Financial restrictions but different to those imposed by FFP. It's not exactly a hard concept to grasp.
Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions
- Thread starter PlayerOne
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Financial restrictions but different to those imposed by FFP. It's not exactly a hard concept to grasp.
I didn't mean really mean city as-of-now, I'm just commenting on the possible punishments as per the relevent article.
That should be obviouse from my -not city in this case as "first offence, new rules- bit, but it may not have been.
But I think points deductions are the best of the worst punishments
Looking at the punishments, I think the withdrawal of UEFA revenue would be most appropriate for clubs not complying. UEFA will never expel a big team but taking away the monetary reward of Champions League football seems a reasonable and effective punishment.
Well of text much!
A super league with PSG, City and Monaco as its stars would be horrendous. And I seriously believe City would get more from the Premier League than a half-arsed super league
So what would they be and why would they be better than FFP?
How is withdrawal of funds in anyway appropriate for a club with the infinite money cheat turned on?
Because it will make it even harder for the club to comply with FFP and then subsequent failings can result in heavier punishments like docked points.
Also, even Mansour wants City to become self-sustainable. Without Champions League money that's pretty much impossible. A withdrawal of revenue would make him act.
It would make him act to artificially inflate City's commercial revenue streams even further, in order to ensure future compliance.
None of the financial punishments open to UEFA in a case of non-compliance, would have any effect on City/PSG/Monaco, the 3 most egregious abusers of the regs. In these cases the most suitable punishments would clearly be the deduction of points, transfer embargoes, or temporary expulsion from UEFA tournaments.
As things stand, City will probably scrape through though, as I think UEFA will find it difficult to argue their commercial deals are above fair market value, particularly with United's Chevy deal about to kick in.
Last edited:
That still makes no sense and is Man City specific. It would be a warning for clubs like City, PSG, etc and potentially devastating for normal clubs.
City's lawyers will tie Uefa in knots
Pure fantasy.
Just a few years ago City were £200m in the red. Since then, they've spent hugely in the transfer market, and incurred greatly increased wage liabilities. And now they're about to break even? How did this miracle occur?
There's simply no legitimate way to increase revenues so greatly in a few years. Despite the ManUification of half the world's companies, United's revenues have grown slowly, usually by less than ten per cent per year, over the same period.
How did City manage to add hundreds of millions to their revenue streams? Their gate receipts are relatively low, and extra income from European football is a drop in the bucket. How could their revenues be greater than the likes of Arsenal, with much greater matchday income, or Liverpool, with a much bigger worldwide fan base?
City's books provide the answer. Bogus sponsorships and commercial deals with associates of their owners. If UEFA rule against these contrivances, City's cupboard is bare.
Last year our revenue was the 7th highest in Europe and increased 51%. It will increase again this year. Our financial experts seem confident we will break-even in the near future. It is not at all pure fantasy.
Sorry if it's been posted but this is mental.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ar...lsea-Arsenal-Liverpool-Manchester-United.html
Average salary of £100k a week, topping a list containing some of the most successful sports clubs in the world.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ar...lsea-Arsenal-Liverpool-Manchester-United.html
Average salary of £100k a week, topping a list containing some of the most successful sports clubs in the world.
That wage bill should be set to come down. Barry, Richards, Lescott and Rodwell are all set to leave in the Summer. Our club can now offer a good chance of trophies so we won't have to give players of Lescott and Barry's quality (no dig, great players, but not 100k a week ones) ridiculous wages. Demichellis wages were reported to be low, about 55k a week, so it shows the club is not willing to throw crazy money anymore (hopefully).
Was Rodwell on big wages? That's crazy! I know what you mean about getting red of massive earners we had a few ourselves (cough Joe Cole). The biggest worry is that good players being brought in may demand to match the clubs other top earners, so even though the big wages will be going on better players the same situation will arise.
How many on United are on more than 100k does anyone know? I think we have two, maybe three, we have a lot hovering around 60-70k. However I can see the likes of Sturridge maybe getting a new contract and a pay rise if his performances continues into next season.
What if the likes of Rodwell would rather sit on the bench and pick up their obscene wages? Why was Santa Cruz at City all that time but couldn't be shifted? Wayne Bridge?
I'm sure I heard City paid part of the wages of some of your players who were out on loan as well.
Besides, every agent will know the type of money you can hand out and will milk you for every penny. It's not as easy as saying, "we challenge for trophies now, so we can pay you less". Especially if other teams such as Real, PSG (and maybe even ourselves) can offer big wages. If City lose out on signings because a player demands high wages, I doubt the fan base would be very happy.
The point is that they no longer have to pay a premium to attract players.
Exactly. Winning changes things from "Please help us win" to "Oh, so you'd like to join our winning organization?"
Also, transfer bans would do nothing. All a club would have to do is put in a bit more thought into 'synchronizing' its purchases and the bans so that the latter only kick in when you don't really need to reinforce. Piece of cake if you know - thanks, UEFA! - exactly when you're going to trigger the bans.
Also, transfer bans would do nothing. All a club would have to do is put in a bit more thought into 'synchronizing' its purchases and the bans so that the latter only kick in when you don't really need to reinforce. Piece of cake if you know - thanks, UEFA! - exactly when you're going to trigger the bans.
Why does that change next year? After they won the title I'm sure they paid the likes of Sinclair about 60k a week.
It doesn't make them immune to bad decisions. It means they can pay the going rate.
Rodwell will leave, definitely. The other three I mentioned are out of contract. We can attract big players now without obscene wages. Quite a few players would choose City over United if offered equal wages.
Think Rodwell will be on about 60-70k, not certain though. Yeah it is a problem, I mean if we want to sign a good young centre back like Mangala he's instantly going to command at least 100k a week because he can just say look at what Lescott was on.
Yeah, I guess part of that is true, but I still think players and agents will take you for a ride.
As they would to any club.
I have been hearing that there will be an European super league in 10 years for the last 10 years
I think i first heard of the european super league idea maybe 15 years ago, they must have been holding off on getting it started in the hope an Arab country would pump a billion into city to make them a good team.
Because how could it be a super league without City.
Because how could it be a super league without City.
You can't seriously believe that, can you? This is a Chelsea fan talking. We have been in the CL every year for the last 11 seasons and only once failed to get out of the group. We've been doing what City are doing in terms of marketing and promoting the brand far longer than City have. Our deal with Adidas last summer was signed to a world record fee. We've won plenty of trophies, domestically and abroad and our global fan base grew to some serious numbers worldwide, plus we've sold one of our best players for a serious amount of money this January. Our current wage bill is not only a long way behind City's, it's even smaller than United's. Despite all that, we only managed to gain an income once in all this time, and a year later reported a loss yet again.
Without that artificial Etihad Airways deal, which is nothing, but a gift from your owner, there's no way in hell you can get anywhere near complying with FFP, let alone turning a profit. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't care if City continues to spend indiscriminately, my club has done it for much longer and certainly enjoyed the advantages that an owner's deep pockets can provide. But don't try to convince me you've managed to satisfy UEFA requirements in such a short period of time due to your genius financial experts, brilliant marketing campaigns and overwhelming success on the pitch, because it's simply not realistic.
This is, quite frankly, the most absurd comment I've read here in a quite a while.
Delusional.
It really isn't.
Before this season, maybe. Next season with no Champions League football for United, I'm sure many players would opt for City.
UEFA wont chuck any clubs out of the CL. They sponsors would go mad if the best sides arent in it - regardless of what the lawyers would do.
Think about how much revenue a European "super league" could generate. Seeing Europe's best up against each other every week? Its a global game now and the top clubs no longer have to rely on people living a stones throw from the ground for their income. The sums raised on a match day pale into insignificance to the huge commercial sponsership deals, never mind how much a club could make televising all of its matches with no need to act under the PL rules.
Its been mooted before and I personally think, long term this is the way football will go. Not sure if its positive or negative mind you.
Guess there would be one or two players from each club actually wanting City over United.
Probably 3 or 4 from Liverpool.
Probably 3 or 4 from Liverpool.
You do realise all players don't support Manchester United yes?
Unless they're seven years old, nobody who follows football will think of City being a bigger club than United.
With SAF and CL Football probably yes. Now, no way. I know if I was a talented player with no attachment to United or City, if offered equal wages, I would take City without a shadow of doubt. A footballer's career is very short, I wouldn't give up CL football and a far better manager for no CL football (and noone knows for how long) and Moyes.
Ok, but that it isn't what I asked, and FWIW, you're statement is incorrect, it should be that way, but assume the whole human raise come to conclusions logically, people are emotional. As for my actual question, which was do you think everyone supports United? I assume your response was angling toward insinuating that because United are a bigger club, player's would simply opt for them, this isn't true. City have better facilities, and this season have been challenging for more silverware, and have Champions League next year, I once felt the same as you, but you need to step back from the red goggles, it's not reality.
What the feck has Pellegrini actually achieved to be labelled a 'far better manager' than Moyes? He's been shown-up for the tactically inept manager than he is this season. With the players at his disposal and the money he has spent, City should be walking the league this season in Ferguson's absence.
Laughable.