Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions

nahealai said:
What the feck has Pellegrini actually achieved to be labelled a 'far better manager' than Moyes? He's been shown-up for the tactically inept manager than he is this season. With the players at his disposal and the money he has spent, City should be walking the league this season in Ferguson's absence.

Laughable.
Click to expand...

He took Villafreakingreal to the champions league semifinals.
 
AngeloHenriquez said:
City have better facilities, and this season have been challenging for more silverware.
Click to expand...

One, they haven't got better facilities. With the new plans in place, they'll have state-of-the-art facilities for their youth teams, but the first-team squad at United have equally as good facilities as their City counterparts.

As for your other comment, the fact you used 'this season' to qualify your statement says it all.

United are one of the biggest clubs in the world, perhaps only bettered by Real Madrid in status. Dani Alves summed it up brilliantly when he stated recently that up until four/five years ago, he thought there was only one club in Manchester. The fact that foreign players refer to us as "Manchester" says it all.

I cannot believe I'm even arguing this nonsense.
 
Eboue said:
He took Villafreakingreal to the champions league semifinals.
Click to expand...

So what? Paul Le Guen fecking lorded the big guns when in charge of Lyon, who had a great record in that competition.

Means feck all. Great managers are judged on what they've won, and to say that Pellegrini is a "far better" manager than Moyes is fanciful.
 
nahealai said:
So what? Paul Le Guen fecking lorded the big guns when in charge of Lyon, who had a great record in that competition.

Means feck all. Great managers are judged on what they've won, and to say that Pellegrini is a "far better" manager than Moyes is fanciful.
Click to expand...


He finished 10 points ahead of Barcelona in 07-08, the last team to break into the top two until Atletico this year. But hey, he didn't win League One with Preston North End so it means feck all!
 
nahealai said:
What the feck has Pellegrini actually achieved to be labelled a 'far better manager' than Moyes? He's been shown-up for the tactically inept manager than he is this season. With the players at his disposal and the money he has spent, City should be walking the league this season in Ferguson's absence.

Laughable.
Click to expand...

Do you pay attention to any other manager than Moyes? If Pellegrini has been shown-up for the "tactically inept manager" than I don't even want to know what Moyes has been shown-up for. Pellegrini can still win the league in his first season with City where not only he joined a new club, but a new league and needed to learn a new language. Then among his other achievements he reached the CL quarter finals with Malaga last season, which is their best ever acchievement in their history. Oh and even then they were unlucky in the CL quarters as they conceded a last-minute goal where you know 4 Dortmund players were offside. Now your hero Moyes has also broken a lot of records for us this season, sadly just not the right ones.
 
nahealai said:
One, they haven't got better facilities. With the new plans in place, they'll have state-of-the-art facilities for their youth teams, but the first-team squad at United have equally as good facilities as their City counterparts.
Click to expand...

Can you prove this? As it's been said by many that you are wrong, Machester City's facilities are greater, training equipment, restaurants etc etc

As for your other comment, the fact you used 'this season' to qualify your statement says it all.
Click to expand...

It doesn't in the slightest, but I'll bite, what you have to remember is players will want the club that's more competitive, currently it's not Manchester United, that's not an opinion.

United are one of the biggest clubs in the world, perhaps only bettered by Real Madrid in status. Dani Alves summed it up brilliantly when he stated recently that up until four/five years ago, he thought there was only one club in Manchester. The fact that foreign players refer to us as "Manchester" says it all.
I cannot believe I'm even arguing this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Neither can I quite frankly, you're argument keeps basing around us being a bigger club, when I have addressed this in my initial post when I stated, player's don't care about the "biggest club", which is decided over X amount of years, they have notoriously short employment spans, they will want to go where they believe they can win more, that again isn't us.

EDIT: And Oh yes, Moyes.
 
nahealai said:
This is, quite frankly, the most absurd comment I've read here in a quite a while.

Delusional.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is laughable anymore. In our current state we don't have more attraction than City, they play better football, they have a better coach, they are more likely to win titles (now as well as in the future), they are playing CL and are virtually certain to play in the CL for the forseable future. They have alot to offer on a sportive side that we can't offer anymore.

I would agree with you his comment was laughable in the previous years as we were a far more dominant side than City in terms of winning titles and also a far more experienced team in europe. Unfortunaltey this doesn't apply anymore after this season, in fact United will have to proof next season they can still be regarded as a top club, because right now with Moyes as a coach, 7th place, no european football and incapable of winning any top match, it sure as hell looks like we aren't anymore.

If I was a professional footballer I'd be seriously thinking between United or City if I could join them on equal wages. If my playing opportunities would be the same in both sides, then it probably be City because right now they tick all the boxes while United doesn't.

City aren't anything without their foreign money, unfortunatley it seems we aren't anything either without SAF as manager. City still have the former and they'll have it for the forseeable future, United doesn't have the latter anymore. Its painfull but it is the reality, without SAF all these rivals, Chelsea, Liverpool and definitely City just trumph us on the sportive area.

Maybay from the perspective of a United fan it seems ridivulous to think United is regarded as an inferior team than City. But if you take of those glasses than you have to see City currently have alot more to offer than we do. Players don't join you for your history, they join you for your future and it seems like SAF and the trophies are history and we have chosen for Moyes and 7th place worthy football as our future.
 
AngeloHenriquez said:
Ok, but that it isn't what I asked, and FWIW, you're statement is incorrect, it should be that way, but assume the whole human raise come to conclusions logically, people are emotional. As for my actual question, which was do you think everyone supports United? I assume your response was angling toward insinuating that because United are a bigger club, player's would simply opt for them, this isn't true. City have better facilities, and this season have been challenging for more silverware, and have Champions League next year, I once felt the same as you, but you need to step back from the red goggles, it's not reality.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I agree. Players want two things - money and success. The clubs that pay big money get talented players and in the first instance its the money that they come for. But the more success they have, the more realistic a move to that club becomes.

Any one who thinks a top player is going to choose United over City purely because of "history" is mad. The reality is they'll look at a) what they'll be earning and b) the chances of winning trophies. That's not to say we can't compete for these playetrs, because we can.
 
RedRover said:
Sadly, I agree. Players want two things - money and success. The clubs that pay big money get talented players and in the first instance its the money that they come for. But the more success they have, the more realistic a move to that club becomes.

Any one who thinks a top player is going to choose United over City purely because of "history" is mad. The reality is they'll look at a) what they'll be earning and b) the chances of winning trophies. That's not to say we can't compete for these playetrs, because we can.
Click to expand...

The question was asked initially, if both teams could give the same wages..... So that makes that moot effectively and it's down to purely success, which in the short term, you'd have to be daft to think Utd would get more than City, unless something like their owner sold them off. It is sad unfortunately, but players aren't "fans" who want prestige anymore, they want trophies & cash
 
RedRover said:
UEFA wont chuck any clubs out of the CL. They sponsors would go mad if the best sides arent in it - regardless of what the lawyers would do.
Click to expand...

Which Sponsor is going to go mad because City or PSG won't be in the CL ? It is not like they attract many viewers. If those teams wouldn't be in the CL than there places would be take by other teams that would attract roughly the same amount of viewers if not more.

The only real heavy weights in terms of viewers the sponsors would be mad to lose are us (biggest attraction in terms of numbers), Barca, Madrid and Bayern. UEFA would never contemplate of banning any of those teams as that would hurt their revenues substantially. But City....who the feck cares, Everton or Tottenham (and definitley us) would attract just as many viewers if not more. Same with PSG, Lyon or Marseille or Lille would attract an equal crowd.

If UEFA wanted to ban City or PSG I think they could easily do so, legally they'd have a ground for it and economically those clubs don't bring in enough viewers that they are unexpandable.
 
I doubt the first punishments handed out to some of the bigger clubs will be bans from European competitions, they will start with heavy fines and transfer bans, then work their way up. Though if a club was deceitful enough it might go straight to a ban.

I fully expect that in my lifetime that I will see the larger clubs in Europe form their own league. I don't think that will happen anytime soon, I don't think enough are owned by the type of guys who will take that leap yet.

If I remember right Roman was one of the owners that UEFA held up as working with them to draft the FFP rules and being strongly behind it. Not that he will mind being called a hypocrite, but I don't see him pulling up stakes and running off to a new league over FFP unless Chelsea get hit with a "death sentence" type punishment (ie no transfers for 3 or more years and a 5 year ban from Europe, which is not going to happen).
 
RedRover said:
Think about how much revenue a European "super league" could generate. Seeing Europe's best up against each other every week? Its a global game now and the top clubs no longer have to rely on people living a stones throw from the ground for their income. The sums raised on a match day pale into insignificance to the huge commercial sponsership deals, never mind how much a club could make televising all of its matches with no need to act under the PL rules.

Its been mooted before and I personally think, long term this is the way football will go. Not sure if its positive or negative mind you.
Click to expand...

When Sky got outbid by BT for the CL rights, they believed that BT overpaid when they paid £1Bn. The point they made is most salient - that we're beginning to reach saturation point in terms of TV income.

There's simply no reason to believe that a new super-league would generate the kind of income you suggest. This is particularly true if you think about the super-league being a league rather than a knockout format, since it would mean losing Champions League, FA Cup, League Cup and Premier League TV & matchday revenue income.

Add in the fairly obvious fact that the lack of relegation from or promotion to the league would make the majority of games played no more exciting than end of season mid-table affairs, and the league isn't quite so attractive.
 
NoArroJusBeta said:
Which Sponsor is going to go mad because City or PSG won't be in the CL ? It is not like they attract many viewers. If those teams wouldn't be in the CL than there places would be take by other teams that would attract roughly the same amount of viewers if not more.

The only real heavy weights in terms of viewers the sponsors would be mad to lose are us (biggest attraction in terms of numbers), Barca, Madrid and Bayern. UEFA would never contemplate of banning any of those teams as that would hurt their revenues substantially. But City....who the feck cares, Everton or Tottenham (and definitley us) would attract just as many viewers if not more. Same with PSG, Lyon or Marseille or Lille would attract an equal crowd.

If UEFA wanted to ban City or PSG I think they could easily do so, legally they'd have a ground for it and economically those clubs don't bring in enough viewers that they are unexpandable.
Click to expand...

Given that City and PSG have some of the worlds best players - and will probably continue to bring in more of them, I would say quite a few. Sponsers pay a fortune to sponser the competition containing Europe's best players and the best clubs - not some of Europe's best clubs, or the best players - minus Ibrahimovic and Aguero (for example). There's also the issue of what happens in countries where teams are chucked out - how will the TV people feel if they suddently cant televise games from one of the countries top sides?

The Champions League is a massive brand and UEFA's cash cow. They wont want to risk that, not have a competition devalued where whichever side hasnt been able to compete. How can the winners claim to be the best in Europe.

And the big point your missing is that it sets a precedent. What if Real Madrid, or Barcelona, or whomever else end up in a difficult financial position and "non-compliant"? They'd have no choice but to turf them out.

You seem hopeful that they will take drastic action. I dont think they will. They want clubs to abide by this so will undoubtedly seek to use sanctions - but not as drastic as them not being in the CL. A fine, maybe a transfer ban is likely.
 
bishblaize said:
When Sky got outbid by BT for the CL rights, they believed that BT overpaid when they paid £1Bn. The point they made is most salient - that we're beginning to reach saturation point in terms of TV income.

There's simply no reason to believe that a new super-league would generate the kind of income you suggest. This is particularly true if you think about the super-league being a league rather than a knockout format, since it would mean losing Champions League, FA Cup, League Cup and Premier League TV & matchday revenue income.

Add in the fairly obvious fact that the lack of relegation from or promotion to the league would make the majority of games played no more exciting than end of season mid-table affairs, and the league isn't quite so attractive.
Click to expand...

Would it not allow clubs control over their own destiny? United, for example could televise all their games on TV/on the internet outside of the Premier League regulations - surely that would be more profitable than the current syustem where the clubs with less prestige and draw get an equal share?
 
RedRover said:
Would it not allow clubs control over their own destiny? United, for example could televise all their games on TV/on the internet outside of the Premier League regulations - surely that would be more profitable than the current syustem where the clubs with less prestige and draw get an equal share?
Click to expand...

You're forgetting there's a finite number of TV/media companies with a finite amount of money. Its a zero sum game. The more competitions you create, the more you split the pie. Don't forget La Liga, Premier league, Serie A etc would still exist, and still have TV deals, albeit they may shrink.

This super-league may get a big piece of the pie, but it gets further split since all the clubs in there are famous. There's no reason to assume United would get vastly more income than Real, Barca, Juve, Bayern and co.

And since you're only getting one slice of one pie, rather than one slice of several pies, there's no reason to assume it would result in more money.

Anyway this is getting away from the original point. Which was that a breakaway super league might happen for clubs like City to get away from FFP. In which case it doesn't matter how much TV money United get, City and PSG and co would always have access to 10 times as much, with no restrictions on spending.
 
RedRover said:
Given that City and PSG have some of the worlds best players - and will probably continue to bring in more of them, I would say quite a few. Sponsers pay a fortune to sponser the competition containing Europe's best players and the best clubs - not some of Europe's best clubs, or the best players - minus Ibrahimovic and Aguero (for example). There's also the issue of what happens in countries where teams are chucked out - how will the TV people feel if they suddently cant televise games from one of the countries top sides?

The Champions League is a massive brand and UEFA's cash cow. They wont want to risk that, not have a competition devalued where whichever side hasnt been able to compete. How can the winners claim to be the best in Europe.

And the big point your missing is that it sets a precedent. What if Real Madrid, or Barcelona, or whomever else end up in a difficult financial position and "non-compliant"? They'd have no choice but to turf them out.

You seem hopeful that they will take drastic action. I dont think they will. They want clubs to abide by this so will undoubtedly seek to use sanctions - but not as drastic as them not being in the CL. A fine, maybe a transfer ban is likely.
Click to expand...

People watch to the CL for clubs foremost not for individual players. It is not because a club has big player names, alot of people will watch them, hardly anybody watches Monaco yet they have Falcao etc as players. The attrativness of clubs is based on the numbers of supporters they have and City and PSG don't have enough supporters to be regarded as significant contributors.

A CL without those clubs would still attract alot of viewers and the revenue lose would be insignificant.
 
bishblaize said:
Odd comment, given this is a thread about FFP.
Click to expand...

Well if FFP is implemented succesfully so that City really can't spend anything more than what they are earning, then that comment wouldn't apply anymore. Since FFP isn't going to be implemented succesfully or atleast hasn't it stands.
 
FFP isn't really an either/or thing. Granted there are degrees of sanctions, and there are interpretations about how hard someone is trying to reach break even point. But you're either going for it or you're not. City appear to be.

If they are then their spending power is limited - their turnover is currently 2/3rds of ours.
 
It seems that Man City have the highest wage bill in world football, this is a very interesting list:

1. Man City – $8.1m

2. Real Madrid - $7.6m

3. Barcelona - $7.4m

4. Bayern Munich - $6.7m

5. Man United - $6.6m

6. Chelsea $6.1m

7. Arsenal $5.9m

8. Juventus $5.3m

9. Liverpool $5.2m

10. AS Roma $4.9m

11. AC Milan $4.9m

12. Internazionale $4.6m

13. Borussia Dortmund $4.2m

14. Schalke $4.1m

15. Tottenham $4.0m

16. Queens Park Rangers $3.3m

17. Aston Villa $3.0m

18. Fulham $2.7m

19. Newcastle $2.7m

20. Napoli $2.7m

21. Atletico Madrid $2.6m

22. Everton $2.6m

23. Lazio $2.5m



Annual income for first team players in US $

*The figures are based on last season. That was before Real Madrid and Barcelona added Bale/Neymar on their wage bills.
 
nahealai said:
This is, quite frankly, the most absurd comment I've read here in a quite a while.

Delusional.
Click to expand...

That response is delusional.

All United fans seem to think that every player grew up desperate to play for United and had posters of Ryan Giggs as the centrepiece of their bedroom wall. Bollocks. Unless a player grew up supporting a team he really does not care too much about them. City have a much better chance of winning trophies as things stand so plenty of players would opt for us, even with equal wages. Don't delude yourself into the thought that every player cares about a club's history or their global reputation.

Robin Van Persie is an interesting example to use. What are his wages at United? Wasn't he, prior to Rooney's new contract, reportedly the highest paid player in the league? City would not have given RVP higher wages than Aguero or Toure or Silva.
 
BobbyManc said:
That response is delusional.

All United fans seem to think that every player grew up desperate to play for United and had posters of Ryan Giggs as the centrepiece of their bedroom wall. Bollocks. Unless a player grew up supporting a team he really does not care too much about them. City have a much better chance of winning trophies as things stand so plenty of players would opt for us, even with equal wages. Don't delude yourself into the thought that every player cares about a club's history or their global reputation.

Robin Van Persie is an interesting example to use. What are his wages at United? Wasn't he, prior to Rooney's new contract, reportedly the highest paid player in the league? City would not have given RVP higher wages than Aguero or Toure or Silva.
Click to expand...

Well RvP is earning 180 k if you believe some reports which would be less than Silva (don't know about Toure or Aguero). And it was also reported that City were offering RvP more than United.
 
united_99 said:
Well RvP is earning 180 k if you believe some reports which would be less than Silva (don't know about Toure or Aguero). And it was also reported that City were offering RvP more than United.
Click to expand...

Daily Mail, Goal and Independent all say he is on 250k a week. Daily Mirror says 200k. Couple others say 180k. Whichever one it is, he would not have got more than 200k at City.
 
BobbyManc said:
Daily Mail, Goal and Independent all say he is on 250k a week. Daily Mirror says 200k. Couple others say 180k. Whichever one it is, he would not have got more than 200k at City.
Click to expand...

It made perfect sense for RvP to join PL's most famous club and manager (he after all had played in the PL for most of his professional life - would he move this season I agree he wouldn't choose 7th place United with Moyes, but not disputable at all that he chose SAF's United who only finished 2nd on goal difference.

And then:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...nchester-City-join-United--Arsene-Wenger.html

Mirror were reporting the same.

And btw Rooney was on around 180 k when RvP joined us. No way would we have offered RvP more. The press don't seem to have a clue, some were reporting that Rooney was on 300 k before he signed his latest contract, others were reporting on 180 k. What makes sense is that Rooney was on 180 k + around 40 k bonus related. As now after signing his recent contract they are reporting he is on 250 k + bonus/Image rights/whatever. So do you really think if he was already on 250 k, that then he is now again "only" on 250 k and that his well-known agent Stretford spent months (well actually an entire year) of negotiations to get Rooney the same wages he was on anyway, but just with some bonus added? Noway!
 
BobbyManc said:
Not a single quote from Wenger in the article that mentions he turned down an offer of higher wages
Click to expand...

You think RvP would have accepted any less than Silva/Toure, considering he was PL's best striker, actually voted best player that season?
 
Would a super league even be welcomed? I don't think it would be a good move, what way would it leave domestic leagues and the Champions league?
 
united_99 said:
You think RvP would have accepted any less than Silva/Toure, considering he was PL's best striker, actually voted best player that season?
Click to expand...

You think City would have alienated their key players to sign Van Persie? If we offered RVP 300k a week straight away Aguero, Silva, Toure, Kompany would be pissed off.
 
bishblaize said:
Do any of your articles include quotes with their numbers?
Click to expand...

Articles that give figures for wages are always 'reports' and will never have direct quotations. The Wenger article implied he explicitly said City offered higher wages. He didn't. He said City were in for him which the paper took as evidence we offered higher wages.
 
BobbyManc said:
You think City would have alienated their key players to sign Van Persie? If we offered RVP 300k a week straight away Aguero, Silva, Toure, Kompany would be pissed off.
Click to expand...

So what? it was no secret Mancini wanted a world class striker. If you were offering 300 k or 250 k, who knows, but no player is on 300 k at United, not even Rooney after his latest contract, some are even reporting he now took a pay cut. And when RvP joined Rooney wasn't even on his current contract anyway.
 
united_99 said:
So what? it was no secret Mancini wanted a world class striker. If you were offering 300 k or 250 k, who knows, but no player is on 300 k at United, not even Rooney after his latest contract, some are even reporting he now took a pay cut. And when RvP joined Rooney wasn't even on his current contract anyway.
Click to expand...

Rooney is on £300k according to reports.
 
Saoirse. said:
Rooney is on £300k according to reports.
Click to expand...

And, accoring to other reports he somehow now is on 240 k plus some kind of innovative marketing deals from which both Rooney and the club will profit and stuff like that.
 
BobbyManc said:
Articles that give figures for wages are always 'reports' and will never have direct quotations. The Wenger article implied he explicitly said City offered higher wages. He didn't. He said City were in for him which the paper took as evidence we offered higher wages.
Click to expand...

So what we're saying is that in both cases the numbers that were put in there were done so by the reporter who a) may have access to more information or b) may not. In either case we can't judge the veracity of the comments with any certainty.
 
united_99 said:
So what? it was no secret Mancini wanted a world class striker. If you were offering 300 k or 250 k, who knows, but no player is on 300 k at United, not even Rooney after his latest contract, some are even reporting he now took a pay cut. And when RvP joined Rooney wasn't even on his current contract anyway.
Click to expand...

Rooney take a pay-cut for a new contract? Haha, pull the other one. That is genuine delusion if you believe he took a pay-cut. For once, the papers are in unison with their claims he is on 300k a week. The BBC, Guardian and Telegraph are the three most usually relibale papers and they all say 300k a week.

It is also no secret Mancini was pissed off with the board because he wanted Van Persie and De Rossi and got Rodwell and Garcia. Clearly, the board were not willing to spend silly money, suggesting it is unlikely we offered to make RVP our highest paid player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.