What's new

Financial Fair Play rules?

yawa

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2005
12,589
9,414
Chelsea run a separate import export business where they import good young players with absolutely no intention of them ever playing for Chelsea, loan them out for a couple of years then export them, selling them on for a profit.
30 players out on loan an average £10 to £15 million profit on each one is £300 to £450 million revenue, ffp my arse.

Wrong as this may be. Isn't this really good business?
 

Led's Zeppelin

Can't Re Member
May 28, 2013
7,333
20,178
Yep, limited to 22.

That's right. But again, when the average price of each player is probably about £40m and growing it's not much of a penalty is it?

I think you're right, it has prevented bankruptcies.

I don't think it's done nearly enough to redistribute wealth though, which is not my politics speaking but an attempt to recognise the realities of the game. Without good facilities for young and amatuer players and as a consequence of that, without a healthy network of small local amateur, semi-pro and fully professional clubs everywhere, there would be no Real Madrid and the handful of others who sit safely at the top of the heap.

I don't know whether FIFA/ UEFA deliberately set out to preserve the status quo at the top, or whether it was an accidental effect of not thinking the whole process through from top to bottom, in the face of fierce opposition and influence from vested interests that must have made the job next to impossible. In either event, the effect has, I believe, been to reduce competition and that is bad for the game in the long run.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
That's right. But again, when the average price of each player is probably about £40m and growing it's not much of a penalty is it?

I think you're right, it has prevented bankruptcies.

I don't think it's done nearly enough to redistribute wealth though, which is not my politics speaking but an attempt to recognise the realities of the game. Without good facilities for young and amatuer players and as a consequence of that, without a healthy network of small local amateur, semi-pro and fully professional clubs everywhere, there would be no Real Madrid and the handful of others who sit safely at the top of the heap.

I don't know whether FIFA/ UEFA deliberately set out to preserve the status quo at the top, or whether it was an accidental effect of not thinking the whole process through from top to bottom, in the face of fierce opposition and influence from vested interests that must have made the job next to impossible. In either event, the effect has, I believe, been to reduce competition and that is bad for the game in the long run.

I think they wanted to get it passed which means they needed the backing of the majority of the clubs. I also think that they wanted to stop the bigger clubs from forming their own super league which could have also had a dramatic effect on smaller clubs.

I agree that we need to do something to create better equality in football across europe but uefa cannot do that alone. It would have to be done at government level because clubs could just fuck off.
Ceferin talked about it earlier in the year.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....mail-breakaway-european-super-league-football

The spanish government had to intervene to bring in new television deal rules to make the distribution of money more equal.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
If you really want football to be more equal then we will have to scrap cl and europa replace them with an fa cup format that all the top league teams from around europe participate in. Teams from smaller leagues (luxemborg, malta, cyprus etc...) could play the first couple of rounds then the bigger leagues join in. One legged games. With money for progressing each round.
You would see sponsorship money drop for the biggest teams and the money would be spread more evenly.
Match this with wages not exceeding 60% of turnover and transfer spending set at no more than 25% of turnover.

Smaller teams would get further and big teams could get knocked out in the first game.

Wont happen. Just wishful thinking but it would help.
 

jamesinashby

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
465
985
That's right. But again, when the average price of each player is probably about £40m and growing it's not much of a penalty is it?

I think you're right, it has prevented bankruptcies.

I don't think it's done nearly enough to redistribute wealth though, which is not my politics speaking but an attempt to recognise the realities of the game. Without good facilities for young and amatuer players and as a consequence of that, without a healthy network of small local amateur, semi-pro and fully professional clubs everywhere, there would be no Real Madrid and the handful of others who sit safely at the top of the heap.

I don't know whether FIFA/ UEFA deliberately set out to preserve the status quo at the top, or whether it was an accidental effect of not thinking the whole process through from top to bottom, in the face of fierce opposition and influence from vested interests that must have made the job next to impossible. In either event, the effect has, I believe, been to reduce competition and that is bad for the game in the long run.

Having reached the age of 78, I am now firmly convinced that money rules. Those that have it have the power and call the shots. Redistributing wealth has always been an insoluble problem during my lifetime.Despite whatever laws or rules have been introduced, little, if anything has changed the unfairness. I am not advocating complacency in fighting it as the fight to wrest the power away from those who hold the purse strings must be fought vigorously.

FIFA/UEFA are, I am sure, trying to impose some kind of authority. However, they too face the brick wall of relying on the money from those controlling the game ie rich football clubs, the players, the agents TV companies etc. To try and enforce a fairer playing field risks these people walking away with their money an setting up in competition taking the cream of the crop with them. Add in the possibility of corruption, the chances of stopping the rich clubs from dictating the rules, the problems worsen.

Hopefully, despite the uphill battle we face in becoming a top club will not prove to be insurmountable. However, without and injection of oodles of cash similar to the likes of City, Man Utd and Chelsea, it is nigh on impossible imho.

COYS
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006
26,891
45,039
Wrong as this may be. Isn't this really good business?
Yes but is it good for football and more importantly is it good for young players' careers, remember that Chelsea have no stake in these players careers and no interest in improving them.
Yes the better they are the better the fee they can charge, but that is just a bonus, these are good young players and their value will go up just with their age, not to mention the restrictions on their choice of where they want to play.
If Chelsea bought these players genuinely but they didn't work out ok, not selling them to rivals is one thing but buying them as grist to their financial mill knowing at the start that they intend to restrict their career path is quite another.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Can't Re Member
May 28, 2013
7,333
20,178
Having reached the age of 78, I am now firmly convinced that money rules. Those that have it have the power and call the shots. Redistributing wealth has always been an insoluble problem during my lifetime.Despite whatever laws or rules have been introduced, little, if anything has changed the unfairness. I am not advocating complacency in fighting it as the fight to wrest the power away from those who hold the purse strings must be fought vigorously.

FIFA/UEFA are, I am sure, trying to impose some kind of authority. However, they too face the brick wall of relying on the money from those controlling the game ie rich football clubs, the players, the agents TV companies etc. To try and enforce a fairer playing field risks these people walking away with their money an setting up in competition taking the cream of the crop with them. Add in the possibility of corruption, the chances of stopping the rich clubs from dictating the rules, the problems worsen.

Hopefully, despite the uphill battle we face in becoming a top club will not prove to be insurmountable. However, without and injection of oodles of cash similar to the likes of City, Man Utd and Chelsea, it is nigh on impossible imho.

COYS

Well yes, up to a point.

Wealth always finds a way. But in the past, the wealth of clubs like Manchester United and yes, Spurs, was the result of their success and appeal, not the sole cause of it, and certainly not an external and non-football-generated cause of it as is now the case with Chelsea and Man City.

We all understand why rules don't exist to prevent owners playing with their money to buy trophies, but I do wish that it wasn't worshipped as though it represented the equivalent qualities and achievements of pure football geniuses like Busby, Nicholson, Shankly and Ferguson.

And that's my real problem with it: it reduces the value of strategic football talent. It reduces the whole thing to a game of "who's got the biggest bank balance" regardless of where the money came from, which has very little indeed to do with the game of football.
 

jamesinashby

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
465
985
Well yes, up to a point.

Wealth always finds a way. But in the past, the wealth of clubs like Manchester United and yes, Spurs, was the result of their success and appeal, not the sole cause of it, and certainly not an external and non-football-generated cause of it as is now the case with Chelsea and Man City.

We all understand why rules don't exist to prevent owners playing with their money to buy trophies, but I do wish that it wasn't worshipped as though it represented the equivalent qualities and achievements of pure football geniuses like Busby, Nicholson, Shankly and Ferguson.

And that's my real problem with it: it reduces the value of strategic football talent. It reduces the whole thing to a game of "who's got the biggest bank balance" regardless of where the money came from, which has very little indeed to do with the game of football.

I couldn't agree more as I abhor listening to the so called fans of City, Utd and Chelsea who haven't got the good grace to admit their success was bought.

It often crosses my mind as to how I would be if we, like City had a net spend in the transfer market over the last 5 years of half a billion compared to ours of around 67 million and bought several trophies. I strongly suspect I would gloat about it in much the same way. lol
 

chaching

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
602
1,431
Yes but is it good for football and more importantly is it good for young players' careers, remember that Chelsea have no stake in these players careers and no interest in improving them.
Yes the better they are the better the fee they can charge, but that is just a bonus, these are good young players and their value will go up just with their age, not to mention the restrictions on their choice of where they want to play.
If Chelsea bought these players genuinely but they didn't work out ok, not selling them to rivals is one thing but buying them as grist to their financial mill knowing at the start that they intend to restrict their career path is quite another.
To add to this considering there is no real plan to integrate them into the team how does it differ to agents owning players which I believe is now banned.
 

Marty

Audere est farce
Mar 10, 2005
39,885
62,549
BBC article that Barca will report PSG over the Neymar deal.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40777484
"We will [make a complaint about PSG] because they infringe Uefa's Financial Fair Play rules and also the European Union's competition rules," he said.

"We will make a complaint to Uefa and if they don't do anything we will take it to the competition tribunals in Switzerland and Brussels. And, from there, we don't rule out going through the courts in France and Spain."

He added: "Two months ago I met the president of PSG at La Liga's offices and I told him what we were going to do and the reasons why.

"He was angry with me and said that he did not understand. We have a relationship [through Qatar sports channel BeIn] for Spanish football, but La Liga must defend our clubs in these situations."
Let's see if anything telling comes of this... If Barca's complaint is thrown out, I'd say FFP is truly dead.
 

Marty

Audere est farce
Mar 10, 2005
39,885
62,549
£200m for one player or a similar amount for the few players City are buying, how are they meeting FFP rules??
That's the point isn't it. If these clubs really can afford to do this without breaching the existing regulations, they might as well not be in place.
 

WalkerboyUK

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2009
21,658
23,476
£200m for one player or a similar amount for the few players City are buying, how are they meeting FFP rules??

Because it's all about how the payments are made.
If you can spend £150 million on a player and spread the payments across 5 years then you're not going to break FFP as you can probably budget for it.
If you're spending £150 million on a player, all in one go, and haven't made that money through sale of other players, it's unlikely you're within FFP.
However, there are a lot of loopholes within the whole structure of FFP that allow those with the money to get away with it.
Both City & PSG have deals with businesses that their owners also own, so can somewhat cook the books to move the money around and keep it looking clean.
 

BehindEnemyLines

Twisting a Melon with the Rev. Black Grape
Apr 13, 2006
4,571
13,156
BBC article that Barca will report PSG over the Neymar deal.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40777484

Let's see if anything telling comes of this... If Barca's complaint is thrown out, I'd say FFP is truly dead.
To be fair, Barcelona complaining about fair play and infringing competition is a bit too rich for me! Bitch I NG because they're no longer the biggest dog in the kennel..... They're every bit as bad as Madrid, city, United and Chelsea imo.
 

Spursmad321

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2014
372
1,131
Qatar Sports Investment will pay Neymar €300m to be one of their ambassadors for the 2022 World Cup with the contact being signed in Qatar so there is 0% tax to paid on the deal.

Neymar will then pay €222 to Barcelona to release him from the club leaving the door open for PSG to sign him for free.

Neymar will take his cut of €78 million plus the 6 year contract from PSG which is estimated to be worth €30m a year + bonuses.

Overall Neymar will earn €40m+ net a year during his 6 years in Paris.
 

Phantom

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2005
5,856
3,212
They are reporting he will be earning £515,000 a week, half a fucking million a week. That makes me feel ill to be honest and personally unless this sort of thing is clamped down on (FFP, wage cap (team or individual) or something) I am not sure how much longer I can legitimately enjoy the sport.

When teams are essentially playing with cheats enabled it takes away so much from the game in my opinion. You end up with a sport which is almost entirely dictated by who buys your club, this goes way beyond sporting revenues. PSGs revenues in 2016 was $578 million last year, they have effectively blown that on one player (transfer and wages).
 

LSUY

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2005
24,010
66,826
Madness, sometimes I think the game is beyond saving..

That ship sailed years ago. Money has ruined the World Cup and it's going to corrupt the rest of the sport. It's only a matter of time till the Premier League and La Liga start playing competitive matches overseas.
 
Top