UEFA to propose FFP replacement plan

BeerIsTheBest

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
580
it’s a knee jerk proposal, on the back no doubt, of clubs complaining that PSG’s annual wage bill is going to be slightly larger than it’s annual turnover. It’s typical UEFA whacamole and as all sensible posters have already said does nothing get to the root of the problem.

UEFA are a shambles, infested with self serving officials and will continue to flop around trying to keep as many major stakeholders happy as possible. Keeping all happy, whilst trying to sharpen their latest blunt instrument to carefully stab us is nigh on impossible if we continue to finish in the top four.

I wonder if shareholder dividend payments will count as one component in the calculation of a clubs remuneration??
 

Newman Noggs

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Messages
8,276
Location
Gone fishin'
There was an article in the Athletic yesterday that did just that, as in spread the blame around. I don't disagree with anything you have said there but it doesn't change the point that the game is a bad state now. PSG would have paid anything for Messi and cooked the books as necessary, like it or not your club is associated with them in the eyes of everyone bar Man City and PSG fans. Spending £250m on 2 players won't change that perception.

But, as you said, that perception is there already based on various false premises propagated by united and liverpool placemen in the media.

We can afford £250m since we have the CL income and have been the preeminent club in the richest league in the world for 10 years now.

The hope that letting the other clubs break transfer record after transfer record would somehow result in fair treatment is gone. Now we will do what we are entitled to do and as others have before us.
 

StillBluessinceHydeRoad

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 Aug 2020
Messages
893
Team supported
City
It appears that UEFA have at least recognised the failure of FFP. Barcelona and, to an extent Inter, have shown that FFPR were irrelevant to the real financial difficulties which afflict clubs but a salary cap is unlikely to fare any better than the infamous break even rule. The trouble is that UEFA's aims appear confused, even unavowable. The prime aim appears to be to protect clubs from the reckless spending of their owners but this has degenerated into a protectionist obsession with preventing investment, especially in players and the salary cap is just a variation on this theme. If the result is continued restriction on investment AND a wage cap more clubs are going to be condemned to a totally uncompetitive season or, if the restraints on owner investment are removed, the owner will simply provide the capital to meet the higher wage bill and the gap between rich and poor will widen. It seems typical of the confused aims and thought of UEFA and no doubt it will be introduced with such haste that only later will they realise that the great beneficiaries are likely to be the increasingly able to pay PL clubs.
 

Brendan110_0

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Messages
4,467
Location
DO ONE
Should just remove all rules. Interference is making it worse, FFP essentially killed Inter and AC Milan . Maybe this’ll do in a few other cartel clubs. Happy days.
 

EricBrooksGhost

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 Oct 2010
Messages
2,538
Quite right. Simple metrics like maximum transfer spend or wage ratios simply don't address the key issues that cause financial problems. Generally these are due to clubs not being able to meet liabilities, such as tax bills or paying other creditors.

What nearly sent us into administration in 2008 was that we didn't have the £15m in cash to pay the second instalment of Sven's transfers. What La Liga have got right is that they don't really bother with what happened 3 years ago but what's likely to happen in the future. So, look at what's coming in, what's likely to be going out in operational costs and upcoming current liabilities (for transfers, trade creditors, etc) and any other financial issues (e.g. loan repayments).

The problem with using absolute measures like a maximum transfer spend of £100m is that there are other financial factors involved in transfers. Money in, amortisation, instalments, wages and bonuses. Much better to look at total player costs, which should be calculated as:

(amortisation + wages) - profit/(loss) on player transfers = total player cost

To illustrate this, back in 2017/18 when we bought Walker, Mendy, Bernardo, Ederson, etc, we spent over £200m gross and about £120m net. Yet, using that equation I outlined above, our overall player costs went up just £3.5m. That's virtually zero net spend yet what if we had to find £100m in 12 months that we'd struggle to find? A sensible financial regulation system would ring-fence that £100m and either offset any sales against it and/or restrict any other spending until it was paid.
Should apply stress testing like they do to the banks following the last crisis
 

Plays By Sense Of Smell

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 Sep 2011
Messages
7,486
it’s a knee jerk proposal, on the back no doubt, of clubs complaining that PSG’s annual wage bill is going to be slightly larger than it’s annual turnover. It’s typical UEFA whacamole and as all sensible posters have already said does nothing get to the root of the problem.

UEFA are a shambles, infested with self serving officials and will continue to flop around trying to keep as many major stakeholders happy as possible. Keeping all happy, whilst trying to sharpen their latest blunt instrument to carefully stab us is nigh on impossible if we continue to finish in the top four.

I wonder if shareholder dividend payments will count as one component in the calculation of a clubs remuneration??
This is what makes me happy. They expend huge efforts trying to chop the head off an already formidable snake, forgetting that it's a hydra and there are many others ready to take advantage whichever way things shift.

Sadly, their primary mission will soon become that of becoming master accountants with the aim of stopping us and keeping the cartel in nosebag, rather than what it should be, promoting fair and healthy footballing competition

By tying themselves in knots with overthought out grand plans, they only end up killing off half the sport. This is evident in exactly what some of our direct club competitors have been doing recently.
 

inbetween

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 Jan 2010
Messages
8,813
Fighting FFP can never succeed at the moment.

PSG are owned by Qatari Sports Investments, the chairman of which is PSG's chairman. This guy sits on UEFA's executive committee and has voting rights on whether FFP comes in or not. The same guy is chairman of BEin sports, who hold key rights to yes you guessed it, French and La Liga football TV.

You then have people like David Gill who also sits on UEFA's executive commitee and also is a non-executive director at United.

You even have the chairman of Bayern joining the executive committee this year, yes the bloke who famously criticises city at every single turn for spending. He is now calling for FFP to be reshaped after PSG have signed Messi, but of course no criticism of the signing itself.

Despite PSG signing Messi, Rummenigge has only said this about any clubs spending and FFP:

"Manchester City received a first-class acquittal in 2020 before the Court of Arbitration for Sport. That was the worst case for the statutes. You don't have to do anything major, but change a few small details."

"Rummenigge was alluding to a CAS decision in July of 2020 which saw City escape a two-year European football ban."

We cannot hope to win whilst football is regulated by itself and whilst HUGE conflicts of interest exist right at the heart of the organisation that determines the rules. Thank god there is an independent outlet for us (CAS).
 

Magicpole

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 Sep 2016
Messages
14,259
Location
Scotland
Team supported
Celtic
None of the FFP rules apply in Scotland. Rangers are nearly £100m in debt and the SFA dont seem to bother. They have had more loans than Greece and for the last five years have never balanced a budget. On the contrary, every year loses of over £12m. Took a large loan from the gov that's rules mean that gets repaid before any other loan or dividend. Dont get me wrong, the CL money this season will help bail them out......oh wait. But, Dave King did say they had over £200m of talent in the playing squad. Then again, Gerrard admitted they havent had one bid. I might be wrong, but the £200m might be a lie. I dont think I am. All eyes on them as they need the cash, but no **** wants their players at the price set by Mr King. I wish I liked popcorn.
 

Keeper!

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 Aug 2014
Messages
12,221
The biggest threat to us and ALL PL clubs is the Spanish, Italian and German leagues.

The premier league is crushing them financially and in talent drain.

They will do anything to stop it and hence the reason this crazy anti City propaganda must stop, ALL the PL clubs need to stick together, protect the league from a certain backlash from the rest of Europe.
 

OntarioBlue

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Jun 2016
Messages
8,562
In principle, I have no problem with salary caps but having one based on a percentage of income makes no sense at all.

i like the model used in the NFL where the salary cap is a fixed sum of money and applies to every team in the league. Players can be paid as much as they are able to negotiate with their teams but the total wage bill has to be contained in the salary cap. You might think this would disadvantage the “average “ players but the minimum salary for a NFL player is $610,000 a year, hardly chump change !

One thing I would like to see football adopt from North American sport is no transfer fees. Players over there are traded (usually for other players or future considertions such as draft picks) or move teams when they become free agents. I know it’s never going to happen here but IMO it’s worth looking at.
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.