Patrick Barcley wrote a peice in the Evening Standard the other day and I thought he was spot on.

Whatever you think off FFP (and this idea that it's a barrier to new clubs competing is nonsense), they've all known about it for years, including City. The rules where there for everyone to see and yet they made virtually no real effort to meet it and instead just tried to find a loop whole with a massive sposership deal. Regardless of the punishment, they have absolutely no right to complain.

Klaus wrote:

Wenger is absolutely spot on about the FFP, by the way.

he is, but it always looks bitter when he speaks on these matters. he should rather leave it to the independent commentators. he just looks like a guy who can't coach and then gets beaten.

if UEFA imposes rules, Wenger better start winning trophies, else he'll look a failure

Klaus wrote:

You're so weird. Every other post you make is some moronic life lesson where you assume people said something they didn't and go on to lecture them about something unrelated. Stop being a condescending prick. You're the last person who would want to lecture me about gay rights and gender equality (both fights that are nowhere near being won, as it happens).

No need for the personal abuse.

I was just saying that change doesn't happen automatically.
Dupont and Bosman had to fight and win it, you seem intent on belittling their achievement now that he's turned his attention to something you passionately believe in.

Biggus wrote:
Klaus wrote:

You're so weird. Every other post you make is some moronic life lesson where you assume people said something they didn't and go on to lecture them about something unrelated. Stop being a condescending prick. You're the last person who would want to lecture me about gay rights and gender equality (both fights that are nowhere near being won, as it happens).

No need for the personal abuse.

I was just saying that change doesn't happen automatically.

That's not all you were saying and that's certainly not how you put it. Just scroll a few posts up if you need a reminder.

No one belittled Dupont's achievement. I just pointed out that it had more to do with being in the right place at the same time (bloke was an unexperienced juridical student who was hired to be a part of a legal team). But you just had to turn it into something else completely because that's the way you are. Always looking for an argument.

PSG non-HG players: Sirigu, Silva, Marquinhos, Maxwell, van der Wiel, Motta, Verratti, Pastore, Lucas, Lavezzi, Cavani, Ibrahimovic

Alex is out of contract but rumored to extend, and Alves has apparently agreed a contract. But overall PSG is pretty well equipped to handle the non-HG part of FFP sanctions. They'll dump Pastore at the very least, and there's a lot more French talent than there is English talent for City.

I wonder if they'll go for Hazard.

innervisionscm wrote:

PSG non-HG players: Sirigu, Silva, Marquinhos, Maxwell, van der Wiel, Motta, Verratti, Pastore, Lucas, Lavezzi, Cavani, Ibrahimovic

Alex is out of contract but rumored to extend, and Alves has apparently agreed a contract. But overall PSG is pretty well equipped to handle the non-HG part of FFP sanctions. They'll dump Pastore at the very least, and there's a lot more French talent than there is English talent for City.

I wonder if they'll go for Hazard.

If PSG can bring in the likes of Mangala/Varane, Pogba, and Hazard, they'll be well stocked in terms of HG players.

Read that Pastore is off to Roma, bet they wouldn't mind offloading van der Wiel either.

Word from City's website that the sanction includes an agreement to a maximum net spend of 60 million euros this summer and no net increase of the wage bill of the club next season in addition to the maximum deficit agreement.

If I understand correctly, then 40m of the 60m fine will be returned to City if they comply with all the points in the agreement.

I'm with Wenger on this; they have not only been in breach of the FFP, they have shat all over them, and IMO should have just been excluded from play in Europe. This is just a sophisticated slap on the wrist.

I'd bet that they would be excluded from European competition if they're found to be repeat offenders. The most logical alternative is that the cartel disassociates from UEFA and starts their own competition independently.

Word now that the Etihad deal was not considered to be overvalued or a related party transaction. What did City in was a discrepancy in the interpretation of pre-2010 signings which cost them £80m by FFP calculations.

What's the purpose of FFP? To ensure the dominance of the already rich clubs? How is that "fair". Such elitism, much hypocrisy.

The purpose is to get clubs to spend within their means. Whether it benefits the rich clubs or not is irrelevant; as long as the playing field gets leveled other clubs will have a fair crack at building something. The only way they can measure up to the G14 today is if some stupendously rich oligarch takes over and starts throwing billions around. That's the exact opposite to how a sport should work. It removes the competitive element from it.

Klaus wrote:

The purpose is to get clubs to spend within their means. Whether it benefits the rich clubs or not is irrelevant; as long as the playing field gets leveled other clubs will have a fair crack at building something. The only way they can measure up to the G14 today is if some stupendously rich oligarch takes over and starts throwing billions around. That's the exact opposite to how a sport should work. It removes the competitive element from it.

"Spend within their means"? What is this, Eurozone austerity for football? Just like those policies, FFP benefits the rich. It consolidates the power of those teams who are already at the top by not allowing so called oligarch investment. That's what this is all about.

The intent and reasoning behind it is fairly well laid out for anyone who can read. Literally takes five seconds to google and find the pdf along with explanatory links. But don't let that stop you from parroting nonsense you've read in some rag.

As for consolidating power, you just need to look at European football 15-20 years ago (provided you were even born back then of course) and compare it with today. Never has the distance between rich and poor been greater and never have the means to bridge that gap been fewer.

Kurtz wrote:

What's the purpose of FFP? To ensure the dominance of the already rich clubs? How is that "fair". Such elitism, much hypocrisy.

Right, because the ridiculous levels of spending on transfer fees and wages is great for the game isn't it, it's made it much more 'fair'. I'm sure the likes of Newcastle, Everton and Tottenham love what City and Chelsea have done to the game.

I love it too, competitions are so much better when it's turned into a penis measuring contest for billionairs.

FFP doesn't do anything to stop clubs from building up to compete, might slow it down, but a club with a rich owner can easily invest heavily in infrastructure and youth as well as invest a moderate amount on players too.

Rex wrote:

If I understand correctly, then 40m of the 60m fine will be returned to City if they comply with all the points in the agreement.

I'm with Wenger on this; they have not only been in breach of the FFP, they have shat all over them, and IMO should have just been excluded from play in Europe. This is just a sophisticated slap on the wrist.

The aim is to bring these clubs in line, not punish them.