Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros | CAS - Ban lifted, fined 10 million

[The Irish Connection]

Nonsense - CAS found in City's favour on balance of evidence AFTER first having to decide they must disallow several dodgy transactions as time barred that otherwise might have led to a totally different conclusion. These transactions were the cornerstone of UEFA's case and so when they were disbarred the conclusion was inevitable. You got off on a technicality which is nothing to be proud of. Your club were so evasive with their own governing body's investigation that CAS DID still uphold a fine of 10m Euros for non-cooperation:

"viii) The Panel is not comfortably satisfied (my emphasis inserted) that MCFC disguised equity funding...
ix) The Panel finds it appropriate that a fine of EUR 10,000,000 is imposed on MCFC"
(Page 90 Conclusion from CAS 2020/A/6785 Manchester City FC v UEFA)

Remember, this is all after your club also entered into an earlier settlement agreement with UEFA in 2014 to pay them EUR 60,000,000 (although 40m was eventually reimbursed for future compliance).

If I was you I don't think I'd be drawing more attention to all this embarrassing behaviour

Well done.
I think everyone, including all other clubs in the premier league, need to keep underlining the cheating that was done by them and that it was no surprise they got off on a technicality due to bureaucracy and well paid legal teams.
Obviously, the media are afraid to call it out because most of what I hear is micah Richards having orgasms and pundits fawning over them.

 

[T_Model101]

Well done.
I think everyone, including all other clubs in the premier league, need to keep underlining the cheating that was done by them and that it was no surprise they got off on a technicality due to bureaucracy and well paid legal teams.
Obviously, the media are afraid to call it out because most of what I hear is micah Richards having orgasms and pundits fawning over them.

They're terrified to call it out because City are so small time, that they will ferociously pounce on anything negative said about them and either complain or threaten to sue.

Hell they even complained to Sky when Keane called Kyle Walker an idiot. The same idiot that was caught bringing hookers to his house during lockdown on multiple occasions

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Liverpool spent that through player sales. In terms of where they were financially a few years ago they were probably comparable to Chelsea before Abramovich.

You’re speaking like a whole host of smaller clubs would be invested in heavily. It’s incredibly unlikely that that would happen. The amount of investment it took for Blackburn is insignificant compared to the amount it would take to bring a small club up to compete with City. City already have an incredible structure and academy in place, one of the best managers ever and a squad full of unbelievable players. To get to that point would take comfortably more than a billion. You would then be competing with a City side who are improving on that level with huge investment.

Do you realistically see any world where a small club with the right investment could catch up?

I don’t know. But under FFP they couldn’t.

Chelsea weren’t going anywhere prior to Roman, and potentially were needing to sell the likes of Terry.

City weren’t bigger than the likes of Newcastle or even Sunderland. I remember watching them play a game against Bristol Rovers in League 1.

so, yes it could happen.

 

[macheda14]

I don’t know. But under FFP they couldn’t.

Under FFP have we not seen the big 4 turn into a big 6 or arguably big 7?

Under FFP teams like Spurs and Leicester have been able to compete in recent years. If you have two teams who can then go on and spend infinite wealth who do you see competing with them? No one will until finally they get bought by a multi multi billionaire and even then it would take soooo much more investment than it took for Chelsea and City.

Chelsea weren’t going anywhere prior to Roman, and potentially were needing to sell the likes of Terry.

City weren’t bigger than the likes of Newcastle or even Sunderland. I remember watching them play a game against Bristol Rovers in League 1.

so, yes it could happen.

This is the point you aren't quite getting. The money in football is far far greater than it was back in the early 2000s and early 2010s. The amount of investment it would take to compete with an unregulated City and Chelsea is so incredibly much more that there actually aren't that many potential owners. The only real possibilities come from nation states that need to sportswash, because very few billionaires want to spend money with little chance of ROI.

EVEN under FFP we still have teams who spend the most winning more often than not (you do have sides like United who just don't know how to spend). Now for you, what you want is it to be even more certain that whoever spends the most wins the most. Liverpool, Spurs, Leicester, Arsenal, United would not be able to compete against Chelsea and City. And maybe, just maybe a club like Newcastle get taken over and that wouldn't guarantee anything. They'd have to spend unbelievably well, because they'd be competing against two clubs who have been spending exorbitant amounts of money for a few years. You're hoping for a really unlikely possibility, and that hope would probably destroy the competitive nature of the premier league.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Nonsense - CAS found in City's favour on balance of evidence AFTER first having to decide they must disallow several dodgy transactions as time barred that otherwise might have led to a totally different conclusion. These transactions were the cornerstone of UEFA's case and so when they were disbarred the conclusion was inevitable. You got off on a technicality which is nothing to be proud of. Your club were so evasive with their own governing body's investigation that CAS DID still uphold a fine of 10m Euros for non-cooperation:

"viii) The Panel is not comfortably satisfied (my emphasis inserted) that MCFC disguised equity funding...
ix) The Panel finds it appropriate that a fine of EUR 10,000,000 is imposed on MCFC"
(Page 90 Conclusion from CAS 2020/A/6785 Manchester City FC v UEFA)

Remember, this is all after your club also entered into an earlier settlement agreement with UEFA in 2014 to pay them EUR 60,000,000 (although 40m was eventually reimbursed for future compliance).

If I was you I don't think I'd be drawing more attention to all this embarrassing behaviour

Absolutely.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

This is the point you aren't quite getting.

no. It means we disagree and have a different opinion. It doesn’t mean I don’t ‘get’ something, just because we don’t agree.

 

[macheda14]

no. It means we disagree and have a different opinion. It doesn’t mean I don’t ‘get’ something, just because we don’t agree.

Well when someone refutes and argument multiple times without a counterpoint it’s pretty safe to assume that the other party isn’t comprehending the central point. To be fair it seems like you are comprehending it, but just choosing to ignore it.

You keep pointing to Chelsea, Blackburn and City and ignore that it was a different era. Abramovich bought Chelsea for about 150 million and then went on and spent 300 million more until 07. They bought superstars and bought highly rated young players. If you wanted to buy the type of squad they did in the current market it would be easily triple that expenditure, then include how an unregulated footballing economy would see the market inflate even further. AND the club would go for around double, with Newcastle almost being sold for 300 mill. What prospective owners do you see affording that? The only few would be owners that are looking to use a club for PR purposes. So if you want yet more unethical owners then fine.

But again why would you want a league where it’s without a doubt only going to the biggest spenders? Your main argument is that FFP entrenches historical clubs - recent history has disproven that. If you let clubs with infinite wealth spend whatever they want surely you must see how that would further widen the divide between the top of the league and the rest of the pack.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Well when someone refutes and argument multiple times without a counterpoint it’s pretty safe to assume that the other party isn’t comprehending the central point. To be fair it seems like you are comprehending it, but just choosing to ignore it.

You keep pointing to Chelsea, Blackburn and City and ignore that it was a different era. Abramovich bought Chelsea for about 150 million and then went on and spent 300 million more until 07. They bought superstars and bought highly rated young players. If you wanted to buy the type of squad they did in the current market it would be easily triple that expenditure, then include how an unregulated footballing economy would see the market inflate even further. AND the club would go for around double, with Newcastle almost being sold for 300 mill. What prospective owners do you see affording that? The only few would be owners that are looking to use a club for PR purposes. So if you want yet more unethical owners then fine.

But again why would you want a league where it’s without a doubt only going to the biggest spenders? Your main argument is that FFP entrenches historical clubs - recent history has disproven that. If you let clubs with infinite wealth spend whatever they want surely you must see how that would further widen the divide between the top of the league and the rest of the pack.

I don’t feel I have the time you have to argue a point. I certainly don’t have the inclination...

 

[macheda14]

I don’t feel I have the time you have to argue a point. I certainly don’t have the inclination...

You post more than me and post on here all throughout the day. So I think you have time to argue many points. Forums are basically just arguments, so don’t pretend like you’re above it all.

 

[The Irish Connection]

They're terrified to call it out because City are so small time, that they will ferociously pounce on anything negative said about them and either complain or threaten to sue.

Hell they even complained to Sky when Keane called Kyle Walker an idiot. The same idiot that was caught bringing hookers to his house during lockdown on multiple occasions

Yep. City seem highly sensitive to anything that doesn’t back up their propaganda.

 

[LoneStar]

Very weird to see United fans say that football needs a salary cap to stop City or PSG from pulling ahead.

Yeah exactly, it won't stop clubs like City from paying a 'moderate' salary while paying players most of their salary off the record.

 

[adexkola]

Yeah exactly, it won't stop clubs like City from paying a 'moderate' salary while paying players most of their salary off the record.

Any club can do that.

But last time I checked, tax evasion is illegal. Require all players to submit their tax documents every year.

 

[Dan_F]

Nonsense - CAS found in City's favour on balance of evidence AFTER first having to decide they must disallow several dodgy transactions as time barred that otherwise might have led to a totally different conclusion. These transactions were the cornerstone of UEFA's case and so when they were disbarred the conclusion was inevitable. You got off on a technicality which is nothing to be proud of. Your club were so evasive with their own governing body's investigation that CAS DID still uphold a fine of 10m Euros for non-cooperation:

"viii) The Panel is not comfortably satisfied (my emphasis inserted) that MCFC disguised equity funding...
ix) The Panel finds it appropriate that a fine of EUR 10,000,000 is imposed on MCFC"
(Page 90 Conclusion from CAS 2020/A/6785 Manchester City FC v UEFA)

Remember, this is all after your club also entered into an earlier settlement agreement with UEFA in 2014 to pay them EUR 60,000,000 (although 40m was eventually reimbursed for future compliance).

If I was you I don't think I'd be drawing more attention to all this embarrassing behaviour

Im still waiting for a reply to my post, to back up what he was claiming.

 

[Jeppers7]

Under FFP have we not seen the big 4 turn into a big 6 or arguably big 7?

Under FFP teams like Spurs and Leicester have been able to compete in recent years. If you have two teams who can then go on and spend infinite wealth who do you see competing with them? No one will until finally they get bought by a multi multi billionaire and even then it would take soooo much more investment than it took for Chelsea and City.



This is the point you aren't quite getting. The money in football is far far greater than it was back in the early 2000s and early 2010s. The amount of investment it would take to compete with an unregulated City and Chelsea is so incredibly much more that there actually aren't that many potential owners. The only real possibilities come from nation states that need to sportswash, because very few billionaires want to spend money with little chance of ROI.

EVEN under FFP we still have teams who spend the most winning more often than not (you do have sides like United who just don't know how to spend). Now for you, what you want is it to be even more certain that whoever spends the most wins the most. Liverpool, Spurs, Leicester, Arsenal, United would not be able to compete against Chelsea and City. And maybe, just maybe a club like Newcastle get taken over and that wouldn't guarantee anything. They'd have to spend unbelievably well, because they'd be competing against two clubs who have been spending exorbitant amounts of money for a few years. You're hoping for a really unlikely possibility, and that hope would probably destroy the competitive nature of the premier league.

I’m with you....I really don’t get this argument that FFP is designed to keep the elite in place. The emergence of oil funded billionaire state owned clubs without FFP regulations is far more likely to see an elite long term as you will certainly have Chelsea and City then United who could realistically begin to compete to a degree. The race for third and fourth spots might be the most interesting or fifth and sixth.

I don’t expect City fans to care, but it seems every cup semi final one of the teams is them, every league cup final they win. The FA cup you have to hope they slip up at some stage to give another club the chance. They will win their third league title in four years this season. How does this open up the chances of any other club competing when the biggest club in the country can’t compete financially?

Prior to oil funded state owned clubs there was always the opportunity for lots of clubs to win a league cup or fa cup. Man United and Liverpool had periods of dominance in the league through organic growth, great management and the sheer size of the clubs, but other teams had successes in those periods.

All that’s happened with these owners is that small clubs with very little history have become doped to ridiculous levels, for the benefit of that club....not football. I don’t want United to win everything, we had a dominant period and that ended, not because of city or Chelsea. I’m fine with that. Leicester City could’ve had a really great period of success or Spurs at a point.

Now for me it seems like what is being suggested is that we should all wait and hope that we are bought by a billionaire. Who’s going to be the next lucky winner?
You used to hope that your club found the next Brian Clough, Don Revie, Bob Paisley, Sir Matt or Sir Alex. Or found the next Georgie Best, Bobby Charlton, Ryan Giggs, David Beckham etc or signed two or three great players.
In all honesty you’re probably best hoping you club is horribly managed for a ten year period, is relegated, racks up some medium sized debts and it’s value plummets so that you become viable for the next billionaire looking to sportswash.

Reward for mediocrity and mismanagement is to be the great ideal.

 

[Bearded One]

I can’t seem to get my head around the fact that they cheated their way out of a proper punishment. Why would they be let off the hook and still get fined for 10 million if they did nothing wrong?

 

[SuperiorXI]

I can’t seem to get my head around the fact that they cheated their way out of a proper punishment. Why would they be let off the hook and still get fined for 10 million if they did nothing wrong?

They did do something wrong, it was just deemed "time-barred"; the stuff that wasn't subject to that was apparently not enough to charge them with but they still felt enough had been done to warrant a fine.

They're cheaters, pure and simple.

 

[Manchester Dan]

They did do something wrong, it was just deemed "time-barred"; the stuff that wasn't subject to that was apparently not enough to charge them with but they still felt enough had been done to warrant a fine.

They're cheaters, pure and simple.

That’s completely false.

The fine was specifically because CAS felt City had been “obstructive” to UEFA through the process throughout there own investigations prior to the CAS hearings. That doesn’t mean to say City hadn't done anything wrong under the time-barred period as you’ve suggested but we’ll never know the CAS verdict on that because it was never assessed, and the fine is unrelated.

 

[Pexbo]

That’s completely false.

The fine was specifically because CAS felt City had been “obstructive” to UEFA through the process throughout there own investigations prior to the CAS hearings. That doesn’t mean to say City hadn't done anything wrong under the time-barred period as you’ve suggested but we’ll never know the CAS verdict on that because it was never assessed, and the fine is unrelated.

Wow, with that technicality in mind you can be super proud of your club.

 

[Manchester Dan]

Wow, with that technicality in mind you can be super proud of your club.

The only technicality in my post was addressing the misinformation in the post I was replying to, but I am proud of the club. We’ve stuck around at the top table despite every effort to stop it.

These spending rules some people love to get behind so much were only introduced in 2011-2012, literally invented out of nowhere. If we failed a few tests between 2012-2015 because we were spending to catch up with the rest then so be it. We’ll have won 5 out of 10 titles since the rules were introduced, with United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Leicester having to share the rest.

 

[africanspur]

The only technicality in my post was addressing the misinformation in the post I was replying to, but I am proud of the club. We’ve stuck around at the top table despite every effort to stop it.

These spending rules some people love to get behind so much were only introduced in 2011-2012, literally invented out of nowhere. If we failed a few tests between 2012-2015 because we were spending to catch up with the rest then so be it. We’ll have won 5 out of 10 titles since the rules were introduced, with United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Leicester having to share the rest.

Serious question and I'm not trying to start an argument...but what is there to be really that proud of?

You've stuck around at the top table because of the sheer financial power of your owners. The same would have happened if they'd decided to stick a pin in Bristol, Sunderland, Sheffield or Norwich.

 

[adexkola]

Serious question and I'm not trying to start an argument...but what is there to be really that proud of?

You've stuck around at the top table because of the sheer financial power of your owners. The same would have happened if they'd decided to stick a pin in Bristol, Sunderland, Sheffield or Norwich.

Look, this is football, a valid argument can be made that there is nothing proud to be of, of 22 men who don't know you or ever will, kicking a ball around. Yet football is silly like that.

And yes, teams are at the top because of money. More details at 5 pm.

 

[stevoc]

The only technicality in my post was addressing the misinformation in the post I was replying to, but I am proud of the club. We’ve stuck around at the top table despite every effort to stop it.

These spending rules some people love to get behind so much were only introduced in 2011-2012, literally invented out of nowhere. If we failed a few tests between 2012-2015 because we were spending to catch up with the rest then so be it. We’ll have won 5 out of 10 titles since the rules were introduced, with United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Leicester having to share the rest.

The phrase "catch up" would suggest City spent ever increasing amounts to achieve parity with the spending levels of United/Liverpool/Chelsea to compete with them and then their spending plateaued.

But City started out in 2009 spending way more on transfer fees and wages than even United could afford then or now and that's continued on an upward trajectory. So this whole project at City has never been about competing with United, Chelsea and Liverpool. Same story at PSG and that's the reason FFP rules were "literally invented out of nowhere".

 

[The Corinthian]

The only technicality in my post was addressing the misinformation in the post I was replying to, but I am proud of the club. We’ve stuck around at the top table despite every effort to stop it.

These spending rules some people love to get behind so much were only introduced in 2011-2012, literally invented out of nowhere. If we failed a few tests between 2012-2015 because we were spending to catch up with the rest then so be it. We’ll have won 5 out of 10 titles since the rules were introduced, with United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Leicester having to share the rest.

So you bought the league?

 

[africanspur]

Look, this is football, a valid argument can be made that there is nothing proud to be of, of 22 men who don't know you or ever will, kicking a ball around. Yet football is silly like that.

And yes, teams are at the top because of money. More details at 5 pm.

Yeah I generally find it a bit weird when grown men are 'proud' or also 'ashamed' of a bunch of other men who don't know or care about you at all, regardless of the club.

I find it even more weird when the pride is because someone has come in and injected literally a billion plus into the club. You've not really done anything exceptional or unique there, you've done what literally any club could and would have done (and have done in the past) when they've had massive external investment.

You can enjoy the football and the trophies, of course. But being 'proud' of sticking around at the top table is a bit strange when literally any club would have done the same if Mansour had decided to pop up there instead. So far, those efforts to stop them have included putting in rules which came in too late to stop them anyway (and which I agree were mostly there to keep the top table as is) and a court case. Not exactly this UEFA conspiracy some City fans seem to have concocted in their heads.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

Any club can do that.

But last time I checked, tax evasion is illegal. Require all players to submit their tax documents every year.

Not to the same extent, because of a difference in financial backing. But I agree with your point, overall. For all we know, even the Uniteds of the world could engage in the same tactic if it becomes commonplace.

Agree about the second point as well. For some reason, football is replete with people who avoid paying their taxes.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

So you bought the league?

Accurate.

Some City fans cognitive dissonance would still like to think of themselves as the plucky underdog.

Unfortunately they are the very problem some of their fans claim to be solving, through financial doping.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

The only technicality in my post was addressing the misinformation in the post I was replying to, but I am proud of the club. We’ve stuck around at the top table despite every effort to stop it.

These spending rules some people love to get behind so much were only introduced in 2011-2012, literally invented out of nowhere. If we failed a few tests between 2012-2015 because we were spending to catch up with the rest then so be it. We’ll have won 5 out of 10 titles since the rules were introduced, with United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Leicester having to share the rest.

You're essentially admitting that Manchester City contravened regulations that other clubs had to abide to i.e. cheated.

 

[NicolaSacco]

You're essentially admitting that Manchester City contravened regulations that other clubs had to abide to i.e. cheated.

That other clubs helped write in an effort to ensure that no one could ever challenge their place at the top table. I’ve no idea when or if City broke the rules, but let’s be honest about what these rules were. They were not created with fairness in mind, but specifically the opposite, they were created to maintain a constant unfair financial advantage for the top teams. In my view that’s the greater wrong, and I’m glad the concept died a slow death, although I’m sure you’ll see it differently.

 

[The Corinthian]

That other clubs helped write in an effort to ensure that no one could ever challenge their place at the top table. I’ve no idea when or if City broke the rules, but let’s be honest about what these rules were. They were not created with fairness in mind, but specifically the opposite, they were created to maintain a constant unfair financial advantage for the top teams. In my view that’s the greater wrong, and I’m glad the concept died a slow death, although I’m sure you’ll see it differently.

That's not accurate. FFP was for clubs to spend what they've organically made. It's different to pumping in millions or billions from an external party.

We can debate if whether it's the best framework or not, but let's not portray is as 'big clubs want to stay big'. Everyone has to play by the same rules for the competition to have some integrity.

You can argue it's wrong to bring it in now (or in 2011) because 'big clubs are big' and would obviously generate more than a Burnley or whoever, but it goes back to my earlier point on whether it's the best framework for clubs to operate in.

I think the overall concept is good, but it needs to be flexed somewhat.

 

[Maluco]

I think it’s telling that when Liverpool won the league, there was so much annoyance and bitterness here that members were banned. That was the level of discomfort and disgust.

The way City have done things, they will never get rid of that apathy. No one cares, no one watches the celebration, no one remembers any particular moments.

Sure, it’s annoying to have a country playing in the league, but there is apathy all round when they win anything. A shrug of the shoulders and that’s that.

 

[cyberman]

That other clubs helped write in an effort to ensure that no one could ever challenge their place at the top table. I’ve no idea when or if City broke the rules, but let’s be honest about what these rules were. They were not created with fairness in mind, but specifically the opposite, they were created to maintain a constant unfair financial advantage for the top teams. In my view that’s the greater wrong, and I’m glad the concept died a slow death, although I’m sure you’ll see it differently.

They were created to keep out disgusting, murderous regimes that threatened to take over football and looking at how City slapped UEFA, we are halfway there.
Plenty of other sides challenged the historic clubs so why did City need to do what they did? Take them away and you have sides with fractions of their spend coming second.
Look at the league now minus City, the league is awash with money. Nobody really has that advantage anymore.. Bar City.

 

[NicolaSacco]

That's not accurate. FFP was for clubs to spend what they've organically made. It's different to pumping in millions or billions from an external party.

We can debate if whether it's the best framework or not, but let's not portray is as 'big clubs want to stay big'. Everyone has to play by the same rules for the competition to have some integrity.

You can argue it's wrong to bring it in now (or in 2011) because 'big clubs are big' and would obviously generate more than a Burnley or whoever, but it goes back to my earlier point on whether it's the best framework for clubs to operate in.

I think the overall concept is good, but it needs to be flexed somewhat.

Oh it was absolutely written with the aim of keeping the big clubs big. I seem to remember Utd arguing for a change that stopped new debt being accrued to match you in the market, but didn’t account for your pre-existing debt. This was purely so your heavily indebted club could escape sanction but any new club couldn’t get in the exact same level of debt to compete with you. It’s naive to think that the big clubs didn’t think about the best set of rules to maintain their advantage. I would in your situation.

I’ll go back to what I think the crux of this point is. It’s not about fairness/legality although you do use those arguments and both may be valid. It’s about clubs being able to outspend you, which you are lucky enough as a Utd fan to have had precious little experience of. It sucks for you like it sucked for all those clubs you’ve outspent in the past.

 

[NicolaSacco]

They were created to keep out disgusting, murderous regimes that threatened to take over football and looking at how City slapped UEFA, we are halfway there.
Plenty of other sides challenged the historic clubs so why did City need to do what they did? Take them away and you have sides with fractions of their spend coming second.
Look at the league now minus City, the league is awash with money. Nobody really has that advantage anymore.. Bar City.

I can’t remember a side putting up a consistent challenge to the big clubs without the use of debt in this financial era, and I can’t see it happening in the future. So for me you either accept the status quo of consistency dominance by Utd, Madrid, Bayern etc, or you allow a way for other clubs to break that monopoly. I know which option I prefer, and I know which option you prefer (and why).

 

[footballistic orgasm]

I think it’s telling that when Liverpool won the league, there was so much annoyance and bitterness here that members were banned. That was the level of discomfort and disgust.

The way City have done things, they will never get rid of that apathy. No one cares, no one watches the celebration, no one remembers any particular moments.

Sure, it’s annoying to have a country playing in the league, but there is apathy all round when they win anything. A shrug of the shoulders and that’s that.

How do you know that no one cares or watches their celebrations? The only one that should care are their fans anyway.
And i'm pretty sure everyone remembers the "Agueroooo..." moment.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

That other clubs helped write in an effort to ensure that no one could ever challenge their place at the top table. I’ve no idea when or if City broke the rules, but let’s be honest about what these rules were. They were not created with fairness in mind, but specifically the opposite, they were created to maintain a constant unfair financial advantage for the top teams. In my view that’s the greater wrong, and I’m glad the concept died a slow death, although I’m sure you’ll see it differently.

You're basically reaffirming what I've said, adding that you don't care that Manchester City possibly had an unfair advantage against the rest of the teams that had to abide by FFP because (here is where you insert your conjecture regarding the reasons that precipitated FFP).

 

[MrMarcello]

Accurate.

Some City fans cognitive dissonance would still like to think of themselves as the plucky underdog.

Unfortunately they are the very problem some of their fans claim to be solving, through financial doping.

They're the real world football equivalent to Rosie O'Donnell's Nip/Tuck character, Dawn Budge.

 

[Maluco]

How do you know that no one cares or watches their celebrations? The only one that should care are their fans anyway.
And i'm pretty sure everyone remembers the "Agueroooo..." moment.

You can sense the general mood on forums, amongst friends etc... it’s a non-event.

The Aguero moment is only remembered because it was so dramatic and denied United. That’s a long time ago now, and sort of proves my point.

It’s probably the last time anyone cared about anything they did bar their own fans.

 

[cyberman]

I can’t remember a side putting up a consistent challenge to the big clubs without the use of debt in this financial era, and I can’t see it happening in the future. So for me you either accept the status quo of consistency dominance by Utd, Madrid, Bayern etc, or you allow a way for other clubs to break that monopoly. I know which option I prefer, and I know which option you prefer (and why).

But the only side putting up a consistent challenge is the state backed club. Thats my point entirely if you think about it.

 

[Zaphod2319]

Ummm didn’t Man Utd own the league for quite a while because they were a wealthier team than the rest of the league and bought top talent?

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

Ummm didn’t Man Utd own the league for quite a while because they were a wealthier team than the rest of the league and bought top talent?

Ummm....no.

United dominated English football despite only being the top spenders 3 times in Ferguson's 27 years of management due to a plethora of factors, most important of which was the presence of the greatest manager English football ever had.