I'm pretty sure I didn't say "buy success". Along with their current revenue it would be a great boost that would hasten their progress and with good decisions would have them climbing towards the Europa spots quite quickly. It would be a steroid to this "natural growth" policy that people keep spouting as if it's a simple process of: don't make stupid decisions and your club will increase it's league position 2-3 places a year (which is obviously poppycock).
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.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say "buy success". Along with their current revenue it would be a great boost that would hasten their progress and with good decisions would have them climbing towards the Europa spots quite quickly. It would be a steroid to this "natural growth" policy that people keep spouting as if it's a simple process of: don't make stupid decisions and your club will increase it's league position 2-3 places a year (which is obviously poppycock).
That is why FFP should come into effect. Money doesn't guarantee success, but it increases the chances of it and proportional to success. Like I said, FFP should be a first step in restricting the spending along with other measures, which makes it tougher for even the likes of us, Real and Barca to spend. That's how you make it fair rather than just letting rich people make huge investments so that the "league is interesting for me to watch" bullshit.
You really think that £35M will make the difference, when Liverpool's wage bill is £70M more per year?
I am going to leave this argument for now because everybody is going round in circles.
I will just leave with my opinion
As a United fan, I want FFP to work as it would stop City spending hundreds of millions, and keep them at the top. I will admit it, and not ashamed to. Most United fans will think the same, some just won't admit it.
But deep down, passed the United / City argument, I do think FFP is in place for the right reasons. I don't think it's to keep the powerhouse clubs at the top.
As said a few times, if City was not involved like they are today. Everton, Liverpool and Tottenham would all have had more European places, whether its Europa or the CL. The fact is, because of City, they haven't. That has cost them clubs plenty of money in the last 5 or so years.
The money has stopped them clubs growing, it may well have helped forced players to leave so they can play in Europe and the money could have improved them squads.
City as 1 team has had a direct effect on quite a few clubs financially.
I am not blaming City for this, as it stands, its their owners money, he can do what he wants (Unless FFP does work)
I am just saying that the effect that City has had on teams is a lot more negative than it is positive...Unless you are a City fan (Again, I don't blame City fans for arguing against FFP. If I was a City fan, I would argue like they are, but I am a United fan, so I am arguing for it
)
I will just leave with my opinion
As a United fan, I want FFP to work as it would stop City spending hundreds of millions, and keep them at the top. I will admit it, and not ashamed to. Most United fans will think the same, some just won't admit it.
But deep down, passed the United / City argument, I do think FFP is in place for the right reasons. I don't think it's to keep the powerhouse clubs at the top.
As said a few times, if City was not involved like they are today. Everton, Liverpool and Tottenham would all have had more European places, whether its Europa or the CL. The fact is, because of City, they haven't. That has cost them clubs plenty of money in the last 5 or so years.
The money has stopped them clubs growing, it may well have helped forced players to leave so they can play in Europe and the money could have improved them squads.
City as 1 team has had a direct effect on quite a few clubs financially.
I am not blaming City for this, as it stands, its their owners money, he can do what he wants (Unless FFP does work)
I am just saying that the effect that City has had on teams is a lot more negative than it is positive...Unless you are a City fan (Again, I don't blame City fans for arguing against FFP. If I was a City fan, I would argue like they are, but I am a United fan, so I am arguing for it
)Firstly - my point was initially about how fans feel. Fans of most PL clubs don't get themselves hot and bothered over spending by big clubs. A lot I know wish their sides could get involved as well and realise that FFP or not, other than a cup run or freak season they cannot compete with the bigger clubs regardless.
Regardless of the merits of FFP or otherwise, your suggestion that the "sour grapes" point is nonsense is utter garbage. Fans on here can dress up their loathing for City and Chelsea's lavish spending on being concerned for the good of the game and "fairness" but in reality it is pure tribalism - they don't like rival clubs having success and impacting on United's chances.
At the end of the day I personally don't care what other clubs spend. The doomsday hypothetical scenarios of the game descending into farce because some clubs have more money than others, I don't see any sign of. The league is as good as its ever been, there are more quality players in the PL and United continue to generate mega sums to keep paying the debts on the back of what the PL has become.
As a fan I'm happy - and unlike others, if we spend £200 million and win the league, I'll be pleased. I assume all the more morally minded on here will be burning their shirts in disgust at jumping umpteen places to the top by investing a disgusting sum of money and paying over the odds for CL players to drop down a level.
FFP doesn't really do anything to address clubs with bad finances though, which is just another laughable aspect of it all - prior to takeover City were about 12 months from collapse and administration, and yet our accounts would have passed FFP that year. These aren't rules to stop clubs getting into financial trouble, profitability and liquidity are two very different things. They are rules designed to keep the big clubs at the top - you only need to take one look at Platini's initial quotes if you dispute that:
"It's mainly the owners that asked us to do something. Roman Abramovich, Silvio Berlusconi at AC Milan and Massimo Moratti at Inter," Platini said. "They do not want to fork out any more. Not breaking even in three years then they cannot play in European competition. "I have met with Abramovich, who is a football person and passionate about the game. He said that we must do something about this. "
I think @finneh has hit the nail on the head when he says that investment is good for the game when clubs who can spend 10-20% above what they earn from time to time would benefit massively from that injection. Not every investment is done to the extreme and to the extent that City have seen it. Talk of Leicester looking to invest around £200m over the next 3 years to break into the top 4 - should they break into that top 4 they'd be punished because they'd have spent above their means, yet United could invest £200m in the next 3 years without so much as a hiccup from UEFA. Madness.
"It's mainly the owners that asked us to do something. Roman Abramovich, Silvio Berlusconi at AC Milan and Massimo Moratti at Inter," Platini said. "They do not want to fork out any more. Not breaking even in three years then they cannot play in European competition. "I have met with Abramovich, who is a football person and passionate about the game. He said that we must do something about this. "
I think @finneh has hit the nail on the head when he says that investment is good for the game when clubs who can spend 10-20% above what they earn from time to time would benefit massively from that injection. Not every investment is done to the extreme and to the extent that City have seen it. Talk of Leicester looking to invest around £200m over the next 3 years to break into the top 4 - should they break into that top 4 they'd be punished because they'd have spent above their means, yet United could invest £200m in the next 3 years without so much as a hiccup from UEFA. Madness.
I knew the Southampton thing would come back to bite me
The point still stands though with Rooney and Shaw. Clubs getting decent fees for this should always help them in the long run
The thing is the fee's they receive aren't really the problem. The problem is that they can't pay the wages and no amount of cash for a player like Shaw results in anything but an exceptional spike in turnover.
A club like So'ton may have a steady turnover of £100m, of which they may commit £60m to wages. Selling Shaw, Chamberlain, Walcott and Bale may provide them with a quick boost in turnover, but not a boost that they can rely upon as consistent income. Therefore £30m for Shaw does not mean they could spend £7m each on 4 player's, because Shaw earns 1-2 million a season and 4 £7m player's would probably earn around £12m a season.
If their wage cap is 60%/£60m and Shaw leaves for £30m, they are going to have to smash their wage structure to be able to reinvest that £30m. This kind of exceptional turnover spike can actually have a negative effect on the business, if they commit
With FFP money is still king. The only difference is that the "haves" and the "have nots" are set in stone perpetually. Man United can go out and spend £200m this Summer and it won't dent FFP. That's why FFP is so ludicrously stupid.
I think £35m per season will give them a significantly higher chance of progressing through the League and potentially winning a trophy vs £0 per season. Hull City have gotten to the FA Cup final through an owner committing personal wealth, for example. So'ton have finished 8th this season and surprised everyone through an owner committing personal wealth. Leicester have won the Championship and hope to give a good account of themselves next season in the Premier League through an owner committing personal wealth.
It doesn't have to be a £1b investment. All external investment is great for the game and great for the clubs invovled. In the Premier League's case it has also lead to an extremely exciting competitive League. Likewise Chelsea/City are partly the reason the new collective TV deal is 50% larger than the old one, which benefits every club in the League.
Again, UEFA can regulate it only within their limits and that why only teams in CL and Europa league are considered. The reason for going into administration is because spending beyond their means. Not that, I am saying it would happen,imagine if Mansoor or RA pulls out now. Do you think the club is financially in a position to pay the wages of players or staff or the groundsmen?. It will affect each and everyone associated with the club. Has happened to many other clubs. If you are sound financially, then there will be no reason to go into administration and that's why there has to be a policy to check if you are spending beyond your limits.
United having to spend ridiculous amount is due to the fact that City and Chelsea have thrown around Money for years and we haven't and if we are to stay competitive , we have to do it.
Ultimately it comes down to whoever is richer has more chances of winning and you are saying it is going to increase competition?. You still haven't pointed out how it is going to affect the other clubs which don't have these rich owners. What's going to happen to them?. So they just dissolve their teams and start playing rugby and let the elite compete among themselves. Or do you think, every club should be auctioned to billionaires??
Wait till only City and Chelsea start winning everything with their money and you will see how competitive the league is. That is not a very unlikely scenario.
Last edited:
I think that the UEFA FFP should only apply to clubs in their competition and only after 3 years continuous involvement. That way billionaire owners can invest in getting a team to vastly improve them and then reduce spending once they have achieved the goal of CL football.
What City, PSG and Chelsea have did at the beginning is not bad for football as it brings new clubs to the top, but to continue spending like that is what causes the problems in my view. And this type of owner should have to guarantee funding for x-number of years.
What City, PSG and Chelsea have did at the beginning is not bad for football as it brings new clubs to the top, but to continue spending like that is what causes the problems in my view. And this type of owner should have to guarantee funding for x-number of years.
Well considering that will never happen it is an unlikely scenario. Chelsea have won the League a grand total of 3 times in the last decade with Abramovich at the helm. City have won it twice in 5 years with Mansour as owner. The fact that a Liverpool team on half the wages pushed them to the final day should illustrate that it simply won't work that way.
Man United might spend £200m this Summer and win the League. Liverpool might gamble and spend £100m and push again. Arsenal may spend £100m and keep key player's fit and push for the title.
Next season will be one of the most exciting ever with 5 teams that will all be aiming for 80+ points. If this is what our League looks like with rich owners ruining Football, ruin it some more!
A sensationalist view to say the least. And do you really think UEFA have the balls to drag Mansour's name through the mud, as you put it. Not a chance in hell. The very fact Manchester City are a PR front for Abu Dhabi is the exact reason why Mansour will continue to invest in the club and ensure it stays at the top.
What? You realise UEFA's FFP only pertains to teams in the CL? Everton can spend £35M from a sugar daddy right now if they want to win the FA Cup. The issue is about teams buying their way into Champions League contention, where the turnover of the clubs is 3 to 4 times higher than Everton's total turnover.
Anyway, given that every club has been fishing for billionaires for the last decade, and there are more Mike Ashleys and Randy Lerners than Sheikh Mansours, its hardly a good business plan.
If not for SAF, It would have been between Chelsea and City for the last 10 years or so. Do you not see that?. Do you think we would have won with any other manager against big spending of our rivals.
When you are using the example of Liverpool, your argument becomes a dichotomy. Organic clubs can compete with rich clubs like United, yet you think investment is the only way to compete with us and make the league exciting.
You still haven't pointed out how it is going to affect the other clubs which don't have these rich owners. What's going to happen to them?. So they just dissolve their teams and start playing rugby and let the elite compete among themselves. Or do you think, every club should be auctioned to billionaires??
This assumption is wrong and it doesnt get right just because people repeat it a thousand times.
Its not set into stone, that Utd cant be challenged by anyone but clubs with sugar daddies. Yes, United build up a huge financial safety net, because they made great decisions for about 20 years. But: This safety net isnt unlimited. Utd´s income is heavily related to their success, but after 20 years! of success the club can get through 2 or 3 bad years without getting into trouble. That seems to be pretty fair and reasonable.
If United spends 100m+ this summer and van gaal cant turn it around, you´ll see that a lot of fans will panic. Last summer Spurs proved, that its possible to waste 100m. City wasted hundreds of millions on overpaid bad players.
Manchester United dominated the league, because they had the better managment for 20 years. Money followed the success. Its surprising, that this fairly obvious fact is questioned in a United board.
City on the other hand gets about 200m p.a+, that are performance unrelated and they get this money without having made great decisions in the past. Even if they make terrible decision for years, they´ll still be able to invest this amount of money.
The only clubs that are "set in stone" are clubs with big investors (as long as these investors are willing to spend money).
-----
That doesnt hurt the premier league in its entirety, because the league competes in a global market and every additional investment allows the league to "net-import" additional talent. So if you are just looking for the strongest possible league, FFP surely doesnt help. The uefa is not a English organization and their goal isnt to create the strongest possible premier league. fortunately. They host a european competition and should be allowed to look at the a bigger picture.
If not for the sugar daddies the likes of Everton and Tottenham may well have broken into the top four to get a slice of CL money perhaps even on a more regular basis than they have (both have done once but Everton didn't make it through to the CL proper). With what's happened to us this season or what happened to Liverpool the last few seasons the stage was set for teams to take the spot. Without City these last few years there'd be a space open. Newcastle finished 5th a couple of years back.
The idea that the only way to progress is to get yourself a sugar daddy is untrue. What is true is that now breaking into the top four is harder than ever because of the financial doping the likes of City and to some extent (albeit lesser than it was) Chelsea receive. That's what'll keep the gate shut.
The idea that the only way to progress is to get yourself a sugar daddy is untrue. What is true is that now breaking into the top four is harder than ever because of the financial doping the likes of City and to some extent (albeit lesser than it was) Chelsea receive. That's what'll keep the gate shut.
And adding a few richer clubs who can spend without risk is helping these clubs?
Everton have been looking for a takeover for years. One of the biggest clubs in England and nobody is interested. They have less chance of a sugar daddy coming in than they have winning the league.
I'm not sure what the relevance of that comment is to be honest. Why should anyone be putting rules in place to "help" any clubs? There is a huge amount of money in football and clearly there are more than just the owners of City and Chelsea in it for their own ends. The influx of foreign owners shows you that if nothing else - they are not here for any love of the game.
Football is, and always has been full of have's and have not's - in my opinion FFP will not change that. The smaller clubs will always suffer at the hands of the bigger clubs and the suggestion by some people that FFP would allow clubs outside the top 7 to keep their best players and mount a challenge is, in my opinion, utterly unrealistic.
As it is, and as I have said above - modern football has created a situation where clubs can obtain huge sums for players far in excess of what they had been getting before. I personally think that has the potential to help the second or third tier clubs if they can reinvest that money and perhaps then take themselves to the next level.
Where I started was discussing the fans and I think a lot on here overestimate what the fans of the smaller clubs think about all of this. I work with a lot of Newcastle fans, most of whom were disappointed to lose Cabaye (as an example), but are pragmatic that they cant compete with a club offering more money and CL football. Its not the first or last player who has moved on. The issue they have is Ashley not reinvesting the money - not losing the player.
The rules are place to stop the football market spiralling out of control. You may think that the money is helping the smaller clubs but it isn't. There's a knock on effect. If the top clubs are spending more the middle clubs spend more to keep up and the bottom clubs spend more to keep up with them.
I'm not sure the Newcastle fans you know is quite a big enough sample size. I know some Spurs and Everton fans who hate what City and Chelsea have done.
Exactly the problem UEFA are trying to counter with FFP. This knock on effect doesn't have any real damage in case of city or Chelsea, because the owners won't pull out because of the huge investment, whereas if you look at the likes of Portsmouth, the owners spend beyond the means and not seeing any success, just pull out and clubs go into admin.
Football has been careering out of control for years. I remember the first £20k a week players and the fuss it caused. People have said football will implode for years - and it's never happened.
To put this in context, with all of this FFP stuff going on the TV deal has just gotten even bigger. Didn't the bottom team get more than last years winners or something ridiculous this year?
I don't see any actual evidence that football is on a precipice. In fact, the PL appears as popular as ever, if not as popular and entertaining as it has ever been. The deals united get for stupid things like sponsors of the warm up kit is testament to that.
Indeed, the years pre-Chelsea and City saw more clubs dropping like stones due to financial mismanagement than since with the likes of Blackburn, Leeds (trying to compete with big clubs without hard cash), Middlesbrough andPortsmouth all going the journey. City and Chelsea had little to do with that. I didn't see many fans crying about the state of the game then either.
The bottom line is the game I see weekly is extremely entertaining, full of top players and exciting to watch. Everyone is making more money, or so it appears. I don't see the impending doom that some on here seem to want us to believe.
Football is mad - no doubt, but its been so for years and United have had as much of a hand in that as any other club.
Clubs are spending more money - and undoubtedly making more money - as has gone on for years. Wages and transfer fee increases didn't start with Roman Abramovich. People can claim the bubble will burst and have done so for years but it hasn't so far.
You're right, wages and transfer fees didn't start rising, they just escalated. I'm glad you feel more entertained. Not everyone feels the same.
When do we find out about the punishments/appeals?
The Premier League is so rich that fecking Cardiff made more in TV rights this season than Benfica, Portuguese champions, who bolster a 65k stadium and a massive following. And individually negotiated TV rights.
This will always be a bigger problem to me than City or PSG. UEFA should be aiming for higher heights and lobbying/promoting a better, bigger (more games, not more teams) and richer European competition. Instead, they're playing the conservative police role, whilst the footballing world concentrates in a handful of clubs in three leagues.
This will always be a bigger problem to me than City or PSG. UEFA should be aiming for higher heights and lobbying/promoting a better, bigger (more games, not more teams) and richer European competition. Instead, they're playing the conservative police role, whilst the footballing world concentrates in a handful of clubs in three leagues.
People are entitled to look at the "old days" with rose tinted glasses and be of the opinion that they preferred what the game was then - that's fine. For me the increase in quality in the PL has been, in part, to the influx of better players. The game is incomparable now to when what it was 20 years ago. I dont expect everyone else to feel that way and if you don't like what its become then nobody forces you to partake in it or spend your hard earned watching it on TV or attending games.
Indeed if people felt like that I'm sure the clubs of the lower and non-leagues would appreciate the further support.
You seem keen to blame all of football's ills on "new money". That to me just doesn't stack up. This madness started when the PL became a reality and the clubs (and their owners) realised what riches they could generate.
As I've said before, these oil rich clubs who balst into the place and raise the stakes may not do things "tastefully" or "morally" but football lost any sense of Moral value years ago when blokes started to become multi millionaires for kicking a wind filled bag of leather around the place. These brash clubs are a symptom and not the cause of what we have now - the move towards where we are now started years ago.
Yeah, the gap between the top leagues and the smaller leagues is just as big a problem for European football as the gap between the top teams and the small teams within the leagues. And it gets worse every year. I've said it for a while, UEFA should at least distribute their TV money fairly over Europe, so that countries like Portugal or the Netherlands and all the other small countries also benefit from the money UEFA makes by selling the CL TV rights in England, Italy or Germany. The Premier League is becoming more and more a European Super League (and to a lesser extent the Spanish, Italian and German leagues as well) and it hurts European football overall and the other leagues can't do anything about it. Right now, we have the problem that players from all European leagues are treated as Europeans and therefore move freely around, but the money distribution is still solely domestic and not 'European' at all. The English, Spanish, German and Italian football leagues are on a European scale even worse than Real and Barca are in Spain.
Rich investors in the top leagues make it worse, but are only a small part of the problem and UEFA needs to sort out a lot more before they can talk about financial 'fair' play in Europe. And the smaller leagues can't do anything against it, they aren't attractive for rich owners and most football clubs in Europe are still owned by fans and can't ever be overtaken by an investor anyway, so that's hardly a solution. I like FFP, it makes sense as a small first step. The problem is, I doubt that UEFA is interested in the necessary next steps.
So if UEFA implement FFP and stop moneyflow, will you stop following football then?. That's a nonsensical argument saying, if you don't like it, don't watch it. Everyone has their right to opinion and we too want entertaining football. Just think of this season, even without the money of city and chelsea, the league would have been competitive, between liverpool,Arsenal, Everton.Like I have been saying all along this thread, without SAF, the league would have been dominated by Chelsea and City for the past 10 years. Is that entertaining?.
What people against FFP,doesn't seem to counter is the fact that what happens to the clubs which don't have rich owners?. What happens to teams like Everton when everyone else keeps spending and they cannot match it. Their only way to come up is through academy players and they will also be poached by bigger clubs. It may seem entertaining in the beginning, later on it will just become a case of who spends higher wins the league.
If Everton did spend £35m extra per season their ultimate goal would be to push for Champions League qualification. As it currently stands they would be unable to do that and that is inherently unfair. How is it fair that Everton would have the money to spend £100m and can't, whereas United have the money to spend £100m and can? It's total bullshit and stifles competition.
My opinion is completely summed up by Chelsea. They originally made huge losses because of a large initial investment. Ten years later they are a self sufficient Football club who are one of the top 10 in the World. Without rich owners the Premier League would have 1 of the best 10 clubs in the World (on average), with it they have at least 2 and will soon have 3. That's great for the Premier League, great fr the spectators and the new massive TV deal proves it has been great for the League.
United can spend just as much as Chelsea and City, so we should have no problem competing with them. Lets not pretend they have spent £500m a season every single season since they were bought. If you discount the initial 3 years of huge investment to get up to our level, Chelsea have spent on average £37m per season for 8 seasons and City have spent £50m per season for the last 3. Bear in mind that over the last 3 seasons United have spent on average over £50m per season, we should have no problem competing.
The other clubs who don't have rich owners are irrelevant to the title anyways. Everton are never going to win the League without a rich owner (regardless of Chelsea/City), Spurs are never going to win the League without external investment. Would they sometimes get a Champions League spot? Possibly, but in terms of actually competing against the team that wins every single season (United), they'd be an irrelevance. In fact these rich owners are helping the likes of Everton/Villa by buying players like Rodwell and Milner for £20m/£26m and increasing the amount everyone gets via TV revenue because of how exciting the League has become.
I don't want a League that Germany is turning into, whereby the top team has double the amount of money to spend vs their nearest rival and therefore essentially has the title sewn up by Christmas. Just have a look at these odds to win the League and ask yourself which League you'd prefer to be a part of:
City - 15/8
Chelsea - 23/10
United - 6/1
Liverpool - 6/1
Arsenal - 12/1
Bayern - 2/17
Any other team - 6/1
Dortmund - 7/1
You pick your examples really well, so that they suit your agenda. Just look at the French league. They had 5 different winners in 5 years until a billionaire came along and opened up a financial gap between one club and the rest far bigger than anywhere else in Europe (well until a 2nd billionaire came along and made it two clubs). You make it sound like the possibility of rich owners guarantees a competitive league, when that's clearly not true, quite the opposite actually. It happened in England because of a very extreme situation (Biggest and richest club in the world in the richest league in the world with the greatest manager of all time). I also wouldn't use betting odds to prove a point, they rarely mirror reality and certainly don't predict the future.
This idea that you need the sugar daddies for smaller clubs to stand a chance is ridiciulous
Look at the teams who finished 2nd and 3rd before Abramovic:
Aston Villa, Norwich, Blackburn, Newcastle, Nottingham Forest, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leeds. Then look at sides since the sugar Daddy era who if we exclude the one (and later second) sugar Daddy club from the equation would have made the CL since they became a factor in the game:
Everton(more than once), Newcastle, Tottenham(more than once).
The idea that you need to be a billionaire funded club for whom money is no object to succeed isn't true. It hasn't ever been true and it hasn't suddenly become true since 2005. Yes the list of clubs is littered with mismanagement, poor choices and over achievers but they were able to try because it was within their means to do so. Large clubs will always spend more than small ones but never before have clubs been able to sign up top talent from smaller clubs with such ease, even if they don't need nor want them but just to stop someone else having them. Look at Jack Rodwell. Star at Everton, barely noticeable at City who clearly didn't sign him because they had any need but took him from Everton seeming because of "why notism"
If the sugar daddies didn't exist more teams would stand a realistic chance of getting CL football and that's how you build. Why has the idea come from since City turned up that unless you can have instant success immediately that it's impossible to obtain otherwise? We went through 26 years of a baron period. Why is saying to a side like Spurs that they need to finish in the top four for the next few seasons to find the income to fund a team that could realistically challenge for and win the PL title, an affront? Why must Spurs, Everton and over the years sides like Newcastle be shunted on the basis that another club has decided all this building a team for success is boring so they're just going to spend £500m on new players. It's perverse to describe sugar daddies as the 'only way' clubs can be successful when so many clubs are prevented from making the next step required to make them successful, due to their very existence.
Look at the teams who finished 2nd and 3rd before Abramovic:
Aston Villa, Norwich, Blackburn, Newcastle, Nottingham Forest, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leeds. Then look at sides since the sugar Daddy era who if we exclude the one (and later second) sugar Daddy club from the equation would have made the CL since they became a factor in the game:
Everton(more than once), Newcastle, Tottenham(more than once).
The idea that you need to be a billionaire funded club for whom money is no object to succeed isn't true. It hasn't ever been true and it hasn't suddenly become true since 2005. Yes the list of clubs is littered with mismanagement, poor choices and over achievers but they were able to try because it was within their means to do so. Large clubs will always spend more than small ones but never before have clubs been able to sign up top talent from smaller clubs with such ease, even if they don't need nor want them but just to stop someone else having them. Look at Jack Rodwell. Star at Everton, barely noticeable at City who clearly didn't sign him because they had any need but took him from Everton seeming because of "why notism"
If the sugar daddies didn't exist more teams would stand a realistic chance of getting CL football and that's how you build. Why has the idea come from since City turned up that unless you can have instant success immediately that it's impossible to obtain otherwise? We went through 26 years of a baron period. Why is saying to a side like Spurs that they need to finish in the top four for the next few seasons to find the income to fund a team that could realistically challenge for and win the PL title, an affront? Why must Spurs, Everton and over the years sides like Newcastle be shunted on the basis that another club has decided all this building a team for success is boring so they're just going to spend £500m on new players. It's perverse to describe sugar daddies as the 'only way' clubs can be successful when so many clubs are prevented from making the next step required to make them successful, due to their very existence.
That's completely hypothetical. If not for City or Chelsea, Everton or Tottenham, could have become a regular top 4 side and challenged in 3-5 years down the line. So saying they will never compete with us is ridiculous, given that they have finished above us this year with less spending.How does that work out?.
I am going to say it for the last time, United's dominance is not because of the financial muscle, but because of SAF. That is so apparent today, where we can go and spend 200M and yet still finish outside top 4 next year. So as long as we had SAF, we were going to be successful and others were "irrelevant". But without SAF, other clubs whom you call "irrelevant" come into picture for the title, if not for City and Chelsea. Now, without FFP, it will be only a matter of who spends most wins the title.
So have I got this right:
Lionel Messi cost to buy £1 billion= greatest footballer in history.
Lionel Messi Cost to buy £10 million = worthless clogger who should give it up and look for a career on the bins.
Lionel Messi cost to buy £1 billion= greatest footballer in history.
Lionel Messi Cost to buy £10 million = worthless clogger who should give it up and look for a career on the bins.
Sorry I don't understand that post. What are you saying there?
That the level of quality of football on offer is directly related to the cost.
It isnt, its a stupid argument.
Where did I say that? Where did I even insinuate that "if UEFA implement FFP and stop moneyflow I will stop following football". What a bizzare statement
I said I got a lot of enjoyment out of the PL at the moment as a football fan. The previous poster suggested that he preferred football the way it was before this happened. In response I suggested that if people didn't like what modern football was then they dont have to follow it or spend their money.
If you're not going to be sensible and will try to imply that I've said things that I clearly havent, I dont see any point in having this debate to be honest.
Your argument about Chelsea and City dominating the league without Sir Alex at United can equally be taken to suggest that without Chelsea and City, United, with Sir Alex in charge would have dominated, if you follow the thread logically.
As I've clearly said - everyone is entitled to their opinion and to feel how they like about the game. What I have consistently said on here however is that you will always, and have always had rich clubs and poor clubs. What people on here want is not "fairness" or clubs to be looked after across the board - what they want is United to be able to continue to spend and Cioty and Chelsea not to be able to based on this "morality" aregument that its ok if the money is self earned, that only exists in the mind of United fans.
You ask Everton if it makes a difference whether they lose Wayne Rooney or Ross Barkley to United or City? It doesn't because they still lose their player - they don't sit there and say "well its fine because Unitred have a great commercial success rather than being sponsored by a rich owner". They still cant compete and lose academy players whether it be oil money or money from DHL and Chevrolet. In fact, the only way they might not is if they can keep those players happy by bringing in talent and paying higher wages - as Southampton are trying to do with their own billionaire owners, albeit on a smaller scale.
I've raised an issue regularly in these posts that nobody will respond to so I'll ask you. How will you feel if United win the title next year with a top manager on mega money and having spend north of £150 million on players on huge salarys adding many tens of millions more to the actual outlay? Is that not the same as what other clubs have done in the past? Does the fact that we can afford it (despite the debt) justify it? Even if you argue "its less than City or Chelsea" - its still much more than any other club in the PL could ever dream of spending.
Put simply, or financial muscle will put us well ahead of clubs who finished above us this year.
If anybody does actually really want to see a level playing field where all clubs are on an equal footing then fair play to them - but FFP as it stands is unlikely to do anything but allow the rich clubs to get richer and make it even harder for other clubs to break the monopoly in my opinion.
Last edited:
I never said I preferred it or otherwise. I said clubs shouldn't be allowed to spend money they haven't earned. There is nothing stopping clubs from being well run and earning success. Utd didn't start out the club they are now. They earned it.
You saying that if I preferred it before I should stop following applies the same way to you if you don't like the idea of clubs spending what they have earned.
I wouldnt have any problem with that, but its not the same even if you repeat that again and again. If United spend this money, they are taking a significant risk. If City is spending this money they dont take a risk. City´s only risk is, that their investor might leave. Bad decisions might cause a bad season, but they can spend after that regardless. Again and again. Without FFP their performance has only minor influence on the money that they are able to spend. For Utd their performance has a big influence on the money they can spend. If a medium sized club makes better decisions than United for 3-5 years, they´ll catch up. The same club wont catch up with city even if they make way better decisions.
It also doesnt matter that your colleges would be happy to get an investor. Of course they would. Thats their only way to catch up to City or Chelsea. Once you allow it, every club who doesnt have such an investor has a significant disadvantage.
You are right, that the EPL got stronger because of roman and the sheik, but FFP isnt a british invention. Its made by a european association, where at some point the likes of Bilbao or Porto have to compete with City. Foreign leagues/clubs are not happy about City or Chelsea either and they have the power to change that. You still ignore the fact, that almost all european clubs support FFP. They have their legit self-interest and regulate something that affects them.
It also doesnt matter that your colleges would be happy to get an investor. Of course they would. Thats their only way to catch up to City or Chelsea. Once you allow it, every club who doesnt have such an investor has a significant disadvantage.
You are right, that the EPL got stronger because of roman and the sheik, but FFP isnt a british invention. Its made by a european association, where at some point the likes of Bilbao or Porto have to compete with City. Foreign leagues/clubs are not happy about City or Chelsea either and they have the power to change that. You still ignore the fact, that almost all european clubs support FFP. They have their legit self-interest and regulate something that affects them.
Your example has the cause and effect backwards, which is why it makes no sense. Messi's quality as a footballer gives him his value. His value as a footballer doesn't give him his quality.
No I dont, thats the point I am making.