Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros

SER19

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
7,985
It's stupid but its Uefa doing Uefa things...
Can only assume and CL title this year would be stripped. Makes a mockery of fair competition and any credibility the game still has which is what most non city people said would happen when city were financially doping. Only to be called bitter or jealous.
 

caid

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
4,788
Location
Dublin
If they were to win the CL this season & then had the UEFA sanctions upheld by CAS surely they would have the CL Title stripped. They are being investigated over an earlier time frame. It is these earlier infringements though that have enabled them to get to the point they are now at.
It'll be the same as their other title wins. No one will take it that seriously regardless of whether UEFA punish them or not. Pretty much everyone without exception knows they're living way beyond their means
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
6,555
Supports
Man City
Can only assume and CL title this year would be stripped. Makes a mockery of fair competition and any credibility the game still has which is what most non city people said would happen when city were financially doping. Only to be called bitter or jealous.
I really can't see that happening (actually I can't see us winning CL anyway). Also CAS decision could take half a year. What if CAS find City in the right, can they be called bitter and jealous then?
 

SER19

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
7,985
I really can't see that happening (actually I can't see us winning CL anyway). Also CAS decision could take half a year. What if CAS find City in the right, can they be called bitter and jealous then?
Not really. Having a problem with nation owned clubs pumping billions at transfers until they get the right recipe is a perfectly understandable position.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
6,555
Supports
Man City
Not really. Having a problem with nation owned clubs pumping billions at transfers until they get the right recipe is a perfectly understandable position.
So if what City are doing is deemed perfectly fine, uefa are proven wrong, your opinion on what financial doping is moves the goalposts so you are still in the right and they should be stripped of any potential CL win because you just don't like it. That's not bitter and jealous at all.
 

SER19

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
7,985
So if what City are doing is deemed perfectly fine, uefa are proven wrong, your opinion on what financial doping is moves the goalposts so you are still in the right and they should be stripped of any potential CL win because you just don't like it. That's not bitter and jealous at all.
We've done this conversation to death. City fans will move goalposts to a different planet if needed. There's literally no point doing it again. As of now Uefa have found them guilty and plenty from the initial leaks leaves a deserved stain on the club.

And no I didn't say what you're suggesting here anyway. I simply said bitter and jealous don't seem reasonable, though say whatever word you want, for any sports fan who thinks City leapfrogging most teams in the world via dubai billions is questionable.
 

caid

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
4,788
Location
Dublin
So if what City are doing is deemed perfectly fine, uefa are proven wrong, your opinion on what financial doping is moves the goalposts so you are still in the right and they should be stripped of any potential CL win because you just don't like it. That's not bitter and jealous at all.
Everyone knows you're guilty, weaseling your way out of punishment with an army of lawyers isn't going to change peoples minds.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
6,555
Supports
Man City
We've done this conversation to death. City fans will move goalposts to a different planet if needed. There's literally no point doing it again. As of now Uefa have found them guilty and plenty from the initial leaks leaves a deserved stain on the club.

And no I didn't say what you're suggesting here anyway. I simply said bitter and jealous don't seem reasonable, though say whatever word you want, for any sports fan who thinks City leapfrogging most teams in the world via dubai billions is questionable.
your that one that changed your definition of financial doping in 2 posts but City fans are moving the goalposts? The bolded part 100% I agree with. I know you'd like football to be a closed shop for the biggest clubs with the greatest history, but unfortunately Huddersfield, The Wednesday and Sunderland are proof that money has always fecked over the historically successful clubs.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
6,555
Supports
Man City
Everyone knows you're guilty, weaseling your way out of punishment with an army of lawyers isn't going to change peoples minds.
I'm sure you've weighed up all the evidence to make a fair and rational decision. For what its worth, I've posted here saying I believe we're guilty too, but unlike most people who don't even know the time period the charges are for before spouting shite, I'm genuinely read up on this. That said my opinions are my own and I'm obviously not as informed as either Cities or UEFA's army of lawyers.
 

SER19

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
7,985
your that one that changed your definition of financial doping in 2 posts but City fans are moving the goalposts? The bolded part 100% I agree with. I know you'd like football to be a closed shop for the biggest clubs with the greatest history, but unfortunately Huddersfield, The Wednesday and Sunderland are proof that money has always fecked over the historically successful clubs.
I didn't do that.
your that one that changed your definition of financial doping in 2 posts but City fans are moving the goalposts? The bolded part 100% I agree with. I know you'd like football to be a closed shop for the biggest clubs with the greatest history, but unfortunately Huddersfield, The Wednesday and Sunderland are proof that money has always fecked over the historically successful clubs.
I didn't do that. I'll make it simple.

I said a cheating club can be criticised without the critic being called bitter and jealous.

You said can they be called that if city are cleared by cas. (call people anything you want by the way if it makes you feel better)

I said not really. One can have a problem with dubai financially pumping into a club even if within very lenient rules. This is not a controversial take and is shared by millions. It doesn't in my opinion make one bitter or jealous necessarily.

You decided to smash the two positions into one because you enjoy arguing relentlessly on the Internet.

I'm done now, as I can't make it clearer than that. For what it's worth I wouldn't be surprised if a whole lot of money 'clears' City.
 

caid

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
4,788
Location
Dublin
I'm sure you've weighed up all the evidence to make a fair and rational decision. For what its worth, I've posted here saying I believe we're guilty too, but unlike most people who don't even know the time period the charges are for before spouting shite, I'm genuinely read up on this. That said my opinions are my own and I'm obviously not as informed as either Cities or UEFA's army of lawyers.
You dont need to be that read up on it. The idea of City getting sponsorships in line with Real Madrid or Barcelona in 2012 is blatantly silly. They weren't exactly subtle
 

strongwalker

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,940
Location
2km from Olympiastadion München
Supports
FC Bayern München

IRELANDUNITED

Full Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Messages
1,169
I haven't really paid much attention to the details of Man City's ban from the CL, could someone who would know more than me about the topic (literally anybody) tell me how likely it is that their ban will stick and as a result 5th places gets into next years CL? Say on a % scale from 0 to 100?
 

Yagami

Kira did nothing wrong
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
8,429
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/feb/28/football-leaks-rui-pinto-in-prison-with-hard-drive-passwords-in-his-head?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1582892632

If its true what the article sys and Pinto still has ammo on his HDD, all supporters of major teams (including myself) should be careful with the mocking of Citeh... ;)
No. Mocking City is always welcome.
 

GhastlyHun

Full Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Messages
9,209
Location
Bavaria
Supports
Bayern München
I haven't really paid much attention to the details of Man City's ban from the CL, could someone who would know more than me about the topic (literally anybody) tell me how likely it is that their ban will stick and as a result 5th places gets into next years CL? Say on a % scale from 0 to 100?
78.6%
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
6,831
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
I haven't really paid much attention to the details of Man City's ban from the CL, could someone who would know more than me about the topic (literally anybody) tell me how likely it is that their ban will stick and as a result 5th places gets into next years CL? Say on a % scale from 0 to 100?
0%. UEFA's corruption will be exposed at CAS

lol
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
17,386
They’re going to rejig the rules, quosh the sentence and leave the cloud of suspicion over City as their punishment.
To be fair its not that much of a suspicion. If you get off itll be because of a technicality but we have all seen the emails
 

MadDogg

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
10,266
Location
Manchester Utd never lose, just run out of time
I haven't really paid much attention to the details of Man City's ban from the CL, could someone who would know more than me about the topic (literally anybody) tell me how likely it is that their ban will stick and as a result 5th places gets into next years CL? Say on a % scale from 0 to 100?
I expect City to fight this long enough that it won't apply to next season. Ultimately I doubt the ban is completely overturned, but it might be reduced to only one season (so they would then miss the 21/22 CL season).
 

Pep's Suit

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
211
Next season is Pep's last so no doubt City will try everything to give him another CL campaign.
 

muller

Full Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
8,531
I haven't really paid much attention to the details of Man City's ban from the CL, could someone who would know more than me about the topic (literally anybody) tell me how likely it is that their ban will stick and as a result 5th places gets into next years CL? Say on a % scale from 0 to 100?
50/50.
They are obviously 100% guilty but:

uefa are spineless
The fa are bumbling idiots
City will pay their way out of it anyway.
 

Brophs

The one and only
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
43,427
0%. UEFA's corruption will be exposed at CAS

lol
I’m genuinely curious what this means. I think you can fairly accept that City freely signed up to FFP. So where is the corruption? In their assessment of the clubs income/sponsorship deals? Or in the notion that other clubs haven’t been punished/pursued for similar offences? Because I don’t think that makes City innocent, rather it just means plenty of others are guilty.
 

Alabaster Codify7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
6,233
Location
Wales
Nothing is going to come of this, is it? All talk, no action, as per usual when it comes to the financial dopers in football.
 

RUCK4444

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
1,015
Location
FIFA Headquarters
To be fair its not that much of a suspicion. If you get off itll be because of a technicality but we have all seen the emails
This. Still a completely corrupt farce of a club that exists at this level and act with impunity simply due to money.

Is there actually any update on this? Not sure why so many are downbeat on the situation?
 

johanovic

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
630
How large parts of the UK media and others try to paint City out as victims in this is just staggering. The leaked emails in the Spiegel put UEFA in a postion where they could not overlook this having already concluded in 2018 that everything was OK at City. FFP is a fact and City have to apply to that as everyone else. They cooked the books and simply did accounting fraud to make things look OK while the true owner was pumping money into his own project and making it look legit while is clearly was not. Look at the squad City have and take into account that they could probably have 2 teams in the top 4 in the PL while they have no support worldwide and struggle to fill their stadium on matchday´s despite their success. Them being able to attract and sustain such a playing squad is all about money and when they do so while large part of their "income" is fabricated is just not ok. There is a certain club in France where their is a similar story as everyone can see that PGS being able to attract and retain that playing squad playing in the French league and without any success in Europe is a "miracle" at best...

If City would get out of this then FFP is done. Would it be ok for the Saudis to buy Newcastle and make that City/PSG part 3?

People tend to forget why FFP was put in place but it was implemented to stop the financial troubles in the game in 2009 and stop/curbe overspending on players wages and restrict the amount club owners can put in to cover losses.

How would the City team look today if FFP was not in play? Forward line of Messi,Ronaldo and Lewandowski?

Consider the City of Manchester fiasco where City are renting the stadium for 2 to 4 million per year on a 10 year contract from 2011. The cost of the stadium was 112million pounds when built for the 2002 Commonwealth games plus further 42 million when the capacity was expanded to 48.000 seats. 22 million of that was paid by the council and 20 million by City. Then shortly after the 2011 contract City make a deal with Etihad that is a loss making airline that is being kept afloat by their government pumping money into the airline. That deal saved city from falling foul of FFP due to them having a loss of close to 130 million pounds the previous season. Anyone trying to make the claim that City,Ethihad and the Abu Dabi United Group are not related parties needs to take a long look at themselves in the mirror.

Arsene Wenger spoke up when few others would back in 2011 and he has been proven correct.
 

ExecutionerWasp001

Full Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
280
0%. UEFA's corruption will be exposed at CAS
ol
If UEFA were truly corrupt this case wouldn't even be going to CAS. You would have paid off whoever you needed to before it even got to the investigative stage.

There is a widespread misconception amongst City fans that they were stitched up the first time the club failed FFP. Whilst it may be true that the goal posts were changed at the last minute no meaningful punishment was metered out. You were actually allowed to choose your own punishment.
 

Judas

Open to offers
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
13,956
Location
Where the grass is greener.
UEFA don't lose out on much by punishing City, they're a small fish compared to the established giants they'd be annoying if they let them off the hook.

I just really want to believe this time they'll actually get some of what they deserve.
 

Nogbadthebad

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
4,576
Location
Wolverhampton
UEFA don't lose out on much by punishing City, they're a small fish compared to the established giants they'd be annoying if they let them off the hook.

I just really want to believe this time they'll actually get some of what they deserve.

Being city is getting what the deserve every single day.

I had more respect for them when the chant was 'feed the goat'.

They were still an actual football club then.

Now? Most who shouted for goater are long gone, and what's left are more groupies for billionaires than football fans. You have to be to defend it.
 

Red Keane

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 20, 2019
Messages
80
Agree with you FFP is nonsense, but then I’m incredibly petty so anything that hurts a rival is good in my book.
The problem is that while Man City is indeed a rival, Liverpool is a far bigger one. So from the United perspective the CL Ban is a bad thing since it helps the bigger rival over the lesser one. Plus considering how United need to spend big to become a great club again*, FFP needs to go to make it happen for ourselves.

*When the Glazers finally leave.

FFP may not be perfect, and of course there may be changes once the City issue dies down
And what incentive will UEFA have to change FFP if City refuse (or are unable) to challenge it?

but the principle is sound. Sport in general thrives on being competitive, with outcomes being uncertain, and this is something that can easily be damaged by rich outside interests coming in and basically buying success for their own outfits while pricing others out.
The problem is though; no football club can reach the elite level (and stay there) without having to spend hundreds of millions if not billions to reach said level. As shown by the fact the only clubs to end up to have truely suceeded in joining that "club" have been Chelsea, Man City & PSG*, clubs that have had to spend billions each to reach such status. This has been a problem that has dated long before Abramovich bought Chelsea.

So rather than being a case of "rich outside interests" buying up the National Leagues & the Champions League, its a case of "rich outside interests" buying into non-elite clubs to help them break into the exclusive club that dominate European Football.

*You could argue that Atletico Madrid have kind of suceeded under Simmone. But there is also plenty of evidence to suggest that they are likely to fall out of that level over the next few years, especially if Simmone does leave. This would not be the case if they also had an owner who was willing to invest in the team as much as Abramovich was with Chelsea for example.

If anything, FFP has arrived too late, and there is a degree of having shut the door after the horse has bolted.
FFP in its current form would have not worked even in the early 90s (When the likes of Berlusconi were pushing for policies that ended up resulting in more money going into football). Since implementing it back then would have meant that whatever clubs domained the National Leagues & European Cup (at that particular time) would have remained dominant over the next few decades.

Thus the only way you can make football more competitive (without encouraging new wealthy owners into the game) is by taking all the money out of football, hence why I proposed those 5 measures.

There is an unhealthy amount of money in the game which has just pushed up the cost base. One of the consequences of this is that non-elite clubs find it hard to attract top players, or even to retain the ones they have developed (yes, they might get a nice transfer fee, but this merely serves to confirm their position as lower tier clubs).
Then the solution is to take the money out of football and reduce the financial advantages certain clubs have over others. However since there is no chance UEFA or the big clubs will ever agree to this, the next best thing to do is reduce the limitations imposed on club owners when it comes to investing their own clubs (and thus allow them to better compete with the elite clubs).

Because at the very least, it gives them an chance to actually join that exclusive club rather than permanently lock them out of it.

It's never going to be a level playing field at any given time as some clubs will be bigger and richer than others.
Then they should not go about claiming that FFP is there to "level the playing field", especially when the actual reason for its establishment was to protect the "established" clubs from any challengers like City or PSG.

UEFA understands this, and it doesn't have a target of somehow making all clubs broadly equivalent in terms of strength. It is simply trying to set out what is fair and what is unfair practice when it comes to growing a club in order to protect the integrity of its competitions.
No Governing Body of any Sport should be deciding who the Winners & Losers are. Which is what UEFA are effectively doing by defining what is "fair" and what is "unfair" when it comes to owners investing in their own clubs. Especially when unlike PEDs; investing in a football club is (on its own) is no guarantee of success, even if it does help when such investment is spent correctly.

If FFP was only supported by the older elite clubs as a means of suppressing the ambition of the nouveau riche clubs, I very much doubt it would have gained the approval of its members (the vast majority of whom are not in the elite bracket).
The thing is though, there are plenty of examples out there that show how much UEFA is beholden to the established clubs. For example the numerous times the Champions League format has been changed to their favour, despite the endless objections from football clubs outside the elite.

So under those circumstances, it wasn't too hard for the established clubs to get the wider UEFA community to accept FFP.

If a club has grown its business over many years, and is now reaping the rewards of that effort, then that's fair enough. It remains possible, though admittedly a difficult and long process, for aspiring clubs to grow themselves, and it remains possible for elite clubs to fall from grace.
It certainly possible for even "established" clubs to fall from grace, as shown by the examples of the Milan clubs, Arsenal and even ourselves. Hence why the Milan clubs have been the strongest advocates for either guaranteed CL Qualification or a European Super League, with the purpose of keeping both clubs in the elite bracket without having to properly invest in their teams.

Likewise it all well & good talking about clubs taking their time & growing their way to the top though their own two feet. But the facts on the ground (& history) show that such a policy is doomed to fail.

If clubs do have the good fortune to attract rich investors, there are plenty of ways in which they can take advantage of that without running into issues with FFP (e.g. by improving their youth and scouting infrastructure, or by growing their commercial operations), and these will accelerate their development in a way which is fair.
Even if a club invests in their youth infrastructure to such an extent that they hit the jackpot with a "Golden Generation" of Youth Talent; that on its own is not going to be enough to place said club in the elite bracket, because said club also needs to invest in addtional talent (to cover gaps in the squad that the academy cannot cover) and spend money in retaining said young talents (though higher wages and an ambitious transfer policy that would convice them that their careers will progress if they stick around rather than join one of the elite clubs).

Otherwise such a club will end up like Monaco, a team that spends years investing in their youth and nurturing a "Golden Generation" of Youth Talent...only to lose them to the likes of Chelsea, Man City, Atletico Madrid, Liverpool, Wolves, Leicester & PSG within 2 seasons.

Likewise its all well & good talking about growing a clubs commerical operations; but as Ed Woodwood & the Glazers seem to forget, the performance & growth of a clubs commerical operations is entirely dependent on said teams performance on the field. Thus the only way to grow a clubs commerical operations* is to invest in the team, which in turn means having to break FFP in the first place.

*Without having to use your own companies to sponsor the team themselves (and thus get around FFP via the back door)

The sudden arrival of vast sums of money from outside of the game invested directly on players is massively inflationary (both wages and transfer fees), so damages every other club, and distorts the competition. If FFP makes this more difficult, then this is precisely what it was intended to do, and rightly so.
The problem is though, the "sudden arrival of vast sums of money" that has enabled the elite clubs to domainate European (and thus World) Club Football predates even Abramovich's purchase of Chelsea, let alone Abu Dhabi's purchase of Man City & Qatar's purchase of PSG.

In fact the problem started when the likes of Berlusconi started investing into football & pushed for more lucrative competitions like Champions League & Premier League. That eventually set the effective requirement that any club that wanted to join the elites (and stay there) needed to spend hundreds of millions (if not billions) just to achieve such a status.

Now one could argue that the likes of Chelsea, City & PSG have made this problem even worse, but it would be inaccurate to say that those clubs caused the problem. Rather it was the case that such clubs had to resort to such measures (in response to the problem) just to achieve said status, and the fact virtually no club other than those 3 has managed to achieve such status proves this fact.

This action against City will enhance the competitiveness of the EPL, not reduce it.
Cripping the only team that is in the best position to challenge Liverpool Next Season does not make the Premier League more competitive. Especially when a preservation (and enhancing) of FFP does abosolutely nothing to encouage the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham & ourselves to spend more on improving their teams.

Liverpool's present position is the result of good planning, good coaching and a great tem ethic, in other words just the sorts of things that should be the foundations of success.
While it is true that Klopps abilities to get the best out of his players, a willingness to invest in the right players on occasion (if only they where willing to do it a few more times, then they would actually have a team that can dominate for years) and a strong team ethic has played a part in their performances both this season & last, I would argue that a equally big part (especially this season) of their good run recently has been the fact their Defence has been better & less error prone than the rest of the Top 7*.

I mean while Liverpool can boat Allison, VVD & Gomez**; Arsenal have Luiz & Mustafi embarrassing themselves week in week out; Chelsea have a arrogant Mingolet impersonator in goal (Kepa) and 1 decent CB at best (Rudiger); Man City have 1 Decent CB (Laporte), a guy that would struggle in the Championship (Otamendi) and a guy that is doing his best to kill his own career (Stones); we have an erratic DDG, a scared little boy (Lindelof), an error prone clown (Jones), a guy playing out of position (Rojo) and decent CB that is cursed with injury (Bailly); While Tottenham have a drunken fool in goal (Lloris), a 2nd choice keeper that has no ambitions to be either Spurs & Argentina No.1 (despite both sides crying out for a decent choice for either role) (Gazzaniga), a 3rd choice keeper that cannot disloge either (Vorm), their 3 main CBs playing as if they are all Semi-Retired (Vertonghen, Alderweireld & Sanchez) while their 4th choice CB is another scared little boy whose career truely died when he thrown into a NLD against Lacazette & Aubamayeng (Foyth); And even Leceister have had defensive issues in certain games that could have been addressed if they had either kept Maguire or properly replaced him (despite the form of Söyüncü).

So when all the other top teams have endless defensive issues, is it any wonder that Liverpool are Top of the League with 20+ points? Which is why is not really surprising that a team whose goalkeeper can actually make saves and whose backline actually know the fine arts of clearing the ball, tackling and putting their bodies on the line (Atletico Madrid) managed to stop them in the CL, although to be fair it was helped by the fact that both VVD & Gomez put in usually shocking performances in both Legs.

*Yes I am counting Leicester as part of it alongside the usual Top 6

**With Matip being an ok squad option and Lovern being terrible.

It's a little bit early to talk about domination given that Liverpool are about to win their first title for 30 years, and if they do go on and enjoy a spell where they are the top team in English football it will be a result of the work they've done to get to this point.
It's not as if Liverpool enjoy a financial advantage, and there is nothing to stop a club like ours from closing the gap. With the exception of Liverpool, the rest of the league has been more competitive and unpredictable this season than for many years.
The thing is though, if City are going to effectively going to be banned from challenging Liverpool who else will? Because lets be real, can you really see the Glazers/Woodwood giving OGS the funds to buy Koulibaly, Škriniar, Ndidi, Tielemans, Maddison, Sancho & Kane? Can you see Maria (Roman's Right Hand Woman) be willing to give Frank Lampard the £560 Million worth of transfer money that they have built up since the Transfer Ban & Hazard Sale? Especially when they need Oblak, Chilwell, Koulibaly, Sancho, Zaha & Werner (or Jovic).

And can you see Levy giving Mourinho the money needed to get Oblak, Chilwell, Pereira, Aarons, Koulibaly, Maddison & Haarland?

Because without all those sides getting all those players, they might as well forget competing with Liverpool, let alone with a Real Madrid & Barcelona that is willing to do anything to get back to winning CLs on a regular basis.

So while it is very much possible for Manchester United to challenge Liverpool, the Glazers & Woodwood refuse to see this for their own selfish reasons.
 

carvajal

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
8,665
Supports
Real Madrid
The problem is that while Man City is indeed a rival, Liverpool is a far bigger one. So from the United perspective the CL Ban is a bad thing since it helps the bigger rival over the lesser one. Plus considering how United need to spend big to become a great club again*, FFP needs to go to make it happen for ourselves.

*When the Glazers finally leave.



And what incentive will UEFA have to change FFP if City refuse (or are unable) to challenge it?



The problem is though; no football club can reach the elite level (and stay there) without having to spend hundreds of millions if not billions to reach said level. As shown by the fact the only clubs to end up to have truely suceeded in joining that "club" have been Chelsea, Man City & PSG*, clubs that have had to spend billions each to reach such status. This has been a problem that has dated long before Abramovich bought Chelsea.

So rather than being a case of "rich outside interests" buying up the National Leagues & the Champions League, its a case of "rich outside interests" buying into non-elite clubs to help them break into the exclusive club that dominate European Football.

*You could argue that Atletico Madrid have kind of suceeded under Simmone. But there is also plenty of evidence to suggest that they are likely to fall out of that level over the next few years, especially if Simmone does leave. This would not be the case if they also had an owner who was willing to invest in the team as much as Abramovich was with Chelsea for example.



FFP in its current form would have not worked even in the early 90s (When the likes of Berlusconi were pushing for policies that ended up resulting in more money going into football). Since implementing it back then would have meant that whatever clubs domained the National Leagues & European Cup (at that particular time) would have remained dominant over the next few decades.

Thus the only way you can make football more competitive (without encouraging new wealthy owners into the game) is by taking all the money out of football, hence why I proposed those 5 measures.



Then the solution is to take the money out of football and reduce the financial advantages certain clubs have over others. However since there is no chance UEFA or the big clubs will ever agree to this, the next best thing to do is reduce the limitations imposed on club owners when it comes to investing their own clubs (and thus allow them to better compete with the elite clubs).

Because at the very least, it gives them an chance to actually join that exclusive club rather than permanently lock them out of it.



Then they should not go about claiming that FFP is there to "level the playing field", especially when the actual reason for its establishment was to protect the "established" clubs from any challengers like City or PSG.



No Governing Body of any Sport should be deciding who the Winners & Losers are. Which is what UEFA are effectively doing by defining what is "fair" and what is "unfair" when it comes to owners investing in their own clubs. Especially when unlike PEDs; investing in a football club is (on its own) is no guarantee of success, even if it does help when such investment is spent correctly.



The thing is though, there are plenty of examples out there that show how much UEFA is beholden to the established clubs. For example the numerous times the Champions League format has been changed to their favour, despite the endless objections from football clubs outside the elite.

So under those circumstances, it wasn't too hard for the established clubs to get the wider UEFA community to accept FFP.



It certainly possible for even "established" clubs to fall from grace, as shown by the examples of the Milan clubs, Arsenal and even ourselves. Hence why the Milan clubs have been the strongest advocates for either guaranteed CL Qualification or a European Super League, with the purpose of keeping both clubs in the elite bracket without having to properly invest in their teams.

Likewise it all well & good talking about clubs taking their time & growing their way to the top though their own two feet. But the facts on the ground (& history) show that such a policy is doomed to fail.



Even if a club invests in their youth infrastructure to such an extent that they hit the jackpot with a "Golden Generation" of Youth Talent; that on its own is not going to be enough to place said club in the elite bracket, because said club also needs to invest in addtional talent (to cover gaps in the squad that the academy cannot cover) and spend money in retaining said young talents (though higher wages and an ambitious transfer policy that would convice them that their careers will progress if they stick around rather than join one of the elite clubs).

Otherwise such a club will end up like Monaco, a team that spends years investing in their youth and nurturing a "Golden Generation" of Youth Talent...only to lose them to the likes of Chelsea, Man City, Atletico Madrid, Liverpool, Wolves, Leicester & PSG within 2 seasons.

Likewise its all well & good talking about growing a clubs commerical operations; but as Ed Woodwood & the Glazers seem to forget, the performance & growth of a clubs commerical operations is entirely dependent on said teams performance on the field. Thus the only way to grow a clubs commerical operations* is to invest in the team, which in turn means having to break FFP in the first place.

*Without having to use your own companies to sponsor the team themselves (and thus get around FFP via the back door)



The problem is though, the "sudden arrival of vast sums of money" that has enabled the elite clubs to domainate European (and thus World) Club Football predates even Abramovich's purchase of Chelsea, let alone Abu Dhabi's purchase of Man City & Qatar's purchase of PSG.

In fact the problem started when the likes of Berlusconi started investing into football & pushed for more lucrative competitions like Champions League & Premier League. That eventually set the effective requirement that any club that wanted to join the elites (and stay there) needed to spend hundreds of millions (if not billions) just to achieve such a status.

Now one could argue that the likes of Chelsea, City & PSG have made this problem even worse, but it would be inaccurate to say that those clubs caused the problem. Rather it was the case that such clubs had to resort to such measures (in response to the problem) just to achieve said status, and the fact virtually no club other than those 3 has managed to achieve such status proves this fact.



Cripping the only team that is in the best position to challenge Liverpool Next Season does not make the Premier League more competitive. Especially when a preservation (and enhancing) of FFP does abosolutely nothing to encouage the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham & ourselves to spend more on improving their teams.



While it is true that Klopps abilities to get the best out of his players, a willingness to invest in the right players on occasion (if only they where willing to do it a few more times, then they would actually have a team that can dominate for years) and a strong team ethic has played a part in their performances both this season & last, I would argue that a equally big part (especially this season) of their good run recently has been the fact their Defence has been better & less error prone than the rest of the Top 7*.

I mean while Liverpool can boat Allison, VVD & Gomez**; Arsenal have Luiz & Mustafi embarrassing themselves week in week out; Chelsea have a arrogant Mingolet impersonator in goal (Kepa) and 1 decent CB at best (Rudiger); Man City have 1 Decent CB (Laporte), a guy that would struggle in the Championship (Otamendi) and a guy that is doing his best to kill his own career (Stones); we have an erratic DDG, a scared little boy (Lindelof), an error prone clown (Jones), a guy playing out of position (Rojo) and decent CB that is cursed with injury (Bailly); While Tottenham have a drunken fool in goal (Lloris), a 2nd choice keeper that has no ambitions to be either Spurs & Argentina No.1 (despite both sides crying out for a decent choice for either role) (Gazzaniga), a 3rd choice keeper that cannot disloge either (Vorm), their 3 main CBs playing as if they are all Semi-Retired (Vertonghen, Alderweireld & Sanchez) while their 4th choice CB is another scared little boy whose career truely died when he thrown into a NLD against Lacazette & Aubamayeng (Foyth); And even Leceister have had defensive issues in certain games that could have been addressed if they had either kept Maguire or properly replaced him (despite the form of Söyüncü).

So when all the other top teams have endless defensive issues, is it any wonder that Liverpool are Top of the League with 20+ points? Which is why is not really surprising that a team whose goalkeeper can actually make saves and whose backline actually know the fine arts of clearing the ball, tackling and putting their bodies on the line (Atletico Madrid) managed to stop them in the CL, although to be fair it was helped by the fact that both VVD & Gomez put in usually shocking performances in both Legs.

*Yes I am counting Leicester as part of it alongside the usual Top 6

**With Matip being an ok squad option and Lovern being terrible.



The thing is though, if City are going to effectively going to be banned from challenging Liverpool who else will? Because lets be real, can you really see the Glazers/Woodwood giving OGS the funds to buy Koulibaly, Škriniar, Ndidi, Tielemans, Maddison, Sancho & Kane? Can you see Maria (Roman's Right Hand Woman) be willing to give Frank Lampard the £560 Million worth of transfer money that they have built up since the Transfer Ban & Hazard Sale? Especially when they need Oblak, Chilwell, Koulibaly, Sancho, Zaha & Werner (or Jovic).

And can you see Levy giving Mourinho the money needed to get Oblak, Chilwell, Pereira, Aarons, Koulibaly, Maddison & Haarland?

Because without all those sides getting all those players, they might as well forget competing with Liverpool, let alone with a Real Madrid & Barcelona that is willing to do anything to get back to winning CLs on a regular basis.

So while it is very much possible for Manchester United to challenge Liverpool, the Glazers & Woodwood refuse to see this for their own selfish reasons.
A well-used post limitation :D
 

Fts 74

Full Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
224
Location
salford
The problem is that while Man City is indeed a rival, Liverpool is a far bigger one. So from the United perspective the CL Ban is a bad thing since it helps the bigger rival over the lesser one. Plus considering how United need to spend big to become a great club again*, FFP needs to go to make it happen for ourselves.

*When the Glazers finally leave.



And what incentive will UEFA have to change FFP if City refuse (or are unable) to challenge it?



The problem is though; no football club can reach the elite level (and stay there) without having to spend hundreds of millions if not billions to reach said level. As shown by the fact the only clubs to end up to have truely suceeded in joining that "club" have been Chelsea, Man City & PSG*, clubs that have had to spend billions each to reach such status. This has been a problem that has dated long before Abramovich bought Chelsea.

So rather than being a case of "rich outside interests" buying up the National Leagues & the Champions League, its a case of "rich outside interests" buying into non-elite clubs to help them break into the exclusive club that dominate European Football.

*You could argue that Atletico Madrid have kind of suceeded under Simmone. But there is also plenty of evidence to suggest that they are likely to fall out of that level over the next few years, especially if Simmone does leave. This would not be the case if they also had an owner who was willing to invest in the team as much as Abramovich was with Chelsea for example.



FFP in its current form would have not worked even in the early 90s (When the likes of Berlusconi were pushing for policies that ended up resulting in more money going into football). Since implementing it back then would have meant that whatever clubs domained the National Leagues & European Cup (at that particular time) would have remained dominant over the next few decades.

Thus the only way you can make football more competitive (without encouraging new wealthy owners into the game) is by taking all the money out of football, hence why I proposed those 5 measures.



Then the solution is to take the money out of football and reduce the financial advantages certain clubs have over others. However since there is no chance UEFA or the big clubs will ever agree to this, the next best thing to do is reduce the limitations imposed on club owners when it comes to investing their own clubs (and thus allow them to better compete with the elite clubs).

Because at the very least, it gives them an chance to actually join that exclusive club rather than permanently lock them out of it.



Then they should not go about claiming that FFP is there to "level the playing field", especially when the actual reason for its establishment was to protect the "established" clubs from any challengers like City or PSG.



No Governing Body of any Sport should be deciding who the Winners & Losers are. Which is what UEFA are effectively doing by defining what is "fair" and what is "unfair" when it comes to owners investing in their own clubs. Especially when unlike PEDs; investing in a football club is (on its own) is no guarantee of success, even if it does help when such investment is spent correctly.



The thing is though, there are plenty of examples out there that show how much UEFA is beholden to the established clubs. For example the numerous times the Champions League format has been changed to their favour, despite the endless objections from football clubs outside the elite.

So under those circumstances, it wasn't too hard for the established clubs to get the wider UEFA community to accept FFP.



It certainly possible for even "established" clubs to fall from grace, as shown by the examples of the Milan clubs, Arsenal and even ourselves. Hence why the Milan clubs have been the strongest advocates for either guaranteed CL Qualification or a European Super League, with the purpose of keeping both clubs in the elite bracket without having to properly invest in their teams.

Likewise it all well & good talking about clubs taking their time & growing their way to the top though their own two feet. But the facts on the ground (& history) show that such a policy is doomed to fail.



Even if a club invests in their youth infrastructure to such an extent that they hit the jackpot with a "Golden Generation" of Youth Talent; that on its own is not going to be enough to place said club in the elite bracket, because said club also needs to invest in addtional talent (to cover gaps in the squad that the academy cannot cover) and spend money in retaining said young talents (though higher wages and an ambitious transfer policy that would convice them that their careers will progress if they stick around rather than join one of the elite clubs).

Otherwise such a club will end up like Monaco, a team that spends years investing in their youth and nurturing a "Golden Generation" of Youth Talent...only to lose them to the likes of Chelsea, Man City, Atletico Madrid, Liverpool, Wolves, Leicester & PSG within 2 seasons.

Likewise its all well & good talking about growing a clubs commerical operations; but as Ed Woodwood & the Glazers seem to forget, the performance & growth of a clubs commerical operations is entirely dependent on said teams performance on the field. Thus the only way to grow a clubs commerical operations* is to invest in the team, which in turn means having to break FFP in the first place.

*Without having to use your own companies to sponsor the team themselves (and thus get around FFP via the back door)



The problem is though, the "sudden arrival of vast sums of money" that has enabled the elite clubs to domainate European (and thus World) Club Football predates even Abramovich's purchase of Chelsea, let alone Abu Dhabi's purchase of Man City & Qatar's purchase of PSG.

In fact the problem started when the likes of Berlusconi started investing into football & pushed for more lucrative competitions like Champions League & Premier League. That eventually set the effective requirement that any club that wanted to join the elites (and stay there) needed to spend hundreds of millions (if not billions) just to achieve such a status.

Now one could argue that the likes of Chelsea, City & PSG have made this problem even worse, but it would be inaccurate to say that those clubs caused the problem. Rather it was the case that such clubs had to resort to such measures (in response to the problem) just to achieve said status, and the fact virtually no club other than those 3 has managed to achieve such status proves this fact.



Cripping the only team that is in the best position to challenge Liverpool Next Season does not make the Premier League more competitive. Especially when a preservation (and enhancing) of FFP does abosolutely nothing to encouage the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham & ourselves to spend more on improving their teams.



While it is true that Klopps abilities to get the best out of his players, a willingness to invest in the right players on occasion (if only they where willing to do it a few more times, then they would actually have a team that can dominate for years) and a strong team ethic has played a part in their performances both this season & last, I would argue that a equally big part (especially this season) of their good run recently has been the fact their Defence has been better & less error prone than the rest of the Top 7*.

I mean while Liverpool can boat Allison, VVD & Gomez**; Arsenal have Luiz & Mustafi embarrassing themselves week in week out; Chelsea have a arrogant Mingolet impersonator in goal (Kepa) and 1 decent CB at best (Rudiger); Man City have 1 Decent CB (Laporte), a guy that would struggle in the Championship (Otamendi) and a guy that is doing his best to kill his own career (Stones); we have an erratic DDG, a scared little boy (Lindelof), an error prone clown (Jones), a guy playing out of position (Rojo) and decent CB that is cursed with injury (Bailly); While Tottenham have a drunken fool in goal (Lloris), a 2nd choice keeper that has no ambitions to be either Spurs & Argentina No.1 (despite both sides crying out for a decent choice for either role) (Gazzaniga), a 3rd choice keeper that cannot disloge either (Vorm), their 3 main CBs playing as if they are all Semi-Retired (Vertonghen, Alderweireld & Sanchez) while their 4th choice CB is another scared little boy whose career truely died when he thrown into a NLD against Lacazette & Aubamayeng (Foyth); And even Leceister have had defensive issues in certain games that could have been addressed if they had either kept Maguire or properly replaced him (despite the form of Söyüncü).

So when all the other top teams have endless defensive issues, is it any wonder that Liverpool are Top of the League with 20+ points? Which is why is not really surprising that a team whose goalkeeper can actually make saves and whose backline actually know the fine arts of clearing the ball, tackling and putting their bodies on the line (Atletico Madrid) managed to stop them in the CL, although to be fair it was helped by the fact that both VVD & Gomez put in usually shocking performances in both Legs.

*Yes I am counting Leicester as part of it alongside the usual Top 6

**With Matip being an ok squad option and Lovern being terrible.



The thing is though, if City are going to effectively going to be banned from challenging Liverpool who else will? Because lets be real, can you really see the Glazers/Woodwood giving OGS the funds to buy Koulibaly, Škriniar, Ndidi, Tielemans, Maddison, Sancho & Kane? Can you see Maria (Roman's Right Hand Woman) be willing to give Frank Lampard the £560 Million worth of transfer money that they have built up since the Transfer Ban & Hazard Sale? Especially when they need Oblak, Chilwell, Koulibaly, Sancho, Zaha & Werner (or Jovic).

And can you see Levy giving Mourinho the money needed to get Oblak, Chilwell, Pereira, Aarons, Koulibaly, Maddison & Haarland?

Because without all those sides getting all those players, they might as well forget competing with Liverpool, let alone with a Real Madrid & Barcelona that is willing to do anything to get back to winning CLs on a regular basis.

So while it is very much possible for Manchester United to challenge Liverpool, the Glazers & Woodwood refuse to see this for their own selfish reasons.
Take a bow

Excellent post