I don't know if he's biased but wonder if a French player had scored a "goal" that had gone so far over the line as Lampard's did against Germany, then we would have video technology by now.
With Kroos bought for a quoted 24m, and 70m odd allegedly being done to get Rodriguez, WTF payment terms are get Real Madrid getting in order to not fall foul of the UEFA FFP ??
Madrid's local government have to make a choice every summer: improve the region's infrastructure, or chip in because Factitious want a new shiny plaything to add to the collection.
I predicted the FFP penalties would never hurt the rich clubs. I must admit I didn't foresee it would amount to a bribe they would be required to pay for the privilege of making a mockery of fair play.
It really is pathetic, Chelsea have been putting things in place since FFP was announced, to make sure we would comply, missed out on all sorts of signings we could have made, so that we could be self sufficient and comply with it all. The club busted its ass to make sure it complied, and for what? PSG continue to spend ridiculous amounts (Thanks for the Luiz money btw PSG) and make a mockery of the rules. You might say Chelsea spent lots of cash when Roman took over, but there was no rule against it then. Why call it "Financial Fair Play" if all you are going to do is slap them on the wrist, hit them with a fine for chump change and let them carry on as before. By reducing the amount of homegrown players City need in their squad, UEFA may have actually done them a favour, rather than penalised them. If this is going to be the "punishment" for breaking the rules, then f**k it! "Get ya cheque book out Roman!"
Read a lot about FFP this week. Pro FFP rules means supporting the unfair dominance of the traditionally wealthy clubs - Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool. Anti FFP rules means supporting the unfair dominance of the clubs bankrolled by Sugar Daddies - City, Chelsea. So are they good or bad?
"So are they good or bad?" Good in spirit. Bad in they favour the current incumbents with far deeper pockets.
It came in too late to stop Chelsea and City being involved in at the top. FFP, if it was kept simple would ensure that bad decisions by clubs actually cost them. Liverpool wouldn't be able to shrug off £90mill losses over two years, Chelsea wouldn't be able to pretend to be trying to break even, City wouldn't be able to take the piss and United would actually be affected if this season's signings didn't work out. There will always be rich clubs but if we have clubs playing by the same basic business rules then there aren't the glass ceilings. Club's below the huge money(including Arsenal and liverpool, to an extent) will never be able to challenge because there are too many clubs with money that dwarfs the rest of the league(combined in some cases) that are stuck to the top in the long term. FFP as a theory is admirable and adds to the excitement of the game but what exists is a bastardised version that really ends up as a half-hearted attempt to keep it competitive whilst preserving everything that a true FFP would be working to stop.
It's similar to the rules on homegrown players - good in theory, but in practice all that happens is certain clubs hoover up prospects from around the world at the earliest opportunity hoping that a couple of them make the grade in the first team and, coincidentally, they will qualify as "home grown" players even though they won't be representing any British team. The attempts to introduce FFP in the Championship are similarly flawed: QPR just ignored it completely, while numerous clubs are receiving parachute payments to make the exercise pointless.
We could have a draft system like the NFL and theoretically all teams could have a chance. We could cap spending on transfers and wages like Rugby League. We could make the bigger clubs pool more of their income for distribution down the pyramid. But doing any of these things would fundamentally change our game and could affect its appeal - and as a result the amount of money flowing into the game. Is that what any of us want? To paraphrase the Admirable Crichton - any satisfaction you Spurs fans (for example) might get from being the financial equals of Utd (for example) would be ruined by West Ham by your equals! And so on. The truth is most of us wouldn't really want to lose a hierarchy in football. Interest is generated by the big money transfers, the concentration of big name players at a few clubs, the drama of big PL and CL games, even if we see the same names appearing again and again. The occasional triumph of the underdog, teams punching above their weight, unearthing hidden gems of players because clubs haven't got the resources to pay big fees is all part of the intrigue. This draws the cash into the game. A system where the talents of best players like Ronaldo and Messi were not seen to the full - because they were never nutured and developed by the top clubs with the top facilities and coaches- would be a poor alternative. Each team having one exceptionally talented player lost in a sea of mediocrity wouldn't be very appealing either. It's right to want fairness and a more level playing field for all in football, but how would it realistically be achieved and would we really want the end result?
Is this to prepare us for the huge spending spree Utd are rumoured to be about to go on? Clubs building organically is one thing, but Chelsea/City situations should not be allowed, it takes away the ability of all to compete and diminishes the sport. If Utd do spend the huge amounts being indicated then there is something very wrong, given their levels of debt.
Basically, future PL Sugga Daddy FCs are forbidden while the current ones survive. And any investor with a serious strategy and UEFA tournament ambitions has to (for any investment X > 45m Euros) get a minimum return of X - 45 in 3 yrs.
Sport is too sacred for Europe to trust to rational, ameliorative control, and too sacred for the US to trust to tooth-and-claw capitalism. Real financial fair play would probably be a good idea on balance, though I doubt it would change much. It would do more to protect the established big clubs from new money than anything else. The idea that teams should limit their outflow to their income is simple and seems fair. Put another way, if instituted properly, it would hurt the likes of Man City, PSG and Chelsea, which most everyone else would enjoy, while keeping clubs like Pompey from going tits up, which would also be a good thing.
The ultimate failing of FFP is that it's weighted to the clubs because it allows their creative accounting, for example Factitious' method of paying half the fee up front and the rest in installment that allows them to say they signed Isco for €13.5m one year and €2.7m the next few years. In any other business that would not be allowed, they would be told they paid €27m and that was the end of it - and I doubt the HMRC would allow anybody to try such a stunt on their tax return - yet UEFA is allowing this loophole to exist even though that hole does as much for FFP's stability as that sodding great hole in the Titanic's starboard side did for its buoyancy.
I don't think Madrid would be run by Cash Accounting. Players are assets and in the accounts the annual cost would be fee divided years of contract until fully written off.
