I agree - except City are already a drain on their resources. It’s sportswashing: in other words ‘cleaning up’ their deplorable image with respect to human rights, by an association with a glowingly successful football club. For that to work, the proxy club, the emoji has to be squeeky clean. If bad press emerges to show them as cheaters, the shine might wear off for the sheiks.
Football Leaks: Manchester City accused of using shadow firms to flout rules
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
What u mean with how ? Without the money City would be already in the championship.
How are Historic Clubs going to catch up?
FFP was created to stop historic clubs to catch up but it isn't working as intended. So the American Owner's made a new plan to create a Super League and after that failed , the new Plan is to control Takeovers or Block it ( Newcastle for example ).
Projects Big Picture was the Plan to get Power over takeovers so Noone could harm their status Quo. It's like a Mafia and that's why Premier League need urgent independence Regulators. It's corrupt
Any idea how many rules they broke getting young talent, and I mean young, into their academy? You’re the definition of someone knowing a little, so thinking that you know a lot.
Are they actually going to get in trouble this time or have they got the solution for this case too?
What do you think?
Kane and Grealish signed with sponsorship money in 3 weeks time?
Argh, it's very simplistic to view fans like that on a basis that they're just mad that status quo has changed.
This "they're all the same category of bad boys, so it doesn't matter too much as you have to have a perfect morale constantly" is a bit tiredsome and an easy argument isn't it? It's like giving up: because some are bad, then it's also alright that others are even more bad on a bigger scale. I don't buy it. No person has a perfect morale, but a lot of people want to do and see good things, also if their shoes are made in a sweatshop in China. It's human to not be "complete" in all morale aspects, but it's better to take a stand against something than nothing. This complete morale argument is something we hear again and again and it's just strange to think that you can only have morale if you live your life in a pure zen buddhistic way by ONLY doing pure things, or else you're not allowed to have a morale opinion.
1. City and PSG is another scale. This argument I just don't buy. Take a look at the books, and why they've been in trouble over youth-players and broken FFP numerous times and used shadowfirms.
2. As a United fan I don’t like the Glazers neither. So that means I don't like the Sheiks neither. It's not the other way around, that I think the Sheik's are alright, because we're owned by the Glazers anyways. None of them are actually good for football. Before status quo changed, we hated the Glazers too, remember?
If City were in the championship it would be the result of decades of poor planning by themselves as a club, ironically it’s that same poor planning that made them attractive to the Sheiks. They cost peanuts because of how shockingly badly they had been operating for decades. Let’s all hope for that for our clubs.
You said allowing small clubs to catch up, I didn’t think you meant just allowing one club, the club state sponsored, to power through and dominate by ignoring all the rules that they chose to sign up to. Ok great that is the dream.
People need to move away from this nonsense that United would have dominated everything for ever but for City. Absolute tosh. City are not the reason we have finished 5-8 in the past eight years (ok so could’ve been 4-7). We’ve been poorly run as a club post SAF as we were for decades post Sir Matt and pre SAF. We’ve never won the league more than three seasons running and only ever done that twice in over 100 years of football. We’ve had two eras of success. What has happened with City and Chelsea is that it’s forced clubs like United and Liverpool to attempt to keep up. Spend more than they would have and created a bigger gulf with the rest of the league than would’ve been the case. It’s purely stopped clubs or restricted clubs like Everton, Spurs, Leicester from being more successful than they might have been. You only have to look at domestic cup competitions in the last eight seasons. How many times have City won the domestic cups which more typically have never been dominated by any one club. Sir Alex won the FA Cup only 5 times in 26 attempts.
So no, the league would not have been dominated solely by United at all, we’ve always been run as a business. Not a vanity project. We’ve rarely outspent the rest of the league even in eras of huge success.
Let’s not pretend one club signing up to rules and breaking them isn’t corrupt. When every other club abides by those rules. That’s the bit I think that people miss.
I’m absolutely shocked, shocked I tell you by these latest findings. State owned club getting inflated by dodgy sponsorship deals? Say it ain’t so?
You do realize that City and their owners were part of the Super League yes?
See, I'm not talking about "giving up". I also try to buy and consume sustainably and change my ways when I realizes something I do is morally questionable. But I'm talking about proportionality.There are a thousand things that should be higher on everybody's list than criticizing City. I believe you have to differentiate here between a) things they did that are morally questionable and b) things they did that are perceived as "bad for football". Since football is rather unimportant in the greater scheme of things, b) is not only negligible, it is also debatable if they really are bad for football. And regarding a) In the end, they're a company that accepted financial backing from an oppressive regime and as bad as that sounds, that's nothing uncommon in our society these days. Where's the difference to Uber or Tesla accepting investments from Saudi Arabia? Who criticizing City for being sheikh owned would boycott Uber because part of them is possessed by one of the worst regimes in the Arabian world? Let's not kid ourselves, City is operating in a rather unimportant market with football. People despise City more than those companies (or more than companies that regularly breach human rights or at least indirectly support it) because they perceive City "ruins football" and that in itself speaks from a certain ignorance because it means - consciously or not - they deem football more important. Or do you think the fans deeply hating City react with the same outrage to companies doing even worse stuff?
And regarding b) (and as I said, this is actually negligible compared to the former paragraph since football is rather unimportant in the greater scheme of things): Why should football as a market be treated differently to every other market? In our society, everybody is free to spend his money for whatever they want. So if I'm an investor and want to spill hundreds of million on a football club, why shouldn't I be allowed to do this? Where's the difference to investing that money into a startup? The rules City violated are generally self made rules in football that generally contradict many rules of the social or free market economy. If an investor isn't allowed to spend more than the club generates, this severely (!) limits growth potential and from an economic perspective supports the emergence of monopolists. And that is what we're currently witnessing with top clubs distancing themselves hopelessly from the rest of the bunch: The issue isn't that clubs like City or PSG bought their way to the top, the issue is that there is no other route for clubs outside the elite to really challenge those very teams without crazy financial investments. The current rule set is despicable in that it pretends to be trying to "save clubs from investors" while in reality, it conveniently ensures that the top of the pyramid stays cozy. If they were serious with FFP, they would build it entirely different and in a way that would ensure a fair competition instead of rendering "ascent" impossible. And if you don't believe that FFP serves this exact purpose, just take a look at the current UEFA reform and try to listen to the people who worked on it and didn't belong to top clubs.
Can you think of another industry where someone would pump £1-2 billion into a company without any hope of ever making their money back?
I mean, I think there exist a few for sure (just think about party donations in the US) but the real question is: Why does he do this? The sheikh isn't investing for fun or prestige, they're hoping for something in return and the fact that he keeps on pumping the money into City suggests that he is getting whatever he's looking for. I once read a very good and in depth article on City and how the funding grants the people in the background entrance to politics, lobbies etc. I can't recall everything in detail but there were stories about former politicians, mayors etc. getting high paid jobs in Abu Dhabi related companies after passing laws/sanctioning deals that benefited the state. So the root of the whole problem is corruption and you'd be better off tackling this than messing with the basic principles of the free market. Because there are reasons why these principles exist: They shall prevent cartels which have far worse consequences on the market than what's currently happening at City.
FFP is a farce for that reason. It's not to ensure the competitiveness, it is to ensure the status quo. While a rule set that prevents clubs from "buying their success" to a certain extent might make sense and justify ditching a few of the principles of the free market, since the whole sport lives from the excitement and unpredictability, what is currently in base doesn't serve this purpose one bit. The elite clubs are working non stop to make it harder for smaller clubs to challenge them - and the UEFA reform as well as the proposed ESL rules are a testament to that. This isn't something I've invented, it is proven.
The city apologists and muddy the waters crew are out in force I see. Beware of long convoluted posts. 
I struggle to see how you write this immediately after saying it's arguable if they're bad for football. It's not compatible.
Well yeah we know exactly what Abu Dhabi are getting, sport washing and influence in the west. We have a country (yes a country not an individual businessman) who are pumping billions into a football club artificially inflating wage and transfer fees while changing the landscape of the game and actually making it virtually impossible for any other club to compete with them that isn't also bought out by a nation state looking to embark on their own sport washing project and not caring about ever running it as a legitimate business that needs to at least break even. And none of this is done for the benefit of football or even for any motivation remotely linked to football.
In which case its not like other companies where someone invests money and takes a risk with a view to creating a successful business is it?
For all the words you’ve just rewritten what you said before. Just because something bad is commonplace doesn’t make it less bad. I think you’re also grossly misunderstanding the influence football teams have on a global audience - hence why they are perfect for sportswashing.
Re the business plan and project - if the entire thing is built on manipulating the rules (which turns out to be illegal) then how can you praise any of it? When you say long term planning - they didn’t plan properly and that’s the whole point - they underestimated how much time would be needed to actually scale to the place they wanted to be and so resorted to cheating. I’d also add that their plan seemed to be simply to get Pep long term so I’m not sure that’s any different to 99% of other clubs - Mancini and Pellegrini are hardly attacking possession focused coaches… everyone wants to play attacking football and have the best managers and players. City just have more money.
Please.
They will probably award God status to Pep before punishing them for cheating and buying titles.
Mate, I have no connections with City. If they get punished for this and disappear, so be it. As I said, I don't care which club is at the top of the food chain (well, as long as it's not Bayern MunichThe city apologists and muddy the waters crew are out in force I see. Beware of long convoluted posts.
)I still struggle to see how that is sportswashing. Abu Dhabi's and Quatar's international reputation has been nosediving since their investments. They don't care about the public opinion, they seek political influence and that has nothing to do with FFP or investors. We've had stories of this (Schalke/Gazprom/Schröder/Putin) although we have 50+1. Let's not mix up corruption, FFP and investment.
In isolation, the negative consequence for football you're talking about are that there are super rich clubs that even outspend the former elite. That's unfortunate for the former elite but it doesn't really make a difference for the rest of us who is uncatchable upfront. On the other hand, inflated transfer fees are actually good for smaller clubs. We got €100m for Havertz from Chelsea. You know what we can do with €100m? While signing fees are inflated, the costs of scouting networks, infrastructure, personnel (outside of footballers) etc. didn't rise to the same extent.
The bolded is correct. Though part of my argument is that the rules are shit and protect the current elite.
But I'm not saying that it is less bad because something bad is commonplace. I say that there are far worse things being done and people don't care. It's like criticizing somebody for taking domestic flights while being on a cruise liner yourself.
You assume they only want good press, yeah its preferable. But any press is good press when your goal is to intrinsically connect yourself with a western institution.
Through owning Man City and the investments in redeveloping an area of manchester by pumping in hundreds of millions. They are looking to imbed themselves in western culture and institutions. Once they do that then they network and make enough people financially reliant on their continued ownership of Man City and then off the back of that comes political influence.
It's sportwashing 101 mate.
No its unfortunate for every club as even fairly large clubs have no hope of ever competing for the title now unless they are bought out by an oil state. Which wasn't the case before when many clubs could and did outspend the richest club in the country.
Not much because as soon as a club receives a massive fee for a player the prices they are quoted for replacements double or triple. Look at the prices Spurs paid after selling Bale or Barcelona after selling Neymar. And that's how transfer inflation accelerates.
That's the problem for other clubs in an inflated transfer market. The doped clubs can afford the fees/wages and top clubs can just about still afford the crazy fees/wages but medium to small clubs cannot afford fee that they normally could if the market wasn't so inflated.
We are even seeing the financial trouble Real and especially Barca are now in trying to keep up in this inflated market.
But that was based on spending so much more than you could handle to the point ye were in financial trouble inflating the results for that period, which ironically made you a good buy for Roman cause he didn't need to fight to buy, and I'm speaking over the longer term, same could apply to every club who came 5th/6th any season since then or even more 2nd to Chelsea or City. The natural next consequence would have been Chelsea falling down the table giving chances to other teams, meaning higher finishes for many clubs. Bear in mind I'm not saying either club should have never got the investment, and who knows what would have happened in the hypothetical without that investment, another lesser investor could have come in, but there was more chance for others if either club didn't have an investment letting them spend money out of proportion to the rest of the league.
You can argue right or wrong on whether that should be stopped, but having that investment cut into other clubs, some being the established ones at the top like us, Arsenal, Liverpool who might have gotten more titles and CL qualifications over that period which does protect the established teams, but other teams on the edges lose out too, Tottenham missed out loads of times, Everton twice I think even Newcastle had a season 6th with the funded City and Chelsea clubs above them. But everything would have been different, maybe West Ham wouldn't have sold as many of its golden team, almost anything could have happened.
So I completely disagree that it had no impact on other teams, but its almost impossible to quantify the effect, and hard to say outright either team deserves no investment. And its not like they stole title shots outright, but losing CL multiple seasons, and the money that comes with would have helped those teams develop.
You really need to look further into the dodgy practices at City. From youth recruiting to financial doping to buying football clubs for Peps family to shell companies paying player wages to Roberto Mancini getting millions through a UAE based club after he left City!
There is much more in the dodgy practices of the UAE and specifically the clubs owners/ruling family, but I'll leave you on a voyage of discovery.
It isn't though, is it? It was brought in to stop clubs like Portsmouth in the 2000s from spending well beyond their means which bankrupted them and put them out of business. As far as I'm aware it's been a big success in that regard.
Yes, I think we can all see, reading your posts, how you fail to grasp some very simple things.
It clearly is sportwashing, no doubt about it. I won't lie, I'm not a huge fan of being owned by Qatar, but there's one tiny postive thing that comes out of it from a humanitarian standpoint.
Owning big clubs brought under international scrutiny a lot of unacceptable things that were taking place in those countries (that we barely knew 15 years ago, especially for Qatar). As a response to harsh criticism (and rightfully so) from various institutions, they had to slowly improve. Now, they're still VERY far from being virtuous, don't get me wrong, but a least it shifted a couple of polices (especially about working conditions) there that wouldn't have changed if they were still this tiny unknown country. It's a small victory but it's at least a bit easier to hold them accountable now that have more and more business with western countries.
Yeah it's got nothing to do with owning football clubs. The amount of money Qatar has invested in PSG is nothing in comparison to the overall assets invested (in France, but even just in Paris metropolitan region), and proper journalism (not l'équipe 21) has delved more deeply into this. Daniel Riolo isn't at the heart of the slight decrease (sic) of human rights violations in those countries.
Except nobody cared before they bought PSG. They were just "the rich arabs who bought a lot of fancy hotels". Owning our club put a public face on this country.
Kerching! Few brown envelopes handed out here and there.
It was brilliant, Liverpool time wasting , passing back to the goalie in the last few minutes and Steve McMahon cocky as feck then boom Michael Thomas and the look on the players and Dalglishs face . I wish there was Rawk then . We will never see anything like that again , unbelievable. I`ll never forget it .
I’ve got a lot of time for this post
Is this still a thing? The Grealish and Kane pursuit is basically telling UEFA/PL to feck off. Nobody can touch them.
Seems like it.
Especially given Covid over the last 18 months where every club has struggled.
City posted huge losses last year, even with onfield success there would be no way to claw that back given Covid only slacked off right at the end of the season.
Everyone knows what's going on, but there will be brown envelopes galore flying about. Hopefully it will come out in the wash at some point.
I can see the Spanish clubs kicking up a massive stink soon given their current situation.
This all depends on it actually happening though, I would be surprised as there would be no covering that up. Imagine if they get Messi as well
Such a bent club.
You have to appreciate the fact that they're now using their academy system like a Football Manager player. They're looking to raise £50m from a bunch of players that few people have ever heard of. A stark contrast to United who seem unable to coldly move their youth players and prefer to give them big contracts which reduces their market worth significantly.
City approach clubs regarding the players and offer to pay them to take them. So through the books a club will pay 20m for one of their youngsters. But then off the books the City owners pay the other club that sum plus more. So the other club is essentially paid (off the books) to take him while City still appear to appease FFP.
Any links to this?
What everyone feared would happen, is slowly happening. Former European greats Real Madrid, Barcelona, Inter Milan, AC Milan & Juventus are financial basket cases while the oil/oligarch funded clubs Chelsea, City and PSG have won 14 of the last 18 domestic league titles in their countries and look like adding Grealish, Kane, Lukaku, Messi, Ramos, Hakimi and Donnarumma (no doubt many more TBC) to their ranks in a single summer, in a pandemic.
They're an absolute blight on the supposedly beautiful game.