stevoc
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 20,130
Come on mate he's not the 2nd coming.Yup. Gabriel Jesus is twice the player than Rashford, MBE yet he only earns £90k/w, less a half what Rashford earns.
Come on mate he's not the 2nd coming.Yup. Gabriel Jesus is twice the player than Rashford, MBE yet he only earns £90k/w, less a half what Rashford earns.
Yeah they really have changed the face and shape of football as we know it.Without them Arsenal wouldn't have been utterly savaged at a time when they simply couldn't compete due to the ground move. The plan for Wenger and Arsenal was to stay there or thereabouts until the move was completed and they'd have been stronger financially, instead City started using them as a feeder club and their fate has been sealed since, their players saw they that way too, as nothing more than a stepping stone.
Remove state owned City from this league and the post Fergie days would have been brilliant, with Arsenal, Liverpool & Chelsea; and yes, Liverpool would have (I hate to say it), deservedly won a few more titles for sure. It's hard to know how Arsenal could have been if they had been "allowed" to remain a top team.
People sadly see the Fergie domination and think Chelsea and especially City have done a good thing by putting a stop to it, but as we've all seen, Fergie was the reason for the domination, not United. Other clubs would have shone post-Fergie.
Fuxking ell, you still think the Earth is flat too?Yup. Gabriel Jesus is twice the player than Rashford, MBE yet he only earns £90k/w, less a half what Rashford earns.
Exactly.Without them Arsenal wouldn't have been utterly savaged at a time when they simply couldn't compete due to the ground move. The plan for Wenger and Arsenal was to stay there or thereabouts until the move was completed and they'd have been stronger financially, instead City started using them as a feeder club and their fate has been sealed since, their players saw they that way too, as nothing more than a stepping stone.
Remove state owned City from this league and the post Fergie days would have been brilliant, with Arsenal, Liverpool & Chelsea; and yes, Liverpool would have (I hate to say it), deservedly won a few more titles for sure. It's hard to know how Arsenal could have been if they had been "allowed" to remain a top team.
People sadly see the Fergie domination and think Chelsea and especially City have done a good thing by putting a stop to it, but as we've all seen, Fergie was the reason for the domination, not United. Other clubs would have shone post-Fergie.
You can't call someone else a moron when you yourself are being silly.Of course the PL and UEFA can rule that in order to participate in their competitions, clubs are subject to meeting minimum fiduciary standards verifiable in courts in the UK/EU respectively. CAS would not be able to overrule that. I think such caps (even soft) are workable at the league level
UEFA lost that case against City because they are morons. They have lost similar cases against Milan and other clubs that are not state owned.
Squad limits is a great start. You cannot hoard 18 stars. They will all want regular playing time. Incentivize teams that have players who came up from the youth team. Force the top talent to spread around the league and Europe. If squads were limited to 18 non-youth/youth produced players then it would force teams to invest more in their academies for example.
I don't think you're understanding me mateYou can't call someone else a moron when you yourself are being silly.
What standards can courts in the UK/EU verify that a state in the middle east can't bypass easily? You can legislate for individuals who operate within legislated states - you cannot legislate for actual states who are a law unto themselves.
They can produce books that show whatever picture it is they want to portray. But a UK/EU based authority cannot and will never be able force them to show the accounts held in Abu Dhabi owned banks.
As I say, I completely agree with you on squad limits.
And I don't think you understand me - I'm saying Abu Dhabi don't need to decline. They can just accept those rules, make books available and then do as they like anyway.I don't think you're understanding me mate
UEFA can mandate that as a prerequisite of qualifying for European competition, all books related to revenue be provided. Under fiduciary standards.
Abu Dhabi can decline. UEFA then has the right to unilaterally ban City from European competition. If City appeals, there's no case before CAS. UEFA is a private organization and can set it's own rules. CAS judges whether those rules are applicable to the situation (hence the time barred technicality from before)
I don't buy that City have this ability to bypass European laws, bylaws and regulations in a way that is beyond every other club that is not PSG or Chelsea. That implies some sort of nobility on the part of United, Liverpool... Which I laugh at.
That's because we are falling miles behind City and Liverpool and it is starting to impact our bottom line now. Just try to remember how stingy they were when we were winning and Fergie was reusing the "No Value in Market" line every summer. Also, We cannot sign 50 million defenders like City do and discard them next season if they turn out to be less than world class. If City had signed Maguire then they would have discarded him by now based on how he's performed this season but because Glazers are greedy we'll have to endure him for another 3-4 season and they'll probably renew his contract and put him on huge wages to avoid paying transfer fee for another defender.Stingy owners like the glazers, who outspent city last couple of years.
they haven’t been stingy, just spent the money like a kid at a candy store
Yes, that's because Pep Guardiola is the best league manager in 21th century.Completely ignoring the Chelsea part of my post? I think Chelsea have been good for the league, and rich benefactors have always existed and have finite funds. There’s a reason Chelsea have never come close to the domination we are now seeing from the state funded bottomless pit.
Indeed, if it wasn't for Abu Dhabi and Abramovich, PL would only have two teams competing for the title like the rest of european leagues.It probably would have turned into a one-team league. There was a point in the 00's where Manutd would have won the Premier League 8 times in a row without Chelsea and City.
Manchester United would have become more dominant than ever in that period. Also, we would have won more signings: Hazard and Essien would be certainties, and you could possibly add Robben. This would increase dominance even more.
The Premier League wouldn't be much different to the Bundesliga now.
Come on mate he's not the 2nd coming.
No wonder all the sites gets so many hits. I'm sure there are people who genuinely believe that City pay half of what ManUtd pay.
Jesus twice the player
Sure Rashford's in terrible form right now but all I'm saying is Gabriel isn't pulling up trees either, he can't walk on water.I am basing it on current Rashford's Player Performance forum, not the Rashford vs PSG's.
Are we pretending 4 teams compete for the title?Indeed, if it wasn't for Abu Dhabi and Abramovich, PL would only have two teams competing for the title like the rest of european leagues.
It was that way in the 90s until Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003, so Chelsea made a league of 3, instead of just United and Arsenal...then Abu Dhabi bought City in 2008 to make it 4.
Ask him what's the total wage bill of City, he will tell 143 million which is half of ManUtd's.Fuxking ell, you still think the Earth is flat too?
Your theory about 50 million defenders doesn't make sense.That's because we are falling miles behind City and Liverpool and it is starting to impact our bottom line now. Just try to remember how stingy they were when we were winning and Fergie was reusing the "No Value in Market" line every summer. Also, We cannot sign 50 million defenders like City do and discard them next season if they turn out to be less than world class. If City had signed Maguire then they would have discarded him by now based on how he's performed this season but because Glazers are greedy we'll have to endure him for another 3-4 season and they'll probably renew his contract and put him on huge wages to avoid paying transfer fee for another defender.
Imagine if you are a business owner. You pump in money so your business, while losing cash initially, will become successful in the future (Amazon, Google, Netflix, Facebook, Uber, Tesla have all been through/going through this phase). Now imagine this is 2001 & Netflix gets a $100m funding to develop their business, and Blockbuster goes and complains saying this is unfair, saying businesses should be built on revenues & earnings to get to a level playing field - while they had an opportunity to take over Netflix the previous year. This sounds ludicrous doesn't it? That's where we are now.How you're saying that with a straight face while also knowing that Newcastle are about to spend more monen than the Queen of England has hidden under her matress in a transfer window is puzzling to me.
Free market exchange foster assymetrical power and wealth distribution as well as functions as a growing bed for the reason humanity won't ever all get along: Corruption.
What you're inviting is colossal inflation due to state owned clubs competing to outspend each other for the greatest talents of the sport, which in turn will absolutely lead to a marketcrash once any of the players pull out and leaves a club with a wagebill totaling 200% of their gross income and a debt structure that's screaming to be put out of its misery. PSG has clearly demonstrated the need for a controlling body with the insane stunts theyve pulled by rejecting £200m for Mbappe, and the fantasy money they paid for Mbappe and Neymar respectively.
Pretty much. It means less if you just get it handed to you. It's also different if you're cheating the AI than if you're cheating 19 other clubs.Aha, so you're saying the league title you won in that video game didn't mean much? Even to you?
I would want that actually. (The first one, the second is stupid and the third scary.) Without it, a super league is inevitable to escape the increasing joke of league "competitiveness" in Europe.Strict wage and transfer caps, squad limits across the league that creates a level playing field regardless of the source of income...
Or stop with the bitching about "state owned" and "sports washing" because who gives a feck honestly?
Or wait until I seize power
Honestly United should have financial limits imposed to make things more conpetitive. So should Bayern, Juve, Real Madrid and Barcelona. But rich football clubs existing is different from clubs being used as a front by dodgy states. It's a little pathetic that football titles are now just presents from sugar daddys.As usual you are the voice of reason.
If they wanted a truly even playing field they''d want wage caps, transfer caps and maybe even a higher home grown player in the squad requirement (which is what football should have imo) but they don't, they want it to go back to United having the financial dominance they now share with City all to themselves.
I think people have kept comparing City and Chelsea because Chelsea won the Champions League last year. They weren't compared that often before but people have the memories of goldfish in football.Reading through the thread it's so funny that so many posters still lump Chelsea and City together although even from the first post it's obvious how different the two clubs' models are. The only similarity is that they both have wealthy owners that invested a lot of money in their clubs. But unlike City we don't have an sponsors tied to the ownership, all our income is legit and when we lose money, we post losses.
That £2.4m profit figure is like a little feck you to the UEFA and even kind of admire them for being so cocky. They could have come up with any amount, but decided to act modest. Nicely done.
I do sympathize with this to be honest. Chelsea won a different type of lottery. A lot of their practices are questionable (eg their loan farming), but they have always played within the rules of the game and sold their players consistently well to maintain profits where necessary. I have no issue with private investment in football.Reading through the thread it's so funny that so many posters still lump Chelsea and City together although even from the first post it's obvious how different the two clubs' models are. The only similarity is that they both have wealthy owners that invested a lot of money in their clubs. But unlike City we don't have an sponsors tied to the ownership, all our income is legit and when we lose money, we post losses.
That £2.4m profit figure is like a little feck you to the UEFA and even kind of admire them for being so cocky. They could have come up with any amount, but decided to act modest. Nicely done.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
New findings from Der Spiegel and the journalism network European Investigative Collaborations (EIC) show that the holding company behind Manchester City appears to have violated the rules by paying millions in fees to player agents and also orchestrated a secret, triangular deal to sign an underage player. Numerous documents provided by the whistleblower platform Football Leaks provide a deep look at the club’s inner workings and at government agencies in Abu Dhabi – sufficient to inflict a few chinks in Man City’s juridical defensive wall.
Agency chief Khaldoon Al Mubarak, the de facto prime minister of Abu Dhabi, is head of the state investment fund and is also chairman of Manchester City. He apparently approved money flows that were controlled by the government before ending up in the accounts of the football team. Payment requests for agent fees were sent to the EAA’s general counsel, with ManCity sending an invoice for the sponsorship company Etisalat to Omar Awad, the finance director of the government agency.
According to information obtained by DER SPIEGEL, that investigation is focusing on three primary allegations.1.) Underage players were allegedly pressured to sign contracts with Manchester City through monetary payments, in violation of the rules.2.) Club sponsors in Abu Dhabi are suspected of having provided only a portion of their payments to the club themselves, with the majority apparently coming from Sheikh Mansour himself.3.) Roberto Mancini, who is currently the trainer for the Italian national team but who spent the years from 2009 to 2013 as the trainer for ManCity, is thought to have received a significant portion of his compensation secretly by way of a fictitious consultancy contract.
City fans: FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS!Didn't know where to put this but Der Spiegel supposedly coming out with more stuff about City.
Sponsorship Money – Paid for by the State - DER SPIEGEL
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I don't disagree but i wouldn't call winning it 3 times in the last 7 seasons domination. I'd say SAF dominated the league. Of course pep could have equaled that, but i guess we'll never know as he's stepping down supposedly.Yes, that's because Pep Guardiola is the best league manager in 21th century.
Certainly a better league manager than Mourinho, and every single one of the managers that Chelsea had in the Abramovich era.
Neither Pellegrini and Mancini dominated PL the with City the way Pep does.
SAF is a better league manager than Mourinho,Mancini, Pellegrini,etc as well.
We're into year 3 of lining the PL's big fat pockets with free cash.We’re into year 3 of this PL investigation. It’s a colossal piss take.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date