What's new

Financial Fairplay 2.0

markiespurs

SC Supporter
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.
 

tiger666

Large Member
Jan 4, 2005
27,978
82,214
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.

You go girl. Maybe give the club's owner a hefty kick in the balls too.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
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.

Premier league votes go by a 2/3 majority of the clubs in the pl. The pl already has it's own rules though only clubs qualifying for uefa competitions will have to abide by uefa rules.
 

Saoirse

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
6,143
15,550
UEFA is based in Switzerland so can tell the EU politely but firmly to fuck off
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.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
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.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
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.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
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.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
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.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
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.

Yep, under these rules the B Teams would give sides a massive advantage and should really be scrapped.
 

buckley

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2012
2,595
6,073
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
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
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

In that case I agree with everything you've said. Fantastic contribution to the thread.....as always......:notworthy:
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
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

Being serious for a minute the current sponsorship rules are awful, but that seems to be part of the catalyst for these changes.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Can't Re Member
May 28, 2013
7,333
20,178
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 agree that don’t think UEFA would be able to restrict the amount of sponsorship a club can collect. But they don’t need to because they certainly could restrict how the money is used.

So if Co. X wants to sponsor a club with a £300m naming rights deal, fine, or a £250 toilet roll holder, which is clearly the way to go in future, fine.

But If UEFA rules say that sponsorship doesn’t count in the calculation of what you can spend on players transfer fees and wages, or only 10% of it does, or whatever formula they come up with, and you can only enter their competitions if you stick to the rules, then it all can work as long as enough of the clubs to sign up to it.

A lot of them would if the details are worked out properly because it could benefit most of the bigger clubs except for the infamous three.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
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.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
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?
 

chaching

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
602
1,431
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.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Totally agree. It will also make clubs like ours decide, will it be worth keeping the player or should we buy a stambouli?

Exactly. And benefits the "lesser" PL clubs and lower league clubs because these players will be added to the talent pool they can draw from rather than them being stuck in PL academies aimlessly.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
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.

The rules already in place are that you can't get more than 30% of your turnover from one sponsor. The problem is that state run clubs have had numerous companies that are owned/partly by the state that have sponsored the club. Think psg it was about 15 major sponsors. The new rules will try to tackle this.
 

tommyt

SC Supporter
Jul 22, 2005
6,166
10,978
I really like the idea of unused 21 year olds filtering down the leagues and strengthening the weaker teams. It'll be really beneficial for the league's themselves in terms of competitiveness and to the national associations.

I do reckon that the bigger teams will be able to circumvent complete loss of control over their "assets" by selling with buyback clauses.

Just a thought.
 
Top