February 24, 2020, 01:40:48 PM

Author Topic: Champions League next season?  (Read 4314 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

February 15, 2020, 04:48:31 AM
Reply #60
Offline

brap2

NSNO Subscriber
Weíre getting fucked by ffp ourselves I reckon.

That £30m sponsorship for a ground that doesnít exist is dodgy as fuck

Yes think so myself. Odd that megafon branding sprung up overnight not long after. Hmm.

Saw the thing about betting sponsorship being banned soon too...one of our biggest rev streams going, half the league with betting sponsors but not one of them in the top 6. Hope ryzantzev or whoever is working overtime.
I knew that someday I was going to die, and I knew that before I died, two things would happen to me. That number one; I would regret my entire life, and number two; that I would want to live my life over again.


February 15, 2020, 04:49:47 AM
Reply #61
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
I agree but the top clubs have such a pull in terms of sponsorship that the playing field is already completely slanted. Is cityís advantage over Utd larger than Utds over the 14 poorest clubs in the league

Yeah, it'll always be slanted for the bigger, more established clubs and the pull of the Premier League in general means that the bigger clubs get the bigger deals, but again that goes for any sport and is different to "financial doping" as it's being called. I've no problem with a successful club maximising their income from sponsors etc, I just don't agree that it should be a free for all if a club has an owner that can afford it. There's hardly a sport in the world that doesn't have some kind of spending controls on it.

February 15, 2020, 05:37:29 AM
Reply #62
Offline

brap2

NSNO Subscriber
Yeah, it'll always be slanted for the bigger, more established clubs and the pull of the Premier League in general means that the bigger clubs get the bigger deals, but again that goes for any sport and is different to "financial doping" as it's being called. I've no problem with a successful club maximising their income from sponsors etc, I just don't agree that it should be a free for all if a club has an owner that can afford it. There's hardly a sport in the world that doesn't have some kind of spending controls on it.

Ffp was introduced to protect against debts apparently...city one of the most financially secure entities on the planet with zero debts.

It is what it is, I think financial doping should be dealt with but I don't trust ffp etc. To do anything other than apply a glass ceiling.
I knew that someday I was going to die, and I knew that before I died, two things would happen to me. That number one; I would regret my entire life, and number two; that I would want to live my life over again.


February 15, 2020, 05:49:35 AM
Reply #63
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
Ffp was introduced to protect against debts apparently...city one of the most financially secure entities on the planet with zero debts.

It is what it is, I think financial doping should be dealt with but I don't trust ffp etc. To do anything other than apply a glass ceiling.

Yeah, I think it was partly to avoid debt and that's a good thing, you only need to look at the trouble a lot of Championship clubs are getting into by trying to get round it. I'm sure it was also introduced to stop inflated and unrealistic sponsorship deals where owners can get round the rules, City and Etihad being an example and also going back to the Championship where clubs have sold their grounds to their owners at inflated prices, Derby's ground was valued at about £40m, they sold it to their owner for £80m and it's rightly being investigated.


February 15, 2020, 05:58:42 AM
Reply #64
Offline

YankeeBlue214

NSNO Subscriber
For the life of me I can't understand why there aren't UEFA-mandated spending caps.

You can't have 7 (top-flight) teams in the world fielding 1.5b squads, and the other 91 having 200m-1b squads. It's no wonder those teams at the top want a Super League.

If there were minimum, and maximum salary caps for every single team, it would at worst give everyone a fighting chance. It would even corral these ridiculous transfer fees, or force teams to make decisions. You want to pay a Neymar 200m? Great. You now have less than 800m to fill out the other 22 guys on the team. No more stockpiling, etc.

Absolutely mind-boggling.
Annoying some, pleasing others. Just being me, the GIF master.

February 15, 2020, 06:14:52 AM
Reply #65
Offline

Shogun

Administrator
For the life of me I can't understand why there aren't UEFA-mandated spending caps.

You can't have 7 (top-flight) teams in the world fielding 1.5b squads, and the other 91 having 200m-1b squads. It's no wonder those teams at the top want a Super League.

If there were minimum, and maximum salary caps for every single team, it would at worst give everyone a fighting chance. It would even corral these ridiculous transfer fees, or force teams to make decisions. You want to pay a Neymar 200m? Great. You now have less than 800m to fill out the other 22 guys on the team. No more stockpiling, etc.

Absolutely mind-boggling.

They don't want to give everyone a fighting chance mate
Finally found the thread where I said Deulofeu wasn't all that.

We will see in a few years where he is at. I'm betting he'll be at a worse club than Everton rather than at Barcelona.

Currently at Watford.


February 15, 2020, 06:19:31 AM
Reply #66
Offline

Evertonian in NC


The problem is not "having" financial controls.  It's that they are used almost solely to extinguish competition and anything beyond the existing brand names.

You see this in America with how the authorities selectively police college athletics.  They let U*NC set up a system of fake classes/majors for their moron athletes, but put Boise State on probation for a recruit sleeping on someone's couch for the night.
"Pardon me, I have nothing to say." - George Carlin

February 15, 2020, 06:20:26 AM
Reply #67
Offline

YankeeBlue214

NSNO Subscriber
They don't want to give everyone a fighting chance mate

I'm sure there loads of extremely qualified people who've studied these things and what not, but to my naively simplistic view, that's really sad. :(

If there was a cap, it doesn't mean every team would (or more likely, could) spend that much, but it would at least prevent the big spenders from simply buying out the market.

Sure the NY Yankees can easily afford the 260m spending cap, and maybe the Kansas City Royals cannot, but they do have the same rights to do so, rather than just allowing the Yankees to spend 1b and making it a complete non-starter. Parity and the "any given Sunday" potential outcome has done so many great things for so many other sports.
Annoying some, pleasing others. Just being me, the GIF master.

February 15, 2020, 06:40:12 AM
Reply #68
Offline

blueToffee

NSNO Subscriber
Yeah, I tend to find that angle a load of rubbish, but fair enough if that's what you think, plenty people do but a club like Man City coming in and raising the profile of a league or competition can only be a good thing for the authorities in charge of them. Pretty sure the likes of AC Milan would have been given a big leg up if that were the case.

Who pretends everyone's on a level playing field, genuinely never heard anyone think that? You honestly think people "pretend" that Bournemouth, Sheffield Utd, Norwich etc, etc are on a level playing field, rubbish. Liverpool have been a huge club for years and have a global fans base that they've built up, but they're spending honestly (as far as we know) and I don't think anyone's complaining that it's not a level playing field for the smaller clubs, it's just the way it is, that goes with most sports. Strange points you're trying to put across to be honest.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005751/Financial-Fair-Play-UEFA-protection-racket-payback-clubs-hate-Manchester-City.html

"Financial fair play was corrupted from birth by those at the top, warped into the most naked protectionism. It was supposed to be about debt, but ended up placing limitations on owner investment. A club loaded with debt, like Manchester United, is fully compliant; a club without debt, like City, is not. "

----------------

Why are FFP rules created in the manner that they have been if not to protect clubs at the top. It's a common theme with a lot of European clubs in particular, they want to ring fence the money either be it through CL entry or creating a European Super League.

It's no surprise these rules came in as newly rich clubs were able to finally financially compete on a level or higher playing field than those teams who had been at the top for decades.

February 15, 2020, 01:41:55 PM
Reply #69
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
Also most of the successful/ historic clubs have had some sort of leg up in the past.

Madridís 50s political stuff, Juve with the Agnelli family, Milan were a good club (won EC but also been in Serie B) before Berlusconi but ballooned with his money.

Here all the big clubs had some sort of benefactor at one point, itís just that football has globalised now that itís taken it beyond even John Moores level investment, and certainly the level of the  Edwards at Utd for example.

So itís just circumstance that those teams were established at the time of footballís finances going through the roof and global reach expanding with tv/ Internet.

If there is a seriousness about competition then itís needs to be applied to all sources of funding.




February 15, 2020, 02:57:03 PM
Reply #70
Offline

KoemansNumberTens


Yeah, it'll always be slanted for the bigger, more established clubs and the pull of the Premier League in general means that the bigger clubs get the bigger deals, but again that goes for any sport and is different to "financial doping" as it's being called. I've no problem with a successful club maximising their income from sponsors etc, I just don't agree that it should be a free for all if a club has an owner that can afford it. There's hardly a sport in the world that doesn't have some kind of spending controls on it.

I donít so much have a problem with it but because of the worldwide appeal of a very select few thereís teams with a mattress partner that would cover half of Burnleyís wage bill. The time of even remotely fair competition has completely gone. How would the history of the premier league look now if you take away cityís Chelseaís and Blackburnís financial doping? Just a lot more titles for Utd and so an even bigger income and even less chance of anyone competing

It works in rugby because the incomes arenít so vastly apart. It doesnít work in football. Just secures the status quo

February 15, 2020, 03:03:37 PM
Reply #71
Offline

KoemansNumberTens


Iím not in favour of FFP at all but I think if we have the rules the the punishments should be the absolute harshest. If itís a premier league rule then teams should be relegated. If city have breached a UEFA rule that has allowed them to become a great team unfairly then they shouldnít be allowed to play European football until they are back under the cap and have paid back all previous overspending.

Itís weird that teams can cheat in such a way. Get themselves an advantage that could last 50 years and get a slap on the wrist

City should have been stripped off the title last season too. Glad they werenít but whatís the point of the rule if the punishment doesnít fit the crime

February 15, 2020, 03:06:40 PM
Reply #72
Offline

Macca77


We'll get caught out soon and banished to the bog of eternal stench

February 15, 2020, 03:19:04 PM
Reply #73
Offline

Escla

NSNO Subscriber
Iím not in favour of FFP at all but I think if we have the rules the the punishments should be the absolute harshest. If itís a premier league rule then teams should be relegated. If city have breached a UEFA rule that has allowed them to become a great team unfairly then they shouldnít be allowed to play European football until they are back under the cap and have paid back all previous overspending.

Itís weird that teams can cheat in such a way. Get themselves an advantage that could last 50 years and get a slap on the wrist

City should have been stripped off the title last season too. Glad they werenít but whatís the point of the rule if the punishment doesnít fit the crime

City should have been stripped off the title last season too. Glad they werenít but whatís the point of the rule if the punishment doesnít fit the crime

If City had been stripped of the title there would have been outrage on here for the Kopites having been gifted the title.


February 15, 2020, 04:03:04 PM
Reply #74
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005751/Financial-Fair-Play-UEFA-protection-racket-payback-clubs-hate-Manchester-City.html

"Financial fair play was corrupted from birth by those at the top, warped into the most naked protectionism. It was supposed to be about debt, but ended up placing limitations on owner investment. A club loaded with debt, like Manchester United, is fully compliant; a club without debt, like City, is not. "

----------------

Why are FFP rules created in the manner that they have been if not to protect clubs at the top. It's a common theme with a lot of European clubs in particular, they want to ring fence the money either be it through CL entry or creating a European Super League.

It's no surprise these rules came in as newly rich clubs were able to finally financially compete on a level or higher playing field than those teams who had been at the top for decades.


Come on mate, Martin Samuel. He's had a thing about FFP for years, ever since he had a pop at us using the loan system to our advantage when we had Lukaku, Deulofeu and Barry on loan.

FFP wasn't introduced to protect the established clubs it was introduced as there was an influx of billionaires throwing huge amounts of money at clubs, way beyond what the clubs could afford on their own, the fact that there was already existing, established clubs has nothing to do with it, especially as they now have to live by the same rules. The boom of the Premier League and Champions League brought about all the wealthy owners, something had to be done both to stop them massively overspending what the clubs could afford but also to stop the likes of Leeds and Portsmouth situations.

I always think it's a bit of a 'tinfoil hat' argument to say FFP was introduced to look after the established clubs, if you look at it logically, the likes of PSG, Man City and Leicester winning titles and competing in the CL can only be good for those competitions and therefore generate more money for them, they've opened up new markets and created massive interest in the Middle East and Asia thanks to their owners taking over, no authority in the world is going to try and shut that down but there are rules and they should abide by them. Even looking at the PL this season, the title race is boring as fuck, that's not good for the popularity of it to have one club running away with it and if it wasn't for "new monied" clubs like Man City, Leicester and Chelsea, Liverpool would be even further ahead and you'd probably have had the scenario that you mentioned earlier of Man Utd and Liverpool dominating the past 20-25 years. I'm all for wealthy owners helping make clubs better and more competitive but there needs to be controls on place.