Football Leaks: Manchester City accused of using shadow firms to flout rules

alquemyst

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
16
That's the City argument - Not allowing new money is a way of saying we'll keep the status quo - big clubs stay big, small clubs stay small. I'm sure they'll backtrack on that 100% if the Saudis take over Newcastle and outspend City to the title consistently for 5-10 yrs.

Right now the rules say you're not allowed to spend significantly more than what you make as a club. The rules may be fair / unfair depending on your point of view. To basically everyone but the City fans it's obvious that they're cooking the books to make sure they're not in violation of the said rules.
I've mixed feelings as well, all of them bad, but indeed mixed together.
Not trying to be an ass but I will, how in the hell you can have mixed feelings about a club exclusively bought to be a media/brand whore of the Saudis?
 

Lastwolf

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,568
Location
Brick Sofa
No it's not.

Look at this Idea. No FFP and No Oil clubs like Chelsea and City.

Manchester United would probably become the Bayern Munich. Winning the league in February and the most disgusting thing is that the Glazers could leech United even more. They wouldn't even have to spend that much Money.

The American doesn't want to spend money , they want to leech the money from the Fans and Clubs. That's why Super League was so great about them, since they would be guaranteed Money in their Pocket. In the end the Fans would suffer.

Oil Clubs stops the leeching from greedy Owners and allow smaller Clubs to catch up.


But thats my point of View
That's an exceptionally kinda take on how events have unfolded.

City, Chelsea and PSG have all done some underhanded stuff to circumvent the rules, the rules are designed to stop them pumping in infinite money and destroying competition. Wither you think that's fair or not doesn't really matter, they did it, the idea that their corruption has been a net positive is very shaky.

For those clubs, it's great, even if they all walked away tomorrow the momentum alone would probably carry them on for decades, but United were hardly walking the title in 2003 when the Abromovich era began. The Oil clubs are affecting and disrupting the theoretical United dominance, sure, but it's not just at the expense of United, it's Everton, Tottenham, Arsenal and Liverpool just as much, if not more. In a fictional 2021 where they never arrived, the landscape looks alot different in terms of teams but I don't imagine United's finances are mush worse off or better than they are now, the debt is done by the Glazers on purpose for some bizarre reason and the inflation of transfer fees largely came from TV rights deals, only with Neymar can you really blame an oil club for breaking the mold on spending.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
7,665
It’s the state funded part I have the biggest issue with. Money that should belong to that nation and it’s people, and that should be used for the greater good of humanity, instead flushed down the toilet of a massive vanity project.
Yep that actually makes it even worse when you think about it. If it was a super rich businessman with links to human rights violations, it would be bad enough but because it is state funded it's even more deplorable.
 

Zehner

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
4,355
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
Which rules were those?

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the history behind FFP and why it was needed. Without it here's what would have happened to many more clubs.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-need-for-ffp-efl-league-one-two-owners-wages
I'm sorry but the fact that clubs handled their finances badly is no good reasoning for why FFP is necessary. That's stuff that clubs brought entirely upon themselves. Nobody forces them to pay salaries they can't afford, they did so by choice. We are speaking about companies with millions of annual revenue - if they need protection from themselves, they're doing something wrong.

And you don't need to search excessively to find the rules I'm talking about. The UEFA reform just recently is another example of that. This sport is becoming more farcical year by year.

How can anyone have mixed feelings on this? Even if don’t believe in FFP, you are aware of how City are funded right?

Honestly, if City were just owned by some random billionaire without the link to human rights violations I don’t think most people would care about cooking the books, it’s the combo that makes it unacceptable.
I mean, I gave the answer to this in the very post you quoted ;)

And yes, the people behind City are despicable, no doubt, so in general them being punished is a welcome development. But then again, it's so hypocritical to hate City and ignore all the other ways Saudi Arabia and the UAE are invested in our lifes. I mean, half of the people who question City's right to exist probably hold shares or are customers of companies that are directly backed by those stats, too, and nobody bats an eye. It's not as if the moral compasses of big European clubs are anywhere near on point either when it comes to where they get their revenues from.

And if we're talking about the sport, I absolutely don't care if it is Manchester City or Manchester United dominating the market by being richer than the rest. The outcome is the same. I don't care if you "earned" it because the very concept of having "earned" success through past deeds is contrary to the idea of a sport since it leads to less competitiveness. That's tolerable or even welcome to a certain extent but this extent has already been exceeded a dozen fold anyway. My club will never be able to compete again with such giant clubs since the difference is too big. So I appreciate if somebody new comes along and shuts the people which spent the last decade winding fans of smaller clubs up because the random club they chose to support is more successful ;)
 

Zehner

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
4,355
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
Don't get this, it's like you are cheering on a club that will do the exact same thing to your club but do it with blood money whilst bending rules. I am almost sure that if you go on Blue Moon you will find city fans talking about how little old Villa should gladly sell their best player to the mighty City.
Yes of course. Success always attracts such fans but so far, I (as a German) have primarily been exposed to arrogant Bayern fans trying to wind me up because they have chosen to support a club that is bigger than mine and thus further up the food chain. So I like to rub it under their nose when some club comes out of nowhere and pushes them further down the pecking order. That doesn't mean that I like the general thought of oppresive regimes taking over a football club but I definitely like that a new player has entered the market that shakes things up a little bit and grounds some of the more self entitled fans that definitely deserved it ;) Is it a bit bitter? Sure. But let's be real, fans of smaller clubs will never be in the situation that the club is competing for titles and most of the time we'll have to take the L when tangling with the big boys, so you take what you get ;) It's a consequence of the gap between favourites and runner ups getting bigger and bigger.

And as I already addressed in another post: I think it's a bit hyprocritical to criticize people who don't absolutely despise City because of their owners. It's not like I cheer if an abusive sheik scores. In the end, it's a company that is backed by the very same regime that's probably invested in dozens of companies in Western society. You and me probably regularly buy products of companies in which those very same people are invested in. This is a general issue and not specific to City or PSG.
 

OverratedOpinion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
2,694
And as I already addressed in another post: I think it's a bit hyprocritical to criticize people who don't absolutely despise City because of their owners. It's not like I cheer if an abusive sheik scores. In the end, it's a company that is backed by the very same regime that's probably invested in dozens of companies in Western society. You and me probably regularly buy products of companies in which those very same people are invested in. This is a general issue and not specific to City or PSG.
I am not saying that you are a dictatorship sympathiser or anything like that, just that City are objectively speaking less likeable than Utd.
 

GazTheLegend

Full Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
2,197
I am not saying that you are a dictatorship sympathiser or anything like that, just that City are objectively speaking less likeable than Utd.
Most neutral fans I know hate Manchester United more. I don't know many (Liverpool fans maybe excepted?) that aren't simply completely neutral to City, in part because they aren't seen as a genuine club, and in part because they know full well that without City, United would have been utterly dominant for another 10-20 seasons of football.

Personally I think that in time there would (or maybe will at this rate) be a change in attitude, if City win the league again, or even the Champions League a few times, I can see people finally beginning to grasp what it actually means for competition in this country to have a rule breaking, FFP ignoring, state funded team changing the bar endlessly. But for the time being people really don't care, and the media being bought and paid for by City back in the late 2000's / 2010's certainly played its part in that.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
13,157
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
I'm sorry but the fact that clubs handled their finances badly is no good reasoning for why FFP is necessary. That's stuff that clubs brought entirely upon themselves. Nobody forces them to pay salaries they can't afford, they did so by choice. We are speaking about companies with millions of annual revenue - if they need protection from themselves, they're doing something wrong.

And you don't need to search excessively to find the rules I'm talking about. The UEFA reform just recently is another example of that. This sport is becoming more farcical year by year.
It's to protect clubs from being bought by clowns to use as a play thing/status symbol etc. Did you read the article?

Bury FC now no longer exist because FFP wasn't strict enough. Someone was allowed to by them run up bills that the club couldn't afford then bailed and left the club to be expelled from the league.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
13,157
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
And yes, the people behind City are despicable, no doubt, so in general them being punished is a welcome development. But then again, it's so hypocritical to hate City and ignore all the other ways Saudi Arabia and the UAE are invested in our lifes. I mean, half of the people who question City's right to exist probably hold shares or are customers of companies that are directly backed by those stats, too, and nobody bats an eye. It's not as if the moral compasses of big European clubs are anywhere near on point either when it comes to where they get their revenues from.

And if we're talking about the sport, I absolutely don't care if it is Manchester City or Manchester United dominating the market by being richer than the rest. The outcome is the same. I don't care if you "earned" it because the very concept of having "earned" success through past deeds is contrary to the idea of a sport since it leads to less competitiveness. That's tolerable or even welcome to a certain extent but this extent has already been exceeded a dozen fold anyway. My club will never be able to compete again with such giant clubs since the difference is too big. So I appreciate if somebody new comes along and shuts the people which spent the last decade winding fans of smaller clubs up because the random club they chose to support is more successful ;)
Juts to point out that United didn't dominate by being richer than everyone else. United have actually very rarely spent the most in a PL season, even back in the 90's.
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
10,553
Location
Tameside
Recent football fan?

If you goole Liverpool 0 Arsenal 2 "it's up for grabs now", you'll see that the ending to that season was Aguero x100 as it was a last min goal, last day, but between the two top teams. With the away team stealing it.

Impossible to beat that ending.
To be fair to them, they just might be under thirty, the lucky sod!
 

Zehner

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
4,355
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
I am not saying that you are a dictatorship sympathiser or anything like that, just that City are objectively speaking less likeable than Utd.
You say so because of the people in the background. But to most fans of smaller clubs, the interactions with fans of those clubs is much more present. And frankly speaking, many elite clubs have a large proportion of fans that base their self esteem on the success of the football team they support and they like to rub it into your face when said club is more successful than yours. So while many know that the owners of City are a different level of assholes, they also welcomed that they shut those clowns up that annoyed them for years. You can't imagine how good it feels to tell an arrogant Bayern fan who says it's only a matter of time before player X will end at their club and that you can be glad you can still see him in the German league that said player is already out of their league since they can't keep up financially with PSG, City, Chelsea and the likes ;)

So while you're objectively right, it doesn't really matter that much to many fans of clubs outside that elite circle because the cynic in them tells you that many companies are like City and the big clubs have their own skeletons in their cupboards.


It's to protect clubs from being bought by clowns to use as a play thing/status symbol etc. Did you read the article?

Bury FC now no longer exist because FFP wasn't strict enough. Someone was allowed to by them run up bills that the club couldn't afford then bailed and left the club to be expelled from the league.
No, Bury FC no longer exists because an investor bit more than he could chew. It could have happened to every company out there as well. If I take over a book store, want to expand and invest money I don't have, then the book store is screwed. That's economy. Ventures succeed and ventures fail. Growth always comes with risks. If you don't want that for football clubs, don't treat them as businesses - but that ship has sailed long ago.
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
10,642
Location
Sunny Manc
I’m pretty sure half the media get little sweeteners from City in one form or another, so it’s wholly unsurprising how little coverage their cheating gets.
 

Berbasbullet

Full Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
11,548
I’m pretty sure half the media get little sweeteners from City in one form or another, so it’s wholly unsurprising how little coverage their cheating gets.
They literally played a friendly against the media with Pep playing in the game. Course there’s a good relationship there.
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
10,642
Location
Sunny Manc
They literally played a friendly against the media with Pep playing in the game. Course there’s a good relationship there.
It’s laughable how bent football has become, thanks to rich sheiks playing ladette to lady with some non entity in Manchester.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
7,665
I mean, I gave the answer to this in the very post you quoted ;)

And yes, the people behind City are despicable, no doubt, so in general them being punished is a welcome development. But then again, it's so hypocritical to hate City and ignore all the other ways Saudi Arabia and the UAE are invested in our lifes. I mean, half of the people who question City's right to exist probably hold shares or are customers of companies that are directly backed by those stats, too, and nobody bats an eye. It's not as if the moral compasses of big European clubs are anywhere near on point either when it comes to where they get their revenues from.

And if we're talking about the sport, I absolutely don't care if it is Manchester City or Manchester United dominating the market by being richer than the rest. The outcome is the same. I don't care if you "earned" it because the very concept of having "earned" success through past deeds is contrary to the idea of a sport since it leads to less competitiveness. That's tolerable or even welcome to a certain extent but this extent has already been exceeded a dozen fold anyway. My club will never be able to compete again with such giant clubs since the difference is too big. So I appreciate if somebody new comes along and shuts the people which spent the last decade winding fans of smaller clubs up because the random club they chose to support is more successful ;)
The answer you gave is essentially that you know they are evil but because they play nice football, it's ok? I guess that is the aim of sports-washing...

re your second sentence, think a bit bigger picture is all I can say. We, as individuals, could definitely do more - I already avoid as best as possible goods made in certain countries (which FYI is really easy to do now there are websites specifically made for this purpose) and buy everyday things locally but I don't have a global influence and I am not in charge of millions of people - City's owners literally are responsible for a country. Yes, many things are rubbish in the world but you don't make your moral judgements on what is 'bad' based on how common it is. I'd wager a lot more people now compared to 10 years ago actually do care and do action what you are doubting for what it's worth, I'd also bet in another 10 years it will be even more.

On the last paragraph I guess there are fans out there who are like that, I personally long for the day we get some kind of equality in the PL and that only comes with FFP and some kind of salary/transfer cap, even though I know this will be to the detriment of United's chances to win trophies. I really think that will be the true peak of football, imagine how exciting it would be to have a league where it really is down to the coaching and tactics & clubs are sustainable. The PL is lucrative enough that you don't need to cheat the system to catch up with the big clubs mid-long term. City were taken over in 2008 (I think), the issue the owners have is they chose a club without a huge domestic or international fanbase & a city that already had one of the most globally followed clubs in the world. I get if you were a neutral that could be exciting and a 'statement' but you have to factor that into how you view City as a business model, was it actually a very poor business decision? Had they chosen Newcastle, Everton, Spurs in 2008 I don't think they'd have needed to inflate sponsors or attendance numbers.

I'd honestly, begrudgingly, genuinely respect them if they'd done it without cheating (and there was no human rights link) and I'd see it as THE business model for PL clubs but they haven't and I think they should be seen almost like a case study for how not to build a business i.e. they had a vision, it didn't happen as quickly as they wanted so they threw money at it and cheated...I guess as a United fan it's easy for me to want to be critical of City but, you seem a neutral, so I'd be interested how you see them as a business.
 

Fluctuation0161

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
4,891
Location
Manchester
Juts to point out that United didn't dominate by being richer than everyone else. United have actually very rarely spent the most in a PL season, even back in the 90's.
I was thinking the same.

This "oh well its the same but just a different club dominating financially" approach is just inaccurate when you look at total spend.

Thats before you even take into account the regular rule breaking, financial doping, investigation obstructions (e.g. City with UEFA), the wider implication of state owned clubs and the human rights abusers who run the UAE and City.

I mean I despise the Glazers and happily criticise them, but they are not in the same category as City's owners.
 

Fluctuation0161

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
4,891
Location
Manchester
No, Bury FC no longer exists because an investor bit more than he could chew. It could have happened to every company out there as well. If I take over a book store, want to expand and invest money I don't have, then the book store is screwed. That's economy. Ventures succeed and ventures fail. Growth always comes with risks. If you don't want that for football clubs, don't treat them as businesses - but that ship has sailed long ago.
This is exactly the point. There is no risk when clubs like City become state owned. It breaks down the element of risk which is part of the integrity of our game.

Bad transfers sold on and replaced with no consequence. Fake sponsorships inflated to cover any losses. That growth does not come with risks.
 

loki

Full Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
1,021
Location
Broke 1000 posts 5 years ago. Slow going since
From my point of view FFP has lots of different consequences
- Clubs can't speculate with leverage/loans way past their means, lowering risk of going bust
- Huge money investors have to spread out their investment over a longer time period, stopping them from being able to compete as fast
- Already established clubs protect themselves somewhat by limiting new clubs spending big to catch up
- Without FFP super money investors can inflate the cost of wages and transfers, even with the limitations you can see the rise taking place, partially driven by City and PSG
- Forgetting about the already established clubs protecting themselves, well run clubs who maintain themselves well lose out by being pushed down by the big money investors. Clubs like Tottenham, Everton who work for years on their squad, lose out on Champions league that they may have reached many times if City/Chelsea never got their big money boosts. Is it fair to those teams running well (though I hesitate to say that about Tottenham more recently) that their developement never got them the rewards they strived for. Same applies to multiple French clubs who may have won league titles over the last decade otherwise.


I think there is good and bad to all this. From my perspective I think clubs should have some limitations, as I don't want unlimited money coming in. I think it needs to fix two specific things in different ways.

Firstly unsafe investment, so the current setup is pretty much in line for this. I do think better structure to stop usage of loopholes and fraudulent accounting needs to be worked on, and where funds not unlimited like city but still substantial, make them put funds into place that are long term investments, to allow for more current spending, so if they want to spend more they need to put funds aside that they can't recover only the club can in 10 years or can be used to cover if they leave and get into financial trouble.
Secondly investment where funds are pumped in from owners with money means far beyond the club, some limitations needed too, to allow other clubs to still be able compete, so maybe City can't spend unlimited transfers, but can spend a lot on club infrastructure and youth development (though might need some controls so they don't make it impossible for any other club to get near any talents), money to invest in affiliated clubs, and lowering ticket prices, things that help the club, fans of the club, and helping boost the league strength as a whole. I would say they should be able spend most of what they spend now, but some should be long term improvements to the club, but it needs to be transparent, so if clubs are pretty much committing fraud to bypass the rules to go past what is allowed they should be punished for it.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
13,157
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
No, Bury FC no longer exists because an investor bit more than he could chew. It could have happened to every company out there as well. If I take over a book store, want to expand and invest money I don't have, then the book store is screwed. That's economy. Ventures succeed and ventures fail. Growth always comes with risks. If you don't want that for football clubs, don't treat them as businesses - but that ship has sailed long ago.
Well yes which was the primary reason FFP was brought in. To stop idiots with money buying and destroying football clubs.

Yes football clubs are businesses but they are not only that. They are also part of the history of cities, towns and communities. They're part of people's lives, if a book store closes down you can buy books somewhere else. If the club you've supported all your life ceases to exist after 134 years. You can't just go and support another team, it's not comparable.
 

Kentonio

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
12,480
Location
Stamford Bridge
Clubs like Tottenham, Everton who work for years on their squad, lose out on Champions league that they may have reached many times if City/Chelsea never got their big money boosts. Is it fair to those teams running well (though I hesitate to say that about Tottenham more recently) that their developement never got them the rewards they strived for.
Chelsea were 3 places higher (and qualified for the CL) than Everton, and 6 above Spurs the year before Roman turned up.

The year before that (when we didn't qualify for the CL) Spurs were 3 places below us and Everton 9 below.

I'm not seeing how we supposedly stole their opportunities.
 

Zehner

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
4,355
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
The answer you gave is essentially that you know they are evil but because they play nice football, it's ok? I guess that is the aim of sports-washing...

re your second sentence, think a bit bigger picture is all I can say. We, as individuals, could definitely do more - I already avoid as best as possible goods made in certain countries (which FYI is really easy to do now there are websites specifically made for this purpose) and buy everyday things locally but I don't have a global influence and I am not in charge of millions of people - City's owners literally are responsible for a country. Yes, many things are rubbish in the world but you don't make your moral judgements on what is 'bad' based on how common it is. I'd wager a lot more people now compared to 10 years ago actually do care and do action what you are doubting for what it's worth, I'd also bet in another 10 years it will be even more.

On the last paragraph I guess there are fans out there who are like that, I personally long for the day we get some kind of equality in the PL and that only comes with FFP and some kind of salary/transfer cap, even though I know this will be to the detriment of United's chances to win trophies. I really think that will be the true peak of football, imagine how exciting it would be to have a league where it really is down to the coaching and tactics & clubs are sustainable. The PL is lucrative enough that you don't need to cheat the system to catch up with the big clubs mid-long term. City were taken over in 2008 (I think), the issue the owners have is they chose a club without a huge domestic or international fanbase & a city that already had one of the most globally followed clubs in the world. I get if you were a neutral that could be exciting and a 'statement' but you have to factor that into how you view City as a business model, was it actually a very poor business decision? Had they chosen Newcastle, Everton, Spurs in 2008 I don't think they'd have needed to inflate sponsors or attendance numbers.

I'd honestly, begrudgingly, genuinely respect them if they'd done it without cheating (and there was no human rights link) and I'd see it as THE business model for PL clubs but they haven't and I think they should be seen almost like a case study for how not to build a business i.e. they had a vision, it didn't happen as quickly as they wanted so they threw money at it and cheated...I guess as a United fan it's easy for me to want to be critical of City but, you seem a neutral, so I'd be interested how you see them as a business.
Let's put it like this: City isn't the sheikh, it is owned by the sheikh. The same way United is owned by the Glazers. Sure, they accept money from the sheikh but that's hardly something that distinguishes them from the rest because the other elite clubs aren't picky with the sources of their revenues either. And the football associations around the globe are the same. So, are City doing it on a greater scale than the other clubs? Sure. But it is just more of the same. If you want to boycott clubs that do business with regimes that violate human rights in one way or another, you can't support any of the big players. And that's the nature of our system. If you are invested in an ETF, chances are that you're already supporting those shady regimes. The thing is, it is just more obvious in football. People are outraged about the workers who died building the stadiums in Quatar and probably post in on their Social Media accounts over their iPhone which was assembled by Foxconn before ordering clothes sewn together by underpaid workers in inhumane conditions in China. I don't want to sound cynical but watching City play contributes far less to all those sinister things than stuff 99% do on a daily basis. But suddenly you have people who don't care one iota about sustainability, fair trade etc. being outraged because City is evil - and I don't buy that. People use it as a strawman argument when in reality they're angry that somebody dares messing with their precious status quo.

Regarding the business aspect: I'm also undecided about this. On the one hand, I do think City are much better managed in various aspects than many of the traditional elite clubs. I think they did well to ingrain a vision and playing philosophy into their club. They did well to build a great infrastructure, scouting network and youth academy that produced jewels such as Foden or Sancho. And I also like that they didn't partake in the bidding madness of €100+m transfers, instead distributing the risks on multiple targets. But on the other hand, as you said, they don't do it sustainable. Often they burn through players instead of trying to make them work. I still think this is somewhat overshadowing all the things they did well and which could be a role model for other clubs. United for example is developing very well those past few windows but I think had you guys been managed with the same long term vision as City, Bayern or Liverpool in recent years, you'd be challenging for the UCL year after year.
 

Zehner

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
4,355
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
This is exactly the point. There is no risk when clubs like City become state owned. It breaks down the element of risk which is part of the integrity of our game.

Bad transfers sold on and replaced with no consequence. Fake sponsorships inflated to cover any losses. That growth does not come with risks.
Yes, that's true. It's not fair to City's direct competitors but as a neutral I couldn't care less because this sport isn't fair anyway. The big clubs have become uncatchable quite some time ago and that's a very bad thing for a sport that should be competitive and exciting.
 

Zehner

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
4,355
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
Well yes which was the primary reason FFP was brought in. To stop idiots with money buying and destroying football clubs.

Yes football clubs are businesses but they are not only that. They are also part of the history of cities, towns and communities. They're part of people's lives, if a book store closes down you can buy books somewhere else. If the club you've supported all your life ceases to exist after 134 years. You can't just go and support another team, it's not comparable.
Companies are the same, in fact they are often much more ingrained in the history of cities, towns and communities than even football clubs. Multiple cities only exist because of local companies that built settlements for their employees and brought people from outside by offering work. And football clubs these days are businesses. That's not even a negative thing because it's the reason we have so many great stuff like stadiums, broadcasting, high quality pitches and so forth.

But if you need a rule to prevent you from doing dumb things, you're obviously not fit to manage a business of this size. That's the root of the problem of many football clubs: That people in charge don't know what they're doing.
 

Fluctuation0161

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
4,891
Location
Manchester
Yes, that's true. It's not fair to City's direct competitors but as a neutral I couldn't care less because this sport isn't fair anyway. The big clubs have become uncatchable quite some time ago and that's a very bad thing for a sport that should be competitive and exciting.
Depends how you define big clubs.

Without City and Chelsea we would have seen Premier league wins for Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool since 2008.

Not tiny clubs but certainly those title wins may have allowed clubs like Spurs/Arsenal to kick on, rather than languishing as they are now.
 

Kentonio

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
12,480
Location
Stamford Bridge
Depends how you define big clubs.

Without City and Chelsea we would have seen Premier league wins for Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool since 2008.

Not tiny clubs but certainly those title wins may have allowed clubs like Spurs/Arsenal to kick on, rather than languishing as they are now.
I don't get this at all. Arsenal may have continued to challenge without Chelsea, but why do Spurs suddenly get a title?
 

Zehner

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
4,355
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
Depends how you define big clubs.

Without City and Chelsea we would have seen Premier league wins for Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool since 2008.

Not tiny clubs but certainly those title wins may have allowed clubs like Spurs/Arsenal to kick on, rather than languishing as they are now.
I don't think so. Football has become monopolistic - the more you win, the farther you distance yourself from the runner ups and the more likely you become to win it again. It is a spiral, a systemic flaw and it can only be overcome if a club receives large amounts of money from outside. Eventually the club with the biggest budget will prevail.
 

Kentonio

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
12,480
Location
Stamford Bridge
Those teams all finished second to City or Chelsea.
Except Chelsea were already better than Spurs even without Roman's money. Even if you assume a big Chelsea collapse, that's still success/prize money etc that would have gone to United and maybe Arsenal instead.

You can't just take them out the equation and assume nothing else else changes.
 

Fluctuation0161

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
4,891
Location
Manchester
I don't think so. Football has become monopolistic - the more you win, the farther you distance yourself from the runner ups and the more likely you become to win it again. It is a spiral, a systemic flaw and it can only be overcome if a club receives large amounts of money from outside. Eventually the club with the biggest budget will prevail.
Exactly. Those teams could've won if not for the money falsely injected into City or even Chelsea.
 

Fluctuation0161

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
4,891
Location
Manchester
Except Chelsea were already better than Spurs even without Roman's money. Even if you assume a big Chelsea collapse, that's still success/prize money etc that would have gone to United and maybe Arsenal instead.

You can't just take them out the equation and assume nothing else else changes.
Just as you can't assume the success/prize money would've gone to Unjted and Arsenal?
 

Kentonio

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
12,480
Location
Stamford Bridge
Just as you can't assume the success/prize money would've gone to Unjted and Arsenal?
Before Roman came along United pretty much held a monopoly on the title aside that that fairly short Arsenal peak. Not sure who was going to challenge that without a huge financial injection. Even with it and then City rising United won 5 more titles in the next 10 years.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
13,157
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Companies are the same, in fact they are often much more ingrained in the history of cities, towns and communities than even football clubs. Multiple cities only exist because of local companies that built settlements for their employees and brought people from outside by offering work. And football clubs these days are businesses. That's not even a negative thing because it's the reason we have so many great stuff like stadiums, broadcasting, high quality pitches and so forth.
So people should just go support another football business if some tosser happens to destroy the club they've supported probably most of their life?

But if you need a rule to prevent you from doing dumb things, you're obviously not fit to manage a business of this size. That's the root of the problem of many football clubs: That people in charge don't know what they're doing.
Well yeah but the criteria for owning a football club is basically do you have enough money to buy it and in some cases not even. But you're missing the point the rules are there to protect the clubs not the owners.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
38,940
I still can’t get my head around the losing team later signing the fecker who did that to them.

Absolutely incredible end to a league season that, doubt we’ll ever see anything like it again.
It was a little before my time, but it is impossible to think of a more incredible end to a league season.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
38,940
To be fair to them, they just might be under thirty, the lucky sod!
I was a youngun when that happened, so didn't see it live by any means.
But it doesn't take much to know about stuff that happened years ago.

I wasn't around in 66 for instance.
 

sangria

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
44
Recent football fan?

If you goole Liverpool 0 Arsenal 2 "it's up for grabs now", you'll see that the ending to that season was Aguero x100 as it was a last min goal, last day, but between the two top teams. With the away team stealing it.

Impossible to beat that ending.
Level on goal difference, Arsenal winning because they'd scored more goals.
 

redrobed

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Messages
333
This is why I don’t really understand why so many of our once fellow Utd fans have started supporting City.

This is a shock to absolutely nobody. They’re morally bankrupt. How many titles have we already won as Utd fans? Are there really some that are so greedy as to sacrifice their morals to win a few more by switching allegiance to City? Seems mad to me.
 

Hughie77

Full Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
1,542
City will get a slap on there hand , maybe have to cough up a few million to the FA coffers for the ones running it to get over paid for few years. Then in the main the football fan has to suffer to pay to watch 22 players on a obscene amount of money. Premier league has to look hard at themselves really hard.
concept in 92 was great but now 30 years later its Money Money Money.... and the fans are paying for these overrated premier players and lifestyles. And it's got even worse with the Oil rich owners who have realy pushed up the prices on competition, equaling the fans pockets have to be deeper than ever.
 

Hoof The Ball

Full Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
8,222
Location
San Antonio, Texas.
Chelsea were 3 places higher (and qualified for the CL) than Everton, and 6 above Spurs the year before Roman turned up.

The year before that (when we didn't qualify for the CL) Spurs were 3 places below us and Everton 9 below.

I'm not seeing how we supposedly stole their opportunities.
You were on the brink. About to default on a 75m loan which you had no means to pay off. Crisis would be an understatement. League position notwithstanding, both Spurs and Everton would still exist and occupy your position in the CL (perhaps), but save for Abramovic it's highly doubtful you'd even be in the league, or worse, in existence.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/oct/17/newsstory.sport9