City banned from Europe, Twwwwiiiiiicccceeee
- Thread starter hmmmmm1
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I don't really get the point of tying the amount you can spend to the amount you earn. In truth, I get their frustration at FFP, it does protect the big clubs... and in all other leagues but the PL it has ended in straight dominance by one or sometimes two clubs in the last decade.
However, that doesn't really defend Man City...I do think there needs to be something to stop the richest team from becoming the best team by default. City are only where they are because they are the richest team. And they probably have paid double salaries, and they have broken the laws in place by being dodgy fuckers. Ban them all you want, but FFP doesn't protect teams from going under or level the playing field.
Maybe borrowing the salary cap from US sports, or even maybe creating a transfer market cap would work.
However, that doesn't really defend Man City...I do think there needs to be something to stop the richest team from becoming the best team by default. City are only where they are because they are the richest team. And they probably have paid double salaries, and they have broken the laws in place by being dodgy fuckers. Ban them all you want, but FFP doesn't protect teams from going under or level the playing field.
Maybe borrowing the salary cap from US sports, or even maybe creating a transfer market cap would work.
Last edited:
Poor man's Henderson.
I'm torn on this point, it is a valid opinion, and an awkward truth for us that FFP protects the big old clubs, notably us. At the same time, FFP does allow investment above the means of a club (just not extortionately like City have done), protects the integrity of the competition, and in theory would protect clubs from mass inflation of the market like we've seen since City's arrival, which hurts all clubs. Also Spurs and less so Leicester are examples that teams can easily break into those top four spaces for the long term with modest investment and smart planning, which negates Nevilles point.
So, as I'm torn on the subject, I'm going to stick to the position of laughing at City because the club is a plastic cess pool of cry baby cunts.
I agree that FFP could be construed as the European giants pulling up the drawbridge to prevent new money teams from inflating the market and threatening their dominance. It definitely is not a straightforward issue. How many clubs in the doldrums dream of a super wealthy owner/ benefactor to give them massive injections of cash to buy all the players and build all the infrastructure? We dreamed of it ourselves in our long malaise. It's a dream of all teams that are struggling across the planet.
That being said, City have signed up to the rules of UEFA, and have certainly used subterfuge to circumvent those rules, and thus UEFA absolutely must punish them.
That being said, City have signed up to the rules of UEFA, and have certainly used subterfuge to circumvent those rules, and thus UEFA absolutely must punish them.
In theory it protects clubs from owners signing up huge salaried players on long term contracts and then ditching the club. The idea of funding being more sustainable is perfect - we shouldn't be encouraging overnight billionaire clubs, it should be encouraging investment in infrastructure and in developing commercial relationships that bring in a more diverse set of income streams. I'm all for it.
Yep. Whether you agree with the rules or not (I don’t particularly) you still must abide by them, or face the consequences. All the other clubs in the competition (at least until proven otherwise) were playing by the rules - and city weren’t. On a tribal level I have grown to despise city and their hateful gang of knuckle-dragging band-waggoners. More than I hate Manchester United or Everton. So I hope UEFA bring the axe down hard on the cunts.
interesting name for a man making interesting comments about deceit
Yep, never trust a David. 🙂
Protectionism defo isn't good, but the Neville argument that having oil states buy clubs is a great way to foster competition is bullshit too. Apart from anything else, it's not exactly pro-competition for Man City to be able to spend a billion quid a year on player wages.
I think there should be greater restrictions on what clubs can spend (that's to say, something like FFP) but also the PL should force greater redistribution in return for letting clubs televise all matches. So maybe more money for everyone but heavily redistributed to the poorer clubs.
I think in general you want to try to weaken the link between how much owners make and how successful clubs are on the pitch. The current situation with the Glazers, for example, is ideal from the PL's point of view.
I think there should be greater restrictions on what clubs can spend (that's to say, something like FFP) but also the PL should force greater redistribution in return for letting clubs televise all matches. So maybe more money for everyone but heavily redistributed to the poorer clubs.
I think in general you want to try to weaken the link between how much owners make and how successful clubs are on the pitch. The current situation with the Glazers, for example, is ideal from the PL's point of view.
But is everything in the open regarding the Glazers and the loans the club is financing on their behalf?
In the ideal world we would not need FFP. But it is clear that we still need it. There will allways be enough semirich or superrich people capable of ruining any club out there, no matter how "big" (and we know this) or small. So if owners coming into the sport have to follow a certain set of rules and by that faces less chance of destroying a club where the actual fanbase can't do anything but watch from outside, it is fine. And it is fair as well. And if that somehow prevents some Sheikh or king or whoever from making a toy to show his wealth and ego so fucking be it. Noone forces them to invest, but as in all other industries there are rules. And if you don’t like them just fuck off. Noone will miss you except from that 0,2 % that support the club maybe. But fans all over will notice if clubs starts to dissapear and go bankrupt. Fans care for the whole sport (or at least should) but hardly care if a rich owner dissapear.
Him and the Class of 92, arent they doing a city at lower league with Salford Utd? Maybe that is why he is coming out in support of City.
I think that issue is overstated. They own the club. Utd paying the interest is effectively them paying the interest. Yes, there's a marginal issue in the sense that technically Glazers could walk away and Utd would be left with the debt, and that kind of situation should be regulated for. But they won't walk away because the club's worth billions of pounds.
What I mean is they're happy to take the money without feeling the need to have an all conquering team to keep the money flowing in. Obviously they're not against success, but it's secondary. And that's ideal for the league because the richest club doesn't feel the need to dominate.
Shit for their fans, obviously.
United have, depending on what report you read, the HIGHEST wage bill in the league.
That's hardly a sign of a lack of investment in the team.
Well, their fans have been cheering that development for 2 decades so I don’t think they should complain when they became a Disney world club.
Fair enough. What I meant precisely is that their owners don't care that much about how the team does, in spite of the fact they don't restrict spending beyond what they could do.
Which is to say, everyone knows their issue is Woodward, and the money they spend could reap rewards if it wasn't channelled through him. If they know that and tolerate him because he does so well on the commercial side, when they could so obviously force him to bring in a proper director of football and leave him to concentrate on what he's good at, BUT DON'T, that implies they don't really care about success on the pitch as long as they get their return.
Sorry I know that's very badly written but I'm in a hurry.
And I guess they somehow hope for some Saudi investment to buy out the Glazers and increase the biggest wages bill that exists allready.. as if that is the only way forward when you struggle a couple of seasons.
[article]Manchester City say they will leave 'nothing off the table' when it comes to the appeal against their European ban, and it could land Liverpool in trouble, according to The Mirror.
The Premier League champions have received a £25million fine and a two-year suspension from UEFA competitions due to Financial Fair Play violations.
However, it may reopen allegations against Liverpool over the hacking of their scouting database in 2013.
Liverpool's sporting director and two of the club's scouts who had joined from City were the ones accused of involvement, and the two clubs settled a £1million compensation package and signed a confidentiality agreement.
The matter came back to light last year, but the FA ended their investigation earlier this month, with a spokesperson saying: 'The FA has carefully considered the evidence it received in this matter, including information provided by both clubs involved, and has decided not to progress the investigation.
'This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns and the settlement agreed by the two clubs involved.
'As per standard protocol, should The FA receive further information or evidence, the decision not to progress the investigation may be reviewed.'
However, now it seems Manchester City may be willing to provide new evidence in order to reopen the investigation as they try and make their case to have their European ban revoked.
They will claim that the evidence against them is based on emails which were illegally obtained and taken out of context.
City have appointed an intimidating legal team to plead their case, with QC David Pannick being drafted in to help.
Pannick is a £20,000-a-day lawyer, considered one of Britain's best, and twice represented Gina Miller when she challenged Boris Johnson and Theresa May on issues relating to Brexit.
City's legal team also includes representatives from Freshfields, Bruckhaus Deringer, Pinsent Masons, and Monkton Chambers.
If the case is taken to Swiss Federal Court, they will also have Kellerhals Carrard on side.
City are expected to fight hard as they are reportedly unwilling to accept any financial sanction this time around after being fined £49million for violations in 2014. [/article]
The Premier League champions have received a £25million fine and a two-year suspension from UEFA competitions due to Financial Fair Play violations.
However, it may reopen allegations against Liverpool over the hacking of their scouting database in 2013.
Liverpool's sporting director and two of the club's scouts who had joined from City were the ones accused of involvement, and the two clubs settled a £1million compensation package and signed a confidentiality agreement.
The matter came back to light last year, but the FA ended their investigation earlier this month, with a spokesperson saying: 'The FA has carefully considered the evidence it received in this matter, including information provided by both clubs involved, and has decided not to progress the investigation.
'This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns and the settlement agreed by the two clubs involved.
'As per standard protocol, should The FA receive further information or evidence, the decision not to progress the investigation may be reviewed.'
However, now it seems Manchester City may be willing to provide new evidence in order to reopen the investigation as they try and make their case to have their European ban revoked.
They will claim that the evidence against them is based on emails which were illegally obtained and taken out of context.
City have appointed an intimidating legal team to plead their case, with QC David Pannick being drafted in to help.
Pannick is a £20,000-a-day lawyer, considered one of Britain's best, and twice represented Gina Miller when she challenged Boris Johnson and Theresa May on issues relating to Brexit.
City's legal team also includes representatives from Freshfields, Bruckhaus Deringer, Pinsent Masons, and Monkton Chambers.
If the case is taken to Swiss Federal Court, they will also have Kellerhals Carrard on side.
City are expected to fight hard as they are reportedly unwilling to accept any financial sanction this time around after being fined £49million for violations in 2014. [/article]
Wtf has our backroom staff retaining a login to their scouting software years ago got to do with them scamming FFP? Maybe there's some yellow and red cards from the 1964 season they'd like to bring up whilst they're at it.
Not sure cards were introduced back then?
Interesting Twitter thread deep diving and putting City's finances into context.
[article] [/article]
[article] [/article]
Guardiola managed to bring Klopp into the topic when asked about coronavirus 🙄
Last edited:
Yup sporting intel and Swiss Ramble are great for looking into fiscal matters within football
- Status
Similar threads
