What should be done with City's titles?

[Bluelion7]

Aguero at City doesn't happen without the financial doping. The players are complicit and know fully well what's going on.... I don't think you can completely separate the two.

Yes they've played some incredible football, but that's only because they've assembled a squad of superstars alongside one of the best domestic managers the game has seen.

Who cares if the credibility of the league takes a bit of a hit when actually the credibility of the sport is at stake?

Do people forget what and where City were before the takeover?? The whole thing stinks.

Teams like United fielded better teams due to superior resources as well though. It’s not like you were on a level playing field either. It isnt even like they spent a dramatically different amount of money than you.

United wasn’t exactly fielding a team of poor man’s volunteers against them.

So yes, how they have conducted themselves as owners should disqualify them from Ownership. But I remember watching those years, and it didn’t feel like City had a Galactico team that teams like United had no chance against.

Now, the exception I might make in my opinion would be this last team. The unreported money on Haaland alone amounts to more than every possible case of under the table payments I’ve heard rumors of on other players …combined (65m?). It’s like not winning the CL made them finally crack and go full Midas sage mode.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Teams like United fielded better teams due to superior resources as well though. It’s not like you were on a level playing field either. It isnt even like they spent a dramatically different amount of money than you.

United wasn’t exactly fielding a team of poor man’s volunteers against them.

So yes, how they have conducted themselves as owners should disqualify them from Ownership. But I remember watching those years, and it didn’t feel like City had a Galactico team that teams like United had no chance against.

Now, the exception I might make in my opinion would be this last team. The unreported money on Haaland alone amounts to more than every possible case of under the table payments I’ve heard rumors of on other players …combined (65m?). It’s like not winning the CL made them finally crack and go full Midas sage mode.

I'm fairly sure we made that money.

 

[Garnacho's Shoelaces]

Teams like United fielded better teams due to superior resources as well though. It’s not like you were on a level playing field either. It isnt even like they spent a dramatically different amount of money than you.

United wasn’t exactly fielding a team of poor man’s volunteers against them.

So yes, how they have conducted themselves as owners should disqualify them from Ownership. But I remember watching those years, and it didn’t feel like City had a Galactico team that teams like United had no chance against.

Now, the exception I might make in my opinion would be this last team. The unreported money on Haaland alone amounts to more than every possible case of under the table payments I’ve heard rumors of on other players …combined (65m?). It’s like not winning the CL made them finally crack and go full Midas sage mode.

United played within the rules though. City deliberately circumvented the rules with elaborate money laundering schemes and fraudulent reporting mechanisms, but when caught out the debate turns to the morality of FFP, etc. That's besides the point. If City's owners didn't like the rules, they could have sold the club. They deliberately cheated and will be rightly expelled from the PL because of it.

 

[Bluelion7]

I'm fairly sure we made that money.

It still gave you an advantage. You would be returning to the “we should be allowed to spend more because our money is older and we don’t like you” argument.

That’s why leagues like the NFL have actual fair playing field rules to keep teams like the Cowboys and Steelers from simply dominating every season.

I suppose it would only be fair to state that I fall into the camp of thinking City should be liable for committing fraud …. But at the same time I opposed the structure of FFP as obviously geared towards keeping certain teams in power and intrinsically unfair.

If making sure teams didn’t bankrupt themselves was the actual goal, they could have easily set up a system where teams had to set up accessible funds declared for use each season, and price they had the money and/or the ability to maintenance any loans.

Basically telling new owners they could only spend what their team already made in things like jersey sales, etc is Anthony Taylor level fixing of the field.

 

[Wengerista]

United played within the rules though. City deliberately circumvented the rules with elaborate money laundering schemes and fraudulent reporting mechanisms, but when caught out the debate turns to the morality of FFP, etc. That's besides the point. If City's owners didn't like the rules, they could have sold the club. They deliberately cheated and will be rightly expelled from the PL because of it.

Are people actually getting confident of this now? I wish I shared your optimism. There's a massive difference between Farhad Moshiri and Sheikh Mansour.

We need both of...

a) The Premier League to display an extraordinary amount of courage

and

b) The government not to fast track an external regulator in to re-litigate for the sake of diplomatic relations with the UAE

 

[adexkola]

It still gave you an advantage. You would be returning to the “we should be allowed to spend more because our money is older and we don’t like you” argument.

That’s why leagues like the NFL have actual fair playing field rules to keep teams like the Cowboys and Steelers from simply dominating every season.

I suppose it would only be fair to state that I fall into the camp of thinking City should be liable for committing fraud …. But at the same time I opposed the structure of FFP as obviously geared towards keeping certain teams in power and intrinsically unfair.

If making sure teams didn’t bankrupt themselves they could have easily set up a system where teams had to set up probably accessible funds declared for use each season, and price they had the money and/or the ability to maintenance any loans.

Basically telling new owners they could only spend what their team already made in things like jersey sales, etc is Anthony Taylor level fixing of the field.

You're right.

That argument is also not going to fly on here. Trust me.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

It still gave you an advantage. You would be returning to the “we should be allowed to spend more because our money is older and we don’t like you” argument.

That’s why leagues like the NFL have actual fair playing field rules to keep teams like the Cowboys and Steelers from simply dominating every season.

I suppose it would only be fair to state that I fall into the camp of thinking City should be liable for committing fraud …. But at the same time I opposed the structure of FFP as obviously geared towards keeping certain teams in power and intrinsically unfair.

If making sure teams didn’t bankrupt themselves they could have easily set up a system where teams had to set up probably accessible funds declared for use each season, and price they had the money and/or the ability to maintenance any loans.

Basically telling new owners they could only spend what their team already made in things like jersey sales, etc is Anthony Taylor level fixing of the field.

I'd get this view if a long life City fan had somehow become as rich as Shiek Mansour, and then wanted to put this money into the club he loved, even if it meant they were then allowed to spend well beyond what FFP would allow them to, then it would seem unfair that the rules were geared towards or a mid table club not been be allowed a free run to push on, similar to Blackburn I suppose in 90's.

But we are talking about City been funded to the levels they have been for no other reason than sportswashing, which for me is where the whole "they should be allowed to spend what they want even though they are clearly breaking the rules" arguement falls apart, as it could just as easily have been Everton or Villa in the position City are now for all their owners care.

Ideally I want a ban on these State funded clubs, but for now I'd be happy for City to just get a proper punishment.

 

[Bluelion7]

United played within the rules though. City deliberately circumvented the rules with elaborate money laundering schemes and fraudulent reporting mechanisms, but when caught out the debate turns to the morality of FFP, etc. That's besides the point. If City's owners didn't like the rules, they could have sold the club. They deliberately cheated and will be rightly expelled from the PL because of it.

I’m not “caught out”, in explaining my divergent position as it regards titles, versus wether the ownership should be punished/made to sell, etc, I am simply conceding my viewpoint comes from one of viewing FFP as unfair.

For me, that makes the primary breeches of the rules and laws associated with their case Fraud on the part of the ownership.

I don’t, however, think it should void the entirety of Kevin De Bruyne’s career? When you void a title you are essentially voiding the entire season, wether or not you think that is the result … that’s what would happen. What if a team that finished second or third that year had one of their best years ever?

Doesn’t matter: City used the illegal black Amex to pay part of the salary instead of the Amex approved by the totally-not-old-and-biased PL board.

Which seems hypocritical, because they were the ones that allowed a royal family to buy the team in the first place. And then they turned around and let Bin Salman buy a team two years ago ….

What happens if a reporter goes after Newcastles financial records …..

Sovereign states should not own teams … period… it’s more than just a money issue. But that’s an even more divergent issue.

So… with all those issues in play, yes, I would be skeptical about stripping titles.

That is a different issue to me than what happens to Cities ownership group.

 

[OldSchoolManc]

The titles should be posted on billboards around England with apologies to the 2nd placed team in any competition City won.
Cheats don’t prosper campaign

 

[OldSchoolManc]

Teams like United fielded better teams due to superior resources as well though. It’s not like you were on a level playing field either. It isnt even like they spent a dramatically different amount of money than you.

United wasn’t exactly fielding a team of poor man’s volunteers against them.

So yes, how they have conducted themselves as owners should disqualify them from Ownership. But I remember watching those years, and it didn’t feel like City had a Galactico team that teams like United had no chance against.

Now, the exception I might make in my opinion would be this last team. The unreported money on Haaland alone amounts to more than every possible case of under the table payments I’ve heard rumors of on other players …combined (65m?). It’s like not winning the CL made them finally crack and go full Midas sage mode.

Yeah, United legally gained those resources unlike City and Chelsea

 

[Bluelion7]

I'd get this view if a long life City fan had somehow become as rich as Shiek Mansour, and then wanted to put this money into the club he loved, even if it meant they were then allowed to spend well beyond what FFP would allow them to, then it would seem unfair that the rules were geared towards or a mid table club not been be allowed a free run to push on, similar to Blackburn I suppose in 90's.

But we are talking about City been funded to the levels they have been for no other reason than sportswashing, which for me is where the whole "they should be allowed to spend what they want even though they are clearly breaking the rules" arguement falls apart, as it could just as easily have been Everton or Villa in the position City are now for all their owners care.

Ideally I want a ban on these State funded clubs, but for now I'd be happy for City to just get a proper punishment.

But it really shouldn’t matter. Then the argument just becomes xenophobic. Do they have to prove their fan loyalty? Is there a commission that decides if they are “fan enough”? And is that commission also made up of mostly older Untied, Arsenal, and Liverpool fans?

It could be Aston Villa, Everton. If I have 8 billion dollars and I want to dedicate it to building one of the best football teams in the world… why can’t I try?

I agree with the general premise about the ownership of the clubs though. We are headed toward a world where even the smaller clubs have billionaire owners. So I really think just making sure they are private entities would be good enough.

I just think it would be a massive mistake to try and unravel decades worth of PL seasons.

 

[Fts 74]

If found guilty, I voted Not to strip titles we'd all know they cheated and I wouldn't celebrate another title or 2 that way.

Fine,transfer ban, relegation to the conference and make them sell the club (an absolute must )I'd settle for that.

 

[OldSchoolManc]

But it really shouldn’t matter. Then the argument just becomes xenophobic. Do they have to prove their fan loyalty? Is there a commission that decides if they are “fan enough”? And is that commission also made up of mostly older Untied, Arsenal, and Liverpool fans?

It could be Aston Villa, Everton. If I have 8 billion dollars and I want to dedicate it to building one of the best football teams in the world… why can’t I try?

I agree with the general premise about the ownership of the clubs though. We are headed toward a world where even the smaller clubs have billionaire owners. So I really think just making sure they are private entities would be good enough.

I just think it would be a massive mistake to try and unravel decades worth of PL seasons.

Put it this way. There’s a kids school sports day.
All of a sudden, the school council has okayed Usain Bolt going up against the kids in the sprints.
You may say that’s a ridiculously extreme example, but so is allowing X team to spend ten times more than any other team.

 

[MattofManchester]

It still gave you an advantage.

An advantage built off of the previous decade of domination of English football. Manchester United did not become a commercial powerhouse overnight, like a certain two other clubs.

I don't get how some of you point out United who profiteered off their own success as the sport commercialized to two clubs who repeatedly spent far more than they actually made, and one of, as we now know, blatantly cheated their way into success.
Is this supposed to be some sort of "gotcha" that I don't understand?

 

[Lexicon Red Devil]

An advantage built off of the previous decade of domination of English football. Manchester United did not become a commercial powerhouse overnight, like a certain two other clubs.

I don't get how some of you point out United who profiteered off their own success as the sport commercialized to two clubs who repeatedly spent far more than they actually made, and one of, as we now know, blatantly cheated their way into success.
Is this supposed to be some sort of "gotcha" that I don't understand?

They're deflecting blame and trying to make out that the likes of Chelsea, Newcastle and City spending obscene amounts that they didn't earn was some kind of anti establishment rallying cry. Classic billionaire behaviour.

The real teams who have suffered due to Chelsea and City's cheating are the likes of Arsenal and Spurs who have been denied long overdue titles, the likes of Brighton, Leicester, West Ham, Everton and Villa who have been denied CL spots, and teams like Fulham, Burnley, Stoke, Bolton and Swansea who have had European football taken away from them.

Apparently United trusting in youth, spending within their means and being patient with a manager trying to resurrect a fallen giant was a lot worse than City spending their way to 5 out 7 titles and a soulless treble. Wasn't all this oil money supposed to improve the level of competition in the league? Doesn't really look like it's working out that way now, does it?

 

[justsomebloke]

Voted "something else". As in "that should be decided by the Commission hearing the case". Because that's what it's there for, if they find them guilty.

 

[justsomebloke]

They're deflecting blame and trying to make out that the likes of Chelsea, Newcastle and City spending obscene amounts that they didn't earn was some kind of anti establishment rallying cry. Classic billionaire behaviour.

The real teams who have suffered due to Chelsea and City's cheating are the likes of Arsenal and Spurs who have been denied long overdue titles, the likes of Brighton, Leicester, West Ham, Everton and Villa who have been denied CL spots, and teams like Fulham, Burnley, Stoke, Bolton and Swansea who have had European football taken away from them.

Apparently United trusting in youth, spending within their means and being patient with a manager trying to resurrect a fallen giant was a lot worse than City spending their way to 5 out 7 titles and a soulless treble. Wasn't all this oil money supposed to improve the level of competition in the league? Doesn't really look like it's working out that way now, does it?

This is really a completely irrelevant discussion. The FA has rules, about the reporting of financial information, about the permissible size of losses and about how you are allowed to calculate profit and loss. If you break those rules, you get punished. End of.

 

[RedIan]

Dont think they can strip titles, it opens up a massive can of worms that would spirral.
Do you them look at how other teams were effected, relegated knocked out of cups etcetc.
If and its if they are found guilty, the pathetic system in taking so long is at fault.
If guilty a heavy points reduction or demotion is the most likely out Come.
For this reason putting rivalry aside i voted keep titles

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Issue with stripping titles is - the club/fans won't care, they won the titles those years, they had those moments, they'll still (rightly or wrongly) believe they were champions those years.

All punishments that come from this should be future based.

 

[Devil81]

I can't believe how relaxed they are and their fans are about the fact they have 115 charges against them. It's almost a cocky attitude of we can do what we want and we know we can get away with it.

I fully expect them to get away with the lot. Not because they are innocent, but because they seem so confident.

 

[Gasolin]

I don't believe for a second that anything will happen to City. I mean, 115 charges but NOTHING has happened. I wonder why all of sudden, everyone is confident anything will happen to them.

 

[cyberman]

Dont think they can strip titles, it opens up a massive can of worms that would spirral.
Do you them look at how other teams were effected, relegated knocked out of cups etcetc.
If and its if they are found guilty, the pathetic system in taking so long is at fault.
If guilty a heavy points reduction or demotion is the most likely out Come.
For this reason putting rivalry aside i voted keep titles

And that’s on City surely? Can’t be denying clubs rights for justice just because it’s messy. It’ll be messy in the courts determine events that already happened but on the pitch will be ok.
If the FA go easy on City because it might help a Leicester City case then I hope Leicester sues the FA

 

[cyberman]

They're deflecting blame and trying to make out that the likes of Chelsea, Newcastle and City spending obscene amounts that they didn't earn was some kind of anti establishment rallying cry. Classic billionaire behaviour.

The real teams who have suffered due to Chelsea and City's cheating are the likes of Arsenal and Spurs who have been denied long overdue titles, the likes of Brighton, Leicester, West Ham, Everton and Villa who have been denied CL spots, and teams like Fulham, Burnley, Stoke, Bolton and Swansea who have had European football taken away from them.

Apparently United trusting in youth, spending within their means and being patient with a manager trying to resurrect a fallen giant was a lot worse than City spending their way to 5 out 7 titles and a soulless treble. Wasn't all this oil money supposed to improve the level of competition in the league? Doesn't really look like it's working out that way now, does it?

No sympathy for Brighton, they were a smaller version of Man City to get where they are today

 

[MayfieldsFinest]

I don't believe for a second that anything will happen to City. I mean, 115 charges but NOTHING has happened. I wonder why all of sudden, everyone is confident anything will happen to them.

I'd imagine City will tie the whole process up in years of legal wrangling, they are already. Everton were a soft target, City are not....... unfortunately.

 

[adexkola]

No sympathy for Brighton, they were a smaller version of Man City to get where they are today

Huh?

 

[Fr. Todd Unctious]

Handed to the 2nd place team. That'll annoy the Berties even more. Would also gives us another two titles one each for Jose and Ole

 

[Wengerista]

Handed to the 2nd place team. That'll annoy the Berties even more. Would also gives us another two titles one each for Jose and Ole

Can't see the PL giving up their ''iconic'' Aguero moment. The drama level of that day sums up everything they want their product to be seen as. I don't think they care about Brand City per se, as there are far bigger and more established fanbases globally, obviously. But they do care deeply about their own brand.

 

[Salford_Red83]

It still gave you an advantage.

prior to '93 United hadn't won the league for 26 years. Pretty grim stuff.
We still had large game attendance during this time and were probably the most popular team in Manchester.

Sir Alex joined and took 5 years to win us our first title, he single handedly changed our fortunes, but really was this close to getting the sack.

After '93 that success was built on, and reinvested, year on year. Which lead to more success and ultimately the domination of the 90's and early 2000s.

United are one of the biggest clubs in the world and it took decades to get there.

The 2 scenarios are not the same.

 

[SilentWitness]

Every single title, every single relegation, every single EL, CL, whatever competition that these teams have been in have an * beside it now and have been impacted by the actions taken by multiple clubs in the league.

 

[Sgreddevil]

Apart from actions against the clubs, I think it is also important to punish the players that have been proven to accept undertable money or benefits on top of the declared remuneration. They should not be let go as they are abetting the clubs to circumvent ffp rules. Probably should be banned from Epl for a few seasons as well together with the club. This can have greater deterence on such arrangements been made in future as the players' career will be at stake for accepting such arrangements.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

If convicted there's no way that they could possibly pass the "fit and proper" ownership test and would be forced to sell. The loss of face and ego from publicly being branded a crook would be devastating. Thee whole thing is a financial house of cards, when relegated it'd be a 1,000 times worse than Leeds. I struggle to see how Manchester City survives this as a professional football club. It kind of makes me sad, it's bad for the city of Manchester and their actual long term fans don't deserve what's coming.

My preduction is, they will try to delay this process until the oversight of the Premier League has UK government control. Then the Crown Prince of the UAE will exert international influence on the UK government to be lenient on City as part of a wider discussion. Easy to offer trade or benefits as an exchange.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

As someone who played competitive sports at a decently high level, I would want some action taken of the players that beat me were found to be cheating with PED’s or bribed officials.

But accounting crimes in putting the team together? I guess you could strip them … but I certainly wouldnt want them. They were better than me. They trained better, they
played better. Do you want to hand me a trophy and say “Congratulations!! Here is your pity trophy attained solely because your team attained basically the same amount of money as theirs, just in a different way! Your lucky day!

Should they be forced to go through a structural change in the organization? Forced to sell the team? All “Yes’s” for me.

But as much as it may pain United fans, that moment of magic from Kun Aguero is an integral part of the lore and history of the Premiere League, created not by a Sheik, or a crooked accountant, but by the better player at a pivotal moment.

Trying to go back and make it like that stuff simply did t happen would be a mistake that hurts the league as a whole in my opinion.

What hurt the league was allowing cheats to win the league multiple times.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

The level of whataboutism and insane denial of sportswashing as a concept just baffles me - I don't believe people who hold these positions truly believe in the values of sports (i.e. a level playing field where competition is fair from a philosophical stance), or just enjoy arguing for the sake of it (I know there is at least one poster who does that). It's total ignorance, of course no one wants a one-sided competition where the same team wins over and over again, but you want organic and fair growth (which is absolutely possible despite what some might tell you), responsible development and values at play. It's also completely absurd that those who will argue about making the league more competitive will ignore the fact that it's become more one-sided than ever, just with the added bitterness of the team at the top not having truly earned it.

Talks of FFP having been set to protect a cartel, to protect the status quo, etc. just reek of people trying to be edgy teenagers and not knowing the context for these things to happen in the first place - or the impact on whole communities of a club being abandoned by wealthy owners when they're done with the project. I don't even have a fundamental issue with rich owners taking over (as long as there is an actual fit and proper test), just as long as they play by the rules and wish to grow organically, just so that if they ever do decide to live, the club is self sustainable and can survive with no issues. I also think it's absolutely absurd that any commercial and sponsorship revenue is authorized from parties that have a clear conflict of interest, or that are only there for a strong intuitu personae reasons (or solely for that). The list of Newcastle or City sponsors is just fecking ridiculous, and has been from day one.

 

[Tibs]

How many would Liverpool get if City were stripped of the titles? 2?

 

[slyadams]

But it really shouldn’t matter. Then the argument just becomes xenophobic. Do they have to prove their fan loyalty? Is there a commission that decides if they are “fan enough”? And is that commission also made up of mostly older Untied, Arsenal, and Liverpool fans?

It could be Aston Villa, Everton. If I have 8 billion dollars and I want to dedicate it to building one of the best football teams in the world… why can’t I try?

I agree with the general premise about the ownership of the clubs though. We are headed toward a world where even the smaller clubs have billionaire owners. So I really think just making sure they are private entities would be good enough.

I just think it would be a massive mistake to try and unravel decades worth of PL seasons.

The football communtity via the FFP rules have determined they don't want an arms race of money. Abramovic came into Chelsea and could outspend everyone. Abu Dhabi came into City and eclipsed Chelsea's wealth. Saudi came into Newcastle and eclipsed City's wealth. Arsenal and Liverpool have billionaire owners, Qatar were looking at United and the list goes on. As a whole the football community is pretty much unanimous (aside from fans of clubs already acquired) in saying this isn't how we want football to be. How can clubs who havn't been taken over ever dream of even qualifying for Europe, let alone winning a league. FFP isn't about protecting a cartel, it was about protecting the game. This all ignores the source of the money as well. I wonder what

Part of any organic sport is that there are bigger clubs and smaller clubs. Looking from the outside do we think its fundamentally unfair that St. Pauli, Osnabruk, Freiburg etc. cannot realistically compete with Bayern or Dortmund for Bundesliga titles? I don't, because they're massively smaller clubs and its not reasonable to expect so. Man City were, at best, a bottom half PL club, they had no reasonable expectation to think they had the 'right' to compete against a set of much bigger clubs. This is why the whole line about "why shouldn't clubs be able to spend billions to catch up" rings hollow to me. Catching up almost always equates to "falsely elevating a club".

To be clear the big clubs have no "right" to be there either, they've earned it. Let other teams who want to topple them earn it too.

I'm a season ticket holder at a league 2 club. We have a following commensurate with our level, but I don't sit here thinking we should have the right to win PL titles. We are what we are, we have no rights to anything more.

 

[adexkola]

Looking from the outside do we think its fundamentally unfair that St. Pauli, Osnabruk, Freiburg etc. cannot realistically compete with Bayern or Dortmund for Bundesliga titles?

What... Yes!

How is it fun watching Bayern win league after league? Is it ok because they "earned it"?

Yes it is unfair that a well run club has to give up on any ambitions of winning the league one day.

On one hand, kudos for openly expressing the sentiment hidden in other posts, that smaller clubs (including the likes of City) should just know their place and be happy they exist, and forget about ever challenging for a sustained period of time.

On the other hand, while the influx of oligarchs and nations into the game has made inequality worse, it wasn't all happy flowers in 2002. And using bootstrap logic (if they just worked hard enough they could be a big club too) is just the cherry on top for your post.

 

[Hughie77]

Players and managers 100% knew/know the deal with city. They sold their souls and can pay the price. The entire footballing world knew city were cooking the books based on the information we saw on commercial deals, incorrect match day attendances, second wages being payed to Mancini, the stadium sponsor and so on.

Players jumped at the chance to double/triple salaries with handsome signing-on bonuses and god knows what else they have in their contracts.

Mancini knew I’m guessing.

Probably they all new and still do, heard today the FA may as early as next year deal with there 115 Charges.. maybe the Everton points was a precursor to what City are going to get.. and I've said it before that City should get at least 30 pts deduction, or a relagation to league 2 .. or both.. let's see then who wants to play for them.. as Pep said he will get Summerbee out to play if he has to.. and we have good Lawyers .. ..

 

[slyadams]

What... Yes!

How is it fun watching Bayern win league after league? Is it ok because they "earned it"?

Yes it is unfair that a well run club has to give up on any ambitions of winning the league one day.

On one hand, kudos for openly expressing the sentiment hidden in other posts, that smaller clubs (including the likes of City) should just know their place and be happy they exist, and forget about ever challenging for a sustained period of time.

On the other hand, while the influx of oligarchs and nations into the game has made inequality worse, it wasn't all happy flowers in 2002. And using bootstrap logic (if they just worked hard enough they could be a big club too) is just the cherry on top for your post.

Why on earth do you think that the FFP rules should be defined by "being fun"? Having a player draft would be incredibly fun, let's do that.

I'm not sure why you think that a well run club has less chance to win the league with FFP in than without? With FFP their hopes are that they're one of the lucky few that are bought. The gap between the richest clubs and the rest is bigger now than ever. I'm not even sure what you're arguing here? "Let sovereign money in so that well run clubs can dream of winning the league?"

Its not about knowing your place, but it is about being realistic. As I said, I support a lower league team. Do I think its unfair we can't compete with United? Nope.

 

[Zen86]

Anything aside from stripping away their titles and kicking them down into the pits of the football league, is laughable. Won’t happen though.

 

[adexkola]

Why on earth do you think that the FFP rules should be defined by "being fun"? Having a player draft would be incredibly fun, let's do that.

I'm not sure why you think that a well run club has less chance to win the league with FFP in than without? With FFP their hopes are that they're one of the lucky few that are bought. The gap between the richest clubs and the rest is bigger now than ever. I'm not even sure what you're arguing here? "Let sovereign money in so that well run clubs can dream of winning the league?"

Its not about knowing your place, but it is about being realistic. As I said, I support a lower league team. Do I think its unfair we can't compete with United? Nope.

Replace "fun" with what's good for the league then.

It's you saying with any level of confidence that there's nothing unfair with any club other than Bayern looking forward to 2nd place at most that's just baffling. Like, did you come to this conclusion after speaking with some of their fans?

I think the chances of a well run small club winning the league is the same with and without FFP. Before Chelsea entered the frame, only league winners were United, Arsenal, and Blackburn (who some say were bankrolled). After Chelsea we've seen United, Chelsea, Liverpool, City, Leicester win the league.

And I don't think that means more sovereign money is good. It means that all money in excess is bad for the sport. Whether accumulated through decades or splunked in 1 moment by a sovereign, it's bad. So find a way to level the playing ground by allowing more money to allow little clubs to make the jump (oligarchs for everyone!!) or make it extremely hard for big clubs to maintain their status by throwing money around (squad/spending caps).

I was just challenging your post. Very little in it made sense. It's great that you support a lower league team (honestly, that's awesome) and that you aren't miffed at there being no pathway to compete at the top one day. I'd wager you're in the minority. Which is why, again, to most supporters outside the top 6, it doesn't matter whether it's United or City winning 5 in 6. Their teams weren't and aren't winning it. So why should they give a feck?