The on topic thread

[moomba]

What name and rule number is that?

That would be the 2015/16 Hyundai A-League Salary Cap and Player Roster framework salary cap provisions as amended in 2015, and detailed in articles such as this one.

This: http://www.fourfourtwo.com/au/news/league-rule-change-derailed-lampard-loan

"Starting from season 10, FFA will apply a principle that any amount that is paid by the A-League club that goes to the player - either directly or indirectly by way of a payment to his overseas parent club - is counted under the salary cap.

It's commonly known as the Lampard rule, but it was first proposed in relation to Melbourne Victory's signing of Rogic and Troisi in the 13/14 season.

You're welcome

And you would be right, for any other club. But City could just need to structure his contract so that the contracted salary was technically 50% of what it is now and give him a chunk of change another way - say by way of a signing-on bonus for leaving Melb City to go to Man City. For example. Or relocation fees or five as he moves from Melbourne to Manchester to somewhere to Manchester to Melbourne. So many loopholes...

Relocation fees are exempt from the A league salary cap.

There is loopholes for every club in the league, that's why rich accountant types get jobs. Not sure why we would bother though, when as a marquee player Melbourne City could have just doubled his wedge this past season, told him to come over to Manchester (or anywhere else) for a season and then return on half pay.

Your problem is that you see conspiracy wherever you look. You presume because a deal has been done that it's a dodgy one. Rules, evidence, common sense don't seem to apply to your thinking when it comes to CFG.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

That would be the 2015/16 Hyundai A-League Salary Cap and Player Roster framework salary cap provisions as amended in 2015, and detailed in articles such as this one.

This: http://www.fourfourtwo.com/au/news/league-rule-change-derailed-lampard-loan



It's commonly known as the Lampard rule, but it was first proposed in relation to Melbourne Victory's signing of Rogic and Troisi in the 13/14 season.

You're welcome



Relocation fees are exempt from the A league salary cap.

There is loopholes for every club in the league, that's why rich accountant types get jobs. Not sure why we would bother though, when as a marquee player Melbourne City could have just doubled his wedge this past season, told him to come over to Manchester (or anywhere else) for a season and then return on half pay.

Your problem is that you see conspiracy wherever you look. You presume because a deal has been done that it's a dodgy one. Rules, evidence, common sense don't seem to apply to your thinking when it comes to CFG.

So you don't know the name and number of the rule. You must've made it up. (in case you don't get the obvious irony - I am mocking your approach)

And, no, I don't see conspiracy wherever I look. I see alternate benefits for the owners of Man City to buy a club like Melb Heart. Benefits which have since paid off for them in a few high profile situations, despite your mocking of me back then, and despite FFP not turning out to as big a concern for everyone as it was meant/thought to be back then.

The people seeing a "dodgy" deal are the people saying that Mooy's been bought simply so they can on-sell him. That's an odd approach as you're paying agent fees and sign-on fees and salary before the sale/loan or loan and sale, which means you have to make a decent profit to ensure you're ahead. No-one has really come up with a good reason for why it's been done the way it has been done. If it is like the South American idea of third party ownership then that's a new thing to think of. Of course clubs like Chelsea have also been accused of just buying heaps of people to sell them again, but they don't tend to make profits when offloading those young players... especially when they buy them back again a few years later...

 

[Art Vandelay_]

despite FFP not turning out to as big a concern for everyone as it was meant/thought to be back then.

Depends on what club you follow. I'd say FFP has a decent impact on my club trying to move into the elite clubs of Europe. Limits our ability to bridge the gap.

 

[Doctor Bojan_]

Depends on what club you follow. I'd say FFP has a decent impact on my club trying to move into the elite clubs of Europe. Limits our ability to bridge the gap.

is that the lie that Levy is running with these days

 

[Art Vandelay_]

is that the lie that Levy is running with these days

No this is something I asked moomba last month as he knows far more than I on the subject. A question that was answered in the affirmative in that regard.

 

[moomba]

So you don't know the name and number of the rule. You must've made it up. (in case you don't get the obvious irony - I am mocking your approach)

I've just told you the name of the regulations. And given you a link to a FFA statement detgailing the changes to it. I don't have a copy of the regs to hand, but will happily find one and provide you with a rule number

And, no, I don't see conspiracy wherever I look. I see alternate benefits for the owners of Man City to buy a club like Melb Heart. Benefits which have since paid off for them in a few high profile situations, despite your mocking of me back then, and despite FFP not turning out to as big a concern for everyone as it was meant/thought to be back then.

I mocked you then because you said the only reason we bought Melbourne Heart was to get around FFP. It's not proven to be true once. I've spoken at length about the project, and what it means to CFG. Honestly, this is a huge worldwide thing, and if you still think the only reason it can happen is to get around a few rules or dodge out on a few hundred thousand dollars here and there I really don't think you'll ever understand.

Since then you've stated Villa's salary was lowered to get around the A League salary cap, until it was pointed out to you that as a guest player his salary wasn't included in the salary cap.

You've pointed out that Lampard was a way of getting around FFP despite him being signed on a free transfer and having 100% of his wages paid by Man City while he was here.

Cacares, I can see why people are upset, and said at the time that we were just inviting the FFA to change the rules. This of course has happened. But no rules were broken, so you got that one wrong as well.

You see a conspiracy around every corner. But to date you haven't been able to back your tin foil hat accusations with anything approaching logic let alone facts.

The people seeing a "dodgy" deal are the people saying that Mooy's been bought simply so they can on-sell him. That's an odd approach as you're paying agent fees and sign-on fees and salary before the sale/loan or loan and sale, which means you have to make a decent profit to ensure you're ahead. No-one has really come up with a good reason for why it's been done the way it has been done. If it is like the South American idea of third party ownership then that's a new thing to think of. Of course clubs like Chelsea have also been accused of just buying heaps of people to sell them again, but they don't tend to make profits when offloading those young players... especially when they buy them back again a few years later...

I think loan fees will pay for his transfer fee (which wouldn't have been huge). There is a chance he will (now or in the future) prove himself worthy of a place in the squad. We will know better than anyone in Europe what his qualities are as a player and person. There is also a chance that if he goes out on loan and is successful that his value will increase. You may not like it but there is nothing dodgy about that.

I honestly don't know what your beef is on this one. Like I've said before it's as if you see Melbourne City and Manchester City and you can't look beyond dodgy deal.

 

[Zidane98]

While technically legal the Mooy deal stinks and looks pretty much like 3rd party ownership.

 

[moomba]

While technically legal the Mooy deal stinks and looks pretty much like 3rd party ownership.

How can it be third party ownership when his registration is owned by one party? Do you even know what third party ownership is?

 

[Doctor Bojan_]

No this is something I asked moomba last month as he knows far more than I on the subject. A question that was answered in the affirmative in that regard.

isn't FFP largely redundant now anyway. It depends what we are talking about too. If it means competing with United, Chelsea and City for players then yeah, getting to that level will take time. If it means spending 30m on a player and paying them 100k plus, then no, it's a lie. As far as I'm aware, you can spend 100% of your TV money.

 

[Zidane98]

How can it be third party ownership when his registration is owned by one party? Do you even know what third party ownership is?

Of course I know what it is ffs. You'll be farming Mooy out with no intention of ever playing him, to me that should be classed as 3rd party ownership.

Who knows, perhaps you'll actually give him a go next season. Stranger things have happened.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

isn't FFP largely redundant now anyway. It depends what we are talking about too. If it means competing with United, Chelsea and City for players then yeah, getting to that level will take time. If it means spending 30m on a player and paying them 100k plus, then no, it's a lie. As far as I'm aware, you can spend 100% of your TV money.

The last bit is because we're hoarding money for a stadium. A stadium we've fast tracked to combat the FFP and increase revenue. I was referring to the former. It slows us down and in a way keeps those at the elite table where they are. Platini

 

[moomba]

isn't FFP largely redundant now anyway. It depends what we are talking about too. If it means competing with United, Chelsea and City for players then yeah, getting to that level will take time. If it means spending 30m on a player and paying them 100k plus, then no, it's a lie. As far as I'm aware, you can spend 100% of your TV money.

Can't lift your wage bill by more than £4m a season plus increases in commercial (not TV) income.

 

[moomba]

Of course I know what it is ffs. You'll be farming Mooy out with no intention of ever playing him, to me that should be classed as 3rd party ownership.

Who knows, perhaps you'll actually give him a go next season. Stranger things have happened.

To you it might be 3rd party ownership but it clearly isnt by any definition of the term.

If we go down that path, there will be people that see it as not right. Similar to what Chelsea have done for a few years.

For me, if I was advising a player I'd say stay away from a deal like that. But no-one is holding a gun to anyones head.

 

[Zidane98]

To you it might be 3rd party ownership but it clearly isnt by any definition of the term.

If we go down that path, there will be people that see it as not right. Similar to what Chelsea have done for a few years.

For me, if I was advising a player I'd say stay away from a deal like that. But no-one is holding a gun to anyones head.

I did say the deal was technically legal. Glad to see you agree that clubs buying players purely with the intention to farm them out and neber play them is wrong.

 

[Doctor Bojan_]

Can't lift your wage bill by more than £4m a season plus increases in commercial (not TV) income.

I thought it was a %, rather than a fixed amount? That's actually pretty funny. So FFP encourages clubs to increase their wage bill every year if they want to compete for the top players.

Not being a dick but don't understand how Palace, Stoke, West Ham, etc can outspend Spurs? Guys like Imbula and Shaqiri would be on 100k+.

Not including TV income is basically Platini's way of slowing down the English teams yeah?

 

[Doctor Bojan_]

The last bit is because we're hoarding money for a stadium. A stadium we've fast tracked to combat the FFP and increase revenue. I was referring to the former. It slows us down and in a way keeps those at the elite table where they are. Platini

even if this is so it doesn't make up for his pre-ffp lies. I shouldn't care but it does make me laugh.

 

[moomba]

I thought it was a %, rather than a fixed amount? That's actually pretty funny. So FFP encourages clubs to increase their wage bill every year if they want to compete for the top players.

Not being a dick but don't understand how Palace, Stoke, West Ham, etc can outspend Spurs? Guys like Imbula and Shaqiri would be on 100k+.

Not including TV income is basically Platini's way of slowing down the English teams yeah?

Pretty much. And it does encourage sides to use the full £4m increase every year.

The only thing I can think with Palace/Stoke etc is that the £4m a season doesn't kick in until the total wage bill is over a certain amount. Perhaps they are under so a free to do what they want until they reach the amount.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Depends on what club you follow. I'd say FFP has a decent impact on my club trying to move into the elite clubs of Europe. Limits our ability to bridge the gap.

Yeah, I thought I had read a few times they've backed right off on it. I know FSG at Liverpool seemed to be setting us up for FFP to kick in and then nothing really changed.

I mocked you then because you said the only reason we bought Melbourne Heart was to get around FFP.

Seeing as you show a horrendous lack of humour and seeing as I know that I never said it was "the only reason" despite you constantly saying that was what I said, I think you can just jog on and stop trying to put specific words in my mouth because there the only things you can retort.

 

[moomba]

I did say the deal was technically legal. Glad to see you agree that clubs buying players purely with the intention to farm them out and neber play them is wrong.

I didn't say wrong. Just that it's not the best for the player IMO.

 

[moomba]

Seeing as you show a horrendous lack of humour and seeing as I know that I never said it was "the only reason" despite you constantly saying that was what I said, I think you can just jog on and stop trying to put specific words in my mouth because there the only things you can retort.

 

[Doctor Bojan_]

Jan Vertonghen has picked up an ankle injury in training and will miss the next 4 months.

 

[Magma]

a transfer where the rights of a player have moved from one club to another club should be considered third party ownership because the new party more than likely isn't going to play them?

huh?

so we've paid a fee for aaron mooy, who has now moved from melbourne city to manchester city. any other european club interested in buying mooy would've had to...pay a fee to melbourne city and he then moves to them.

he gets his move away from melbourne city, they get a fee, and he gets to play in europe. why is there uproar?

 

[Zidane98]

a transfer where the rights of a player have moved from one club to another club should be considered third party ownership because the new party more than likely isn't going to play them?

huh?

so we've paid a fee for aaron mooy, who has now moved from melbourne city to manchester city. any other european club interested in buying mooy would've had to...pay a fee to melbourne city and he then moves to them.

he gets his move away from melbourne city, they get a fee, and he gets to play in europe. why is there uproar?

Cmon mate do you think you guys have any intention of playing him? What if he had no choice in the matter because other clubs werent prepared to pay what Man City were paying? It ain't right that he's beholden to Man City when they've got no intention of playing him.

 

[Magma]

hahahahaha

****ing hell that isnt a real post is it?

 

[Latro]

Cmon mate do you think you guys have any intention of playing him? What if he had no choice in the matter because other clubs werent prepared to pay what Man City were paying? It ain't right that he's beholden to Man City when they've got no intention of playing him.

He does not have to agree to the move.