimacy since they were the product of an inclusive and democratic process.

7. The substantive content of the rules -- especially the break-even principle, based on the idea that you "don't spend more than you earn" -- is just economic common sense and a sensible prudential rule

8. The rules have been applied by an independent expert body -- UEFA Club Financial Control Body -- which follows the model of "separation of powers" i.e. independence of the judiciary to ensure impartiality and objectivity in decision making.
"This is clearly a threat of expulsion. Again, a major crime under European competition law. And even more so since this threat aims at enforcing a rule that, itself, violates competition law."
Dupont also argues part of the punishment handed out to City -- where its squad for next season's Champions League has been reduced from 25 players to 21 with at least eight of those having to be home grown -- is also "illegal."
UEFA's homegrown players rule requires at least eight players in a European squad to have been trained domestically for three years between the ages of 15 and 21 -- a rule which Dupont says is open to challenge.
"The whole UEFA home grown player system violates EU Law," said the Belgian lawyer who is based in Barcelona.
"This rule violates free movement of workers and harms free competition without any solid justification.
"In other words, if any club or player challenges this rule tomorrow in court, the judge -- based on EU law -- will have no choice but to declare this UEFA rule null and void."
Intriguingly, Dupont urged the supporters of the nine clubs sanctioned by UEFA to become involved in the battle against FFP.
"Million and millions of people could challenge FFP tomorrow," said Dupont, who is already contesting the FFP regulations through the courts in a case he is fighting on behalf of football agent Daniel Striani.
"The fans can do this through their associations. They are the consumers of the football product and the ultimate aim of competition law is to protect the consumers.
"They are free to join the complaint lodged by my client, player agent Daniel Striani, with the European Commission and the civil action he has launched in the Brussels court.
"They could even ask the Brussels judge to stay the execution of the Uefa FFP regulation -- and of the sanctions based on it - until he renders his judgment on the merits.
"Since the break-even rule will stop for ever the vast majority of clubs from challenging the existing top European clubs, the fans of these 'underdog' clubs have a legitimate interest and can ask the judge to declare the break-even rule null and void.
"And the same goes for (for instance) the sponsors of all these clubs."
It was nearly 20 years ago that Dupont, who helped Belgian footballer Jean-Marc Bosman change European law in 1995 to allow players to move for free at the end of their contract.
Whether it change European law for a second time remains to be seen.

 

[cibaman]

The only one that causes us a practical inconvenience appears to be this CL squad one. Sure, two or three players might have to be sacrificed but we can still put out a mighty team with all our major players in it.

The transfer fee cap is probably neutral as is the wages cap and the prize money being withheld. That is, neither good nor bad for us.

The revised FFP assessment process and targets actually benefits us greatly in my view.

There might be other, unwritten concessions that we've got behind the scenes as a reward for playing ball. Like no more Swedish referees or an easier team from Pot 1.

LOL at your last point, but regarding the others, the fine is a bit shit as all the speculation was that it would not hit our ffp calculations, but the fact that we get reduced prize money means it clearly does. But the 13 foreign player restriction is bad - it does not sound bad until you factor in substitutions, suspensions, injuries, rotations etc, and we are immediately at the bare bones; also the impact on current players not selected will be bad, as well the ability to recruit new players.

You've not been paying attention, we can still count the withheld CL prize money for next seasons (and the following seasons) FFPR calculations.
As for the 13+8 player cap we still don't know for certain even if it's true.
I'm starting to wonder whether City presumed 17+4 while UEFA were thinking 13+8 without saying anything to us. I've got this image of vitriolic emails and phone calls flying back and forth today with City threatening to ditch the entire thing and go the legal route after all.

It was first leaked that we were facing squad restrictions about 3 weeks ago. Since then we've been negotiating with UEFA before deciding whether to accept the penalties, which have been described by the club as a compromise. Surely at least half a day of those discussions would have focused on how many foreign players we would be allowed? I just cant see City making a decision on whether or not to accept the sanctions without first having nailed that point.

 

[NMB]

It was first leaked that we were facing squad restrictions about 3 weeks ago. Since then we've been negotiating with UEFA before deciding whether to accept the penalties, which have been described by the club as a compromise. Surely at least half a day of those discussions would have focused on how many foreign players we would be allowed? I just cant see City making a decision on whether or not to accept the sanctions without first having nailed that point.



Agree with the above. As I have said earlier in the thread, it could be that both UEFA and City are waiting for the 10 day appeal period to elapse before issuing a clarification thus avoiding the noise of the likes of Wenger for a short while at least.

 

[Cityfan]

It was first leaked that we were facing squad restrictions about 3 weeks ago. Since then we've been negotiating with UEFA before deciding whether to accept the penalties, which have been described by the club as a compromise. Surely at least half a day of those discussions would have focused on how many foreign players we would be allowed? I just cant see City making a decision on whether or not to accept the sanctions without first having nailed that point.

We don't know what has been negotiated and can't really guess but it may well be that the squad reduction was definitely for two seasons and possibly a third and we have got it down to possibly one if we behave ourselves. Just because the settlement may not be ideal does not mean that the original proposed was not a lot worse.

 

[cibaman]

It was first leaked that we were facing squad restrictions about 3 weeks ago. Since then we've been negotiating with UEFA before deciding whether to accept the penalties, which have been described by the club as a compromise. Surely at least half a day of those discussions would have focused on how many foreign players we would be allowed? I just cant see City making a decision on whether or not to accept the sanctions without first having nailed that point.



Agree with the above. As I have said earlier in the thread, it could be that both UEFA and City are waiting for the 10 day appeal period to elapse before issuing a clarification thus avoiding the noise of the likes of Wenger for a short while at least.

But if it turns out to be 17+4, wont Wenger and co cry foul?

 

[Ducado]

It was first leaked that we were facing squad restrictions about 3 weeks ago. Since then we've been negotiating with UEFA before deciding whether to accept the penalties, which have been described by the club as a compromise. Surely at least half a day of those discussions would have focused on how many foreign players we would be allowed? I just cant see City making a decision on whether or not to accept the sanctions without first having nailed that point.



Agree with the above. As I have said earlier in the thread, it could be that both UEFA and City are waiting for the 10 day appeal period to elapse before issuing a clarification thus avoiding the noise of the likes of Wenger for a short while at least.

Good thinking! I know there are people who disagree with me but all I can see is a classic compromise situation, something like OK don't take this all the way (because we know we would lose) but lets give you some quite neutral sanctions, the headline being a £50 million fine (which turns out to be nothing of the sort) but lets make the plastic masses think we are punishing you