- Jul 9, 2008
- 11,899
- 15,576
These new rules are a step in the right direction, but they have to be enforced properly with severe penalties for those clubs in breech of the rules.
The punishment from UEFA needs to be severe, unable to be appealed to higher courts. On first offense, the punishment has to be European competition ban + heavy fine that can be lifted after 1 season if UEFA deems it to be in the process of being resolved. If it doesnt, it remains in effect with incoming transfer ban added, and they continue adding on if the club isnt in process of resolving. Second offense should be 3 season European ban with 3 season transfer ban with even more fines reviewed after 2 seasons. Third offense, 5 season European ban with 5 season transfer ban reviewable after 4 seasons. Will clubs try engaging with others to create the long rumored super league with Stillitano? Sure, but if they do, then UEFA should force the nation FA's to agree to kick those clubs out of the league competitions and media should be heavily dissuaded from broadcasting and covering said super league. The power the big clubs have needs to end. Competitive balance needs to happen. This would do it.
I agree but you've got a case where it'd be asking turkeys to vote for Christmas at the end of the day. As much as we might not like it, the more "super-clubs" there are in the PL the better it is for the people in charge of it all because the more "stars" there are etc. the more they can get for the TV rights deal. I'm pretty sure you'd need those people to vote on the kind of punishments ytou're talking about and I just don't see why they would agree to it.
Afraid not. If UEFA wants to operate in the EU (which running competitions with EU clubs with matches played in the EU counts as), it has to follow EU rules, in the same way that a company operating in Britain can't discriminate against European workers even if it's officially owned/based outside the EU.UEFA is based in Switzerland so can tell the EU politely but firmly to fuck off
I don't like this rule, "clubs will only be allowed to have 25 players on their books over the age of 21. This includes any players loaned out."
I can see why they want to do it, but 21 seems too young and could force a lot of talented young players out of clubs. If you look at our current squad those rules would probably result in Josh Onomah being sold next season. He's clearly a player with talent, but maybe he needs another season before he'll be ready for the PL. I'm also not sure how they can force you to sell a player with a contract.
The other thing with the £100m transfer deficit is that it doesn't take into account players retiring. Take Messi as an example. He's been at Barcelona his whole career, if he ends his career there they obviously won't get a transfer fee for him, but it's going to cost them huge money to replace him.
Tbh i love the rule. It will really make the clubs think about their youth. Are they going to be good enough to be part of our squad or not. If so they have a real chance of getting game time for their parent club. If not then someone else will take them. Either way they are not stuck in the limbo of the loan system but will be playing competitive games for a club that is 100% invested in them. It would be good for the players.
As for spending huge amounts to replace messi? That is where it will make the game more equal. Mega clubs wont be able to go out and spend hundreds of millions replacing fading stars or if they do they will have to sell.
At the end of the day it is trying to predict the future and actions of clubs and players but if we don't do anything the biggest clubs will get bigger and the smaller will struggle to survive.
Maybe it will work like that and the released players will get bought up by lower league clubs, but I've got a feeling that a lot of young players will find themselves out of work when they hit 21. Man City's owners will probably just buy another club in Belgium or Holland and register all their extra players there.
I'm not too worried about the 100m deficit thing. I was really thinking about what we do if Kane retired suddenly, but there's no way we'd overspend by £100m anyway.
I'd like to know what will happen to teams that end up with too many players on their books. Will they get a fine, or will they be forced to terminate someone's contract? I'd quite like it if their most recent player purchase over 21 couldn't play until they'd sold the extra players. For instance Chelsea couldn't play Giroud until they complied with the rules.
The clubs owning other clubs is a massive problem to the rule. Spanish teams like barca and madrid have second teams as does city.
Think there will be negotiations between now and may and it will be interesting to see the final result.
any rule that stops the oil rich clubs from making a joke of fair competition I am all for. Incidentally I own a company that is in the top six in the world for wealth and me being a spurs fan would like to sponsor the toilet roll holder in the cubicle that I normally use at the ground .The amount I suggest is £250million does this break any rules? As far as I can see Man City and psg also Chelsea in writing off massive debts have been doing similar for years so all is o.k yeah
any rule that stops the oil rich clubs from making a joke of fair competition I am all for. Incidentally I own a company that is in the top six in the world for wealth and me being a spurs fan would like to sponsor the toilet roll holder in the cubicle that I normally use at the ground .The amount I suggest is £250million does this break any rules? As far as I can see Man City and psg also Chelsea in writing off massive debts have been doing similar for years so all is o.k yeah
Sounds like a move in the right direction but I'm not sure how much half of it can be enforced. For example, while City's sponsorship with Etihad is quite obviously a blantant way to get around FFP, do UEFA etc. really have any legal right to say that Etihad, a private company, isn't allowed to spend what they like on sponsorships? If they want to pay over the odds, for whatever reason, I'm not really sure on what grounds UEFA or the EU can really intervene unless they try and do them for something like money-laundering but that's going to be a hard case to sell.
I don't like this rule, "clubs will only be allowed to have 25 players on their books over the age of 21. This includes any players loaned out."
I can see why they want to do it, but 21 seems too young and could force a lot of talented young players out of clubs. If you look at our current squad those rules would probably result in Josh Onomah being sold next season. He's clearly a player with talent, but maybe he needs another season before he'll be ready for the PL. I'm also not sure how they can force you to sell a player with a contract.
I think it's a good idea to be honest. To use Onomah as an example, if we don't think he's good enough or has the potential to be good enough in the near future then we can't just hang on to him letting him rot in the reserves or spend his days going back and forth between various loan clubs. We'd have to sell him/let him go and he would join a lesser club more at his level, thereby strengthening them and potentially meaning he gets his career back on track by being properly integrated into a first team squad. If it then turns out he's good enough he'll work his way up and get a move to a PL club again, for example. Otherwise, he'll stay in the lower leagues plying his trade there rather than stagnating in our academy forever.
It stops the bigger clubs just stockpiling hundreds of players that are never going to make it
As for forcing you to sell players who are under contract that's a different issue. Not sure what the solution there would be.
Totally agree. It will also make clubs like ours decide, will it be worth keeping the player or should we buy a stambouli?
Just seen this. I think it looks good although the 25 man squad over 21 including loans looks very strict. Hopefully it gets approved as it would screw over Chelsea, although not sure how it can be enforced, especially when you have partner clubs.
I would have thought the sponsorship thing wouldn't be about saying to the sponsor you can only spend a certain amount, but it would be saying similar clubs usually receive x amount so thats how much you can spend on "footballing spend" from your sponsorship. Again apart from absolutely obvious examples like PSG it would be a very difficult to enforce.