City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches

[Mr Pigeon]

Excellent point, and it begs the question why so many who claim to have the sport's best interests in mind (when speaking about City) ignore this massive flaw in the rules (the answer is obvious; they didn't care until their clubs were disadvantaged). In a world without rule-breaking, you've basically entrenched a hierarchy of clubs, capped by their revenues. Because you can't build a stadium overnight or organically sell noodles to billions in Asia; and you being competent on and off the pitch won't move the needle against big sides with entrenched financial advantages.

Which is why it's either you're upset that stupid rules were broken, or non-plussed at stupid rules being broken, and there's not much ground for compromise there.

So it's about helping all of the disadvantaged clubs have a chance? And City are somehow the saviours for breaking the "entrenched" clubs?

Before City started paying Mancini under the table they hadn't finished in the top 4 since 1978. Then they suddenly went from mid table to being in the Champions League spots from 2010/2011 onwards, again after they started paying at least one person at the club under the table thanks to a new ownership that are currently under investigation.

So how does City cheating when other clubs are following the rules benefit all of the other teams that have missed out on Champions League football?

The rules being stupid or not is not exactly the point. The point is that one team have breached the rules everyone else was following, and some folk are desperate for them not to be punished in the same way other clubs would have been were they doing the same thing.

 

[NicolaSacco]

This is also absolute bollocks by the way, you already know that United very rarely outspend their rivals prior to Roman arriving, as you’ve seen the youtube video and been told literally hundreds of times.

We have spent like mad since City especially though in order to try and keep up, and at the cost of everything else with our infrastructure, whilst Spurs, Arsenal have new stadiums and training grounds, Liverpool have a new stand etc.
Despite this spending, all those teams have been gaining on United in the Deloitte table since SAF’s retirement and our inevitable downturn. Both Liverpool AND Spurs are now within touching distance, without state help.

I’ve said it before, the argument is fecking ridiculous, United, like Spurs and Liverpool are a football club, and their fortunes will often be shaped by periods of good and bad, this league has never been like Germany or Spain and we were always going to let the likes of Liverpool, Chelsea or Arsenal in post Fergie.
Take City away and a more successful Liverpool would have already surpassed us.

City’s fortune is shaped by nothing, they have a bottomless pit even if they are shite for 10 years, 20 years etc. We have a league in which football clubs must make good football decisions in order to be able to be able to pretend they can compete with an oil state football project.

City quite simply can outspend the most profitable club in the league, all whilst spending off the books. Without FFP, they’d obviously be even fecking worse. Messi would certainly have ended up there.
City can spend 10 fold of United, all whilst building new stands, infrastructure, and whilst having a wage bill the size of the rest of the league combined (a la PsG).

The only thing even making City pretend to follow the rules and rein it in is FFP.

Sorry but that’s just rubbish. You’ve just glossed over Utd spending £1.8 billion on the basis of ‘trying to keep up’. And spurs are not within touching distance. You bring in about £4 million a WEEK more than them.

Just out of interest, what on earth happened to the money if you haven’t out spent your rivals pre-Abramovic? You were well known for bringing in tons more than anyone else. If you haven’t spent it, where is it? Can’t blame the Glazers as we are talking pre 2004.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Sorry but that’s just rubbish. You’ve just glossed over Utd spending £1.8 billion on the basis of ‘trying to keep up’. And spurs are not within touching distance. You bring in about £4 million a WEEK more than them.

https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pag.../articles/deloitte-football-money-league.html

Spurs are incredibly just €120m behind the biggest club in the country, despite no state ownership. It's almost like they are single handedly proving you wrong, but then you see Liverpool just €63m behind and you realise it aint single handedly, there is two of them, with Arsenal also back in resurgence.

Just out of interest, what on earth happened to the money if you haven’t out spent your rivals pre-Abramovic?

We were a plc then mate. But aside from that, we like everyone else made improvements to facilities etc, similar to Spurs now in an attempt to grow organically like any football business can and should. And typically when we did, even more clubs wage and transfer spending started to look similar. These infrastructure years are something that's always existed and given opportunities to other sides, like when Arsenal had to serious ease off the spending for some years when they moved the stadium. Unfortunately the big greedy Abu Dhabi football project took that space though.

And don't say "if you haven't" as you know fecking full well we didn't... we were always 2nd behind Liverpool or 3rd behind Liverpool and Blackburn until the treble in 99, and after that massive success we had earned the luxury of 3 "extravagant" spending season at the top. Around 2003 we then did a part stadium rebuild in the quads, Roman came to Chelsea, City came, and our spending turned solely to players and wages, the infrastructure was forced to go to shit if we wanted to spend like them.

And here we are now, because of the last 15 or so years, it looks likely we'll need to find 3 billion we don't have to get our stadium up to top club standards, and a tonne more on the training facilities and the academy. Most estimates find we're likely looking at a 4bn bill if we wanna equal other top clubs like Madrid or Barca.

"just like City".

And I'll ask you again, we know 100% that City have been trying to cheat FFP. So let's imagine it doesn't exist, how do you think City's spending looks then? FFP is the only reason City even keep up the charade of playing the game on a same level as others in the league, without it they'd have been like PSG, massively outspending absolutely everybody (which they likely do already with that Mancini wage system).

Spurs spending since the Prem started is 3,7bn and they have a brand new stadium and training ground.
Arsenal spending since the Prem started is 5bn and they also have a brand new stadium and training ground.
United's spending since the Prem started is 6.7bn and now have a desperate need for a new stadium and training ground to keep up with the rest.


Now reimagine our spending without City (and maybe Chelsea) had we not felt the need to keep up and instead built a new stadium and training ground after 2010. That plus SAF retiring is how football opens up opportunities.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

After scouring the internet for an journo daring to write a story against them, there was a nice one from Daniel Story in the i, "City's dominance is a disaster for the Premier league". "as City edge towards an historic achievment, that loses all meaning", "the Prem league is losing all trust", "is becoming a league of asterisks", etc.

No idea if this lot hold much weight, but it's just nice to see a few people willing to talk about it, as listening to the mainstream media you wouldn't even know this was happening.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pag.../articles/deloitte-football-money-league.html

Spurs are incredibly just €120m behind the biggest club in the country, despite no state ownership. It's almost like they are single handedly proving you wrong, but then you see Liverpool just €63m behind and you realise it aint single handedly, there is two of them, with Arsenal also back in resurgence.



We were a plc then mate. But aside from that, we like everyone else made improvements to facilities etc, similar to Spurs now in an attempt to grow organically like any football business can and should. And typically when we did, even more clubs wage and transfer spending started to look similar. These infrastructure years are something that's always existed and given opportunities to other sides, like when Arsenal had to serious ease off the spending for some years when they moved the stadium. Unfortunately the big greedy Abu Dhabi football project took that space though.

And don't say "if you haven't" as you know fecking full well we didn't... we were always 2nd behind Liverpool or 3rd behind Liverpool and Blackburn until the treble in 99, and after that massive success we had earned the luxury of 3 "extravagant" spending season at the top. Around 2003 we then did a part stadium rebuild in the quads, Roman came to Chelsea, City came, and our spending turned solely to players and wages, the infrastructure was forced to go to shit if we wanted to spend like them.

And here we are now, because of the last 15 or so years, it looks likely we'll need to find 3 billion we don't have to get our stadium up to top club standards, and a tonne more on the training facilities and the academy. Most estimates find we're likely looking at a 4bn bill if we wanna equal other top clubs like Madrid or Barca.

"just like City".

And I'll ask you again, we know 100% that City have been trying to cheat FFP. So let's imagine it doesn't exist, how do you think City's spending looks then? FFP is the only reason City even keep up the charade of playing the game on a same level as others in the league, without it they'd have been like PSG, massively outspending absolutely everybody.

Spurs spending since the Prem started is 3,7bn and they have a brand new stadium and training ground.
Arsenal spending since the Prem started is 5bn and they also have a brand new stadium and training ground.
United's spending since the Prem started is 6.6bn and now have a desperate need for a new stadium and training ground to keep up with the rest.

Now reimagine our spending without City (and maybe Chelsea) had we not felt the need to keep up and instead built a new stadium and training ground after 2010. That plus SAF retiring is how football opens up opportunities.

I'll be surprised if you get a response from Nicola, who seems to be very selective with what they want to discuss.

@NicolaSacco I'm guessing you still haven't seen any evidence of City's wrongdoing?

 

[adexkola]

So it's about helping all of the disadvantaged clubs have a chance? And City are somehow the saviours for breaking the "entrenched" clubs?

Before City started paying Mancini under the table they hadn't finished in the top 4 since 1978. Then they suddenly went from mid table to being in the Champions League spots from 2010/2011 onwards, again after they started paying at least one person at the club under the table thanks to a new ownership that are currently under investigation.

So how does City cheating when other clubs are following the rules benefit all of the other teams that have missed out on Champions League football?

The rules being stupid or not is not exactly the point. The point is that one team have breached the rules everyone else was following, and some folk are desperate for them not to be punished in the same way other clubs would have been were they doing the same thing.

I haven't called them saviors. And I've said that if they've been stupid enough to leave enough evidence of their dirt such that the PL finds them guilty, they should be slammed down the pyramid.

I don't care about City as much as making football more fair and equal. In my ideal scenario money as a factor toward success is much less important. Otherwise, whatever happens... Meh

 

[Withnail]

I haven't called them saviors. And I've said that if they've been stupid enough to leave enough evidence of their dirt such that the PL finds them guilty, they should be slammed down the pyramid.

I don't care about City as much as making football more fair and equal. In my ideal scenario money as a factor toward success is much less important. Otherwise, whatever happens... Meh

So they should be punished for not being clever enough about their cheating as opposed to their cheating? Makes sense.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I'll be surprised if you get a response from Nicola, who seems to be very selective with what they want to discuss.

@NicolaSacco I'm guessing you still haven't seen any evidence of City's wrongdoing?

Shame, was about to show him that pre City the league's highest paid player looked like this:

92-93: John Barnes
93-94: John Barnes
94-95: Eric Cantona
95-96: Bergkamp
96-97: Ravanelli
97-98: Shearer
98-99: Shearer
99-00: Keane
00-01: Keane
01-02: Keane
02-03: Keane
03-04: Crespo
04-05: Lampard
05-06: Gerrard
06-07: Shevvy
07-08: Terry


Then came City, and unsurprisingly we started by shitting our pants Rooney was going to them by offering him an absolutely insane contract to prevent that happening, and we haven't looked back since, with Sanchez, De Gea and Ronaldo all having seasons with ridiculous money. Both Sanchez and Ronaldo both offered it to prevent them going Citeh.

Nicola has this daft idea in him that because we were so successful in the 90's and started to then spend our ridiculously well earned money in the 00's that we somehow had/have the same advantage the Abu Dhabi project has. Ignoring that it was Fergie's genius that got us there, not outspending everyone with massive financial power, and in fact, the old dominant side (Liverpool) outspent us all through the 90's trying to regain their spot.

I'm also convinced that post Fergie, we get overtaken again by Liverpool and with Spurs actually winning a title or two them getting even closer. The Abu Dhabi football project has stopped that power battle post Fergie, it's instead replaced it with a much more dominant club that can outspend everyone 10 fold if they feel it necessary. They'll never have to reel it in for a few years a la Arsenal if they wanna build a new stadium, or likely how United will once their project starts, in fact, they won't even notice the 3bn has gone from "some account".

 

[adexkola]

So they should be punished for not being clever enough about their cheating as opposed to their cheating? Makes sense.

I mean, if they can't be found guilty of the important Rules, why should they be punished?

 

[Fortitude]

Excellent point, and it begs the question why so many who claim to have the sport's best interests in mind (when speaking about City) ignore this massive flaw in the rules (the answer is obvious; they didn't care until their clubs were disadvantaged). In a world without rule-breaking, you've basically entrenched a hierarchy of clubs, capped by their revenues. Because you can't build a stadium overnight or organically sell noodles to billions in Asia; and you being competent on and off the pitch won't move the needle against big sides with entrenched financial advantages.

Which is why it's either you're upset that stupid rules were broken, or non-plussed at stupid rules being broken, and there's not much ground for compromise there.

You think you ‘get it’ but you’re so shrouded in bitterness that you actually don’t get it at all.

What you’re talking about isn’t greater opportunities for all, it’s less opportunities for United (in your head) which makes you happy.

Take the league cup for example, this being the trophy that used to regularly give smaller clubs the chance of silverware. Over the last 11 seasons city have won that trophy 6 times. Which has left space for United x2 Chelsea x1 Liverpool x2 and nobody else.

The previous 11 seasons saw wins for Swansea, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Birmingham.

Since their takeover only Arsenal x4 and Chelsea x4 have won the FA cup more times than City x3 and they have won 4 of the last 5 leagues and 6 of the last 11 league titles. To my reconning that would give them 15 of the last 33 domestic trophies….for a club who hadn’t won anything for 35 years prior….whilst all kinds of clubs actually were winning trophies, the likes of Oxford, Wimbledon, Sheffield weds, Luton, Forrest, Blackburn, Leicester, Villa, Swansea, Middlesbrough and Birmingham etc.

City have merely stopped other clubs winning trophies that they didn’t win prior purely down to how badly run they were for decades, similar to our last decade. We’ve won what we’ve deserved…not much. Which is how football should be.

It’s also worth noting that United have NOT won the league for 33 of the last 46 years. We have never dominated the league, except in ultimately two periods of deserved sustained success under two great managers. Which again is how football should be.

United are exactly where we deserve to be. Don’t be blinded by your hatred. City being relegated and being made to obey rules is better for smaller clubs than it is United. We will always be successful when we sort our own club out. Get the back room staff right and get the manager right, give them time.

You’re unconcerned by one club cheating rules that all other clubs are adhering to, because it stops united. Reverse that….United are the ones breaking the rules…still unconcerned? Didn’t think so.

The convenience with which this post was ducked at the time said a lot. Apart from filling their coffers from time to time, City cheating themselves to the top of football has been of enormous detriment to a number of clubs, not just the old order.

 

[adexkola]

The convenience with which this post was ducked at the time said a lot. Apart from filling their coffers from time to time, City cheating themselves to the top of football has been of enormous detriment to a number of clubs, not just the old order.

Using the league cup as evidence of anything is silly. It was won by lesser clubs because bigger clubs led by Fergie's United didn't give a feck about it; if they did, they could have dominated it as well. Now they do.

Have they been of detriment to Arsenal and Liverpool? Yeah. Tottenham? To a lesser extent, yes. The others? They were fecked anyways.

 

[Bastian]

"We want to create the legacy. We want two Trebles in a row," said Silva.

That's a nice bit of unnecessary self-induced pressure. Posted here as the only relevant thread for everything City is 115.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Using the league cup as evidence of anything is silly. It was won by lesser clubs because bigger clubs led by Fergie's United didn't give a feck about it; if they did, they could have dominated it as well. Now they do.

Have they been of detriment to Arsenal and Liverpool? Yeah. Tottenham? To a lesser extent, yes. The others? They were fecked anyways.

Nar, the likes of Spurs, Villa, Newcastle in the 90's, Everton under Moyes, Leicester, and hell, even Brighton now, have shown that organic growth with smart business and football decisions absolutely is possible.
The Abu Dhabi football project has just taken that Aston Villa (likely when they finish 5th) CL spot growth opportunity away from them, as they did to Leicester in 2019-2020 and again in 2020-2021. So instead of 2 years of CL football to grow the club into something really special, it was relegation that awaited them instead in 2023.

There are 4 CL spaces, and since the stadium move Arsenal have never been a shoe-in until last season, same for United post SAF, so City-less, that spot was open for a deserving proper club running as a football club to use for growth, but instead it goes every single SAF to the Abu Dhabi football project rather than a Leicester or a Villa.

Not sure how that convinces any aspring PL->CL club that having an oil state in the league isn't a massive disadvantage for them.

People forget that Spurs were often a nothing club, finishing plenty of seasons outside the top 10 all through the 90's and 00's, but some savvy decisions eventually got them a CL spot in 2010 and despite the oil state limiting their opportunities, they used that as a catalyst, and now just 14 years after that CL quarter final run, they've grown to a big Premier League club, with a cracking stadium, training ground and are now 8th in the Deloitte Football Money League, just €50m euros behind Liverpool and €114 behind United.
People backing City like to pretend that kind of growth isn't possible and that FFP is just some attempt at creating a monopoly for the big clubs, well Spurs for sure make a mockery of that.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

The problem with that analogy is that Utd’s net spend is considerably higher than City’s over the last decade. And in fact is comfortably the biggest in the Premiership.

So comparing Lance Armstrong’s physical doping to City’s financial doping seems a bit off. A better analogy would be a Tour de France where one team (Utd) has ‘earned’ the right to dope, and another team (City) hasn’t earned the right, but has done it anyway.

So whilst you could clearly still argue that anything won by City should have an asterisk next to it, they aren’t doing anything that Utd aren’t already doing. Utd are simply allowed to do it, and indeed have done it more than anyone else.

Are you forgetting the off the books payments?

 

[NicolaSacco]

I'll be surprised if you get a response from Nicola, who seems to be very selective with what they want to discuss.

@NicolaSacco I'm guessing you still haven't seen any evidence of City's wrongdoing?

Try and find any time, literally any, where I’ve said I don’t think City broke some kind of financial rules. I’ve stated clearly that I think they have, just that I don’t know which exact ones, or to what exact extent. It’s astonishing that your takeaway from my posts is that I don’t think they’ve broken FFP.

I also think it’s glaringly obvious that the heartfelt moralising by a lot on here is just a facade. I’ll be kind and say I think there are a few with genuinely held principles.

If you want an indicator as to the morals of the average football fan I’d suggest looking back at the posts when it seemed to be likely that you’d be taken over by an oil funded Middle Eastern magnate. I seem to remember someone even started a thread where people could own up to having made throwaway statements about oil wealth and human rights when it concerned City, and then threw those objections out of the window when it looked like Utd might benefit.

 

[RedRocket9908]

The problem with that analogy is that Utd’s net spend is considerably higher than City’s over the last decade.

How do you know? Do we really know what City's net spend is?

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Are you forgetting the off the books payments?

He - and his pal naysayer adex - forget many things when it's convenient for their contrarian views, even if they don't really make sense.

 

[tomaldinho1]

. I seem to remember someone even started a thread where people could own up to having made throwaway statements about oil wealth and human rights when it concerned City, and then threw those objections out of the window when it looked like Utd might benefit.

Please tell me this is true and you haven’t just made it up? Where can I find this thread?

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Try and find any time, literally any, where I’ve said I don’t think City broke some kind of financial rules. I’ve stated clearly that I think they have, just that I don’t know which exact ones, or to what exact extent. It’s astonishing that your takeaway from my posts is that I don’t think they’ve broken FFP.

I also think it’s glaringly obvious that the heartfelt moralising by a lot on here is just a facade. I’ll be kind and say I think there are a few with genuinely held principles.

If you want an indicator as to the morals of the average football fan I’d suggest looking back at the posts when it seemed to be likely that you’d be taken over by an oil funded Middle Eastern magnate. I seem to remember someone even started a thread where people could own up to having made throwaway statements about oil wealth and human rights when it concerned City, and then threw those objections out of the window when it looked like Utd might benefit.

Blah blah blah. Please keep track of your own whataboutism before going on some distracting rant attempt instead of actually addressing the points being made by your own good self.

Except that much of what they are accused of is cooking the books to make it look like they're not spending as much, while in reality spending considerably more, but with much of that spend being 'off the books' with regards to wages, agents fees etc. This is on top of the fake sponsors and such.

And that may be true- I’ve never seen any evidence for it other than on opposition fan sites, but I guess it’s not possible to disprove, is it?

Have you tried looking for evidence?

https://amp.theguardian.com/footbal...bu-dhabi-money-second-contract-sheikh-mansour

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-citys-new-betting-partner-28161569

https://www.skysports.com/football/...ment-from-owners-was-disguised-as-sponsorship

 

[NicolaSacco]

How do you know? Do we really know what City's net spend is?

Probably not, and as I say in another post in this thread it’s dependent on the figures (for all Prem clubs) being accurate, and they may not be.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Blah blah blah. Please keep track of your own whataboutism before going on some distracting rant attempt instead of actually addressing the points being made by your own good self.

In the nicest possible way, I don’t think it’s worth really engaging in a post that begins ‘blah blah blah’!

 

[NicolaSacco]

Please tell me this is true and you haven’t just made it up? Where can I find this thread?

I sincerely hope I haven’t made it up, it will be very embarrassing if that’s the case!
It will be about the time that SJ emerged as a front runner to takeover Utd. There was a point where it seemed by far the most likely option.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

In the nicest possible way, I don’t think it’s worth really engaging in a post that begins ‘blah blah blah’!

In the nicest way possible, you avoid points that go against your agenda and do everything you can to deflect away from them.

 

[NicolaSacco]

In the nicest way possible, you avoid points that go against your agenda and do everything you can to deflect away from them.

Nope - as established I've already said I'm sure City have broken financial rules - I didn't think that was even up for debate.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Nope - as established I've already said I'm sure City have broken financial rules - I didn't think that was even up for debate.

And we've also established that you don't see a problem with it because "United did it" or something, and it's somehow good for the league.

And that's before I bring up my main point again, which you've conveniently ignored, about you conveniently ignoring posts that challenge your agenda. There's two alone on this page, one with someone you were supposedly engaging in posts with, that you've failed to respond to. Instead you've decided to yet again to go for deflection, using my ones this time.

What will be the reply this time, instead of engaging with @Regulus Arcturus Black or @Fluctuation0161? To feign insult against what I've posted here? To find one singular sentence or word that you can find a flaw in, which somehow means all of my point is wrong? I can't wait to find out.

Actually I can, I'm off to bed. Feel free to use the time to reply to one of the half dozen conversations in this thread that you abruptly stopped when they started getting awkward for you.

 

[adexkola]

Nar, the likes of Spurs, Villa, Newcastle in the 90's, Everton under Moyes, Leicester, and hell, even Brighton now, have shown that organic growth with smart business and football decisions absolutely is possible.
The Abu Dhabi football project has just taken that Aston Villa (likely when they finish 5th) CL spot growth opportunity away from them, as they did to Leicester in 2019-2020 and again in 2020-2021. So instead of 2 years of CL football to grow the club into something really special, it was relegation that awaited them instead in 2023.

There are 4 CL spaces, and since the stadium move Arsenal have never been a shoe-in until last season, same for United post SAF, so City-less, that spot was open for a deserving proper club running as a football club to use for growth, but instead it goes every single SAF to the Abu Dhabi football project rather than a Leicester or a Villa.

Not sure how that convinces any aspring PL->CL club that having an oil state in the league isn't a massive disadvantage for them.

People forget that Spurs were often a nothing club, finishing plenty of seasons outside the top 10 all through the 90's and 00's, but some savvy decisions eventually got them a CL spot in 2010 and despite the oil state limiting their opportunities, they used that as a catalyst, and now just 14 years after that CL quarter final run, they've grown to a big Premier League club, with a cracking stadium, training ground and are now 8th in the Deloitte Football Money League, just €50m euros behind Liverpool and €114 behind United.
People backing City like to pretend that kind of growth isn't possible and that FFP is just some attempt at creating a monopoly for the big clubs, well Spurs for sure make a mockery of that.

I see what you're saying, but I think that in the absence of a City and City, it would have simply entrenched United and Arsenal and Liverpool at the top. Tottenham would have won 1 league possibly, but the historical and financial advantages of these 3 would have simply been too great for the rest of the league to even try and surmount.

We'll never know for sure, but IMO the PL without City and Chelsea isn't more egalitarian. How do I know? PL before Chelsea: United and Arsenal, with the occasional Blackburn title. With more money flooding into football, it would have been impossible for the rest.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I see what you're saying, but I think that in the absence of a City and City, it would have simply entrenched United and Arsenal and Liverpool at the top. Tottenham would have won 1 league possibly, but the historical and financial advantages of these 3 would have simply been too great for the rest of the league to even try and surmount.

We'll never know for sure, but IMO the PL without City and Chelsea isn't more egalitarian. How do I know? PL before Chelsea: United and Arsenal, with the occasional Blackburn title. With more money flooding into football, it would have been impossible for the rest.

I’ve just showed you how form a mid table club in the 90’s and 00’s, Spurs used the CL as a catalyst to now 14 years later be one of the richest clubs on the planet, not far off United and Liverpool.

The idea it’s impossible is daft. We’ll see what happens with Villa if they hopefully manage CL, but it can and will happen again.
Leeds were in the rich list top 10 around the 00’s, Newcastle absolutely could have done it organically.
They just need some poor years for the bigger clubs due to stadium building (Arsenal) or manager loss (United) to take the opportunity starting with CL qualification.
The Abu Dhabi football project guaranteeing one CL spot less forever makes it much harder though. I feel Villa will miss out this year.

 

[NicolaSacco]

And we've also established that you don't see a problem with it because "United did it" or something, and it's somehow good for the league.

And that's before I bring up my main point again, which you've conveniently ignored, about you conveniently ignoring posts that challenge your agenda. There's two alone on this page, one with someone you were supposedly engaging in posts with, that you've failed to respond to. Instead you've decided to yet again to go for deflection, using my ones this time.

What will be the reply this time, instead of engaging with @Regulus Arcturus Black or @Fluctuation0161? To feign insult against what I've posted here? To find one singular sentence or word that you can find a flaw in, which somehow means all of my point is wrong? I can't wait to find out.

Actually I can, I'm off to bed. Feel free to use the time to reply to one of the half dozen conversations in this thread that you abruptly stopped when they started getting awkward for you.

You're definitely giving me too much credit here. I've zero idea who I'm supposed to have ignored. I think what you see as me deliberately ignoring a person or post is more a result of there being a lot of replies than anything else.

If there's one thing that I agree with though, it's that it's time you went to bed. I'm happy tp discuss anything with anybody, but you seem to be taking this really personally.

 

[izak]

Have been charged and feck over in court yet?

 

[Dansk]

I mean, if they can't be found guilty of the important Rules, why should they be punished?

It's a lot like O.J. Simpson. He was acquitted, but it was so abundantly obvious that he was guilty that nobody in their right mind thought otherwise. Same goes for City. We've all seen the absurd spending and how their reported revenues don't remotely add up to the level of support the club has (if I recall, they didn't even feature in the top 20 clubs for shirt sales in Europe last year--their treble-winning season). We've seen their shady payment practices. We all witnessed UEFA find them guilty of the same sort of thing as the current charges, but City's lawyers managed to sandbag the case until the prosecution ran out of time and had to dismiss it. If they aren't punished this time around, they're innoccent only in the eyes of the law, but it will remain a self-evident and undeniable fact that they should be punished. Failure to do so will be an official declaration that the PL is a farce that ought not be taken seriously anymore.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

We'll never know for sure, but IMO the PL without City and Chelsea isn't more egalitarian. How do I know? PL before Chelsea: United and Arsenal, with the occasional Blackburn title.

You’re putting that down soley to money though weirdly, when Liverpool were in fact the big spenders in the 90’s, Villa spent big too.

Money wasn’t the main reason, Wenger & SAF were, whilst Villa and Liverpool couldn't find managers that were their equals.
Newcastle should have managed one title though but bottled it.

Once Arsenal had to spend on their stadium, there was plenty of opportunity for others to step in. Instead it was Russian Chelsea and then the Abu Dhabi football project who stole in.

 

[Withnail]

Please tell me this is true and you haven’t just made it up? Where can I find this thread?

It sounds like a @Wumminator thread and does ring a slight bell

 

[caid]

Please tell me this is true and you haven’t just made it up? Where can I find this thread?

I kind of remember it. Think it got locked pretty quickly.

 

[Josep Dowling]

https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pag.../articles/deloitte-football-money-league.html

Spurs are incredibly just €120m behind the biggest club in the country, despite no state ownership. It's almost like they are single handedly proving you wrong, but then you see Liverpool just €63m behind and you realise it aint single handedly, there is two of them, with Arsenal also back in resurgence.



We were a plc then mate. But aside from that, we like everyone else made improvements to facilities etc, similar to Spurs now in an attempt to grow organically like any football business can and should. And typically when we did, even more clubs wage and transfer spending started to look similar. These infrastructure years are something that's always existed and given opportunities to other sides, like when Arsenal had to serious ease off the spending for some years when they moved the stadium. Unfortunately the big greedy Abu Dhabi football project took that space though.

And don't say "if you haven't" as you know fecking full well we didn't... we were always 2nd behind Liverpool or 3rd behind Liverpool and Blackburn until the treble in 99, and after that massive success we had earned the luxury of 3 "extravagant" spending season at the top. Around 2003 we then did a part stadium rebuild in the quads, Roman came to Chelsea, City came, and our spending turned solely to players and wages, the infrastructure was forced to go to shit if we wanted to spend like them.

And here we are now, because of the last 15 or so years, it looks likely we'll need to find 3 billion we don't have to get our stadium up to top club standards, and a tonne more on the training facilities and the academy. Most estimates find we're likely looking at a 4bn bill if we wanna equal other top clubs like Madrid or Barca.

"just like City".

And I'll ask you again, we know 100% that City have been trying to cheat FFP. So let's imagine it doesn't exist, how do you think City's spending looks then? FFP is the only reason City even keep up the charade of playing the game on a same level as others in the league, without it they'd have been like PSG, massively outspending absolutely everybody (which they likely do already with that Mancini wage system).

Spurs spending since the Prem started is 3,7bn and they have a brand new stadium and training ground.
Arsenal spending since the Prem started is 5bn and they also have a brand new stadium and training ground.
United's spending since the Prem started is 6.7bn and now have a desperate need for a new stadium and training ground to keep up with the rest.


Now reimagine our spending without City (and maybe Chelsea) had we not felt the need to keep up and instead built a new stadium and training ground after 2010. That plus SAF retiring is how football opens up opportunities.

I agree with this but I think you’re also missing the fact we have terrible owners who don’t want to spend cash on capital projects like a new stadium. Massive debt put on us since 2005 which reduced cash flow and didn’t mean we invested properly in the squad from 2009 to 2013. This meant we lost a winning squad and didn’t invest. City were heavily investing during those season so caught up. Also dividends taken by the owners which no other club in the league has to deal with. We are the only club badly hamstrung by our owners.

In addition we haven’t followed the youth system model and making it a profit centre, with feeder clubs around the world. This model is precisely why City look so great with their transfer figures. Every season they sell 5 youth players for circa £80m combined. We don’t do that which makes our net spend look awful compared to all the other clubs in the league.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

The problem with that analogy is that Utd’s net spend is considerably higher than City’s over the last decade. And in fact is comfortably the biggest in the Premiership.

So comparing Lance Armstrong’s physical doping to City’s financial doping seems a bit off. A better analogy would be a Tour de France where one team (Utd) has ‘earned’ the right to dope, and another team (City) hasn’t earned the right, but has done it anyway.

So whilst you could clearly still argue that anything won by City should have an asterisk next to it, they aren’t doing anything that Utd aren’t already doing. Utd are simply allowed to do it, and indeed have done it more than anyone else.

Completely brainless line of thought. We are allowed to do it becuase we have earned the right by building our revenue and wealth up. It’s like saying two teams both played the same sport whilst conveniently ignoring that one paid the ref or took performance enhancing drugs. City spent money they were allowed to - that’s really as simple as it is. If tomorrow Ipswich rob banks and spend 100bn right after, they’ll be penalised for being rotten cheats too. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp unless you’re trying very hard to be obtuse.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pag.../articles/deloitte-football-money-league.html

Spurs are incredibly just €120m behind the biggest club in the country, despite no state ownership. It's almost like they are single handedly proving you wrong, but then you see Liverpool just €63m behind and you realise it aint single handedly, there is two of them, with Arsenal also back in resurgence..

I was just going to cite Spurs who have organically grown their revenue and earned their place on the money table. Whether they use that position to continue to remain trophyless is another matter - the point is that they’re in that position. The people that argue in favour of 115 fraud FC, which is a laughable thing to do in itself, appear to want overnight richness / success / stature to be possible, which obviously devalues every competition severely. Also, with City and / or Chelsea constantly occupying CL places, it keeps the likes of Spurs, Everton (in the past), WH, Leicester, Brighton, Villa out which I’m sure is terrific for their growth.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Completely brainless line of thought. We are allowed to do it becuase we have earned the right by building our revenue and wealth up. It’s like saying two teams both played the same sport whilst conveniently ignoring that one paid the ref or took performance enhancing drugs. City spent money they were allowed to - that’s really as simple as it is. If tomorrow Ipswich rob banks and spend 100bn right after, they’ll be penalised for being rotten cheats too. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp unless you’re trying very hard to be obtuse.

And you obviously want to keep that system whereby no one can challenge your spending power. Just be honest about it.

 

[Pickle85]

And you obviously want to keep that system whereby no one can challenge your spending power. Just be honest about it.

So what do you want? Are you in favour of zero financial controls and clubs being able to spend what they like? Your posts just seem to be argumentative for the sake of it, without giving any kind of sense of your position.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

I see what you're saying, but I think that in the absence of a City and City, it would have simply entrenched United and Arsenal and Liverpool at the top. Tottenham would have won 1 league possibly, but the historical and financial advantages of these 3 would have simply been too great for the rest of the league to even try and surmount.

We'll never know for sure, but IMO the PL without City and Chelsea isn't more egalitarian. How do I know? PL before Chelsea: United and Arsenal, with the occasional Blackburn title. With more money flooding into football, it would have been impossible for the rest.

Possible but pure conjecture - also, how is that worse than the current situation of uber-domination by a State-backed club that has cheated its way to get where it is?

 

[Rooney in Paris]

And you obviously want to keep that system whereby no one can challenge your spending power. Just be honest about it.

As has also been pointed out on this page, which you'll conveniently ignore, organic growth is absolutely possible.