Super League and cheating by ManCity and PSG

[StevenF1919]

Football Leaks: Sergio Ramos widersetzte sich bei Dopingtest

Der Spiegel is reporting that Sergio Ramos failes a doping test the day before the 2017 UCL final and UEFA covered it up.

 

[Live in the Now]

Statement on proposed reform of UEFA club competitions

England vehemently against these reforms.

Germany feels the same way unanimously. Super League dead.

 

[Evilo]

Super league isn't dead, let me tell you.
All FAs are against but they don't matter. Super clubs are for.

It'll get done at some point. I just hope the FAs manage to insist on EVERY club being left unprotected regarding relegation.

 

[Live in the Now]

Super league isn't dead, let me tell you.
All FAs are against but they don't matter. Super clubs are for.

It'll get done at some point. I just hope the FAs manage to insist on EVERY club being left unprotected regarding relegation.

The super clubs in England aren't in favor of it though as that statement makes clear, all the big clubs signed that statement. They draw the biggest TV money and it would be very difficult to do without them.

 

[Jussi]

The super clubs in England aren't in favor of it though as that statement makes clear, all the big clubs signed that statement. They draw the biggest TV money and it would be very difficult to do without them.

I think Italy is also against it, namely Juventus.

 

[Live in the Now]

I think Italy is also against it, namely Juventus.

Actually Juve is the main team in Europe driving this because they've conquered and ruined their league.

 

[Evilo]

Oh it won't because at some point the money will win.
And they might have signed this, but we all know some are in favor of it.
Nobody would have discussed this if the major teams hadn't toyed with the idea.

It's just a PR move.

 

[Jussi]

Actually Juve is the main team in Europe driving this because they've conquered and ruined their league.

Oh that's right, they were against the Champion's League reform (which pretty much everyone else is as well).

 

[Live in the Now]

Oh it won't because at some point the money will win.
And they might have signed this, but we all know some are in favor of it.
Nobody would have discussed this if the major teams hadn't toyed with the idea.

It's just a PR move.

It might happen at some point, but I don't think it'll be any time in the next ten years. The key point is that politicians everywhere will be asked to interfere and stop it, including by fans of some of the teams involved.

 

[Evilo]

Well I'm convinced it'll happen before 10 years.

 

[Live in the Now]

PSG president Nasser al-Khelaifi in spotlight over Pastore transfer

Alleged of breaking FFF and FIFA regulations this time. Possible perjury too. Won't quote because it takes the whole article to cover it.

 

[Evilo]

To avoid everyone wasting time, some journalist thinks it's terrible because Khelaifi supposedly paid an agent 2M from "his" money during the Pastore transfer, while it should have been the club.

 

[Havre]

That is kind of terrible though. But I guess modus operandi for both PSG and City. Happy days.

 

[Evilo]

Yep totally terrible, and totally only used by City and PSG.

 

[Havre]

I guess that is the last line of defense - "others do it as well". Worked well for Lance Armstrong so who am I to judge.

The difference is that very few teams are supported by owners with limitless amount of money. So not that many other clubs have the same kind of interest in keeping costs outside of their books.

Teams like Utd and Arsenal got owners that are doing the opposite by all accounts - taking money OUT of the clubs instead. Utd certainly are.

 

[Evilo]

Nope, it's wrong because it doesn't appear in the account books. This is against the rules.

All team have interest in keeping outside the books because of FFP.

And we can all laugh at the 2M here out of a 42M transfer. Anyone who thinks PSG got it away because they saved 2M from their books is delusionnal. But that's also called a witch hunt.

 

[Havre]

Meaning you would have to pay it as dividends first. So why would you then worry about FFP? Unless you got an owner that is willing to spend their personal money on the team it does not make any sense to make payments that way. Obviously City and PSG are not the only teams with that kind of ownership, but they are clearly the worst examples and got the most to gain from this kind of behavior.

Witch hunt or no smoke without fire. Obviously those 2m aren't important, but did it only happen once?

The obvious one is the inflated sponsorship agreements. It makes absolutely no sense that "small" teams like City and PSG should suddenly have the same commercial appeal as teams like Utd, RM etc.

City make a lot more "commercial income" than for example Liverpool. It is just absurd and clearly has nothing to do with the market value of City. Or at least it didn't before they starting buying titles. Even today after all of City's "success" it does not make sense that City can bring in 50% more money than Liverpool.

To me this sounds more like Al Capone than a witch hunt. Everyone understand that these clubs are behaving in a way that most do not agree with, but I think football was taken by surprise by the extent of it - so the legal framework isn't mature enough.

Anyway. To me it looks like FFP is starting to work somewhat. At least PSG and City are spending more in line with big teams these days - and not completely outspending everyone. I still think it is ridiculous, but slightly less so than it used to be at least. PSG have even had to sell some players amazingly enough.

 

[Evilo]

Of course the sponsorship was FFP circumventing. Nobody's disputing that. UEFA saw this and feed both teams (as well as limited their registration numbers IIRC). Also both teams couldn't use the same sponsor after the contract ended (this summer for PSG).
Now, who's Al Capone here though? The big teams preventing the new investors from building expensive teams or the new investors trying to invest their money?
This is really like a drug Cartel who are making sure no competition is rising by using the state laws they made themselves.

FFP is an absolute farce. A UK investor has just bought Nice (so to most posters here, his money is ethically right, remember) and its stadium. Yet he won't be able to spend his money because FFP prevents it. How ridiculous is that?
Well, it's not ridiculous for the Old Boys Club. It's a way of keeping their domination of Europe, making more money than anyone else (because CL prevents them from losing money), and making sure they're always richer than the other teams day after day.

Defending the FFP is to me absolutely unreal.

 

[Havre]

Or teams could actually do like Spurs and build stone by stone.

This idea that there is this conspiracy among the old big teams is rather strange to say the least.

I don't know the history of Lyon, Atletico Madrid etc., but it looks to me it is possible to build a proper club without having to buy yourself to the top through transfers.

And if this was proper owners interested in building healthy teams they are free to spend on infrastructure.

 

[Evilo]

Or teams could actually do like Spurs and build stone by stone.

This idea that there is this conspiracy among the old big teams is rather strange to say the least.

I don't know the history of Lyon, Atletico Madrid etc., but it looks to me it is possible to build a proper club without having to buy yourself to the top through transfers.

And if this was proper owners interested in building healthy teams they are free to spend on infrastructure.

Conspiracy?
FFP was MADE because of Chelsea's investments.
How is that strange? They make sure nobody can challenge them. Atletico, Lyon and Spurs have won how many CLs in the last 10 years exactly?
And FYI, when Lyon was winning 7 titles in a row, they completely dominated the league financially, buying the top young players from every french team to make sure nobody would compete with them (aka, the Bayern way). Lyon was just killed when PSG was bought and for once they weren't the strongest financially.
Heck, Monaco won the league without being the healthiest, same with Montpellier, Bordeaux, Lille and OM (and I'd have to check about that OM).
But that's the only 5 times in the last 22 L1 titles that the biggest team didn't win the league trophy.

Meanwhile Atletico made a 300M fraud in 2000 and nearly got dismantled because of it.

 

[Evilo]

5 Reasons Why the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations Are a Bad Idea

 

[Havre]

Sample size. You cannot say Atletico and Spurs haven't been competitive when they have played in 3 out of the last 6 CL finals.

I'm not against teams "dominating" financially when it is the club that has generated that money. On the contrary I find the system you got in for example the NHL absurd. Distributing success isn't much better than allowing owners to play with football teams like their toys. And as Utd and Arsenal have shown in England with a more normal amount of money available you cannot make many mistakes to not be competitive. With limitless amount of money you can just buy 200m worth of defenders the year after you just spent something like that on defenders. Who cares right. Pocket change.

I can only imagine how bad it would have been with PSG and City without FFP. Just a matter of time before you got 800m Messi or something.

 

[Evilo]

Big Club Status Quo
A major criticism of FFP is that the bigger clubs are able to solidify their positions and competition is discouraged. Bigger clubs which generate the largest amounts of revenue and profits are consequently able to spend a lot more money on transfers. Martin Samuel of the Daily Mail raised a great point about how the FFP is stifling competition as clubs like Manchester City registering a loss of £194 million in 2010–11 was justified. This was due to the club having to spend large sums to try attracting Champions League football. The Champions League offers clubs huge sums of money in prize money, television rights and
sponsorships. The Premier League has seen dominance from three clubs in Arsenal, Chelsea & Manchester United, more recently Man City. It could be argued that had FFP been in place earlier then there would be only Manchester United winning the league year on year. Even so, the lack of competition for Champions League places is evident as it has been occupied by mainly the old “Big 4” (Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool) and more recently Tottenham Hotspurs and Manchester City. The gap between the now top 6 is likely to grow and grow with clubs not able to spend the sums of money required to push on and close the gap. Apart from the freak year of Leicester City winning the league, the gap has been widening and there is little evidence to show any changes.
There is a reason why the biggest three clubs in Europe (Manchester United, Real Madrid & Bayern Munich) were the first clubs to fully agree with FFP. Clubs that have historically ruled Europe’s top league will arguably have the most power as they have built a huge support base. The regulations will simply increase the power of the traditionally bigger clubs and their dominance will no longer by challenged by “newer” clubs such as Paris Saint-Germain or Manchester City.

As Jose Mourinho explains, “what happened really with the Financial Fair Play is a big protection to the historical, old, big clubs, which have a financial structure, a commercial structure, everything in place based on historical success for years and years and years.”

 

[Evilo]

Sample size. You cannot say Atletico and Spurs haven't been competitive when they have played in 3 out of the last 6 CL finals.

I'm not against teams "dominating" financially when it is the club that has generated that money. On the contrary I find the system you got in for example the NHL absurd. Distributing success isn't much better than allowing owners to play with football teams like their toys. And as Utd and Arsenal have shown in England with a more normal amount of money available you cannot make many mistakes to not be competitive. With limitless amount of money you can just buy 200m worth of defenders the year after you just spent something like that on defenders. Who cares right. Pocket change.

I can only imagine how bad it would have been with PSG and City without FFP. Just a matter of time before you got 800m Messi or something.

Yeah, it's been really bad, right.
Like, let's check all the nice little transfers made by United, Real, Barca and all of those teams that were the first to back the FFP? Seriously?

 

[Havre]

Haha. Yes. When one of the arguments are we get exhilarating transfer fees.

I really have to rethink my views on FFP now.