UEFA Champions League 2019-20

[ahemps]

8 minutes ago, ahemps said:

It is extremely rare for the teams winning leagues not to also be the richest. 

6 minutes ago, lichtie23 said:

As in Leicester City

I loved seeing a team like Leicester winning the league. I also said it was extremely rare. 

 

[Guest JTS98]

35 minutes ago, ahemps said:

FFP is designed to cement the status quo ie keep Barca, Real, Bayern Juventus etc. as the top dogs.

The only way to challenge these top clubs is to have serious financial backing like Man City and PSG have. Teams like Atletico and Spurs are trying to challenge is a more sustained way and grow to a point where they can match these giants but they never quite get there.

The question is do you want to see different challengers at the top of the game or do you want to see the same teams challenging every year? 

To be honest, I don't really see any difference.

The Champions League is already a closed shop. There hasn't been a finalist from outside Europe's Big Four leagues in 16 years. 13 of the last 20 finalists have been English or Spanish teams.

I don't see how allowing another club from a big league the ability to spend their way into that group, distorting the transfer market in the process, is a good thing.

You don't fix football purely by having FFP, but it's one of a number of things that are on the side of the good guys.

Man City can just f**k off, to be honest with you. As can the whole City Group.

[Bully Wee Villa]

28 minutes ago, bluearmyfaction said:

Because enforcement was gash.  Why were Bury allowed to play one single game when the League had not approved the new owner?  Why did nobody enforce the rules against Bolton when they were £180m in debt and STILL buying players?

 

This is the problem though when those enforcing are massively outspent by the clubs they are supposedly enforcing - and when the clubs write the rules to suit themselves.  Football needs independent regulation.  Like monopolies.

Don't disagree with any of that tbf. See also the latest approval of the Wigan charlatan by the league.

[ahemps]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

To be honest, I don't really see any difference.

The Champions League is already a closed shop. There hasn't been a finalist from outside Europe's Big Four leagues in 16 years. 13 of the last 20 finalists have been English or Spanish teams.

I don't see how allowing another club from a big league the ability to spend their way into that group, distorting the transfer market in the process, is a good thing.

You don't fix football purely by having FFP, but it's one of a number of things that are on the side of the good guys.

Man City can just f**k off, to be honest with you. As can the whole City Group.

I totally agree but how does someone get into that closed shop then without having big money?

I think UEFA have the right intentions with FFP but to me but it still favors the bigger sides and doesn't go far enough. UEFA are in an impossible position where if they try to really make football a level playing field they risk the big teams breaking away and creating a European Super league.

I have no idea what the answer is but I think football is stuck with scenarios either where Man City/PSG with new money buy their success or Juventus/Bayern also buy their success and forever dominate. The outcomes are the same but because some teams have a history it makes it seems more palatable.

[Derry Alli]

It would have been exceptionally difficult to ban them the year after they win it, tbh. 

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

The rule is an exercise of self-preservation for the elite. Brought in by an ex-Juventus player, terrified of some Italian club doing a Man City and actually being able to challenge Juventus.

The Football League policy I can, at least, see that the intention could be good. It's designed to stop clubs going bust, though doesn't seem to be working judging by Bury, Bolton and the like.

The UEFA rule is, and was always, about maintaining the status quo. They got terrified when Man City started challenging their hegemony and put in place a rule to prevent it ever happening again.

The FFP rules were being discussed long before Man City's financial doping campaign started. One of the most basic principles of football should be that all clubs have to live within their means, and those means should be based on what the club can actually generate, not just them essentially winning a lottery where some dubious investor comes along and chucks money at them.

The status quo changes on a regular basis anyway - the biggest clubs in Europe now (even excluding the cheat code clubs) are different to the biggest ones 10 years ago, 20 years ago or 30 years ago. Look at AC Milan and Man Utd, two of the biggest clubs of the 90s festering away in mid-table for much of the last decade, something which had little to do with financially doped clubs elsewhere and more to do with their own incompetence. Barcelona were nowhere in the late 90s and early 00s, and look like they are trying their best to head there again.

These rules exist partly to protect the integrity of the sport, something which the likes of PSG and Man City are doing their best to damage at all levels, and also to safeguard the future of these clubs. They explicitly encourage investment in infrastructure, so there is nothing to stop investors coming in and building big stadiums, new training facilities and investing in world class youth facilities, thus allowing them to build towards becoming a superpower in a sustainable way. What UEFA don't want, and what literally every football fan in the world shouldn't want, is a bunch of chancers turning up and chucking literally billions of pounds at players. Then when the investor gets fed up the club is saddled with huge debts they can't afford and go down the pan.

It's even worse when you are literally using a football club to sportswash your nation's appalling human rights record, and continue to act like bullies towards journalists and administrators who are trying to hold you to account for these things. The City Group are a stain on football and anybody celebrating this result today wants to have a look at what they are actually celebrating.

Edited July 13, 2020 by craigkillie

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, ahemps said:

I totally agree but how does someone get into that closed shop then without having big money?

I think UEFA have the right intentions with FFP but to me but it still favors the bigger sides and doesn't go far enough. UEFA are in an impossible position where if they try to really make football a level playing field they risk the big teams breaking away and creating a European Super league.

I have no idea what the answer is but I think football is stuck with scenarios either where Man City/PSG with new money buy their success or Juventus/Bayern also buy their success and forever dominate. The outcomes are the same but because some teams have a history it makes it seems more palatable.

We're heading for having essentially two or three sports.

There's going to be the elite end of the sport, which will be for the big clubs from big countries. They'll have their own competitions and play each other more or less in perpetuity. This will attract a large tv audience and lots of football tourism etc, but I think in countries where going home and away regularly is a thing, like England and Germany, you'll see a bit of drift in regular attenders packing it in.

Below that there'll be the leftover top-flight countries with enough money for VAR and Europa League level competition.

Below that there'll be the countries that can't afford things like VAR and who will never have enough financial clout to compete with the others and will essentially be cut off from even trying.

There will probably be an element of crossover in terms of left behind B Teams or the odd cup or whatever. But basically the big clubs are heading for their own world with no spending restrictions and essentially no limits on how to run your club. It will be fucking awful.

[Gnash]

1 hour ago, ahemps said:

I agree but it happens anyway. Is Bayern dominating the Bundesliga better than PSG dominating ligue 1?

It is extremely rare for the teams winning leagues not to also be the richest. 

Dunno, I lost interest in top end club football several years ago to be honest.

This story piqued my interest because I knew there'd be strong views on it.

[roman_bairn]

Or maybe you are just getting personal to win a petty argument?
Been a follower since ‘76 and did a lot of work with the club a few years back.
As I said, let’s see what happens with CAS. Odds are City will be in the CL next season.....

I won’t say ‘told you so’....even if I just did.....[emoji16]

[roman_bairn]

The FFP rules were being discussed long before Man City's financial doping campaign started. One of the most basic principles of football should be that all clubs have to live within their means, and those means should be based on what the club can actually generate, not just them essentially winning a lottery where some dubious investor comes along and chucks money at them.
The status quo changes on a regular basis anyway - the biggest clubs in Europe now (even excluding the cheat code clubs) are different to the biggest ones 10 years ago, 20 years ago or 30 years ago. Look at AC Milan and Man Utd, two of the biggest clubs of the 90s festering away in mid-table for much of the last decade, something which had little to do with financially doped clubs elsewhere and more to do with their own incompetence. Barcelona were nowhere in the late 90s and early 00s, and look like they are trying their best to head there again.
These rules exist partly to protect the integrity of the sport, something which the likes of PSG and Man City are doing their best to damage at all levels, and also to safeguard the future of these clubs. They explicitly encourage investment in infrastructure, so there is nothing to stop investors coming in and building big stadiums, new training facilities and investing in world class youth facilities, thus allowing them to build towards becoming a superpower in a sustainable way. What UEFA don't want, and what literally every football fan in the world shouldn't want, is a bunch of chancers turning up and chucking literally billions of pounds at players. Then when the investor gets fed up the club is saddled with huge debts they can't afford and go down the pan.
It's even worse when you are literally using a football club to sportswash your nation's appalling human rights record, and continue to act like bullies towards journalists and administrators who are trying to hold you to account for these things. The City Group are a stain on football and anybody celebrating this result today wants to have a look at what they are actually celebrating.

You know, I can’t even be arsed responding to you (again). You’ve clearly got an anti-City agenda. Maybe you should try and find out a bit more about the club and its impact on the community before you spend your time bad mouthing it at every opportunity.
I don’t argue re Human Rights record in Middle East nations, but then I don’t argue about UK history and how we got to be a prosperous nation with a shady past either.
You were wrong in February that City were guilty, and you’re wrong yet again.....

[craigkillie]

You think I have an anti-City agenda because you have a pro-City agenda. In reality I've been banging this type of drum since Abramovich came along at Chelsea. City were found guilty, that's why they were fined.

[Bully Wee Villa]

The rules don't adversely affect the club run by Abramovich, they affect those who might seek to compete with them.

That's my problem with the rules, they arbitrarily protect those lucky enough to have acquired their fortune before the new rules came in while preventing would-be competitors from challenging them on a regular basis.

Certainly more can be done to protect clubs from shady scumbags. They should ban any owner buying a club with funds borrowed against the club's value, for starters. 

These rules aren't about that though, they're just to protect the existing moneyed elite.

If you really believe that a set of rules championed by a corrupt official who was a former player at the most corrupt club in Europe, a club which directly benefits from said rules, were above board and done in the interest of fairness, I've a bridge I'd like to sell you...

Edited July 13, 2020 by Bully Wee Villa

[bluearmyfaction]

4 hours ago, ahemps said:

I totally agree but how does someone get into that closed shop then without having big money?

I think UEFA have the right intentions with FFP but to me but it still favors the bigger sides and doesn't go far enough. UEFA are in an impossible position where if they try to really make football a level playing field they risk the big teams breaking away and creating a European Super league.

I have no idea what the answer is but I think football is stuck with scenarios either where Man City/PSG with new money buy their success or Juventus/Bayern also buy their success and forever dominate. The outcomes are the same but because some teams have a history it makes it seems more palatable.

Absolute spending cap and squads of 25 tops, with a better sharing of gate money (75/25) and TV money (in England, top flight should get maybe half, rather than 92%).  But UEFA are too scared to put it in place because of the phantasm of a breakaway league; the FA has the testicles of a castrato; and the EFL is run by the same clubs who all hope to buy a Premier League place.

[craigkillie]

18 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

The rules don't adversely effect the club run by Abramovich, they effect those who might seek compete with them.

That's my problem with the rules, they arbitrarily protect those lucky enough to have acquired their fortune before the new rules came in while preventing would-be competitors from challenging them on a regular basis.

Certainly more can be done to protect clubs from shady scumbags. They should ban any owner buying a club with funds borrowed against the club's value, for starters. 

These rules aren't about that though, they're just to protect the existing moneyed elite.

If you really believe that a set of rules championed by a corrupt official who was a former player at the most corrupt club in Europe, a club which directly benefits from said rules, were above board and done in the interest of fairness, I've a bridge I'd like to sell you...

The rules do affect Chelsea. They, like every single other club, have a limit on their outgoings which is indexed based on their outgoings. Yes, Chelsea had the opportunity to buy up assets in advance of it and then sell those players to help fund their future operations, but that well was always going to dry up eventually and probably already has. You have already seen substantial evidence of the tightening of the purse strings there, even before their transfer ban.

This is quite similar to people (usually Thistle and Falkirk fans) who make the argument that the Scottish Premiership should never have got rid of the 10,000 seat rule, because it's not fair on the clubs who had spent money meeting it in the past. If you consider the current situation to be unfair then you should be willing to legislate to change it safe in the knowledge that you are improving things in the long-term.

For all the talk of the rules protecting the moneyed elite, you've actually seen a bigger diversity in clubs reaching the Champions League from each of those big leagues. When the rules came in England pretty much had an established "big four", but since then you've seen Leicester win the league and the likes of Wolves, Sheffield United and Burnley are all in contention this year. The supposed protection it offers hasn't really done Arsenal, Man Utd or Chelsea any favours in recent years, given that they've all missed out on the Champions League in several occasions.

The fact that Platini championed the rules is completely irrelevant, he was one of many voices in football who supported these sort of rules, and they were agreed to by the European Clubs Association prior to being introduced. The idea that he somehow dictated them to the clubs is manifestly false, but is exactly the narrative that the doped up clubs have tried to spin with the help of a compliant media.

Edited July 13, 2020 by craigkillie

[Bully Wee Villa]

6 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The rules do affect Chelsea. They, like every single other club, have a limit on their outgoings which is indexed based on their outgoings. Yes, Chelsea had the opportunity to buy up assets in advance of it and then sell those players to help fund their future operations, but that well was always going to dry up eventually and probably already has.

The hundreds of millions they make in shirt sales and sponsorships won't dry up. This money is all because they made themselves into a globally big deal by signing loads of megastars.

Clubs that want to do likewise are prevented from doing so by FFP.

12 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

For all the talk of the rules protecting the moneyed elite, you've actually seen a bigger diversity in clubs reaching the Champions League from each of those big leagues. When the rules came in England pretty much had an established "big four", but since then you've seen Leicester win the league and the likes of Wolves, Sheffield United and Burnley are all in contention this year. The supposed protection it offers hasn't really done Arsenal, Man Utd or Chelsea any favours in recent years, given that they've all missed out on the Champions League in several occasions.

The sheer amount of cash in the Premier League means that it is, occasionally, possible for teams to compete above their means. They'll still be the exception though. 

Nobody expects Leicester to be above Man United or Chelsea more often than not in the next decade. (Arsenal maybe, because they're bottling fannies). And Leicester are the best of the bunch you mentioned. There is more chance of Wolves, Sheffield United or Burnley being regular competitors in the Championship than the Champions League in the next twenty years.

And that's in England, where every club has serious cash to, at least, try to compete. The situation is far more stark in other countries, not least Scotland. Don't expect to see Kaiserslautern, Deportivo La Coruna or Dundee United winning the league any time soon. The leagues have got less and less competitive. 

FFP is far from the only cause. The way TV deals are negotiated, the explosion in sponsorship and merchandising and Champions League money, among others, are all factors.

But FFP is a contributor to the tedious predictability of those leagues, and one which is, unlike the others mentioned, pretty easy to do something about.

23 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The fact that Platini championed the rules is completely irrelevant, he was one of many voices in football who supported these sort of rules, and they were agreed to by the European Clubs Association prior to being introduced. The idea that he somehow dictated them to the clubs is manifestly false, but is exactly the narrative that the doped up clubs have tried to spin with the help of a compliant media.

Platini was the head of the organisation, he obviously has some influence. Many of the clubs that voted for the changes were the likes of crooked Juventus who will directly benefit. The fact that other clubs were duped into voting against their own interest doesn't change that.

I'm not sure what you are on about with the "compliant media" claim, to be honest. Unless you've been asleep for the last month you'll have noticed said media wanking themselves into a frenzy because Liverpool have won the league. They have no interest in Man City doing well, they'd much rather Man United and Liverpool won everything in sight for all eternity. Just as the Spanish media would happily have noone ever challenge Real and Barcelona again. They won't sell millions of papers if Osasuna and Celta Vigo are battling it out for the title.

[craigkillie]

4 hours ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

The hundreds of millions they make in shirt sales and sponsorships won't dry up. This money is all because they made themselves into a globally big deal by signing loads of megastars.

Clubs that want to do likewise are prevented from doing so by FFP.

Again, this argument all boils down to "a handful of clubs were allowed to do something terrible in the past, therefore all other clubs should also be allowed to in perpetuity".

Anyway, Chelsea (just like Man City) were always a big club by English standards with a pretty big latent support - they reached a Champions League quarter-final three years before Abramovich took over. Their profile at that time would be no different to someone like Spurs, who have been able to thrust themselves into that category of clubs whilst remaining pretty self-sustaining. Spurs (like Arsenal before them) have saddled themselves with huge debt with their new stadium, which will leave them at a competitive disadvantage. If they had a benefactor then the costs of building that stadium wouldn't count for FFP, but the profits they made from it (eg NFL, extra ticket sales) would still count towards their income. Clubs are allowed to make a loss up to a particular amount every year too, so you can still build your club up gradually and sustainably even if you are writing off losses.

In other words, the rules encourage investors who want to provide clubs with infrastructure rather than those whose empires are built on sand. If a billionaire was to come in and buy any club in a big league in Europe, they could easily transform them into a powerful club able to challenge at the top level without having to take the abhorrent fantasy football model of PSG, Man City, Chelsea, Anzhi etc. Owners who want to create a legacy off the field are welcomed, owners who turn up, chuck money at trophies and leave are not. What was your view on Gretna?

 

 

[Bully Wee Villa]

3 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

What was your view on Gretna?

Knocked Clyde out of the cup the year we beat Celtic.

Wankers.

Edited July 13, 2020 by Bully Wee Villa

[Guest DAVIDB69]

It would have been exceptionally difficult to ban them the year after they win it, tbh. 

They won’t win it their defence is always their undoing in it

[roman_bairn]

6 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The rules do affect Chelsea. They, like every single other club, have a limit on their outgoings which is indexed based on their outgoings. Yes, Chelsea had the opportunity to buy up assets in advance of it and then sell those players to help fund their future operations, but that well was always going to dry up eventually and probably already has. You have already seen substantial evidence of the tightening of the purse strings there, even before their transfer ban.

This is quite similar to people (usually Thistle and Falkirk fans) who make the argument that the Scottish Premiership should never have got rid of the 10,000 seat rule, because it's not fair on the clubs who had spent money meeting it in the past. If you consider the current situation to be unfair then you should be willing to legislate to change it safe in the knowledge that you are improving things in the long-term.

For all the talk of the rules protecting the moneyed elite, you've actually seen a bigger diversity in clubs reaching the Champions League from each of those big leagues. When the rules came in England pretty much had an established "big four", but since then you've seen Leicester win the league and the likes of Wolves, Sheffield United and Burnley are all in contention this year. The supposed protection it offers hasn't really done Arsenal, Man Utd or Chelsea any favours in recent years, given that they've all missed out on the Champions League in several occasions.

The fact that Platini championed the rules is completely irrelevant, he was one of many voices in football who supported these sort of rules, and they were agreed to by the European Clubs Association prior to being introduced. The idea that he somehow dictated them to the clubs is manifestly false, but is exactly the narrative that the doped up clubs have tried to spin with the help of a compliant media.

When did Falkirk fans argue for a 10k seat rule? 
It cost us promotion possibly more than once and we still don’t (nor should ) have a 10k seat stadium....

Edited July 13, 2020 by roman_bairn

[Guest JTS98]

16 hours ago, roman_bairn said:

You know, I can’t even be arsed responding to you (again). You’ve clearly got an anti-City agenda. Maybe you should try and find out a bit more about the club and its impact on the community before you spend your time bad mouthing it at every opportunity.
I don’t argue re Human Rights record in Middle East nations, but then I don’t argue about UK history and how we got to be a prosperous nation with a shady past either.
You were wrong in February that City were guilty, and you’re wrong yet again.....

My goodness.

Manchester City were previously one of the most well-liked clubs in England. They now have a very good team, a well-respected coach, arguably one of the best players in the world in their team and are widely admired as a football team.

The idea that people who have a problem with how they have built that team have an anti-City agenda is cheap. I have a pro-football agenda. Man City, Chelsea, PSG etc all operate models that are bad for football. I can only assume that you are happy for top level football to essentially become a one-upmanship contest between the world's most cashed-up human rights abusers and kleptocrats?

Of course City do some good things in their community. Most football clubs do these days. Also, if I had a bottomless pit of money and was attempting to launder my public reputation and wanted to divert attention from myself I would also fund some local projects to get people onside. It works. You are proof of this.

Even if City's regime were not of dubious ethical standing (which they are), the idea of even a good person with an umblemished background turning up and simply pouring money into a club's transfer budget is surely not something any football fan could welcome. Are we saying that it's a good thing that moneyed-elites can be challenged by wealthy individuals? Whose side are the good guys on in that fight? And that's before we even consider the fact that rarely do these investors seem to come into football with unblemished character.

I for one eagerly anticipate a run of UAE or Saudi Arabia v Qatar Champions League finals.