Mourinho calls for City to be docked points over FFP

Jarv

Active Member
Messages
547
Likes
135
Location
Rotherham
Supports
Manchester United
#2
I don't think we have a FFP thread yet so thought i'd start one

Jose says City should be docked points for failing FFP

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/strip-man-city-title-over-5119147

I don't agree with retrospective docking of points especially if it's this long after the season finishes but i do agree a fine means nothing to a lot of the super rich clubs.

Maybe it could be a sliding scale for every £10m a club loses they lose a point?
 

silvergull

Active Member
Messages
365
Likes
66
Supports
Torquay
#3
He's absolutey right. Man City are aggressively breaking the rules and therefore its not a fair competition. chelsea didn't have to sell Luiz or Schurle to fund purchases. They did it due to FFP.

FFP isn't something that was unfairly dropped on clubs. It was built up over a few seasons. I hope the Football League sticks by there guns and refuse QPR entry into the league next year when relegated. That'll cause people to take it more seriously.

Why is 'retrospectively stripping' even a discussion?! Sounds a bizarre thing to say. Should we also discuss retrospectively altering every league table to the '3 points for a win' scoring system. Chelsea have never broken any FFP rules.
 

silkyman

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,099
Likes
1,068
Supports
Macclesfield Town/Manchester City. It's complicated.
#4
Except, Jose, the Premier League have their own FFP rules which City met.

So, basically, stick your 'mind games'.
 

City169

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,398
Likes
414
Supports
Bristol City
#5
The fine will do absolutely nothing, points deduction is the only real measure that will have an effect.
 

Indian Dan

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,660
Likes
1,827
Location
Kefalonia
Supports
Swindon
#6
I'm not a fan of FFP. It just protects the elite and prevents 'upstart' little clubs like Blackburn did from gatecrashing the party.

If a perceived small club has a wealthy owner willing to plough his own money into chasing the dream, good luck to them.

And anything Jose is in favour of is automatically converted into pure bollocks as far as I'm concerned
 

Madejski

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,963
Likes
349
Location
Leicester
Supports
Reading
#7
Agree with the above, FFP is a good idea, but poorly implemented. The only fair way to implement FFP is measuring it against debt rather than losses.

Limiting the amount of debt a club can have automatically limits the losses allowed. But it also allows those clubs with owners who are willing to throw their money away at a football club, are able to - provided they do it in a sustainable way.

Unfortunately the biggest clubs in the Prem don't want this as it gives fewer guarantees of their positions at the top of the league rather than FFP.
 

Stevencc

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Messages
13,242
Likes
7,218
Location
°
Supports
°
#8
Brace yourselves.

Silkyman is coming.

Edit - There was already a thread about this and yes, Silkyman was in there like a shot.
 
Last edited:

Pyeman

Active Member
Messages
750
Likes
141
Supports
Burnley
#9
I've always found it difficult to judge the success of FFP, because I don't really know what its aims are.

Is the aim to ensure a degree of fairness and prevent certain clubs from taking advantage of their greater spending power? Or is the aim to ensure the sustainability of clubs? Or both?
 

Christian Slater

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,957
Likes
936
Supports
Mino Raiola & Jorge Mendes
Thread starter #10
He's absolutey right. Man City are aggressively breaking the rules and therefore its not a fair competition. chelsea didn't have to sell Luiz or Schurle to fund purchases. They did it due to FFP.

FFP isn't something that was unfairly dropped on clubs. It was built up over a few seasons. I hope the Football League sticks by there guns and refuse QPR entry into the league next year when relegated. That'll cause people to take it more seriously.

Why is 'retrospectively stripping' even a discussion?! Sounds a bizarre thing to say. Should we also discuss retrospectively altering every league table to the '3 points for a win' scoring system. Chelsea have never broken any FFP rules.
Oh no, Mourinho's not wrong, it's just like an 80-a-day smoker that's recently quit telling people that smoke how disgusting they are. Not wrong but the message is massively hypocritical.

It shows that although the Chelsea fans always bang in about how unfair FFP is as they want other clubs to be able to experience what they had is definitely not felt by the club.

I say retroactive because Mourinho certainly didn't mind when he was picking up trophies based on much vulgar spending thsn City are currently doing.
 

silkyman

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,099
Likes
1,068
Supports
Macclesfield Town/Manchester City. It's complicated.
#13
That s all its ever been. Pulling up the drawbridge.
 

Christian Slater

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,957
Likes
936
Supports
Mino Raiola & Jorge Mendes
Thread starter #14
How in the world is FFP actually "Fair" ?? It will keep the stronger teams strong and rich, but teams in the middle and lower level will always stay there.
It's a good idea but it needs tweaking. There shouldn't be free reign to carry on spending relentlessly until you make it to the top. Even rich clubs have the possibility of failure due to bad investment, bottomless pits of money guarantees success and that should never be the case.

On the other hand clubs should be allowed a fair injection of money, as ling as it's proportionate. Something like a one off £100m spending spree that's ignored by FFP.
 

G.B

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,204
Likes
2,097
Supports
Newcastle United
#16
I've always found it difficult to judge the success of FFP, because I don't really know what its aims are.

Is the aim to ensure a degree of fairness and prevent certain clubs from taking advantage of their greater spending power? Or is the aim to ensure the sustainability of clubs? Or both?
It's there to ensure the big boys stay at the big boys table, nothing more.
 

Stevencc

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Messages
13,242
Likes
7,218
Location
°
Supports
°
#18
I don't think so, did you put some on my seat? I never really envisaged you as a prankster.
 

silkyman

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,099
Likes
1,068
Supports
Macclesfield Town/Manchester City. It's complicated.
#19
While letting the status quo clubs dominate in the same way? Look at the much lauded and vaunted German leagues where Bayern can cherry pick players from even the club that comes second as they waltz to a third consecutive title.

Football clubs have had external investment at every level since the game began. These days it takes hundreds of millions, so it's more obvious, at the top level at least.
 

Christian Slater

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,957
Likes
936
Supports
Mino Raiola & Jorge Mendes
Thread starter #20
There's no risk of failure for clubs that are allowed to spend whatever they like. At least the "status quo" clubs are subject to risk and therefore failure. All City have done is become part of that group now, only FFP makes sure you can also fail by poor investment. You can no longer spend your way out of trouble or until you get it right.

FFP isn't perfect and needs some tweaking, but allowing clubs to saturate the market and spend whatever they wanted is eliminated at least.
 

Renegade

Show me what you got.
Messages
1,932
Likes
1,128
Location
Belfast
Supports
Trad Bricks
#21
Is a transfer budget and salary cap viable in football? I know American sports and their transfer/salary cap is limited to the major leagues (well, the NFL and NBA anyway) which contain only 30-32 teams and are therefore on a much smaller scale to football, but it works so well.

Teams can only afford a few elite players and every team in the league is able to compete for free agents, based on how much salary they can afford. The result is parity and the leagues do not suffer without completely dominant brands (like Manchester United or Real Madrid), instead the leagues are growing in popularity, because they are far more competitive and engaging. Of course there are teams that already have history and probably make more money through other streams (Lakers, Celtics, Cowboys, etc.), but this enforced measure of parity has brought them back to the pack.

FFP seems like a bizarre half-measure. Why just balance the books? Are FIFA scared that the sport won't attract sugar daddies to the sport if they bring in a proper measure of fair practice? The NFL and the NBA still attract billionaire investors, so I don't see the game of football losing that injection of cash just because they wouldn't be able to dominate.

It would be harder to enact, as there are more leagues and many more tiers to consider, but why wouldn't it work better than FFP? And why does no one ever bring it up?
 

BigDaveCUFC

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,667
Likes
540
Supports
Curzon Ashton....and Carlisle
#22
Whilst I dont' like these money men clubs regardless of levels (the lower leagues have had them for years, long before the prem did)

It is extremely double standard of Chelsea to moan about it considering they were not in the elite group without doing the same......reminds me of bloody Whelan who moaned like anything about the mass spending against his poor Wigan when in the top flight but blatantly forgot how wigan got into there in first place (him being one of the first silly spending owners)

it'll never do much anyway, I'd much rather a player wage cap come in one day.......why players need £250,000-300,000 a week is beyond me.
 

Mr. Scruff

Active Member
Messages
372
Likes
164
Supports
Danny Welbeck
#23
Is a transfer budget and salary cap viable in football? I know American sports and their transfer/salary cap is limited to the major leagues (well, the NFL and NBA anyway) which contain only 30-32 teams and are therefore on a much smaller scale to football, but it works so well.

Teams can only afford a few elite players and every team in the league is able to compete for free agents, based on how much salary they can afford. The result is parity and the leagues do not suffer without completely dominant brands (like Manchester United or Real Madrid), instead the leagues are growing in popularity, because they are far more competitive and engaging. Of course there are teams that already have history and probably make more money through other streams (Lakers, Celtics, Cowboys, etc.), but this enforced measure of parity has brought them back to the pack.

FFP seems like a bizarre half-measure. Why just balance the books? Are FIFA scared that the sport won't attract sugar daddies to the sport if they bring in a proper measure of fair practice? The NFL and the NBA still attract billionaire investors, so I don't see the game of football losing that injection of cash just because they wouldn't be able to dominate.

It would be harder to enact, as there are more leagues and many more tiers to consider, but why wouldn't it work better than FFP? And why does no one ever bring it up?
The only way Id be in favour of a wage cap would firstly be if it was adopted worldwide, a national salary cap would only hurt the strength of the league. But more importantly it was introduced on the proviso that any the vast majority of the excess cash saved as a result of it should be used to lower ticket prices and not go into the pockets of the owners.
 

silkyman

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,099
Likes
1,068
Supports
Macclesfield Town/Manchester City. It's complicated.
#24
Whilst I dont' like these money men clubs regardless of levels (the lower leagues have had them for years, long before the prem did)

It is extremely double standard of Chelsea to moan about it considering they were not in the elite group without doing the same......reminds me of bloody Whelan who moaned like anything about the mass spending against his poor Wigan when in the top flight but blatantly forgot how wigan got into there in first place (him being one of the first silly spending owners)

it'll never do much anyway, I'd much rather a player wage cap come in one day.......why players need £250,000-300,000 a week is beyond me.
There's always been investment in the top flight, too. Rich people have always wanted to be involved in the game. Either for their own ego or genuinely wanting to 'give back'.

And its not about how much players 'need' it's about how much clubs are willing to pay them based on a market rate driven these days more by tv rights and sponsorship that gate receipts. Did Tom Cruise 'need' £75m last year? If people are going to pay to watch, then it's no surprise that the biggest pay packet will go to 'the talent'. It would be great if ticket prices came down, but it would be great if agents didn't take in millions and millions per deal, too...

The question really with a wage cap is how do you cap it? By % of turnover? An overall cap? They all have problems.
 

BigDaveCUFC

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,667
Likes
540
Supports
Curzon Ashton....and Carlisle
#25
your right it is hard to stop, but then when does it stop.....300k a week, 400k, 500k....a million a week??

problem is wages then rise across board and drifts down to the levels with no Tv money to support it.

I do find it ironic the same people who detest bankers and politicians for any money they make are quite content with the money pop stars, tv/film or sports people make which is frankly well above what they deserve......but them areas are past point of no return really.
 

Renegade

Show me what you got.
Messages
1,932
Likes
1,128
Location
Belfast
Supports
Trad Bricks
#26
There's always been investment in the top flight, too. Rich people have always wanted to be involved in the game. Either for their own ego or genuinely wanting to 'give back'.

And its not about how much players 'need' it's about how much clubs are willing to pay them based on a market rate driven these days more by tv rights and sponsorship that gate receipts. Did Tom Cruise 'need' £75m last year? If people are going to pay to watch, then it's no surprise that the biggest pay packet will go to 'the talent'. It would be great if ticket prices came down, but it would be great if agents didn't take in millions and millions per deal, too...

The question really with a wage cap is how do you cap it? By % of turnover? An overall cap? They all have problems.
They all have problems, but I think the benefits of a salary cap completely outweigh the drawbacks of the current system and highlight the inefficacy of FFP. As Scruff mentioned, it would need to be enforced worldwide to work, making it a complex (and probably unworkable) endeavour.

In other sports, the salary cap is based on the league's revenue streams and adjusted on an annual basis (depending on an increase/decrease in revenue). Obviously in football there are far more leagues than American sports, so a compromise might be to evaluate the revenue streams of the major leagues (Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, etc.) and come to a salary cap based on that. The sport would become eminently more watch-able and greater competition in the top leagues would surely (eventually) benefit the world game financially.

Of course, for this to happen, the world's most powerful leagues would also be brought back to the pack, which they would vehemently protest. So, we'll be left with the same archaic system with pathetic half-measures introduced to give the game the appearance of equity.

If UEFA or FIFA had any balls (or ethics), they would do something like this.

your right it is hard to stop, but then when does it stop.....300k a week, 400k, 500k....a million a week??

problem is wages then rise across board and drifts down to the levels with no Tv money to support it.

I do find it ironic the same people who detest bankers and politicians for any money they make are quite content with the money pop stars, tv/film or sports people make which is frankly well above what they deserve......but them areas are past point of no return really.
I don't think it's ironic at all. Footballers are not placed in a position to serve the public, they aren't in charge of our finances, nor are there a significant number of cases of financial deceit, as there are with bankers and politicians who are entrusted with the economy. Footballers have benefited from free market capitalism, but they don't have the power to manipulate, hide or control information for their own gain.
 

Christian Slater

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,957
Likes
936
Supports
Mino Raiola & Jorge Mendes
Thread starter #28
They all have problems, but I think the benefits of a salary cap completely outweigh the drawbacks of the current system and highlight the inefficacy of FFP. As Scruff mentioned, it would need to be enforced worldwide to work, making it a complex (and probably unworkable) endeavour.

In other sports, the salary cap is based on the league's revenue streams and adjusted on an annual basis (depending on an increase/decrease in revenue). Obviously in football there are far more leagues than American sports, so a compromise might be to evaluate the revenue streams of the major leagues (Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, etc.) and come to a salary cap based on that. The sport would become eminently more watch-able and greater competition in the top leagues would surely (eventually) benefit the world game financially.

Of course, for this to happen, the world's most powerful leagues would also be brought back to the pack, which they would vehemently protest. So, we'll be left with the same archaic system with pathetic half-measures introduced to give the game the appearance of equity.

If UEFA or FIFA had any balls (or ethics), they would do something like this.



I don't think it's ironic at all. Footballers are not placed in a position to serve the public, they aren't in charge of our finances, nor are there a significant number of cases of financial deceit, as there are with bankers and politicians who are entrusted with the economy. Footballers have benefited from free market capitalism, but they don't have the power to manipulate, hide or control information for their own gain.
Cartel 2.0. How are teams supposed to compete with a limitless stream of cash and no consequences for poor investment?
 

Jarv

Active Member
Messages
547
Likes
135
Location
Rotherham
Supports
Manchester United
#29
a salary cap is fundamentally unworkable unless all TV revenue from the whole world is shared equally between the whole world or at least UEFA wide. The American sports have 1 league to worry about. they don't have champions league or cross ;league competition in North America. World Series Baseball, Just North America, NHL, NFL, NBA all just North America.

In Europe you'd have to have the exact same cap set in La Liga, The Premier league, Ligue 1, Bundesliga, Serie A and so on right down to the Top Latvian and Lithuanian league. And you can't do that without all the clubs having the same TV money andother revenue sharing. Where would you even set a wage cap in Spain? At a level for the league or at a level which Barcelona and Real Madrid who take 65% of the TV income can afford.

You also have to have a whole club wide expenditure cap not juyst salary caps because as has been shown in the British Elite Ice Hockey league and Super league era clubs find ways around it by paying the wife of said superstar X amount of cash for a nominal office job which they aren't required to show up at.

A Salary cap will never work in football as the revenue streams are too disparate with the European football which would have to be balanced for it to work.This is not a defense of FFP per se just showing how difficult it would be to get a salary cap to work
 

thespus

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,182
Likes
416
Supports
Arsenal
#30
You can't have an American sports salary cap for the reasons Jarv suggested above, but you can place a maximum individual wage limit and only adjust it with inflation.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
14,939
Messages
923,742
Members
5,090
Latest member
Bordon Shot