Champions League

[Newcomer]

You are speaking as a PSG fan before a football fan if think oil clubs should be allowed to spend billions from owners as it would ruin football.

FFP was not brought in to stop what has happened at Barca.

Teams in past have not came in and spent billions to way could now if left unregulated.

Dont care what you think about Saudi money but pointing to PSG/City being 'political' to protect themselves as all clubs are. Slating clubs for doing what likes of PSG and City do also. Every club tries to protect themselves.

It is not a scam and cant make up from thin air that UEFA are only time you have ever seen it is limited on what funds can be put in by owner when that is not true and the opposite is the case in majority of top team sports.

Football would be dead if 3/4 clubs could spend 500-600m every transfer window and offer massively high wages when those clubs dont have to run in any way as a business.

It was the same stuff before. Zidane to Real Madrid was the equivalent to Neymar to PSG if you go by their relative cost compared to club budget. In fact, it was much more before where Real Madrid could buy a team full of Ballon d'Or. It could not be done now.

What about the great Milan ?

Even OM needed the second biggest budget in the world and match fixing to obtain the CL.

If anything, PSG is far from being so overwhelmingly dominant as those sides were at the time. Maybe you have forgotten but football was always a rich man sport where the richer clubs were buying the best players for higher and higher fees. After decades of doing that, suddenly it is wrong when new richer kid are coming into town. Don't bother bullshitting me, i was following football before so i know how it worked.

 

[JamDav1982]

It was the same stuff before. Zidane to Real Madrid was the equivalent to Neymar to PSG if you go by their relative cost compared to club budget. In fact, it was much more before where Real Madrid could buy a team full of Ballon d'Or. It could not be done now.

What about the great Milan ?

Even OM needed the second biggest budget in the world and match fixing to obtain the CL.

If anything, PSG is far from being so overwhelmingly dominant as those sides where at the time. Maybe you have forgotten but football was always a rich man sport where the richer clubs were buying the best players for higher and higher fees. After decades of doing that, suddenly it is wrong when new richer kid are coming into town. Don't bother bullshitting me, i was following football before so i know how it worked.

Zidane was not funded by a billionaire owner and Real has gone into some serious debt at times to make their big signings. Not comparable. To even attempt to fund Zidane they had to play players like Pavon and Bravo to try and balance it out. Not even remotely similar to a team with endless supplies of cash to try and sign every top player going.

Milan was spending big but again not to extent were going to distort the market and change the game. Not comparable.

There will always have been teams that have spent big.

You contradict yoursefl if say FFP was brought in to stop likes of Chelsea if then say it was always the norm anyway.

Poor arguments and nothing about 'football is a rich mans sport' is relevant. As about as relevant as claims that no other industry prevent owners spending. You are the one bullshitting and purely seeing it from PSG fan point of view.

 

[Newcomer]

Of course it is our business. Hypothetically if PSG somehow circumvents the FFP to sign Messi, for example, then it wouldn't be fair to us, meaning even if we did our best to put forth an offer it would still not be good enough compared to PSG's because PSG spends more than it is allowed to by breaking the FFP.

What are these rule changes you are talking about? And by "crisis", are you talking about COVID? Can you cite some specific examples?

We should know about the changes soon if italian media is to be believed.

According to them, there will still be a financial control but different from the current one. Spending will be allowed but only the necessary amount and excessin spending will be sanctioned. However, those sanctions should be economical sanctions rather than sporting ones.

They said it is imperative to make the move now and to agree for the regulation to be put into place for next season. Some of the ideas is allowing investment but they would think of some luxury tax or other stuff like that. the way i see it, they will prolly find a way to allow Bar?a and co to recover and deem whetever PSG send as excessive spending and slap a tax on us. However, it is a matter for another time. Just happy the fraud FFP is being axed as we know it. So much pretending but didn't survive the test of time.

 

[Joan]

Well there will probably be a limit. And if you surpass it, of course it'll be deemed excessive spending. Lol

 

[JamDav1982]

We should know about the changes soon if italian media is to be believed.

According to them, there will still be a financial control but different from the current one. Spending will be allowed but only the necessary amount and excessin spending will be sanctioned. However, those sanctions should be economical sanctions rather than sporting ones.

They said it is imperative to make the move now and to agree for the regulation to be put into place for next season. Some of the ideas is allowing investment but they would think of some luxury tax or other stuff like that. the way i see it, they will prolly find a way to allow Bar?a and co to recover and deem whetever PSG send as excessive spending and slap a tax on us. However, it is a matter for another time. Just happy the fraud FFP is being axed as we know it. So much pretending but didn't survive the test of time.

FFP did its job to an extent and your moaning about it is proof of that.

Conspircacy theories about being all out to get PSG though eh?

There was no chance FFP was going to carry on under same rules due to the pandemic anyway. That was clear from the moment it all happened.

 

[Luftstalag14]

Must say that I don't think FFP is a scam or anything and that it should be abolished. It has its purpose, and it's been pointed out before, regulations in football are still rather loose compared to some other sports, American ones primarily. Unregulated football might change things drastically. Clubs like Barca could be forced into a change of ownership models to stay relevant, to start with. But while it has its advantages, can't deny it's been brought up to protect the status quo.

Of course, the super league would need FFP in one form or another. Before I thought there was no chance of it. But reminds me of that old greek myth. How the Titans were finally killed once the new gods realized they had the power. The big clubs are the big earners. Uefa will need to bend. As they no doubt will.

Sure, rules and regulations surrounding an industry or an association, whatever it is, were designed to protect the interests of those who formed it in the first place. It applies to world geopolitics too.

The only thing we can do is to ensure the rules are fair to everybody and applies to everybody, we do need rules.

 

[Newcomer]

Zidane was not funded by a billionaire owner and Real has gone into some serious debt at times to make their big signings. Not comparable. To even attempt to fund Zidane they had to play players like Pavon and Bravo to try and balance it out. Not even remotely similar to a team with endless supplies of cash to try and sign every top player going.

Milan was spending big but again not to extent were going to distort the market and change the game. Not comparable.

There will always have been teams that have spent big.

You contradict yoursefl if say FFP was brought in to stop likes of Chelsea if then say it was always the norm anyway.

Poor arguments and nothing about 'football is a rich mans sport' is relevant. As about as relevant as claims that no other industry prevent owners spending. You are the one bullshitting and purely seeing it from PSG fan point of view.

This is the problem. You draw some wishy washy line by :Zidane was not funded by a billionaire owner. Why would i care by who it was funded (convenient loan banks with incredibly low or convenient dealing with state) ? I know foot ball has almost always been a matter of spending big and bigger and stacking the talent to win and establish an era of dominance.

It has distorted the market before and it will continue to distort the market.

This is the reality about football :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3Wn5IfiiSI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvwKhRi8xCE

 

[JamDav1982]

It is relevant that Real had to go into debt and pay it off to make signings as opposed to a billionaire owner spending unlimited cash on team. Clear difference.

For Figo and Zidane they had to go into debt and play shite like Pavon and Bravo to balance it. There was no blank check and unlimited funding. It was a financial gamble based on marketing of top names... again not even remotely similar.

Those videos add nothing that is not already known or has been said.

Same point remains..you argue it has always happened than new rules were brought in to stop Chelsea and how they were funding through their owner and potential where that could lead. Cant have it both ways.

 

[Luftstalag14]

We should know about the changes soon if italian media is to be believed.

According to them, there will still be a financial control but different from the current one. Spending will be allowed but only the necessary amount and excessin spending will be sanctioned. However, those sanctions should be economical sanctions rather than sporting ones.

They said it is imperative to make the move now and to agree for the regulation to be put into place for next season. Some of the ideas is allowing investment but they would think of some luxury tax or other stuff like that. the way i see it, they will prolly find a way to allow Bar?a and co to recover and deem whetever PSG send as excessive spending and slap a tax on us. However, it is a matter for another time. Just happy the fraud FFP is being axed as we know it. So much pretending but didn't survive the test of time.

That is very wishy washy at best. I don't see major changes from what you described above, one still can't spend more than what it takes in, right? The only difference is if you are found in violations of the rules you get fined, instead of not being able to buy players as they do right now?

I don't see how the supposed changes are designed to help us (Barca) and other traditional clubs to recover, and purposely designed to put PSG and City etc. in disadvantages like you implied.

 

[Luftstalag14]

This is the problem. You draw some wishy washy line by :Zidane was not funded by a billionaire owner. Why would i care by who it was funded (convenient loan banks with incredibly low or convenient dealing with state) ? I know foot ball has almost always been a matter of spending big and bigger and stacking the talent to win and establish an era of dominance.

It has distorted the market before and it will continue to distort the market.

This is the reality about football :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3Wn5IfiiSI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvwKhRi8xCE

Again, as I said before, there weren't as many rules as there are now during the early days of football or any sport or even industry to speak of. Things involve, rules and regulations too. You can't complain about what happened 30, 40 years ago and say, gosh, I wish I was there and now I can't take advantage of the lack of rules back then.

This is how the world works.

 

[Newcomer]

It is relevant that Real had to go into debt and pay it off to make signings as opposed to a billionaire owner spending unlimited cash on team. Clear difference.

For Figo and Zidane they had to go into debt and play shite like Pavon and Bravo to balance it. There was no blank check and unlimited funding. It was a financial gamble based on marketing of top names... again not even remotely similar.

Those videos add nothing that is not already known or has been said.

Same point remains..you argue it has always happened than new rules were brought in to stop Chelsea and how they were funding through their owner and potential where that could lead. Cant have it both ways.

I never said it was to stop Chelsea because Chelsea had already been successful. Furthermore, Chelsea was one of the advocate of FFP because they knew it would be like pulling the ladder after them. It was implemented to stop another Chelsea to come into reality.

Also, you don't need to repeat your blurry line about it was a billionaire or it wasn't a billionaire. What about Milan ? What about Inter ? And i can go on. What matters is football has ALWAYS been about teams outspending the others and breaking transfer fees to secure the best talents. Not a surprise that the richest clubs in their era have also been among the most successful ones.

Now, you are unhappy because those billionaires are even richer than the ones before but they are just perpuetating what was done before. And whether you like it or not, Zidane transfer was similarto Neymar transfer if the fee is adjusted to budget transfer. So, if Neymar transfer has distorted the market, so has Zidane one. However, i see no one crying about this transfer. And you still fail to dispute that a team full of Ballon d'Or is something unthinkable nowadays however rich PSG and City owners are. Yet, Real Madrid was doing this.

The graphics are telling whether you want to admit it or not because you said no team spent like that before the graphs are clearly showing the big level of spending of some teams at an era where transfer fees were even lower than now.

If you don't like big spending, if you don't like big money, you shouldn't be a fan of Bar?a or of professional football but of some amateur club.

 

[Newcomer]

Again, as I said before, there weren't as many rules as there are now during the early days of football or any sport or even industry to speak of. Things involve, rules and regulations too. You can't complain about what happened 30, 40 years ago and say, gosh, I wish I was there and now I can't take advantage of the lack of rules back then.

This is how the world works.

I'm only answering Jamdav with his claim that billionaire City or PSG are ruining football while it has always been like that.

If someone started ruining football it was certainly not PSG. The graphics are just there to prove that point.

So either you dislike football for having been ruined before (in that case, why do you even follow Bar?a ???) or don't give me that PSG/City are ruining football bs argument.

 

[JamDav1982]

I never said it was to stop Chelsea because Chelsea had already been successful. Furthermore, Chelsea was one of the advocate of FFP because they knew it would be like pulling the ladder after them. It was implemented to stop another Chelsea to come into reality.

Also, you don't need to repeat your blurry line about it was a billionaire or it wasn't a billionaire. What about Milan ? What about Inter ? And i can go on. What matters is football has ALWAYS been about teams outspending the others and breaking transfer fees to secure the best talents. Not a surprise that the richest clubs in their era have also been among the most successful ones.

Now, you are unhappy because those billionaires are even richer than the ones before but they are just perpuetating what was done before. And whether you like it or not, Zidane transfer was similarto Neymar transfer if the fee is adjusted to budget transfer. So, if Neymar transfer has distorted the market, so has Zidane one. However, i see no one crying about this transfer. And you still fail to dispute that a team full of Ballon d'Or is something unthinkable nowadays however rich PSG and City owners are. Yet, Real Madrid was doing this.

The graphics are telling whether you want to admit it or not because you said no team spent like that before the graphs are clearly showing the big level of spending of some teams at an era where transfer fees were even lower than now.

If you don't like big spending, if you don't like big money, you shouldn't be a fan of Bar?a or of professional football but of some amateur club.

Nope no blurry line... billionaire with unlimited funds where club has no liability is the difference to all those cases you keep trying to compare to.

Again... distorting market with money from outside football that the owners provide unlimited funds for. That is the difference and that has no end in sight if unregulated. That is the difference between Zidane and PSG spending billions of owners cash.

Nope you are lying. I clearly said 'teams have always spent big' but never has it been to level of one team having unlimited funds through owner that club has no liability on. Again that is the difference.

Shitey strawman attempt 'if you dont like spending dont support Barca'. That about sums up your random pot shot arguments and is not relevant.

I wouldnt like Barca to be taken over and have unlimited funds from an owner to spend any more than any other club and it would ruin football if no regulation to stop it. So that poor argument falls flat like the others.

 

[Messigician]

I'm only answering Jamdav with his claim that billionaire City or PSG are ruining football while it has always been like that.

If someone started ruining football it was certainly not PSG. The graphics are just there to prove that point.

So either you dislike football for having been ruined before (in that case, why do you even follow Bar?a ???) or don't give me that PSG/City are ruining football bs argument.

There's a difference between being a club owned by the fans like Barcelona, and a foreign state owned pet project for Arab Shiek's egos.

Having unlimited money pumped into it from oil money Regarldess of economic climate is radically different from just being a rich club spending to their whim.

 

[JamDav1982]

I'm only answering Jamdav with his claim that billionaire City or PSG are ruining football while it has always been like that.

If someone started ruining football it was certainly not PSG. The graphics are just there to prove that point.

So either you dislike football for having been ruined before (in that case, why do you even follow Bar?a ???) or don't give me that PSG/City are ruining football bs argument.

Nope your claim that 'football has always been like that' as if any clubs spending big in past is comparable to City/PSG with unlimited funds that club dont have to account for is the same when it isnt.

You keep harping back to Zidane and keep telling you the difference.

Never said City/PSG 'have' ruined football. I said if any club with owners that have billions to throw about on a whim and dont look for a return or have club with any liabilities would ruin football.