Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros | CAS - Ban lifted, fined 10 million

[Mb194dc]

Before FFP was introduced, the collective deficit of European top clubs was over 1 billion euros. In the last reporting period, they were overall running at a profit.

This narrative that FFP has been introduced to protect the "big boys" is ridiculous and peddled by sports "journalists" and fans (those 2 categories often being muddled). FFP were a sound set of rules introduced to ensure progressive and organic growth of clubs based on their actual revenues and size, and to avoid clubs overspending or being overly reliant on one owner rather than a solid structure.

But a conspiracy theory is more fun, you're right.

What a load of rubbish, it's not a conspiracy theory. They were introduced to stop more City's and PSG's. Do you work for UEFA or their PR

If clubs are not financially sustainable why should UEFA care? Badly managed clubs will then have financial problems, have to sell players and clubs lower in the pyramid will then be able to rise. We can't have that now though can we? You know how capitalism is meant to work?

There are plenty of ways of creating a level sporting playing field without moronic regulations like financial (entrench the same clubs forever) fair play. Just need to have a bit of vision.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

If clubs are not financially sustainable why should UEFA care?

Because it's part of their mandate to care.

It was enjoyable talking with you, have fun with your views.

 

[Withnail]

It may have already been covered but what the hell were UEFA at banning them based on events that were outside their own 5-year statute of limitations, fecking clowns

 

[redshaw]

Pep has some cheek asking for an apology when it's clear they are guilty but it's just too much time has passed and the case had to be thrown out.

 

[Crustanoid]

It may have already been covered but what the hell were UEFA at banning them based on events that were outside their own 5-year statute of limitations, fecking clowns

It was clearly engineered that way. UEFA are bending over for them.

I read today that premier league clubs are boycotting sponsors which are related to hate. Biggest joke ever considering they allow clubs in their competition who effectively kill people left right and centre.

 

[Siorac]

Before FFP was introduced, the collective deficit of European top clubs was over 1 billion euros. In the last reporting period, they were overall running at a profit.

This narrative that FFP has been introduced to protect the "big boys" is ridiculous and peddled by sports "journalists" and fans (those 2 categories often being muddled). FFP were a sound set of rules introduced to ensure progressive and organic growth of clubs based on their actual revenues and size, and to avoid clubs overspending or being overly reliant on one owner rather than a solid structure.

But a conspiracy theory is more fun, you're right.

Which is impossible beyond a certain point. The UEFA PR sounds good but in practice, properly enforcing FFP means that only the likes of Manchester United, Real Madrid and Bayern München can compete; any club that tries to grow organically will be picked apart by the wealthy established elite.

I mean, I'm even willing to accept that UEFA, the organisation that gave four group stage spots to the three top leagues to placate their biggest earners, merely introduced FFP out of a sense of duty towards the financial wellbeing of the all clubs. Even so, it's a flawed set of regulations that, regardless of intent, effectively cements the current hierarchy in football. It basically pulls up the ladder that the "big boys" climbed. And whether that's by design or merely a byproduct of a genuinely well-intentioned attempt to save football from itself is almost irrelevant.

FFP has to go, to be replaced with something that doesn't inevitably lead to the top competitions forever being contested by the same small handful of clubs.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Which is impossible beyond a certain point.

I disagree - I believe people have short term visions, which creates this impression - whether it's the fans or football owners.

 

[Siorac]

I disagree - I believe people have short term visions, which creates this impression - whether it's the fans or football owners.

There are literally no examples of clubs growing organically to reach the level of Bayern/Real/Barcelona/Juventus. None. There are examples of teams that can compete with them for a season or two and then get taken apart by said clubs. That is Dortmund's entire business model: sign cheap gems, do okay, sell them for big money to Real/Bayern/United. And that's Dortmund we're talking about, the second biggest club in Europe's richest country. If they can't ever catch up, who could?

 

[BobbyManc]

The idea UEFA were moved by the plight of Rangers and Portsmouth (which their rules would not have saved anyway), rather than pressure from its most important and wealthiest sides like United, Bayern, Real Madrid etc is laughable. UEFA could not give less of a feck about Portsmouth playing in League Two now. However, they do have very substantial and obvious reasons to listen to the concerns of Europe’s elite clubs. If those clubs did not want FFP and did not see it as an advantage to themselves, it would not have been brought in. That’s just common-sense, not conspiracy, and Platini is on record confessing he had pressure from owners of established clubs in that regard.

 

[JohnnyKills]

There are literally no examples of clubs growing organically to reach the level of Bayern/Real/Barcelona/Juventus. None. There are examples of teams that can compete with them for a season or two and then get taken apart by said clubs. That is Dortmund's entire business model: sign cheap gems, do okay, sell them for big money to Real/Bayern/United. And that's Dortmund we're talking about, the second biggest club in Europe's richest country. If they can't ever catch up, who could?

All three of leagues were far more competitive before the advent of the Champions League and mega TV deals. You could say the same about the English league (although that's still pretty competitive, as Leicester have shown over recent years).

If we want to turn back the clock, dismantle the skyscraper clubs and return to the old level playing field, surely the answer is to reduce the top clubs' power, rather than allowing the smaller clubs to cheat?

It's like saying that if one athlete keeps winning every race, we should allow the rest of them to take steroids.

 

[JohnnyKills]

The idea UEFA were moved by the plight of Rangers and Portsmouth (which their rules would not have saved anyway), rather than pressure from its most important and wealthiest sides like United, Bayern, Real Madrid etc is laughable. UEFA could not give less of a feck about Portsmouth playing in League Two now. However, they do have very substantial and obvious reasons to listen to the concerns of Europe’s elite clubs. If those clubs did not want FFP and did not see it as an advantage to themselves, it would not have been brought in. That’s just common-sense, not conspiracy, and Platini is on record confessing he had pressure from owners of established clubs in that regard.

Whether they're supported by the elite clubs or not, the fact is that financial regulations are in every club's interest. Well, everyone's apart from yours.

 

[Siorac]

All three of leagues were far more competitive before the advent of the Champions League and mega TV deals. You could say the same about the English league (although that's still pretty competitive, as Leicester have shown over recent years).

If we want to turn back the clock, dismantle the skyscraper clubs and return to the old level playing field, surely the answer is to reduce the top clubs' power, rather than allowing the smaller clubs to cheat?

It's like saying that if one athlete keeps winning every race, we should allow the rest of them to take steroids.

Yes, it absolutely is. I fully agree that UEFA created this problem not just with FFP but with the direction they've taken the Champions League.

I don't want nation states to own football clubs and effectively provide unlimited resources to clubs. That's not the way. FFP, however, isn't the way either.

 

[africanspur]

Can multiple things not be true in this instance?

-UEFA introduced FFP to try to protect the elite clubs as much as possible, as opposed to any real desire to ensure clubs have financial security

-In modern football, it is essentially impossible to transform the club into an elite one. What are the closest examples? Dortmund? Atletico? Spurs? Roma? None are elite clubs. The 1st are generally managed incredibly well, huge fanbase, huge turnover, 2nd biggest club in Germany. The 2nd are realistically 3rd or 4th biggest in Spain? And are where they are due to an incredible manager. Spurs have gradually increased over 20 years but are not an elite club and we haven't won anything of note.

-Oligarchs or entire countries funding teams is a shambles and horrible for the game. And it doesn't really increase competition for football as a whole, it only makes those individual clubs more competitive and makes it even more difficult for other clubs to even attempt to break in.

 

[Ludens the Red]

Which is impossible beyond a certain point. The UEFA PR sounds good but in practice, properly enforcing FFP means that only the likes of Manchester United, Real Madrid and Bayern München can compete; any club that tries to grow organically will be picked apart by the wealthy established elite.

I mean, I'm even willing to accept that UEFA, the organisation that gave four group stage spots to the three top leagues to placate their biggest earners, merely introduced FFP out of a sense of duty towards the financial wellbeing of the all clubs. Even so, it's a flawed set of regulations that, regardless of intent, effectively cements the current hierarchy in football. It basically pulls up the ladder that the "big boys" climbed. And whether that's by design or merely a byproduct of a genuinely well-intentioned attempt to save football from itself is almost irrelevant.

FFP has to go, to be replaced with something that doesn't inevitably lead to the top competitions forever being contested by the same small handful of clubs.

But it’s fine if they’re picked apart by a Man City and PSG? Because that’s exactly what happens.

Before I go on, a lot of this ain’t directed at you but mainly the general themes coming from the anti ffp side.

I keep seeing this train of thought and I don’t really understand it.
People don’t seem to understand that even in a situation where a new challenger emerges due to massive financial investment, that new challenger subsequently shits on a number of clubs by taking all of their prize assets and preventing them from growing and taking their spot. What would Ligue 1 have looked like all these years if not for the PSG takeover? Has that takeover made French football more competitive? Do people think French football fans are grateful for PSG?

This almost always seems to be ignored by the pro no financial restrictions brigade. The other thing is that nobody is saying there can’t be take overs or investment, all this is, is trying to keep it in hand. You can’t allow teams to basically have infinite money to spend and do as they please.

The state run takeovers are actually very rare. In fact PSG and Man City are the only two.

Your last line is quite ironic because if we’re looking purely at Ffp and Uefa and the point about top competitions being contested by a small handful. Since City and PSG got their takeover, none of them have reached a CL final. Yet clubs who “organically grew” without mass investment like Spurs, Atletico and Dortmund have reached CL finals.

City fans like to play victim with this and make out they’ve done football a favour but really all they’ve done is become part of this so called problem they’re against.
Which clubs has city’s takeover benefitted apart from city? Everton? Spurs? Arsenal? Pfft.

Football like anything will always have a hierarchy. This idea that this will be solved by Middle East state backed unlimited spending at less than a handful of clubs is a nonsense. Unless every club in the land is taken over by an Arab state you are simply back at square one and replacing one club in a hierarchy with another.

 

[Siorac]

But it’s fine if they’re picked apart by a Man City and PSG? Because that’s exactly what happens.

I keep seeing this train of thought and I don’t really understand it.
People don’t seem to understand that even in a situation where a new challenger emerges due to massive financial investment, that new challenger subsequently shits on a number of clubs by taking all of their prize assets and preventing them from growing and taking their spot. What would Ligue 1 have looked like all these years if not for the PSG takeover? Has that takeover made French football more competitive? Do people think French football fans are grateful for PSG?

This almost always seems to be ignored by the pro no financial restrictions brigade. The other thing is that nobody is saying there can’t be take overs or investment, all this is, is trying to keep it in hand. You can’t allow teams to basically have infinite money to spend and do as they please.

The state run takeovers are actually very rare. In fact PSG and Man City are the only two.

Your last line is quite ironic because if we’re looking purely at Ffp and Uefa and the point about top competitions being contested by a small handful. Since City and PSG got their takeover, none of them have reached a CL final. Yet clubs who “organically grew” without mass investment like Spurs, Atletico and Dortmund have reached CL finals.

City fans like to play victim with this and make out they’ve done football a favour but really all they’ve done is become part of this so called problem they’re against.
Which clubs has city’s takeover benefitted apart from city? Everton? Spurs? Arsenal? Pfft.

Football like anything will always have a hierarchy. This idea that this will be solved by Middle East state backed unlimited spending at less than a handful of clubs is a nonsense. Unless every club in the land is taken over by an Arab state you are simply back at square one and replacing one club in a hierarchy with another.

As I said above, I don't like nation states owning football clubs and pouring unlimited resources into them. However, closing down every possible avenue of challenging the aristocrats is not the answer either. As @africanspur said above, multiple things can be true. FFP and Qatar or Saudi Arabia whitewashing their own regime are both bad, for different reasons.

 

[JPRouve]

But it’s fine if they’re picked apart by a Man City and PSG? Because that’s exactly what happens.

I keep seeing this train of thought and I don’t really understand it.
People don’t seem to understand that even in a situation where a new challenger emerges due to massive financial investment, that new challenger subsequently shits on a number of clubs by taking all of their prize assets and preventing them from growing and taking their spot. What would Ligue 1 have looked like all these years if not for the PSG takeover? Has that takeover made French football more competitive? Do people think French football fans are grateful for PSG?

This almost always seems to be ignored by the pro no financial restrictions brigade. The other thing is that nobody is saying there can’t be take overs or investment, all this is, is trying to keep it in hand. You can’t allow teams to basically have infinite money to spend and do as they please.

The state run takeovers are actually very rare. In fact PSG and Man City are the only two.

Your last line is quite ironic because if we’re looking purely at Ffp and Uefa and the point about top competitions being contested by a small handful. Since City and PSG got their takeover, none of them have reached a CL final. Yet clubs who “organically grew” without mass investment like Spurs, Atletico and Dortmund have reached CL finals.

City fans like to play victim with this and make out they’ve done football a favour but really all they’ve done is become part of this so called problem they’re against.
Which clubs has city’s takeover benefitted apart from city? Everton? Spurs? Arsenal? Pfft.

Football like anything will always have a hierarchy. This idea that this will be solved by Middle East state backed unlimited spending at less than a handful of clubs is a nonsense. Unless every club in the land is taken over by an Arab state you are simply back at square one and replacing one club in a hierarchy with another.

It would be awful. Without Monaco and PSG in the 2010s, other clubs would have still lost their players to foreign clubs, the UEFA coefficient would have plummeted, TV deals wouldn't have increased significantly and the gap with other leagues widened.

 

[DevilRed]

So UEFA get paid 10m hush money and probably countless more millions under the table?

Sounds about right.

 

[africanspur]

Also, let's actually look at every club in the PL that has tried, even on a short term basis, to break into the elite.

Blackburn
Aston Villa
Leeds
Newcastle
Everton
Spurs
Wolves
Leicester
Chelsea
Man City

I guess you can include Pompey and Bolton to an extent in this too.

Where are most of these clubs now? I guess also take into account that neither Leicester nor Wolves are self funded clubs either.

These new clubs are horrible for the game but let's not kid ourselves that it wasn't in reality a closed shop previously.

 

[Ludens the Red]

As I said above, I don't like nation states owning football clubs and pouring unlimited resources into them. However, closing down every possible avenue of challenging the aristocrats is not the answer either. As @africanspur said above, multiple things can be true. FFP and Qatar or Saudi Arabia whitewashing their own regime are both bad, for different reasons.

yeah I did see your post about that. And yeah multiple things can be true but I think fundamentally unlimited state backed spending should not be allowed and the only way to prevent it is financial fair play and I don’t think UEFA are blocking every avenue into the elite because they haven’t said no takeover no spending it’s just you know controlled.

It would be awful. Without Monaco and PSG in the 2010s, other clubs would have still lost their players to foreign clubs, the UEFA coefficient would have plummeted, TV deals wouldn't have increased significantly and the gap with other leagues widened.

Yeah , bet the fans of Marseille, Bordeaux, St Etienne, Lyon are celebrating the ‘Tv deals’ trophy. I like how you threw in Monaco as if there one league title in amongst the ten of PSG (and all the cups) shows anything.
Why would coefficients have dropped? Dropped for which countries? French league has and will continue to have 3 clubs in the CL. PSGs takeover and subsequent success has done nothing impactful.
Jesus man, the mental gymnastics you’d need to do to suggest PSGs takeover has been good for competition in France

 

[JPRouve]

yeah I did see your post about that. And yeah multiple things can be true but I think fundamentally unlimited state backed spending should not be allowed and the only way to prevent it is financial fair play and I don’t think UEFA are blocking every avenue into the elite because they haven’t said no takeover no spending it’s just you know controlled.



Yeah , bet the fans of Marseille, Bordeaux, St Etienne, Lyon are celebrating the ‘Tv deals’ trophy. I like how you threw in Monaco as if there one league title in amongst the ten of PSG (and all the cups) shows anything.
Why would coefficients have dropped? Dropped for which countries? French league has and will continue to have 3 clubs in the CL. PSGs takeover and subsequent success has done nothing impactful.
Jesus man, the mental gymnastics you’d need to do to suggest PSGs takeover has been good for competition in France

The fans of Marseille, Saint Etienne, Bordeaux and Lyon celebrated their own sugar daddies in RLD, Bez, Casino and Seydoux/Aulas. I would like to see them complain about PSG.

 

[BobbyManc]

Whether they're supported by the elite clubs or not, the fact is that financial regulations are in every club's interest. Well, everyone's apart from yours.

Wrong. FFP is of immense benefit to City now. We are an established club. Who will be able to challenge us other than the sides already at the top with strong revenues? Therein lies your problem. Abramovich was one of the figures who sought FFP. That should tell you everything about how the system is viewed. It’s pulling up the drawbridge, essentially.

 

[JPRouve]

Whether they're supported by the elite clubs or not, the fact is that financial regulations are in every club's interest. Well, everyone's apart from yours.

The problem is that it's not what FFP has done. One of the original proposition which was meant to be in every club's interest was to create a european "DNCG", in France all clubs in all sports are audited every year, their accounts are checked to make sure that they financially sound. The main difference is that the FFP is focused on profitability while the DNCG is focused on solvency, I personally believe that sport doesn't have to be a profitable business and for that reason I am totally against the philosophy behind the FFP and the new world that the UEFA/ECA are creating but solvency is very important I want football clubs to be solvable because they play a massive role in their local communities for kids, adults and businesses, so we should make sure that they are solvable which something that the FFP doesn't do.

 

[Ludens the Red]

The fans of Marseille, Saint Etienne, Bordeaux and Lyon celebrated their own sugar daddies in RLD, Bez, Casino and Seydoux/Aulas. I would like to see them complain about PSG.

I mean the scale is quite clearly very different.
By the looks of this thread most people don’t have an issue with investment. What PSG and Man City do is something else. PSG spent 400 million on two players. PSG’s investment has been bad for competition in France, this is a fact.
I think if a club wins 13 out of 17 available domestic competitions on the back of a takeover, it is safe to assume that takeover did not increase competition.

 

[BobbyManc]

I mean the scale is quite clearly very different.
By the looks of this thread most people don’t have an issue with investment. What PSG and Man City do is something else. PSG spent 400 million on two players. PSG’s investment has been bad for competition in France, this is a fact.
I think if a club wins 13 out of 17 available domestic competitions on the back of a takeover, it is safe to assume that takeover did not increase competition.

If PSG winning 13/17 is a sign of a broken system, why not United winning 8/11 of the first Premier League titles? One of which was interrupted only by another ‘sugar daddy’ club in Blackburn Rovers. How was a club not already in a privileged position supposed to have ‘organically’ competed with United on a long-term basis?

 

[JPRouve]

I mean the scale is quite clearly very different.
By the looks of this thread most people don’t have an issue with investment. What PSG and Man City do is something else. PSG spent 400 million on two players. PSG’s investment has been bad for competition in France, this is a fact.
I think if a club wins 13 out of 17 available domestic competitions on the back of a takeover, it is safe to assume that takeover did not increase competition.

It's not. The times are different but the scale is roughly the same and at the time they weren't the only one doing it. Just an example with Marseille under Tapie, they were paying massive wages paid by Tapie and in 1989 they purchase Waddle for 4.86m£ the record signing at the time was 6m£ for Gullit but they didn't stop there, they added Deschamps, Tigana, Amoros and Mozer the same summer.
PSG and City haven't done things that haven't been done in the past even the Mbappé-Neymar summer isn't a first, Milan's Berlusconi broke the transfer record twice in 1992, in one summer the record went from 8m to 13m, they also added Savicevic for a big fee too.

PSG for example are the current equivalent of Milan in the 80s-90s, they are roughly in the same scale. While City are more like Moratti's Inter where the fees aren't always impressive but they purchase a lot of players.

 

[Ludens the Red]

If PSG winning 13/17 is a sign of a broken system, why not United winning 8/11 of the first Premier League titles? One of which was interrupted only by another ‘sugar daddy’ club in Blackburn Rovers. How was a club not already in a privileged position supposed to have ‘organically’ competed with United on a long-term basis?

Apples and oranges again.....
Let’s go back to what the driving force behind advocating for no FFP and for teams to get takeovers and then spend whatever they want is.
“Increased competition”...
You (not you specifically) are trying to convince people that this form of financial doping is the only answer to making things more competitive. This does not work if it regularly shows the complete opposite is happening. Like in PSG’s case.

Blackburn were bought by a local fan who invested his own money into the club and by no means did he have unlimited funds.
Can you not see the difference between this and what PSG/City have and are doing.

 

[Micky Targaryen]

https://www.espn.com/soccer/manches...eague-ban-escape-uefa-a-disaster-and-disgrace

Mourinho is right though. If City is guilty, why not just ban them instead of a cash fine? If City is not guilty, why are they imposed a fine? UEFA is just simply kicking FFP to the curb.

Apologies in advance if this has been discussed already.

 

[JPRouve]

https://www.espn.com/soccer/manches...eague-ban-escape-uefa-a-disaster-and-disgrace

Mourinho is right though. If City is guilty, why not just ban them instead of a cash fine? If City is not guilty, why are they imposed a fine? UEFA is just simply kicking FFP to the curb.

Apologies in advance if this has been discussed already.

The decision doesn't come from the UEFA and CAS said that they breached FFP rules, specifically art.56. The issue is that some of the rules for which the UEFA has proof are too old while other infringements they are accused of aren't supported by enough elements.

 

[MalcolmTucker]

To be a modern City fan you have to also be an expert in global human rights and a historian of football finances just so you can justify your existence to rival fans.

What's worse is that despite being universally regarded as a paragon of corruption and evil, even your biggest rivals would rather you win the league than another club because we don't really see you as a real club any more. Must be exhausting and depressing.

 

[Micky Targaryen]

The decision doesn't come from the UEFA and CAS said that they breached FFP rules, specifically art.56. The issue is that some of the rules for which the UEFA has proof are too old while other infringements they are accused of aren't supported by enough elements.

I don’t quite understand this. So in conclusion, are City guilty or not? Isn’t it just simply a guilty verdict vs non guilty? Or is it much more complicated than that?

 

[JPRouve]

I don’t quite understand this. So in conclusion, are City guilty or not? Isn’t it just simply a guilty verdict vs non guilty? Or is it much more complicated than that?

They have been accused of several things, they are guilty of not sharing required informations with the UEFA, that's the art.56 infringement but they are not guilty of the rest because there was a statutes of limitations and in some subjects not enough proofs. If you want to make it simple, they didn't comply to FFP rules which is why they had a fine but they are not guilty of everything they were accused to have done.

 

[BobbyManc]

Apples and oranges again.....
Let’s go back to what the driving force behind advocating for no FFP and for teams to get takeovers and then spend whatever they want is.
“Increased competition”...
You (not you specifically) are trying to convince people that this form of financial doping is the only answer to making things more competitive. This does not work if it regularly shows the complete opposite is happening. Like in PSG’s case.

Blackburn were bought by a local fan who invested his own money into the club and by no means did he have unlimited funds.
Can you not see the difference between this and what PSG/City have and are doing.

There is a difference between Blackburn and City, but ultimately the issue is the same as it is success that could only be achieved through a wealthy external backer. PSG are no more dominant than Bayern Munich are, or close to how United were, or how Madrid and Barcelona are.

The point I have always made is that City are symptomatic of an existing problem, not the problem itself. There is no other way City could have won league titles and cups and regularly played in the CL without significant financial backing from an external investor. Do you think anyone seriously believes that having clubs backed by virtually limitless wealth is good? Of course it’s not, although I’d argue it’s still better and more competitive than the pre-Chelsea era where United dominated the league. But the issue here is, most United fans do not care about ‘fairness’, they care about how they have a much tougher task to win league titles now. Ideally, I’d have a system whereby revenue is shared much more evenly, and money is taken from the top and invested into grassroots football, infrastructure, lower league clubs etc.

 

[ExecutionerWasp001]

The point I have always made is that City are symptomatic of an existing problem, not the problem itself. There is no other way City could have won league titles and cups and regularly played in the CL without significant financial backing from an external investor. Do you think anyone seriously believes that having clubs backed by virtually limitless wealth is good? Of course it’s not, although I’d argue it’s still better and more competitive than the pre-Chelsea era where United dominated the league. But the issue here is, most United fans do not care about ‘fairness’, they care about how they have a much tougher task to win league titles now. Ideally, I’d have a system whereby revenue is shared much more evenly, and money is taken from the top and invested into grassroots football, infrastructure, lower league clubs etc.

You do realize that SAF was the biggest spender in 2 of his PL seasons. It's completely wrong to state that the PL wasn't competitive Pre-Chelsea. Many teams spent more than us & we still won. These teams couldn't compete due to poor running from boardrooms making poor managerial & player signings. It's not our fault that they didn't capitalize on the chances they had.

Your point on Utd not caring about fairness now looks very foolish. It's especially so when compared to City. You would have made it 3 PL's in a row this season. The only thing that stopped you was UEFA opening an investigation. This stopped you spending more money to replace the poor defenders you bought. It's obviously not fair that the only way to try to stop your gargantuan spending to buy every trophy available is to complain to the governing bodies.

 

[JPRouve]

There is a difference between Blackburn and City, but ultimately the issue is the same as it is success that could only be achieved through a wealthy external backer. PSG are no more dominant than Bayern Munich are, or close to how United were, or how Madrid and Barcelona are.

The point I have always made is that City are symptomatic of an existing problem, not the problem itself. There is no other way City could have won league titles and cups and regularly played in the CL without significant financial backing from an external investor. Do you think anyone seriously believes that having clubs backed by virtually limitless wealth is good? Of course it’s not, although I’d argue it’s still better and more competitive than the pre-Chelsea era where United dominated the league. But the issue here is, most United fans do not care about ‘fairness’, they care about how they have a much tougher task to win league titles now. Ideally, I’d have a system whereby revenue is shared much more evenly, and money is taken from the top and invested into grassroots football, infrastructure, lower league clubs etc.

Why is that ideal, it's not fair, clubs aren't equal, their work and the quality of their work isn't equal? Do you share that across Europe? Because for example how is it fair that West Ham who have never been successful, has never built a strong brand can get a share of Manchester United decades of good work which will allow them to outbid Ajax almost every single time in the transfer market. There is no fairness in that because clubs aren't equal, it's only fair to treat equal clubs as equals otherwise you are subsidising smaller clubs which is what is happening in the PL, if we really want a fair system United would get its actual share of the cake which is much larger than what they currently get while small clubs that do not have large fanbase, that have small marketing values and don't bring eyes in front of TVs wouldn't be getting hundred of millions in broadcasting.
Think about that type discrepancies. In 2018-2019, Crystal Palace generated 15m in commercial revenues but 121m in broadcasting, in the mean time United generated 276m in commercial deals and 204m in broadcasting. The PL broadcasting
revenues are based on the marketability of certain teams and the size of their fanbase, clubs like Crystal Palace are being sugar daddied by the PL and the more evenly you share the more unfair it becomes for the top PL clubs and clubs from other leagues.

Now, there was and still is a good reason to do that. By sharing more evenly the PL elevated the floor of the competition which feeds the idea of competitiveness and therefore allows the competition to be marketed as exciting which brings more lucrative TV deals and benefits all its members but isn't fair for the ones outside of it. In vaccum it is a good model but when club Football is international it causes problems.

In my opinion we have to choose between fairness and egalitarianism in Football, we won't have both.

 

[JohnnyKills]

Wrong. FFP is of immense benefit to City now. We are an established club. Who will be able to challenge us other than the sides already at the top with strong revenues? Therein lies your problem. Abramovich was one of the figures who sought FFP. That should tell you everything about how the system is viewed. It’s pulling up the drawbridge, essentially.

What do you mean 'established club'? Surely you were established before Mansour even arrived?

If you mean an established top club, that seems very debatable. How often do you fill your ground? How many of your sponsors aren't from the Abu Dhabi or China (which did a massive co-operation deal with the UAE last year)? These are the things that will determine whether you stay at the top or not.

 

[JohnnyKills]

You do realize that SAF was the biggest spender in 2 of his PL seasons. It's completely wrong to state that the PL wasn't competitive Pre-Chelsea. Many teams spent more than us & we still won. These teams couldn't compete due to poor running from boardrooms making poor managerial & player signings. It's not our fault that they didn't capitalize on the chances they had.

Your point on Utd not caring about fairness now looks very foolish. It's especially so when compared to City. You would have made it 3 PL's in a row this season. The only thing that stopped you was UEFA opening an investigation. This stopped you spending more money to replace the poor defenders you bought. It's obviously not fair that the only way to try to stop your gargantuan spending to buy every trophy available is to complain to the governing bodies.

This. When United were dominating in the 90s, football was run appallingly badly. Leeds sold us Cantona for 1 million and bought Brian Deane for 3 times that. City spent fortunes on average players. Liverpool had Souness. Newcastle bought world-class attackers and pub-grade defenders.

Football should really have been more competitive when United were winning everything. It was the other teams' fault that it wasn't.

 

[BobbyManc]

What do you mean 'established club'? Surely you were established before Mansour even arrived?

If you mean an established top club, that seems very debatable. How often do you fill your ground? How many of your sponsors aren't from the Abu Dhabi or China (which did a massive co-operation deal with the UAE last year)? These are the things that will determine whether you stay at the top or not.

After finishing above United for seven seasons, not missing out on CL football since 2012, I think it’s fair to say City are established at the top. As for attendances we had the 3rd highest average in the league even under Stuart Pearce. Silver Lake’s investment is hugely significant and symbolic of how City no longer relies on UAE support any more. Look at our Puma deal too, that is a substantial sum. If we wanted to replace our Etihad deal with a non-UAE sponsor I have no doubt we’d be able to get a very good deal as well; bear in mind UEFA had independent assessors look at the Etihad sponsorship in the past and they deemed it just about reasonable, and since then City have grown substantially as a brand.

 

[JPRouve]

What do you mean 'established club'? Surely you were established before Mansour even arrived?

If you mean an established top club, that seems very debatable. How often do you fill your ground? How many of your sponsors aren't from the Abu Dhabi or China (which did a massive co-operation deal with the UAE last year)? These are the things that will determine whether you stay at the top or not.

And the quality of their basic work, how many players their academy has produced and how good they have been? While I wouldn't call City a plastic club, they entirely benefitted from their new owner money, in the last 12 years they have barely produced a player that contributed to their first team and as you said they haven't even built a stronger local fanbase.

 

[JohnnyKills]

After finishing above United for seven seasons, not missing out on CL football since 2012, I think it’s fair to say City are established at the top. As for attendances we had the 3rd highest average in the league even under Stuart Pearce. Silver Lake’s investment is hugely significant and symbolic of how City no longer relies on UAE support any more. Look at our Puma deal too, that is a substantial sum. If we wanted to replace our Etihad deal with a non-UAE sponsor I have no doubt we’d be able to get a very good deal as well; bear in mind UEFA had independent assessors look at the Etihad sponsorship in the past and they deemed it just about reasonable, and since then City have grown substantially as a brand.

1. The 'finishing about United' thing is totally driven by the funding you receive.
2. Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham have all moved into new stadiums since the glory days of Stuart Pearce, Liverpool have expanded their ground and United are still miles ahead.
3. Do you think a US private equity firm is going to keep bankrolling your team if times get tough? All the evidence of American owners says no.
4. Do you seriously think you'd get the same amount of money from a non-UAE sponsor? Really? Come on.

 

[Gehrman]

I'm sorry to ask but how did City win the appeal and have the ban lifted?

Anyway it's going to be interesting to see Newcastle turn into a powerhouse within the next 5 season if not sooner.