Super League and cheating by ManCity and PSG

[Il Mediano]

Whether you agree with FFP or not , they clearly made underhanded deals with the corrupt people in charge. Maybe to you it's not a big deal , for people who actually cheer for clubs that abide by the rules , it's kinda a big deal - I'm sorry. Roma has been in FFP hell since 2011 , and it's one of the major reasons we've had to sell players so much. Actually it's THE reason we've had to.

So yeah, owners pump money into their clubs , but it's not via fake sponsorship money. That's really only two clubs with owners that are so damn wealthy that they're above the rules.

As for dismissing something as BS journalism , I have no idea why you'd say that unless you've actually had access to the documents at Spegiel's disposal.

Read this : SPECIAL REPORT: How top football clubs clashed with rules on financial fair play

It's been vetted- exhaustively.

And frankly , when you consider just how corrupt these people have proven to be time and time again, I have no idea why your first inclination would be to instantly dismiss it. Their track record speaks for itself.

 

[Il Mediano]

lol

Unfair Deal

Money game: How top soccer clubs clashed with sport's financial rules

 

[Evilo]

Whether you agree with FFP or not , they clearly made underhanded deals with the corrupt people in charge. Maybe to you it's not a big deal , for people who actually cheer for clubs that abide by the rules , it's kinda a big deal - I'm sorry. Roma has been in FFP hell since 2011 , and it's one of the major reasons we've had to sell players so much. Actually it's THE reason we've had to.

So yeah, owners pump money into their clubs , but it's not via fake sponsorship money. That's really only two clubs with owners that are so damn wealthy that they're above the rules.

As for dismissing something as BS journalism , I have no idea why you'd say that unless you've actually had access to the documents at Spegiel's disposal.

Read this : SPECIAL REPORT: How top football clubs clashed with rules on financial fair play

It's been vetted- exhaustively.

And frankly , when you consider just how corrupt these people have proven to be time and time again, I have no idea why your first inclination would be to instantly dismiss it. Their track record speaks for itself.

There was never any underhanded deals. That's what's so surprising about calling these "revelations". At the time, it was said City and PSG made deals with UEFA to devalue their sponsorship. It was all over the papers. There is absolutely nothing hidden there, except if Platini or Infantino got some (personnal) money out of it, which hasn't been said.

Yeah the Sarkozy stuff is just plain BS. They rely on nothing but hearsay or rumors. Maybe it happenned, maybe not, but that's not journalism when you say things you can't prove and spread rumors.

 

[Evilo]

As for calling their sponsorship deals fake, it's a matter of opinion and that's the whole problem. UEFA thought the sponsorship was way too high (which is obvious, but how do you value it?), but at the same time, they never had brand sponsors like this. So they changed the evaluation and that's where they struck a deal (valued to 100M/year). A deal that also says that at the end of the sponsorship deal (2019), it would not be renewed.

So rather than act as if Roma was the only one coping with the FFP, I'll remind you that PSG and City paid big sums of money to UEFA as a fee (the famous deal that's been talked about), they had player restrictions for european competitions, PSG had to sell for 60M in a single month in june, they have to lose their biggest sponsor next year in 2019, etc...

Fact is, the big clubs and the FFP rules try (as you rightfully said BTW) to prevent new clubs from being rich players. PSG being in a league where TV revenue isn't close to EPL is supposed to spend 30M a year and build a CL contender. That's what they call FAIR PLAY rules. That's what Tebas likes obviously, after years where Real and Barca spent money like crazy without having the means (pre-FFP) and Real being given real estate by the country for free.

Anyway, they'll probably win in the end since the end of the famous Qatar sponsorship is 2019. PSG won't have much money to spend, while City will be fine because of the TV revenue.

 

[BMann]

Greed, greed and on top of that more greed. Bayern can go and do one. They have effectively ruined their own domestic competition and now want to ruin the rest of European football. This will affect the aspirations of every club no matter how small and every football fan out there.

It may be great to appeal to a global market and earn more lucre but the overwhelming opinion here in the UK from fans is that it is a disgusting shameless attempt by Bayern and other clubs to gain more money from UEFA as if they have not got enough already and so make the divide between the haves and havenots even wider.

And as for Infantino. He is on a par with Blatter. Creepy looking person. There is no doubt money was passed from Russia and Qatar to sweeten the winning of the World Cup hosting bids. Shameless.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

2 tweet/ Hearsay, based on nothing. And I hate Sarkozy more than anyone here. That's BS journalism..

Wait a second. I thought you said everything in there everybody already knew, that it wasn't anything that wasn't common knowledge.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

Yeah the Sarkozy stuff is just plain BS. They rely on nothing but hearsay or rumors. Maybe it happenned, maybe not, but that's not journalism when you say things you can't prove and spread rumors.

nicolas-sarkozy-and-manchester-citys-great-ffp-escape

Midnight on the 2nd May 2014 and UEFA General Secretary Gianni Infantino has sent an email to Khaldoon Al Mubarak, the President of Manchester City.

The email went as follows: “My apologies for writing to you so late on a Friday night. Thank you for your trust in me. You can also trust me.”

Infantino’s tone was somewhat surprising, as on this very day an investigation into Manchester City concluded that Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi, the club’s owner, has heavily subsidised his club, in direct violation of Financial Fair Play regulations. As a result, the Citizens’ should have been facing a potential exclusion from the Champions’ League.

Infantino took a different approach however, writing in the same report: “of course, this must remain between us three.” Who is the third person you may ask? None other than former President of France Nicolas Sarkozy.

Sarkozy, the well-known PSG supporter and friend of Qatar, who at a now infamous lunch on the 23rd November 2010 is alleged to have urged Michel Platini, then UEFA President, to vote for the Middle Eastern country as the 2022 World Cup host nation.

What was however unknown, until today, is that Sarkozy also helped, in great secrecy, Qatar’s greatest rivals, Abu Dhabi, who also managed to escape UEFA’s wrath, according to documents obtained by Der Spiegel and analysed by Mediapart.

 

[Evilo]

Wait a second. I thought you said everything in there everybody already knew, that it wasn't anything that wasn't common knowledge.

Yeah the rumor was already known. What's your point?

 

[Evilo]

nicolas-sarkozy-and-manchester-citys-great-ffp-escape

Midnight on the 2nd May 2014 and UEFA General Secretary Gianni Infantino has sent an email to Khaldoon Al Mubarak, the President of Manchester City.

The email went as follows: “My apologies for writing to you so late on a Friday night. Thank you for your trust in me. You can also trust me.”

Infantino’s tone was somewhat surprising, as on this very day an investigation into Manchester City concluded that Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi, the club’s owner, has heavily subsidised his club, in direct violation of Financial Fair Play regulations. As a result, the Citizens’ should have been facing a potential exclusion from the Champions’ League.

Infantino took a different approach however, writing in the same report: “of course, this must remain between us three.” Who is the third person you may ask? None other than former President of France Nicolas Sarkozy.

Sarkozy, the well-known PSG supporter and friend of Qatar, who at a now infamous lunch on the 23rd November 2010 is alleged to have urged Michel Platini, then UEFA President, to vote for the Middle Eastern country as the 2022 World Cup host nation.

What was however unknown, until today, is that Sarkozy also helped, in great secrecy, Qatar’s greatest rivals, Abu Dhabi, who also managed to escape UEFA’s wrath, according to documents obtained by Der Spiegel and analysed by Mediapart.

So, I repeat : what's more than rumors and hearsay?
Do you have access to Infantino's mailbox? Who does? Who can say the third person was Sarkozy? Besides BS? Who can know what was said between Sakro and Platini in 2010?

I repeate, this is based on rumors and BS journalism. Acting like anyone knows what was said in that 2010 lunch is ridiculous and basing the whole thing on this is frankly terrible journalism. There were two parties present and both denied it (for what it's worth of course).

Again, I suggest you read my post earlier. Nothing was made out of secret except if Infantino or Platini got money out of it and this hasn't been claimed anywhere. Until that's the case, UEFA just made deals with clubs to fee them instead of suspending them in the league, per the CL's best interest (per UEFA words).

 

[Evilo]

As for the super league, it's nothing new either. And singling out Bayern seems weird to me. Juve, Barca, Real, EPL clubs, Lyon are known pressure clubs that toyed with the super league idea.

However, I've said it a long time ago, if we can't go back to the previous 2 leg, champions only system (and let's be honest, we won't), I'm in favor of a semi-closed league. Which would at least (hopefully) limit the number of games and teams per league.
The current system is absolutely the worst possible system. Rich get richer and the coefficient from smaller leagues can never overcome the deficit.

 

[maclean]

The current system is absolutely the worst possible system. Rich get richer and the coefficient from smaller leagues can never overcome the deficit.

Disagree. The coefficient from smaller leagues can rise enough to make a real difference for them in terms of their chances of doing better in the tournament and earning more money from the tournament.

Of course CL will always only be about money and attractive games for them, obviously they can never 'overcome the deficit', but the deficit is not just dictated by the CL, it is a matter of the strength of whole national economies, where they have even less chance to overcome the deficit. A country like the Czech Republic for example will never reach the economic level of Germany because it is an economic vassal of Germany - dumping ground for its sub-par products and source of cheap production to support its economy. In terms of the CL however it will also never reach the level of the Ukraine because it is not far enough east to be 100% clientelistic with fairytale rich oligarchs to run teams like toys.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

The UEFA Super League is not a new idea and I'm not sure why Bayern is being singled out other than to appeal to German readers. As a nominal Bundesliga supporter I can't say that the Bundesliga is adequately managed - it has a decent product, top4, and great fan support but most big clubs are poorly managed at some level. They need to take great care to consolidate their strengths and expand their appeal in order to raise revenue. Bayern haven't "hurt" the Bundesliga for some time, it's been mostly self-mutilation at different times by the likes of HSV, Koeln, Dortmund, Schalke, Stuttgart, and Leverkusen.

The cheating of FFP is more scandalous. Am I right in understanding that the money they claimed to have been revenue (to the tune of billions) was never in effect touched/used by the clubs? That would make them farcical statements, right?

How could Roma and Inter (and Milan) get crushed by FFP and not PSG and City?

For what it's worth, I don't think City or PSG will be considered "big clubs" unless their appeal and strength persists for another, say, decade. Given how geopolitics in the region have tumbled and swayed, I don't think we can be so sure that Qatar or UAE will even exist in their current form in that time, much less their less royals' pet projects.

 

[BMann]

As for the super league, it's nothing new either. And singling out Bayern seems weird to me. Juve, Barca, Real, EPL clubs, Lyon are known pressure clubs that toyed with the super league idea.

However, I've said it a long time ago, if we can't go back to the previous 2 leg, champions only system (and let's be honest, we won't), I'm in favor of a semi-closed league. Which would at least (hopefully) limit the number of games and teams per league.
The current system is absolutely the worst possible system. Rich get richer and the coefficient from smaller leagues can never overcome the deficit.

Closing off competition is an anathema to European sport. Aspiration is what plays a substantial part in keeping clubs going. That perhaps one day they might achieve something of note. This scheme is just designed as with most matters in life to make the rich even richer and the poor suffer more. And as for limiting games ? All the big clubs and FIFA espouse are more competitions, more fixtures. Football is over saturated and many fans are highly disenchanted with what has become of the sport. More of a branded entertainment sport.

Infantino is just as bad as Blatter the little weasel.

 

[Evilo]

I agree with everything you say, except that the CL is already close to super league. 4 teams from the top 4 leagues? Meh, utterly ridiculous.
I hate the current format, and would rather go with a semi-close super league where the top 16 teams would have their own league while the domestic leagues would have a league to determine who can go and play in the super league the next season (with relegations/promotions).

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

I agree with everything you say, except that the CL is already close to super league. 4 teams from the top 4 leagues? Meh, utterly ridiculous.
I hate the current format, and would rather go with a semi-close super league where the top 16 teams would have their own league while the domestic leagues would have a league to determine who can go and play in the super league the next season (with relegations/promotions).

If you mean to replace the CL, I agree. It would be fun. It would need sudden death and knockout matches too though, that magic is irreplaceable.

If you mean to be its own primary league, it's great for casual fans but degrades and insults the domestic competitions. I hope it never happens.

 

[Il Mediano]

So rather than act as if Roma was the only one coping with the FFP, I'll remind you that PSG and City paid big sums of money to UEFA as a fee (the famous deal that's been talked about), they had player restrictions for european competitions, PSG had to sell for 60M in a single month in june, they have to lose their biggest sponsor next year in 2019, etc...

I'm not acting like anything; what Roma has "coped" with and what PSG and City "coped" with aren't remotely comparable.

It's about relativity , Evilo.

Roma's FFP issues stem from Pallotta (the owner) buying a club ridden with debt a season before FFP was truly introduced. As UEFA didn't really initially enforce it as strictly , Roma spent about 70 million on transfers more than they received in fees. Then UEFA came in with their rules , and Roma (already ridden with what UEFA/FFP would consider debt) were royally screwed. Pallotta had bought a club he wanted to grow and spent quite a bit on players just before the glass ceiling rules were put in place. Horrible timing.

Ever since that day , Roma has had to sell around 140 million more than they spent. Each, and every year we need to create revenue from selling just so we can satisfy our costs to UEFA. We've had to make sales with FFP deadlines completely having our balls in a vice , and other clubs knowing it. Losing stars every year. You think that 60m PSG had to come with is unique? Roma had that bill yearly until recently and we didn't get to spend 700 million on players.

I mean c'mon. How in the holy hell is that remotely similar?

Did you read the articles? Did you see how much money they falsified and UEFA let them get away with? And I should act like because PSG/City eventually got a slap on the wrist , it's the same thing?

Lets be completely real for a second. The only reason PSG and City got away with what they did is because they're owned by supremely wealthy and influential people. The "penalties" they received did not fit the crime. Not even close.

The rules might be BS , we can agree there, but two clubs weren't even playing by them for years.

 

[StevenF1919]

PSG and City should be punished for this but they won't be. Apparently the FFP rules don't apply if your club is owned by a sheikh who can just buy off UEFA officials. Meanwhile, Italian and Turkish teams (among others) get slammed with restrictions and sanctions for playing by the rules.

In many ways, the Super League concept has the same goal as FFP. Protect the historically big clubs while ensuring that smaller clubs can't grow and compete.

City can cheat and spend all they want, they're still a joke of a club with no history and plastic supporters who can't even fill half their stadium for a marquee Champions League game.

 

[Il Mediano]

Manchester City Exposed: Chapter 1: Bending the Rules to the Tune of Millions - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International

The first of Spiegel's four part series on Man City.

 

[Cassano]

PSG and City should be punished for this but they won't be. Apparently the FFP rules don't apply if your club is owned by a sheikh who can just buy off UEFA officials. Meanwhile, Italian and Turkish teams (among others) get slammed with restrictions and sanctions for playing by the rules.

In many ways, the Super League concept has the same goal as FFP. Protect the historically big clubs while ensuring that smaller clubs can't grow and compete.

City can cheat and spend all they want, they're still a joke of a club with no history and plastic supporters who can't even fill half their stadium for a marquee Champions League game.

Well, they are building their history now. They'll go down as the most dominant PL-only team in history. As long as Pep is motivated, it is only a matter of time until they win Champions League as well.

 

[Evilo]

I'm not acting like anything; what Roma has "coped" with and what PSG and City "coped" with aren't remotely comparable.

It's about relativity , Evilo.

Roma's FFP issues stem from Pallotta (the owner) buying a club ridden with debt a season before FFP was truly introduced. As UEFA didn't really initially enforce it as strictly , Roma spent about 70 million on transfers more than they received in fees. Then UEFA came in with their rules , and Roma (already ridden with what UEFA/FFP would consider debt) were royally screwed. Pallotta had bought a club he wanted to grow and spent quite a bit on players just before the glass ceiling rules were put in place. Horrible timing.

Ever since that day , Roma has had to sell around 140 million more than they spent. Each, and every year we need to create revenue from selling just so we can satisfy our costs to UEFA. We've had to make sales with FFP deadlines completely having our balls in a vice , and other clubs knowing it. Losing stars every year. You think that 60m PSG had to come with is unique? Roma had that bill yearly until recently and we didn't get to spend 700 million on players.

I mean c'mon. How in the holy hell is that remotely similar?

Did you read the articles? Did you see how much money they falsified and UEFA let them get away with? And I should act like because PSG/City eventually got a slap on the wrist , it's the same thing?

Lets be completely real for a second. The only reason PSG and City got away with what they did is because they're owned by supremely wealthy and influential people. The "penalties" they received did not fit the crime. Not even close.

The rules might be BS , we can agree there, but two clubs weren't even playing by them for years.

Well, if you will, Monaco has had to sell massively every year.

BTW, they didn't falsify money.
And no, they got away because it was in UEFA's best interest to have two competitive teams rather than them making FFP explode in court.

 

[maclean]

Well, if you will, Monaco has had to sell massively every year.

Monaco didn't have to sell for FFP did they? They just did sell. For profit. But correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Evilo]

Yes, they had to.
They aparently used screen societies to invest money into Monaco (year they bought Falcao, James, Moutinho and all). Once the FFP said that wasn't fair and fined them, Monaco decided to sell like crazy (to cope with the FFP) and then use a different model (they have since).

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Man, let the big boys form Super League and let everyone else enjoy the domestic competition for once.

Don't let them in Champion's League neither.

 

[maclean]

Yes, they had to.
They aparently used screen societies to invest money into Monaco (year they bought Falcao, James, Moutinho and all). Once the FFP said that wasn't fair and fined them, Monaco decided to sell like crazy (to cope with the FFP) and then use a different model (they have since).

Including selling off the most recent 'superteam' that won them the league, or is that part of the model they have used since? Just curious, I'm honestly not up on it

 

[Evilo]

No, it was in the first round when they loaned Falcao and dealt away James, Martial and others.
But since then they have been clear that to cope with UEFA rules AND with the TV rights compared to other countries, they had to sell every year.
Of course, the "superteam" that got dismantled won them enough money for years.