The issue comes when there is an effective monopoly, as Uefa has in football. Then it becomes the responsibility of the legal authorities to ensure they are not abusing that monopoly in such a way that harms other businesses.
Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions
- Thread starter PlayerOne
- Start date
Because they don't have that kind of money. In their best years they didn't exceed £200m per window, did they?
There is a womans only gym in my town center.
Can I take it to the EU as I want to join
?
Can I take it to the EU as I want to join
?I know, UEFA will have some of the top lawyers drafting the rules. The idea that they don't conform to EU Regulations or atleast haven't been discussed and accepted by the EU is laughable.
Not sure if Bobby's research has taken him as far as the joint statement yet.
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/sports/joint_statement_en.pdf
But it's illegal! I seen so on an internet forum!!!!!
Indeed. Joaquín Almunia, Vice President of the EU Commission in charge of competition policy: "I fully support the objectives of UEFA’s Financial Fair-Play rules as I believe it is essential for football clubs to have a solid financial foundation. The UEFA rules will protect the interests of individual clubs and players, as well as football sector in Europe as a whole. I would like to congratulate President Platini for his leadership on this issue."
http://m.uefa.com/news/1772173/
Some have short memories. We bought top players from direct rivals - no other clubs could do that. The likes of Ferdinand, Keane, Berg and Cole all came from other top clubs and potential title rivals at the time for huge fees. We would have had Shearer but for Newcastle for a record fee and even tried to buy Vieira when Arsenal were our biggest rivals.
United had a great influx with the 92 lot, but make no mistake, had any of this lads been playing elsewhere we'd have been in for them and rightly so.
And you can blame other clubs did the high wages - but look back over the years to where the best paid players in the PL were - usually United. Beckham, Keane, Ronaldo and Rooney are all examples if this, while United were paying mega fees before Chelsea or City.
These "Oil" clubs are a symptom of modern football - not the cause. They are run by people who love the massive business the game has become - a process that United did as much as any club to bring about.
You talk about fairness - as if you want all clubs to be equal but you don't. You will have no problem if your club spends mega bucks, money that 99% of clubs could only dream of. Proper "fairness" puts everyone equal but I suspect that isn't what you actually want to see.
Last edited:
Ferdinand came from Leeds when they were selling all their players. Keane came from Forest who had just been relegated. Cole was signed in 95 before Newcastle mounted a title challenge and Berg signed two years after Blackburn won the league and slid down the table. How often did we take players from Liverpool or Arsenal? If anyone has a short memory here it is you.
All clubs can't be equal. What all clubs should be is what they've made of themselves.
What I see wrong with it is that there is first money spent to get success - not vice versa. For me it has to be the other way around, even if this means a slower build-up. First you have success from sports, you earn money, you draw sponsors, you invest it again in wages and transfers, you have more success, earn more money, draw better sponsors, can invest more. Maybe you loose some players to better club on the way up - but you do not do that without a compensation you can wisely invest again.
That is exactly how it should be. Yes, there is small teams that do not have the environment to compete with bigger clubs because of where they are - but the success should be first related to good work on the sports and financial sector and not just depend on who has the richest sugardaddy...
The big influx of the money from other sources did not harm a big club like Manchester United so much - it harmed the other clubs much more who now were outpriced. It did not make the competition better (maybe only for the new sugardaddy clubs) - just different - but especially the expenses of all of the clubs rose.
I don't really get the major issue with the sugar daddies coming in, especially if they are willing to build an infrastructure to make it sustainable, it's hard to shortcut success and I get that they artificially inflate sponsorship, transfers and wages, but that's what they need to do to compete.
At the end of the day, a United and Liverpool will have more support from fans and some players than a city or Chelsea because of their history of success, if a Chelsea or City can build a dynasty, FairPlay but I don't see it, their owners want instant gratification.
United have faced down walkers Blackburn, Romans Chelsea and mansours city, bring it on, the challenge brings the best in us.
My major issue is stockpiling youth, which Chelsea is doing, barca and real too, it's a major deviation from how it used to work and may stunt development but hopefully youth players will eventually see beyond the cash piles and look at playing time.
Barca and real have played to different rules for years, it's not a major issue in my opinion.
At the end of the day, a United and Liverpool will have more support from fans and some players than a city or Chelsea because of their history of success, if a Chelsea or City can build a dynasty, FairPlay but I don't see it, their owners want instant gratification.
United have faced down walkers Blackburn, Romans Chelsea and mansours city, bring it on, the challenge brings the best in us.
My major issue is stockpiling youth, which Chelsea is doing, barca and real too, it's a major deviation from how it used to work and may stunt development but hopefully youth players will eventually see beyond the cash piles and look at playing time.
Barca and real have played to different rules for years, it's not a major issue in my opinion.
If they want to invest into the infrastructure they could do it in other projects - couldn't they. Aren't this projects just some kind of "makeup"? They are not doing it to do something good but to promote their own case...
Good to see FFP seems to have some teeth, though I’d expect City to challenge the ruling still. With the limit on squad size for the champions league, does that mean they still have to fit the 8 players that grew up playing in England etc inside that 21. If so they really could have a lean squad next year for the comp. Not being able to increase their wages as well, will hopefully hinder them in the transfer market, forcing them to sell high wages players if they want to bring in a star player.
The fine really means nothing to them though. Nice little pay bonus for UEFA really is all it is.
The fine really means nothing to them though. Nice little pay bonus for UEFA really is all it is.
Whoever says FFP is being used to stunt the growth of smaller clubs is seeing things the wrong way, it's forcing them to have sustainable income and slowly improve instead of being at the whims of billionaires who come in and do whatever they want and they'll be forever at risk of being insolvent once the billionaires have had their fun with the club and wants rid.
What will happen next year if any of the clubs have not cut spending in line with actual/legitimate turnover, or have even shown a larger loss on the balance sheet?
Isn't the punishment for the next 3 seasons? So any further considerations will only be dealt with after the 3 years.
You're missing the point. It's hypothetical. The point is that he could, if he had it, and some people do. You can't have a system where you just hope they don't spend it on a club.
I think they are going to investigate them again next year. The money fine is spread over 3 years but other penalties are just for this year, no?
I'm not saying all clubs can - but I'm not the one moaning about "fairness". United had the advantage years ago and cherry picked the best players from rival sides. No other team could do that and the financial muscle the club had gave it a significant advantage.
We paid bigger fees and bigger wages than any other club in the PL, breaking records regularly. Ferdinand didn't come here when Keeds were selling players off - it was because we were prepared to pay a record fee for a defender and they couldn't turn that down. Andy Cole was another whose club couldn't afford to turn down the money United could offer and had to sell their best player.
I have no issue with that and totally agree that there will always be unfairness in football. United rode the bubble and had years of success - driven by a great manager and a well organised club, but also by the ability to buy the best players when needed.
As a result I don't care what other clubs do. Big money on players doesn't guarantee success and in any event, if the owners wanted to we can compete with these sides for the best players. If these sides want to mortgage their future then that's no concern of mine.
I just wish people on here were more honest. They don't want Chelsea or City to spend large sums of money because it diminishes United's chances of success - not because of any concern over the long term future of the game.
As I said above - these clubs are a symptom, not the cause of daft money in football. United, along with other top sides have driven football forward into a huge money making business. It was only a matter of time before foreign money got involved. This will likely happen in all the top leagues.
The sentiment is a fair one - but it sadly isn't realistic in modern football in my opinion. The game is dominated by those with money and pretty much always has been in the modern era.
There are no sugar daddy clubs in Germany but Dortmund still lose their best players to Bayern. Valencia had success and lost their best players regularly. I suspect the same will happen to Athletico. The only difference over recent years for the two Spanish sides is that new money in the game has meant that they can realise bigger fees rather than lose a player to the big two for less money.
You can make a call on what is "better" - but that's your opinion based on some moral argument that has little relevance here.
Who is actually upset over City's emergence? The fans of City won't be, the PL and TV companies won't be because its increased competition and improved the PL as a product having three or four sides capable if wining every year.
I dispute that all of the "smaller" clubs are bothered by it. Fees in the PL mean that they can sell players for a lot more relatively than they could in the past. Certain sides will always lose their top players to the best teams but at least they can now be fairly compensated.
Granted - the likes of Arsenal, Spurs and Everton probably feel hard done by but as everyone keeps saying, football isn't fair.
At the end of the day these sides were miles behind and didn't want to take the difficult route. But so what? If I had the money I wouldn't want to either.
One thing that a lot on here probably won't think about is the benefit of money flowing down the leagues.
The billionaires have arguably forced the price of home grown players up and in my opinion, it helps lower down. it's probably the only positive of ridiculous fees.
I've see it at my local club - and mentioned it elsewhere on here. United paid big money for Zaha, Palace bought Gayle from Peterborough who in turn bought Jack Baldwin from Hartlepool. That money probably kept us afloat this year because it wasn't spent.
I think people forget about the trickle down effect which does happen. At least money is coming into the game.
They didn't cherry pick players from rivals though. You're talking nonsense. They signed players from Premier League clubs and occasionally spent more than others. They never did it to the extent City or Chelsea and United could never spend massive fortunes with no risk.
That's all well and good but inflation leads to higher prices needed when signing new players to replace the ones you've lost. The number of clubs struggling financially sort of blow that idea out the window.
This argument is pointless if you refuse to acknowledge the past. I'm not sure how old you are or if you remember some of the things I'm talking about well, but, as an example - when United bought Andy Cole it was incredible as a football fan that the coub had spent such a mind bending sum of money by the current standards - not least on Newcastle's (a title rival) best player. Keegan suffered the ire of the Newcastle fans and told them the truth - that Newcastle just couldn't turn down that amount of money for any player.
Ferdinand - as another example was £30 plus million - a massive sum by today's standards, never mind over a decade ago and Leeds couldnt turn it down. Likewise numerous other players the club brought in over that period.
Perhaps they never "did it to the extent City or Chelsea did" but where does the line lie? What is acceptable and what isnt? United still spent mega money on players regularly - much more so that any rivals. How many clubs could spend £30 million on a defender? I'm not sure any other PL clubs have spent that much on a centreback even to date.
This moral line in the sand you seem to think exists - i.e. "what we did was fine but what Chelsea and City do isnt" only seems to exist in the heads of United fans. Other fans see no difference. Indeed a mate of mine who supports Newcastle took great pleasure in pointing out the irony of United fans moaning about other club's transfer sprees then looking to spend £200 million in the summer - in an attempt to buy its way back into the big time.
I disagree. There are many reasons why small local clubs are struggling financially, economic and social reasosn mainly - but it isnt anyuthing to do with clubs at the top of the tree spending big.
I'm evidently not saying money being spent by big clubs is saving the smaller sides, but If fees come down there would be even less money sloshing about, so I dont see how that would help anybody.
United took a risk in buying these players. City/Chelsea doesnt.
I don't know about us always paying bigger wages mate, we didn't have a player on more than about £25k a week until Keane got his contract in 2001 which broke our wage structure. Before then there were teams for years offering players bigger or similar wages to what we were, Blackburn regularly offered more than us until they fell away, Ravanelli in 1996 on £40k at Boro being another example. Coventry signed McAllister in 1996 on £25k a week which puts our top wages at the time into perspective.
Fair enough after 2001 we paid the biggest wages and proceeded to sign RVN, Veron & Ferdinand on big deals but it didn't last long once Roman bought chelsea in 2003 they started blowing us out of the water on wages so our monopoly didn't last long.
You named two signings 7 years apart but ignore things like us being outbid on Shearer twice. Yes we signed players from Premier League clubs, who didn't? Were did Newcastle get the players that led then to a title challenge? How often did we take players from clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal or traditional rivals like Man City? I remember the Cole signing well. I also remember them improving afterwards and signing Les Ferdinand and Alan Shearer within a year.
What Utd did and what City and Chelsea have is not comparable. Utd have never been able to spend money without risk. And yes Utd spending their own money they earned by being a well run club is fine.
I'm not having that.
Having players knocking about who can't get a game isnt helpful for anyone. Chelsea sold Mata to United for just that reason. They might have young ladsout on loan but they arent buying top class players and leaving them in the stands. It just doesnt happen.
This hypothetical "they have unlimited funds so it isn't fair " argument doesnt wash with me. They have invested to get to a level where by they can regularly compete. The reality is that, Chelsea have struggled this year because they didnt have a striker, Jose having been told to make the best of what he had. City arguably needed another centreback but didnt do it.
Even if that is the case - why is that a relevant factor? We could blow £12 million or whatever on Zaha and send him out on loan to Cardiff, or £5 million on Powell and sit him in the reserves. Plenty of other clubs in the PL can't afford to do that so why is that acceptable when its not for other clubs to do the same thing? This is the imaginary moral line I'm talking about.
The fact is there is no morality in football anymore, and the big clubs are all responsible for the way things have gone. You can't make the club a multi-million business with all that entails and then moan when other clubs come in, invest big money and want to take a share of the cake.
Off course it's related. It caused clubs coming into the Premier League like Portsmouth to spend big to compete. You're being silly with this one.
No, I am not claiming it is illegal because I have seen so on an internet forum. I am claiming it is possibly against EU Law because Dupont has said it. He clearly has more knowledge than us in the subject so if you find it laughable that FFP is being contested, you are laughing at the opinion of a well-respected lawyer, who has already scored a huge victory against UEFA and FIFA.
The EU lawyers, who decided the EU laws have already come out and said that FFP is in line with their laws. Dupond won't win the case, but he will make a hell of a lot of money off some clubs by trying to do so.
Portsmouth, and Leeds in particular didnt bankrupt themselves chasing Chelsea and City - the rot started long before that - in fact Leeds were chasing United for the most part. It might be attractive to blame it all on Roman or the Sheikh but it isnt true. Football was going mad long before they started to invest.
The football league is knackered financially - but it isn't down to sides in the PL overspending. My local clubs relies on selling players to stay in existance. Players move on to better things and clubs in league 1 or the championship come after our players. More money in the game is good for my club and all clubs in the football league - im not sure how you can argue otherwise.
Numerous clubs came and went and tried to compete - they all spent heavily and most fell away - infact Middlesborough, Leeds, Newcastle, Blackburn and West Ham, all paid for their excesses and ended up in the Championship. United were a constant throughout this time in being able to pay well over the odds for players. the fact that they could keep the likes of Beckham, keane, Ronaldo and Rooney - all seemingly the highest paid PL players at onetime or another tells a story.
And as I've said above - "risk" is all relevant. United can spend £10 million and afford to write it off - most other clubs can't so that argument falls flat. It isn't fair, they might have less risk financially when buying players but so what? United have less "risk" and more disposable income than most of the other PL clubs. If you asked a fan of a club in the PL who isnt in the top 4 or 5 I don't think they'd say "Its fine how United do it but not Chelsea or City" - and that's my point largely - United fans hate City and Chelsea because they came in and spoiled the party, not because of how they've done things.
I dont believe the PL wish nobody had invested in these clubs, or a lot of neutral fans because the league is arguably more entertaining than its ever been.
No he won't, he is representing an agent from Italian football. He is not being payed by any clubs. They will fight their own battles and Dupont is not fighting on behalf of them.
To say Dupont won't win the case is incredibly arrogant, how on earth can you say that? People said the same about the Bosman ruling. FFP unarguably goes against EU laws, that can not be disputed. What the EU vice-president said is "it is essential for football clubs to have a solid financial foundation. The UEFA rules will protect the interests of individual clubs and players, as well as football sector in Europe as a whole." So UEFA have to successfully argue that FFP is necessary in football. City will argue that they can not, under EU law, be punished for their actions. There is definitely a case to be heard.
Is City's punishment really fair? Punished for putting money into a football club? What about Barcelona's tax evasion? That is more corrupt than anything Mansour is doing at City.
No one has any problem with that. FFP specifically excludes such things from their break even requirements.
He said arguably.
How does anybody know how a few Judges will interpret the law? Sometimes these things go on a split vote.
No barrister will every give you more than 70% chance of success in even the most one sided case.
That said, the guy did put unarguably, which is plainly not true.