endless_wheelies
feeling dizzy
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2014
- Messages
- 3,224
Even as a United fan I have absolutely no problem with City's spending whatsoever.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.
How is Barcelona, Real Madrid, ourselves being able to outspend every club beneath us year after year a level playing field? Not only that, how is Barcelona, Real Madrid and ourselves being able to outspend those clubs INDEFINITELY fair as we prohibit the equalising investment from wealthy owners that bridge the gap? How does that encourage growth and competition within the game?
People on this forum whinge incessantly about Manchester City gaining an unfair advantage over us through their owners and ourselves being unable to compete with Manchester City's spending... bull. Even if they are diddling their accounts they still officially record their revenue as less than our own - we CAN outspend them, we SHOULD be outspending them, it's just that our unbelievably appalling owners choose to skim off the top for their own gain rather than investing what we earn. Whether Manchester City's owners are only at their club to improve their own image has no tangible impact on how they run the club - they are brilliant owners. We should be rising to meet them, not dragging them down.
There is an argument that mega-rich owners could ruin the game by simply outspending every other club that does not have a rich owner, but then you need to find a BALANCE to distinguish fair from unfair competition, and the current rules prohibiting any supplementary investment in the playing squad are so skewed on this scale it's unreal. A far fairer method would be that outside owners can spend an extra £100m per season up until their club starts making a certain amount of revenue, at which point it goes down to £75m, and incrementally so on. Saying they can't invest any of their money at all a la UEFA's FFP is abhorrent.