Platini is going take Sepp Blatter to Spearmint Rhino.
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.
Platini is going take Sepp Blatter to Spearmint Rhino.
So, some clubs should just accept that they willl never have any success? Good. Great plan. Like I said, it's all about the football aristocrats staying at the top without ever being seriously challenged.
The MoyesEffect in action once again.
United should make a bid for Yaya Toure
United should make a bid for Yaya Toure
If only success didn't require investment. But it does. There your whole plan falls down.
In this day and age it's impossible to organically build up a club to regularly compete with the biggest ones. Success for a year or two, yes. Then the big clubs will cherrypick the best players and it's over.
I think the FFP rules are bullshit, but I am a selfish person, so as long as this doesn't hurt United, I am not bothered.
What have Spurs achieved? They haven't even finished ahead of Arsenal once in the past 20 years.
Hey, an honest man!
I have to say - I agree with that.
The intentions around FFP are noble and sensible. I can see why they are trying to prevent such huge sums being spent in terms of the long term health if the game.
But is isn't really realistic to expect clubs to be able to grow without spending. United have had a bad season and may spend £200 million this summer - how can other clubs who finish around the same level as us this year compete with that?
I must say, it smacks a bit of perpetuating the stereotypes. This won't stop the likes of Real Madrid busting records every other year and spending money they don't seem to have.
I also think its a bit misguided when a club can be hugely in debt yet spend mega millions and comply with FFP - morally the process seems a big flawed. You can't spend your own money but can spend the money you've earned even though you owe ten times that in loans.
The reality is to "grow" financially you need to be succesful. To do that you need top players and/or to keep your own quality players when you produce them. That's hard to do without spending big money.
Oh I know. It's the same with all the posters here who support FFP: they don't give a feck about the health of football or anything like that, they just want Chelsea and City to burn in hell so it's easier for United. Understandable to an extent, I admit.
FFP rules are fine, the problem is that they came about 10 years too late. Shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted.
Indeed. Bizarre statement. You ask where a Spurs fan would rather be - outside the top 4 or looking at their 5th trophy of the last few years.
I doubt that, to be honest. Platini just wants everyone on his side: he gave a bone to the smaller countries with his new CL qualification system and then he secures the support of the biggest boys with regulation that's the stuff of dreams for them. He really really wants to be president of FIFA and needs as many allies as he can get.
Banning leveraged takeovers, imposing hard transfer and salary caps - not tied to revenue - could achieve something. This only serves to kill the only way to seriously threaten the biggest clubs.
So how would you ensure Flixton fc can challenge Real Madrid then?
What could they have achieved without two clubs spending money that wasn't theirs? That's the point you seem to be missing. A club can get Champions League if they are well managed. What was stopping City? They'd a stadium they didn't have to build and the same opportunity to make money.
I certainly wouldn't start by taking away their only option.
The point was obviously a bit complicated. The insinuation was that it's impossible for these clubs to get Champions League and compete. It isn't and where it not for City and Chelsea clubs like Spurs could realistically build a team to compete.
Sadly that's spot on.
Chelsea support FFP. I think that sums it up. They don't want anyone to be able to do what they did.
They might have achieved what the likes of Valencia achieved in Spain. Fleeting success before losing all their best players to the biggest clubs. That's how the system works. The established elite - who were at the right place at the right time - have advantages that cannot be countered on the long-term. Or medium-term, really.
Also, I repeat, Spurs couldn't even finish ahead of Arsenal. Arsenal, who were building a new stadium and were also the victims of the two oil clubs cleaning up their best players.
Look, you and most posters accept it's the natural order of things that certain clubs are always on top and they have the pick of the best players and any challenge to their reign is necessarily short-lived. I'm merely saying that that's not necessarily healthy and definitely should not be encouraged.
What happened to Spurs? Once Madrid came calling for Bale and Modric that was that. They can't compete - City would have had a much better chance of keeping those players.
And City don't just want to be a club in and out of the CL, struggling to keep their best players when they do well - They want to be at the top table regularly. I can understand that.
Valencia dropped away because of their mismanagement and a league that actually is much more built around two clubs than ours. If the advantage big clubs have financially is due to Champions League then why couldn't Spurs build a squad to win the league with a few years in the Champions League? How have Liverpool managed to challenge this year?
Yes, this is an important point that many people miss. Sure, you can build up a Valencia (though they are in a constantly precarious financial position because of trying to compete) and have some success but you'll still just be a feeder of the big boys without constant and significant investment. The CL money is no longer enough because the clubs who were in pole position during the CL's commercial boom have extraordinary advantages now.
You realise there are at most 20 or so people in the world that can afford to do what city did?
Yeah, because no clubs can compete with Real Madrid. What happens to us when they wanted Ronaldo? Do you think that their task was made easier or harder by missing out on Champions League due to the money spent by Chelsea and City?
And other clubs don't want them spending money they don't have. I can understand that. I want to feck Jennifer Lawrence. We don't always get what we want.
So it's not that great a danger that everyone will start doing it? What's the problem then? That one more club is challenging for the Premier League every season?
Again, Liverpool, like Dortmund, are probably not a great example as they are one of the biggest clubs on the planet. And even they find it hard with their tiny stadium after they were in the wrong position during the 90s commercial boom. Will they challenge again next season? It's far from a given.
The Spanish league is built around two clubs, yes. Without the oil clubs United, with their own commercial potential and revenue streams, could easily turn the Premier League into a one-team league. The PL's lucky there are 1) the interest payments, 2) oil clubs, 3) Moyes.
Valencia might have dropped away due to mismanagement but even at their peak they couldn't keep their best players.
Because without FFP its inevitable that one team would win nearly all the time.
If not for FFP City could offer, say, £250M for Messi, £250M for Suarez, £250M for Ronaldo this summer. Better players next year? Do the same again. Every season.
The difference between Everton on about £85Mpa turnover and Arsenal on £150M Edit:£250M turnover is nothing compared to the difference between Arsenal and City, when City can spend, say, £1Bn per year if they chose.
Last edited:
They have gone from not being in the Champions League to almost champions. The kick on from that would put them back up there. There was nothing stopping clubs like Spurs doing likewise. There's also nothing stopping them from getting worldwide recognition.
As has already been pointed out nobody keeps their big players when Real or Barca come calling. Which players left Valencia at their peak?
This is surprising to me. I expected a fine but thought it would be closer to £1m than £50m. Even over 3 years it's significant and reducing their squad to 21 players is a further blow (you also have to consider how annoyed some top players will be not to be registered in the CL squad).
On top of this, if they wan't to bring in new players, some others have to miss out as well.
As for home grown talent. That could be easy. Ferdinand, Terry, Cole, Lampard, resign Barry, Giggs. All potentially out of contract at the end of the season
Still confident City will take this all the way to the CAS and win.
Not really. They could perhaps spend £1bn over 5-6 years. They couldn't go out and spend £750m on three players, FFP or not.
When we sold Ronaldo we could have reinvested that money in one or two top class players.
And how many other top players have we lost to other sides like that over the years? We can keep our best players because we can compete financially with the powerhouse clubs - if and when the owners want to.
We can pay Wayne Rooney £300k plus a week - Spurs can't do that, Everton and Liverpool probably can't do that either. Very few clubs can.
We'll probably finish 7th this year and will be trying to buy some of the worlds best players. Like I said - how can other PL clubs compete with that without spending big?
At the end of the day the likes if City spent big money to buy themselves a seat at the top table. I don't see any other realistic option.
People on here pretend to be outraged. They draw a distinction between "earned" money and "given" money - (as if paying a player a million quid a month isn't disgusting however its paid for) to try and justify taking the moral high ground. They pretend to fear for the good of football.
In reality it's simple - they liked it best when United were the big spenders and city and Chelsea were nobody's.
I suspect we'll see no moaning when the club is trying to lure players to a club outside the CL with mega wages just like these other clubs have.
I haven't looked into it much, but the CL is owned by UEFA. Even if you win your appeal, couldn't they just say feck it, we don't want you here (I know highly unlikely, but the knock on affect could achieve what they want in a round about way)
Nope. UEFA would not be allowed to ban us from the Champions League if we won the appeal.
Why not?
Out of curiosity, why not?
I mean, UEFA clearly states the rules for clubs to abide by in their competition.
It was City who chose to 'not care' about them.
Sure the CAS of whatever they are called could stop the fine, but surely it's up to UEFA to decide who plays in their competition.
At the end of the day, one of their requirements is for a club to run while breaking even. If you don't do that, who are these people to say who can join the competition.
Well for one the rule that clubs must break even is already being challenged in court.
I can't remember the article, I'll find it and post it on here later, but in layman's terms UEFA cannot exclude a team on unreasonable grounds (which FFP could be found to be in the CAS) if that team will suffer as a consequence - City will obviously suffer without the Champions League.
so how come that atletico is in the CL-final and #1 in the league?
Despite incredible incompetence, Chelsea and City finished ahead of teams, that actually do a good job, because they can cover their shortcomings by an incredible amount of money.
+
"Flixton fc" doesnt have a chance to get an investor. The big investors want clubs from big cities.
The whole arguments about investors are so obviously wrong.
a) Investors dont level the playing field. If you want equality of opportunity you need at least strict salary caps.
b) Its nonsense, that investors are needed to create competition. It doesnt make any sense, that only one club run away with the revenue. There could be always as many clubs as champions-league spot are available with roughly the same amount of money.
Now two sugar daddy clubs reserve two of these four spots with no chance of getting replaced.
Instead of letting competition - even so the competition isnt completely fair - decide who is top, its just a dice role.
When did Utd consistently outspend other clubs to the extent that City or Chelsea have? I'll save you the hassle of answering. They didn't.
They'd compete with Utd the same way they have this season. By being better managed.
And Rooney's wages are a product of the inflated market. He got his last big pay rise by flirting with oil money. To use your example those clubs don't just now have to compete with one club richer than them, they have to do against us who spend within reason and those who don't. I'm sure they're delighted about it.
If we want better and fairer competition there are much better ways of doing it than allowing clubs to spend whatever the hell they like with zero risk. Caps on squad size and rebuilding the loan system would be a start.