Euro: UEFA bans Man City for 2 CL seasons

[Blender]

What’s the point of FFP? Either actually enforce you’re rules or dint have them. Granted FFP is already pretty stupid as it is, but I don’t get the point of having it if you won’t use it for what it’s for.

There is no point if Manchester City can get away with it. This fine is a joke to them, the only punishment that would have been meaningful is a ban or point reduction so it hurt them on the fiel.

 

[Blender]

Yeah they’ll make that back in 3 minutes.

They don't make money at all, ever. Both Manchester City and PSG operate at a massive loss every year and never really make money.

At least other clubs mentioned in this thread do sometimes make more than they spend and spend not that far out of line with their revenue.

 

[Evilo]

They don't make money at all, ever. Both Manchester City and PSG operate at a massive loss every year and never really make money.

At least other clubs mentioned in this thread do sometimes make more than they spend and spend not that far out of line with their revenue.

That's not true for PSG.

 

[bleedblue1223]

They don't make money at all, ever. Both Manchester City and PSG operate at a massive loss every year and never really make money.

At least other clubs mentioned in this thread do sometimes make more than they spend and spend not that far out of line with their revenue.

Yeah, it makes my head hurt when I read the following articles and people use the words revenue and profit interchangeably. Even then, I'm not bothered by how they operate. A lot of sports clubs in all sports loss money each year, it's not a very profitable business from year to year for most. The money is made on the sale of the club, not the year to year cash flow. You have a select few cash cows in each league that make profits in addition to the increase in club value.

A $840 million kit deal could make Manchester City the Premier League's most profitable football club for the first time in history

 

[East Coast Bias]

What does marketability have to do with anything? People also fail to understand how these brands have gone global at the right time. City blew up at the perfect time when the EPL was taping into newer markets, so their fanbase went up significantly. Between competition success, sponsorship, and new markets, City built a high revenue stream. Same as Chelsea. They were able to build that in the years before FFP.

Not sure why you're bringing Chelsea into this - they've got nothing to do with this. City was charged with basically washing money. Funneling money from their ownership group through sponsors instead of directing into the club, to avoid FFP.

Marketability comes into play with FFP. Again, it's a highly flawed system but it is the system. You're basically looking at a balance sheet. You can't spend hundreds of millions more than you earn. It's easy to look at City today and say "well they're a worldwide powerhouse!" but that's after a decade of this. If Jeff Bezos buys Man United today, or he buys Crystal Palace today, under FFP there's going to be a difference in what he can pump into the club. Due to marketability and sponsorship deals. Unless he buys Palace and suddenly Amazon signs a world record shirt deal. Which is exactly what happened with City. A decade of that later, winning drove marketability and City are clearly not a mid table tier team.

 

[The Abusement Park]

They don't make money at all, ever. Both Manchester City and PSG operate at a massive loss every year and never really make money.

At least other clubs mentioned in this thread do sometimes make more than they spend and spend not that far out of line with their revenue.

I mean City makes money but it’s obvious they don’t make enough money to stay FFP compliant. I mean why else would they be making fake sponsorship contracts inflating “profit”.

I mean just make it a free market, who cares it basically is already. Don’t pretend you have the best interest of teams in mind when it’s so clear that you don’t

 

[Blender]

I mean City makes money but it’s obvious they don’t make enough money to stay FFP compliant. I mean just make it a free market, who cares it basically is already. Don’t pretend you have the best interest of teams in mind when it’s so clear that you don’t

By "makes money" I mean a profit, which is why I said they operate at a massive loss every year. As @bleedblue1223 pointed out, revenue and profit are not the same thing.

 

[The Abusement Park]

By "makes money" I mean a profit, which is why I said they operate at a massive loss every year. As @bleedblue1223 pointed out, revenue and profit are not the same thing.

Yeah I made a small edit about them falsifying profits. Hence why they should just make it a free market. If City can get away with it literally anyone can if they have enough money.

 

[Evilo]

I'm not surprised by the outcry.
Here we have fans of Barca, Bayern, United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Real, Juve, etc...
These are the teams that pushed for a FFP. Because the way it's set up means those teams will have the best TV deals, the most chances at CL participations, even when they have a down year (thanks to the current format they pushed for).
As a few posters have said, this system is very useful when you want to make sure the same 10 teams reach the CL later stages, win the CL, increase their own money and avoid ANY competition from either new clubs, or old clubs trying to take new steps. You also make sure TV deals are the most important thing. You can have a great team in Slovakia, you can't make the CL, you can't do anything but sell your players after a year.
It's not only status quo, it's making sure those teams continue to widen the gap with their competitions.
FFP has absolutely no other goal.
Because why else would UEFA see as a bad thing that Bezos for instance makes Crystal Palace or Real Sociedad or Bordeaux a CL contender? How would it be bad for the game?
It wouldn't. It would be bad for THOSE teams though.

As I've said numerous times, either you let it all go (and I'm not in favor of this BTW) or you create a semi closed league.

 

[Evilo]

By "makes money" I mean a profit, which is why I said they operate at a massive loss every year. As @bleedblue1223 pointed out, revenue and profit are not the same thing.

PSG has made a 30+M profit every year since the Mbappe/Neymar summer.

 

[Chimaera]

I have no problem with not having FFP. In the end it’s just as much a way of owners screwing players and keeping costs down as it is anything else. It’s cost regulation to ensure profits. Smart owners should still be able to do well without it. But, If you have it, make it mean something.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Not sure why you're bringing Chelsea into this - they've got nothing to do with this. City was charged with basically washing money. Funneling money from their ownership group through sponsors instead of directing into the club, to avoid FFP.

Marketability comes into play with FFP. Again, it's a highly flawed system but it is the system. You're basically looking at a balance sheet. You can't spend hundreds of millions more than you earn. It's easy to look at City today and say "well they're a worldwide powerhouse!" but that's after a decade of this. If Jeff Bezos buys Man United today, or he buys Crystal Palace today, under FFP there's going to be a difference in what he can pump into the club. Due to marketability and sponsorship deals. Unless he buys Palace and suddenly Amazon signs a world record shirt deal. Which is exactly what happened with City. A decade of that later, winning drove marketability and City are clearly not a mid table tier team.

Because of the 2nd paragraph. Chelsea, City, PSG, and others benefited from the system before FFP, and all FFP did was put up barriers of entry from getting to the top. Of course Chelsea aren't at fault for what City is, but they are one of the clubs for why FFP was put in place, they just found a workaround with the loan army.

 

[Chimaera]

and note, they weren’t cleared. They most likely did hide evidence and cook the books. The ruling suggests the statute of time has passed.

that’s what is dumb. So, cheating is ok as long as you get away with it for a long enough time.

City did cheat and then hid evidence.

 

[The Abusement Park]

I have no problem with not having FFP. In the end it’s just as much a way of owners screwing players and keeping costs down as it is anything else. It’s cost regulation to ensure profits. Smart owners should still be able to do well without it. But, If you have it, make it mean something.

This is where I’m at. Like what’s the point of it existing if no one has to follow its rules?

 

[Chimaera]

This is where I’m at. Like what’s the point of it existing if no one has to follow its rules?

Right. If you’re going to let foreign money funds make up sponsorships or just hide contract payments under the table, then why even have it?

 

[bleedblue1223]

It's like the NCAA with their violations and punishment. Mizzou cooperated and worked with the NCAA over a rogue tutor and they got the hammer. North Carolina refused to cooperate, had clear institutional level issues, and they got a slap on the wrist. Corrupt organizations will be corrupt and you are incentivized to not work with them.

 

[Blender]

I'm not surprised by the outcry.
Here we have fans of Barca, Bayern, United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Real, Juve, etc...
These are the teams that pushed for a FFP. Because the way it's set up means those teams will have the best TV deals, the most chances at CL participations, even when they have a down year (thanks to the current format they pushed for).
As a few posters have said, this system is very useful when you want to make sure the same 10 teams reach the CL later stages, win the CL, increase their own money and avoid ANY competition from either new clubs, or old clubs trying to take new steps. You also make sure TV deals are the most important thing. You can have a great team in Slovakia, you can't make the CL, you can't do anything but sell your players after a year.
It's not only status quo, it's making sure those teams continue to widen the gap with their competitions.
FFP has absolutely no other goal.
Because why else would UEFA see as a bad thing that Bezos for instance makes Crystal Palace or Real Sociedad or Bordeaux a CL contender? How would it be bad for the game?
It wouldn't. It would be bad for THOSE teams though.

As I've said numerous times, either you let it all go (and I'm not in favor of this BTW) or you create a semi closed league.

Let me be very clear, I am not pro-FFP, at least not in the current state it is in. I am however pro-rule enforcement, and to have an entire rule structure laid out only to not enforce it properly when teams grossly violate them makes the entire thing a farce.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Because of the 2nd paragraph. Chelsea, City, PSG, and others benefited from the system before FFP, and all FFP did was put up barriers of entry from getting to the top. Of course Chelsea aren't at fault for what City is, but they are one of the clubs for why FFP was put in place, they just found a workaround with the loan army.

You just don't like FFP then. Which is fine. I agree - it sucks. I don't care if they banish tomorrow.

But it is the rule, and they're clearly not ready to remove it. City clearly broke it. But they're not punished because?

 

[Blender]

All this ruling does is show other clubs that if they cheat and hide it for long enough they will get a slap on the wrist.

 

[JeffreyLFC]

I'm not surprised by the outcry.
Here we have fans of Barca, Bayern, United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Real, Juve, etc...
These are the teams that pushed for a FFP. Because the way it's set up means those teams will have the best TV deals, the most chances at CL participations, even when they have a down year (thanks to the current format they pushed for).
As a few posters have said, this system is very useful when you want to make sure the same 10 teams reach the CL later stages, win the CL, increase their own money and avoid ANY competition from either new clubs, or old clubs trying to take new steps. You also make sure TV deals are the most important thing. You can have a great team in Slovakia, you can't make the CL, you can't do anything but sell your players after a year.
It's not only status quo, it's making sure those teams continue to widen the gap with their competitions.
FFP has absolutely no other goal.
Because why else would UEFA see as a bad thing that Bezos for instance makes Crystal Palace or Real Sociedad or Bordeaux a CL contender? How would it be bad for the game?
It wouldn't. It would be bad for THOSE teams though.

As I've said numerous times, either you let it all go (and I'm not in favor of this BTW) or you create a semi closed league.

I say let it go. At this point if some teams want to run their team straight to bankruptcy they should be able to. If they want to pump in billions in making a smaller club a CL champion so be it. The system is not good and this is a proof. Let the free market rules.

 

[Evilo]

Let me be very clear, I am not pro-FFP, at least not in the current state it is in. I am however pro-rule enforcement, and to have an entire rule structure laid out only to not enforce it properly when teams grossly violate them makes the entire thing a farce.

Sure, but again, that's quite tough to judge.
How do you evaluate what a team should or should not get out of a sponsor.
For instance, United got a crazy deal out of Chevrolet, one that had some MAJOR shady stuff going on.
City's deal was obviously outrageous, but after a few years, it doesn't seem THAT out of reality.

Even if the purpose was clear, I don't think there's a clear rule as to how much a sponsor should give you.

 

[Evilo]

I say let it go. At this point if some teams want to run their team straight to bankruptcy they should be able to. If they want to pump in billions in making a smaller club a CL champion so be it. The system is not good and this is a proof.

If a rich guy wanted to make Slavia Prague the new CL winner, he wouldn't be able to, because especially of TV Rights and FFP.

Who on earth can decide he shouldn't be able to? It's outrageous. Again, FFP is made to make sure nw teams can't compete with the top 10 club.

 

[Blender]

Sure, but again, that's quite tough to judge.
How do you evaluate what a team should or should not get out of a sponsor.
For instance, United got a crazy deal out of Chevrolet, one that had some MAJOR shady stuff going on.
City's deal was obviously outrageous, but after a few years, it doesn't seem THAT out of reality.

Even if the purpose was clear, I don't think there's a clear rule as to how much a sponsor should give you.

City was literally caught paying themselves through a "sponsor". It has nothing to do with the value of the sponsorship and everything to do with it just being a cash injection by their owner that they were hiding to specifically bypass FFP.

 

[Incubajerks]

I say let it go. At this point if some teams want to run their team straight to bankruptcy they should be able to. If they want to pump in billions in making a smaller club a CL champion so be it. The system is not good and this is a proof. Let the free market rules.

Point is that those are the same 8/10 teams who set the market. And they set it sky high.

 

[bleedblue1223]

You just don't like FFP then. Which is fine. I agree - it sucks. I don't care if they banish tomorrow.

But it is the rule, and they're clearly not ready to remove it. City clearly broke it. But they're not punished because?

Yeah, look at my post about the NCAA, it's the same thing there. Corrupt organizations with vague enough rules is just a bad combo. Any rule has to be very simple and clear to actually work. City absolutely should've been punished, I don't disagree on that, my take on FFP is just that this result was always inevitable. The clubs like City that break the rules were be able to get out of it, where as smaller clubs won't have the influence, money, or power to get away with breaking the same rules.

I care more about the practicality of the rule as opposed to the spirit because as we see here, the spirit of the rule just gets abused.