BBC Sport: La Liga asks Uefa to investigate Man City's financial fair play

[M18CTID]

Don't think Qatar and UAE are gonna side up anytime soon to be honest!

Was thinking the same thing! The clubs will tackle this independently of each other for sure.

I know it's veering off topic but regarding the political situation between the two, I happen to think Qatar has been dealt a pretty shitty hand by Abu Dhabi and the UAE. Siding with Saudi against Qatar for the reasons given smacks of a pot, kettle, and black scenario.

 

[manc exile]

Tebas makes sense and he's right that the financial doping needs to stop but it's laughable coming from La Liga which is a standard bearer of unfair distribution of money. They were hell bent on killing off the competition in their own league so that Real and Barca could have free reign on everything and dominate and now they feel a threat they speak up? Sounds to me like City are sniffing around at Messi and he's thinking about it. Now they didn't get the most sought after player of each of the last two summers (Pogba and Mbappe) in addition to losing Neymar they are crying foul. Should have focused on parity and fairness in their own league so that clubs not named Barcelona and Real Madrid can afford to keep their players and managers and actually build competitive teams.

I personally think City and PSG should be investigated and sanctioned. Sure, they are making more money now but they got on the map from over the top investment figures so any argument about the current brand is a bit silly trying to stack them up with real clubs. PSG making more than United off sponsors? That's a good laugh. City being ahead of every English team bar United is also a right chuckle.

why does, what you call, financial doping have to stop?

 

[duffer]

I'm pretty sure UEFA don't really care about money coming into football.

 

[notcool]

Let Man City take the gloves off. They're not so tough.

 

[Kentonio]

Fecking Spanish hypocrites. There was a chart on the BBC showing that Real were close to spending as much as either PSG or City did this season in one window, 8 fecking years ago. But no, when Real do it that's ok of course. Cnuts.

 

[Ecstatic]

Its been shown more than once in recent times that you don't need a billionaire to compete. Thats where the PSG / City fans arguments fall down. Its not Utd or Bayern that this challenges but teams like Arsenal / Liverpool / Spurs and Monaco.

Well, I don't think Arsenal/Liverpool/Spurs have needed PSG/City to preserve their capacity not to win major trophies

Don't think Qatar and UAE are gonna side up anytime soon to be honest!

Was thinking the same thing! The clubs will tackle this independently of each other for sure.

I know it's veering off topic but regarding the political situation between the two, I happen to think Qatar has been dealt a pretty shitty hand by Abu Dhabi and the UAE. Siding with Saudi against Qatar for the reasons given smacks of a pot, kettle, and black scenario.

I think so. It won't be a good idea to make an alliance: the message will be very badly perceived "We, the exotic investors, want to defy the European Establishment".

Also, Emirates - the current sponsor of PSG (25 millions a year only against 50-60 millions for the other big clubs) - will be replaced by another one for sure when the sponsoring contract expires.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Fecking Spanish hypocrites. There was a chart on the BBC showing that Real were close to spending as much as either PSG or City did this season in one window, 8 fecking years ago. But no, when Real do it that's ok of course. Cnuts.

Pretty sure they did that with a massive bank loan too which has now been outlawed under FFP IIRC.

 

[Kentonio]

Pretty sure they did that with a massive bank loan too which has now been outlawed under FFP IIRC.

Wasn't there something years ago too about them running up loads of debts and then selling a training ground to the local council for a vastly overinflated price (which was then of course rented straight back at a nominal fee)? Can't remember details, but have a vague memory of that story going around years back.

 

[cyberman]

@Ecstatic
Well City did finish in the top 4 last year which relegated Arsenal to the EL and brought on a nightmare of a summer.
Lets be honest, PSG and City have been taken over for a while and both have hilariously underperformed since then. All you've done is raise transfer fees for everybody else.
Listening to their fans you would think they had broken the evil monopoly of a chosen few.
Since your takeovers lesser sides have built better teams yet we still hear crap about oil money being a necessary evil

 

[M18CTID]

@Ecstatic
Well City did finish in the top 4 last year which relegated Arsenal to the EL and brought on a nightmare of a summer.
Lets be honest, PSG and City have been taken over for a while and both have hilariously underperformed since then. All you've done is raise transfer fees for everybody else.
Listening to their fans you would think they had broken the evil monopoly of a chosen few.
Since your takeovers lesser sides have built better teams yet we still hear crap about oil money being a necessary evil

There's no denying that City's money has enabled us to leapfrog Arsenal - only an idiot would claim otherwise - but blaming all Arsenal's problems on City is way off beam. There's plenty of threads on here about Arsenal's issues and few, if any, posters are laying the blame at City's door.

It's not City's fault that Arsenal choose not to spend money they have year on year to the point that these days they have a lower net spend than Bournemouth.
It's not City's fault that Arsenal have failed to learn from past mistakes and routinely allow the contracts of their best players to run down into their final year.
It's not City's fault that Wenger is effectively in cahoots with a board that won't go that extra mile in spending the kind of money that will give them a serious chance of having a tilt at the title.
It's not City's fault that Arsenal fans are rinsed to the point that they're paying the highest season ticket prices in world football to be promised year on year that they have the money to compete in the transfer market, only for that promise never to materialise and to end up finishing runners-up to Swansea in the lowest net spend table
It's not City's fault that Silent Stan takes circa £3m out of the club each year in dividends for the sum total of doing jack shit
It's not City's fault that Ivan Gazidis pulls in a £2m+ annual salary and doesn't do anything like enough to justify it. In fact, scrap that last one as it could be argued that is our fault - Ivan Gazidis is a City fan

No doubt what happened at Arsenal in the summer was a shit show but they knew of City's interest in Sanchez for months, and seemingly baulked at paying £40 million less for Lemar in July than they bid for him on deadline day. They could've flogged Sanchez long before they accepted our bid, got Lemar for a more reasonable fee, made more money as a result, and had a squad that was far better prepared for the season. For once, not selling a star player to a rival was completely and utterly the wrong call.

 

[Manny]

Its funny watching La Liga loose their sh!t the first time it effects them when you consider United have had to suck this up for years, first with Chelsea and then City.

Its certainly cost us a couple of league titles.

 

[marukomu]

Racist, they are from Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

No wonder they hate United.

 

[RoyH1]

Wasn't there something years ago too about them running up loads of debts and then selling a training ground to the local council for a vastly overinflated price (which was then of course rented straight back at a nominal fee)? Can't remember details, but have a vague memory of that story going around years back.

No. That's part of the black legend that people keep repeating on Real Madrid ad nauseaum.

They did indeed have a large debt and changed the land use and sold their old training grounds known as the Ciudad Deportiva to the city of Madrid. This land is now some of the most prized business real estate in Madrid and the city is doing pretty well on it as far as I can tell. RM then bought land outside Madrid proper in Valdedebas.

There was indeed an EU investigation that found some disparities in the value of the land sale. These arise from the differences between market price and the cadastral value range of the land. The difference adjusted inflation and the money that the EU asked Madrid to pay the city, is a whopping, absolutely astonishing 18.4 million euros.

So roughly around the price of a Kevin Wimmer or Oliver Burke.

 

[Ecstatic]

@Ecstatic
Well City did finish in the top 4 last year which relegated Arsenal to the EL and brought on a nightmare of a summer.

Arsenal participated in the champions league in 20 consecutive years. City is in since the early 2010s. It would me more accurate to say Manchester United relegated Arsenal to the EL!

Arsenal shareholders are smart: they have probably received high and stable dividends over the last decade. Wenger is the right coach for them to have good results without massive investments. That said, they should always sell their players before they reach the final year of contract or renew their contracts in advance.

Nightmare of a summer? I just think they had a usual summer in line with the board policy. The context has just changed:

1. The sellers are more demanding: inflation, an old phenomenon. Inflation driver #1 is the the TV rights.
2. Arsenal doesn't play the Champions League
3. Arsenal isn't the ultimate dream team
4. Arsenal is known for being a club that doesn't target big stars and prefers young players to be developed. Short-term results are an option, not a priority. Not really attractive.

Of course, you can blame City for the Arsenal performances at the European stage that was generally kicked out by Bayern.

@Ecstatic
Lets be honest, PSG and City have been taken over for a while and both have hilariously underperformed since then. All you've done is raise transfer fees for everybody else.
Listening to their fans you would think they had broken the evil monopoly of a chosen few.
Since your takeovers lesser sides have built better teams yet we still hear crap about oil money being a necessary evil

Sure, City was very disappointing last year despite massive investments last season and a new coach: results and style of play. When the full-backs are the old Clichy and Sagna...

PSG won the Coupe de France and the Coupe de la Ligue. Start of the season disappointing with a new coach: we lost points very early in the season. Then, PSG had usual results in the league but we have to say Monaco was very high-performing from A to Z. Champions League? 1 catastrophic game away in Barcelona. To sum up my views, PSG made 2 mistakes last season:

- to lose our 1st game away in Monaco with Verratti as a #10 (Emery thought Verratti was Xavi at the start of the season). This result has boosted Monaco
- Barcelona vs PSG (2nd leg) of course

A learning curve isn't linear. Between 2014 and 2016: 3 trophies per season. 2017: 2 trophies.

Also, look at the PSG's mercato during the the summer 2016. Net spend? Inferior to 5 millions of euros (depending the bonuses)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016–17_Paris_Saint-Germain_F.C._season

SUMMER 2016

IN ---- 62 millions spent

Jésé 25 millions
Krychowiak 30 millions
Meunir 7 millions
Ben Arfa for free

OUT ----- 59 millions received

Zlatan for free
David Luiz for 39 millions
Lucas digne 20 millions

-----------

Draxler (34 millions), Lo Celso (15) and Guedes (30) joined the club in January 2017 because the start was disappointing.

@Ecstatic
All you've done is raise transfer fees for everybody else.

I know that PSG has created a new trend in economics called "inflation".

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/every-record-breaking-transfer-since-1992.431202/

 

[Kentonio]

No. That's part of the black legend that people keep repeating on Real Madrid ad nauseaum.

They did indeed have a large debt and changed the land use and sold their old training grounds known as the Ciudad Deportiva to the city of Madrid. This land is now some of the most prized business real estate in Madrid and the city is doing pretty well on it as far as I can tell. RM then bought land outside Madrid proper in Valdedebas.

There was indeed an EU investigation that found some disparities in the value of the land sale. These arise from the differences between market price and the cadastral value range of the land. The difference adjusted inflation and the money that the EU asked Madrid to pay the city, is a whopping, absolutely astonishing 18.4 million euros.

So roughly around the price of a Kevin Wimmer or Oliver Burke.

That was from 1998, when 18.4m would have got you a lot. Also weren't they operating as a non-profit for about 20 years until the EU investigation?

 

[Born2Lose]

That was from 1998, when 18.4m would have got you a lot. Also weren't they operating as a non-profit for about 20 years until the EU investigation?

Lessons on morality from a Chelsea fan, seriously?

 

[M18CTID]

Lessons on morality from a Chelsea fan, seriously?

I can't speak for Kentonio but I'm quite sure he's not waving his moral compass around and is merely pointing out the laughable hypocrisy of Tebas's comments

 

[carvajal]

I have to be honest: I hate the "plastic clubs" and the "nothing clubs" because I prefer "real clubs" with a long history like United founded in 1878. I particularly hate new clubs established in new plastic cities (Paris) that have discovered football in 2011 or recently founded ones like City in 1880.

Let's be clear, we need to save the "real clubs" for many reasons, the main one is they deserve and should be guaranteed to win the same trophies ad vitam ad aeternam. I don't have the time to explain my views but I also think Barcelona and Bayern should be automatically qualified for the semi-finals of the champions league.

Indeed, City and PSG have become a global threat for world football since they were acquired by Arabs >>> they won 0 champions league >>> Consequently, they are about to win 15 champions league in a row in the short run. France won 2 trophies at the European level: the Champions League in 93 (Marseille) and the Cup of Cup in 1996 (Paris). France ruling Europe has become a new reality: the 1st time since Napoleon.

I don't know if it's because I live outside Europe but it doesn't make sense to have a super club in France. Please don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Foreign investors, especially American ones. I just mean it's weird to see PSG in a position to acquire more than 500 players a year!!! A new reality is the upcoming scarcity of players for clubs like Real Madrid who are not attractive to buy or produce the best local talents.

I hate "financial doping": in real life, it's impossible to see shareholders/business men/private companies investing money to develop a business In the history of the sport we love, rich clubs have never existed. It's really a new phenomenon. Moreover, we all know an expensive player is always excellent and that a team comprised of 11 superstars always win everything.

Another issue is that inflation is a new phenomenon: the players used to be cheap and very stable over a long period of time.

We live in a dangerous world and it's important nowadays to have a minimum of certainty: we need stability.

The Past - Champions League Winners

2013 - Bayern Munchen
2014 - Real Madrid
2015 - Barcelona
2016 - Real Madrid
2017 - Real Madrid

My Dream future

2018 - Bayern Munchen
2019 - Barcelona
2020 - Real Madrid
2021 - United
2022 - Bayern Munchen
2023 - Barcelona
2024 - Manchester United
2025 - Bayern Munchen
2026 - Real Madrid
2027- Real Madrid

I have nothing against City or PSG: I just think they deserved to be banned from the Champions League for 5-6 years so that they will become once again inoffensive plastic clubs as it did before.

Please be careful, I also want more competition and have new ideas. I think the real clubs should have the right to present a 2nd team at the highest level. Imagine the following QF of the Champions League. I would pay to see these new games.

QF 1 - Real Madrid A Vs Barcelona B
QF 2 - Atletico Vs Bayern
QF 3 - United Vs Barcelona A
QF 4 - Real Madrid B Vs Juventus

My suggestion is the plastic clubs create their own plastic league, and the winner has the right to play a friendly at the end of the season against a real team that plays in real life.

NBA is very inspiring: why don't we implement a salary cap? We don't see small clubs, so let's put an end to the old-fashioned relegation battles.

My 2 cents

I think nobody has problems with Paris or PSG winning the Champions league.
Probably if the team could grow slowly the neutral fans would appreciate them more and there are certain boredom with the C.L format,so I don't think fans want to see always the same winners.
The average football fan won't check PSG accounting but will think: United,Madrid and Barcelona are the richest clubs in the world.Paying around 100m€ for Pogba and Bale created a public debate about fans and media. Can any of these teams pay whenever they want 220m€ for a player +60 a year?(I guess that It would be 30m net in France?) or can they 2 weeks later undertake another transfer for 180m?.
A fan could think that something is wrong or dodgy.
Personally I thought that after Neymar they would sell Draxler,Di María or even Marquinhos but they even didn't need to do that.
And the problem is not about a limitation for shareholders or the freedom to invest,but the State of Qatar with unlimited funds,which is not exactly the same.

 

[Ecstatic]

I think nobody has problems with Paris or PSG winning the Champions league.
Probably if the team could grow slowly the neutral fans would appreciate them more and there are certain boredom with the C.L format,so I don't think fans want to see always the same winners.
The average football fan won't check PSG accounting but will think: United,Madrid and Barcelona are the richest clubs in the world.Paying around 100m€ for Pogba and Bale created a public debate about fans and media. Can any of these teams pay whenever they want 220m€ for a player +60 a year?(I guess that It would be 30m net in France?) or can they 2 weeks later undertake another transfer for 180m?.
A fan could think that something is wrong or dodgy.
Personally I thought that after Neymar they would sell Draxler,Di María or even Marquinhos but they even didn't need to do that.
And the problem is not about a limitation for shareholders or the freedom to invest,but the State of Qatar with unlimited funds,which is not exactly the same.

PSG shareholders = Qatar.

Sure, PSG has made crazy acquisitions, which are not meaningless.

Also, some fans think PSG will make very crazy acquisitions each year, which is wrong because PSG can't gather a large number of players and they always keep their best players under contracts... and the subs well-paid sometimes prefer to be on the bench rather than playing elsewhere.

Summer 2011: the most expensive player was Pastore for 42 millions ------------ still part of the squad
Summer 2012: the most expensive player was Thiago silva for 42 millions------------ still part of the squad
Summer 2013: the most expensive player was Cavani for 63 millions (release clause)------------ still part of the squad
Summer 2014: the most expensive player was David Luiz for 45 millions >>>>>>> sold 2 years later for 40 millions.
Summer 2015: the most expensive player was Di Maria for 63 millions ------------ still part of the squad
Summer 2016: the net spend was inferior to 10 millions. the most expensive player was Krychoviak for 30-35 millions >>>>>>> loaned with the idea to sell him next year
Summer 2017: Mbappe + Neymar = 400 millions

The club already said it would sell some players by the end of the season to comply with FFP. Next year will be less crazy IMO because the club knows they can't do that 2 consecutive seasons (FFP pressure). This mercato was about long-term acquisitions:

- Neymar 25 is a special case
- M'bappé is just 18: the gamble is he will shine in the next 7-10 years.

Summer 2018: the target will be a defensive midfielder like Fabinho or Danilo (say 60 millions). No other expected major acquisition IMO. 3-4 players will be sold at least.

From a financial perspective, impossible to have a return on investments in the short run. The idea for the owners (long-term investors) is to develop a brand: who knows the market value of the club in 2030? Maybe, the next step in the business plan would be to have a different strategy once they would have won the Champions League... and transform PSG into a cash cow asset...

Last but not least, the club was acquired in 2011 for....around 50 millions. I'm not sure the owners will lose money if they sell the club in 2035....

To sum up, I'm not saying it's good or bad: I just believe it was an opportunistic mercato.

 

[RoyH1]

That was from 1998, when 18.4m would have got you a lot. Also weren't they operating as a non-profit for about 20 years until the EU investigation?

No, the 18.4 is what the EU wants them to give now in 2016. The settlement to compensate for the absence of the transfer was based on a re-evaluation of that land at a value of €22.7 million, instead of the 1998 value of €595 000. The Commission investigation showed that Real Madrid was entitled to compensation of €4.3 million, so that Real Madrid obtained an advantage of €18.4 million. And Real Madrid has appealed that.

Yes, Madrid and 7 other clubs (those owned by the "socios" or members) paid 5% less in tax than privately owned clubs due to the Spanish legislation on taxation of societies. Spain has in the meantime adjusted its legislation on corporate taxation to end this discriminatory treatment effective as of January 2016. To remove the undue advantage received in the past, the clubs now have to return the unpaid taxes. Based on available information the Commission estimates that the amounts that need to be recovered are limited (€0-5 million per club) and will take place soon.

 

[Americano]

Deliciously funny.

When will CONMEBOL, the Brazilian FA, or the Argentinian FA, call for an investigation into the "financial doping" that has taken their greatest young players off to Europe? They lost their greatest prizes for a) the cost of some hormone injections and b) the greatest financial fraud in transfer history.

That's Barcelona's transfer legacy.

 

[RoyH1]

And the problem is not about a limitation for shareholders or the freedom to invest,but the State of Qatar with unlimited funds,which is not exactly the same.

I think it's the last point that many have a problem with. It's the almost unlimited wealth that a State has which makes this so controversial. If PSG was owned lets' say by Bernard Arnault, and he wanted to squander almost half a billion euros on just 2 football players there would be less outcry.

 

[Adisa]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[BBRBB]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Some MEPs are bitter fans of Barca and Real?

 

[Hojoon]

I'm pretty sure UEFA don't really care about money coming into football.

The opposite I think, UEFA (and pretty much every governing body) would love more interest and investment coming in. The whole point of FFP is to prevent situations like Portsmouth and Rangers occuring, what's happening now is the definition of taking advantage by established powers.

 

[Inter Yer Nan]

why does, what you call, financial doping have to stop?

It's madness that people are actually in favor of these huge investments. Ok, well I think rather than creating new, interesting competition as PSG and City fans try to point out it really doesn't. I'd say it rather kills competition and is completely designed to do so. It also has a trickle on affect of inflating wages, transfer fee's etc; which means most teams simply can't keep up even if they do the right things (recruitment, coaching, balancing the books legitimately etc. PSG have had it easier in France than City have in England because there's tons of TV money in England, but it's fair game if the money is legit and not state funded oil money. City are a average club in no way should they be able to use clubs like Arsenal as a feeder club of sorts. Also, if more and more clubs did it it would totally kill youth development. After all, we've been hearing for years and years how great City's academy is and how talented the young players are yet we seldom ever see them.

There's so many reasons why financial doping is bad and everyone can see it bar a few fan bases for selfish reasons.

Spanish TV has been a joke for a while and when you see the financial difference getting bigger and bigger between the "big two" and the rest of the league it's harder for everyone else to even keep up without selling their players for cheap (since they have small release clauses) at least in England the TV money is vast so the clubs can make money. Atletico have done great to keep up, but title wins like Depor, Valencia's two and the near miss of Sociedad and Sevilla are so unlikely because of the financial state. Not sure why La Liga was so opposed to that type of competition. Oil owners are trying to make that happen on a way larger scale.

 

[Ecstatic]

It's madness that people are actually in favor of these huge investments.

These clubs fuel the football business and inject a lot of money in the system. Rennes earned 30 millions this summer thanks to the transfer of Dembélé, Dortmund around 100 millions. Barcelona acquired some players and could have spent 100 millions more.

Napoli is still very competitive despite PSG spending around 100 millions to acquire Lavezzi and Cavani.

. I'd say it rather kills competition and is completely designed to do so. .

How many Champions League trophies have City & PSG won in their history? Who were champions in France and England last season? The reality doesn't match your imagination.

. City are a average club in no way should they be able to use clubs like Arsenal as a feeder club of sorts.

You have decided that City, established in 1880, hasn't the right to recruit Arsenal players.

.Also, if more and more clubs did it it would totally kill youth development.

Youth development no longer exists in South-America because of the European clubs that have always recruited the best local talents.

All the academies are closed there nowadays: football is no longer a popular football

.
There's so many reasons why financial doping is bad and everyone can see it bar a few fan bases for selfish reasons.

Indeed, some fans of these so-called "traditional clubs" are generally selfish. You know, the Champions League trophy should belong to this small circle of "real clubs".

Instead of welcoming new challengers, they want to maintain the status quo

As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to see a club like Monaco capable to challenge Paris.

 

[The red panther]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Imo the answer to all 3 questions is yes:

• Loaning Mbappé with obligation to buy him for 180m next year is just cooking your books and bending the rules to avoid FFP regulations. PSG doesn't have the revenue to afford spending this much money means they should not be able to buy him until the time they do have the revenue, the loan to buy construct clearly is designed to circumvent this basic principal.
• If the commission would allow such constructs it creates a major precedent for other clubs to also start doing this and spend much more on transfers than they make in revenue as they can defer the actual spending.
• If a football club is owned by governments or is owned by agencies that have strong ties with governments this does create a precedent for unfair competition as they can take advantage of public subsidies.

The question is what will the commission and UEFA do about it ?

If they had balls they would:
-Cancel Mbappé loan deal, so he has to go back to his owner club which is monaco
-Count Neymar's transfer price for 100% as expenditure for PSG, limiting the clubs future ability to spend more money
-Fine PSG millions for trying to cheat FFP
-Exclude PSG for next year's CL season
-Disallow ownership constructions like the current one that PSG and City have and put a 1 year transitional period where these clubs can change ownership structure (to be in line with new regulations) or risk being suspended from UEFA and all UEFA linked competitions (including ligue 1 and PL)


New regulation:
-loan with obligation to buy is a forbidden construct with retrospective repercutions
-european football clubs that want to play in UEFA can not be owned by governmental organisations or other organisations that have strong ties to governmental organisations

Message they would send is that if you try to cheat our regulations we will rain down upon you like the hammer of god !

 

[carvajal]

Indeed, some fans of these so-called "traditional clubs" are generally selfish. You know, the Champions League trophy should belong to this small circle of "real clubs".

Instead of welcoming new challengers, they want to maintain the status quo

As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to see a club like Monaco capable to challenge Paris.

Of course we don´t want new challengers. Nobody is going to applaude more competition. The victimhood doesn´t change the fact that it´s a state funding a club. What if Iran or Russia tomorrow decide tomorrow to buy Aston Villa?

 

[el magico]

Imo the answer to all 3 questions is yes:

• Loaning Mbappé with obligation to buy him for 180m next year is just cooking your books and bending the rules to avoid FFP regulations. PSG doesn't have the revenue to afford spending this much money means they should not be able to buy him until the time they do have the revenue, the loan to buy construct clearly is designed to circumvent this basic principal.
• If the commission would allow such constructs it creates a major precedent for other clubs to also start doing this and spend much more on transfers than they make in revenue as they can defer the actual spending.
• If a football club is owned by governments or is owned by agencies that have strong ties with governments this does create a precedent for unfair competition as they can take advantage of public subsidies.

The question is what will the commission and UEFA do about it ?

If they had balls they would:
-Cancel Mbappé loan deal, so he has to go back to his owner club which is monaco
-Count Neymar's transfer price for 100% as expenditure for PSG, limiting the clubs future ability to spend more money
-Fine PSG millions for trying to cheat FFP
-Exclude PSG for next year's CL season
-Disallow ownership constructions like the current one that PSG and City have and put a 1 year transitional period where these clubs can change ownership structure (to be in line with new regulations) or risk being suspended from UEFA and all UEFA linked competitions (including ligue 1 and PL)


New regulation:
-loan with obligation to buy is a forbidden construct with retrospective repercutions
-european football clubs that want to play in UEFA can not be owned by governmental organisations or other organisations that have strong ties to governmental organisations

Message they would send is that if you try to cheat our regulations we will rain down upon you like the hammer of god !

Manchester City are owned by the City Football Group, that in turn is owned by a private equity fund which has Sheikh Mansour as its owner (with the Chinese investors). Good luck with proving a connection to a state.

Should there be rules for owners that load clubs with debt and use them as a short-term source of income?

 

[Inter Yer Nan]

These clubs fuel the football business and inject a lot of money in the system. Rennes earned 30 millions this summer thanks to the transfer of Dembélé, Dortmund around 100 millions. Barcelona acquired some players and could have spent 100 millions more.

Napoli is still very competitive despite PSG spending around 100 millions to acquire Lavezzi and Cavani.

True, but it still over inflates the market which hurts more clubs than it benefits.

How many Champions League trophies have City & PSG won in their history? Who were champions in France and England last season? The reality doesn't match your imagination.

Chelsea, who also had a sugar daddy who spent obscene money (compared to the field) to establish them as a top club.


You have decided that City, established in 1880, hasn't the right to recruit Arsenal players.

Yes, if the funds are coming from dodgy sources and not from years of hard work and doing the right things.

Youth development no longer exists in South-America because of the European clubs that have always recruited the best local talents.

All the academies are closed there nowadays: football is no longer a popular football

True, and these Oil clubs are killing the Euro academies slowly.

Indeed, some fans of these so-called "traditional clubs" are generally selfish. You know, the Champions League trophy should belong to this small circle of "real clubs".

Instead of welcoming new challengers, they want to maintain the status quo

Not exactly. I think plenty would be happy to see an Atletico for example win out of respect for them as a club and having not won the Oil lottery. Many were happy when Leicester won the league, nobody gave a shit when City did.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to see a club like Monaco capable to challenge Paris.

 

[The red panther]

Manchester City are owned by the City Football Group, that in turn is owned by a private equity fund which has Sheikh Mansour as its owner (with the Chinese investors). Good luck with proving a connection to a state.

Should there be rules for owners that load clubs with debt and use them as a short-term source of income?

It is not hard at all

Sheikh Mansour is the owner of Abu Dhabi United Group for Development and Investment which is the parent company City Football Group which is the owner of Manchester City football club. Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan bin Zayed bin Khalifa Al Nahyan is also the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, minister of presidential affairs and member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi. He is the half brother of the current President of UAE, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

I don't know how a connection to the state of UAE could be any clearer.

Your club is just owned by an investment firm with very strong ties to the UAE government

 

[Inter Yer Nan]

It is not hard at all

Sheikh Mansour is the owner of Abu Dhabi United Group for Development and Investment which is the parent company City Football Group which is the owner of Manchester City football club. Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan bin Zayed bin Khalifa Al Nahyan is also the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, minister of presidential affairs and member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi. He is the half brother of the current President of UAE, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

I don't know how a connection to the state of UAE could be any clearer.

Your club is just owned by an investment firm with very strong ties to the UAE government

Yeah, City fans acting like they didn't win the lottery or get help is laughable. I swear that most of them just believe they were on the way to be a player and win multiple leagues and a tiny bit of help and they made it.

 

[RoyH1]

I find the mental acrobatics the fans of sugar daddy clubs use to justify the huge state funded investments, utterly amusing.

 

[Inter Yer Nan]

I find the mental acrobatics the fans of sugar daddy clubs use to justify the huge state funded investments, utterly amusing.

Yeah. You really can't make it up. Unbelievable stuff.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Of course we don´t want new challengers. Nobody is going to applaude more competition. The victimhood doesn´t change the fact that it´s a state funding a club. What if Iran or Russia tomorrow decide tomorrow to buy Aston Villa?

They would still be sh*t

 

[el magico]

It is not hard at all

Sheikh Mansour is the owner of Abu Dhabi United Group for Development and Investment which is the parent company City Football Group which is the owner of Manchester City football club. Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan bin Zayed bin Khalifa Al Nahyan is also the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, minister of presidential affairs and member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi. He is the half brother of the current President of UAE, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

I don't know how a connection to the state of UAE could be any clearer.

Your club is just owned by an investment firm with very strong ties to the UAE government

Your last sentence is clearly correct but if you are going to have a rule that prohibits ownership from a state one would assume that you (ie Uefa) are in a position to prove in a court of law that the two entities are legally connected (in this case the private ownership of the ADG and the state of Abu Dhabi). I would wager a small sum that there is no legal connection between the two entities, what Mansour does with his own companies can be seen to be separate from his role in government, making your proposed rule irrelevant to Man City. That was my point, nothing more nothing less.

Comments 593/594 were irrelevant to the point I was making. As mentioned on numerous occasions every single City fans understands the good fortune we have received in having an owner that invests in the club rather than leeches money.

 

[AXVnee7]

Indeed, some fans of these so-called "traditional clubs" are generally selfish. You know, the Champions League trophy should belong to this small circle of "real clubs".

Instead of welcoming new challengers, they want to maintain the status quo

As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to see a club like Monaco capable to challenge Paris.

I don't think it's that new clubs aren't welcome, it's that they should have to earn their way into the circle instead of buying their way in.

 

[duffer]

I don't think it's that new clubs aren't welcome, it's that they should have to earn their way into the circle instead of buying their way in.

Who was the last club to do that?

 

[AXVnee7]

Who was the last club to do that?

Not Chelsea