Ouch
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
Mhm, your crying about City being state owned, but quite happy for you to be? Let me guess all u had was spoons when all u needed was a knife?
I just think he doesn’t understand much. Even his questions don’t make any sense.
Calm down there Cantona.
Well deflected, I see no answer.
It was your own Lord Sugar that turned the Premier League in to a big money league when he used his influence at Sky Television (gained from the fact he owned the company that made all of the decoder boxes for them) to convince them to make a huge offer for the rights that blew the ITV bid that all the other clubs had agreed to accept out of the water.
He did well for Amstrad/Sky he did feck all for us. If he had brains he would have known the money that could be gained from a successful team, instead he nearly got us relegated.
Puzzled. My limericks get no attention whatsoever, and this fills pages.
I'm sure Uniteds wage bill was big relative to most teams but bear in mind. Up until 2001 when Keanes new contract broke the wage structure United had no players on more than 25k per week. Rivals all had star names on more than that even Middlesbrough had Ravanelli on 40k a week.
Between 2001-2003 United could offer higher wages than anyone in England. But then Roman and Abu Dhabi arrived and United were being blown out of the water again on salaries.
Qatari
I can understand where it’s coming from though. A football fan is far more likely to dislike a team for anything that happens on the pitch than outside of it, and City haven’t really done much on the pitch to be hated. They are not particularly bad at diving and exaggerating, they don’t surround referees to an obscene extent, they don’t play dirty and don’t have any really dislikable players.
Off the pitch people are more likely to hate you for poaching your best players rather than spending a lot and here again City haven’t really bought any players from the top supported teams. All their key players came from smaller clubs where fans would have accepted before that their best talent would leave.
They could offer higher wages than anyone in England but they didnt, I remember us missing out on the signing Ronaldinho from PSG in 2001 because Sir Alex refused to meet his demands of 100k per week.
The fact is in the early 2000's we were one of the biggest clubs in the world and had just won a European Cup so could have attracted some of the best players in the world but didnt because Sir Alex refused to match the wages being offered in Italy and Spain.
I fully agree with you. I’m not at all surprised about the way most people feel about City. At times it feels like the Caf is a bit of an echo chamber with regards to the venom directed at city which isn’t shared a great deal outside of it.
Slightly off topic point but I remember many years ago, a friend of mine who is a very passionate Arsenal fan, very intelligent and insightful guy, posted something regarding United’s transfer spend as it compared to other clubs, including City. This was a fair while back, during a period where arsenal were barely spending any money. This was when I was younger and thought this actually mattered. I commented on the posts pointing out the usual stuff about how United earned their money etc etc and he responded that to the clubs below on the financial ladder it all amounted to the same thing, a richer club throwing their money around, the source of the money did not make the act that was performed seem very different. It was one of the first times that I really thought about that.
Last edited:
The other reason was that the best players in the world simply did not come to England at the time. Figo, Rivaldo, Ronaldo, Del Piero, Zidane and players of that quality were just never realistically coming to the PL. The league was much more insular with very rare examples of global superstars. It's not until the influx of foreign investment and the best foreign coaches like Mourinho that the league started being seen as a place where the very elite European and South American players can come to at their peak. You can even argue that until today, it's only Haaland really who was bought to this league coming already as a potential player of the year contender.
Good post, but also to add if your South American, or from a warm European country, would you prefer sunny Spain or wet, cold England? It’s often not mentioned when players want a transfer, but it’s bound to play a part.
Yes, they were all considerations. These players had the better climate and the more prestigious leagues in Spain and Italy at the time. It's why I think it's bonkers when some pundits talk about how United used to get the best players until Chelsea and City started outbidding us. We never competed for the best established European talent. The exception was Veron and that was not just because Fergie had some strong opinions on wages, it was also because the league did not have the global appeal it started to have thanks to Mourinho, Cristiano Ronaldo and later on Klopp and Pep and maybe some other names I am forgetting.
I’d classify myself as upper middle class I suppose, and I would dream of a life in southern Spain or Italy. Just a different style of life and I’d happily earn half what I do here in the uk to find it, simply should have done it sooner as I’m in my 40s now with kids and blah, blah, blah.
Why do people comparing spend with City constantly reference just the past 5/6 seasons? Half their team that just won the treble were signed before that.
This is a particular moment in City's cycle where some of the best players are just at or just moving beyond their peak (KDB/Silva/Walker/Mahrez etc), coupled with an excellent 'hit-rate' recently (Haaland, Rodri spring to mind). But the whole squad is still the most expensive ever assembled, and does anyone really think that they'll sit still in the next 2/3 seasons when all those need replacing?
No doubt they've made good signings recently, but they've only been able to do that based on outrageous spend and likely fraudulent accounting before that.
And I hate repeating this over and over, but it shouldn't be about how badly Ed the f(*cktart Woodward was at his job. If you exclude his sheer, unrivalled ineptitude City's spend is bonkers compared to say, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs etc.
This is a particular moment in City's cycle where some of the best players are just at or just moving beyond their peak (KDB/Silva/Walker/Mahrez etc), coupled with an excellent 'hit-rate' recently (Haaland, Rodri spring to mind). But the whole squad is still the most expensive ever assembled, and does anyone really think that they'll sit still in the next 2/3 seasons when all those need replacing?
No doubt they've made good signings recently, but they've only been able to do that based on outrageous spend and likely fraudulent accounting before that.
And I hate repeating this over and over, but it shouldn't be about how badly Ed the f(*cktart Woodward was at his job. If you exclude his sheer, unrivalled ineptitude City's spend is bonkers compared to say, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs etc.
All look the same, innit..
Not even considering the guilt or otherwise of Manchester City nor the pros/cons of FFP, it must be clear to see that going after them through these charges was about the stupidest thing those who wish to take the club down could have done.
The social identities and resilience of football clubs - as with those of countries - are primarily forged through trial and tribulation. Like Ukraine with Russia, Manchester City now feel victimised by their rivals which has fostered an iron-clad survival instinct of togetherness and desire for vengeance.
In relation to the charges themselves, if you think these will hurt Manchester City then that's simply unsalvageable ignorance about the slickness of their legal team. Even the Premier League seem to have sat on these charges for years knowing the difficulty of gaining any conviction; the only reason they've now acted is because they were shoved head first into doing so by external pressures.
Ultimately, the most likely outcome of all this will merely be even more sustained Manchester City dominance.
The social identities and resilience of football clubs - as with those of countries - are primarily forged through trial and tribulation. Like Ukraine with Russia, Manchester City now feel victimised by their rivals which has fostered an iron-clad survival instinct of togetherness and desire for vengeance.
In relation to the charges themselves, if you think these will hurt Manchester City then that's simply unsalvageable ignorance about the slickness of their legal team. Even the Premier League seem to have sat on these charges for years knowing the difficulty of gaining any conviction; the only reason they've now acted is because they were shoved head first into doing so by external pressures.
Ultimately, the most likely outcome of all this will merely be even more sustained Manchester City dominance.
Ronaldinho was 2003 he'd only moved to PSG in 2001. We missed out on him because Kenyon fecked about and dithered with making bids.
Between 2001 after the wage structure was smashed by Keanes new contract and 2003 yeah we could have offered more than any club in the world probably.
Who's your friend in Trini?
My cousin's out there and supports them.
Wouldn't say he's an outright fan though!
It's mostly money and prestige, the rest is secondary.
Italy is still as sunny as it was 30 years ago, and rarely any top player in his prime goes to Serie A nowadays, they chose rainy and grey England instead.
If they chose Italy in the 90s it was because it was the best league and offered the biggest wages. And back then PL was 5th best league in Europe far away from the top.
That only made what United did in 99 even better, considering that they were the only english team who wasn't atrocious in Europe back then.
Sorry mate I can’t call people’s names on the internet
They’re both doctorsI strongly agree with those who wrote that sheer anger toward the cheating of City could only be found in United circles, and to a lesser extent Liverpool who were their main rivals for big local trophies the past couple of seasons, and then other PL clubs.
most football fans, not only do they not care much about City a/o admire their football whenever they catch a game of theirs;
but they won't even know that they've been charged with 115 charges.
The only scenario where their cheating matters on a wider scale is if the book is thrown at them and they get Lance Armstronged.
This won't happen, sadly enough. History won't put an asterisk on anything they win.
most football fans, not only do they not care much about City a/o admire their football whenever they catch a game of theirs;
but they won't even know that they've been charged with 115 charges.
The only scenario where their cheating matters on a wider scale is if the book is thrown at them and they get Lance Armstronged.
This won't happen, sadly enough. History won't put an asterisk on anything they win.
Nah you don't have to tell me their names but you told me enoughSorry mate I can’t call people’s names on the internet
Manchester City’s European ascent is a total victory for politics in football
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...t-is-a-total-victory-for-politics-in-football
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...t-is-a-total-victory-for-politics-in-football
Nothing will happen to them because they are the greatest team ever, coached by the savior of modern football & righteousness , innit.
I think you need to do a bit more research
Stark lack of coverage of this massive asterisk in the media. Everyone is tugging themselves silly over city without mentioning how they all got there in the first place.
Sky, BT, and to an extent the terrestrial broadcast channels too are all invested in the English football 'product', so saying that is in a sorry state because of financial doping and effectively telling the audience they should be enjoying the 'product' less because of it would be self-harm
In media that aren't so invested, like The Guardian, you do find criticism, but of course, their audience is much smaller.
That article actually paints a damning picture upon City and their ownership,
One of the few articles that highlights both the human rights aspect of their owners and the charges against them.
Interesting that a lot of City fluff pieces in the media are locked for comments. I guess they know the bad will massively outweigh the good.
You can argue if owners should be allowed to spend what they want...but the least they could do is release to correct figures.
PSG spend mountains of cash on Messi/Mbappe but at least they are transparent about it, and you don't get the media slagging off Lyon or Toulouse for spending the same as PSG etc.
PSG spend mountains of cash on Messi/Mbappe but at least they are transparent about it, and you don't get the media slagging off Lyon or Toulouse for spending the same as PSG etc.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Wasn't SAF that refused to match the wages it was Edwards and the PLC. They imposed a strict wage cap through the 90s. Cost United the likes of DeSailly, Blanc, Batistuta, Salas, few others. Keane forced the PLC to raise the cap, practically eliminated such around 2000 and many players were rightly rewarded for the 90s success and The Treble. Also meant not losing out on the likes of Veron, Ruud, etc. going forward but did refuse to meet some demands like Ronaldhino in 2003, who was really set on Spain anyhow. They also notoriously lowballed transfer bids at times like Robben at PSV which allowed Chelsea to swoop in.
Can’t read through all these pages… is there any indication about when we will hear about this?
https://www.si.com/soccer/2023/06/10/manchester-city-champions-league-win-inter-milan-dark-day
Manchester City’s Champions League Triumph, Treble Is a Dark Day for Soccer
Saturday’s 1–0 win over Inter Milan in Istanbul sealed a three-trophy haul rarely seen in the sport. However, it also validated a perilous trend of unchecked, state-run ownership.
Manchester City’s Champions League Triumph, Treble Is a Dark Day for Soccer
Saturday’s 1–0 win over Inter Milan in Istanbul sealed a three-trophy haul rarely seen in the sport. However, it also validated a perilous trend of unchecked, state-run ownership.
This was a very significant day in the history of Manchester City, and a very significant day in the history of football. Rodri’s 68th-minute strike brought City’s first Champions League and made it only the second side in English history to complete the treble with a 1–0 win against Inter Milan. But as nation states invest more and more into sport this was also a red-letter day: The first time a state-run club has won Europe’s premier competition.
How much did this mean to City? It mattered enough for Sheikh Mansour, the club owner and deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, to turn up for his first game since a 3–0 win over Liverpool in August 2010. His brother, Mohamed bin Zayed, the president of the United Arab Emirates, was alongside him in the VIP area. This was evidently a great day for Emirati sport.
For Abu Dhabi, for City, this was the culmination of the project. And for football there is reason for unease. The success of a petroclub has been expected for some time— presaged, even, by the two Champions League titles Chelsea won under Roman Abramovich, an oligarch acting with state-backing—but that doesn’t lessen the significance of this moment. It’s a long time since football was a noble or innocent game, but this is a further step into the darkness, not only because of the human rights records of the states in question but because the states are essentially ungovernable by the football authorities.
Inevitably there must be longer-term concerns. How sustainable, really, is this? Football is now operating beyond the usual laws of the market, the state-run clubs sustained only by generous sponsorship deals with other state-run entities. The rest cannot compete and will not be able to until the states lose interest. It happened with China, which has caused problems for Inter, which is co-owned by Suning. But with Saudi Arabia stepping up its interest, effectively nationalizing the four biggest clubs, buying Karim Benzema and N’Golo Kanté to join Cristiano Ronaldo in the Saudi league and vying to host the 2030 World Cup, there is little sign of Gulf enthusiasm for football waning any time soon.
But those are distant concerns. More immediate on Saturday was the issue of getting to the stadium. The new metro system, perhaps, meant things were not quite as bad as when Istanbul last hosted the final in 2005, but this is not a stadium equipped to host a game of this magnitude. Once again, queues of traffic stretched unmoving down the approach road as fans who had abandoned their taxis and buses trudged the final miles. A pall of smoke from a factory fire a mile or two from the stadium added to the apocalyptic mood.
As long as five hours before the game, queues to board the shuttle buses to the stadium were two hours long. UEFA had told fans to set off from central Istanbul nine hours before kickoff, a statement that is in itself an admission of inadequacy. How can this be UEFA’s premier event of the year? How can it, yet again, let fans down, just as it did in Paris last year?
Not that City fans, in the glow of victory, will be too worried by that. This was not a great City performance. In terms of aesthetics, this was a long way behind either of Guardiola’s previous victories in the competition with Barcelona. But 12 years after his last triumph, as Guardiola became only the fourth manager to win a fourth European Cup/Champions League, that perhaps will not bother even the great perfectionist. Part of the logic of signing Erling Haaland was that City would be able to win ugly, that it would be able to win games without having to dominate them.
This was an ugly, disjointed game. For a long time, Inter frustrated City, without ever really offering too much of a threat itself. Kevin De Bruyne, City’s main creative presence, was forced off with what appeared to be a hamstring injury after 34 minutes, a moment of particularly rotten luck given he suffered a fractured cheekbone in the 2021 final and had to be replaced on the hour.
But eventually the gradual pressure told. Manuel Akanji slipped in Bernardo Silva and his cross was deflected into the path of Rodri, who side-footed a shot from the edge of the box just inside André Onana’s left-hand post. Federico DiMarco did subsequently head against the bar, his follow-up them being blocked by Romelu Lukaku, and Lukaku then put a free header straight against Ederson. But City, living on its nerves, held out.
And so a fourth successive Champions League final finished 1–0, City has its grail, Guardiola climbed to the next tier of the pantheon and football entered a new and unwelcome age.
How much did this mean to City? It mattered enough for Sheikh Mansour, the club owner and deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, to turn up for his first game since a 3–0 win over Liverpool in August 2010. His brother, Mohamed bin Zayed, the president of the United Arab Emirates, was alongside him in the VIP area. This was evidently a great day for Emirati sport.
For Abu Dhabi, for City, this was the culmination of the project. And for football there is reason for unease. The success of a petroclub has been expected for some time— presaged, even, by the two Champions League titles Chelsea won under Roman Abramovich, an oligarch acting with state-backing—but that doesn’t lessen the significance of this moment. It’s a long time since football was a noble or innocent game, but this is a further step into the darkness, not only because of the human rights records of the states in question but because the states are essentially ungovernable by the football authorities.
Inevitably there must be longer-term concerns. How sustainable, really, is this? Football is now operating beyond the usual laws of the market, the state-run clubs sustained only by generous sponsorship deals with other state-run entities. The rest cannot compete and will not be able to until the states lose interest. It happened with China, which has caused problems for Inter, which is co-owned by Suning. But with Saudi Arabia stepping up its interest, effectively nationalizing the four biggest clubs, buying Karim Benzema and N’Golo Kanté to join Cristiano Ronaldo in the Saudi league and vying to host the 2030 World Cup, there is little sign of Gulf enthusiasm for football waning any time soon.
But those are distant concerns. More immediate on Saturday was the issue of getting to the stadium. The new metro system, perhaps, meant things were not quite as bad as when Istanbul last hosted the final in 2005, but this is not a stadium equipped to host a game of this magnitude. Once again, queues of traffic stretched unmoving down the approach road as fans who had abandoned their taxis and buses trudged the final miles. A pall of smoke from a factory fire a mile or two from the stadium added to the apocalyptic mood.
As long as five hours before the game, queues to board the shuttle buses to the stadium were two hours long. UEFA had told fans to set off from central Istanbul nine hours before kickoff, a statement that is in itself an admission of inadequacy. How can this be UEFA’s premier event of the year? How can it, yet again, let fans down, just as it did in Paris last year?
Not that City fans, in the glow of victory, will be too worried by that. This was not a great City performance. In terms of aesthetics, this was a long way behind either of Guardiola’s previous victories in the competition with Barcelona. But 12 years after his last triumph, as Guardiola became only the fourth manager to win a fourth European Cup/Champions League, that perhaps will not bother even the great perfectionist. Part of the logic of signing Erling Haaland was that City would be able to win ugly, that it would be able to win games without having to dominate them.
This was an ugly, disjointed game. For a long time, Inter frustrated City, without ever really offering too much of a threat itself. Kevin De Bruyne, City’s main creative presence, was forced off with what appeared to be a hamstring injury after 34 minutes, a moment of particularly rotten luck given he suffered a fractured cheekbone in the 2021 final and had to be replaced on the hour.
But eventually the gradual pressure told. Manuel Akanji slipped in Bernardo Silva and his cross was deflected into the path of Rodri, who side-footed a shot from the edge of the box just inside André Onana’s left-hand post. Federico DiMarco did subsequently head against the bar, his follow-up them being blocked by Romelu Lukaku, and Lukaku then put a free header straight against Ederson. But City, living on its nerves, held out.
And so a fourth successive Champions League final finished 1–0, City has its grail, Guardiola climbed to the next tier of the pantheon and football entered a new and unwelcome age.
For what it's worth Talksport today wasn't exactly glowing gorgeous them. Jordan was going on for ages about their 115, and the presenter in the afternoon was saying there treble was with a big asterisk. I thought it was funny cus I wldve been pissed off if I was on the other side.
Should send that to media outlets blowing smoke up City’s proverbial with the 115 elephant in the room.