FC Bayern Forum

MUTU wrote:

Dumbledore7 wrote:You naive backward-looking boomers. How is it a "win for football" when smaller clubs aren't given the capacity to break through? When was the last time we saw a club grow "organically"?

This takeover fell through not because Newcastle were taking dodgy investments. It fell through because Liverpool and the others don't want more competition, just as the FFP was made so the European aristocrats don't get disrupted by the likes of City. How can you be so damn blind?

Do you realise that the ONLY reason we could win the treble is exactly because FFP has slightly limited the insane spending? If you have it your way, there would be no way for a club to be successful organically, and the basis for success would be who has the biggest sugardaddy. That's no competition.

Well clearly not because Manchester City circumvented it and still haven't won? We know that money doesn't buy you trophies, but it does get the smaller clubs close enough to make it competitive. The infrastructures of the superpowers still dwarf the impact of big money signings, but clubs like Manchester City and PSG would never have any hope of becoming big if they're not boosted by investment in the first place. Money gives other teams a chance.

There's no such thing as organic growth, you're talking like you just learned these terms at school and so detached from reality.

MUTU wrote:

Dumbledore7 wrote:You naive backward-looking boomers. How is it a "win for football" when smaller clubs aren't given the capacity to break through? When was the last time we saw a club grow "organically"?

This takeover fell through not because Newcastle were taking dodgy investments. It fell through because Liverpool and the others don't want more competition, just as the FFP was made so the European aristocrats don't get disrupted by the likes of City. How can you be so damn blind?

Do you realise that the ONLY reason we could win the treble is exactly because FFP has slightly limited the insane spending? If you have it your way, there would be no way for a club to be successful organically, and the basis for success would be who has the biggest sugardaddy. That's no competition.

I don’t think so. FFP is worse for small clubs. The big ones still get away with murder whole the small ones find it very hard to improve because they do not earn enough and if they get cash injections examples will be made out of them. In England it is a bit different thanks to their insane TV deal. In every other major league a status quo has developed since FFP that was never as pronounced before. Even the Bundesliga now has a big 3/4 whereas in the past it used to be different teams in Europe every year.

How is it worse for small clubs? Take Spain as an example. Imagine you're a club trying to grow organically with no owners, but you have Real Madrid and Barcelona in your league who are spending more money than they are earning, and buying 'Galacticos'.

Compare it to now. Real Madrid are buying young promising players and working within their limits instead of buying multiple established world stars every summer. Now they are less of an impossibility to compete against.

PSG struggled to get past Atalanta. Without FFP they would be spending more than they are now, and they would have steamrolled Atalanta, and maybe beat Bayern in the final.

The same Atalanta didn't stand a chance against Milan and Inter pre FFP, but post FFP they aren't doing too shabbily now.

The easiest way to improve the equality in European football is to decrease the Uefa Champions League prize money and increase the Europa League winnings. That would do more good than any other change I can think of.

Dumbledore7 wrote:

MUTU wrote:

Dumbledore7 wrote:Well clearly not because Manchester City circumvented it and still haven't won? We know that money doesn't buy you trophies, but it does get the smaller clubs close enough to make it competitive. The infrastructures of the superpowers still dwarf the impact of big money signings, but clubs like Manchester City and PSG would never have any hope of becoming big if they're not boosted by investment in the first place. Money gives other teams a chance.

There's no such thing as organic growth, you're talking like you just learned these terms at school and so detached from reality.

Manchester City is a great example. They clearly improved tremendously since getting a rich owner but they were stopped short of winning it only because they're somewhat limited. Don't ever think they would not be spending more money today if there wasn't FFP around.

Money is everything about football. That's why a club with a total market value of 1m will never win the CL.

Football should not be a sport where the one whose owner is richest ends up being more successful. People want to see a fair race where teams are successful on their own merit and not thanks to a cash injection. Take any virgin sport. Let's say tennis. How would you feel if tennis would become a sport where if a tennis player's sponsor is great and giving them a lot of money they'd be able to get an average person to hold a racket that costs millions of euros but has jets and stuff built into it and moves in the air on its own and starts beating the Djokovics of the world? Would you say the sport became more interesting because a clear nobody cheated their way to victory?

Bazi wrote:The easiest way to improve the equality in European football is to decrease the Uefa Champions League prize money and increase the Europa League winnings. That would do more good than any other change I can think of.

Did you look at the prize money of the CL? It's already pathetically low compared to what clubs are spending. For example there's only some 4m euros difference in prize money between winning the CL and losing in the final.

Messi alone makes more than that in a month's worth of salaries from Barcelona.

MUTU wrote:How is it worse for small clubs? Take Spain as an example. Imagine you're a club trying to grow organically with no owners, but you have Real Madrid and Barcelona in your league who are spending more money than they are earning, and buying 'Galacticos'.

Compare it to now. Real Madrid are buying young promising players and working within their limits instead of buying multiple established world stars every summer. Now they are less of an impossibility to compete against.

PSG struggled to get past Atalanta. Without FFP they would be spending more than they are now, and they would have steamrolled Atalanta, and maybe beat Bayern in the final.

The same Atalanta didn't stand a chance against Milan and Inter pre FFP, but post FFP they aren't doing too shabbily now.

Big teams, many of which are where they are because they could spend money in the past, will almost always attract more revenue than smaller teams. As long as you stop cash injections it becomes a race where the ones behind find it very hard to catch up.

For example, in 2019 Milan had 25% more revenue than Atalanta, despite the latter clearly being the better team at the moment and Milan not playing in Europe.

FCBayernMunchen wrote:

MUTU wrote:How is it worse for small clubs? Take Spain as an example. Imagine you're a club trying to grow organically with no owners, but you have Real Madrid and Barcelona in your league who are spending more money than they are earning, and buying 'Galacticos'.

Compare it to now. Real Madrid are buying young promising players and working within their limits instead of buying multiple established world stars every summer. Now they are less of an impossibility to compete against.

PSG struggled to get past Atalanta. Without FFP they would be spending more than they are now, and they would have steamrolled Atalanta, and maybe beat Bayern in the final.

The same Atalanta didn't stand a chance against Milan and Inter pre FFP, but post FFP they aren't doing too shabbily now.

Big teams, many of which are where they are because they could spend money in the past, will almost always attract more revenue than smaller teams. As long as you stop cash injections it becomes a race where the ones behind find it very hard to catch up.

Translation: you don't like FFP because you think low quality teams can't cheat and become successful overnight. That's one of the reasons I like it.

As I said, for those who don't want to cheat, the entry level to compete with the top guns became lower thanks to FFP. That's another reason why I like it.

In a nutshell, FFP hurts cheaters and helps those who want to win on their own merit. I don't get what's not to absolutely love about it.

Kloppo is at it versus Chelsea and Manchester City: "owned by countries and oligarchs". While I agree that the Liverpool model is less of a travesti Football club it is all relative. Many smaller clubs in England and across Europe can certainly accuse Liverpool and Klopp of the same thing that they are acussing the big spenders of.

Can't see tweet? Click here!

Well said.

In order to save this sport beside stopping such bastards from taking over our clubs.

Agents have to be made redundant.

Capping of transfer fees at least.... I would prefer to cap the wages as well but that is very difficult to do.

ramsej84 wrote:Well said.

In order to save this sport beside stopping such bastards from taking over our clubs.

Agents have to be made redundant.

Capping of transfer fees at least.... I would prefer to cap the wages as well but that is very difficult to do.

I am not sure about salary caps, the NFL struggles with that. All the hard work of putting together a winning team gets destroyed because the players increase their market value, then that team is forced to sell them to meet the rule, even if the marketability of the team still supports the higher wages. IMO hard work needs to be rewarded.
It sound like corporate welfare, but redistribution of league revenue and parachute payments to relegated clubs also help a lot on having a balanced league.

MLB has something called "luxury tax". This could an alternative to a transfer fee cap: Let's say there is a $100M cap, if a team decides to buy the next Messi for $400M the league will not stop the transaction, but for every 10M above the cap there is % that goes to the League for redistribution to the smaller clubs.

Jorge wrote:Kloppo is at it versus Chelsea and Manchester City: "owned by countries and oligarchs". While I agree that the Liverpool model is less of a travesti Football club it is all relative. Many smaller clubs in England and across Europe can certainly accuse Liverpool and Klopp of the same thing that they are acussing the big spenders of.

Can't see tweet? Click here!

I don't know who Liverpool owner is (apparently some hedge fund manager), but nothing is as bad as being owned by a human rights-abuser monarchy or Putin's BFF.

Sent from my Mi A3 using Tapatalk

ramsej84 wrote:Well said.

In order to save this sport beside stopping such bastards from taking over our clubs.

Agents have to be made redundant.

Capping of transfer fees at least.... I would prefer to cap the wages as well but that is very difficult to do.

You also want to add cheerleaders in the mid-time? The model of American sports is not an example to follow at all, ugh.

Ironic that I say this because I'm super pro-American in most things but in two areas I think they s4ck; how they organize sports and their aversion to adopt the standardized metric system (also the format of dates).

Sent from my Mi A3 using Tapatalk

PunkCapitalist wrote:

ramsej84 wrote:Well said.

In order to save this sport beside stopping such bastards from taking over our clubs.

Agents have to be made redundant.

Capping of transfer fees at least.... I would prefer to cap the wages as well but that is very difficult to do.

You also want to add cheerleaders in the mid-time? The model of American sports is not an example to follow at all, ugh.

Ironic that I say this because I'm super pro-American in most things but in two areas I think they s4ck; how they organize sports and their aversion to adopt the standardized metric system (also the format of dates).

Sent from my Mi A3 using Tapatalk

Your last two lines.... so true.

But you have to agree with the agents issue, right?

ramsej84 wrote:

PunkCapitalist wrote:

ramsej84 wrote:Well said.

In order to save this sport beside stopping such bastards from taking over our clubs.

Agents have to be made redundant.

Capping of transfer fees at least.... I would prefer to cap the wages as well but that is very difficult to do.

You also want to add cheerleaders in the mid-time? The model of American sports is not an example to follow at all, ugh.

Ironic that I say this because I'm super pro-American in most things but in two areas I think they s4ck; how they organize sports and their aversion to adopt the standardized metric system (also the format of dates).

Sent from my Mi A3 using Tapatalk

Your last two lines.... so true.

But you have to agree with the agents issue, right?

Look, I don't like player agents either but banning them would 1) be a violation of the players' right to freely associate in their businesses 2) most probably serve no purpose as players would find workarounds (for instance calling them "advisors" and demanding higher sign-on fees that would get passed through to the "advisors").

Essentially, your approach is to try to regulate the aspects you don't like about these private interactions, but it would most likely generate unforseen problems you're not aware of.

Sent from my Mi A3 using Tapatalk