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

[Sunny Jim]

They will win the treble of trebles and nothing will get done about their charges.

 

[NicolaSacco]

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.

There weren’t financial controls for the vast majority of the history of football. It’s a relatively new thing.

 

[NicolaSacco]

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

Strongly disagree.

Btw are you on commission for using the term ‘conveniently ignore’ or something?!

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Strongly disagree.

Btw are you on commission for using the term ‘conveniently ignore’ or something?!

I mean... you're disagreeing with easily verifiable facts.

As for the second part, you might be confusing me with Pidgy? But if several people are telling you that you're "conveniently ignoring" stuff - you probably are, and are posting disingenuously. Which seems to be the case here.

 

[Lyng]

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

It is absolutely possible to challenge with sustained growth. Leverkusen is a very good example of that. If your point was true then they should never be able to do what they have done this season.
United build their success naturally and effectively. City cooked the books and cheated.
In fact their cheating ways makes it much harder for clubs to gain success naturally and if you simply let this run rampant then soon the only way to compete will be via state ownership. Surely that is not a healthy state of football.

 

[Jeppers7]

It is absolutely possible to challenge with sustained growth. Leverkusen is a very good example of that. If your point was true then they should never be able to do what they have done this season.
United build their success naturally and effectively. City cooked the books and cheated.
In fact their cheating ways makes it much harder for clubs to gain success naturally and if you simply let this run rampant then soon the only way to compete will be via state ownership. Surely that is not a healthy state of football.

Great post…but this poster only cares that it isn’t united.

 

[roonster09]

Great post…but this poster only cares that it isn’t united.

It's actually ironic that he used "red tinted specs" thing in his post when he himself admitted he hates ManUtd. He is one more ABU

 

[LawCharltonBest]

They will win the treble of trebles and nothing will get done about their charges.

I have very little faith too, as city simply have too much money in the real world to be properly punished.

However, in this case, something will happen either way. Even if they just get away with a fine again, I think other clubs would fight back this time. It's an unfair playing field when city are playing by different rules to every other club

 

[Pickle85]

P

There weren’t financial controls for the vast majority of the history of football. It’s a relatively new thing.

But I'll ask again, what do you suggest? Are you in favour of zero financial controls and clubs being able to spend what they like?

 

[GiveItToGi...nowait]

There weren’t financial controls for the vast majority of the history of football. It’s a relatively new thing.

Remember when Nazi Germany owned an English football club? Or the Soviet Union? How about when Iraq under the Ba'ath party had one?

Yeah me neither.

 

[NicolaSacco]

I mean... you're disagreeing with easily verifiable facts.

As for the second part, you might be confusing me with Pidgy? But if several people are telling you that you're "conveniently ignoring" stuff - you probably are, and are posting disingenuously. Which seems to be the case here.

I think maybe I did get you confused with someone else. My fault.

I really don’t think it’s ‘easily verifiable’ that Man Utd can be caught under current restrictions. If you think that this is already verified then I don’t know what to say.

For the avoidance of doubt, IF that turned out to be true I’d immediately change my viewpoint. For me, having superrich peoples inserted wealth is a necessary evil to make the league competitive.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

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

I want A) Rule breakers to be penalised so 115 need to be stripped of their “achievements” and booted out the league and B) Rules that protect smaller clubs from going bust and that protect the league from plastic and arbitrary success. Essentially, for organic growth to be promoted - like Spurs who have built up their revenue really well over the years. It could have been even higher if City and Chelsea weren’t hogging CL places.

You just want this to be a league of the billionaire wars where hopefully Ipswitch gets lucky and becomes some bored oil baron’s plaything so you can rub it with the big boys. Just be honest about it.

 

[NicolaSacco]

It is absolutely possible to challenge with sustained growth. Leverkusen is a very good example of that. If your point was true then they should never be able to do what they have done this season.
United build their success naturally and effectively. City cooked the books and cheated.
In fact their cheating ways makes it much harder for clubs to gain success naturally and if you simply let this run rampant then soon the only way to compete will be via state ownership. Surely that is not a healthy state of football.

So to be clear I think Leverkeusen will turn out to exactly prove my point. They’ll
have their best players and manager poached by clubs with more money and then they’ll drift. Leverkeusen are, like Leicester, going to prove my point I think.

 

[NicolaSacco]

P
But I'll ask again, what do you suggest? Are you in favour of zero financial controls and clubs being able to spend what they like?

I don’t know in short. A club spending much more through artificial wealth has the same end effect as a club spending more through ‘old money’ wealth.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Remember when Nazi Germany owned an English football club? Or the Soviet Union? How about when Iraq under the Ba'ath party had one?

Yeah me neither.

What an earth are you on about?

 

[Zen86]

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

As opposed to a system dominated by City Group, who have overwhelming financial superiority, legal resources, and political power behind them.

 

[NicolaSacco]

I want A) Rule breakers to be penalised so 115 need to be stripped of their “achievements” and booted out the league and B) Rules that protect smaller clubs from going bust and that protect the league from plastic and arbitrary success. Essentially, for organic growth to be promoted - like Spurs who have built up their revenue really well over the years. It could have been even higher if City and Chelsea weren’t hogging CL places.

You just want this to be a league of the billionaire wars where hopefully Ipswitch gets lucky and becomes some bored oil baron’s plaything so you can rub it with the big boys. Just be honest about it.

Ha ha, I don’t know what I’d do if Ipswich got taken over by a billionaire, but it would certainly make things interesting.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

There weren’t financial controls for the vast majority of the history of football. It’s a relatively new thing.

...because over half of the clubs in Europe circa 2009 had reported financial losses and weren't paying off their debts.

Big clubs around Europe were going into administration - Fiorentina, Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers. Inter were over a billion in debt, Lazio had to set up a repayment plan for an overdue tax bill of €140M. The total club debt of La Liga was over two billion, Atletico leading with a debt of €300M. There are numerous reasons why FFP may have been introduced but clearly the high risk of insolvency from about 20% of Europe's teams had something to do with it.

This has been mentioned a couple of times to you and yet you still ignore it and continue with your line. It's honestly pointless engaging in a discussion with you on the subject because you're so entrenched in your opinions.

 

[GiveItToGi...nowait]

What an earth are you on about?

There weren’t financial controls for the vast majority of the history of football. It’s a relatively new thing.

Because authoritarian and totalatarian states did not purchase EPL clubs for sportswashing purposes and flood the football economy with their ill-gotten cash, driving clubs into administration.

You doughnut.

 

[Lyng]

So to be clear I think Leverkeusen will turn out to exactly prove my point. They’ll
have their best players and manager poached by clubs with more money and then they’ll drift. Leverkeusen are, like Leicester, going to prove my point I think.

Well exactly that....didn't happen.
Alonso and all the top players have confirmed they are staying for at least one more season. Now is the work for the structure to build on this success which they have every possibility to do.

Also please comment on my second point. How is it healthy for football if the only way to success is being state owned?

 

[CoopersDream]

Also please comment on my second point. How is it healthy for football if the only way to success is being state owned?

That isn't the case though. There are mulitple clubs that can compete. United would be able to compete if they weren't a mess. With INEOS, if they and Jim Ratcliffe want, United would absolutely be able to compete. Having more money is great, but after a certain point it won't matter if you have an extra trillion - it's not gonna help you if you don't plan on buying every single player in the world. There's only so much you can spend on a football club.

 

[Lyng]

That isn't the case though. There are mulitple clubs that can compete. United would be able to compete if they weren't a mess. With INEOS, if they and Jim Ratcliffe want, United would absolutely be able to compete. Having more money is great, but after a certain point it won't matter if you have an extra trillion - it's not gonna help you if you don't plan on buying every single player in the world. There's only so much you can spend on a football club.

City look to complete their second trebble in a row. And several league titles in a row. It's effectively becoming a one team league. Imagine if we remove restrictions completely. No-one bar state owned clubs will be able to compete.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

I think maybe I did get you confused with someone else. My fault.

I really don’t think it’s ‘easily verifiable’ that Man Utd can be caught under current restrictions. If you think that this is already verified then I don’t know what to say.

For the avoidance of doubt, IF that turned out to be true I’d immediately change my viewpoint. For me, having superrich peoples inserted wealth is a necessary evil to make the league competitive.

What are you talking about? You had quoted my part about organic growth, of which there are objectively observable examples. Why are you talking about Man Utd and current restrictions?

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

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

You just fecking literally been shown that our spending power was constantly challenged all through our strongest periods, even before Chelsea and City, why are you acting like 24h resets the fecking argument?

 

[arnie_ni]

...because over half of the clubs in Europe circa 2009 had reported financial losses and weren't paying off their debts.

Big clubs around Europe were going into administration - Fiorentina, Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers. Inter were over a billion in debt, Lazio had to set up a repayment plan for an overdue tax bill of €140M. The total club debt of La Liga was over two billion, Atletico leading with a debt of €300M. There are numerous reasons why FFP may have been introduced but clearly the high risk of insolvency from about 20% of Europe's teams had something to do with it.

This has been mentioned a couple of times to you and yet you still ignore it and continue with your line. It's honestly pointless engaging in a discussion with you on the subject because you're so entrenched in your opinions.

Great post

 

[Alex99]

...because over half of the clubs in Europe circa 2009 had reported financial losses and weren't paying off their debts.

Big clubs around Europe were going into administration - Fiorentina, Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers. Inter were over a billion in debt, Lazio had to set up a repayment plan for an overdue tax bill of €140M. The total club debt of La Liga was over two billion, Atletico leading with a debt of €300M. There are numerous reasons why FFP may have been introduced but clearly the high risk of insolvency from about 20% of Europe's teams had something to do with it.

This has been mentioned a couple of times to you and yet you still ignore it and continue with your line. It's honestly pointless engaging in a discussion with you on the subject because you're so entrenched in your opinions.

Just within the Premier League, we saw Portsmouth go from a decent top-half side into administration, falling all the way down to League Two, and Leeds going from CL semi-finalists to League One in the space of a few seasons. Fairly sure it was financial mismanagement that contributed to the creation of MK Dons, as Wimbledon were on their arse after banking on being a top-half team and spending beyond their means.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Well exactly that....didn't happen.
Alonso and all the top players have confirmed they are staying for at least one more season. Now is the work for the structure to build on this success which they have every possibility to do.

Also please comment on my second point. How is it healthy for football if the only way to success is being state owned?

Leverkeusen won the title 2 days ago. So no it hasn’t happened in those 2 days. You also ignored the part about Leicester. I get absolutely slated if I don’t respond to each and every point raised, I wonder if that has happened to you?

Re your question, how is it healthy. What does that even mean? Define healthy. It’s very clear that clubs can achieve success both through old money (Real Madrid, Barcelona, Liverpool, and multiple others have all done it. I get that Utd haven’t had much success in the last decade, but arguing that success is impossible is crazy. You spend similar amounts to City, other clubs have achieved success on lower budgets than Utd.

 

[Fortitude]

City are purchased by Abu Dhabi in September 2008. Manchester City placed 9th the season prior. Abu Dhabi get to work buying players who wouldn't otherwise even look in City's direction. 9th place in 2007/'08 becomes 8th place in 2008/'09; the initial steps of the process take a while to bed in, as the old is replaced with the new. City's first big leap takes place the next season with 8th place bested by three positions. They finish the 2009/'10 season in 5th position. We're now in 2010/'11 and City have sacked Hughes and got their first big name coach in Roberto Mancini. They finish 3rd that season and are now a Champions League club. They've been a perennial fixture in the CL places ever since.

There are no cyclic ups or downs, no consequence for poor purchases where normal clubs are lumped with players whose value plummets who they then cannot get off their books because they cannot afford to pay up their contracts willy-nilly and no other club will take them on without subsidy. There is no fear or regard for any of the recognised norms clubs who are not state-owned are hamstrung by. City are a guaranteed lock for a CL place, thus taking it away from any legitimate contender who is then vying with the remainder for 'a go'. The established Old Order are hurt by this, but the remainder are absolutely crushed by it because they have to have more luck than ever before, or take on more financial risk than ever before to try and break this new status quo.

Meanwhile, of the Old Order, not one of them has been a lock in the CL positions as a perennial fixture since 2009/'10

Manchester United have missed out on the CL 5, going on 6 times (once this season concludes).

Liverpool have missed out on the CL 6 times.

Chelsea have missed out on the CL 4, going on 5 times (once this season concludes).

Arsenal have missed out on the CL 6 times.

This is the Old Order, look how many times these so-called behemoths have failed to qualify for the Champions League since City became an indubitable fixture in the competition. Whether you wish to count Chelsea or not, the point remains - Chelsea are more an example of a club with no hope forcing themselves into the conversation, but not overstepping the mark to the point they have broken football.

Now, as stated by numerous people and their painstaking efforts to make clear how damaging what City are doing is, it's not the clubs above who are the most put out by City, it's the teams below them who, without City's permanency would have had a chance to make their play for the top table. Spurs are going to have been the biggest fall guys, but now it's also the likes of Villa as they try and push through the glass ceiling to compete directly with the teams above (and not City).

There is no time in English football history where Old Orders (they used to be dynamic: Wolves, for example, used to be a big dog up to the conclusion of the 1950's) as there have been - or supposedly established - where those teams remained, perennially, at the helm. In fact, most are defined by golden periods followed by fallow times where they cannot compete for the league nor CL (or previously, the European Cup).

Great periods for these sides are attributed to great men doing unbelievably shrewd work within a financial remit that whilst at the higher end, was not obliterating those around them - the clubs ebbed and flowed with the passage of these managers. City are a faceless state, as @Regulus Arcturus Black stated, there is no way for them to fail because they will always have the best in class, will always replace the best with the best and there will never be a lull due to financial instability or uncertainty. In other words, completely and utterly artificial conditions, especially when contrasted with what history has told us about every one of the Old Order, who all, to a club, could/did/have slumped and have had to re-establish themselves once more years down the line.

It's clear that what some see as "Manchester United" is actually an infernal loathing of Alex Ferguson and the brilliance he ushered into the club, which immediately lost its way without him at the top. In the following 10 years, the cluelessness, and more importantly, the consequences of that cluelessness, have not only seen Manchester United fall back into the pack, but for most of the time, be behind them by some distance. The exact same thing befell Liverpool when Dalglish handed over to Souness and sent them flailing, not only off the top spot, but to be out of the running for the title for years. In very short order, both clubs went from halcyon periods with great players to an exodus and squads and managers who hadn't a prayer. This is how the Old Order works and what their pitfalls are. One or two bad managerial hires and they can fall like a house of cards because consequence for poor decisions then comes back to haunt them as a debt that needs paying in full. These old clubs don't just get to wipe the slate clean each season and go again with a brand new set of players if the bad buys don't work out. They are lumped with them and the general bar for the side will steadily diminish. Arsenal experienced exactly the same thing once Wenger stopped shitting gold. The stadium didn't help, but it wasn't their downfall, but it highlights another point and consequence: the either, or. By pouring money into the new stadium, they were going to be hamstrung for years. A conscious decision made to better their stadium meant less money could be pumped into the team, and anyone coming to manage them had to accept that. At City? Nope, we'll redevelop a portion of the city - yes, the literal city - whilst still hiring best in class across all facets on off and the pitch with no fallout whatsoever. Hmm... clearly the same playing field as what everyone else is uuming and ahhing from.

The worst thing of all is City didn't have to cheat as a state is going to be Borg-like in its assimilation by its very nature. It cannot be anything else, which is why it has no place in football, but that's besides the point as this is about cheating to achieve ends as hurriedly and as artificially as one can imagine.

As much as the Old Order could be despised by those who were not part of it, they were not infinite or unmovable. Every single one of them had sizeable lulls multiple times in their histories and provided opportunities for others to take their slice of the pie should they be so fortunate to go upwind at the time of a boon for the game. We'll never know what would have happened without City in the picture, but history tells us, quite clearly, that even the biggest of English clubs has never been too big to not fail, until now. With Ferguson's retirement, there was no guarantee status quo would have remained, but unlike in the past, where new players could gobble up space, things quickly became established in this new, most broken order where the winningest team's biggest concerns are in how to hide their wrongdoing. The footballing side of things, a total formality due to them having no consequences for anything that goes wrong.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

City are purchased by Abu Dhabi in September 2008. Manchester City placed 9th the season prior. Abu Dhabi get to work buying players who wouldn't otherwise even look in City's direction. 9th place in 2007/'08 becomes 8th place in 2008/'09; the initial steps of the process take a while to bed in, as the old is replaced with the new. City's first big leap takes place the next season with 8th place bested by three positions. They finish the 2009/'10 season in 5th position. We're now in 2010/'11 and City have sacked Hughes and got their first big name coach in Roberto Mancini. They finish 3rd that season and are now a Champions League club. They've been a perennial fixture in the CL places ever since.

There are no cyclic ups or downs, no consequence for poor purchases where normal clubs are lumped with players whose value plummets who they then cannot get off their books because they cannot afford to pay up their contracts willy-nilly and no other club will take them on without subsidy. There is no fear or regard for any of the recognised norms clubs who are not state-owned are hamstrung by. City are a guaranteed lock for a CL place, thus taking it away from any legitimate contender who is then vying with the remainder for 'a go'. The established Old Order are hurt by this, but the remainder are absolutely crushed by it because they have to have more luck than ever before, or take on more financial risk than ever before to try and break this new status quo.

Meanwhile, of the Old Order, not one of them has been a lock in the CL positions as a perennial fixture since 2009/'10

Manchester United have missed out on the CL 5, going on 6 times (once this season concludes).

Liverpool have missed out on the CL 6 times.

Chelsea have missed out on the CL 4, going on 5 times (once this season concludes).

Arsenal have missed out on the CL 6 times.

This is the Old Order, look how many times these so-called behemoths have failed to qualify for the Champions League since City became an indubitable fixture in the competition. Whether you wish to count Chelsea or not, the point remains - Chelsea are more an example of a club with no hope forcing themselves into the conversation, but not overstepping the mark to the point they have broken football.

Now, as stated by numerous people and their painstaking efforts to make clear how damaging what City are doing is, it's not the clubs above who are the most put out by City, it's the teams below them who, without City's permanency would have had a chance to make their play for the top table. Spurs are going to have been the biggest fall guys, but now it's also the likes of Villa as they try and push through the glass ceiling to compete directly with the teams above (and not City).

There is no time in English football history where Old Orders (they used to be dynamic: Wolves, for example, used to be a big dog up to the conclusion of the 1950's) as there have been - or supposedly established - where those teams remained, perennially, at the helm. In fact, most are defined by golden periods followed by fallow times where they cannot compete for the league nor CL (or previously, the European Cup).

Great periods for these sides are attributed to great men doing unbelievably shrewd work within a financial remit that whilst at the higher end, was not obliterating those around them - the clubs ebbed and flowed with the passage of these managers. City are a faceless state, as @Regulus Arcturus Black stated, there is no way for them to fail because they will always have the best in class, will always replace the best with the best and there will never be a lull due to financial instability or uncertainty. In other words, completely and utterly artificial conditions, especially when contrasted with what history has told us about every one of the Old Order, who all, to a club, could/did/have slumped and have had to re-establish themselves once more years down the line.

It's clear that what some see as "Manchester United" is actually an infernal loathing of Alex Ferguson and the brilliance he ushered into the club, which immediately lost its way without him at the top. In the following 10 years, the cluelessness, and more importantly, the consequences of that cluelessness, have not only seen Manchester United fall back into the pack, but for most of the time, be behind them by some distance. The exact same thing befell Liverpool when Dalglish handed over to Souness and sent them flailing, not only off the top spot, but to be out of the running for the title for years. In very short order, both clubs went from halcyon periods with great players to an exodus and squads and managers who hadn't a prayer. This is how the Old Order works and what their pitfalls are. One or two bad managerial hires and they can fall like a house of cards because consequence for poor decisions then comes back to haunt them as a debt that needs paying in full. These old clubs don't just get to wipe the slate clean each season and go again with a brand new set of players if the bad buys don't work out. They are lumped with them and the general bar for the side will steadily diminish. Arsenal experienced exactly the same thing once Wenger stopped shitting gold. The stadium didn't help, but it wasn't their downfall, but it highlights another point and consequence: the either, or. By pouring money into the new stadium, they were going to be hamstrung for years. A conscious decision made to better their stadium meant less money could be pumped into the team, and anyone coming to manage them had to accept that. At City? Nope, we'll redevelop a portion of the city - yes, the literal city - whilst still hiring best in class across all facets on off and the pitch with no fallout whatsoever. Hmm... clearly the same playing field as what everyone else is uuming and ahhing from.

The worst thing of all is City didn't have to cheat as a state is going to be Borg-like in its assimilation by its very nature. It cannot be anything else, which is why it has no place in football, but that's besides the point as this is about cheating to achieve ends as hurriedly and as artificially as one can imagine.

As much as the Old Order could be despised by those who were not part of it, they were not infinite or unmovable. Every single one of them had sizeable lulls multiple times in their histories and provided opportunities for others to take their slice of the pie should they be so fortunate to go upwind at the time of a boon for the game. We'll never know what would have happened without City in the picture, but history tells us, quite clearly, that even the biggest of English clubs has never been too big to not fail, until now. With Ferguson's retirement, there was no guarantee status quo would have remained, but unlike in the past, where new players could gobble up space, things quickly became established in this new, most broken order where the winningest team's biggest concerns are in how to hide their wrongdoing. The footballing side of things, a total formality due to them having no consequences for anything that goes wrong.

Bravo.

This should be pinned somewhere. Excellent post.

 

[acnumber9]

I really don’t think it’s ‘easily verifiable’ that Man Utd can be caught under current restrictions. If you think that this is already verified then I don’t know what to say.

Since 2013 7 different clubs have finished above United in the table. Many of them have done so on multiple occasions. Only one broke the rules to do so. United have finished 5th, 6th, 7th and God knows where this season. How is it not verifiable they can be caught?

 

[NicolaSacco]

Caught in terms of

Since 2013 7 different clubs have finished above United in the table. Many of them have done so on multiple occasions. Only one broke the rules to do so. United have finished 5th, 6th, 7th and God knows where this season. How is it not verifiable they can be caught?

caught in terms of finances

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Caught in terms of


caught in terms of finances

You're amazing at shifting goalpoasts - organic growth isn't synonymous with catching up to Utd's finances. Not catching up with Utd's finances, but growing in an organic way, still means you can absolutely be challenging.

 

[Lyng]

Leverkeusen won the title 2 days ago. So no it hasn’t happened in those 2 days. You also ignored the part about Leicester. I get absolutely slated if I don’t respond to each and every point raised, I wonder if that has happened to you?

Re your question, how is it healthy. What does that even mean? Define healthy. It’s very clear that clubs can achieve success both through old money (Real Madrid, Barcelona, Liverpool, and multiple others have all done it. I get that Utd haven’t had much success in the last decade, but arguing that success is impossible is crazy. You spend similar amounts to City, other clubs have achieved success on lower budgets than Utd.

Leicester where badly run. That doesn't seem to be the case with Leverkusen.
They won it but even before they won it the manager and biggest players had already confirmed they where staying.

That simply isn't true. Liverpool have won once in a weird covid season. No one have been able to touch the state funded city since. The only reason Newcastle isn't taking a similar rise is due to the rules. If the rules where not in place they simply jump in front by sheer economic power, not power generated by the club mind. Which is the whole issue.
Real are a fine example of the issue. They have not won through natural growth but rather by being funded by Spain. Barca are in massive economic trouble so they are a bad example of organic growth, especially since their way of running the club the last few years are basically the opposite of that.
The only clubs who benefit from no rules are the ones that get bought by a state.
The clubs that benefit from rules being in place are the ones who are run financially responsible.

 

[adexkola]

@Fortitude I think what United have shown is that sheer incompetence at all levels of the club will negate (partially/completely) any financial advantage you may have. We've seen this with Liverpool in the past, Barcelona currently, and others.

I'd argue we've even seen this with City, where prior to Guardiola they were winning, but since the takeover, the ROI on their spending was at best, mid. There was a learning curve at first, and then even under Mancini and Pellegrini, they didn't have the expertise across the board to press the advantage. Pep came in and then that changed of course.

I don't think we should be relying on the past incompetence and inefficiencies of old firm football teams who had financial advantages to say that system worked. Today is different. Teams are not content to rely on the fact they have more money; they are optimizing every aspect of their immediate and long term structure and strategy. Look at what we are doing under Sir Jim; we are not going to allow for any slips we can control, at any level.

And this is a huge problem. Now, City is doing it and running away and that's what is having people upset. Yeah it's bad that they can, and with state money their risk is less, but regardless of where the money is coming from, the more you have, the easier it will be to entrench yourself and block out the competition. And that is the main issue.

So let's take out City and Newcastle, and PSG and Chelsea. The ones who got flooded with money 20-30 years after Berlusconi's Milan did, when it was still cool. That will still leave baked in extremes in money generation, now exacerbated by increased efficiencies across the board. And that is why I, against all common sense and judgement, entered this thread to concur with @NotThatSoph's post, because we're fixated with a side who is using extreme wealth and expertise to run off with it all, when there are other sides with extreme wealth and expertise, that for City's presence, would do the same. The system is fecked.

 

[caid]

Caught in terms of


caught in terms of finances

You dont think FFP could help limit the impact of that?
I dont think its perfect, i dont think the situation pre City was perfect but I'd say its a step in the right direction.

 

[NicolaSacco]

You dont think FFP could help limit the impact of that?
I dont think its perfect, i dont think the situation pre City was perfect but I'd say its a step in the right direction.

I’m being a bit dim. FFP could help with what exactly?

 

[caid]

I’m being a bit dim. FFP could help with what exactly?

limit the impact of financial advantages. Or just create a more competitive environment in general really

 

[tomaldinho1]

limit the impact of financial advantages. Or just create a more competitive environment in general really

I'm not sure the poster is interested in this line of debate, it keeps being pointed out to them and they keep ignoring it. Just accept all United fans are angry we're not top dogs and we want a monopoly league with no competition.

 

[Red Star One]

Remember when Nazi Germany owned an English football club?

Wasn’t this the founding myth of Millwall?

 

[adexkola]

limit the impact of financial advantages. Or just create a more competitive environment in general really

It doesn't do enough. And that wasn't the intent anyways, it was created to prevent clubs from going under. But there are much better ways to limit the impact of financial advantages from "earned" or "un-earned" money.