What was to to stop them growing organically? They were handed one of the biggest stadiums in the country so you already had an advantage. What was to stop them slowly building themselves up the table the way others have had to?
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Igor Drefljak
Definitely Russian
So are you suggesting because City didn't earn their place when football became commercially huge that they should be resigned to the status of a yo-yo club?
Well, football is a sport.
It should be like that, but unfortunately it isn't.
With the right decisions, a team should build on what they have
Everton and a club, very similar to City. They have a few up and down seasons, but have settled quite well as a top half team, battling for Europe. They did it with good decisions. Why couldn't City do that
Plugsy
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 6,584
There's no argument that you can get to the top without spending any money. But you don't have to spend 9 figure sums per year to do it.
City made a £99m loss last year if you exclude the hilarious account fiddling of selling scouting reports and other 'intellectual property' rights for nearly £50m in its latest financial reports. It's incredible that City fans themselves aren't concerned about this.
City made a £99m loss last year if you exclude the hilarious account fiddling of selling scouting reports and other 'intellectual property' rights for nearly £50m in its latest financial reports. It's incredible that City fans themselves aren't concerned about this.
What was to to stop them growing organically? They were handed one of the biggest stadiums in the country so you already had an advantage. What was to stop them slowly building themselves up the table the way others have had to?
The fact that as soon as we started to make any progress and become a threat our best players would have been picked off by the teams at the top. Shaun Wright Phillips went to Chelsea. Rooney to Everton etc.
The Taurean
looks like a chipmunk
But without limitations, you would just keep throwing money at your problems. Don't you think?Ok. So you think it is realistic to say City could have won the league title without spending much money?
Well, football is a sport.
It should be like that, but unfortunately it isn't.
With the right decisions, a team should build on what they have
Everton and a club, very similar to City. They have a few up and down seasons, but have settled quite well as a top half team, battling for Europe. They did it with good decisions. Why couldn't City do that
You're using Everton as an example and what they have done is commendable but they have never challenged at the top and are unlikely to do so without wealthy investment. The best anyone can hope for organically is to regularly challenge for 4th to 7th in the table.
acnumber9
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 22,356
Has it stopped Spurs competing for Champions League? Without doping they'd be right up there competing in the champions league with a greater chance of keeping their players and improving. Without it, Everton would be in there without these clubs. You lost Wright Phillips to financial doping. Without it who was spending that money on him? You were handed one of the biggest stadiums in the country, something clubs like and Evrton and Spurs would kill for and use as a basis to push on.The fact that as soon as we started to make any progress and become a threat our best players would have been picked off by the teams at the top. Shaun Wright Phillips went to Chelsea. Rooney to Everton etc.
But without limitations, you would just keep throwing money at your problems. Don't you think?
Like United will no doubt do this summer. Like Madrid have done. Clubs have always been throwing money at problems.
acnumber9
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 22,356
And once they get 4th they have a basis to build further from.You're using Everton as an example and what they have done is commendable but they have never challenged at the top and are unlikely to do so without wealthy investment. The best anyone can hope for organically is to regularly challenge for 4th to 7th in the table.
Igor Drefljak
Definitely Russian
You're using Everton as an example and what they have done is commendable but they have never challenged at the top and are unlikely to do so without wealthy investment. The best anyone can hope for organically is to regularly challenge for 4th to 7th in the table.
True, to an extent, but lets take City out of this. Everton in the last 5 years would have qualified for the Europa 3 years when they didn't get Europe, and this time, could have finished top 4, meaning Champions league. The financial benefits would have helped them massively.
You are a massive reason they have not progressed
Has it stopped Spurs competing for Champions League? Without doping they'd be right up there competing in the champions league with a greater chance of keeping their players and improving. Without it, Everton would be in there without these clubs. You lost Wright Phillips to financial doping. Without it who was spending that money on him? You were handed one of the biggest stadiums in the country, something clubs like and Evrton and Spurs would kill for and use as a basis to push on.
Tottenham. Good example for me. Bale? Madrid. Modric? Madrid. Two best players gone to an established club. That's exactly my point. City and Chelsea have hindered Tottenham's progress but without them the top clubs would have seen to it that they weren't a threat.
And once they get 4th they have a basis to build further from.
Like Everton and Tottenham did?
acnumber9
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 22,356
Had they been playing Champions League they would have a better chance of keeping those players and getting others of similar quality. Using an example of Real Madrid is pointless when Real can also bully the clubs you say FFP is built to protect. Even Utd lost their best player to them.Tottenham. Good example for me. Bale? Madrid. Modric? Madrid. Two best players gone to an established club. That's exactly my point. City and Chelsea have hindered Tottenham's progress but without them the top clubs would have seen to it that they weren't a threat.
True, to an extent, but lets take City out of this. Everton in the last 5 years would have qualified for the Europa 3 years when they didn't get Europe, and this time, could have finished top 4, meaning Champions league. The financial benefits would have helped them massively.
You are a massive reason they have not progressed
Who's the biggest reason for their lack of progress, City and Chelsea or Real Madrid who have taken Bale and Modric away from them? If it wasn't Madrid, it would have been United or someone else. Tottenham and Everton have suffered as a result of City and Chelsea, yes. But the best they could have done would still have been 4th place and 3rd place at their best without wealthy investment.
acnumber9
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 22,356
And why didn't they?Like Everton and Tottenham did?
And why didn't they?
Because they didn't have the financial power behind them to regularly challenge and build on 4th place. City weren't a threat when Everton got 4th so you can't blame City.
Plugsy
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 6,584
Like United will no doubt do this summer. Like Madrid have done. Clubs have always been throwing money at problems.
But that's our (their) money. City are throwing money they don't have because of who finances them. It's dangerous for the club. If the sugar daddy fecks off unless the tab is picked up by someone else willing to use the club as his toy thing then they're in the biggest pot of shit that any football club has ever found itself in. Even Peter Ridsdale will piss himself.
This is why I can't understand the opposition to the principle. Argue about the punishment, fine but any rule that in principle encourages clubs to try to break even is good for the long-term health of that club. The Sheiks won't be around for ever but City's financial obligations won't leave with them. The CLUB is in £100m of arrears this year alone, not the owners. They finance the spending but they're not the one the receivers will come after.
Any fan who opposes FFP is incredibly short-sighted and deserves little sympathy if in the next 5-10 years the reality of running 9 figure debts up no longer being sustainable hits home and their club goes tits up trying to dramatically reduce their obligations, as will happen the second the Sheiks move on unless there's an incredible stroke of luck and you're purchased by someone else with the same funds and intentions.
Igor Drefljak
Definitely Russian
Who's the biggest reason for their lack of progress, City and Chelsea or Real Madrid who have taken Bale and Modric away from them? If it wasn't Madrid, it would have been United or someone else. Tottenham and Everton have suffered as a result of City and Chelsea, yes. But the best they could have done would still have been 4th place and 3rd place at their best without wealthy investment.
To be fair, as I mentioned before, if footballing decisions are good enough, things could be different.
Yes Tottenham sold Bale. Don't forget how much they got for him. If they spent the money better, things could have been different for them. That is their own fault
Had they been playing Champions League they would have a better chance of keeping those players and getting others of similar quality. Using an example of Real Madrid is pointless when Real can also bully the clubs you say FFP is built to protect. Even Utd lost their best player to them.
But Tottenham would never have been able to offer the wages of United or Madrid. Their players would always have had a financially-better option elsewhere.
The Taurean
looks like a chipmunk
Yes. We throw money at all our problems!Like United will no doubt do this summer. Like Madrid have done. Clubs have always been throwing money at problems.
Your incomes are increasing rapidly regardless of the shady commercial deals. Your spending power will reflect it in years to come. But what you have right now is without limitations. You think you deserve a right to spend just because you can. We atleast spend within our means. In your case, you would spend more if something doesn't work out.
africanspur
Full Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2010
- Messages
- 9,388
- Supports
- Tottenham Hotspur
Why are people comparing Atletico and Dortmund to the likes to City or even Spurs or Everton? The situations aren't comparable at all.
Liverpool is also an appalling example.
Frankly, both sides on here are going round in circles in a silly way because as somebody has pointed out, it is Man Utd fans arguing with self interest and a City fan arguing with self interest.
My view as a Spurs fan? Without FFP, there wouldn't be a Chelsea and Man City in the league. That would mean we as Spurs would have qualified for the CL for most of the past 7 seasons and reaped the appropriate financial, player pulling, commercial etc rewards. We wouldn't have been able to keep all our players but we likely would have had a higher chance of keeping Carrick, Berbatov, Keane, Modric, Bale. Or at least kept them for longer. Eventually, with good management, clever purchases and a bit of luck, we may also have competed for the title or at least won a cup or two.
Everton would have qualified a few times, Newcastle once as well.
However, the presence of Man City and Chelsea has now made even qualifying for the CL on a regular basis or even once, let alone competing for the title, incredibly difficult. The sugar daddies are only good for those clubs, not for the rest of football as a whole.
I do agree that FFP was mostly a way of making sure the top clubs were't challenged any further, rather than any sincere altruism from UEFA about the state of football or its clubs.
Liverpool is also an appalling example.
Frankly, both sides on here are going round in circles in a silly way because as somebody has pointed out, it is Man Utd fans arguing with self interest and a City fan arguing with self interest.
My view as a Spurs fan? Without FFP, there wouldn't be a Chelsea and Man City in the league. That would mean we as Spurs would have qualified for the CL for most of the past 7 seasons and reaped the appropriate financial, player pulling, commercial etc rewards. We wouldn't have been able to keep all our players but we likely would have had a higher chance of keeping Carrick, Berbatov, Keane, Modric, Bale. Or at least kept them for longer. Eventually, with good management, clever purchases and a bit of luck, we may also have competed for the title or at least won a cup or two.
Everton would have qualified a few times, Newcastle once as well.
However, the presence of Man City and Chelsea has now made even qualifying for the CL on a regular basis or even once, let alone competing for the title, incredibly difficult. The sugar daddies are only good for those clubs, not for the rest of football as a whole.
I do agree that FFP was mostly a way of making sure the top clubs were't challenged any further, rather than any sincere altruism from UEFA about the state of football or its clubs.
But that's our (their) money. City are throwing money they don't have because of who finances them. It's dangerous for the club. If the sugar daddy fecks off unless the tab is picked up by someone else willing to use the club as his toy thing then they're in the biggest pot of shit that any football club has ever found itself in. Even Peter Ridsdale will piss himself.
This is why I can't understand the opposition to the principle. Argue about the punishment, fine but any rule that in principle encourages clubs to try to break even is good for the long-term health of that club. The Sheiks won't be around for ever but City's financial obligations won't leave with them. The CLUB is in £100m of arrears this year alone, not the owners. They finance the spending but they're not the one the receivers will come after.
Any fan who opposes FFP is incredibly short-sighted and deserves little sympathy if in the next 5-10 years the reality of running 9 figure debts up no longer becomes sustainable and their club goes tits up trying to dramatically reduce their obligations, as will happen the second the Sheiks move on unless there's an incredible stroke of luck and you're purchased by someone else with the same funds and intentions.
City were on the brink of bankruptcy before Mansour's takeover. He could pull the plug now and the club wouldn't be any worse off. He has wiped off virtually all debt the club had.
Tottenham. Good example for me. Bale? Madrid. Modric? Madrid. Two best players gone to an established club. That's exactly my point. City and Chelsea have hindered Tottenham's progress but without them the top clubs would have seen to it that they weren't a threat.
If FFP works well, even the likes of Real would be worried about throwing 80 million on a player every two years. That way, Spurs could have kept hold of Bale and build on that later. How many players did Arsenal lose to city. If city had any controlled spending, Arsenal could have managed to hold on to their players when extravagant fees were thrown around.
Also, I don't agree with your case that if not for City and Chelsea, United would have dominated the league. You are forgetting the most important fact in our period of dominance, that being SAF. He was the only reason we beat of the threats of Liverpool,Arsenal, etc., year in year out and the only reason chelsea and city have not dominated the league in the last 10 years. If not for him, the league would have been more spread out even without the likes of chelsea and city spending. Also, like I said, If not for him, the league would be as much two sided between Chelsea and city.
acnumber9
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 22,356
I'm not blaming City alone but those seasons when they finished 6th maybe without the teams spending money they didn't make would've given them the opportunity to do so again. While talking about this you're also ignoring the other trophies on offer to clubs that are now harder to win also. There's a reason that clubs other than Manchester United voted in favour of FFP.Because they didn't have the financial power behind them to regularly challenge and build on 4th place. City weren't a threat when Everton got 4th so you can't blame City.
PedroMendez
Acolyte
the only clubs, that are almost impossible to kick out of the top4 are Chelsea and City. Liverpool, Arsenal and United all proved that "normal" clubs still can fall off.You're using Everton as an example and what they have done is commendable but they have never challenged at the top and are unlikely to do so without wealthy investment. The best anyone can hope for organically is to regularly challenge for 4th to 7th in the table.
So yes; nowadays its almost impossible for a club like Everton to finish in the top4, because 2 spots are occupied and 3 bigger clubs already compete for the other two. Its just unlikely, that two slip during one season; this season was fairly close.
City outspend his rivals by about 60-70m in wages per year and by another 50m in transfer fees; no not every club has the chance to get an investor like that. In fact its impossible for most clubs.
That wasn't the point. Saying Dortmund got easily brushed aside because Bayern bought their best player is simply not true, after all we won the treble last year without buying any of their players and the gap between both clubs in the league this season is actually smaller than last season despite Dortmund's countless injuries.Ok. So you think it is realistic to say City could have won the league title without spending much money?
I also think that without sugardaddy clubs, it's more likely that exceptional work over several years is rewarded in the end than without, yes. You talk like football should be a lottery with every club having the same chance to win it, yet you ignore that the small clubs have as small a chance to attract a rich owner as they have to win the league through good work. City wasn't chosen by conincidence, they were attractive to a rich investor because of the city they are based in. The same goes for Chelsea, PSG and Monaco. Clubs in those cities have every chance to be at the top if they do a great job for a decade, they already have a significant advantage over most clubs in their countries. The fact that they didn't use it so far is their own fault and their fans now fighting a battle for the hypothetical chance that all clubs could win the lottery and that that's a fair way within the game is ridiculous. If you believe that Southampton had the same chance to attract an equally rich owner than your club, you're delusional.
Not sure how much you know about Dortmund, but they were broke in 2005, were a midtable club for a few years and had barely any commercial revenue. They rebuilt their team with cheap players slowly improving every year. In 2008 both City and Dortmund won the lottery, I just believe that Dortmund signing Klopp and giving him the chance to build a brilliant team is a 'positive' lottery win for the game while City buying a team full of superstars is a 'negative' lottery win.Again, this is so tedious. Atletico, Dortmund and Liverpool are worlds apart from the state of City pre-Mansour.
Now don't get me wrong, I actually don't mind investment in a club. I think it's brilliant that your club invested a lot of money in the infrastructure, it's great for the city and the people living there, nothing wrong with it. That's still possible with FFP though, it's excluded from the break-even rule. I'm all for giving a struggling club the infrastructure to work on a high level and build a great football side, because it still needs the club to do a good job for years to get to the top. But don't buy one of the most expensive teams in the world out of nowhere, that's just wrong, it ruins the game.
the only clubs, that are almost impossible to kick out of the top4 are Chelsea and City. Liverpool, Arsenal and United all proved that "normal" clubs still can fall off.
So yes; nowadays its almost impossible for a club like Everton to finish in the top4, because 2 spots are occupied and 3 bigger clubs already compete for the other two. Its just unlikely, that two slip during one season; this season was fairly close.
City outspend his rivals by about 60-70m in wages per year and by another 50m in transfer fees; no not every club has the chance to get an investor like that. In fact its impossible for most clubs.
Where did Chelsea finish under Di Matteo?
Plugsy
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 6,584
City were on the brink of bankruptcy before Mansour's takeover. He could pull the plug now and the club wouldn't be any worse off. He has wiped off virtually all debt the club had.
No he hasn't. You lose £100m a year. How is a club that without the private wealth of the owner would have lost £100m this year (more if you discount the favourable stadium sponsorship deal) to be considered without debt?
You're obligated to at least £100m more than the club earns based on this years figures alone. Your definition of debt is interesting if paying out more than you earn isn't considered debt. These players on long-arse, six-figure per week contracts aren't contracted to the owners, they're contracted to the club.
If tomorrow the family have a chance of heart of a change of policy you'll make Rangers look
acnumber9
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 22,356
And that is still the case. FFP or no FFP doesn't change that. What it does change is that without it it's even harder for that club or clubs like it to compete. They would also have some glory and a greater chance at trophies. All through their own good work.But Tottenham would never have been able to offer the wages of United or Madrid. Their players would always have had a financially-better option elsewhere.
I'm not blaming City alone but those seasons when they finished 6th maybe without the teams spending money they didn't make would've given them the opportunity to do so again. While talking about this you're also ignoring the other trophies on offer to clubs that are now harder to win also. There's a reason that clubs other than Manchester United voted in favour of FFP.
Do you believe United put pressure on UEFA for FFP to be implemented and voted for it for the good of football or to benefit themselves and try and stop the threat of City or at least another 'Man City/Chelsea' happening?
No he hasn't. You lose £100m a year. How is a club that without the private wealth of the owner would have lost £100m this year (more if you discount the favourable stadium sponsorship deal) to be considered without debt?
You're obligated to at least £100m more than the club earns based on this years figures alone. Your definition of debt is interesting if paying out more than you earn isn't considered debt. These players on long-arse, six-figure per week contracts aren't contracted to the owners, they're contracted to the club.
If tomorrow the family have a chance of heart of a change of policy you'll make Rangers look
United are in debt. City aren't. We lose money because we pay more than we earn. That isn't debt. That is loss. Mansour pays that money of out his own pocket.
Why are people comparing Atletico and Dortmund to the likes to City or even Spurs or Everton? The situations aren't comparable at all.
Liverpool is also an appalling example.
Frankly, both sides on here are going round in circles in a silly way because as somebody has pointed out, it is Man Utd fans arguing with self interest and a City fan arguing with self interest.
My view as a Spurs fan? Without FFP, there wouldn't be a Chelsea and Man City in the league. That would mean we as Spurs would have qualified for the CL for most of the past 7 seasons and reaped the appropriate financial, player pulling, commercial etc rewards. We wouldn't have been able to keep all our players but we likely would have had a higher chance of keeping Carrick, Berbatov, Keane, Modric, Bale. Or at least kept them for longer. Eventually, with good management, clever purchases and a bit of luck, we may also have competed for the title or at least won a cup or two.
Everton would have qualified a few times, Newcastle once as well.
However, the presence of Man City and Chelsea has now made even qualifying for the CL on a regular basis or even once, let alone competing for the title, incredibly difficult. The sugar daddies are only good for those clubs, not for the rest of football as a whole.
I do agree that FFP was mostly a way of making sure the top clubs were't challenged any further, rather than any sincere altruism from UEFA about the state of football or its clubs.
Good post.
However, while you would have had a higher chance of keeping Berbatov, Bale, Modric etc. I think it is a huge stretch to say they would have turned down United and Madrid respectively. The financial motivation is too great and clubs like that will always be able to outspend a team like Spurs and offer better wages. Unless a player is ridiculously loyal, he will leave.
Plugsy
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 6,584
United are in debt. City aren't. We lose money because we pay more than we earn. That isn't debt. That is loss. Mansour pays that money of out his own pocket.
United are in debt but we don't lose money, there's a rather obvious difference. Arsenal are (were?) in debt with their stadium but there's a difference between having obligations you earn enough to afford and losing £100m + a year. An article by the Daily Mail suggests City could have missed UEFA's £37m loss ceiling by more than £100m, so that's £137m worth of debt.
United are in debt but we don't lose money, there's a rather obvious difference. Arsenal are (were?) in debt with their stadium but there's a difference between having obligations you earn enough to afford and losing £100m + a year. An article by the Daily Mail suggests City could have missed UEFA's £37m loss ceiling by more than £100m, so that's £137m worth of debt.
Debt is money that is owed. We don't owe £137m.
The Taurean
looks like a chipmunk
Might as well gift you all the trophies for a certain amount paid to the league and UEFA.United are in debt. City aren't. We lose money because we pay more than we earn. That isn't debt. That is loss. Mansour pays that money of out his own pocket.
What is your position on FFP? That they shouldn't exist? That you get to spend as much as you like?
Igor Drefljak
Definitely Russian
City were on the brink of bankruptcy before Mansour's takeover. He could pull the plug now and the club wouldn't be any worse off. He has wiped off virtually all debt the club had.
This is why these owners with dreams are a bad idea.
I can't remember who it was who owned you, but it could have ruined your club. As I said, you was just lucky that the next owner had a bottomless pit.
This is why these owners are bad for football, and I do believe, somewhere in all this, UEFA, FA etc, do care
Might as well gift you all the trophies for a certain amount paid to the league and UEFA.
What is your position on FFP? That they shouldn't exist? That you get to spend as much as you like?
FFP will ensure the clubs at the top remain there. The principle of spending what you earn is great but then when you realise what United, Bayern, Madrid, Barca etc. earn in comparison to Everton, Southampton, Spurs etc. you soon see that there is absolutely zero way that a team at the top can be challenged anymore.
FFP is a flawed model because UEFA had to ensure they protected the interest of the elite clubs. FFP is closing the route of a wealthy investor making a team challenge at the top and not changing the difficulty a team has in trying to grow organically and compete at the top.
Plugsy
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 6,584
Debt is money that is owed. We don't owe £137m.
So you think if the Sheik was to walk away, you wouldn't be obligated to pay the players wage bill that currently alone outstrips club (without even excluding dodgy sponsorship only obtained through his connections) earnings?
Igor Drefljak
Definitely Russian
Good post.
However, while you would have had a higher chance of keeping Berbatov, Bale, Modric etc. I think it is a huge stretch to say they would have turned down United and Madrid respectively. The financial motivation is too great and clubs like that will always be able to outspend a team like Spurs and offer better wages. Unless a player is ridiculously loyal, he will leave.
The thing is though, with the extra money for CL, Europa places etc, they could have built much better than they have. Financially they would have been in a better position.
For Cities owner, this is a game for him.
For clubs like Tottenham etc, its important to finish as high as possible. This is Levys lively hood so to speak. He needs Tottenham to do well. City have come in and halted their progress.
Selling Modric for 40m, selling Bale for 80m, is good business.
Your owner to be honest, wouldn't care if City finished 10th. At the end of the day, the money he could lose from this, isn't that important in the big picture. For these other owners, the money is vital
FFP will ensure the clubs at the top remain there. The principle of spending what you earn is great but then when you realise what United, Bayern, Madrid, Barca etc. earn in comparison to Everton, Southampton, Spurs etc. you soon see that there is absolutely zero way that a team at the top can be challenged anymore.
FFP is a flawed model because UEFA had to ensure they protected the interest of the elite clubs. FFP is closing the route of a wealthy investor making a team challenge at the top and not changing the difficulty a team has in trying to grow organically and compete at the top.
You keep saying that when infact if you look at the top 3 European leagues, teams have been able to do that. You conveniently choose to ignore them and see that spending is the only way to stop the likes of United, Madrid and Bayern. Didn't Bayern miss out on CL places few years back?
Share: