Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions

[Kentonio]

Since reaching ""Top level" (2004/05), Chelsea have a net spend of close to 375 million and United have a net spend of 170. I just checked and chelsea spent 100 Million in 2005, the year after they won the league.Including player wages and pay offs to the managers to that equation makes it even worse. What do you have to say about that?. So much for just reaching top level and sustaining after it.

Notice how I used the phrase 'arms race'?

You find Ligue 1 interesting now do you?. Why don't you ask a fan from Lyon or Lille about whether the league is interesting or not.

I've never found French football interesting, and I wasn't saying the PSG buyout was a good thing. It unbalanced the league way too much. Unlike the Premiership.

See that's thint, its easier for us to say its fine to spend money cause you have a rich owner and we have enormous wealth, but the reality of it is that it sucks to be a fan of the clubs who don't have rich owners like that.

One of us remembers a time before Roman came along, when our club was forever teetering on the brink of financial collapse, and the best we could hope for was to maybe compete for a European spot. I know exactly what it feels like to not be in Man Utd's position, and therefore I'm certainly not going to apologize for us getting our own chance at the top. It's just a bit rich hearing the Premiership aristocracy lecturing the rest of us on how money is ruining the game.

Winning the league isn't everything you know. Everton and tottenham would have made it into europe many a time which would have improved their financial standings, global appeal etc and that inturn will have increased their chances of fighting against United and Arsenal.

Yeah, given another 30 years, maybe someone else might have started challenging you and Arsenal.

Just look at the number of football clubs who have unmanagable debts, cause they were trying to soar too high. Within the last few years, Palace, Sóton, Portsmouth several times, Cardiff and so many others in Spain.

Have you forgotten how many clubs were in financial dire straits BEFORE the big money owners came along?

 

[bleedred]

Pretty much all the fans I know not of top 4 clubs find City's and Chelsea's spending good for football, same way they viewed Walker's spending at Blackburn. The notion that all the lesser clubs hate City and Chelsea is nonsense, they appreciate that they have attained success the only way possible.

Most of them would obviously be ABU's and want to see some others win it. If you ask a neutral fan, who would they rather in the league between Spurs and City, you will get the point.

 

[BobbyManc]

Most of them would obviously be ABU's and want to see some others win it. If you ask a neutral fan, who would they rather in the league between Spurs and City, you will get the point.

If Tottenham winning it didn't also require heavy spending then of course they would. Most football fans with no allegiance to a team would prefer to see the one with a lesser budget achieve success. But that isn't a reality anymore, and it isn't because of Abramovich or Mansour.

 

[bleedred]

Notice how I used the phrase 'arms race'?

Why did you have to spend 100 million after reaching the supposed top level. Cause RA didn't give a feck about spending.

One of us remembers a time before Roman came along, when our club was forever teetering on the brink of financial collapse, and the best we could hope for was to maybe compete for a European spot. I know exactly what it feels like to not be in Man Utd's position, and therefore I'm certainly not going to apologize for us getting our own chance at the top. It's just a bit rich hearing the Premiership aristocracy lecturing the rest of us on how money is ruining the game.

On that again, I have said, I wouldn't mind United getting any restrictions as well.

Yeah, given another 30 years, maybe someone else might have started challenging you and Arsenal.

United were going to dominate under SAF, no matter what happens. Did anyone else see Liverpool dominance declining. Yet it did. Its goes in cycles, and thanks to youse, teams like Spurs and everton will never be able to do that.

Have you forgotten how many clubs were in financial dire straits BEFORE the big money owners came along?

And would have been against FFP , if it were implement back then?.

 

[Kentonio]

United were going to dominate under SAF, no matter what happens. Did anyone else see Liverpool dominance declining. Yet it did. Its goes in cycles, and thanks to youse, teams like Spurs and everton will never be able to do that.

As I said, maybe in 30 years another team might have moved with the speed of a glacier to the top and then stayed there for a decade or two. Seriously, so you find this idea of one team dominating for a decade interesting? Can you really argue that it's not more interesting seeing the title bounce around and go right down to the wire regularly?

And would have been against FFP , if it were implement back then?

Ah come on now, FFP is about cementing the top teams at the top.

 

[bleedred]

If Tottenham winning it didn't also require heavy spending then of course they would. Most football fans with no allegiance to a team would prefer to see the one with a lesser budget achieve success. But that isn't a reality anymore, and it isn't because of Abramovich or Mansour.

Liverpool came so close this year. Dortmund?? Athl.Madrid?.

I will never accept this argument that United's dominance would have been unbreakable had it not been for Chelsea or City. We were going to dominate under SAF and will have been pretty even competition after that.

 

[BobbyManc]

Why did you have to spend 100 million after reaching the supposed top level. Cause RA didn't give a feck about spending.



On that again, I have said, I wouldn't mind United getting any restrictions as well.


United were going to dominate under SAF, no matter what happens. Did anyone else see Liverpool dominance declining. Yet it did. Its just like in cycle, and thanks to youse, teams like Spurs and eveton will never be able to do that.



And would have been against FFP , if it were implement back then?.

Yeah. Blame the sugar daddies. You are aware it was the season Chelsea won the league, after Abramovich's spending, that Everton achieved their highest-league finish? The season after they came 11th. Was that Chelsea's fault as well?

 

[bleedred]

As I said, maybe in 30 years another team might have moved with the speed of a glacier to the top and then stayed there for a decade or two. Seriously, so you find this idea of one team dominating for a decade interesting? Can you really argue that it's not more interesting seeing the title bounce around and go right down to the wire regularly?

Lets take a scenario where City spend shitloads every year and keep dominating. how would you feel then??.

 

[bleedred]

Yeah. Blame the sugar daddies. You are aware it was the season Chelsea won the league, after Abramovich's spending, that Everton achieved their highest-league finish? The season after they came 11th. Was that Chelsea's fault as well?

The point I am making is City and Chelsea have basically cemented two CL spots, which could have been taken in by two organic clubs.

 

[BobbyManc]

Liverpool came so close this year. Dortmund?? Athl.Madrid?.

I will never accept this argument that United's dominance would have been unbreakable had it not been for Chelsea or City. We were going to dominate under SAF and will have been pretty even competition after that.

SAF was a truly great manager but bloody hell, calm down. This idea that he guaranteed football domination is ludicrous. Correct me if I'm wrong (I may well be on this, something I remember reading but not certain on its legitimacy) but did he not finish 11th in his first season at United. Yeah, 11th. And in the following transfer window United were the biggest spenders.

Liverpool lost £50m last year. Two seasons ago they had a £35,000,000 player out on loan! They won the Champions League in '05. Dortmund won the Champions League in '96 (?) and the Bundesliga in '02 (?). Atletico won La Liga in 96 (?). To compare them to City is absolutely ridiculous. It's not like they have had some meteoric rise from the lowest depths of football, they have just punched slightly above their weight for a short period of time (may continue, may not). City punching slightly above their weight involved achieving Europa League through the fairplay league.

 

[Siorac]

Liverpool came so close this year. Dortmund?? Athl.Madrid?.

I will never accept this argument that United's dominance would have been unbreakable had it not been for Chelsea or City. We were going to dominate under SAF and will have been pretty even competition after that.

In the 2012/13 financial year our revenue was 140m higher than Arsenal's, the second biggest "organic" English club. You're telling me that insanely huge advantage would have counted for nothing? Come off it.

 

[Kentonio]

Lets take a scenario where City spend shitloads every year and keep dominating. how would you feel then??.

Then we'd have swapped one Manchester club for another. Except there's no prospect of that actually happening, especially if FFP holds up.

 

[BobbyManc]

The point I am making is City and Chelsea have basically cemented two CL spots, which could have been taken in by two organic clubs.

Chelsea came 6th recently, hardly cementing a CL spot.

Chelsea achieved a Champions League spot prior to Abramovich's takeover so they would have been competing with Everton anyway. You'd have an argument if Everton consistently finished 5th or 6th but after Abramovich they often came 8th and 7th.

 

[bleedred]

SAF was a truly great manager but bloody hell, calm down. This idea that he guaranteed football domination is ludicrous. Correct me if I'm wrong (I may well be on this, something I remember reading but not certain on its legitimacy) but did he not finish 11th in his first season at United. Yeah, 11th. And in the following transfer window United were the biggest spenders.

I was referring to the post-95/96 era.

Liverpool lost £50m last year. Two seasons ago they had a £35,000,000 player out on loan! They won the Champions League in '05. Dortmund won the Champions League in '96 (?) and the Bundesliga in '02 (?). Atletico won La Liga in 96 (?). To compare them to City is absolutely ridiculous. It's not like they have had some meteoric rise from the lowest depths of football, they have just punched slightly above their weight for a short period of time (may continue, may not). City punching slightly above their weight involved achieving Europa League through the fairplay league.

Yet all of them have significantly less spending than their rivals. You said such teams could never win the league.

 

[bleedred]

Chelsea came 6th recently, hardly cementing a CL spot.

Chelsea achieved a Champions League spot prior to Abramovich's takeover so they would have been competing with Everton anyway. You'd have an argument if Everton consistently finished 5th or 6th but after Abramovich they often came 8th and 7th.

Read my post again. I mentioned organic clubs, not specifically Everton. Midtable clubs in general.

 

[Manchester Dan]

This argument keeps going round in circles because football doesn't sit on an even playing field regardless of whether FFP is introduced or not. If it wasn't introduced you'd have a huge spending gap based on the level of investment owners are willing to input, and now it is introduced you'll see huge spending gaps based on the varying levels of income clubs generate. I don't think either approach is the answer we need for a truly even playing field, and it's becoming a little tedious going round in continuous circles of discussion because we are all slightly biased towards a slightly different approach.

 

[BobbyManc]

I was referring to the post-95/96 era.



Yet all of them have significantly less spending than their rivals. You said such teams could never win the league.

No, I said teams in City's position could never win the League. Same for Everton without outside investment. Liverpool, Dortmund and Atletico were all ahead of City and Everton.

 

[bleedred]

Then we'd have swapped one Manchester club for another. Except there's no prospect of that actually happening, especially if FFP holds up.

And that is the reason, I want FFP to work. Not one team should gain advantage.

I have said that additional measures to cut spending of other clubs like United, Bayern etc..,, have to be done down the line. I wouldn't mind that as well.

 

[BobbyManc]

Read my post again. I mentioned organic clubs, not specifically Everton. Midtable clubs in general.

Which midtable clubs would have achieved Champions League without City or Chelsea's investment then? And even if they had, we'd soon have seen United pick off their best players.

 

[Kentonio]

And that is the reason, I want FFP to work. Not one team should gain advantage.

All it means is the top teams won't be able to go nuclear and outspend their rich rivals massively. It's not going to level the playing field with the mid table or low table clubs.

 

[BobbyManc]

And that is the reason, I want FFP to work. Not one team should gain advantage.

I have said that additional measures to cut spending of other clubs like United, Bayern etc..,, have to be done down the line. I wouldn't mind that as well.

But that is utterly impossible and will simply never ever happen.

 

[bleedred]

No, I said teams in City's position could never win the League. Same for Everton without outside investment. Liverpool, Dortmund and Atletico were all ahead of City and Everton.

This is what you said

Most football fans with no allegiance to a team would prefer to see the one with a lesser budget achieve success.But that isn't a reality anymore,

Ofcourse, Acrington stanley cannot win the league in the next 5 years. Everton cannot win the league in a year or two, but you build towards it.

 

[BobbyManc]

This is what you said


Ofcourse, Acrington stanley cannot win the league in the next 5 years. Everton cannot win the league in a year or two, but you build towards it.

I meant anymore as in before the real money came into football through the TV deals and UEFA etc. not the sugar daddies.

Everton can build towards it and as soon as they become a threat, their best players go to the established clubs. Rooney for example. Will Barkley be at Everton in 2 or 3 seasons? Not a chance if he progresses as he should. Fellaini may have been utter crap but he was still a key player for Everton and Baines would also be at United if Moyes had his way. They cannot progress because the top clubs won't allow it, and I include City, Chelsea and United in that. Shaw and Lallana are both set to leave Southampton in the summer. This organic growth is bullshit. How disillusioned must the Southampton fans be right now, and it doesn't appear to be the so called sugar daddy clubs signing their players.

 

[Ducklegs]

SAF was a truly great manager but bloody hell, calm down. This idea that he guaranteed football domination is ludicrous. Correct me if I'm wrong (I may well be on this, something I remember reading but not certain on its legitimacy) but did he not finish 11th in his first season at United. Yeah, 11th. And in the following transfer window United were the biggest spenders.

.

He finished 11th after joining them when the were 2nd from bottom in his first season.

What point are you making?

 

[bleedred]

In the 2012/13 financial year our revenue was 140m higher than Arsenal's, the second biggest "organic" English club. You're telling me that insanely huge advantage would have counted for nothing? Come off it.

How did that revenue help us this season again??. Even if we spend that supposed 200M in the summer, many people expect us to not win the league in the next year or so.

 

[Siorac]

How did that revenue help us this season again??. Even if we spend that supposed 200M in the summer, many people expect us to not win the league in the next year or so.

But we can spend 200m - well, allegedly - after finishing seventh ONCE. No other club in England could do that, apart from the obvious two. You don't see how this is relevant? How "pretty even competition" would have been incredibly unlikely without Chelsea and City?

 

[bleedred]

I meant anymore as in before the real money came into football through the TV deals and UEFA etc. not the sugar daddies.

Everton can build towards it and as soon as they become a threat, their best players go to the established clubs. Rooney for example. Will Barkley be at Everton in 2 or 3 seasons? Not a chance if he progresses as he should. Fellaini may have been utter crap but he was still a key player for Everton and Baines would also be at United if Moyes had his way. They cannot progress because the top clubs won't allow it, and I include City, Chelsea and United in that. Shaw and Lallana are both set to leave Southampton in the summer. This organic growth is bullshit. How disillusioned must the Southampton fans be right now, and it doesn't appear to be the so called sugar daddy clubs signing their players.

Did they?. Everton said they could hold onto a player and they did. If Everton and Spurs had CL, they would have had more chance of holding onto their players than without it. As I mentioned earlier, European football is the only way to appeal to people abroad in Asia and Africa and that is a crucial market , City and Chelsea have exploited, Which could have been someone else.

 

[BobbyManc]

He finished 11th after joining them when the were 2nd from bottom in his first season.

What point are you making?

Well was he the biggest spender or not? My point is if that is the case is then the spending did not correlate with the league position which shows Fergie and United were reliant on big spending like most clubs were and still are today.

 

[bleedred]

But we can spend 200m - well, allegedly - after finishing seventh ONCE. No other club in England could do that, apart from the obvious two. You don't see how this is relevant? How "pretty even competition" would have been incredibly unlikely without Chelsea and City?

And how many summers like that can we afford?.We are in need to spend that money to play catch up. Do you not see that?.

 

[Siorac]

Did they?. Everton said they could hold onto a player and they did. If Everton and Spurs had CL, they would have had more chance of holding onto their players than without it. As I mentioned earlier, European football is the only way to appeal to people abroad in Asia and Africa and that is a crucial market , City and Chelsea have exploited, Which could have been someone else.

Arsenal made the CL knockout stages in every season since 2000 but it doesn't seem to help them when the big clubs come calling for their best players - see Vieira, Fábregas, Van Persie. And they're a bigger club with more pulling power than Everton or Spurs.

 

[bleedred]

Arsenal made the CL knockout stages in every season since 2000 but it doesn't seem to help them when the big clubs come calling for their best players - see Vieira, Fábregas, Van Persie. And they're a bigger club with more pulling power than Everton or Spurs.

Really?. was that the reason they left. Had nothing to do with them not winning anything?.

 

[Siorac]

And how many summers like that can we afford?.We are in need to spend that money to play catch up. Do you not see that?.

Umm, I do. We fecked up, we can afford to set it right. So what?

The point is that our immense financial power means that no club can realistically expect to consistently compete with us in England - except the oil clubs. Yes, we can have a bad season or two. Yes, we can be pipped to the title once or twice. But that's not "pretty even competition". The dept repayment means that we couldn't flex our financial muscle as much as we might have liked to but we can still throw money at a problem in a way no other English club can.

 

[RedRover]

You did say that , if don't like money in football, don't watch it. What exactly does this mean then??





So Everton should be resigned to the fact that they are not going to keep hold of their players and just wait till they get a billionaire owner to take them above?. Spurs would have held onto Bale if they had played in CL for 2-3 years. Like someone said, its a knock on effect. If a top level club spends money on your players, it puts more pressure on mid-table clubs to buy more and it goes on , until clubs at the bottom of the chain, spend beyond their measures and go into administration.

Everton would have had a good chance of hold onto their players if it was for one suitor. Afterall, there are only so many players united could have brought and this idea that Everton will get more money because of three suitors, is no good to them, because, ultimately they are losing their top talent.



The supposed spending by United in the summer is again due to the fact that we are playing catchup with the teams which have spent more than us. We have the financial muscle to do it. Does Arsenal or Liverpool have it?. Again the title will be decided based on the big spenders.

I am not arguing FFP is the only solution make football fair . I have said all along that other measures like salary cap,transfer limitations etc.., have to be brought down the line to make it even more competitive. I don't want United to throw around money as a solution. But now because of the competition increased,we have to do it. But your idea that if every team should be brought by billionaires, so that "you can be entertained", is ridiculous. It won't be entertaining for you to see the league being won in the summer rather than the course of the year.

It means exactly what any normal person would think it means - its a fairly simple point which I explained above, but will explain again - namely that the person whose post I was referring to suggested he preferred the game as it was before, to which I replied that if people felt that the modern game isn't for them then nobody is forcing them to be a fan of it. It is personal choice. I know a few people who have become disillusioned with the excesses of modern football, particularly the behaviour of the players, and its turned them off the game at the highest level. I know one bloke who now has a season ticket for non-league where he feels the game is more "honest" - and fair play to him for that. He's voted with his feet and no longer spends his money on skysports or a season ticket at a PL club.

Your point regarding United spending sums it up for me. You're blaming United's need to spend big on City and Chelsea having done the same. That, to me is a total cop out. Those clubs had to spend to close a gap - we will be doing exactly the same - I see no difference worth a jot. Celebrating United's big spending and condemning another club's is to me completely hypocritical.

City and Chelsea have bought quality players and to my mind helped improve the standard of the league - you seem to say that its only because of this that we need to spend, whereas had they not, we presumably wouldn't need as higher quality players to be competitive. That may very well be true, but as a paying customer I'd rather see United spend some of the money they make and bring in some top class players, rather than watch the best players go to Italy or Spain as happened in the past. The fact that we now have to spend, having underinvested for years pleases me as a fan of the club.

At the end of the day, you may be someone who really does want to see a level playing field. Kudos to you if that is the case. That makes you different to the vast majority of people on here who simply don't want City and Chelsea to spend because it reduces United's chance of success but who dress it up as "concern for the long term future of the game" when in reality, were United to spunk £100 million on Messi or Ronaldo they'd be beside themselves with excitement and their principles about fairness and madness in football would be long forgotten.

We're going in circles here, as ever on this thread so I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[acnumber9]

Chelsea came 6th recently, hardly cementing a CL spot.

Chelsea achieved a Champions League spot prior to Abramovich's takeover so they would have been competing with Everton anyway. You'd have an argument if Everton consistently finished 5th or 6th but after Abramovich they often came 8th and 7th.

Why, who qualified in their place?

 

[Siorac]

Really?. was that the reason they left. Had nothing to do with them not winning anything?.

Holy shit, man, you're unreal.

You keep saying that Spurs and Everton could have held on to more of their best players if they were in the EL or the CL. Now you say Arsenal - in the CL EVERY feckING SEASON - couldn't hold on to their best players because of not winning anything. You see the contradiction here?

 

[Ducklegs]

Well was he the biggest spender or not? My point is if that is the case is then the spending did not correlate with the league position which shows Fergie and United were reliant on big spending like most clubs were and still are today.

Not in his first season no.
In his first season he took them from 21st to 11th.

In his second season he spent a lot of money and finished second.

 

[RedRover]

Because it was necessary to keep up. Once we started spending at the level required to get to the top, it became an arms race, or have you forgotten transfers like Rooney in 2004 already? Just as a sample here's your 2006/2007 transfers in..

Michael Carrick Tottenham £18,600,000 31 Jul, 2006
Owen Hargreaves B Munich £17,000,000 01 Jul, 2007
Anderson Porto £27,000,000 02 Jul, 2007
Tomasz Kuszczak West Brom £2,125,000 02 Jul, 2007
Nani Sporting Lisbon £25,500,000 02 Jul, 2007

They might not all have turned out to be massive successes, but no-one knew that at the time.



The French league was terrible before, so one team spending huge completely unbalanced it. If anything it's good that Monaco have spent big now, because at least there'll be some competition over there. The PL has never been as wildly out of kilter though, because we started out with a couple of clubs with much bigger budgets than everyone else. It's not like the Evertons and Tottenhams were in contention to win the title before Roman came along.



Your fears are not backed up by the evidence though. You're painting a picture of the leagues becoming uncompetitive and clubs going bust left right and center, and in reality football is booming. Money is pouring into the game, and that money is spreading.

This is what I was driving at. I see no evidence of this "doomsday scenario". If anything it can be argued that the influx of cash into the PL has made it more competitive and an ever better product to sell. The TV deal is testament to that.

 

[bleedred]

Holy shit, man, you're unreal.

You keep saying that Spurs and Everton could have held on to more of their best players if they were in the EL or the CL. Now you say Arsenal - in the CL EVERY feckING SEASON - couldn't hold on to their best players because of not winning anything. You see the contradiction here?

How much did we buy Baines and Bale for again this year?? If clubs want to keep hold of their players they will. Arsenal's scenario is completely different because of the fact that they had massive stadium debts and had to refinance their CL earnings into it. But if i am right, spurs were always in positive and with additional CL money, would have a better chance of reinvesting that money and improve the squad overall. With added financial muscle,better the chances of holding your players. Didn't bale come out and say, he would have stayed had Spurs qualified for CL?.

 

[Siorac]

How much did we buy Baines and Bale for again this year?? If clubs want to keep hold of their players they will. Arsenal's scenario is completely different because of the fact that they had massive stadium debts and had to refinance their CL earnings into it. But if i am right, spurs were always in positive and with additional CL money, would have a better chance of reinvesting that money and improve the squad overall. With added financial muscle,better the chances of holding your players. Didn't bale come out and say, he would have stayed had Spurs qualified for CL?.

Oh, all right. I didn't know that. It seemed to be that bigger clubs buy the best players of smaller clubs all the time but now I know it's just a fever dream.

 

[bleedred]

Your point regarding United spending sums it up for me. You're blaming United's need to spend big on City and Chelsea having done the same. That, to me is a total cop out. Those clubs had to spend to close a gap - we will be doing exactly the same - I see no difference worth a jot. Celebrating United's big spending and condemning another club's is to me completely hypocritical.

Chelsea spent 100 million the summer after winning the league in 04/05. So much for Just closing the gap.

City and Chelsea have bought quality players and to my mind helped improve the standard of the league - you seem to say that its only because of this that we need to spend, whereas had they not, we presumably wouldn't need as higher quality players to be competitive. That may very well be true, but as a paying customer I'd rather see United spend some of the money they make and bring in some top class players, rather than watch the best players go to Italy or Spain as happened in the past. The fact that we now have to spend, having underinvested for years pleases me as a fan of the club.

Like I said earlier, As a United fan, I don't care about chelsea or city. But just because we can match their spending, doesn't mean it has to be done. what happens to the likes of Arsenal,liverpool and others??.. How are they going to catch up with no financial muscle?.

At the end of the day, you may be someone who really does want to see a level playing field. Kudos to you if that is the case. That makes you different to the vast majority of people on here who simply don't want City and Chelsea to spend because it reduces United's chance of success but who dress it up as "concern for the long term future of the game" when in reality, were United to spunk £100 million on Messi or Ronaldo they'd be beside themselves with excitement and their principles about fairness and madness in football would be long forgotten.

That's what I am and I see (want to see) FFP as just a first step and want it to succceed and followed by additional measures. Would I be happy if we sign Ronaldo in the summer.Yes. Would I be happy if we sign players like ronaldo + messi every year. maybe not.