It's clearly designed so the behemoths of today stay that way. All this talk of "money in the game" just reinforces my point. If you're at the top now you're raking in millions from the sponsorships and lucrative competitions>> which leads to big transfers. If you're not at the top you'll need great players to get there but sorry, large scale 'losses' (much of which would be because of transfers) from your owner will be fined and eventually punished. You must stay within your means.

So your preference is for Abu Dhabi and Qatar to dominate Europe for the foreseeable future instead?

By the way, only 6 clubs opposed FFP in the Premier League. 3 of those clubs had owners who wanted to sell up so obviously didn't want any regulations that could make their clubs less attractive to prospective buyers and ofc, one of the other 3 clubs was City. While it may be the doing of the behemoths as you call them, they're not the only ones who back them.

otfgoon wrote:

So your preference is for Abu Dhabi and Qatar to dominate Europe for the foreseeable future instead?

It just means more competition at the top. Let's be real. it's not like Everton and Spurs were making waves before FFP. They've got close with no cigar and not due to City.

Full list of sanctioned clubs:

Man City
PSG
Bursaspor
R Kazan
Galatasaray
Trabzonspor
Anzhi
Zenit
Levski Sofia

Hey as an Arsenal fan I think (could be wrong) Arsenal benefits or is not hurt by FFP. We're a massive club whose debt is slowly but surely getting paid off and have growing revenues and buying power, a modern stadium, and we play in the cash cow called the PL. "Living within our means" allows us to spend a lot. As DiabyKungFu said FFP is just some rich guys preventing/hindering other rich guys from threatening them. My preference is for Arsenal to dominate by adapting to and exploiting whatever regulations, however inane, are out there.

For me it is quite simple; Abramovich ruined football, then Man City and PSG only upped the ante. I want proper football back.
Also, it is only clubs which are in European competitions that need to comply, at least until something similar is in place for domestic football, which is why Liverpool for example are not included with the clubs who are in breach. To clarify, they are financially doped just like Man City, just not to the same extent. Ergo, you can invest as much as you like until you hit the prime time. For now.

Can anybody here truly say how City have been punished by FFP? The exclusion of 4 non-home grown players should be just about manageable. The financial restrictions don't seem onerous, eg the net transfer cap. City have already built up a squad of superstars. Even with this, they can basically use that allowance to bring in the likes of Lallana, Shaw, etc to help solve their first problem of the squad limit.

Uefa should've listened to Wenger.

That said, FFP is all wrong. The majority of Premier League clubs are under £100m in revenue. Clubs like Real and Barca are at 3-4x that. FFP may improve prudence, but now a club like Aston Villa can never close the gap.

Klaus, you say inequality has never been higher. Do you know why this is the case? What are the two (or three) most significant drivers for this?

Rex wrote:

For me it is quite simple; Abramovich ruined football, then Man City and PSG only upped the ante. I want proper football back.
Also, it is only clubs which are in European competitions that need to comply, at least until something similar is in place for domestic football, which is why Liverpool for example are not included with the clubs who are in breach. To clarify, they are financially doped just like Man City, just not to the same extent. Ergo, you can invest as much as you like until you hit the prime time. For now.

Loads of clubs have had rich backers. Milan and Juve have always had an advantage for example.

Tony, fans like to conveniently forget Milan, Juve and even Blackburn.
The difference is 15 or 20 years ago nobody talked football finance, but there was still as massive gap between the haves and have nots

Claudius wrote:

Can anybody here truly say how City have been punished by FFP? The exclusion of 4 non-home grown players should be just about manageable. The financial restrictions don't seem onerous, eg the net transfer cap. City have already built up a squad of superstars. Even with this, they can basically use that allowance to bring in the likes of Lallana, Shaw, etc to help solve their first problem of the squad limit.

Uefa should've listened to Wenger.

That said, FFP is all wrong. The majority of Premier League clubs are under £100m in revenue. Clubs like Real and Barca are at 3-4x that. FFP may improve prudence, but now a club like Aston Villa can never close the gap.

Klaus, you say inequality has never been higher. Do you know why this is the case? What are the two (or three) most significant drivers for this?

The squad restriction is massive imo! They can only use 13 non HG players.

Exactly. This will hurt them massively:

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

So, assuming they keep the 8 home grown players, that'd leave them with 13 spots for 17 players:

Pantilimon
Sagna?
Kompany
Zabaleta
Kolarov
Demichelis
Nastasic
Nasri
Garcia
Navas
Silva
Fernandinho
Toure
Negredo
Dzeko
Aguero
Jovetic

4 biggish names to be left out?

The spending limits are pretty huge as well, City's summer spending plans have surely been cut/ changed. They desperately need some better English players too.

Claudius wrote:

That said, FFP is all wrong. The majority of Premier League clubs are under £100m in revenue. Clubs like Real and Barca are at 3-4x that. FFP may improve prudence, but now a club like Aston Villa can never close the gap.

Klaus, you say inequality has never been higher. Do you know why this is the case? What are the two (or three) most significant drivers for this?

Again, you're assuming there's a multi billionaire around every corner looking to take over a team like Villa. The reality is most of these owners don't want to spend a 1bn on players and wages. The gap will exist regardless. That's life. However moaning that FFP makes this more unfair is a bizarre point of view, when even Roman is on board because he knows he can't compete with the wealth of an oil rich country, it tells you something is wrong.

Irish gunner wrote:

The squad restriction is massive imo! They can only use 13 non HG players.

Are we sure about this? Maybe it's proportional?

Irish gunner wrote:

Claudius wrote:

Can anybody here truly say how City have been punished by FFP? The exclusion of 4 non-home grown players should be just about manageable. The financial restrictions don't seem onerous, eg the net transfer cap. City have already built up a squad of superstars. Even with this, they can basically use that allowance to bring in the likes of Lallana, Shaw, etc to help solve their first problem of the squad limit.

Uefa should've listened to Wenger.

That said, FFP is all wrong. The majority of Premier League clubs are under £100m in revenue. Clubs like Real and Barca are at 3-4x that. FFP may improve prudence, but now a club like Aston Villa can never close the gap.

Klaus, you say inequality has never been higher. Do you know why this is the case? What are the two (or three) most significant drivers for this?

The squad restriction is massive imo! They can only use 13 non HG players.

Think this is a good start by UEFA. The punishment is a good first step to get clubs like City in line. If they break the rules again, the penalties will probably be a lot harsher.

Will see. It will stop them from getting into the chase for Martinez, Cavani, Benzema, etc. that is comforting for us.

otfgoon wrote:

Irish gunner wrote:

The squad restriction is massive imo! They can only use 13 non HG players.

Are we sure about this? Maybe it's proportional?

I haven't seen it confirmed officially, but that's what's assumed will happen. I can't see UEFA bending the homegrown player rules so that their punishment is less harsh.

There's no way they get rid of the homegrown rule. Nothing has been officially confirmed because there's nothing to confirm. There has been no change to the rule.

The homegrown rule is clearly intended to get clubs to invest in youth and more long-term and sustainable player development. They're not going to get rid of that as a way to 'punish' offenders who spend tons of money buying high-priced foreign players.

A CL squad size of 21 is not punishment in and of itself since most clubs only play with around that number anyway. This FFP sanction is clearly an attempt to intensify the reliance of City/PSG on academy/homegrown players, not take it away completely.

Don't know if it has been mentioned but supposedly the salary cap is on the base salary, so bonus payments aren't capped. If anything that works better for City so they can give big incentives if players win but keep their base salary lower. Whether the players will want to sign up to that I don't know though. You'd think agents these days are usually quite sharp on this and wouldn't want their clients money to be linked to performances

Since Man City can't add to their wage bill, at least they have to sell to buy. Also add into the equation that they can only spend limited amounts on fees, and I think we can expect a few quiet transfer windows from City. From a Man City perspective at least.