It's not necessarily due to their financial model. Monaco is one of the historical french clubs(8 times champions with the record being 10 titles for OM), they are in the suburb of Nice but they don't have as many fans as Nice. Maybe fandom in Germany is like in France very localized, people support the club of their city and generally don't support other local clubs, that's also what happens to Lyon or Paris before QSI.
BBC Sport: La Liga asks Uefa to investigate Man City's financial fair play
- Thread starter #07
- 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.
It's not necessarily due to their financial model. Monaco is one of the historical french clubs(8 times champions with the record being 10 titles for OM), they are in the suburb of Nice but they don't have as many fans as Nice. Maybe fandom in Germany is like in France very localized, people support the club of their city and generally don't support other local clubs, that's also what happens to Lyon or Paris before QSI.
And would you care to provide proof that what City are doing is a "scam", "dodgy", "bent"? That's the point - you fcuking well can't. You're just another keyboard warrior spouting bollocks that you know fcuk all about. As for the second bolded bit, why don't you take it up with UEFA then you utter weapon? I'd love to meet you for a pint and see how you'd get on in a face to face discussion - I'd demolish you in seconds. The fact that you've also practically admitted that you are a glory hunter who knows fcuk all about Chelsea's history pre-Abramovich tells me all I need to know about you. If you know nothing about your own club then you sure as hell don't know anything about FFP and City's finances. No chance of getting a meet with you prior to a City v Chelsea game either at our gaff or the Bridge - you'll probably be welded to a fcuking armchair somewhere with your Sky remote. By the way, why haven't you answered my question about the Chelsea line-up in the FMC Final in 1986?
So you can't answer it, then? I thought so.
True enough but they have a hell of a lot of competition in that area with all manner of bigger supported traditional clubs to compete with.
Last edited:
You're the one throwing accusations around so it's up to you to prove it. I wouldn't mind but I've explained on here in the past how City can legitimately spend the money they do and keep on the right side of FFP, and UEFA appear to wholeheartedly agree so basically you're accusing City, City's independent auditors, and UEFA of all being complicit in this "scam". The fact that you haven't got the balls to respond to any of my points shows you up for exactly what you are.
I'll also remind you that you're making unfounded accusations on a public forum which is never a wise thing to do. If I were you, I'd wind your neck in as you could get this forum into trouble
It's no different across the country. In terms of TV audience Leverkusen were 11th last season, Hoffenheim 13th, Wolfsburg 15th.
And the least watched matches were:
Mainz-Leverkusen
Darmstadt-Wolfsburg
Darmstadt-Leipzig
Freiburg-Wolfsburg
Leipzig-Darmstadt
Darmstadt Leverkusen
with an audience of 0,00m viewers (aka too low to register).
You might have more of a point with Leverkusen compared to the other two as they are located in what is considered a footballing hot-bed. A bit harsh on Hoffenheim though!
Whereabouts are Darmstadt located mate?
My first thought!
Lovely to see Barcelona having it out with PSG and City.
I'm very suprised that Leverkusen isn’t more popular in Germany. They only barely lost to Madrid’s galacticos the final of the CL a little over a decade ago.
You're the one throwing accusations around so it's up to you to prove it. I wouldn't mind but I've explained on here in the past how City can legitimately spend the money they do and keep on the right side of FFP, and UEFA appear to wholeheartedly agree so basically you're accusing City, City's independent auditors, and UEFA of all being complicit in this "scam". The fact that you haven't got the balls to respond to any of my points shows you up for exactly what you are.
I'll also remind you that you're making unfounded accusations on a public forum which is never a wise thing to do. If I were you, I'd wind your neck in as you could get this forum into trouble
We're not in a court of law here pal
. Unfounded accusations So because a poster on Redcafe voices his opinion suddenly the forum is in trouble. There are people here who have been calling Abramovich a murderer, a Russian gangster, etc. over the years. Can't remember anyone ending up in trouble with authorities afterwards. Probably because you can't sue every one of millions of people on the internet over something they post. Unless, of course, it's something serious, that cannot be ignored, like a terrorist threat.We're not in a court of law here pal
Wrong. You didn't state is an opinion. You stated it as a fact, and as much as you like to claim otherwise there are laws in the UK about making statements of "fact" on the internet and social media that are unfounded. I once stated as fact on here that Pompey's owner was a bent fcuker who had ruined the club, only for a mod to politely point out that I should've inserted the word "allegedly".
Try asking one of the Blackpool fans that have been taken to court and been financially ruined by their club's owners how this works. And that was just for daring to criticise their owners on a forum. What you're alleging is potentially far more serious.
By the way, have you come up with that line-up yet from the '86 Full Members Cup Final?
Pointless to ask a City fan a question you know the answer to.
It's obviously the sweetheart deals they have with the likes of Etisalat, Etihad, TCA Abu Dhabi, Arabtec, Aabar, First Gulf Bank & Saudi Hollandi Bank. They've been smart in that each deal on its own isn't blatantly ridiculous (ala PSG) which means Uefa will find it exceptionally difficult to revalue, but collectively only a complete moron would believe that Manchester City could achieve a commercial revenue of £180m (15/16 figures) quickly surpassing much larger and more successful clubs with a much larger global fan base like Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool & Chelsea.
This club that no-one had heard of a decade ago are now literally only behind Bayern, Madrid & United in terms of commercial income (if you likewise discard PSG and their ridiculous deals). Their commercial revenue in 2009 for example was £18m
The part of their deal that illustrates their actual commercial strength is their kit deal at £12m. As there doesn't seem to be an Adu Dhabi based kit manufacturer they're had to settle for a market rate deal much lower than any of the larger clubs with more commercial appeal.
Likewise it becomes obvious when you see the two biggest commercial revenue streams - their shirt and kit deals, represent merely 18% of their total commercial income. That's compared with Spurs 45%, Liverpool 46%, United 49%, Arsenal 56%, & Chelsea 60%. Are we supposed to believe that these supposed commercial wizards at City, suddenly become brain-dead when it comes to the sponsorship deals that attract the most attention? Or that clubs like United and Chelsea who have been phenomenal in terms of securing great contracts for their two biggest streams, are suddenly way behind City comparatively when it comes to their £146m revenue for a few billboards?
I'm no fan of Uefa or of FFP and I'm not only delighted City have found a way to circumvent the rules, but am thankful they've done so as it allows for a much more competitive league. However anyone who believes City's commercial revenues wouldn't be cut down by c. £100m without Mansours ownership are delusional.
I'm keen to see their next commercial figures, as to fund their latest shopping spree even their 15/16 commercial revenue of £178m is insufficient. I expect that to comfortably surpass £200m, with the aforementioned UAE firms uplifting their contracts to keep the illusion of fiscal responsibility alive for FFP purposes.
Last edited:
The problem is how hard does UEFA really wanna work to turn down money?
FFP was designed to stop people defaulting on debts as that's a bad look for football and hurts the brand, If your willing to have fake companies to "sponsor" the club, gifting the clubs land/ facilities or assets (Neymar's) that's not really in their wheel house to care about. They pay lip service to keeping the integrity of the game but they get paid to not care.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to the clear vanity project matures or doesn't work out.
Will the PSG owning group still be interested in dropping 500mil next year or the year after, if they continue to not win everything or get bored if it becomes too easy and they do? The club would implode at that point.
City is inflated by oil money, but they've been turning a profit for the last few years and most of their sponsorships are legit.
Unless UEFA really shows some teeth and bans clubs like City and PSG from the CL they won't give a flying feck and why would they? Pay a fine? They will only laugh at that and throw some money at UEFA and all will be forgiven. Let's be honest that's probably everything UEFA cares about either.
Keep your panties on, I just state my opinion. If you take it as a fact, that's your problem.If you don't like it, tough shit.
So if I tell you that lineup, will you finally answer my question and explain how Man City can keep spending huge amounts of money and not get in trouble with UEFA? I mean, even if I started following Chelsea yesterday, all it takes is a working internet connection and a few seconds of googling.
Somehow I doubt you can google an answer to what I've been asking you though. Because there's no answer that wouldn't make your club look bad. Because your club cannot possibly generate anywhere near the amount of money needed to keep up their expences and still meet the FFP giudelines without "sponsorship" deals related to its owners, and that's pretty much any company located in the UAE.
You see that's where something is wrong, they are not fake.
Great post. Couldn't put it better myself.
Not sure it's a scam mate. It seems perfectly above-board. That's the problem.
City and PSG's owners are always going to get huge financial support from companies in their countries, because those companies want to curry favour with the royal family and join what amounts to a national project. If Neymar joins what amounts to Qatar FC, Qatar Airways will want to be involved. Likewise Etihad and all the other UAE companies who've invested in City - next time you watch a game at the Etihad, look at the advertising boards and count the number of Dubai and Abu Dhabi-based companies. The owners don't even have to do anything underhand.
The problem is that, if you allow what amounts to national governments to take over football clubs, they're always going to have huge political leverage which will translate to vastly inflated sponsorship deals.
How did this man baby get promoted?And would you care to provide proof that what City are doing is a "scam", "dodgy", "bent"? That's the point - you fcuking well can't. You're just another keyboard warrior spouting bollocks that you know fcuk all about. As for the second bolded bit, why don't you take it up with UEFA then you utter weapon? I'd love to meet you for a pint and see how you'd get on in a face to face discussion - I'd demolish you in seconds. The fact that you've also practically admitted that you are a glory hunter who knows fcuk all about Chelsea's history pre-Abramovich tells me all I need to know about you. If you know nothing about your own club then you sure as hell don't know anything about FFP and City's finances. No chance of getting a meet with you prior to a City v Chelsea game either at our gaff or the Bridge - you'll probably be welded to a fcuking armchair somewhere with your Sky remote. By the way, why haven't you answered my question about the Chelsea line-up in the FMC Final in 1986?
Very good and informative post.
Yeah, that's why I said "mostly legit" in terms of City's deals later on, could they get a similar sponsorship from a company that wasn't also owned by their owner, probably not, but given their current status, they'd 20-30% percent of it.
Psg wouldn't get anywhere close, isn't that how this whole drama started that they're trying to pass off that Neymar didn't cost them anything?
Perhaps scam is the wrong for it. It's still not above board, though. Both UAE and Qatar are monarchies. Royal families, one way or the other, have links to every business located in those countries. UEFA should have taken that into consideration. If something isn't done and soon, the situation will keep spinning out of control.
Quality post mate.
Pretty sure that was just made up media speculation. There's not a chance they'd be so brazen as to not put Neymar's transfer fee through their books.....I think.
The sponsorships are inflated, there is no denying that but it's due to the crazy idea that the owner of a property can't invest in it, that notion is crazy particularly when the UEFA unlike the NFL only takes money out of the pocket of owners, they don't work for them, like the FIFA they are closer to leeches than anything else.
And no, PSG publicly said that they paid the 220m.
What's that sound? Oh look, it's you back-pedalling on your previous posts.
As long as UEFA are fine with it then it's above board and that's all that really matters, and until such a time comes that they put in restrictions against people linked to monarchies buying football clubs then it will remain above board. However, it needs pointing out that UEFA's updated FFP regs in 2015 have tightened up on the percentage of income allowed from parties related to an owner - "....any entity that, alone or in aggregate together with other entities which are linked to the same owner or government, represent more than 30% of the club's total revenues is automatically considered a related party." I highly doubt that they will tighten that up to the extent of outlawing that completely though, because I can see a fair few elite clubs being on the radar of monarchies/governments over the coming years. I wouldn't mind betting China, for one, might make a bid for United at some point. In fact, they already have a 13% stake in City.
Last edited:
If football ends up being about who's backed by the richest foreign government it'll be disastrous for the sport mate. It's far more likely the traditional clubs will break away to form their own league, leaving City, PSG and the other state-backed clubs behind.
You're moderately entertaining with your childish behaviour, I'll give you that. Your problem is, that you don't know when to stop and thus stop embarrassing yourself.
Instead of admitting what everyone knows about your club you keep spouting nonsense and resort to personal attacks. That's what children do when they can't get their way.
Only moderately entertaining? Shit, my standards must be slipping.
Francis
Wood
Rougvie
Bumstead
McLaughlin
Pates (c)
Nevin
Spackman
Lee
Speedie
McAllister
Subs:
Hazard (Micky not Eden by the way)
Dublin
There you go - even saved you a job mate
We'll see mate. Football's always been a dick-waving contest and I'm sure City will get blown out of the water by an even richer owner one of these days.
Whats this La Liga complaining to UEFA about different teams?? Are they some dummy cops now?
It is above board. You are allowed business links, look at Bet365 and Stoke. Basically, if a sponsorship is declared to be a Related-Party Transaction, then UEFA are allowed to analyse whether that deal is fair. If it does not constitute a RTP, then there is nothing they can do.
Oh come off it
Let's say, I can see into the future. I then offer a United fan a deal. I say you can win the same amount of trophies as one of Spurs/Sevilla/Monaco over the next ten years, or, you can stick with whatever you have won in those ten years. How many would trade under the belief Spurs/Sevilla/Monaco have won more than them? Very few, I can guarantee that. And why? Because they know United have the revenue and spending power that the other three do not, and never will unless they receive outside investment.I find it quite staggering that some people can't seem to grasp this, even when it's spelt out word for word. I guess some just want to believe what they want to believe even in the face of irrefutable evidence stating otherwise. It's almost like they expect UEFA to rip up the current FFP regs and come up with something that completely suits their own myopic view. It's already been shown that that the original regs had unintended consequences in that the 2 Milan clubs - who had both been pushing UEFA to bring FFP in - found themselves on the outside pissing in, and all of a sudden the very regs they supported weren't particularly fair. So UEFA updated them to allow more leeway on spending to be given to clubs that had recently been bought out, subject to them putting forward a plausible enough business plan going forward. In other words, the very same thing that City and PSG were punished for in 2014 is now allowed under new ownership. I wonder how long it will be before the Milan clubs start complaining about these new regs if it doesn't end up working out well for them.
Every company from UAE is a related party to the City owners. I don't need UEFA to confirm or disprove it for me, I wasn't born yesterday and know how things work in that part of the world. Tomorrow City will get five more companies from Abu Dhabi to sponsor them and "renegotiate" existing deals and suddenly they'll have even more money to spend.
The fact that City fans refuse to admit the most obvious thing is staggering. Just keep telling yourselves that you have a great business plan and that's the real reason behind your infinite source of money.
Agreed on this bit. By all means argue that it's just a business and they can do what they want. Don't try and convince us that it's because they're well run and can make the money without doping, it's insulting.
The question is what do these companies get in return for their investment. Probably lower tax bills, government contracts etc etc. It's all corrupt and wrong.
RPT is a legal definition, it's not one UEFA can decide to set. If some of City's sponsorship deals do not fall under that term, irrespective of apparent links to Abu Dhabi, then you need to complain to Brussels about the definition, not UEFA.
The most amusing thing is a Chelsea fan who seems to be on some moral crusade against City's investment. Chelsea's success is entirely down to Abramovich yet you seem to begrudge other teams benefiting from such investment. The whole reason Chelsea can comply with FFP today and still challenge at the top, is because of Abramovich. The whole reason City can comply with FFP and still challenge at the top, is because of Abu Dhabi; and, I might add, I've yet to meet a City fan who denies this last point. So what's your problem?