Uefa to 'ease' financial fair play rules

[Schlandi]

I'm sure there's an article in the Human Rights Act that stops UEFA from telling billionaires what to do with their money. Probably "the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property"

As an organiser I can decide which dudes/clubs are allowed to participate on my competitions and under which circumstances/rules.
Salary cap in the USA (NBA aso.) , there is a max spending rule in the Formula1 plus you are also not allowed to use more than a handful of engines per season (IIRC, didn't watch it anymore for ages) aso. imo these shitty external money kills football in the long run you should develop your club and earn the way into the top not sell your club to some rich dude and let him buy the success out of nowhere.

It's like not participating as a sprinter for several season at the highest level so you start doping and become a world record holder soon.
This has nothing to do with real sports just like the billionaires- and company clubs.

[Tarquinius]

I'm sure there's an article in the Human Rights Act that stops UEFA from telling billionaires what to do with their money. Probably "the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property"

As an organiser I can decide which dudes/clubs are allowed to participate on my competitions and under which circumstances/rules.
Salary cap in the USA (NBA aso.) , there is a max spending rule in the Formula1 plus you are also not allowed to use more than a handful of engines per season (IIRC, didn't watch it anymore for ages) aso. imo these shitty external money kills football in the long run you should develop your club and earn the way into the top not sell your club to some rich dude and let him buy the success out of nowhere.

It's like not participating as a sprinter for several season at the highest level so you start doping and become a world record holder soon.
This has nothing to do with real sports just like the billionaires- and company clubs.

Indeed, but the Human Rights Act can be invoked for just about anything, which was my point. Especially if there is existing case law.

[Apollo]

Im not mad.

The only thing FFP really does is make it impossible for the have not's to become the haves.

Without Oil Captial we'd still be watching Man Utd and Arsenal have turns winning everything, from an AFC point of view this would be great, from a neutral view id be pretty unfortunate.

Money is the great equalizer, We could see Hull FC or any other nobody challenging for everything in a couple seasons, with FFP this would never be possible.Open market FTW.

And no we don't have Drafts like American sports to regulate the talent and gives the bad teams an opportunity of becoming good, in those systems the worse you are the more talent you have at your disposal, and that talent stays until the contract runs out or you trade for equal talent .The only chance for anyone who is not from a traditional line of power to become anything is to acquire wealth, the great equalizer.FFP handcuffs development for the underdeveloped, only serves to maintain the status quo.

[Santi]

yep can't wait for hull city to spend 100m, lose and end up in admin

[Apollo]

yep can't wait for hull city to spend 100m, lose and end up in admin

They could spend their theoretical money anyway they want, they could have good structure and management and go the way of a Chelsea/City/PSG or they could mismanage and end up in poverty.

Its their choice, but it leaves the playing field open, and gives them an opportunity nonetheless.Im just not a fan of keeping things competitive only for the already competitive.FFP seems like one of those things that are thought up by the 1% for the 1%.

[Va-Va-Voom]

Without Oil Captial we'd still be watching Man Utd and Arsenal have turns winning everything,

Yes, and now we just watch City, Chelsea and United win everything.

Not really any different.

[Apollo]

Without Oil Captial we'd still be watching Man Utd and Arsenal have turns winning everything,

Yes, and now we just watch City, Chelsea and United win everything.

Not really any different.

Who were City and Chelsea?

This is the point.

[Va-Va-Voom]

Who were City and Chelsea?

This is the point.

But the end result is still just total domination by a few teams - which you claimed is bad from a neutral standpoint.

[Apollo]

Who were City and Chelsea?

This is the point.

But the end result is still just total domination by a few teams - which you claimed is bad from a neutral standpoint.

No, the point is no possibility for elevation..

[Santi]

Chelsea and City didn't have good structure when they started, Roman reined (lol wwe) Chelsea in after a few years when they were making huge losses, City and PSG had to do the same when FFP hit them both. All 3 put themselves in precarious positions and could've been up sheeet creek had they not stabilised. Teams can spend what they can earn now which is how it should be, would you rack up a £30000 credit card bill in hope of winning the lottery? Or even in hope of making £100000 on a bet?

Said it before, Southampton are doing fine with FFP, challenging the top 4 after a good season last year as well. Next year they can kick on and challenge for longer, maybe creep in, they don't need to overspend compared to what they earn to do so.

Enough money in football these days, why do we need every club to have an oil sheik to win something.

[Apollo]

Chelsea and City didn't have good structure when they started, Roman reined (lol wwe) Chelsea in after a few years when they were making huge losses, City and PSG had to do the same when FFP hit them both. All 3 put themselves in precarious positions and could've been up sheeet creek had they not stabilised. Teams can spend what they can earn now which is how it should be, would you rack up a £30000 credit card bill in hope of winning the lottery? Or even in hope of making £100000 on a bet?

Said it before, Southampton are doing fine with FFP, challenging the top 4 after a good season last year as well. Next year they can kick on and challenge for longer, maybe creep in, they don't need to overspend compared to what they earn to do so.

Enough money in football these days, why do we need every club to have an oil sheik to win something.

Each club should spend what they earn to my mind is the ultimate 1% line.It only serves to reinforce t he status quo.

We already at the top and come from Old wealth, we already have a market share and we stand to gain the most by any spending limitations.Looking down the ladder is where the situation gets sad.

Outlaw debt financing. The Billionaire's laugh because they are already at the top, and the start ups pack up and call it ad day because they'll never become billionaires.This is what FFP is all about

[Santi]

Owner injecting equity allows a further 90m loss over the course of 3 years, there's enough room for owners to spend and teams to grow. 1 year old but still.

[Schlandi]

Who were City and Chelsea?

This is the point.

But the end result is still just total domination by a few teams - which you claimed is bad from a neutral standpoint.

No, the point is no possibility for elevation..

That's not true it's just the problem that external money kills the chances.
Just look at Gladbach in the Bundesliga f.e. they became nearly relegated in 2010/2011 (had to play play-offs sold Reus to Dortmund and used the money wisely aso. failed at their first CL quali but earned some bugs and experience in the EL) and now they are a top-4 team without any sugar daddy money and will play CL next season. Damn I hate Gladbach but that's how sport should be not some W****rs coming in and buying instant success.

Also the UEFA make it even harder for the smaller teams to break through into the top with the huge gap between the EL and CL prize pool plus allowing even the f***ing 4th placed of some leagues to play in the CHAMPIONS League .. also making the domestic cups nearly worthless didnt really help.

[Apollo]

Who were City and Chelsea?

This is the point.

But the end result is still just total domination by a few teams - which you claimed is bad from a neutral standpoint.

No, the point is no possibility for elevation..

That's not true it's just the problem that external money kills the chances.
Just look at Gladbach in the Bundesliga f.e. they became nearly relegated in 2010/2011 (had to play play-offs sold Reus to Dortmund and used the money wisely aso. failed at their first CL quali but earned some bugs and experience in the EL) and now they are a top-4 team without any sugar daddy money and will play CL next season. Damn I hate Gladbach but that's how sport should be not some W****rs coming in and buying instant success.

Also the UEFA make it even harder for the smaller teams to break through into the top with the huge gap between the EL and CL prize pool plus allowing even the f***ing 4th placed of some leagues to play in the CHAMPIONS League .. also making the domestic cups nearly worthless didnt really help.

This could never happen in England. Too many traditional powers.

The gap in global market is huge, Burnley or any other random don't and wont have a substantial Global fan base.

I don't rule out any club from becoming a decent club, management itself can do that, there a lot of thing you can do that can make you a better team internally, I rule out any club from being middle of the road club to replacing a traditional power.This just doesn't happen happen without money, large amounts of it.

In your league Munich won't be threatened as a power for any substantial or consistent amount of time unless a club came about with Munich type resources.Unfortunately you can't organically acquire Munich type resources you inherit them and then hope to preserve them.

[Schlandi]

Who were City and Chelsea?

This is the point.

But the end result is still just total domination by a few teams - which you claimed is bad from a neutral standpoint.

No, the point is no possibility for elevation..

That's not true it's just the problem that external money kills the chances.
Just look at Gladbach in the Bundesliga f.e. they became nearly relegated in 2010/2011 (had to play play-offs sold Reus to Dortmund and used the money wisely aso. failed at their first CL quali but earned some bugs and experience in the EL) and now they are a top-4 team without any sugar daddy money and will play CL next season. Damn I hate Gladbach but that's how sport should be not some W****rs coming in and buying instant success.

Also the UEFA make it even harder for the smaller teams to break through into the top with the huge gap between the EL and CL prize pool plus allowing even the f***ing 4th placed of some leagues to play in the CHAMPIONS League .. also making the domestic cups nearly worthless didnt really help.

This could never happen in England. Too many traditional powers.

The gap in global market is huge, Burnley or any other random don't and wont have a substantial Global fan base.

I don't rule out any club from becoming a decent club, management itself can do that, there a lot of thing you can do that can make you a better team internally, I rule out any club from being middle of the road club to replacing a traditional power.This just doesn't happen happen without money, large amounts of it.

In your league Munich won't be threatened as a power for any substantial or consistent amount of time unless a club came about with Munich type resources.Unfortunately you can't organically acquire Munich type resources you inherit them and then hope to preserve them.

Gladbach is a traditional power in Germany but like Köln they f***ked it up thanks to poor management.
They won several domestic titles plus two UEFA-Cups but most of them in the 1970s and early 1980s but still one of the clubs with a big fanbase here.