Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Participation within this subforum is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

Ronald koeman . New barca manager.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Martin Alvito said:
It's a clear attempt to use financial might to end run the rules.

It's easily cured. Prohibit loans between sister clubs. If transferred between sister clubs, players must be sold to club B for the pro rata amount of the transfer fee paid by club A, based on the remaining length of the contract. If the contract length is shorter than three years, then three years is used. Ditto for signing bonuses.

That still lets City foist off part of a hypothetical Messi transfer fee (he leaves on a free in reality) on NYCFC, but he'd have to cool his heels in New York for a year for City to get a 1/3 discount on the transfer fee under FFP. It also prohibits City from foisting his wages off on NYCFC.

That's fair.
Click to expand...

Ok, so loans between clubs that have a formal link, is that now allowed as well?
 
catcherintherye said:
Ok, so loans between clubs that have a formal link, is that now allowed as well?
Click to expand...

We can define "sister club" for the purposes of the rule as narrowly or broadly as is considered desirable. The obvious definition, to me, would be shared ownership of any kind. That gets complicated when we're talking about Manchester United since they trade publicly, but in general an ownership provision covering majority and minority owners will work.
 
catcherintherye said:
Ok, so loans between clubs that have a formal link, is that now allowed as well?
Click to expand...

I don't think it should be & yes it's an absolute minefield in fairness. The real problem here is as it stands, there is nothing stopping Montevideo City FC (also owned by Abu Dhabi Group) buying messi & immediately loaning him to city, while continuing to pay 99% of wages.
 
number4. said:
I don't think it should be & yes it's an absolute minefield in fairness. The real problem here is as it stands, there is nothing stopping Montevideo City FC (also owned by Abu Dhabi Group) buying messi & immediately loaning him to city, while continuing to pay 99% of wages.
Click to expand...

Why is it a problem? The Montevido City FC board are compromised of separate people to Manchester City, no? So will both make the best decisions for their businesses. Who are you or I to judge?
 
catcherintherye said:
Why is it a problem? The Montevido City FC board are compromised of separate people to Manchester City, no? So will both make the best decisions for their businesses. Who are you or I to judge?
Click to expand...

It generates a competitive advantage which is deemed unfair, which is the whole point of having rules and laws in the first place.

A real-world analogy is probably in order. Suppose that you run a store. A competitor moves into town. The competitor has their employees' wages paid by the competitor's parents' separate business - technically, they work for Mom and Dad, not for your competitor. The competitor is able to undercut you on prices, drive you out of business, and then raise prices to normal levels.

We have anti-dumping laws that prohibit that from happening when the employees work for the competing store and the store is taking losses to undercut your prices. I don't see how this is any different - the competitor is clearly dumping and using an accounting trick to try to conceal breaking the law.

Should City acquire Messi with NYCFC and loan him back out to City for peanuts to comply with FFP, they'd be doing what our hypothetical competitor is doing. I don't think there's a leg to stand on to defend it. If you wanted to argue that FFP is nothing more than a sham designed to keep the current elite at the top of the heap and minimize their wage bills, I think there's a much stronger argument to be made. But so long as FFP is in place, City should not be permitted to end run those rules in this manner.
 

Martin Alvito said:
It generates a competitive advantage which is deemed unfair, which is the whole point of having rules and laws in the first place.

A real-world analogy is probably in order. Suppose that you run a store. A competitor moves into town. The competitor has their employees' wages paid by the competitor's parents' separate business - technically, they work for Mom and Dad, not for your competitor. The competitor is able to undercut you on prices, drive you out of business, and then raise prices to normal levels.

We have anti-dumping laws that prohibit that from happening when the employees work for the competing store and the store is taking losses to undercut your prices. I don't see how this is any different - the competitor is clearly dumping and using an accounting trick to try to conceal breaking the law.

Should City acquire Messi with NYCFC and loan him back out to City for peanuts to comply with FFP, they'd be doing what our hypothetical competitor is doing. I don't think there's a leg to stand on to defend it. If you wanted to argue that FFP is nothing more than a sham designed to keep the current elite at the top of the heap and minimize their wage bills, I think there's a much stronger argument to be made. But so long as FFP is in place, City should not be permitted to end run those rules in this manner.
Click to expand...

That's one way of looking at it.

Presumably any loan where the parent company contributes to the wages falls under this too then?

Or where does this fit with RB style franchises selling players through one another?

Or clubs like Chelsea or United having relationships with sister teams in other countries and sending young players to said teams for heavily discounted prices, this obscuring competition in those areas?

I'm not saying if (and it's still an if) what City do above is right, but the idea it is wholly against the ethos, rules and culture of football isnt backed up by the evidence.
 
@Yaargh Thanks for the kind words.

catcherintherye said:
That's one way of looking at it.

Presumably any loan where the parent company contributes to the wages falls under this too then?
Click to expand...

Correct, the parent company can't contribute.
You have to sell the player for the remaining amortized portion of the transfer fee and the sign-on fee, and the recipient has to pay the wages. This is what would happen if you moved a capital asset from one business unit to another.

catcherintherye said:
Or where does this fit with RB style franchises selling players through one another?

Or clubs like Chelsea or United having relationships with sister teams in other countries and sending young players to said teams for heavily discounted prices, this obscuring competition in those areas?

I'm not saying if (and it's still an if) what City do above is right, but the idea it is wholly against the ethos, rules and culture of football isnt backed up by the evidence.
Click to expand...

To quote an old-time NASCAR crew chief, "It's my job to cheat, and it's their job to catch me." A long time ago, there was a race where the winning car was staying out on the track too long, and NASCAR suspected the car of having a gas tank that was too large. So in the post-race inspection, they filled the fuel tank and then drained it. The driver then jumped in the car, started it and drove away, because the team had run the fuel line repeatedly through the body of the car to get extra fuel capacity.

NASCAR then realized that they had neglected to specify a length of the fuel line and fixed that. Somebody could get killed that way, and everyone would have to duplicate that in order to compete.

You're correct that football, like most sports, works the same way. We have rules, clubs find ways to get a competitive advantage within those rules, since that which is not expressly forbidden is at least technically allowed, and the body that makes the rules has to decide if those actions are legitimate or not.

In answer to your specific questions - I don't think my proposal affects the RB approach or the Chelsea/United model meaningfully. Those are separate problems that I'm not trying to solve. Those are more complex problems, and don't have solutions that take less time for me to see at a glance than it takes to explain them.
 
Last edited:
catcherintherye said:
Why is it a problem? The Montevido City FC board are compromised of separate people to Manchester City, no? So will both make the best decisions for their businesses. Who are you or I to judge?
Click to expand...
Take your head out of the sand and stop doing a davek...(or is it on purpose?)
If there's a fiddle to be loop-holed somebody will do it
Everything's, legal if you don't get caught...and you have enough money
 




Barcelona head coach Ronald Koeman says he has nothing against Riqui Puig, despite their feud last month, when Koeman accused the midfielder of leaking information to the public.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register
Back
Top