Gary_Walsh_Nou_Camp_Hell
Full Member
Love the delusion and paranoia of some City fans. They really think UEFA have a vendetta against them. They're the football equivalent of the flat earthers or anti-vacs idiots.
It would be a meaningless title for both us and Liverpool. Same as Inter getting that Scudetto a few years back. It will count and we'll say that we have 21 instead of 20 but it won't bring us joy or pride IMO.Imagine they retrospectively give us last year's title and then deduct points from them this season. We get a title but then so so Liverpool. Eurgh, I don't know how I feel about that.
Of course it matters. UEFA's position is not the same if they want to punish City based on fragmentary leaks in a newspaper compared to documentary evidence they have been able to obtain via their own investigations. The leaks themselves only tell half a story. They will have to have their own investigation confirm as fact any claims involved in the leaks. To confirm some of the stuff alluded to they'd need access to the books of the companies involved. Good luck to them if they plan on forcing companies like Aabar to disclose their books to them.It does not matter how they obtained the documents. It will be valid evidence at the end. If city want to sue the german paper, it is another thing.
Illegally obtained documents cannot be used in a court. UEFA might use them, so might CAS, but if it goes in a civil court, nah, they will be thrown away and the verdict will be made like they don't exist.It does not matter how they obtained the documents. It will be valid evidence at the end. If city want to sue the german paper, it is another thing.
Milan, Fiorentina in Serie A, and Juventus in Serie B. No idea if it happened in England.If they get a point deduction, it will likely apply from the start of next season, that is, they start from a negative.
I seem to remember that already happening to a club before.
Platini's numerous quotes on this topic (some posted by Bobby Manc earlier) directly contradict this. Prior to its first implementation the design of FFP evolved once the G14 got involved. And FFP wouldn't have prevented Portsmouth going bankrupt.It was the outside investment/financial doping that was causing clubs to go bankrupt either with the owner not having the money they say they have or leaving abruptly.
Financial Fair Play it is all in the name, it's about the financing of clubs and making sure its done in a sustainable manner which won't result in a Rangers or Portsmouth or more recently AC Milan type situation.
UEFA are actually usually quite favourable to City and PSG so its odd when this is seen as an attack on them. Actually FFP safeguards City as a club from its owners.
If they win the league from that position I would say ban every City fan from the forumIf they get a point deduction, it will likely apply from the start of next season, that is, they start from a negative.
I seem to remember that already happening to a club before.
You had better be right.If they get a point deduction, it will likely apply from the start of next season, that is, they start from a negative.
I seem to remember that already happening to a club before.
Didn't Portsmouth spend beyond their means? Exactly like City are doing now? You fail to realise that FFP are helping you, City fans, from suffering the same fate as the likes of Portsmouth so you should be thanking them that FFP are making your sugar daddies put everything in legally binding contracts so your club wont collapse without them, at least until the phoney contracts run out, but by that time you'd have enough time to sell off your most valuable assets and go back to being a less relevant club than Middlesbrough, because we all know that you wouldn't get the sponsorship your getting now without your owners.UEFA's FFP would have had no bearing on what happened to Portsmouth so yeah, nice try, but no. I've literally posted quotes from Platini who implemented the whole thing where he admits it was requested by owners like Abramovic because they didn't want to spend more money to compete with other sides, but no one seems to have bothered replying to that.
Oh wow, City have tried to curry favour with the press by indulging them in some fine dining what an unforgivable and heinous act, and surely we must have been the only club to have ever attempted to influence the press.Didn't Portsmouth spend beyond their means? Exactly like City are doing now? You fail to realise that FFP are helping you, City fans, from suffering the same fate as the likes of Portsmouth so you should be thanking them that FFP are making your sugar daddies put everything in legally binding contracts so your club wont collapse without them, at least until the phoney contracts run out, but by that time you'd have enough time to sell off your most valuable assets and go back to being a less relevant club than Middlesbrough, because we all know that you wouldn't get the sponsorship your getting now without your owners.
At least Chelsea fans on here joke about their owner etc, while you blindly follow them like sheep to slaughter, making excuses at each turn. Face it, your club is the face of an ugly organisation and the only reason why you're not getting ripped apart in the press more often is because money talks, you even shower the British press with food and wine, they've said as much.
Btw, the same Platini who has a relative working for PSG? Yeah I'd put as much weight into what that guy says as I do City fans claiming all their sponsorship is real and the fact that they can earn as much as United do and be so close to them in the Forbes list is legitimate.
Try smelling the crap you're spouting before putting it on here, you can't even convince yourself.
PSG is a top 5 shirt seller, just signed a top 3 shirt sponsorship with Accor starting next year and has the most expensive stadium seats in the world, always full. There's still a bit from Qatar but the club is increasingly self sufficient.It´s so obvious when you look at City and PSG what is happening there. There is not a chance in hell they are able to generate the income in the correct way to run those clubs. Chelsea were dealt with quite swiftly with the transfer ban that came out today but even a blind man can see that PSG for example buying Neymar,Mbappe and co must be doing something dodgy to make ends meet. It sure looks like City are doing similar things if the Spiegel reports are right. The french league tv rights have been purchased by a Chinese company starting in 2020 and that is 1,3bn and going up by 60%. So up until then where could PSG have gotten a big chunk of their revenue? It sure as hell is not coming from CL wins at least.
It will not reach a civil court, because the FFP is not a legal law rather than a football association regulation, even if it reaches the CAS, still can be used.Illegally obtained documents cannot be used in a court. UEFA might use them, so might CAS, but if it goes in a civil court, nah, they will be thrown away and the verdict will be made like they don't exist.
Of course, UEFA is free to do their own investigation, which probably won't be that hard considering that now they know what to look for.
I remember Chesterfield got hit with a mid-season 9 point deduction in 2001. They were leading the old Third Division until they were penalised for financial shenanigans from previous years.Milan, Fiorentina in Serie A, and Juventus in Serie B. No idea if it happened in England.
Agree with your first paragraph. United were run better than City, and benefited from that, as you deserved. Our poor management led to us getting relegated to the third tier. Your poor management has led to a lowest finish of 7th in the PL and four more trophies (since Ferguson retired). As I said previously, United are now so big in terms of revenue that it's hard to believe that poor management could ever lead to you becoming non-elite the way football is currently structured.
On unfairness, my main gripe was always the CL and the revenue it provided to participants, which made the rich richer in a way that was more important back then (when CL money was a bigger part of the revenue pie than it is now -- PL TV money is now king). It's why I never watched the CL, and am not bothered about it now.
City's financial doping is also now unfair. I've never disagreed with that. I think where we disagree is that I think City's financial doping is a symptom of problems in the current structure of football, whereas you may think that City's financial doping is the problem itself.
Yea I think we're on the same page to be honest. It was already hard for a mid-table club (or below) to win the title or make the CL. City and Chelsea (just referring to the PL) have made that even harder. You can see that top six issue perfectly this season too, with Chelsea currently in 6th on 56 points, and Wolves in 7th way back on 43 points. And Wolves are financially doped to the gills tooMostly I'd agree, taking the CL to a top four qualification did give a bigger split, that said it should be possible to benefit from success and United have been outside of the top four regularly since sir Alex. So it's not that elite.
I don't think City's doping is the problem. I think the doping makes the problem so much bigger that the danger now is that the only chance anyone outside of the top six has now is a sugar daddy, if that turns into the only chance anyone has of winning the league is another sugar daddy then that's football out the window.
Literally nothing matters, just attract the richest owner.....we'd probably benefit from being mediocre for the next five years. We'd be at out most attractive at our lowest ebb.
Rewarding mediocrity is my biggest issue with what happened to City. You were cheap and had United as neighbours to use as marketing tool.
I'm an a-hole so I will add a little information. Accor is led by a former PSG president and has Sarkozy as one of its board members who is a fan of PSG.PSG is a top 5 shirt seller, just signed a top 3 shirt sponsorship with Accor starting next year and has the most expensive stadium seats in the world, always full. There's still a bit from Qatar but the club is increasingly self sufficient.
Also despite recruiting Neymar and Mbappé PSG has only spent €500m while selling for €250m over the last two years, which isn't that bad.
The irony of a City fan getting irked with hollow moral posturing. That seems to be all your fans are doing on here.Oh wow, City have tried to curry favour with the press by indulging them in some fine dining what an unforgivable and heinous act, and surely we must have been the only club to have ever attempted to influence the press.
I have no problem with FFP in principle. It is sound and makes sense and has some commendable objectives. However, it has to have enough elasticity to allow for owners who want to invest in a business such as City's owners are doing. City are in a far healthier position financially now than we were prior to the Abu Dhabi takeover. Is that not a good thing? We have just been able to secure one of the biggest kit deals in the world with Puma. Our growth has been immense. The investment has been hugely beneficial for City and Manchester as a whole. If UEFA want to stop similar clubs enjoying what City fans have because the status quo started throwing their toys out of the pram, then yes I object to that. The majority of the United fans in here I doubt would be in favour of a far more egalitarian distribution of revenue throughout the leagues in Europe. Instead, the main and often only grievance is that they have been dethroned. It's the hollow moral posturing that irks me.
Yea I think we're on the same page to be honest. It was already hard for a mid-table club (or below) to win the title or make the CL. City and Chelsea (just referring to the PL) have made that even harder. You can see that top six issue perfectly this season too, with Chelsea currently in 6th on 56 points, and Wolves in 7th way back on 43 points. And Wolves are financially doped to the gills too
England is probably more competitive than the majority of European leagues too, given the TV money split. The CL revenue point I mentioned is no longer as important in the PL, but it's obviously still a massive problem in a lot of the smaller European leagues where the CL revenue is so disproportionate.
Also agree on your last point. We were cheap and desperate, had a decent stadium with land to expand, and had one of the world's biggest clubs as a cross-city rival. You can see why they went for us.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Southampton started the 09-10 season on minus ten points and Leeds started the 07-08 season on minus fifteen.Milan, Fiorentina in Serie A, and Juventus in Serie B. No idea if it happened in England.
Harsh on boro. Class club with classy owner loads of entertainment through the years and great production of youth. Also heavily involved in the community up there. City are beneath boro.Didn't Portsmouth spend beyond their means? Exactly like City are doing now? You fail to realise that FFP are helping you, City fans, from suffering the same fate as the likes of Portsmouth so you should be thanking them that FFP are making your sugar daddies put everything in legally binding contracts so your club wont collapse without them, at least until the phoney contracts run out, but by that time you'd have enough time to sell off your most valuable assets and go back to being a less relevant club than Middlesbrough, because we all know that you wouldn't get the sponsorship your getting now without your owners.
At least Chelsea fans on here joke about their owner etc, while you blindly follow them like sheep to slaughter, making excuses at each turn. Face it, your club is the face of an ugly organisation and the only reason why you're not getting ripped apart in the press more often is because money talks, you even shower the British press with food and wine, they've said as much.
Btw, the same Platini who has a relative working for PSG? Yeah I'd put as much weight into what that guy says as I do City fans claiming all their sponsorship is real and the fact that they can earn as much as United do and be so close to them in the Forbes list is legitimate.
Try smelling the crap you're spouting before putting it on here, you can't even convince yourself.
Yes, but the "loads of entertainment" via Juninho, Ravanelli, Emerson, etc. was surely only possible due to a sugar daddy?! Before FFP restricted sugar daddies, obviously.Harsh on boro. Class club with classy owner loads of entertainment through the years and great production of youth. Also heavily involved in the community up there. City are beneath boro.
Gibsons a local man who certainly put money into the club but has always kept the books well balanced at boro. They'd have no trouble with ffp. Their best seasons were well past those years anyway - under mclaren who got the best from ageing pl strikers hasselbaink viduka and others that were no longer wanted at top clubs.Yes, but the "loads of entertainment" via Juninho, Ravanelli, Emerson, etc. was surely only possible due to a sugar daddy?! Before FFP restricted sugar daddies, obviously.
I agree it seems to have more teet this time but we can't underestimate the greed and shallowness of a small number of people who dictate things. City's owner will have this brushed awayThis is certainly starting to build momentum.
Maybe I just want it to be true because feck City but it seems pretty clear to me they've consistently broken the rules. These massive sponsorship deals for a club that consistently fails to sell out it's stadium week after week.
I first thought as usual nothing would happen but I don't know now. This time it feels different, City fans seem worried.
First part, other clubs are generous on certain holidays, from theOh wow, City have tried to curry favour with the press by indulging them in some fine dining what an unforgivable and heinous act, and surely we must have been the only club to have ever attempted to influence the press.
I have no problem with FFP in principle. It is sound and makes sense and has some commendable objectives. However, it has to have enough elasticity to allow for owners who want to invest in a business such as City's owners are doing. City are in a far healthier position financially now than we were prior to the Abu Dhabi takeover. Is that not a good thing? We have just been able to secure one of the biggest kit deals in the world with Puma. Our growth has been immense. The investment has been hugely beneficial for City and Manchester as a whole. If UEFA want to stop similar clubs enjoying what City fans have because the status quo started throwing their toys out of the pram, then yes I object to that. The majority of the United fans in here I doubt would be in favour of a far more egalitarian distribution of revenue throughout the leagues in Europe. Instead, the main and often only grievance is that they have been dethroned. It's the hollow moral posturing that irks me.
Well to be fair, City wouldn't return to their state pre sugar daddy, so they have a great youth set up they could call upon etc, so I'd expect them to be better than they were before (not constantly relegated/promoted).Harsh on boro. Class club with classy owner loads of entertainment through the years and great production of youth. Also heavily involved in the community up there. City are beneath boro.
ffs don't crack you bald twat. We are counting on you to stop Liverpool winning title this season.Has he cried at the press conference?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
My thoughts save the meltdown for summerffs don't crack you bald twat. We are counting on you to stop Liverpool winning title this season.
Won't make much difference if anyone actually punishes them properly for their flagrant flouting of the rules. Even a 3 point penalty could feck it all up.ffs don't crack you bald twat. We are counting on you to stop Liverpool winning title this season.
good post. what do you think was different about the game post 1992 though when the old European cup had winners from Yugoslavia and Romania and even teams like Goteborg, Celtic, etc were quite good. It seems as though top level European football is a lot less 'fluid' than it was in the 70s and 80s, where it does indeed seem like some teams are too big to fail. As much as we have struggled after Fergie retired for e.g no one is really going to bet on us becoming a club who are lost in the wilderness and just bouncing in and out of the top 4 while failing to compete for any of the titles. We haven't technically done THAT badly since 2013 either if you were to honestly examine our fortunes since then.The lack of competitiveness is not due to external investment in football, you can see this simply by looking at the league's that have not experienced external investment.
Portugal - 2 teams winning in the last 16 years
Germany - 1 teams winning the last 6 years straight
Scotland - 1 team winning the last 7 years straight
Norway - 1 teams winning the last 4 years straight
Denmark - 2 teams winning 9 of the last 10 titles
Spain - 2 teams winning 13 of the last 14 titles
Serbia - 2 teams winning the last 20 titles
Greece - 1 teams winning 12 of the last 14 titles
Ukraine - 2 teams winning the last 26 titles
Switzerland - 2 teams winning the last 9 titles
The reason for the lack of competition is three fold.
Firstly Champions League revenue is only being given to the team(s) who qualify. This causes a huge disparity between those who qualify and those who don't which creates a small league within a league. In countries with only 1-2 CL places this obviously exacerbates the issue. If you wanted great competition the CL revenue should be split between the entire league with the 20th club receiving no less than two-thirds the revenue of the league winners - this % would be set Europe wide.
Secondly clubs can negotiate their own commercial revenues. That means than Bayern Munich (17/18) for example have a €349m commercial revenue compared with Dortmund at €138m and Schalke at €106m. This puts them on a different stratosphere meaning that only ridiculous complacency and under-investment would lead to Bayern not walking the league every year. If you wanted great competition commercial revenue should be negotiated as the current TV deals are negotiated - country by country. Again the clubs who bring the least revenue to the league would receive no less than two-thirds the revenue of the greatest - this % would be set Europe wide.
Finally the distribution of domestic TV revenue should be set in terms of a % Europe wide. Again I'd suggest all league's harmonised with the Premier League in that the bottom team should receive two-thirds of the winning team.
If the current system in terms of CL revenue, commercial revenue and TV revenue isn't changed then in truth the only way to make the aforementioned league's competitive again is through external investment. Just like Chelsea/City have prevented United from winning almost every title these last 15 years, a £500m investment in Schalke and would do likewise for competition in Germany. It's a shame RBL don't have greater funds or a greater appetite to invest in truth.