• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Are City done (for now)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
At this point I think it's only fair to point out.....

Bono is from the South.

But importantly - The northside of Dublin. We just tolerate him on the Southside - where he looks down on is from his mansion on the hill
 
Well I suppose that would just be a further breach so the sanctions would ramp up. Who knows at what point they'd actually start getting banned from Europe, though.

Personally I think this assumption that City will be able to sidestep the FFP rules goes against all the evidence, not to mention reason. They and PSG have already received significant sanctions, just for a first offence. Other clubs have gone to the effort of becoming profitable. From the start, it's been made absolutely clear that any attempts to artificially inflate revenue won't be tolerated. So much for the evidence. Then there's the logic: why would Uefa go this far only to stop now? It doesn't make any sense to me.

That doesn't mean I think the likes of City will be made to stick absolutely to the rules, or that they'll suffer terrible consequences. They'll just be reined in a fair bit and be made to show willing, and for them, with the state of their squad, that'd be a real problem.

I think the net spend restriction was 49m net in the next transfer window - which was the last one. Presumably if they fail again they'll be hit with a further restriction in the next window.

It doesn't mean a whole lot when the majority of clubs could never even afford to spend that.

Presumably a repeat offender will see harsher penalties each time, I don't see a fine stopping City. Something more drastic is needed
 
I think the net spend restriction was 49m net in the next transfer window - which was the last one. Presumably if they fail again they'll be hit with a further restriction in the next window.

It doesn't mean a whole lot when the majority of clubs could never even afford to spend that.

Presumably a repeat offender will see harsher penalties each time, I don't see a fine stopping City. Something more drastic is needed


Is that 49 m net actual value of the transfer or 49 m net based on amortized value over the length of the contract of the new transfers. If it is the second, they can go on a spending splurge again.
 
If I had to guess its the second, but in City's case would it enable a splurge?

Who would they sell for any real money regardless of their net book value?

It's an older squad, the players that would raise funds are the ones they'd want to keep.

But still, 49m is more than about 99% of European clubs can afford as a net spend.
 
Is that 49 m net actual value of the transfer or 49 m net based on amortized value over the length of the contract of the new transfers. If it is the second, they can go on a spending splurge again.

What would the second one even mean? How would you think it'd be calculated?
 
What would the second one even mean? How would you think it'd be calculated?


I dont know the exact specifics but if City were to buy Bale for 100 million and offer him a 5 year contract then the contribution to the max allowable net spend of 49 million would be something around 20 million. The actual calculation is more complicated than 100/5.
 
If I had to guess its the second, but in City's case would it enable a splurge?

Who would they sell for any real money regardless of their net book value?

It's an older squad, the players that would raise funds are the ones they'd want to keep.

But still, 49m is more than about 99% of European clubs can afford as a net spend.


Splurge was a wrong word to use I guess. They may not be able to address all of their weaknesses by throwing money but as you pointed out it would still be higher than almost all the clubs in Europe if it is 49 million calculated based on amortization.
 
Dana was born in London - so we're not claiming her.

Enya..... On the other hand

I think I read it somewhere that she has sold more CDs in the states than what U2 have.

She must be worth a shitload.
 
Enya used to be the highest selling female artist of all time.

No love for Christy Moore?

The Corrs?

Mary Black................ hmmm maybe not.
 
I'm not quite sure you're following the banter...

DB is from the North isn't he?

images
 
I dont know the exact specifics but if City were to buy Bale for 100 million and offer him a 5 year contract then the contribution to the max allowable net spend of 49 million would be something around 20 million. The actual calculation is more complicated than 100/5.


No way they'd do it like that, it'd be bizarre.

It's just a straight net spend calculation.
 
Is it just me who thinks Nasri is a load of overrated tosh?
No, he is a complete waste of space as a footballer with a horrific attitude to boot.

France was wise and completely washed its hands of him by not selecting him for the national team and City would be wise to follow suit.

If he were offered to Liverpool on a free and £40,000 per week I would decline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom