Uefa ‘rewrites the rules’ to allow Manchester City to dodge FFP sanctions

Lukker-

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/uefa-rewrites-rules-to-allow-city-to-dodge-ffp-sanctions-9725033.html

The threat of legal action against Uefa has enabled Manchester City to field only one club-trained player in their Champions League squad which goes into action against Bayern Munich next week – three fewer than Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool – despite having failed the governing body’s Financial Fair Play rules.

So City's squad was meant be 21 with 5 homegrown club trained players. But they have circumvented this and only have 1. It looked to be one of the more damaging FFP sanctions, it would have limited their CL squad and meant they would have left out some key players but they now essentially have a free pass. Completely undermines the sanctions and casts doubt on whether the home grown player rule can be enforced in any league or cup.

batistuta9

i don't think that's the case, it was 5 HG, no mention of the make up of the 5.
& they didn't rewrite any rules as i don't think they're there in the first place - that's the biggest issue.
this was never mentioned in any source i read on it, they all assumed it'd be 13 + 8, though they never said where they got this from

from memory:
it was announced the had a squad limited to 21 - no indication of make up of the 21
then there was the fifpro involvement, which ended with the 21 being made up of 16 + 5, no mention make up

initially i though they would get away with naming 17 non HG & 4 ass. HG (like you normally could if naming 21) but then it was announced that 5 were needed

GavRedKing

I thought assoication trained players counted towards HG too?

Like Hart, Milner, Lampard? Theyve probably another somewhere to make up the 5th.

Necro

GavRedKing wrote: »

I thought assoication trained players counted towards HG too?

Like Hart, Milner, Lampard? Theyve probably another somewhere to make up the 5th.

Don't they have to have been with the club for 2 full seasons for that to count though? Hart and Milner ok, but Lampard? Doesn't seem right...

GavRedKing

Necrominus wrote: »

Don't they have to have been with the club for 2 full seasons for that to count though? Hart and Milner ok, but Lampard? Doesn't seem right...

Thats the HG players who have to be with the clubs for at least 3 years between 15-21 AFAIK.

The association players can have been trained by any club within the association and still count.

Hence why at Chelsea we've got Cesc considered HG even though hes only with us a month.

Necro

GavRedKing wrote: »

Thats the HG players who have to be with the clubs for at least 3 years between 15-21 AFAIK.

The association players can have been trained by any club within the association and still count.

Hence why at Chelsea we've got Cesc considered HG even though hes only with us a month.

I think you're right actually. That would make sense. Not sure who else they'd include.. Scott Sinclair and Richard Wright maybe?

losthorizon

Dundalk Fans should wave flags in protest against this.

Oh, wait.

Augmerson

losthorizon wrote: »

Dundalk Fans should wave flags in protest against this.

Oh, wait.

?

Lukker-

GavRedKing wrote: »

I thought assoication trained players counted towards HG too?

Like Hart, Milner, Lampard? Theyve probably another somewhere to make up the 5th.

I think the original sanction made it that they had to have 5 club trained players in their CL squad?

EDIT: Was originally meant to be 8HG players, 4 of them club trained 4 of them association trained but after pressure from FIFpro this was reduced to 5 association trained.

Brings up an interesting point though, does FFP break EU anti-competition law.

A quote from a lawyer who is challenging FFP in court next April

"The UEFA rule is, in terms of European competition law, an anticompetitive agreement since it prohibits a club owner to invest his or her own money in strengthening its workforce, the players. It is therefore a restriction of investments, which is deemed to be a major 'crime' in competition law.
"This has the effect, on the one hand, to fossilise the current position of clubs. It is not possible any more for an average club to be bought by an ambitious investor who, having taken a financial risk for a few years, enables it to become a club at a higher level, thus ensure that the existing elite become the elite ad infinitum."

GavRedKing

Necrominus wrote: »

I think you're right actually. That would make sense. Not sure who else they'd include.. Scott Sinclair and Richard Wright maybe?

Clichy....I forgot about him.

Hes surely association trained since his Arsenal days

NIMAN

Money talks, always has done with UEFA and FIFA.

death1234567

Just bumping this given Man City are set to spend over £150m this summer if they sign De Bruyne. Are the nonsensical FFP rules even in affect anymore or has it all been abandoned?

gosplan

FFP was more about stopping smaller clubs going bust than limiting the power of the bigger clubs - though it's planned to do that too.

Big clubs will generally find a way and it's going to take years till it's set in stone. At least City aren't just blatantly cheating it.

PSG's owner/sponsor agreed (I think) the world's biggest sponsorship deal with themselves ... And then retroactively applied it. Basically they 'paid' them for sponsorship rights for the 2 years prior to the deal even though the time had passed.

Lukker-

death1234567 wrote: »

Just bumping this given Man City are set to spend over £150m this summer if they sign De Bruyne. Are the nonsensical FFP rules even in affect anymore or has it all been abandoned?

Lifted mostly, because Platini's son works for PSG and he probably needs backing from the likes of Qatar and UAE federations to run for Fifa president. He was heavily linked to Qatar for the 2020 bid and IMO he's as dirty as Blatter.

Lukker-

gosplan wrote: »

At least City aren't just blatantly cheating it.

PSG's owner/sponsor agreed (I think) the world's biggest sponsorship deal with themselves ... And then retroactively applied it. Basically they 'paid' them for sponsorship rights for the 2 years prior to the deal even though the time had passed.

Didn't City get sanctioned for doing the very same? That deal with Ethiad which is basically owned by the UAE Royal Family and Uefa judged that it didn't match a fair valuation at the time.

POKERKING

death1234567 wrote: »

Just bumping this given Man City are set to spend over £150m this summer if they sign De Bruyne. Are the nonsensical FFP rules even in affect anymore or has it all been abandoned?

This will help answer your question:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3204630/Man-City-fined-42m-UEFA-year-ago-splashing-likes-Raheem-Sterling-Nicolas-Otamendi-happened-FFP.html

gosplan

Lukker- wrote: »

Didn't City get sanctioned for doing the very same? That deal with Ethiad which is basically owned by the UAE Royal Family and Uefa judged that it didn't match a fair valuation at the time.

I'm not sure. Think the point with PSG's is that it was a fair price but they tried to get around that by activating it for years in the past - which makes very little sense given it's sponsorship we're talking about.

But I think this is the way it'll go. They are loads of avenues and clauses that the big clubs will exploit. FIFA will try to close them off one at a time. Sometimes they'll give the club a fine or a slap on the wrist and sometimes they might get away with it. But they'll gradually tighten up FFP until it's in a better place. I don't think they'll really take anyone on over this time as they don't want to battle over things or make enemies.

Bringing it straight in with no leeway and maximum punishments would just set the richest clubs in the world against it. Softly softly approach much better.

batistuta9

Lukker- wrote: »

Lifted mostly, because Platini's son works for PSG and he probably needs backing from the likes of Qatar and UAE federations to run for Fifa president. He was heavily linked to Qatar for the 2020 bid and IMO he's as dirty as Blatter.

it's been relaxed because of the clubs, mainly ones in europe not happy with the size of the TV deals, etc. the english clubs are getting

UrbanFret

financial fair play has been exposed for what it is, a last attempt from the cosy cartel to stop the rise of the new kids on the block. A court challenge was been lined up and that's why the rules has been relaxed as well as the hypocritical clubs like Milan suddenly realising they too were in trouble.
There's no sponsorship as dodgy as UTDS Chevrolet deal. Here's a company propped up by the US taxpayer pumping millions of dollars into the rags and the executive who signed the deal was fired for exceeding his authority as soon as the board found out about it.

Hotblack Desiato

That's a pile of nonsense, GM left the bailout in 2009, so what's the possible relevance of that to the United deal? They also have no link with United's owners, which is more than you can say for PSG or MCFC

You might as well say that Angela Merkel is subsidising United becase she's German, like Adidas.

Also, "rags" wtf??

MightyMandarin

United's Chevrolet deal was not nearly as dodgy as City's or PSG's. The 'stopping new clubs from rising' was an argument used by Mourinho a few years ago, and it's utter garbage imo. Every country has teams which seem to stay at the top, and to some that might seem unfair, but there are plenty of examples of teams which rose suddenly and consplidated their place at the top, like Liverpool under Shankly.

Oil clubs like Chelsea, City and PSG have done nothing to benefit football and honestly, if Liverpool were bought out by some Qatari sheikh and began spending the money City or Chelsea seem to spend, I'd go find another club. How anyone can support a club like these is beyond me. Success should be built on the back of top class managers building a winning team without cheating their way to success like these teams.

FFP was a failure, unfortunately, and it looks like football will never be the same again.

Liam O

MightyMandarin wrote: »

United's Chevrolet deal was not nearly as dodgy as City's or PSG's. The 'stopping new clubs from rising' was an argument used by Mourinho a few years ago, and it's utter garbage imo. Every country has teams which seem to stay at the top, and to some that might seem unfair, but there are plenty of examples of teams which rose suddenly and consplidated their place at the top, like Liverpool under Shankly.

Oil clubs like Chelsea, City and PSG have done nothing to benefit football and honestly, if Liverpool were bought out by some Qatari sheikh and began spending the money City or Chelsea seem to spend, I'd go find another club. How anyone can support a club like these is beyond me. Success should be built on the back of top class managers building a winning team without cheating their way to success like these teams.

FFP was a failure, unfortunately, and it looks like football will never be the same again.

I think the PL is far more interesting with City and Chelsea as big dogs. I don't see how anyone would say they haven't benefited the quality of the league tbh? Liverpool have been around the highest spenders since the PL began btw.

MightyMandarin

Liam O wrote: »

I think the PL is far more interesting with City and Chelsea as big dogs. I don't see how anyone would say they haven't benefited the quality of the league tbh? Liverpool have been around the highest spenders since the PL began btw.

It's more competitive at the top yeah, but it's not more enjoyable to watch imo. It's also much, much harder for English or British players to develop and the national sides in the British Isles have suffered because of the oil money.

Liverpool were a midtable 2nd division club when Shankly took over and brought us to the top england and then Europe, and he did it without spending obscene amounts of money.

Corholio

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It's more competitive at the top yeah, but it's not more enjoyable to watch imo. It's also much, much harder for English or British players to develop and the national sides in the British Isles have suffered because of the oil money.

Liverpool were a midtable 2nd division club when Shankly took over and brought us to the top england and then Europe, and he did it without spending obscene amounts of money.

He said nothing about Shankly, he said the PL. Not everything can be related back to the distant past.

ArmaniJeanss

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Oil clubs like Chelsea, City and PSG have done nothing to benefit football and honestly, if Liverpool were bought out by some Qatari sheikh and began spending the money City or Chelsea seem to spend, I'd go find another club. How anyone can support a club like these is beyond me. Success should be built on the back of top class managers building a winning team without cheating their way to success like these teams.

Twas always the same to be honest, except it used to be a question of which Yorkshire steel magnate or Lancashire mill owner was willing to invest the money that gave the edge.

LuckyLloyd

MightyMandarin wrote: »

United's Chevrolet deal was not nearly as dodgy as City's or PSG's. The 'stopping new clubs from rising' was an argument used by Mourinho a few years ago, and it's utter garbage imo. Every country has teams which seem to stay at the top, and to some that might seem unfair, but there are plenty of examples of teams which rose suddenly and consplidated their place at the top, like Liverpool under Shankly.

Oil clubs like Chelsea, City and PSG have done nothing to benefit football and honestly, if Liverpool were bought out by some Qatari sheikh and began spending the money City or Chelsea seem to spend, I'd go find another club. How anyone can support a club like these is beyond me. Success should be built on the back of top class managers building a winning team without cheating their way to success like these teams.

FFP was a failure, unfortunately, and it looks like football will never be the same again.

I totally disagree with your outlook. In what way are Chelsea / City / PSG bad for football or doing nothing to benefit it? They have shaken up premier competitions and created a lot of exciting matches and entertainment.

It is important that FFP is defeated. We are in a fudge period where UEFA have backed off so that the legal challenges mobilising in the mists are placed on hold.

A person / corporation should have the right to buy a business and run it whatever way they see fit within the bounds of normal business / tax / legislative restrictions. Football always had the concept of sugar daddies.

The big boys shouldn't be allowed to build a wall that ringfences them as the only clubs who can compete at the sharp end for ever more. The dream should be open to anyone willing to pay for it.

If we want a serious review of football let's talk about salary caps; about rules regarding the procurement of young talent. But the big boys don't want to talk about that do they? They want to bend and twist the rules so that their already established revenue streams consolidate a competitive advantage that protect their established revenue streams etc, etc.

RedemptionZ

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If we want a serious review of football let's talk about salary caps; about rules regarding the procurement of young talent. But the big boys don't want to talk about that do they? They want to bend and twist the rules so that their already established revenue streams consolidate a competitive advantage that protect their established revenue streams etc, etc.

A few pages could definitely be taken from the NFL and co. with regards to these.

I don't think these Oil clubs are bad for football per se, they do highlight how much money matters in the sport but that's not their fault. United weren't poor before city got bought over, why should they have a monopoly on English soccer?

bucketybuck

Liam O wrote: »

I think the PL is far more interesting with City and Chelsea as big dogs. I don't see how anyone would say they haven't benefited the quality of the league tbh?

I would say that the quality of the league has decreased in my opinion. This past five years has been far from a golden age when really the likes of Chelsea and City with their millions should have been getting stronger all the time.

Lukker-

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Twas always the same to be honest, except it used to be a question of which Yorkshire steel magnate or Lancashire mill owner was willing to invest the money that gave the edge.

Gotta agree.

Football has always been a business and the most important factor for any business has always been investment.

I also find it amusing that as mentioned historically big teams should stay at the top because of history and they got there naturally and oil/arab/rich owners are ruining football.

You'd swear the likes of Liverpool and United were run by the fans or some local lad and not some American investment firm that's primary function is to turn a profit.

UrbanFret

City are way past worrying about platini and his cronies now.
The general consensus that city are spending big now that ffp has been relaxed is so far from the truth it's unreal, If anyone could be bothered to do a bit of research they'll find that city have now one of the top 5 turnovers in Europe! We are spending our own money!;)

greendom

UrbanFret wrote: »

City are way past worrying about platini and his cronies now.
The general consensus that city are spending big now that ffp has been relaxed is so far from the truth it's unreal, If anyone could be bothered to do a bit of research they'll find that city have now one of the top 5 turnovers in Europe! We are spending our own money!;)

yes that stadium sponsorship was an excellent bit of business !

UrbanFret

greendom wrote: »

yes that stadium sponsorship was an excellent bit of business !

Yes it was, and UEFA(much to their annoyance) have already ruled that City’s business relationship with Etihad is not a ‘related party’ arrangement, despite their Abu Dhabi connection, and therefore it does not break their Financial Fair Play Regulations.

Lukker-

UrbanFret wrote: »

City are way past worrying about platini and his cronies now.
The general consensus that city are spending big now that ffp has been relaxed is so far from the truth it's unreal, If anyone could be bothered to do a bit of research they'll find that city have now one of the top 5 turnovers in Europe! We are spending our own money!;)

Lol