FFP 2.0

[Original Dub]

Wankers think they're in a Hollywood movie with their swanky title.

Anyway, it was only a matter of time wasn't it?

To be voted on May 24th.

www.mcfcwatch.com/2018/01/21/uefa-plot- ... -targeted/

[johnny crossan]

UEFA plot ‘Financial Fair Play 2.0’ with Manchester City, Chelsea and PSG targeted
ByCity Watch Posted on January 21, 2018

Under the pressure of historical clubs such as Bayern Munich, Real Madrid and Barcelona, UEFA are planning reforms of Financial Fair Play with a new version of it, French newspaper Le Parisien reports.

Manchester City and PSG would be two of the clubs targeted by the latest assault on the nouveau riche, but a number of longer established clubs could also be at risk.

One of the ideas would be to impose a negative net spend limit of €100million, meaning if a club spend €300million in a summer, they would have to raise €200million in sales. For example, PSG spent €420million last summer and would have to sell €320million worth of players to comply with Financial Fair Play 2.0.

Another new rule under consideration, one that Manchester United could potentially be impacted by, would be controlling debt. Furthermore, one that seems intended to attack Manchester City and Chelsea in particular, UEFA are considering limiting clubs to 25 professionals, which would prevent the richest clubs from having stockpiles of talent. City and in particular Chelsea sign many players and loan them out, in City’s case often to benefit partner clubs in the City Football Group but also to raise their value and sell for profit as another source of income.

Finally, something that could make state-back clubs worry, UEFA may look to define “related parties” much more precisely when it comes to revenue sources. City have a deal with Etihad – one in 2018 that is heavily undervalued – and a number of smaller sponsorship deals with companies from Abu Dhabi. PSG meanwhile, have a host of sponsors from Qatar such as QTA, QNB, Ooredoo and BeIN SPORTS, all of which could fall victim to the new “related parties” definition.

This project will be voted on on May 24 at a meeting of the UEFA Executive Committee, with UEFA having already drafted a 100 page dossier on what is being dubbed Financial Fair Play 2.0.




https://www.mcfcwatch.com/2018/01/21/ue ... -targeted/

[patrickblue]

That'll all be voted in bar the bit about debt.

[Original Dub]

It seems there's two or three threads about this after appearing together.

Feel free to merge

[john@staustell]

It seems there's two or three threads about this after appearing together.

Feel free to merge

Done. Not sure why someone raked up that little old meaningless thread from a past year. Might get my laser out on that one.

[carl_feedthegoat]

And some CUNTS out there wonder why we continue to BOO the fucking CL anthem.

Will the penny ever ever ever drop for some of these cunts out there that do not believe there is a HUGE AGENDA from UEFA and JOURNALISTS regarding our club, more so than any other club on this planet!!

The home game against BASLE , the BOOING noise should be fuckign deafening....Ill be ready on my sofa..with my laptop within shouting distance.

[BlueinBosnia]

Furthermore, one that seems intended to attack Manchester City and Chelsea in particular, UEFA are considering limiting clubs to 25 professionals, which would prevent the richest clubs from having stockpiles of talent. City and in particular Chelsea sign many players and loan them out, in City’s case often to benefit partner clubs in the City Football Group but also to raise their value and sell for profit as another source of income.

I've got to say, but I honestly don't mind this too much, provided it's a transparent system. I've got a feeling that some teams (particularly the 'old guard' who'll be pushing for these changes) have already got some work-around in mind, especially through 'B' teams in Germany and Spain, and possibly through some form of 'exclusive partnership plus' like the Rags pioneered with Antwerp. I don't see what could be done about loanees, though, as their registration is transferred to the loaning club for the time they're with them, so these technically shouldn't be factored into any 25-man limit.

I've got no idea how player advocate groups like the PFA would react to this - they could see it as a positive or negative step, and I'd like to see some kind of statement from them as to what the potential impacts of such a rule would be.

[Nigels Tackle]

i’ll wait for the club’s response before jumping to any conclusions on this.

[Original Dub]

And some CUNTS out there wonder why we continue to BOO the fucking CL anthem.

Will the penny ever ever ever drop for some of these cunts out there that do not believe there is a HUGE AGENDA from UEFA and JOURNALISTS regarding our club, more so than any other club on this planet!!

The home game against BASLE , the BOOING noise should be fuckign deafening....Ill be ready on my sofa..with my laptop within shouting distance.

It's the most obvious agenda I've ever seen in football and there is absolutely no helping those who can't see it at this stage.

The thing is, if you can admit that there is an obvious agenda within European Football's governing body and within the British media, then how can you not think this would have an influence on the general public, of which the likes of game officials are part of?

I don't think there's wide spread corruption in the officiating of premier league matches - of course there has been and will continue to be some level of corruption; I'm big enough at this stage to know that wherever there is huge amounts of money there is corruption - but the constant tarnishing of Manchester City as the enemy of football has created clear bias in the last few years. I think that's fair enough to say.

This season, after the first 3 games in which we were fucked over several times, something happened and we've had a fair crack of the whip over all. We've been a few years waiting for this, so it's fantastic to see how far ahead we are when a level playing field is introduced.

The problem is that it will not be allowed to last. If we continue to be officiated anything close to being deemed as fair, then we will be hit financially, in order to let the old guard win titles.

I think given what has happen over the last 8 or 9 years, I might be on to something?

[Foreverinbluedreams]

How can you limit clubs to 25 pros? Are the reserve leagues and under 18 leagues going to be scrapped?

[carl_feedthegoat]

And some CUNTS out there wonder why we continue to BOO the fucking CL anthem.

Will the penny ever ever ever drop for some of these cunts out there that do not believe there is a HUGE AGENDA from UEFA and JOURNALISTS regarding our club, more so than any other club on this planet!!

The home game against BASLE , the BOOING noise should be fuckign deafening....Ill be ready on my sofa..with my laptop within shouting distance.

It's the most obvious agenda I've ever seen in football and there is absolutely no helping those who can't see it at this stage.

The thing is, if you can admit that there is an obvious agenda within European Football's governing body and within the British media, then how can you not think this would have an influence on the general public, of which the likes of game officials are part of?

I don't think there's wide spread corruption in the officiating of premier league matches - of course there has been and will continue to be some level of corruption; I'm big enough at this stage to know that wherever there is huge amounts of money there is corruption - but the constant tarnishing of Manchester City as the enemy of football has created clear bias in the last few years. I think that's fair enough to say.

This season, after the first 3 games in which we were fucked over several times, something happened and we've had a fair crack of the whip over all. We've been a few years waiting for this, so it's fantastic to see how far ahead we are when a level playing field is introduced.

The problem is that it will not be allowed to last. If we continue to be officiated anything close to being deemed as fair, then we will be hit financially, in order to let the old guard win titles.

I think given what has happen over the last 8 or 9 years, I might be on to something?

We were onto something years ago pal , even now , after all the fucking evidence ,you still have some people with their hands over their ears or covering their eyes like its not happening.

The truth, more often than not , finds a way of rising above the lies and deceit.

[BlueinBosnia]

Have we can you limit clubs to 25 pros? Are the reserve leagues and under 18 leagues going to be scrapped?

The more I think about this, the more nonsense it seems - say you have 2 players with long-term lay-offs, will you have to essentially fire them and pay up their contracts to free up their spaces? Will it mean releasing players as soon as they hit 'professional' age, rather than assisting them in finding their level by loaning them out? It could actually work out really, really bad for players themselves, and, with more people potentially being forced out of the game at a younger age, significantly increase wage pressures on lower league clubs looking for players in a heavily contracted market.

[FA cup winners 2006]

Dont think any of these are targeted at us or will affect us greatly. If anything they will help us.

negative net spend limit of €100million

Obviously aimed at stopping some owner buying the likes of Newcastle and spending €300 million in one summer. This will also effect all the big clubs (including us) as we cant now spend big to add to our squad, we need to upgrade and replace players. This is where we need our academy to start proving its worth.

This measure will effect United more than it will effect us. They badly need star players that will command huge fees and they dont have the high priced players to sell and their academy is gone to pot. Although this is probably what the owners want, be able to turn to Jose and say "we would love to buy Bale but FFP and all, who do you want to get rid of Pogba, Sanchez or DeGea because the rest are shit"

limiting clubs to 25 professionals

Shouldn't really effect us, 25 players is fine. If this is going to include players out on loan then fine by us. We can just sell players to Girona, NYC, Melbourne etc. and we dont have to worry about them selling them on without our permission. Even the deal we done for Iheanacho would get around this obstacle.

define “related parties” much more precisely

"Precisely" would lead me to believe they are going to narrow the definition and not leave it wide open to interpretation. At the end of the day, we are owned by a private individual/group and not a State Nation (open to correction). If they exclude government backed companies such as Etihad on the basis that our owner is a part of the Government that backs Etihad, then we go to the open market and get the best sponsorship deal we can.

[john@staustell]

I've always had a hunch there will be a big non-Etihad sponsor on the cards at some point.

[Chinners]

[Nickyboy]

If done fairly and transparently I think these measures are all quite good for the game and trying to control the ridiculous transfer market.

I agree with the previous posters breakdown of how it impacts us and how it will equally impact all other big clubs.

The issue though is that this is UEFA and it won't be policed fairly and transparently and the rules will be subject to change.

The only place we may struggle is the net spend as we historically have been bobbins at getting value when we sell, but I wouldn't be against us having to sell to buy and it would make it a fairer system for smaller clubs

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

The twenty five pro's rule is frankly weird. Can the attack on us be so blatant as to damage the prospects of young players' careers? Surely that would be a step too far

[Original Dub]

The twenty five pro's rule is frankly weird. Can the attack on us be so blatant as to damage the prospects of young players' careers? Surely that would be a step too far

Look at the steps taken all the way through the history of UEFA and fifa in the name of money and the safe guarding of it.

You'd be stupid to rule it out.

[johnny crossan]

I've always had a hunch there will be a big non-Etihad sponsor on the cards at some point.

Well we do have Chinese owners too

[john68]

I think it's of paramount importance to understand that UeFA is only an administrative body and as such has little or no power unless given to it by the clubs.

Neither should we forget that UeFA remain under threat of a breakaway Euro Super League. This is fact and has been known to have been under active discussion since 2013. (Publically stated by the owners of Galatasary and confirmed by Agnelli, the owner of Juve at the Leaders In Sport Conference, 2013).

UeFA (& FiFA) have no powers of regulation except and only in those competitions that they themselves run. (Refer to the Royal Charlerois v FiFA legal case 2005-06).

The sole reason that clubs at or near the top their respective domestic leagues are required to play in UeFA's CL and EL competitions is because there is a signed agreement 'Memorandum Of Understanding' between UeFA and the European Clubs' Association (ECA). (Renewed in 2014 and expires in 2018).

The above is extremely important to show that the balance of power lies not only with the clubs, but with a group of politically powerful rich clubs, some of which were the driving force behind the old G14. It is thought that currently, that small group of clubs consists who are controlling UeFA are; the rags, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Bayern, Barca, Real, Inter, Milan and one other which slips my mind. It is also possible that this group has since been joined by Juventus.

AGENDAS
The English clubs need to protect their investments, With the rise of City in football and commercial terms and to some extent the rise of Spurs who have qualified for the CL in recent years, they are threatened. The recent Deloitte report makes the point that the rags Europa League win last season was the sole reason they maintained their top place as revenue earners.
The European clubs feel at a disadvantage to the English clubs because of the size of the Prem's TV deals globally. Subsequently, they are in favour of a Euro Super League to even out the revenues more equitably.

Though the agenda seems to be against City (& PSG) in particular, we should remember that is only because we threaten their hegemony at the top table. Unlike Chelsea many years ago, who were absorbed by extra CL qualifying places, (from 2 to 4), City cannot be absorbed and so must be stopped. The same would apply to any other club which also rose to threaten the old order.

(end of part one)