City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with 130 FFP breaches | Hearing concluded | Awaiting outcome

roseguy64 said:
There was literally a case about this in the last couple years because the Premier League didn't want to approve a sponsorship deal. Pay attention.
Click to expand...

A couple years ago. So after City used the initial Etihad sponsorship to navigate FFP and then spent hundreds of millions to build themselves up, bless the premier league for stopping it a couple years ago.
 
Raul Madrid said:
He doesn't seem very nice imo but when he is not being completely biased towards Liverpool he is knowledgeable, I think. I consider his book to be a good one.
Click to expand...

I do hope it’s not an audiobook that you’re listening to as I don’t think they come with subtitles
 
stevoc said:
To be fair what you like doesn't matter mate, all clubs signed upto abide by the FFP rules. All clubs were playing by those rules except for one who it seems thought it didn't aply to them and have cheated on an industrial scale for decades at this stage.

You can think what you like about FFP, but we can't (or we shouldn't) have a situation for legitimately ran football clubs are having to compete with the sovereign wealth funds of Gulf states pumping billions into mid-table clubs for their sports washing projects.
Click to expand...
Well, what I think about FFP does obvioulsy influence how I feel about City cheating mate. I recognise that legally City should get the book thrown at them for breaking the rules. But, I don't really see how they have done anything different than Chelsea did before them, just that rule changes were pushed by American owners to stop anyone else trying to break into the top 4 or 5 and grab a share of the lucrative pie. From a sporting perspective I do think it's a bit of a joke that, at some arbitrary point in time, it was decided that the owner was no longer allowed to invest significant money into a club. And so basically clubs who received significant investment before that time will always be in a stronger position than those with newer owners.

I actually think FFP is also keeping parasites like the Glazers involved in clubs. They have basically engineered a situation where they can milk their cash cow for longer, without having to invest much, and without having to risk newer owners usurping their spending.
 
brozonis said:
Well, what I think about FFP does obvioulsy influence how I feel about City cheating mate. I recognise that legally City should get the book thrown at them for breaking the rules. But, I don't really see how they have done anything different than Chelsea did before them, just that rule changes were pushed by American owners to stop anyone else trying to break into the top 4 or 5 and grab a share of the lucrative pie. From a sporting perspective I do think it's a bit of a joke that, at some arbitrary point in time, it was decided that the owner was no longer allowed to invest significant money into a club. And so basically clubs who received significant investment before that time will always be in a stronger position than those with newer owners.

I actually think FFP is also keeping parasites like the Glazers involved in clubs. They have basically engineered a situation where they can milk their cash cow for longer, without having to invest much, and without having to risk newer owners usurping their spending.
Click to expand...
Given the league is democratic, why do you think seventy per cent or more of the league have decided to maintain financial controls? If it was just the top few clubs bullying them, why are they also voting for it?
 
Alex99 said:
If anything, you've been a bit kind to them there about the early years.
  • They were promoted back to the Premier League in 2002. They finished 9th, 16th, 8th, 15th, 14th and 9th in the years preceding the takeover. It is clear that the occasional finish in the top half isn't beyond them.
  • The takeover happened on deadline day 2008, and they were only able to bring in Robinho for the first half of the season, but that was a British record fee from a club that had previously been nowhere near being able to a) spend that much money or b) attract players of that reputation.
  • Despite this marquee signing, they were only 13th by the time the January window opened (and were 18th two games prior). This is pretty much "business as usual" as the money hasn't really had time to influence the squad.
  • They then spend a further £46 million in January on Bridge, Bellamy, de Jong and Given. This was more than any other club in the league. They went on to finish 10th.
  • 2009/10 is the first time they'll benefit from a full summer window under the new owners. They spend £120 million on players, blowing the spending of literally every other club in the league out of the water.
  • They jump from 10th in 2008/09 to 5th in 2009/10. This is their highest league finish in the Premier League era (having finished 5th in 1991/92 and 1990/91) and the joint highest finish since they finished 4th in 1977/78.
  • They once again blow everyone out the water for spending, win the FA Cup (their first trophy in 35 years) and finish 3rd (their highest finish since finishing 2nd in 1976/77).
  • 2011/12 and the big spending continues. Aguero becomes their 7th expensive centre-forward signing in just three years (Robinho, Santa Cruz, Tevez, Adebayor, Balotelli and Dzeko all signed before him). He scores the goal that wins them the league.
Click to expand...
Addendum to that. One of the first things they did was wave unheard of salary figures in front of Terry and Rooney, the star players of the best two clubs in the division. Both Chelsea and United were forced to unnecessarily renew both players on inflated terms, eating up their own budget and skewing the figures for the rest of the playing staff. They were acting the Cnut from the get go.
 
brozonis said:
Well, what I think about FFP does obvioulsy influence how I feel about City cheating mate. I recognise that legally City should get the book thrown at them for breaking the rules. But, I don't really see how they have done anything different than Chelsea did before them, just that rule changes were pushed by American owners to stop anyone else trying to break into the top 4 or 5 and grab a share of the lucrative pie. From a sporting perspective I do think it's a bit of a joke that, at some arbitrary point in time, it was decided that the owner was no longer allowed to invest significant money into a club. And so basically clubs who received significant investment before that time will always be in a stronger position than those with newer owners.

I actually think FFP is also keeping parasites like the Glazers involved in clubs. They have basically engineered a situation where they can milk their cash cow for longer, without having to invest much, and without having to risk newer owners usurping their spending.
Click to expand...
Would you just like a contest of which Arab state can spend the most? That’s an FFP free world.

FFP is flawed; no arguments. It not existing is worse.
 
Raul Madrid said:
He doesn't seem very nice imo but when he is not being completely biased towards Liverpool he is knowledgeable, I think. I consider his book to be a good one.
Click to expand...

I’m sure you do.

Obviously there’s a lot of pressure involved simply by being a manager, but Mourinho came in at the right time and they had no spending limits. He was pretty much adored by everyone from day one and the pressure of winning was higher at a club like Manchester United where there was talk of the manager being past it as soon as a season went by without winning a major trophy. How quickly did Mourinho feck off after winning two in a row and then facing competition? Chelsea consistently competing for major trophies after his departure, despite their frequent manager changes, illustrates the opposite of immense pressure.

If you look at inflation in general, inflation in transfer fees, and look at the sums Chelsea were spending in that period, the sums in 2026 fees are absolutely mental. When Carrick joined us in 2006, the odd £18mill we forked out was considered extremely high. Chelsea brought in 5 20mill+ players in the same transfer window in 2003..Consider what Barcelona spent to bring in Ronaldinho, Real Madrid on Beckham. Doesn’t work, bring in someone else, meanwhile for normally operated clubs it would’ve been a disaster to bring in even a £15mill dud.
 
curva norte said:
allow me to tell you a little something, in South America City are miles ahead of Arsenal in fanbase terms, and I mean miles. The best followed teams down here are City and Chelsea, by a long way followed by United.
liverpool and Arsenal are truly miles behind. Remembering that South Americans know a bit about football, more than most parts of the planet, the historical thing does not work down here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I know many brazilians and they don't give a shit about city. I've had this conversation about the most popular clubs and when it comes to england they all say arsenal, united and liverpool.
 
brozonis said:
America would never do this of course. I think they are as bad as each other in terms of motivations; I don't really see what makes US billionaires somehow morally superior to anyone. At least Abu Dhabi are pouring money in to the club, the city and the economy. The glazers are doing the opposite and would happily leave the club destroyed and city poorer if they could get more money that way.
Click to expand...

Americans want to make money. These guys want us to forget they are criminals, totalitarian oppressors and sponsors of terrorism.

It's not even comparable.
 
Not entering the debate of who has the most fans but it made me think of a stat i read in Mike Carsons book the manager. Back around 2012 to 14 out of an estimated world population of 7 billion, 4.7 billion supposedly watched the premier league. Interesting if true. I dont know what the numbers are now.
 
How long have we been waiting on the outcome? I expect I'll have played GTA 6 and read The Winds of Winter before the City verdict drops.
 
foolsgold said:
How long have we been waiting on the outcome? I expect I'll have played GTA 6 and read The Winds of Winter before the City verdict drops.
Click to expand...

We'll have World War 6, nevermind GTA6, before anything happens here
 
brozonis said:
Well, what I think about FFP does obvioulsy influence how I feel about City cheating mate. I recognise that legally City should get the book thrown at them for breaking the rules. But, I don't really see how they have done anything different than Chelsea did before them, just that rule changes were pushed by American owners to stop anyone else trying to break into the top 4 or 5 and grab a share of the lucrative pie.
Click to expand...

Rules change mate, shit happens. What is perfectly legal in a game of football this season will not be next season. Such is life.

City signed up to the rules and then broke them. They should be punished to a degree like no other club has in the history of the game.

brozonis said:
From a sporting perspective I do think it's a bit of a joke that, at some arbitrary point in time, it was decided that the owner was no longer allowed to invest significant money into a club. And so basically clubs who received significant investment before that time will always be in a stronger position than those with newer owners.

I actually think FFP is also keeping parasites like the Glazers involved in clubs. They have basically engineered a situation where they can milk their cash cow for longer, without having to invest much, and without having to risk newer owners usurping their spending.
Click to expand...

Abu Dhabi's 'investment' in City had little to do with sport. And investments are usually made with the hope of one day turning a profit, clearly their purchase of City was done so knowing they would never see a significant return on the billions they have officially and unofficially ploughed into the sports washing project.

A Premier League without FFP would currently be contested by 4-5 mid-table clubs all owned by Gulf states. Rendering the entire thing little more than a middle eastern pissing contest where no legitimatley ran clubs could hope to compete. Is that something you really want to see?
 
Listened to The Rest is Football podcast yesterday, Lineker, Shearer and Richards were practically creaming themselves about City's incredible achievements and more or less eulogising them.

Zero mention of the fact they've been investigated and are awaiting a verdict on serious charges that could see them relegated if found guilty. How can any serious discussion about them not even make mention of that?

Then again this is a podcast where Shearer comes across as a kid trying to be clever by using the f word so probably shouldn't expect too much.
 
brozonis said:
From a sporting perspective I do think it's a bit of a joke that, at some arbitrary point in time, it was decided that the owner was no longer allowed to invest significant money into a club. And so basically clubs who received significant investment before that time will always be in a stronger position than those with newer owners.
Click to expand...

Is this a piss take?

Owners aren’t prevented from investing significant sums into a club.

Also, it’s not like financial fair play was introduced at an arbitrary point in time, it was introduced because there was a need for it.

In terms of owners and investments in general, calling it an investment is a tad funny considering the current situation where clubs are literally owned by gulf states.
 
stevoc said:
A Premier League without FFP would currently be contested by 4-5 mid-table clubs all owned by Gulf states. Rendering the entire thing little more than a middle eastern pissing contest where no legitimatley ran clubs could hope to compete. Is that something you really want to see?
Click to expand...
While I agree that some kind of spending limits (maybe something more equitable like a wage cap) would be beneficial, I don't agree with your conclusions at all. Saudi Arabia has pumped billions into trying to promote their league, with no kind of FFP, effectively bribing players with huge sums to come and play, and they have found out that money can only take you so far. Historical reputation of leagues and clubs still matters. United, Liverpool and Arsenal would still be a huge draw, even if they weren't the richest and biggest spending clubs.

Even with all the money, and a manager that loads of players would want to play for, City aren't attracting the absolute best players in the world. They want to go to Madrid, Barca, Bayern, Liverpool (hopefully United when we get back up there). City are getting the next level down of players and trying to develop them into superstars with Silva, de Bruyne, Rodri... Even with all their shady dealings, they are not landing Mbappe, Kane, Yamal level players.
 
brozonis said:
While I agree that some kind of spending limits (maybe something more equitable like a wage cap) would be beneficial, I don't agree with your conclusions at all. Saudi Arabia has pumped billions into trying to promote their league, with no kind of FFP, effectively bribing players with huge sums to come and play, and they have found out that money can only take you so far. Historical reputation of leagues and clubs still matters. United, Liverpool and Arsenal would still be a huge draw, even if they weren't the richest and biggest spending clubs.
Click to expand...

Now have a think why Manchester City might have been chosen over a side like Middlesbrough.

All of City's early "marketing" was just piggybacking off how big and successful we were.

United, Liverpool and Arsenal have all, at varying points over the past 20ish years, found that being a historical name also only gets you so far.

Arsenal were practically pillaged by City in the early years.
 
Alex99 said:
Now have a think why Manchester City might have been chosen over a side like Middlesbrough.

All of City's early "marketing" was just piggybacking off how big and successful we were.

United, Liverpool and Arsenal have all, at varying points over the past 20ish years, found that being a historical name also only gets you so far.

Arsenal were practically pillaged by City in the early years.
Click to expand...

I think even Mark Hughes said that Robinho probably thought he was signing for Utd.
 
Reds Under The Bed said:
Listened to The Rest is Football podcast yesterday, Lineker, Shearer and Richards were practically creaming themselves about City's incredible achievements and more or less eulogising them.

Zero mention of the fact they've been investigated and are awaiting a verdict on serious charges that could see them relegated if found guilty. How can any serious discussion about them not even make mention of that?

Then again this is a podcast where Shearer comes across as a kid trying to be clever by using the f word so probably shouldn't expect too much.
Click to expand...

This in the Guardian, the day after City scrapped into a Cup Final after beating a Championship side

City's relentless pursuit of silverware shows no signs of abating, written by John Brewin, who I believe is a Leeds fan. Some selected quotes:

"Yet again written off this season by those foolish enough to underestimate them, City loom menacingly over the rest, threatening a level of success others can only reach for."

"Foden’s fall from prominence, struggling to maintain the highest of standards, may be just another indicator of the severity of the Guardiola supremacy that leaves others trailing in City’s wake."

"Another step towards habitual glory. Though when does success become a matter of relief in standards sustained rather than a rush of endorphins? A sparse spread of City fans, Wembley’s middle-tier’s empty, sun-bleached seats tipped up, suggested a national stadium fatigue. Definitely understandable; this was a 33rd visit since the 2011 FA Cup semi-final with Manchester United, victory there the launchpad for a decade and a half of dominance."
 
brozonis said:
While I agree that some kind of spending limits (maybe something more equitable like a wage cap) would be beneficial, I don't agree with your conclusions at all. Saudi Arabia has pumped billions into trying to promote their league, with no kind of FFP, effectively bribing players with huge sums to come and play, and they have found out that money can only take you so far.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? It self-evidently has been almost all that matters, and has taken clubs with no history or fame of any kind to the very top. For Chelsea and City, money is literally all there is to those clubs. They were nothing at all before they were bought by billionaires and boosted to the top. How are they not empirical evidence of the fact that money alone can absolutely trump everything else?

Chelsea have then fallen back down again, but that's because the club was abruptly confiscated from the owner and taken over by morons who have no idea what they're doing.

There's a huge difference between boosting one club and boosting a nation's entire football platform. Nobody's going to become fans of a Saudi club just because it started to buy some noteworthy players. That whole thing is just part of their sportswashing efforts. The Saudi league's lack of foreign followers isn't proof that money doesn't matter. It's just a part of the world where football doesn't have any meaningful cultural presence.
 
Gazza said:
This in the Guardian, the day after City scrapped into a Cup Final after beating a Championship side

City's relentless pursuit of silverware shows no signs of abating, written by John Brewin, who I believe is a Leeds fan. Some selected quotes:

"Yet again written off this season by those foolish enough to underestimate them, City loom menacingly over the rest, threatening a level of success others can only reach for."

"Foden’s fall from prominence, struggling to maintain the highest of standards, may be just another indicator of the severity of the Guardiola supremacy that leaves others trailing in City’s wake."

"Another step towards habitual glory. Though when does success become a matter of relief in standards sustained rather than a rush of endorphins? A sparse spread of City fans, Wembley’s middle-tier’s empty, sun-bleached seats tipped up, suggested a national stadium fatigue. Definitely understandable; this was a 33rd visit since the 2011 FA Cup semi-final with Manchester United, victory there the launchpad for a decade and a half of dominance."
Click to expand...
Does anyone else think a word has been had not to mention the charges, or face legal action? It's weird otherwise credible news outlets aren't discussing it.
 
IrwinwasbetterthanCarlos said:
Addendum to that. One of the first things they did was wave unheard of salary figures in front of Terry and Rooney, the star players of the best two clubs in the division. Both Chelsea and United were forced to unnecessarily renew both players on inflated terms, eating up their own budget and skewing the figures for the rest of the playing staff. They were acting the Cnut from the get go.
Click to expand...
Forgot about that era, but true, yes
 
brozonis said:
Even with all the money, and a manager that loads of players would want to play for, City aren't attracting the absolute best players in the world. They want to go to Madrid, Barca, Bayern, Liverpool (hopefully United when we get back up there). City are getting the next level down of players and trying to develop them into superstars with Silva, de Bruyne, Rodri... Even with all their shady dealings, they are not landing Mbappe, Kane, Yamal level players.
Click to expand...
Setting aside Gvardiol, probably the most highly rated young defender when they bought him, or Donnarumma, often referred to as the best goalkeeper in the world…

THEY SIGNED HAALAND! Next level down? Along with Mbappe, he was the most sought after forward in Europe when he went there on a totally legitimate, no money being hidden anywhere deal…
 
I think they are waiting this out until people don't care, any more.
 
IrwinwasbetterthanCarlos said:
Setting aside Gvardiol, probably the most highly rated young defender when they bought him, or Donnarumma, often referred to as the best goalkeeper in the world…

THEY SIGNED HAALAND! Next level down? Along with Mbappe, he was the most sought after forward in Europe when he went there on a totally legitimate, no money being hidden anywhere deal…
Click to expand...
Haaland's dad played for the club, he's literally said that was one of the main reasons he chose them. It supports my point, that there is more than money involved in attrating the best players.
 
Dansk said:
What do you mean? It self-evidently has been almost all that matters, and has taken clubs with no history or fame of any kind to the very top. For Chelsea and City, money is literally all there is to those clubs. They were nothing at all before they were bought by billionaires and boosted to the top. How are they not empirical evidence of the fact that money alone can absolutely trump everything else?

Chelsea have then fallen back down again, but that's because the club was abruptly confiscated from the owner and taken over by morons who have no idea what they're doing.

There's a huge difference between boosting one club and boosting a nation's entire football platform. Nobody's going to become fans of a Saudi club just because it started to buy some noteworthy players. That whole thing is just part of their sportswashing efforts. The Saudi league's lack of foreign followers isn't proof that money doesn't matter. It's just a part of the world where football doesn't have any meaningful cultural presence.
Click to expand...
Right, so money is all that matters, apart from the numerous exceptions where it's not the case.
 
IrwinwasbetterthanCarlos said:
Addendum to that. One of the first things they did was wave unheard of salary figures in front of Terry and Rooney, the star players of the best two clubs in the division. Both Chelsea and United were forced to unnecessarily renew both players on inflated terms, eating up their own budget and skewing the figures for the rest of the playing staff. They were acting the Cnut from the get go.
Click to expand...

One of the underrated effects of City was their poaching of star players from other teams (Not that United didn't do this in the past but at least you guys earned the money honestly).

Everton and Villa more or less had their teams ripped apart by City. Stones, Barry, Lescott, Dunne, Kyle Walker. I wont go into the Arsenal players. Maybe Stones would have ended up at United or Chelsea if City weren't around. But City weakened other teams around them by taking their players and taking a seat at the top of the table.
 
brozonis said:
Haaland's dad played for the club, he's literally said that was one of the main reasons he chose them. It supports my point, that there is more than money involved in attrating the best players.
Click to expand...
I’m sure those… *opens Wiki* 30 odd appearances were why he signed. Not the 50 million plus reasons involving his Dad.

And footballers would never say anything to butter up supporters, would they?
 
brozonis said:
Haaland's dad played for the club, he's literally said that was one of the main reasons he chose them. It supports my point, that there is more than money involved in attrating the best players.
Click to expand...
It is probs in part a reason

But when £30-35 Million (agent fees) are split between Raiola and Haaland senior. I suspect that too is quite a big reason

Not to mention the apparent £10 Million signing on fee for Haaland
 
brozonis said:
Haaland's dad played for the club, he's literally said that was one of the main reasons he chose them. It supports my point, that there is more than money involved in attrating the best players.
Click to expand...

I often wonder how they managed to attract some of the big name players they were attracting in the early days of the post takeover era, why did Sergio Aguero for example choose to go there rather than going to a top Eurooean club like Bayern, Juve, Real, or Barca?
 
brozonis said:
Haaland's dad played for the club, he's literally said that was one of the main reasons he chose them. It supports my point, that there is more than money involved in attrating the best players.
Click to expand...

Then it must be true.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
I often wonder how they managed to attract some of the big name players they were attracting in the early days of the post takeover era, why did Sergio Aguero for example choose to go there rather than going to a top Eurooean club like Bayern, Juve, Real, or Barca?
Click to expand...
Money?
 
RedRocket9908 said:
I often wonder how they managed to attract some of the big name players they were attracting in the early days of the post takeover era, why did Sergio Aguero for example choose to go there rather than going to a top Eurooean club like Bayern, Juve, Real, or Barca?
Click to expand...

There was no value in the market according to United at the time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.