That makes more sense lenny thanks but I am still confused as to why Chelsea and City are hoping to to extend the PL rules as they ARE interested in the CL.
Fair Financial Play Rules
- Thread starter Spurf
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
That makes more sense lenny thanks but I am still confused as to why Chelsea and City are hoping to to extend the PL rules as they ARE interested in the CL.
The expectation is that FFP with UEFA may not work, it's not unlikely that lawsuits will either end up chopping the arms and legs off the rules or force them to scrap it altogether. I wouldn't be surprised if Chelsea and City, along with PSG and others have been getting their lawyers to pour through the rules and work out how they can get around any severe punishment and I'm sure they'll manage it too, UEFA tried to make an example of Chelsea's constant tapping up of youngsters by putting a transfer ban on them and look what happened to that. Chelsea, it looks like, are simply pre empting the rules falling short and trying to create a new FFP which is even more heavily weighted in their favour than the current free-for-all.
It's difficult to know where a clear resolution to this lies. Good luck to the PL trying to reconcile this hotch-potch of self interests.
Even if this were to work, the likes of Chelsea, City, PSG, etc. would just have their own tournament and call it the Champions Cup or something.
It's already been made to look a farce, so I really can't see the point.
It's already been made to look a farce, so I really can't see the point.
OK YV I can understand the political posturing as you describe it but is it realistic that uefa would be forced by a court to include teams IN THEIR OWN COMP.. Isn't the more likely outcome of such legal action a breakaway a bit like Kerry Packer in cricket and that would need the support, in England at least, of Arsenal, Man U.,Liverpool and Us which I doubt they would get.
Once again you preempt my post PNP ,
but it wouldn't be a viable comp unless all or most of the big teams joined it. I'm guessing but the German teams probably would not, Real probably would but Barca probably wouldn't. It could split European football asunder!
They could also involved non-UEFA clubs, Spurf.
A few Asian sides or the odd Middle Eastern club that's probably owned by one of their cousins and they've got a tournament.
Maybe an invite or two to the US or South America and the World Club Cup's a goner, too.
A few Asian sides or the odd Middle Eastern club that's probably owned by one of their cousins and they've got a tournament.
Maybe an invite or two to the US or South America and the World Club Cup's a goner, too.
When clearly incestuous "sponsorship" deals such as PSG's are seemingly allowed, surely this makes a mockery of the whole concept. I mean €200mil per season!!...
Target any club without the resources to meet the requirements, which is exactly what's happening.
It's like the tax system, you need lots of money to benefit from loopholes so small clubs with no cash are bunched but others can nip out for 5 minutes and come back with a 50m training kit logo addition sponsorship deal.
Totally unfair system that will do fk all to balance football, realistically it is going to keep the richest clubs from being ever challenged. Maintain the uneven playing field. Sure look, Madrid are rotten and will just slip past all of this via backroom Euro trash cronyism, Chelsea via RA have more weight than I care to know about, a friend of Putin is not to be taken lightly, City's owners have immense wealth, the very thing you need to have things go your way.
I think it is shortsighted to think this is going to change anything. It is not. Rich clubs can still spend £££ on players while small clubs cannot invest in players in order to increase revenue, that revenue must be generated first? It's all good and well if your club has plenty of fans and exposure but those below will be truly fked when it comes to trying to challenge the rich clubs, it will be impossible
Qatar bought a FIFA tournament to play in the backyards of rich people. What makes anyone think UEFA are even remotely clean ffs
So Chelsea and Man City are already going to be (are) affected by the rules. Their concern (I would think) is that they compete in a league where thirteen of the clubs in any one season are not affected by the UEFA rules (cos they're not in European competitions). So, theoretically, a billionaire could buy Aston Villa, say, sign Wayne Bridge (normal first move of a billionaire foreign owner) and a bunch of other players thereby possibly over-taking the Chelsea and Man Cities of the world.
Basically they were the last ones up the ladder and would now see, more than anyone perhaps, the advantages of pulling that ladder up.
FIFA obviously decided that getting all 1.9 million Qataris to follow football was THE main aim of the World Cup. And who can blame them? Everyone in the UK is now pole-vaulting and rowing to work every morning now since the Olympics, no?
(I actually keep forgetting that the WC is going there. It's like a bad dream that I occasionally remember is true).
OK, except there are no sanctions against clubs who are not competing in Europe under the eufa rules so that would enable smaller clubs to get up there. It's the FA bringing in their own system that might block them.
It's becoming clearer to me what a can of worms this all is.
I'm not sure how many of that 1.9mil are women, but they're unlikely to be allowed to watch anything.
If FIFA want a sensible, level playing field, then introduce a squad salary cap.
They have one in the NBA and I'm sure that there'd still be some fiddling going on, but the suggested system is just crap and favours a few big clubs at everyone else's expense.
It's not fit for purpose.
They have one in the NBA and I'm sure that there'd still be some fiddling going on, but the suggested system is just crap and favours a few big clubs at everyone else's expense.
It's not fit for purpose.
they also have one in the NFL,that keeps the team's fairly level,it's all down to game plans then.
The problem I have with FFP is the same problem I had with the inception of the Premier League, Seeding in major tournaments etc, its designed to keep the status quo not for the benefit of all in the league. It also inhibits ambition and the ability for clubs to grow.
I like the idea of clubs turning over profit and becoming self sustainable but how is it fair you can only spend what you earn? How would a club like QPR or Fulham ever be able to compete with Man Utd? The smaller clubs will stagnate and lose all their best players to the top teams. The hypocrisy is another factor. Arsenal, United, Everton, Spurs and Liverpool had years of heavy spending and now the boot is on the other foot the goalposts have to be shifted.
The Premier League has already depreciated on the quality front, rigid FFP would make it depreciate on the entertainment front as well.
I like the idea of clubs turning over profit and becoming self sustainable but how is it fair you can only spend what you earn? How would a club like QPR or Fulham ever be able to compete with Man Utd? The smaller clubs will stagnate and lose all their best players to the top teams. The hypocrisy is another factor. Arsenal, United, Everton, Spurs and Liverpool had years of heavy spending and now the boot is on the other foot the goalposts have to be shifted.
The Premier League has already depreciated on the quality front, rigid FFP would make it depreciate on the entertainment front as well.