Not a fan ! Should just be fans Or carra neville should have checked all the facts before coming on Otherwise it be full of journos sitting out in front
Am glad Gary has mentioned the price factors for positions in football...it's hard to make sense. Football agents, press and clubs need to be put to check
As with anything, it’s not what you know - but who you know. £30-40M worth of player like Ruben Neves move to Wolves in Championship - when every top club in Europe would have taken him for right price.
Players and agents now run the market of transfers. All the power is in the hands of the players, and clubs will work with likes of Mendea and Kia Jorabarichshsgan to smooth those costs. Ruben Neves doesn’t end up at Wolves, and Tevez/Mascherano never play for West Ham
sheikh Mansour owes it to the payers of man city his firm ADUG has secretly being funded sponsorship deals on behalf of Etihad airways for the last 10 years
I think Chev Neville is against the FFP exactly because of Salford. He said in a interview on Sky Sports that owners should be spend how much they want. Maybe he's changing his tone, because he knows majority are against it. He shifts his stand constanstly.
@@thinlizzywhiskeyinmejar7484 When FFP was pitched, it was to stop clubs from going into administration. If an owner puts up their own money (not debt in the club's name), then it can't hurt the club. FFP was stated to help clubs become sustainable, in reality it's biggest impact was cementing existing hierarchies and increasing inequality between clubs.
99% , City fans are showing selective blindness , they have cheated .... FFP is unfair at times but they bought the Etihad naming rights off Manchester council for £2m and sold them for £300m literally the next day , inflated sponsors to cheat round FFP
Boelhy's contract model is based on the American sports contract models.... where you have massively long contracts but they have no issues with paying players severance fee's to cut them from the squad if they dont work. I see more and more players being cut than sold on if it doesn't work for them there, alternatively they always seem to have the ability to loan players out
Works better in the American model where they have salary caps - so if they tie a key player down to a long term contract, it opens up more room for them to invest in others as the salary cap increases. I just don't see it having the same effect here, in terms of a positive one. Definitely ways it can turn the other way on them
@@Shrewdy1 Not really because you still have the issue of one or 2 players taking up a massive amount of the cap... NFL quarterback salaries take up a huge percentage of the cap on one player... I'd suspect these long term contracts are full of incentives.... so a player will sign a 70k a week contract for 8 years instead of a 140k a week for 4 with the knowledge that each performance marker will result in either a pay out lump sum or a salary increase... If they don't reach the incentives they're stuck on the lower rate of pay which makes it easier to get rid of them if needed to or to simply cut them (although this is unlikely) Mudryk for example would probably be offered almost double what he's on just now but for half the time on the contract were he to have been bought by Utd, City or Madrid
American sports have no relegation system, once they failed, most teams will tank to pick the best talent available for free. In english football once your experiment failed, you will be stucked and drop to league one just like Sunderland.
A lot of people wouldn't give him a hard time if he wasn't ex-United imo. They think he has an agenda for rivals even though he's said great things about Liverpool, City and Arsenal. He is definitely biased around United and specifically Ole but you can't throw your boy under the bus 😂
The decision by Chelsea to go down the long-term contract route is all about risk vs reward. Boehly strongly believes football is going to continue experiencing strong growth, particularly on the broadcasting side. For Chelsea to stay aboard the gravy train, they need consistent Champions League football at a bare minimum. With Newcastle back on the rise, we are well on-track to having a big 7. There are only 4 guaranteed Champions League places, and the revenue, exposure, and pulling power of one is crucial to the long-term success of these clubs. Boehly is taking this risk because the alternative is languishing mid-table whilst trying to rebuild over the next 5 or 10 years. Without CL football, and with the revenue gaps between clubs ever-increasing, that rebuild becomes a far more difficult process.
@@martinblomqvist1870 Bc in his tiny little mind they’re both guilty regardless of what the current facts are. Guaranteed he’s a United, LFC or Arsenal fan and hates the idea of the“nouveau riche” football clubs Chelsea & City competing with against them. Incidentally why many think FFP was really brought into the PL to begin - to ensure the upper class had no new members at the table
@@martinblomqvist1870 Sorry mate, I forgot it's 2023 and nobody is allowed to joke about anything anymore. Of course they aren't culprits, I was only fooling around.
I’m a Liverpool fan and I obviously feel a fierce rivalry with city and an intense hatred of how they’ve obviously (fairly or not) bought their success. However, the fan speaking is how every football fan would defend their team and save their cherished football memories. I think he did a good job articulating his side. Also the football they’ve provided has been incredible and entertaining. There’s just a huge issue with finance in European football as a whole and it needs a complete revolution and new ways of making it as fair as possible.
I follow and watch the NFL, NRL, NBA, MLB and Premier League. Of those competitions, the premier league is so much less competitive on average to the point that it is embarassing as a competition. The richest teams win virtually every season and are almost always top 4. The fact that Leicester City was so out of left field is pretty sad to be honest. In the other leagues (even those without a salary cap), you see a vastly superior balance.
IF found guilty the city players and managers should keep there winners medals, but the club should have all Trophies won stripped away null and void, with no declared winner as its too late to just hand them to teams who came runner-up. Deduct 20 points off city this season and another 20 points start of next season. 5 year transfer ban, give their champions league spot to whoever finished 5th place. £500 Million fine to be paid back over the 5 years (£100m Each Year). Pep will leave along with their best players, all this should bring them back to where they was before the cheating began (2009), they can start over but this time play by the rules. Any future offences will mean automatic relegation to English 4th tier (League two).
FFP was implemented to ensure that the biggest clubs will stay at the top forever. What happened with Blackburn, Chelsea and City will never be allowed to happen again. If City are found guilty then be prepared for the EPL to become like the German league or like Scotland. These fans hoping that City get punished should be careful what they wish for.
It’s brilliant to watch Jamie, Gary and the rest of the panel dodge how much they want to celebrate that this is happening to city after yearssss of slating their financial actions. They’ve got to be waiting for the day it (potentially) comes out to actually celebrate
There's a huge misconception here that before Boehly, every club would pay the full amount for a player in the same window. It has always been split over years. Chelsea just stretched it out over 7/8 years instead of 3/4 on the books
ANGELOFDARKification Well said feller. 90% of transfer fees are paid over 3 years. Very few transfers are paid all in one lump sum. One thing.....7 and 8 years? Are you sure the transfer fees are being paid in instalments over that long? I know the player contracts are for 7 and 8 years but I wasn't aware the transfer fees were being paid over that length of time as well. In fact I'd be shocked if that is the case. Also I'm sure the Shakhtar owner said something about 3 yearly instalments (I could be wrong though).
@@danniwilder2198 I think for FFP they will account it over that many years. In terms of the actual money being sent over, it would probably depend on the club. For e.g. I think Benfica got a decent amount right now but will get 120mill over the next couple seasons. I dont know if that's due to it being a release clause kind of thing though.
agreed. Chelsea are playing within thr current rules vs what Man City are accused of. They are spreading the cost of these transfers via amortisation across a larger span of time so end of year accounts look healthier. The risk they take is that some expensive signings are a bust and stuck on long contracts. That said if Enzo is a bust after 2 years and they sell him for 70 mill. In their accounts they won't suffer a 35 mill loss on the 105 they spent. They will have likely paid 40 mill by that time so for that financial year they would actually show a profit on that deal and the losses will be smaller over the following years rather than one hit
@@ANGELOFDARKification The problems with Benfica came about when they started to insist on the whole payment straight away in one go. Naturally Chelsea were taken aback by this because that's not how things are usually done, especially when the amount involved is so large. It wasn't like Chelsea were asking for anything out of the ordinary. I am very convinced Chelsea were expecting to pay it over 3 years, as is the norm. The fact of it being a release clause that Chelsea were triggering would make no difference to the payment arrangements. Rui Costa was just trying to be difficult with everything. I'm guessing that was because of how he desperately didn't want to lose the player mid season.
@@scottallan7931 If a player on a long contract is a 'bust', as you put it, then just like with any other player the club will sell him on. Whether he's on a 5 yr contract or an 8 yr contract it won't make any difference. Why should being on an 8 yr contract make it any harder to sell that player? I'm sorry but I cannot fathom out your figures & calculations at all. Once a player has left a club & is under a contract with another club he does not figure at all for amortisation purposes of the club he's left. Once a player has left Chelsea there is no more amortisation cost for that player. It stops the moment he signs a contract with his new club. There has been much hysteria & it is out of all proportion with the issue. The difference an 8 yr contract makes with a 5 yr contract in respect to the annual amortisation cost of a player is really quite minimal. I estimate the difference for Enzo Fernandez in year one to be about £6.2m & for Mudryk to be about £8.4m and for Badiashile to be about £2.6m. Those figures are for year one. A player's annual amortisation cost is different each year of his contract. I estimate Chelsea overall amortisation cost to be about £23m less this year to what it would've been had those players signed 5 year contracts instead of 7 and 8 year contracts. I'd love to be able to quote Chelsea total 22/23 amortisation amount but that can't be done without having really credible information on every player's length of contract, annual gross salary, & correct transfer fee including what, if any, transfer fee add-ons have been activated to date. To reduce your total amortisation cost by approx £23m in one year is not to be sniffed at & it all helps with FFP, however, £23m is not an amount that is going to impact the plans of Todd Boehly in any kind of way. I'd be very surprised if the main reason for giving young players 7 & 8 year contracts has anything to do with complying with FFP rules. It may be one factor in the club's thinking but I simply cannot believe FFP is THE reason for giving longer contracts.
There will be no stripping of titles. So let's not even talk about it. Aguero, coming back at Brighton and then against Villa, all titles were won on the field by the players over a 38 game season. Utd spent a fortune, won nothing! In the end, it boils down to an American, power hungry cartel 'old money' group headed by Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal that didn't like the competition from City! They forced FFP after Chelseas spending in the hope that no other club, a Newcastle, an Everton, a Villa could ever follow! Is that fair play? No it isn't. The cartel and the biggest clubs in Europe have been threatened by City, they don't like what City are doing on and off the pitch and that is the issue. The irony lost on other clubs is hilarious! If City lose this, kiss goodbye to ever breaking into the cartel elite and having your own clubs dreams come to fruition through owner investment! Its that serious, so think about that!
I don't particularly like Steven, but he was spot on here. There's no excuses, there's no reason for him to doubt the club yet. Oh and he's right about biased rivals like you that are assuming guilt without the proof.
Great from Gary at 19:40, getting at the heart of the issue. There must be a funding model that provides for sustainability and potential for growth for smaller clubs. But the key piece of criteria that Gary left out in criticizing Andy Hull's model is FAIRNESS. If you allow any club's owner to contribute funding to cover losses/increase revenues, then any club that does not have an owner that can maximize that limit will not be able to compete in the long run. Any permitting of owner injection of funds will result in every club seeking to maximize those contributions year on year, and any club that can't do so will fall behind. Gary says that there is simply no way to grow a club without owner injection of cash--this is objectively false. Many clubs have done that and there are models for how to do it. Tottenham is the obvious example. Also Brentford and Brighton, which have had some owner investment, but who could have had the same success using the same expertise and strategy, although it would have taken longer. It IS possible to grow revenue without owner injection of cash, period.
This is a very good type of football talk show. Getting foorball journalists and football l personalities and experts together in person to discuss. Just come across it and subscribed. Love it.
My 2 cents worth on the Chelsea long term contracts is that yes it's a risk because you could find it hard to move on player ls who doesn't perform. At the same time if they are on a low enough wage that in a few years they want more money and a new contract, that loophole will be closed by then so any new contract will be a maximum length that is a much shorter than the original. It's actually quite sensible if you look at it. I don't agree with it but if it's within the rules i can see how it could be a benefit.
The team could get worse then you’re paying the players 250 300+ grand a week to sit on the bench. They ain’t moving to somewhere that will only pay them 100 so you’ll have to pay them off so you’re stuck and top new players won’t join a team that isn’t in the CL or winning titles or like currently with potential to do those things. I can only see this going badly but Tbf I don’t care coz I don’t support them
Think Chelsea will be fine because RA wiped the debt and they've got a lot of assets, I think for other clubs to move large amounts of transfer business into the future accounts could lead to them going out of business which is exactly what FFP is designed to stop
You did well Steven to cope with the baying mob! Gary Neville was right - FFP done to the letter will ensure that another Blackburn, Chelsea or City will never happen. Those clowns should be careful what they wish for.
Wish they touched more on Spurs and Arsenal and how unfair it is to those clubs and others like them that try to bring success organically through smart investment.
As much as it's enjoyable to watch these football debates, it's always such a shame that City fans in these debates always have to spend their time with their backs against the walls, expected to defend their love of their football club while rival fans vent their own frustrations at them. Unfortunately decisions within the football clubs are not made by the fans. The fans are not responsible or accountable for the actions of their billionaire owners. As fans, we should be allowed to just enjoy watching the football and not justify what goes on upstairs. You can love your club as a football club, not as the business, the board and owners aren't the club. Don't be naive enough to believe that Manchester City are the only top football club that doesn't have a squeaky clean billionaire owner.
Finally a proper fan representing Chelsea! Always felt that the other Chelsea fan reps were either not passionate, or did not want to be bold and back their club, or just had no clue what was happening and would simply nod at Neville and Carragher's distasteful remarks.
Honestly the presentator is so good at asking the right questions at the right time with great responses and doesn’t interrupt and lets everyone speak thought this needs to be said thanks for the great show!
Man, wish I was the chelsea fan on there … he did an ok job answering their questions but i felt like he was only scratching the surface. You can not compare what city (allegedly) did to what chelsea are doing. Chelsea are playing within the rules and there is an element of risk involved by awarding these players such long term contracts, like if they flop or get long term injuries. Why didn’t anyone mention badiashile, he looks like he been at the club for 5 years, the way he’s just dropped in, and Chelsea bought him for 30mil.
It's hard to mention Badiashile or smaller signings because the focus will always be on Enzo and Mudryk now due to their fees and transfer sagas. It happens with every club regarding big money signings and players tbh.
or the fact that someone said “you didn’t buy a striker” 🤓 and the chelsea fan was like “oh yeah there’s that” 🤓 like DATRO FOFANA? people only see players if they’re 50M plus i swear
@@victorsirkoi3588 clearly not, element of risk, only select few players on long term contacts, badiashile looking like a bargain, datro fofana is the striker we bought but more importantly we haven’t had the midfielders to provide service to our strikers etc.. so no you’re not right nor funny.
I feel the same cause we'll jist spend money again anyway, honestly I don't care, it's 100% something out fans would do is turn up in absolute numbers if we got relegated for this 😅 like yea it's shit but, I've many other things to worry about 😅😅
Interesting how the guy whose arguably benefitted the most from billionaire owners isn’t really interested about his clubs finances… hmmm… I wonder why
Great content this, Gaz & Carra knocking it outta the park……and to think we had to tolerate Keys & Gray for so long, can you imagine the set they’d have built, a boys club with dolly birds serving them gin & tonics, babbling on about black boots and foreign players diets!!!
Fantastic to have the Fan Debates back, love the new studio set-up… but go back to the longer form edit, please. I understand why you’d want to edit for time, but it makes the episodes and the chat a bit clunky. The best format is the one you allow to breathe.
@@raveninnsbruck9166 yeh a huge fine for a club of our size along with a transfer embargo that remained for several seasons seriously limmitng the ability to make any signings. The FFP ruling against us nearly destroyed the club
If Italian clubs did a fraction of what City is being accused they'd all end up in Serie B or with points penalties ranging from -15 to -30. One country clearly puts its football interests above the rules, and that is not Italy.
Fair play to the City fan, passion for the club doesn't need to be an accountant or an auditor, enjoying the football and supporting the team is all that counts as a fan. Innocent until proven guilty. Rivals just wanna see others go down.
@Andrew Leah and you're an employment lawyer are you?.....smacks of a whitchunt remember they only got find for not complying and sending info to their acusers.....also if you think City are the only ones not complying your in fucking dreamland
Steve did so well for City. Only a day or two after hearing the news and then being on a show like this- he held himself together well and spoke very intelligently
Played the victim, saying their targeted and that rules are being put in place to specifically stop his club, whilst ignoring the fact that his club was the main one screaming with their hands in the air trying to change rules to stop Newcastle being able to do the same things city did, hypocritical as anything.
G Nev's tone of voice & body language doesn't suggest he'd rather Arsenal won the league, especially the amount of times he doubles down on it and even corrected himself on his podcast with a long-winded explanation. 😂
Not really he was surrounded by morons pecking his head cockneys and scousers sticking there noses in where they don’t belong … just bitter trolls so stop wetting yourself city will be cleared 💯
@@kennethkkoech Yeah but he has a habit of babbling on and on and repeats the same things again and again. Even Jamie remarked about it on another Overlap episode.
I think that transfer fees should only be the size of the contract that the player has left. Eg if a player has 3 years left on a £100k a week contract, the transfer fee is just a bit over £15mil
@Nazh His attempt at being all innocent when asked if he never thought about digging deeper into the allegations that have been swirling around City for years. It screamed of hear no evil, see no evil and turning a blind eye for a few trophies no-one will ever respect them for winning.
