Manchester City risk of getting CL banned

[andyox]

I think you misunderstand. The ideal is that clubs spending their earnings will still have inequalities, but which can be overcome or squandered by good or bad management.

The fact that a well supported club like Arsenal is stronger than say Wigan, is fair.
I'm not saying Wigan should receive handouts in order to be competitive.
The only difference in income between say Newcastle and Arsenal, should be what they take at the turnstiles and in sponsorship. The TV rights are fairly divided. If Newcastle finished above Arsenal they'd get marginally more TV money.
The thing I guess you are alluding to is money made from European competitions.
Well Wolves are getting some this year, and if they can build on that, maybe champions league money next year. That is organic growth.

Ironic that you mention Spurs, as they've only just established themselves as top 4, and have done so without spending.

The focus on sugar-daddy clubs is because that is an exclusive club, that can dominate without being well run or well supported.
The money they splash is also inflationary because it is infinite and unrelated to the game.

Would I think differently if I was not a United fan? Well ask the Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs fans. Ask Leicester, who you took Mahrez from, and Chelsea took Kante from.

Yes I think we're actually on the same page to be honest. Obviously we'll never be able to even out revenue totally, but when I said "half a chance of winning the league," I mean that any club that is well-managed should over time be able to improve their position and eventually challenge. The problem now is that the elite clubs can be run as badly as possible, and still finish ahead of the non-elite, because of the revenue imbalance in the league. I'll use United this season as an example of that -- fairly shambolic in all aspects (in fact, fairly shambolic since Fergie left several years ago), yet still finished 9 points ahead of Wolves (whose growth by the way has not been organic, they've fiddled FL FFP just as much as City have fiddled UEFA FFP). Whereas non-elite clubs can be run as well as possible (I used Southampton as an example earlier) but that's still not enough to break through. City managed to break through only because of massive external investment, which is now outlawed by FFP anyway. I'd have loved City to have done it through shrewd management and a crop of youth players, but that's just not the reality anymore.

Spurs is a slightly strange example yes. Their hands are as dirty as anyone in creating today's football structure, but through total mismanagement in the 1990s, they didn't reap the rewards. Now they're managed brilliantly. The only member of the original elite 5 that has thoroughly missed the boat has been Everton, again largely through total mismanagement although I'm sure they'd also point to Liverpool and the lost European years too.

Yes I'm sure Leicester fans were upset when we signed Mahrez, just as I was when Chelsea signed SWP many years ago. But the sugar daddy element was irrelevant to me at the time. I would've been just as upset if United had signed him with organic cash vs Chelsea buying him with sugar daddy cash. Either way, we were financially on our arse and had lost our best player.

 

[andyox]

Re-punish? You’ve broken the rules again and again and again. I think the double payments made to the one manager we know about is as dubious as it gets. Has he even bothered denying it? Pep wouldn’t answer it and god knows how many players have had this arrangement. Why does no one ever seem to want to leave city in their prime, their love for the club? Most homes games have the atmosphere of a wet fart after a curry so it can’t be that. The tradition? Who Shaun goater. The history? That play off final 2 divisions below united while they won the champions league. The last time you won the league pre premiership united won the European cup.

It’s all smokes and mirrors

That may or may not be true. What is true is that the current UEFA investigation relates to the original 2014 breach. Note that the CFCB IC rushed through this new investigation in order to refer City to the CFCB AC before the 5-year statute of limitations kicked in. The referral ended up being made on exactly the 5th anniversary of our original sanction, i.e. the last day possible. City have already complained that due process was not followed by the CFCB IC, such was their rush to meet that deadline.

I don't think many players go or stay at clubs due to a profound love for the club or any deep appreciation for tradition or history. Let's not flatter ourselves. I'd guess most players are primarily focused on maximising success (via trophies) and maximising their earnings. City are currently as good a club as anyone to be at in order to fulfill those objectives.

 

[fergiesarmy1]

That may or may not be true. What is true is that the current UEFA investigation relates to the original 2014 breach. Note that the CFCB IC rushed through this new investigation in order to refer City to the CFCB AC before the 5-year statute of limitations kicked in. The referral ended up being made on exactly the 5th anniversary of our original sanction, i.e. the last day possible. City have already complained that due process was not followed by the CFCB IC, such was their rush to meet that deadline.

I don't think many players go or stay at clubs due to a profound love for the club or any deep appreciation for tradition or history. Let's not flatter ourselves. I'd guess most players are primarily focused on maximising success (via trophies) and maximising their earnings. City are currently as good a club as anyone to be at in order to fulfill those objectives.

So that’s the standards city aim to aspire to - beating statute of limitations not breaking the actual rules - lovely

 

[andyox]

So that’s the standards city aim to aspire to - beating statute of limitations not breaking the actual rules - lovely

No that is the standards UEFA set for themselves. We'll find out in due course whether City deserve to be re-punished for breaking the rules, and that might require a trip to the CAS.

I won't be expressing any sort of profound sense of guilt for City breaching UEFA FFP, if that's what you're after.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

They’ll be celebrating in the streets of Stockport when they’re cleared of wrong doing on a technicality.

It will take Pep back to that glorious day when he was cleared of doping on a technicality.

Guess they’ve moved on from moral victories.

 

[fergiesarmy1]

No that is the standards UEFA set for themselves. We'll find out in due course whether City deserve to be re-punished for breaking the rules, and that might require a trip to the CAS.

I won't be expressing any sort of profound sense of guilt for City breaching UEFA FFP, if that's what you're after.

So your happy that if the club has broken many rules which anyone with common sense can see they have, they appeal it and appeal it using their wealth, backhanders and threats to achieve their goals? Again - lovely

 

[andyox]

Safe to say Southampton would have had more chance to finish higher in the league without City's financial doping.

Sure, Southampton could've finished one place higher if City didn't exist. Probably a smaller impact than Liverpool have had on them (both in buying their best players and leading the restructuring of football). But who knows.

 

[andyox]

They’ll be celebrating in the streets of Stockport when they’re cleared of wrong doing on a technicality.

It will take Pep back to that glorious day when he was cleared of doping on a technicality.

Guess they’ve moved on from moral victories.

Haha. Biggest moral victory since Liverpool finished a point behind City.

 

[andyox]

So your happy that if the club has broken many rules which anyone with common sense can see they have, they appeal it and appeal it using their wealth, backhanders and threats to achieve their goals? Again - lovely

No, not exactly. I'd obviously have preferred it if City had not broken UEFA FFP rules, much like I'd have preferred it if the takeover in 2008 had been by a Stockport billionaire rather than ADUG. Yet here we are.

But no, I'm not going to be made to feel guilty for the unfairness of it all. We all know what UEFA FFP is about, and despite the name, fairness isn't it.

 

[fergiesarmy1]

They’ll be celebrating in the streets of Stockport when they’re cleared of wrong doing on a technicality.

It will take Pep back to that glorious day when he was cleared of doping on a technicality.

Guess they’ve moved on from moral victories.

They’ll be celebrating in the streets of Stockport when they’re cleared of wrong doing on a technicality.

It will take Pep back to that glorious day when he was cleared of doping on a technicality.

Guess they’ve moved on from moral victories.

No, not exactly. I'd obviously have preferred it if City had not broken UEFA FFP rules, much like I'd have preferred it if the takeover in 2008 had been by a Stockport billionaire rather than ADUG. Yet here we are.

But no, I'm not going to be made to feel guilty for the unfairness of it all. We all know what UEFA FFP is about, and despite the name, fairness isn't it.

City fans obviously have a chip on their shoulder about ffp but I don’t know what it is all about in your reference, just before you got your injection of oil/torture money the market was settling. Once you came in with your fancy offers prices and wages sky rocketed. Players are now millionaires before they have played a game in earnest and treat the game with contempt. Not all city but pretty much the starting gate

 

[The Nani]

No, not exactly. I'd obviously have preferred it if City had not broken UEFA FFP rules, much like I'd have preferred it if the takeover in 2008 had been by a Stockport billionaire rather than ADUG. Yet here we are.

But no, I'm not going to be made to feel guilty for the unfairness of it all. We all know what UEFA FFP is about, and despite the name, fairness isn't it.

No Stockport billionaire would give enough of a shit about City to do what your current villainous mob is.

Congrats on all of your ethical and moral success.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

I say fair play to @andyox as he’s saying ‘yeah City are evil but I’m pitching in with Evil - cause it’s bloody fun’.

 

[fergiesarmy1]

I say fair play to @andyox as he’s saying ‘yeah City are evil but I’m pitching in with Evil - cause it’s bloody fun’.

He’s gone to the dark side of the blue moon

 

[BobbyManc]

Players are now millionaires before they have played a game in earnest and treat the game with contempt. Not all city but pretty much the starting gate

You don't seriously believe City are 'pretty much the starting gate' for making footballers millionaires?

 

[fergiesarmy1]

You don't seriously believe City are 'pretty much the starting gate' for making footballers millionaires?

Teenagers yes

 

[Jack - City Fan]

I think one thing that’s apparent is that we as city fans generally don’t give a shit about FFP. It’s a way to solidify the top clubs and stop outside investment and challenges. If we break it then boohoo because we don’t really agree with it. I certainly don’t feel morally obliged to support it on the simple basis it’s the rules and I don’t agree with City supporting it now that they’re part of the elite.

One thing United fans don’t appreciate I think is that city have been on the other side of it, having SWP bought out by Chelsea because they could offer him more than we could. United fans generally are too used to being on top. When you say things like “how do you think Southampton feel etc” we don’t have to think. We know how they feel because we’ve been there! I think most fans agree that losing your players is what hurts not the source of the money they get bought with. Fulham when they lost Saha didn’t differentiate between your noodle dollars and your Umbro dollars. Neither did Everton when they lost Rooney or Tottenham when they lost Carrick.

If you were to ask city fans tomorrow would you accept a salary cap I think most would say yes, we’re not against fairness in the game, we’re against purported fairness that really ( at least as we see it) is a way to keep newcomers down. The same way that all changes which have distorted revenue distribution have been. If united fans are pro fairness then great and we can all get on the same side of a salary cap! If what you support is “spending within your means” then you have to ask yourself why that is? Is it to protect the fortunes of billionaires ? Is it because you give a damn about City going into administration? Is it because you think a club has a better chance of riding to the top in a world without sugar daddies( I think history shows they don’t)? Or is it because you don’t like seeing blue ribbons on the premier league trophy at the end of the year, be it Blackburn, City or Chelsea. If that’s the case you’re totally entitled to your view but don’t expect Vity fans to feel sorry for you or agree with you after years of poaching the best players in the league the exact way clubs like City, Chelsea and PSG are now able to.

As a final aside most who know about football history will point out that most every club has had outside investment at some point and the current success of many clubs is based on that past investment, be it 50 years ago or 30.

Sorry for the long post. It’s just repetitive coming into the forum to see if there are updates in the story and falling back into the same same conversation fans have been having for 7 years now.

 

[St Red]

Why is it fair that a club like Southampton does everything the right way, only for richer clubs like Liverpool to profit?

Poor example really.
Did Southampton do everything the right way when they bought Wanyama and VVD from Celtic?

 

[Full bodied red]

No Stockport billionaire would give enough of a shit about City to do what your current villainous mob is.

Congrats on all of your ethical and moral success.

Stockport and Billionaire aren't words often seen in the same sentence !

 

[fergiesarmy1]

I think one thing that’s apparent is that we as city fans generally don’t give a shit about FFP. It’s a way to solidify the top clubs and stop outside investment and challenges. If we break it then boohoo because we don’t really agree with it. I certainly don’t feel morally obliged to support it on the simple basis it’s the rules and I don’t agree with City supporting it now that they’re part of the elite.

One thing United fans don’t appreciate I think is that city have been on the other side of it, having SWP bought out by Chelsea because they could offer him more than we could. United fans generally are too used to being on top. When you say things like “how do you think Southampton feel etc” we don’t have to think. We know how they feel because we’ve been there! I think most fans agree that losing your players is what hurts not the source of the money they get bought with. Fulham when they lost Saha didn’t differentiate between your noodle dollars and your Umbro dollars. Neither did Everton when they lost Rooney or Tottenham when they lost Carrick.

If you were to ask city fans tomorrow would you accept a salary cap I think most would say yes, we’re not against fairness in the game, we’re against purported fairness that really ( at least as we see it) is a way to keep newcomers down. The same way that all changes which have distorted revenue distribution have been. If united fans are pro fairness then great and we can all get on the same side of a salary cap! If what you support is “spending within your means” then you have to ask yourself why that is? Is it to protect the fortunes of billionaires ? Is it because you give a damn about City going into administration? Is it because you think a club has a better chance of riding to the top in a world without sugar daddies( I think history shows they don’t)? Or is it because you don’t like seeing blue ribbons on the premier league trophy at the end of the year, be it Blackburn, City or Chelsea. If that’s the case you’re totally entitled to your view but don’t expect Vity fans to feel sorry for you or agree with you after years of poaching the best players in the league the exact way clubs like City, Chelsea and PSG are now able to.

As a final aside most who know about football history will point out that most every club has had outside investment at some point and the current success of many clubs is based on that past investment, be it 50 years ago or 30.

Sorry for the long post. It’s just repetitive coming into the forum to see if there are updates in the story and falling back into the same same conversation fans have been having for 7 years now.

So ffp is in absolutely no way there to stop clubs doing a Leeds?

 

[redman5]

I think one thing that’s apparent is that we as city fans generally don’t give a shit about FFP. It’s a way to solidify the top clubs and stop outside investment and challenges. If we break it then boohoo because we don’t really agree with it. I certainly don’t feel morally obliged to support it on the simple basis it’s the rules and I don’t agree with City supporting it now that they’re part of the elite.

One thing United fans don’t appreciate I think is that city have been on the other side of it, having SWP bought out by Chelsea because they could offer him more than we could. United fans generally are too used to being on top. When you say things like “how do you think Southampton feel etc” we don’t have to think. We know how they feel because we’ve been there! I think most fans agree that losing your players is what hurts not the source of the money they get bought with. Fulham when they lost Saha didn’t differentiate between your noodle dollars and your Umbro dollars. Neither did Everton when they lost Rooney or Tottenham when they lost Carrick.

If you were to ask city fans tomorrow would you accept a salary cap I think most would say yes, we’re not against fairness in the game, we’re against purported fairness that really ( at least as we see it) is a way to keep newcomers down. The same way that all changes which have distorted revenue distribution have been. If united fans are pro fairness then great and we can all get on the same side of a salary cap! If what you support is “spending within your means” then you have to ask yourself why that is? Is it to protect the fortunes of billionaires ? Is it because you give a damn about City going into administration? Is it because you think a club has a better chance of riding to the top in a world without sugar daddies( I think history shows they don’t)? Or is it because you don’t like seeing blue ribbons on the premier league trophy at the end of the year, be it Blackburn, City or Chelsea. If that’s the case you’re totally entitled to your view but don’t expect Vity fans to feel sorry for you or agree with you after years of poaching the best players in the league the exact way clubs like City, Chelsea and PSG are now able to.

As a final aside most who know about football history will point out that most every club has had outside investment at some point and the current success of many clubs is based on that past investment, be it 50 years ago or 30.

Sorry for the long post. It’s just repetitive coming into the forum to see if there are updates in the story and falling back into the same same conversation fans have been having for 7 years now.

It's certainly true about Liverpool & Everton, who were both given an initial 'leg-up' by the Moores family, founder of the Littlewoods pools empire. But they never continued to plough/loan money into either club for too long, because once they became self-sufficient, money for players came via generated cash mainly from attendances. You only have to look at Liverpool's accounts from the past 40 or 50 years to see that there weren't too many discrepancies in our profit & loss situation throughout that period. & it rubbishes @andyox & his assertion that LFC were the instigators of clubs buying success because of our transfer activity in the 80's.

The big question is though, will your owners ever get to the stage where they take a step back with their unlimited funds & allow the club to progress under it's own achievements. Which would mean falling in line with FFP.

 

[redman5]

I was talking about structural changes in football that concentrated more revenue in the hands of the elite few. When you make the game about money, I have no sympathy for anyone that gets upset when someone richer comes along. Domestically: end of shared ticket revenue, creation of PL, introduction of PL FFP, re-allocation of international broadcast revenue. Liverpool have been instrumental in every single event I've referenced, each of which has or will lead to greater inequality in the game. You're now at the forefront of pressuring UEFA to re-punish City for breaching UEFA FFP, and your owner is on record as referencing UEFA FFP as a key part of his decision to buy Liverpool? Why? Because he knew it would help to protect Liverpool's position and revenue streams, and ensure his investment was as safe as possible.

Agreed, we've spent ridiculous sums of money since 2008, and we've not sold anyone we didn't want to sell, apart from maybe Boateng. Sane may be added to that list soon. As I said, you made the bed, and now you're lying in it.

It's about spending within one's means. Clubs like Liverpool & United have achieved that by good management, over a sustained period, both, on, & off, the pitch. You've yet to achieve that, simply because you sold out (twice) to despots & tyrants, such is your desire to be accepted as one of the so-called 'elite'.

 

[Dumbstar]

I'm just amused that andyox chose the moniker of last season's CL QF tormentor to append to his own name.

 

[adexkola]

Poor example really.
Did Southampton do everything the right way when they bought Wanyama and VVD from Celtic?

Liverpool did not buy VVD from Celtic. There was value added that made Liverpool splurge 90 million on VVD, but what good would that have caused Southampton if they were relegated this season? And as far as I recall, Southampton were not caught up in tap-up allegations.

I'm not against transfers. All I am saying is that it is nearly impossible to build up without external investment. The existence of Spurs does not disprove this, as they are the outlier in a bunch of clubs that have done the right thing, only to be set back by the natural advantage of big clubs.

 

[St Red]

Liverpool did not buy VVD from Celtic. There was value added that made Liverpool splurge 90 million on VVD, but what good would that have caused Southampton if they were relegated this season? And as far as I recall, Southampton were not caught up in tap-up allegations.

I'm not against transfers. All I am saying is that it is nearly impossible to build up without external investment. The existence of Spurs does not disprove this, as they are the outlier in a bunch of clubs that have done the right thing, only to be set back by the natural advantage of big clubs.

Given that they received 75 million for VVD last season, if they got relegated this season you'd have to question their management of that money.

 

[adexkola]

Given that they received 75 million for VVD last season, if they got relegated this season you'd have to question their management of that money.

Probably.

I think it also shows the limitations of making it up to the top by selling your best players away. You have to be extremely dead-on to have a chance. Otherwise many more clubs would have made it up to the top.

I don't expect you to have any sympathy by the way for them, why should you? The system works for you. And any fan of a big club.

 

[St Red]

Probably.

I think it also shows the limitations of making it up to the top by selling your best players away. You have to be extremely dead-on to have a chance. Otherwise many more clubs would have made it up to the top.

I don't expect you to have any sympathy by the way for them, why should you? The system works for you. And any fan of a big club.

It's not about having or not having sympathy for them, it's more to do with being more concerned about your own club doing well.

Thing is, if a player is performing at a level he feels is higher than the team he is in, he'll get his head turned by media reports of rumoured interest from bigger clubs.
No-one knows what conversations they then have with their current clubs.
Most behave respectfully, then you get examples like Mahrez who was so infatuated with the City bench he almost refused to play didn't he (allegedly)?

 

[OutlawGER]

Do you guys think that City will let Sane move to Bayern? How much would he cost?

 

[Sergioooo]

Do you guys think that City will let Sane move to Bayern? How much would he cost?

Honestly I don't think we will sell him. But if we do we're going to ask for 100mil+ for sure. We've got no need to sell anyone on the cheap.

 

[andyox]

It's about spending within one's means. Clubs like Liverpool & United have achieved that by good management, over a sustained period, both, on, & off, the pitch. You've yet to achieve that, simply because you sold out (twice) to despots & tyrants, such is your desire to be accepted as one of the so-called 'elite'.

Yes, spending within one's means is a noble concept designed by the elite to enable them to continually spend more than everyone else, further increasing inequality within the game. If FFP was genuinely about fairness and the health of the game, then I'd support it, but it's obviously not. Yes Liverpool and United achieved their growth organically through brilliant management and performance, but in a very different era. Do you genuinely believe that route is open to non-elite clubs now? I don't.

I have no desire for City to be accepted as part of the elite because I don't like the fact that a status quo elite exists. I was extremely disappointed that City supported the reallocation of international broadcast rights, for example, because it was an indication that we're now acting like one of the self-interested elite that I despise. Again, I want football to be more competitive, it appears you don't which is absolutely fine, I understand self-interest. I just wish you'd be open about it.

 

[andyox]

It's certainly true about Liverpool & Everton, who were both given an initial 'leg-up' by the Moores family, founder of the Littlewoods pools empire. But they never continued to plough/loan money into either club for too long, because once they became self-sufficient, money for players came via generated cash mainly from attendances. You only have to look at Liverpool's accounts from the past 40 or 50 years to see that there weren't too many discrepancies in our profit & loss situation throughout that period. & it rubbishes @andyox & his assertion that LFC were the instigators of clubs buying success because of our transfer activity in the 80's.

The big question is though, will your owners ever get to the stage where they take a step back with their unlimited funds & allow the club to progress under it's own achievements. Which would mean falling in line with FFP.

Can you point me to anywhere in this thread or any other thread where I've complained about Liverpool's transfer activity in the 1980s? I have never mentioned it. What I did mention was Liverpool's role in the ending of shared ticket revenue in the 1980s, as one of several events (formation of PL etc.) that damaged the competitiveness/equality of the game.

 

[andyox]

I say fair play to @andyox as he’s saying ‘yeah City are evil but I’m pitching in with Evil - cause it’s bloody fun’.

Haha exactly, playing the game you lads created. It has been fun to be fair. But it was also fun when we were in Div 2. Watching City is always fun (Stuart Pearce era possibly excepted).

 

[Moriarty]

Haha exactly, playing the game you lads created. It has been fun to be fair. But it was also fun when we were in Div 2. Watching City is always fun (Stuart Pearce era possibly excepted).

Probably mentioned this before but back in the day (I know, but bear with me), it was commonplace for folks to go to Old Trafford one week and Maine Road the next. Travelling away wasn't an option for supporters and even back in the 60s when I was at school, we'd go and watch a City home game now and again. It was always a decent atmosphere at City and it was never any bother getting in because they never closed the turnstiles as far as I can remember. I remember going there on a cold Wednesday night in February 1971 to watch an fifth round FA Cup tie against Arsenal which the Gunners won 2-1. Even though I was a United fan, I was cheering for City that night.

 

[andyox]

Probably mentioned this before but back in the day (I know, but bear with me), it was commonplace for folks to go to Old Trafford one week and Maine Road the next. Travelling away wasn't an option for supporters and even back in the 60s when I was at school, we'd go and watch a City home game now and again. It was always a decent atmosphere at City and it was never any bother getting in because they never closed the turnstiles as far as I can remember. I remember going there on a cold Wednesday night in February 1971 to watch an fifth round FA Cup tie against Arsenal which the Gunners won 2-1. Even though I was a United fan, I was cheering for City that night.

Yes my dad and grandad were the same. Never any animosity, although bitterness definitely grew as fortunes of both clubs diverged, quite considerably!

 

[Moriarty]

Yes my dad and grandad were the same. Never any animosity, although bitterness definitely grew as fortunes of both clubs diverged, quite considerably!

Hard to say when that started up. I remember the headline in the MEN 'I hate United' after Mike Doyle vented one time and that upset a lot of United fans. My dad took me to an FA Youth Cup semi-final second leg at Maine Road back in 1964. City had Ogley, Doyle, and Pardoe in the team and we had Rimmer, Noble, Fitzpatrick, Aston, Sadler, and a certain boy from Belfast playing in ours. There must have been over 20,000 there. Even though I was only nine at the time, I still recall Mike Doyle scoring an own goal at the old Scoreboard End which, like ours, was open to the elements.

 

[Jack - City Fan]

So ffp is in absolutely no way there to stop clubs doing a Leeds?

If that were it’s honest intention than a way to do it would be to simply ensure that it guarantees contracts and transfer fees are only made from available funds made by the owners and set aside, rather than on loan to the club by owners. That would have the effect of securing a clubs financial position without restricting investment. There would also be no restrictions to things like related party investment which are guaranteed under contract law anyway. I think it incredibly unlikely the primary motive was protecting the little guys from overreaching and if it were then it’s a poor way to so unless you also don’t want them spending a lot of money from an objective view point.

 

[Jack - City Fan]

It's certainly true about Liverpool & Everton, who were both given an initial 'leg-up' by the Moores family, founder of the Littlewoods pools empire. But they never continued to plough/loan money into either club for too long, because once they became self-sufficient, money for players came via generated cash mainly from attendances. You only have to look at Liverpool's accounts from the past 40 or 50 years to see that there weren't too many discrepancies in our profit & loss situation throughout that period. & it rubbishes @andyox & his assertion that LFC were the instigators of clubs buying success because of our transfer activity in the 80's.

The big question is though, will your owners ever get to the stage where they take a step back with their unlimited funds & allow the club to progress under it's own achievements. Which would mean falling in line with FFP.

It’s true of most clubs at one point or another. And the honest answer is nobody knows how much they’ll keep putting In or not. My suspicion would be that if they can avoid it they will. They’re business men after all and if they can run City at a top level and make a profit why wouldn’t they? After all it’s not like we went out last season and bought a dozen players, we bought one. Admittedly for a lot of money, but our purchases have certainly slowed down and I expect them to fall and rise cyclically as the team needs now, rather than spending 100 million every summer as we seemed to do at one stage. It’s also worth pointing out purely in reference to your point, City did spend within their means last year (if you believe the accounts which I think most believe is a big if, but certainly without direct investment from the CFG). Of course as you say it’s much easier to spend within your means when you have bigger means, which come as a result of success which at some point is often a result of investment.

 

[BobbyManc]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Bubz27]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Why do you think they've taken that route? If they're innocent, as they protest, let the investigators find that out?

 

[andyox]

Why do you think they've taken that route? If they're innocent, as they protest, let the investigators find that out?

Yea it seems weird to me too. There's a process ongoing, which may or may not find us guilty. Surely makes sense to wait until that process plays out before going to CAS?

 

[ElectroManiac]

Why do you think they've taken that route? If they're innocent, as they protest, let the investigators find that out?

Because they are not innocent.

They are throwing money at it to stop the investigation.