Oil Money in Football | New City expose

jontheblue

Full Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
233
Supports
MCFC
JohnnyKills said:
That's the real cost of the oil money: great clubs like Barca being pushed towards bankruptcy by clubs that have contributed nothing to the history of the sport.
Click to expand...
Yep, Barca who prior to the oil money were always run with such great financial diligence, never needing bank loans, state subsidies or the state to write off their tax bills in order to survive

Plus, are you seriously on one hand suggesting sympathy for Barca because of the money City & PSG have put into the game when it's the country where the clubs get individual bargaining power so the top two dominate from getting far more tV money than all the other clubs in that league put together

Wow..........................
 

CA1

New Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
1,894
Nobody likes the rules that impede them.

Would the City fans be against the prohibiting of state owned football clubs?

The fact they are allowed is protecting City and PSG and punishing those that aren't. If City fans want a fair playing field, they would agree to prohibit state owned football teams. City fans don't like rules that their club falls foul of.

Football is a game and at the heart of every game there are a series of made up rules that accompany them. It's tough shit I'm afraid. The courts won't do anything about it, football is a made up game.

The courts will frown upon the fact City tried to play along, accepted past discrecions and agreed deals with UEFA.

If they'd come out as soon as it was made and fought it, they would have more of a chance.
 

b20times

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
335
Not this again. Why waste column inches, nothing will get done. It's just regurgitated rubbish as they are way ahead of anyone else and if this was half as true as some are making then man city would have been hung, drawn and quartered by now.
Not for me.
 

Dr. StrangeHate

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
5,563
ianw16 said:
It is a protectionist rule, and I couldn't care less how City got around it. It had nothing whatever to do with preventing another Portsmouth or Leeds scenario. It was a bent rule to protect the elite. As Platini has essentially admitted. Therefore I don't care what my club had to do to circumvent it. We'll see how keen UEFA are to investigate this. My bet is that they will do everything possible to ignore it. Infantino was one of the brokers of the deal that saw City given a slap on the wrist initially.
It was OK for Chelsea to spend their way into the elite, but when City did the same thing, Chelsea were one of the ones backing FFP, because they'd already done the initial spend, and were then in a situation to comply! I doubt you'll find any City fans losing sleep over what the club did or didn't do, nor over what UEFA will respond with. Particularly when the people making the biggest noise about this are La Liga and Bayern! Remember, La Liga hosted two clubs who were essentially government funded, and were getting dodgy deals that saved them millions. And one of the initial whiners about the need for FFP was Berlusconi!
Click to expand...
No one is forcing City to follow the rules. City can do whatever they want and just withdraw themselves from UEFA competitions. UEFA created the competition, they can invite who they want and make whatever rules they want. Same with the Football World Cup or any other competition.
 

ROFLUTION

Full Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
7,752
Location
Denmark
marukomu said:
Football is boring now but it would be pretty interesting to see what would happen if everyone refused to play City.
Click to expand...
Its really the only option normal clubs have to beat City and PSG long term. It'd take something like when the workers union started.

Liverpool fans and maybe Spurs fans too should be pissed off from the title(s) they could have won.
 

OldSchoolManc

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
2,810
If the owners of City pulled out right now, how would the club be able to support the current wage bill?
They would be up shit creek without a paddle. They are being propped up, way beyond their worth. They don’t even own the stadium they play in.
How they can get planning permission to extend capacity on a council owned property, when they can’t get anywhere near filling it now, baffles me. Lots of corrupt council leaders.
 

WensleyMU

New Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2018
Messages
1,664
ianw16 said:
Correct. They get a ban and it ends up in court. With a case that UEFA know damn well they have a fair chance of losing. And will cost them squillions to defend. All because they tried to introduce a 'rule' designed to protect a handful of self-entitled clubs who could see their place at the top table being threatened.
Click to expand...
On what grounds do you think City would challenge it?

By arguing they were actually compliant? Unlikely seeing as that would involve in depth analysis of City's accounts. Corrupt organisations such as City don't want people looking at their accounts.

By arguing the rules were unfair? Well, maybe but UEFAs competitions are by conditional invitation. it's unlikely City would win this one because of the implications it would bring. The FFP regulations are agreed by all, just as the rule to have 11 players, and the legal requirements for ground standards are all conditions of entry to UEFA and almost all nations FA competitions.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
21,444
ianw16 said:
It is a protectionist rule, and I couldn't care less how City got around it. It had nothing whatever to do with preventing another Portsmouth or Leeds scenario. It was a bent rule to protect the elite. As Platini has essentially admitted. Therefore I don't care what my club had to do to circumvent it. We'll see how keen UEFA are to investigate this. My bet is that they will do everything possible to ignore it. Infantino was one of the brokers of the deal that saw City given a slap on the wrist initially.
It was OK for Chelsea to spend their way into the elite, but when City did the same thing, Chelsea were one of the ones backing FFP, because they'd already done the initial spend, and were then in a situation to comply! I doubt you'll find any City fans losing sleep over what the club did or didn't do, nor over what UEFA will respond with. Particularly when the people making the biggest noise about this are La Liga and Bayern! Remember, La Liga hosted two clubs who were essentially government funded, and were getting dodgy deals that saved them millions. And one of the initial whiners about the need for FFP was Berlusconi!
Click to expand...
Whatever the motivation behind the introduction of the rules were originally, it has had a positive effect on football with any club wishing to enter European football having to get their finances in order. Other leagues like the Premier League, Championship and others have followed suit.

As for some City fans still complaining about FFP, to be honest i'm a bit baffled by that. FFP hasn't stopped City spending more than any other club on the planet in the last decade, it hasn't stopped them assembling an excellent squad with top players in every position and it hasn't stopped them winning league titles. What is there to complain about really?

I'm sure if you had offered any long term City fan the clubs current situation 15-20 years ago, i'm positive 100% of those asked would have been delighted.
 

Hughie77

Full Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
4,226
As read concrete case, they have said so we will see what happens, everyone with a pair of eyes , ears could see and hear what's been going on in last few years.
How can a club with no money not pot to piss in 10yrs ago, buy buy buy? Even after ffp still buy buy buy even more, stinks .
Generate there own money is impossible. Psg along with city have to be dealt a heavy heavy blow.
 

Denis_unwise

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 5, 2018
Messages
150
OldSchoolManc said:
If the owners of City pulled out right now, how would the club be able to support the current wage bill?
They would be up shit creek without a paddle. They are being propped up, way beyond their worth. They don’t even own the stadium they play in.
How they can get planning permission to extend capacity on a council owned property, when they can’t get anywhere near filling it now, baffles me. Lots of corrupt council leaders.
Click to expand...
This stadium ownership issue seem's ludicrous to me. How can you be regarded as an elite level club when you don't own your own stadium.
I'm sure someone high up at Manchester Council quit to join the City payroll. This isn't a big deal in regards to the expansion. They will be all over it if someone else is footing the bill. It does get a little murkier though. Mansour is building lot's of expensive flats in the area which most locals can't afford. It put's paid to the media narrative that they are doing lot's for the local community.



WensleyMU said:
On what grounds do you think City would challenge it?

By arguing they were actually compliant? Unlikely seeing as that would involve in depth analysis of City's accounts. Corrupt organisations such as City don't want people looking at their accounts.
Click to expand...
Most City fan's used to say that their accounts are all above board as they are audited by independent accountants. You have to wonder what these accountants have been doing for the last few years. To miss the subterfuge that City have been involved in then they are either incompetent or in on the scam.
 

endless_wheelies

feeling dizzy
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
3,224
Jack - City Fan said:
I know, I am one. And what I was saying is that the rules are required to be tightly restrained and legal within the Framework of European Law.
There isn't always a legal case to be fought, many are immediately dismissed when there is found to be no case to be answered. But if you're suggesting that legal rules are always so undefined as to be able to be challenged for years and years on end, you're incorrect. This isn't a legal case based on facts where a claim can be put in and then the parties can spend months in discovery, so much as it would be a case of judicial review, that is how well the framework of the rules fit within the constraints defined by EU law. It might take a while for the court to get referred to the ECJ (Which is unlikely as they've already established jurisdiction over FFP in the case I previously linked in my post) but to suggest once it was there it would be held up for years and years is entirely incorrect.

Suggesting theres always a case to be fought is a fallacy, theres always a case to be fought when theres a reasonable dispute in the law, if theres a reasonable dispute in the law, it being brought before the courts isn't a bad thing as it resolves the dispute for the future, regardless of who wins.
Click to expand...
From a legal point of view then do Manchester City actually have a case to answer? Seems a little odd for UEFA to reopen a case with a bunch of oo look what barrstards they are emails as the revelational evidence.
 

Oly Francis

Full Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2018
Messages
3,944
Supports
PSG
So many flawed legal analysis without understanding basic contract or EU law, it's absurd... all of that driven by your wish to see City ejected from ECL.

I've read "we won't be able to win a PL title because of all of these clubs with oil money", start by finishing Liverpool, Arsenal or Everton and then complain about oil money clubs.

Of course City would have a serious legal case, any decent lawyer would tell you that, nobody really made a real move against FPF so far because it would cause a real mess for a while (with maybe a year or 2 of exclusion until the end of a potential trial) and in the end, FPF is a good thing. Just not the way it was built.
 

The Irish Connection

Full Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
2,470
Shady stuff.

So, it looks like city will get away with their fake sponsorship money trick. They’re on course to break last years record points total I heard.
 

AlecHDR

Angry, incoherent heterosexual slob
Joined
Jan 13, 2017
Messages
1,300
Oly Francis said:
So many flawed legal analysis without understanding basic contract or EU law, it's absurd... all of that driven by your wish to see City ejected from ECL.

I've read "we won't be able to win a PL title because of all of these clubs with oil money", start by finishing Liverpool, Arsenal or Everton and then complain about oil money clubs.

Of course City would have a serious legal case, any decent lawyer would tell you that, nobody really made a real move against FPF so far because it would cause a real mess for a while (with maybe a year or 2 of exclusion until the end of a potential trial) and in the end, FPF is a good thing. Just not the way it was built.
Click to expand...
A PSG fan coming to City's defense. :lol:
 

Oly Francis

Full Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2018
Messages
3,944
Supports
PSG
AlecHDR said:
A PSG fan coming to City's defense. :lol:
Click to expand...
I don't know what's funny about that, especially considering that I said I think we need FPF. I don't speak from a PSG fan point of view but as a lawyer.

Now if you don't think that it's useful to have actual arguments when stating that "there's no case" or "they just should have declined entering the ECL", it's your problem.
 

ianw16

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 7, 2018
Messages
7
Supports
Manchester City
WensleyMU said:
On what grounds do you think City would challenge it?
Click to expand...
https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-cont...40_18_Fair-or-foul-Part-1-and-Part-2-word.pdf

And it doesn't need to be City. Any club could challenge it. Girona, for example! We may have to lend them a legal team, but hey ho. No rules against that. It is a bent, transparent attempt to protect the previous top clubs. Run by crooks like Berlusconi.
Manchester City are not in debt. Unlike other clubs I could mention. If the owners left tomorrow, the profile of the club is now such that we would get other wealthy owners. Even if we didn't, we are not in debt, as mentioned. Now, if a very rich person dies tomorrow, and leaves £10 billion pounds to Aston Villa, why the hell shouldn't they be able to spend it? I'll tell you why - because a bunch of self-entitled clubs do not want the competition. That is all this is about.
 

CA1

New Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
1,894
ianw16 said:
https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-cont...40_18_Fair-or-foul-Part-1-and-Part-2-word.pdf

And it doesn't need to be City. Any club could challenge it. Girona, for example! We may have to lend them a legal team, but hey ho. No rules against that. It is a bent, transparent attempt to protect the previous top clubs. Run by crooks like Berlusconi.
Manchester City are not in debt. Unlike other clubs I could mention. If the owners left tomorrow, the profile of the club is now such that we would get other wealthy owners. Even if we didn't, we are not in debt, as mentioned. Now, if a very rich person dies tomorrow, and leaves £10 billion pounds to Aston Villa, why the hell shouldn't they be able to spend it? I'll tell you why - because a bunch of self-entitled clubs do not want the competition. That is all this is about.
Click to expand...
You'd be in massive debt if your owners left.

Not many owners could sustain the wages and costs that are present at City. The leaks prove you are not self sufficient, it proved you are million miles away.
 

antihenry

CAF GRU Rep
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
7,401
Location
Chelsea FC
ianw16 said:
https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-cont...40_18_Fair-or-foul-Part-1-and-Part-2-word.pdf

And it doesn't need to be City. Any club could challenge it. Girona, for example! We may have to lend them a legal team, but hey ho. No rules against that. It is a bent, transparent attempt to protect the previous top clubs. Run by crooks like Berlusconi.
Manchester City are not in debt. Unlike other clubs I could mention. If the owners left tomorrow, the profile of the club is now such that we would get other wealthy owners. Even if we didn't, we are not in debt, as mentioned. Now, if a very rich person dies tomorrow, and leaves £10 billion pounds to Aston Villa, why the hell shouldn't they be able to spend it? I'll tell you why - because a bunch of self-entitled clubs do not want the competition. That is all this is about.
Click to expand...
No, you wouldn't. Your whole infrastructure is intact as long as your owner keeps pumping his own money into it through massively overinflated commercial deals from Abu Dhabi based companies, not to mention a huge chunk of your expences being covered by City Football Group, all to create an illusion that City is a profitable business, when it clearly isn't and can't possibly be.
 

Oly Francis

Full Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2018
Messages
3,944
Supports
PSG
antihenry said:
No, you wouldn't. Your whole infrastructure is intact as long as your owner keeps pumping his own money into it through massively overinflated commercial deals from Abu Dhabi based companies, not to mention a huge chunk of your expences being covered by City Football Group, all to create an illusion that City is a profitable business, when it clearly isn't and can't possibly be.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's why FPF (in its principle) is, in the end, a good thing. But it should give a couple of years to news investors, if they provide financial garanties and legal undertakings, to spend money with less restriction, otherwise it's really unfair because a lot historical clubs got that big thanks to financial leeway in the past.
 

CA1

New Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
1,894
I'm not being harsh on City fans but you'd have to be thick or spineless to support them and their owners. They are rats.
 

Denis_unwise

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 5, 2018
Messages
150
ianw16 said:
Now, if a very rich person dies tomorrow, and leaves £10 billion pounds to Aston Villa, why the hell shouldn't they be able to spend it? I'll tell you why - because a bunch of self-entitled clubs do not want the competition. That is all this is about.
Click to expand...
If we didn't have FFP the PL would be more of a joke than it's already becoming. The French league has been destroyed as a contest due to PSG's profligacy. If City had been allowed to do the same you would have spent huge after your first title & likely retained the league. You would have likely dominated the league before Pep's arrival. As it is i think you have spent less than £100 Mill only once in the last 10 summer transfer windows. States should never have been allowed to own football clubs. The mistake was made to let them in. It would be a huge mistake to then allow them to spend whatever they like.
 

jontheblue

Full Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
233
Supports
MCFC
CA1 said:
I'm not being harsh on City fans but you'd have to be thick or spineless to support them and their owners. They are rats.
Click to expand...
You are being harsh and you do sound thick

What exactly are you suggesting city fans should have done when the club was sold to the arabs ? What are you suggesting they should do now ? What would you have done if they had bought United ?
 

AlecHDR

Angry, incoherent heterosexual slob
Joined
Jan 13, 2017
Messages
1,300
jontheblue said:
You are being harsh and you do sound thick

What exactly are you suggesting city fans should have done when the club was sold to the arabs ? What are you suggesting they should do now ? What would you have done if they had bought United ?
Click to expand...
I said in the Saudi takeover thread I would stop supporting United if the takeover goes through. I'm in no position to tell you or other city fans what to do, you can do whatever you want! I'm just saying that is what I would do.

I'm struggling to like football as it is these days. The fans' obsession with transfers, the lack of academy players making it to the first 11s especially in the PL, the big gaps between the top teams and others....a takeover by the freaking Saudis of the club I've always followed and supported would just be the 'icing on the cake'.
 

AlecHDR

Angry, incoherent heterosexual slob
Joined
Jan 13, 2017
Messages
1,300
Oly Francis said:
I don't know what's funny about that, especially considering that I said I think we need FPF. I don't speak from a PSG fan point of view but as a lawyer.

Now if you don't think that it's useful to have actual arguments when stating that "there's no case" or "they just should have declined entering the ECL", it's your problem.
Click to expand...
I think it is unfair to have one competition involving clubs who are trying to be sustainable and profitable and clubs with unlimited wealth who are always erasing their losses by external money.

PSG, City, and teams who go down that route are fine. I have no issues with them if they want to create their own competition. But to say it's fair that they get to compete with sustainable and profitable clubs is a joke.
 

CA1

New Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
1,894
jontheblue said:
You are being harsh and you do sound thick

What exactly are you suggesting city fans should have done when the club was sold to the arabs ? What are you suggesting they should do now ? What would you have done if they had bought United ?
Click to expand...
Have a look at The Saudi thread.
 

OldSchoolManc

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
2,810
AlecHDR said:
I said in the Saudi takeover thread I would stop supporting United if the takeover goes through. I'm in no position to tell you or other city fans what to do, you can do whatever you want! I'm just saying that is what I would do.

I'm struggling to like football as it is these days. The fans' obsession with transfers, the lack of academy players making it to the first 11s especially in the PL, the big gaps between the top teams and others....a takeover by the freaking Saudis of the club I've always followed and supported would just be the 'icing on the cake'.
Click to expand...
Excellent post. I’m in the same boat as you. The modern game tests my morals as it is. I hate the fact that we have some very dodgy sponsors.
The last straw, would be a takeover by The Saudis. I would be protesting at the ground and parliament to try and help stop it, but if it went through, that’s me done with the premier league.
 

jontheblue

Full Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
233
Supports
MCFC
OldSchoolManc said:
Excellent post. I’m in the same boat as you. The modern game tests my morals as it is. I hate the fact that we have some very dodgy sponsors.
The last straw, would be a takeover by The Saudis. I would be protesting at the ground and parliament to try and help stop it, but if it went through, that’s me done with the premier league.
Click to expand...
Neither of us know for sure but if push came to shove, I'd be amazed if anything more than a token minority took such action but would gladly eat my hat if they did. We will presumably find out soon enough - it would appear the recent khashoggi case put announcements back a little but once that dies down, I can't imagine it will be long
 

LilyWhiteSpur

New Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
12,370
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham
AlecHDR said:
I said in the Saudi takeover thread I would stop supporting United if the takeover goes through. I'm in no position to tell you or other city fans what to do, you can do whatever you want! I'm just saying that is what I would do.

I'm struggling to like football as it is these days. The fans' obsession with transfers, the lack of academy players making it to the first 11s especially in the PL, the big gaps between the top teams and others....a takeover by the freaking Saudis of the club I've always followed and supported would just be the 'icing on the cake'.
Click to expand...
Other than the mega rich owners the rest has been the same for the last decade at least.
 

AlecHDR

Angry, incoherent heterosexual slob
Joined
Jan 13, 2017
Messages
1,300
InLevyITrust said:
Other than the mega rich owners the rest has been the same for the last decade at least.
Click to expand...
I think it is getting worse. None of it is very new but the mega rich owners and the quickly increasing TV deals have pushed us into the extreme of the phenomena.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.