A 'settlement offer' could mean anything, it doesn't necessarily mean it's just a fine. It could be a fine + transfer ban, squad size reduction, etc.
UEFA going with the nuclear option straight away would mean they'd end up in court for sure. This way they are effectively plea-bargaining. Have to wait and see what they've offered.
I hope they can tighten the screws this way—either the likes of PSG and City accept these judgements and start to change their behaviour, or when the time comes for stronger sanctions they'll have a long rap sheet already and limited credibility.
Claudius wrote:FFP is much more scalable than salary cap. Even in the Premier League, you have some teams that make 100m pounds and other teams that make 300m pounds turnover. How do you enforce a salary cap for those two teams?
The cap would be there to slow the growth of the oil club wage bills since that's really where things are getting out of control. There are too many loopholes in FFP and it unfairly favors the established hierarchy of clubs. Set a hard cap (£250m?) with a constant increase (say 4%) each year and standardize agent fees. No funny sponsorship deals can get around that. You're over that line (and only the likes of City/Madrid/Barca/PSG/Chelsea would get there), then you're ineligible for UEFA competitions.
otfgoon wrote:
Well said.
Think UEFA have been pretty smart about their approach to this.
Can't believe you used UEFA & smart in the same sentence. :o
i dont know why, but very few people seem to appreciate what a payroll cap actually does, both in theory and in practice.
a) it enriches the owners by fixing their costs, at the expense of players
b) it does nothing to reduce ticket prices, since a club will price for revenue maximisation regardless
c) it does very little to reduce the highest salaries - it is the middle tier that is most affected
d) it would likely violate EU antitrust and labor laws, as the clubs would be colluding to hold down wages
if you want to make football more fair, then pool all the tv money in the league(s) of your choice, and divide them equally among all teams in the top flight(s). of course, that chance has already passed - if anyone proposed that now, the best teams would breakaway into a european superleague and keep the tv rights for themselves. that is where the money is made.
a payroll cap would be a huge victory for the hedge funds, sheiks, oligarchs and multinational corporations that own the clubs, at the expense of everyone else. so yea, great idea...
That or they also watch American sports, which successfully institute such caps and have parity that European football could never dream of.
A salary cap wouldn't be an attempt to reduce ticket prices or protect the middle class of football wage earners. It'd be an attempt to keep mega-clubs from increasing their spending at a higher rate than overall league revenue growth and operating in a different orbit from everyone else. There are problems with it (it has to be managed), but it has none of the loopholes that the current FFP system has, whether it is sham sponsorships, Chelsea's hoarding of young players to extract profits on transfer fees, or whatever another club comes up with next. If you don't like it that's ok, but you don't need to call me ignorant.
Maybe we should also have a massive European draft every year too! 
Darn, football isn't just in Europe! Make that a world draft.
innervisionscm wrote:That or they also watch American sports, which successfully institute such caps and have parity that European football could never dream of.
A salary cap wouldn't be an attempt to reduce ticket prices or protect the middle class of football wage earners. It'd be an attempt to keep mega-clubs from increasing their spending at a higher rate than overall league revenue growth and operating in a different orbit from everyone else. There are problems with it (it has to be managed), but it has none of the loopholes that the current FFP system has, whether it is sham sponsorships, Chelsea's hoarding of young players to extract profits on transfer fees, or whatever another club comes up with next. If you don't like it that's ok, but you don't need to call me ignorant.
But you do realise that U.S codes (like Australian) which have a salary caps exist in their own little bubbles isolated from the wider world.
Football is the genuine world game where the rules of reality apply.
If true then wow. I'm fascinated to see what PSG's sanctions might be if this is true because, to my understanding, PSG's attempted skirting of the rules is way, way, way worse than that of City. UEFA look like they might be coming out swinging here.
What does it say? I can't read anything from the Telegraph.
Pretty much:
UEFA's "settlement offer" to City on sanctions includes a CL squad size cut (less than 25 allowed to be registered) - but this isn't substantiated.
If the settlement offer is rejected "their case would transfer to the CFCB’s adjudicatory chamber, which would assess afresh whether they breached FFP and, if so, what punishment to impose".
Settlement offers to be signed off Thursday and Friday, and rubber-stamped next week prior to official announcement of any penalties.
If not Man City then surely PSG will reject the settlement. Hope one of them do to properly test this CFCB. Need to find out if they are serious!
Yep, we need a guinea pig.
Even if City agree to settle their case, FFP rules allow Premier League rivals such as Arsenal and Everton to challenge any sanction they deem too lenient. The latter clubs could argue City’s breach materially affected their chances of finishing third or fourth in the table, and thus hindered their European qualification hopes.
Nice.
On that note, interesting information from the Guardian today: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/01/premier-league-accounts-club-by-club-david-conn
After Man Utd, we have the lowest wages/turnover ratio.
As for Man City:
These accounts show the investment from Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the senior member of oil-rich Abu Dhabi's ruling family, at £999,616,000, almost £1bn, in just five years
Pathetic. Shouldn't be allowed.
Klaus, I seem to remember reading that only clubs being directly at a disadvantage regarding European football could challenge a decision. Everton, for sure, and us 'just' getting a qualifying spot would be in that position. If the punishment isn't severe, I soooo hope we will challenge it!
What do you guys think the chances are of our lot doing so? Gazza-man and Wenger have been beating the FFP drum so long now that one would guess they are quite passionate about this working.
"The Glazers' economics are now well understood; income driven up by selling multiple sponsorships, while their 2005 debt-loading takeover has cost United almost £700m in interest and fees."
Fucking hell, that's insane. A United fan told me that they've spend, on average around 25m a season since the glaziers took over. If it wasn't for the massive interest payments then in theory they could have spend closer to 100m per season.
They were a plc before so I'd guess shareholders wouldn't be too pleased about them spending all their money on transfers
Klaus wrote:Even if City agree to settle their case, FFP rules allow Premier League rivals such as Arsenal and Everton to challenge any sanction they deem too lenient. The latter clubs could argue City’s breach materially affected their chances of finishing third or fourth in the table, and thus hindered their European qualification hopes.
Nice.
We'll probably try to get a pro bono lawyer and drop the case when that doesn't work out.
otfgoon wrote:"The Glazers' economics are now well understood; income driven up by selling multiple sponsorships, while their 2005 debt-loading takeover has cost United almost £700m in interest and fees."
Fucking hell, that's insane. A United fan told me that they've spend, on average around 25m a season since the glaziers took over. If it wasn't for the massive interest payments then in theory they could have spend closer to 100m per season.
I think they have spent a lot more than that. The thing with United is that the club is still extremely profitable. They make £80-90 million each year. The holding company which was created by the Glazers holds all the debt. I'm not sure how Uefa evaluate that situation, but I remember reading that United have survived so far mainly because of the bonds they issued back in 2010, and those are only running until 2017. Last year they started to redeem some of them by taking on new loans which is yet another unsustainable model. It will be interesting to see what happens to them in three years.
