Transfer: Summer Transfers part 4

[S E P H]

PSG doesn't violate any FFP laws. But for some reason (hint : big clubs), they're under a new study even though they passed every test so far (even the june one) and that studies are supposed to happen AFTER the year, not during it.

The little pressure group (Real/Barca/Juve/United/Bayern, etc...) are really killing football. Between the CL format, the FFP and now the "get rid of the awa goal rule", it's getting beyond sick.

"Had" as in past tense. Also, PSG is just as in the little pressure group as all the other teams you mentioned in there.

I used to hate the away goal rule, but I've come to actually accept it and fully understand why it works in football compared to other sports. Having an away goal at Parc de Prince for example is quite an accomplishment in Europe based competition.

 

[Evilo]

No, PSG is not in that pressure group. Lyon is though.

 

[Il Mediano]

FFP is a farce. The fact that they use "fair play" to title these laws is even more hilarious.

Yes, it has forced clubs to become more financially stable , but it has also (intentionally) placed glass ceilings on any club outside the established elite trying to grow.

I can't speak on PSG specifically , because I'm not educated in their financials , but I know exactly what's happening in Italy. The most prominent recent example being the AC Milan situation.

UEFA even doubled down on the facade , by introducing "historical results" in their distribution of CL group stage tv money. This means Inter Milan (who've only recently not been run like a joke) will receive 30% more television revenue in the group stage than Roma just because they've had more European success in the last 15 years. Which begs the question : how, in any way , does that promote "fair play"? That is a huge disadvantage for a club like Roma , who are already miles behind Inter in revenue (the only currency recognized for break-even rules).

What it's really doing, if you read between the lines, is ensuring the threat of the "super league" is mitigated. They want to ensure the fat cats are well fed so they don't feel the need form their own league. If the mega clubs form their own league , the CL becomes superfluous, and they lose a sh!t load of money. They can't allow that to happen.

I can't begin to explain my frustrations as a Roma fan dealing with UEFA and their laws.

 

[Evilo]

Yup.
Big teams asked for the creation of the CL so that they're ensured of getting tons of revenue even when they suck. And FFP was introduced to make sure nobody could enter that limited club.
It's sickening really.

 

[StevenF1919]

FFP is a farce. The fact that they use "fair play" to title these laws is even more hilarious.

Yes, it has forced clubs to become more financially stable , but it has also (intentionally) placed glass ceilings on any club outside the established elite trying to grow.

I can't speak on PSG specifically , because I'm not educated in their financials , but I know exactly what's happening in Italy. The most prominent recent example being the AC Milan situation.

UEFA even doubled down on the facade , by introducing "historical results" in their distribution of CL group stage tv money. This means Inter Milan (who've only recently not been run like a joke) will receive 30% more television revenue in the group stage than Roma just because they've had more European success in the last 15 years. Which begs the question : how, in any way , does that promote "fair play"? That is a huge disadvantage for a club like Roma , who are already miles behind Inter in revenue (the only currency recognized for break-even rules).

What it's really doing, if you read between the lines, is ensuring the threat of the "super league" is mitigated. They want to ensure the fat cats are well fed so they don't feel the need form their own league. If the mega clubs form their own league , the CL becomes superfluous, and they lose a sh!t load of money. They can't allow that to happen.

I can't begin to explain my frustrations as a Roma fan dealing with UEFA and their laws.

The FFP BS with Milan this summer (and last) was an absolute f***ing joke. There are clearly different standards applied to different teams.

 

[Il Mediano]

Oh I know. And EPL fans really don't even need to educate themselves on FFP because their TV deal is so astronomical that a club would have be run by absolute morons to actually have any FFP problems. Man City got a slap on the wrist a few years ago , but nothing else.

The monopoly that Barca, Bayern, Juve, Real et al , have in their respective leagues is only getting worse.

You want to see sickening?

Serie A 2018-19 wage bills:

Juventus €219m
Milan €140m
Inter €116m
Roma €100m
Napoli €94m
Lazio €66m
Torino €43m
Fiorentina €37m
Sampdoria €36m


Highest Serie A salaries [net]
Ronaldo €31m
Higuain €9.5m
Dybala €7m
Pjanic €6.5m
D. Costa €6m
Donnarumma €6m
Bonucci €5.5m
Emre Can €5m
Insigne €4.6m
Icardi €4.5m
Nainggolan €4.5m
Dzeko €4.5m

And the only way Roma can ever hope to catch up? Revenue. Which UEFA has just systematically (and blatantly) taken away.

 

[Il Mediano]

The FFP BS with Milan this summer (and last) was an absolute ****ing joke. There are clearly different standards applied to different teams.

They wanted to help facilitate Li being forced out. Elliot Group obviously was the protagonist in that regard , but it was pretty clear that once AC Milan had new ownership , suddenly their European Ban was lifted.

Li did spend uncontrollably (and didn't have any money) , I think UEFA actually had some merit in that case.

 

[StevenF1919]

They wanted to help facilitate Li being forced out. Elliot Group obviously was the protagonist in that regard , but it was pretty clear that once AC Milan had new ownership , suddenly their European Ban was lifted.

Li did spend uncontrollably (and didn't have any money) , I think UEFA actually had some merit in that case.

Li was awful but you can't tell me that a team like City or PSG would have been kicked out of European competition. PSGs Neymar transfer using state funds and shady WorldWCup spinsorship deals didnt even warrant a slap on the wrist apparently.

 

[Il Mediano]

Li was awful but you can't tell me that a team like City or PSG would have been kicked out of European competition. PSGs Neymar transfer using state funds and shady WorldWCup spinsorship deals didnt even warrant a slap on the wrist apparently.

Man City has insane revenue , and is what's considered a self-sufficient club , now. Because of the Premier League TV deal , and their growing empire, they'll never have FFP issues again. They're actually playing within the rules perfectly fine, now.

PSG , I have no idea. I know they used an option-to-buy loan with Mbappe to circumvent FFP , but that's widely practiced across Europe (especially in Italy) , it was just for a gigantic fee so it got the headlines. Plus, PSG had to offload 60m in sales to comply with FFP prior to June 30th this summer (before the new fiscal cycle begins). From that perspective , I don't see anything wrong with what they did. However, they certainly don't have the traditional revenue of Man City because they don't play in England. -- so I suppose you could look into how legitimate their revenues actually are (aka foreign "sponsorships" etc -- the same crap City was accused of around 2012).

Milan was entirely different man. They went bonkers (way beyond anything close to their revenue) and Li was a fraud. I can't defend that.

 

[Evilo]

No, it didn't because money spent actually existed. Contrary to all the loan deals that go left and right.

 

[S E P H]

Oh I know. And EPL fans really don't even need to educate themselves on FFP because their TV deal is so astronomical that a club would have be run by absolute morons to actually have any FFP problems. Man City got a slap on the wrist a few years ago , but nothing else.

The monopoly that Barca, Bayern, Juve, Real et al , have in their respective leagues is only getting worse.

You want to see sickening?

Serie A 2018-19 wage bills:

Juventus €219m
Milan €140m
Inter €116m
Roma €100m
Napoli €94m
Lazio €66m
Torino €43m
Fiorentina €37m
Sampdoria €36m


Highest Serie A salaries [net]
Ronaldo €31m
Higuain €9.5m
Dybala €7m
Pjanic €6.5m
D. Costa €6m
Donnarumma €6m
Bonucci €5.5m
Emre Can €5m
Insigne €4.6m
Icardi €4.5m
Nainggolan €4.5m
Dzeko €4.5m

View attachment 137993

And the only way Roma can ever hope to catch up? Revenue. Which UEFA has just systematically (and blatantly) taken away.

I don't disagree in the slightest, but if Roma ever makes it out of the group stage they are guaranteed 30 million Euros right then and there like last season.

 

[Il Mediano]

No, it didn't because money spent actually existed. Contrary to all the loan deals that go left and right.

The money spent on Mbappe? Yeah, if PSG was allowed to , they would've paid in the traditional way, I'm sure. But their revenues (aka break-even) didn't allow it.

Therefore, you just classify it as a loan option and pay it in the next fiscal cycle.

I know PSG has the money. But they didn't have enough "FFP (recognized) money" to make that purchase immediately.

If I'm wrong , please explain.

 

[StevenF1919]

Man City has insane revenue , and is what's considered a self-sufficient club , now. Because of the Premier League TV deal , and their growing empire, they'll never have FFP issues again. They're actually playing within the rules perfectly fine, now.

PSG , I have no idea. I know they used an option-to-buy loan with Mbappe to circumvent FFP , but that's widely practiced across Europe (especially in Italy) , it was just for a gigantic fee so it got the headlines. Plus, PSG had to offload 60m in sales to comply with FFP prior to June 30th this summer (before the new fiscal cycle begins). From that perspective , I don't see anything wrong with what they did. However, they certainly don't have the traditional revenue of Man City because they don't play in England. -- so I suppose you could look into how legitimate their revenues actually are (aka foreign "sponsorships" etc -- the same crap City was accused of around 2012).

Milan was entirely different man. They went bonkers (way beyond anything close to their revenue) and Li was a fraud. I can't defend that.

City and PSG had their revenue artificially inflated by insane sponsorship deals from their owners. I have no problem with them doing that, but if you're going to implement FFP properly then you need to make a distinction between 'legitimate' revenue streams and the owners pumping in money through backdoor sponsorship deals.

FIFA actually came to an agreement with Milan's financial plan (if you could even call it that) before the spending started and then kicked them out of the EL the next summer. It was a joke.

 

[Evilo]

The money spent on Mbappe? Yeah, if PSG was allowed to , they would've paid in the traditional way, I'm sure. But their revenues (aka break-even) didn't allow it.

Therefore, you just classify it as a loan option and pay it in the next fiscal cycle.

I know PSG has the money. But they didn't have enough "FFP (recognized) money" to make that purchase immediately.

If I'm wrong , please explain.

No, I was responding to the post above yours sorry.
You are right.

 

[Ajacied]

Spurs reportedly offered 44M for de Jong, which is about 16M short. I think he’s Barca bound anyway and might already have signed a deal behind the curtains for next year.

Spurs are also targetting de Ligt, who should cost 60M himself. I think he as well is Barca bound, but not as surely as Frenkie.

 

[Evilo]

City and PSG had their revenue artificially inflated by insane sponsorship deals from their owners. I have no problem with them doing that, but if you're going to implement FFP properly then you need to make a distinction between 'legitimate' revenue streams and the owners pumping in money through backdoor sponsorship deals.

FIFA actually came to an agreement with Milan's financial plan (if you could even call it that) before the spending started and then kicked them out of the EL the next summer. It was a joke.

How do you define legitimate or not legitimate?
For instance, the GM sponsorhsip deal with United. GM's GM signed it, at a ridiculous price, and then was fired because everyone could see it was fishy. From various sources, the guy simply had a nice check on a Caiman Bank account in order to sign the deal and when GM understood, they fired him.
That's legitimate per your arguments.

 

[StevenF1919]

How do you define legitimate or not legitimate?
For instance, the GM sponsorhsip deal with United. GM's GM signed it, at a ridiculous price, and then was fired because everyone could see it was fishy. From various sources, the guy simply had a nice check on a Caiman Bank account in order to sign the deal and when GM understood, they fired him.
That's legitimate per your arguments.

If the point of FFP is to prevent owners from spending money exceeding the team's revenue, don't you think it's ridiculous to allow them to create these sponsorship deals where they pump revenue into the team that is then spent?

FFP is garbage and owners should be able to spend what they like but loopholes like this undermine the entire point of FFP.

 

[Il Mediano]

City and PSG had their revenue artificially inflated by insane sponsorship deals from their owners.

City did, when FFP was first really enforced -- there's no doubt of that. But, they cleaned it up, and the new TV deal essentially gave them a get-out-of-jail-free card. Like I said, a club would have to be run by a drunken De Laurentiis to have FFP problems in England now.

Again, I don't want to speak about PSG too much because I haven't studied their situation that much. But , yes, from an outsiders perspective, I have a hard time seeing how they generate the requisite revenue outside of "interesting" sponsorship money. City got the TV deal -- they didn't. Clubs in Italy are suffering the same fate. Inter, for example, are bringing in oodles of foreign sponsorship money from Asia -- but tracking the legitimacy of it is next to impossible for someone like me. That said, Inter is obviously a "historical club" so they do have a huge fan base/tons of traditional revenue as well.

I have no problem with them doing that, but if you're going to implement FFP properly then you need to make a distinction between 'legitimate' revenue streams and the owners pumping in money through backdoor sponsorship deals.

I have a problem with it. UEFA needs to either enforce it , or stop pretending like they are. One or the other. Clubs like Roma are getting shafted. We finally have a billionaire owner who's willing to spend , but he's not allowed to. It will take decades for us to reach the revenue of the Italian Giants and everything would have to go right. Who knows what rules UEFA will come up with next...

FIFA actually came to an agreement with Milan's financial plan (if you could even call it that) before the spending started and then kicked them out of the EL the next summer. It was a joke.

Yeah, they did agree to it. Whenever a new ownership takes over , you get a grace period so-to-speak to spend outside the rules of FFP. The problem was Li didn't have money , and he brought in Elliot Group just so he could cover costs/pay Berlusconi. Red Flags everywhere.

Milan, then had their renewed proposals to UEFA rejected twice in the midst of last season because they knew Li was a fraud by that point.

They kicked Milan out of Europe when Li was still the owner , and then reinstated them once Elliot took over. You put the pieces together.

 

[Evilo]

If the point of FFP is to prevent owners from spending money exceeding the team's revenue, don't you think it's ridiculous to allow them to create these sponsorship deals where they pump revenue into the team that is then spent?

FFP is garbage and owners should be able to spend what they like but loopholes like this undermine the entire point of FFP.

And thus, can you tell me what is legitimate or not? How do you estimate that a team is worth X number of $ of sponsorship?
Hence the United example?

 

[hatterson]

Oh great, this argument again.

 

[StevenF1919]

And thus, can you tell me what is legitimate or not? How do you estimate that a team is worth X number of $ of sponsorship?
Hence the United example?

It's not the amount, it's the owners sponsoring their own teams.

 

[JeffreyLFC]

Oh I know. And EPL fans really don't even need to educate themselves on FFP because their TV deal is so astronomical that a club would have be run by absolute morons to actually have any FFP problems. Man City got a slap on the wrist a few years ago , but nothing else.

The monopoly that Barca, Bayern, Juve, Real et al , have in their respective leagues is only getting worse.

You want to see sickening?

Serie A 2018-19 wage bills:

Juventus €219m
Milan €140m
Inter €116m
Roma €100m
Napoli €94m
Lazio €66m
Torino €43m
Fiorentina €37m
Sampdoria €36m


Highest Serie A salaries [net]
Ronaldo €31m
Higuain €9.5m
Dybala €7m
Pjanic €6.5m
D. Costa €6m
Donnarumma €6m
Bonucci €5.5m
Emre Can €5m
Insigne €4.6m
Icardi €4.5m
Nainggolan €4.5m
Dzeko €4.5m

View attachment 137993

And the only way Roma can ever hope to catch up? Revenue. Which UEFA has just systematically (and blatantly) taken away.

I would love to see the wage bill of ligue 1 teams. It would be very intetesting the different playground PSG are in.

 

[KJS14]

It's not the amount, it's the owners sponsoring their own teams.

So owners will then just give kickbacks to "third-party sponsors" to do the same thing anyways. I agree that we're currently caught in this dumb pretending to enforce FFP, which only really restricts the clubs that are actually self sustaining.

 

[Evilo]

It's not the amount, it's the owners sponsoring their own teams.

First they don't sponsor all their teams, hardly (meaning they have plenty of other sponsors).
Second, you thus think the United deal is legitimate?

 

[maclean]

I think the big beef with PSG last year was the idea that Neymar was paying his own buy-out clause, which he covered by getting paid the same amount to sign a sponsorship deal with Qatar for the WC 2022. I don't know the exact details of how it was worked out, but it seemed to be a pretty blatant flaunting of the rules.