FFP is dead ( Spurs consequences)

[Trix]

They might have to reconsider their position if the government goes ahead, some of the proposals look quite good to me , fans would have a say in affairs like they do with German clubs.

The proposals are no threat to UEFA or FIFA but if an independent regulator ruled against Man City sponsorship deals which PL can't seem to do surely that is good.
And if the regulator ensured that clubs could not be subsidised to the tune of £1.5 bn on transfers & wages then another plus.

Plans to revolutionise English football to prevent another 'Superleague' scandal

Fans’ groups would be awarded a ‘Golden Share’, giving them legal powers over key decisions by their clubs as former Sports Minister Tracey Crouch, chair of the review panel, warned our clubs were only ‘one bad owner away’ from disaster if reforms were not introduced

www.mirror.co.uk

It's irrelevant. Fifa have been very clear they will not accept National Governments to be involved in sporting decisions regarding the regulations they or their member associations put in place.

 

[mil1lion]

If nobody was around to see FFP did it even exist in the first place?

 

[Klinsmannesque]

They've excluded a few nations in the past because of this very issue. Kenya and Zimbabwe have been kicked out because their governments decided they would get involved in how things were being run, and they will be out until they step away. They can very much kick all clubs and nations out of their competitions and refuse hosting of any future tournaments.

Very dangerous game to play with English football. Uefa alone would be crippled due to the knock on effects. Can’t play uefa competition? Fine, cue relaunch of super league where it was the English clubs that were key in backing out early. Barca and Real will soon follow. No incentive not to
Fifa have less to lose but Uefa won’t do a thing

 

[CoopsieDeadpool]

This will essentially kill any competitiveness in football given the revenue disparity between someone like us and someone like Burnley. Somehow I feel this is exactly what UEFA wanted.

But the disparity comes mostly from our club realising it needed to build a new stadium to generate the revenue to try to be competitive with richer clubs.

Burnley (and other small clubs) have the same option.

 

[CoopsieDeadpool]

The people who run football aren't going to put a cap on investment into football.

Newcastle will be able to spend whatever they want.

There is no way to create a fair competition in football that I can think of that doesn't negativity effect the highest earners and decision makers

Have you ever had even the slightest positive thought about anything?

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

It's irrelevant. Fifa have been very clear they will not accept National Governments to be involved in sporting decisions regarding the regulations they or their member associations put in place.

Depends how you interpret national government involvement if football in UK is overseen in the future by an independent regulator who by the sound of it will make some financial levies on transfers to spread money through the football pyramid. .
Different circumstances but the government have just become involved in sporting decisions by banning Chelsea from selling tickets and contract negotiations and they have only been allowed to continue playing games by special licence .
FIFA will have to get involved in politics soon what are they going to do about foreign players contracted to Russian/Ukraine clubs who have no intention of going back.

 

[wiggo24]

Does fuck all. City technically have the largest revenue in world football at the moment but it's obviously as a direct result of shady inflated sponsorship deals with companies basically owned by their owners. Newcastle will just do the same.

Using revenue alone as a tool to solve FFP isn't going to work but it's basically become completely arbitrary as soon as actual nation states started taking over football clubs.

Does mean Chelsea mighty struggle a bit more though as their stadium revenue isn't great.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

They've excluded a few nations in the past because of this very issue. Kenya and Zimbabwe have been kicked out because their governments decided they would get involved in how things were being run, and they will be out until they step away. They can very much kick all clubs and nations out of their competitions and refuse hosting of any future tournaments.

UK government is not proposing what was done in Kenya & Zimbabwe.

"Kenya and Zimbabwe have both been suspended by the world's football governing body, FIFA, owing to government interference in the operations of the national football federations. Nairobi and Harare dissolved their federations late last year and replaced them with government-appointed officials."

 

[Trix]

Very dangerous game to play with English football. Uefa alone would be crippled due to the knock on effects. Can’t play uefa competition? Fine, cue relaunch of super league where it was the English clubs that were key in backing out early. Barca and Real will soon follow. No incentive not to
Fifa have less to lose but Uefa won’t do a thing

Yeah but here's the thing. The Big European clubs(Juve, Barca, Madrid) only want ESL because they are struggling to keep up with the big spending PL clubs in Europe. Take them out and is it still an issue for Madrid etc?

UK government is not proposing what was done in Kenya & Zimbabwe.

"Kenya and Zimbabwe have both been suspended by the world's football governing body, FIFA, owing to government interference in the operations of the national football federations. Nairobi and Harare dissolved their federations late last year and replaced them with government-appointed officials."

Indeed but this is just the latest example, they've been very clear in the past that government interference will not be tolerated at all. Now if it's just a recommendation, and it's acted upon by the FA that's different. If it's a law put in place by a state government I think it's safe to say there will be a reaction. It's a precedent FIFA will 100% not want set, regardless of how good it would be for the game.

 

[chrisd2k]

We won't benefit from nothing. Uefa have shown they have no balls after the City fiasco so this all means nothing.

 

[Atomic Blonde]

We won't benefit from nothing. Uefa have shown they have no balls after the City fiasco so this all means nothing.

I'm no fan of UEFA, but they did in fact ban Man City from playing in the Champions League for two years and fined them €30m for serious breaches of FFP .

It was the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) who then, annoyingly, overturned the ban and reduced the fine to €10m after Man City appealed.

Manchester City's Champions League ban lifted by Cas but club fined €10m

The court of arbitration for sport has lifted Manchester City’s Champions League ban but fined the club €10m

www.theguardian.com

Basically that legal precedent shows the financially doped clubs that throwing money on expensive lawyers will always get you out of trouble, even if UEFA/FIFA do take action against the clubs who don't follow the rules.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

Indeed but this is just the latest example, they've been very clear in the past that government interference will not be tolerated at all. Now if it's just a recommendation, and it's acted upon by the FA that's different. If it's a law put in place by a state government I think it's safe to say there will be a reaction. It's a precedent FIFA will 100% not want set, regardless of how good it would be for the game.

It's ironic though that Juve , Barca & Real Madrid are going to a political court i.e the ECJ to try and push through their right to form a Super League , sporting matters are supposed to be dealt with by CAS but these clubs are taking the political route, these clubs should be banned immediately.
With regards to government sporting interference will have to see how UEFA react if Chelsea are still under a ban for selling tickets when their home CL game is due to be played.

 

[Trix]

It's ironic though that Juve , Barca & Real Madrid are going to a political court i.e the ECJ to try and push through their right to form a Super League , sporting matters are supposed to be dealt with by CAS but these clubs are taking the political route, these clubs should be banned immediately.
With regards to government sporting interference will have to see how UEFA react if Chelsea are still under a ban for selling tickets when their home CL game is due to be played.

Don't forget this is different in the fact that the EU, Fifa and Uefa have all condemned and sanctioned Russia themselves so by proxy RA and Chelsea. CAS has also upheld Uefa and Fifa excluding them from competing in all competitions. It's not the same as a government interfering with the governing bodies rules and regulations set out to it's members. What Fifa 100% will not want is a precedent that a sovereign state has the power to go against/change IFAB set universal regulations, because it could open the flood gates to others changing things as well.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

Don't forget this is different in the fact that the EU, Fifa and Uefa have all condemned and sanctioned Russia themselves so by proxy RA and Chelsea. CAS has also upheld Uefa and Fifa excluding them from competing in all competitions. It's not the same as a government interfering with the governing bodies rules and regulations set out to it's members. What Fifa 100% will not want is a precedent that a sovereign state has the power to go against/change IFAB set universal regulations, because it could open the flood gates to others changing things as well.

FIFA did nothing until Czech Rep, Poland started it by saying they would refuse to the play Russia followed by Sweden etc, FIFA were totally useless just like the Olympic Committee they were going to allow Russia to play under neutral flag and no anthems and all that nonsense . Same at the Paralympics until the the other teams said we will not compete against the Russians they were going to let them compete and had to change their tune to how Russia had broken the Olympic spirit..

Originally UEFA were going to make Spartak Moscow play on a neutral ground for their Europa League tie then had to back c down as well.
Regarding CAS all they have done is refuse an expedited hearing for Russia to lift the ban, the date of hearing still to be fixed , probably after world cup has finished.

CAS denies Russian appeal to lift suspension on teams in UEFA competition

The Court of Arbitration for Sport has denied an appeal from Russia to temporarily lift a suspension against their national teams and clubs from UEFA...

www.insidethegames.biz

 

[CarrickSpurgus]

How ironic is this re Chelsea if this happens? Just when their endless cash supply gets turned off along come rules that levels the playing field and maybe negates the need for an uber rich owner of which they've seen 20 beneficial years! C*nts!!!

 

[Albertbarich]

I personally don't care if some billionaire wants to spunk his money that's on them.

What I take issue with is state owned football clubs , especially when those states have the records of the ones we're dealing with.

UEFA won't do shit and you can tell they won't as they're fully in bed with PSG and the owners

City are taking the absolute piss it's cheating and they are getting away with it thanks to CAS.

I want the super league but I'd love the teams forming it to fuck the oil clubs off, all agree with back themselves due to the massive fanbases Nd say to the oil clubs , keep your money and even the players , are supporters will flow us. Agree to promotion and relegation but only promotion under their rules, so no getting round fit and proper owners tests or the new FFP equivalent.

It's pie in the sky but actually if man utd, Liverpool, arsenal , us and our continental counterparts think about it then its fully in our interests to do it.

I'd also be inviting clubs like Ajax, PSV, celtic, rangers, maybe a couple of Turkish clubs, Greek ones.

Basically those with the biggest fanbases.

I'm desperate for football to tell these oil states to go away.


(They wont)

 

[Delboy75]

A lot in this thread are saying nothing will change and clubs will just ignore it. I think the flaw in FFP was it was just to complex and that in turn led to many loopholes. If it’s a straight forward 70% of revenue there really aren’t that many avenues clubs can take to circumnavigate it. Maybe creative with transfer payment structures, or the obvious inflating revenue with dodgy sponsors. Clubs would be taking a massive risk to think they could just somehow ignore new guidelines because Uefa may not enforce them.

 

[worcestersauce]

But the disparity comes mostly from our club realising it needed to build a new stadium to generate the revenue to try to be competitive with richer clubs.

Burnley (and other small clubs) have the same option.

This is the reality, there have always been big clubs and smaller clubs, big clubs because of their support. It's not the job of football authorities to handicap a more popular or successful club to equal things out that's never been how it works. The distortion comes when a club is bought by someone or some government with limitless funds and pump that club up without it having to build and develop its fan base over time like other clubs had to and who would collapse back down again if the benefactors ever walk away.
By and large I think we all know the difference.

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

I'm no fan of UEFA, but they did in fact ban Man City from playing in the Champions League for two years and fined them €30m for serious breaches of FFP .

It was the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) who then, annoyingly, overturned the ban and reduced the fine to €10m after Man City appealed.

Manchester City's Champions League ban lifted by Cas but club fined €10m

The court of arbitration for sport has lifted Manchester City’s Champions League ban but fined the club €10m

www.theguardian.com

Basically that legal precedent shows the financially doped clubs that throwing money on expensive lawyers will always get you out of trouble, even if UEFA/FIFA do take action against the clubs who don't follow the rules.

Yeah they annoyingly got off on a technicality after with holding requested information for over 2 years, which meant that UEFA fell victim to its own rules that stated it couldn't retrospectively charge clubs over FFP if it wasn't proved within 2 years.

 

[GMI]

A lot in this thread are saying nothing will change and clubs will just ignore it. I think the flaw in FFP was it was just to complex and that in turn led to many loopholes. If it’s a straight forward 70% of revenue there really aren’t that many avenues clubs can take to circumnavigate it. Maybe creative with transfer payment structures, or the obvious inflating revenue with dodgy sponsors. Clubs would be taking a massive risk to think they could just somehow ignore new guidelines because Uefa may not enforce them.

Wasn’t there also new rules introduced by the Premier League recently around greater scrutiny of these dodgy sponsorship deals? If I recall 18 teams voted in favour with City and Newcastle voted against…