Still not worthy of a thread

[Guest neesy111]

Don’t see the point in the question about the 90s. Football wasn’t as polarised as it is now and I was a young lad. Pointless comparison.

 

f*** off, so it was ok for nufc to spend way beyond their means because no one else was doing it and you're a nufc fan?  God, you are gormless at times. 

 

In 6 months nufc had spent £31m.  When our turnover was £32m.

 

Wrong!

 

Must be right, you haven't provided an essay.

 

Do you think NUFC actually paid out 31m in full in 6 months with an annual turnover of 32m? Really? Under SJH and KK we were self sufficient and every piece of spending was totally in line with the club’s revenues, profits and profitability. The most SJH put in of his own money outside of buying up shares and legal fees, was 50k.

 

We didn’t spend way beyond our means are any point. We spent less for example in 92-93 than West Ham.

 

Jesus. 

 

We would never have to become a plc if it was all sustainable.

 

 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Don’t see the point in the question about the 90s. Football wasn’t as polarised as it is now and I was a young lad. Pointless comparison.

 

f*** off, so it was ok for nufc to spend way beyond their means because no one else was doing it and you're a nufc fan?  God, you are gormless at times. 

 

In 6 months nufc had spent £31m.  When our turnover was £32m.

 

Wrong!

 

Must be right, you haven't provided an essay.

 

Do you think NUFC actually paid out 31m in full in 6 months with an annual turnover of 32m? Really? Under SJH and KK we were self sufficient and every piece of spending was totally in line with the club’s revenues, profits and profitability. The most SJH put in of his own money outside of buying up shares and legal fees, was 50k.

 

We didn’t spend way beyond our means are any point. We spent less for example in 92-93 than West Ham.

 

Jesus. 

 

We would never have to become a plc if it was all sustainable.

 

 

 

Fucking hell man

 

You’re talking crap seriously.

 

There is zero comparison between the two full stop. Give it up!

[Guest neesy111]

Don’t see the point in the question about the 90s. Football wasn’t as polarised as it is now and I was a young lad. Pointless comparison.

 

f*** off, so it was ok for nufc to spend way beyond their means because no one else was doing it and you're a nufc fan?  God, you are gormless at times. 

 

In 6 months nufc had spent £31m.  When our turnover was £32m.

 

Wrong!

 

Must be right, you haven't provided an essay.

 

Do you think NUFC actually paid out 31m in full in 6 months with an annual turnover of 32m? Really? Under SJH and KK we were self sufficient and every piece of spending was totally in line with the club’s revenues, profits and profitability. The most SJH put in of his own money outside of buying up shares and legal fees, was 50k.

 

We didn’t spend way beyond our means are any point. We spent less for example in 92-93 than West Ham.

 

Jesus. 

 

We would never have to become a plc if it was all sustainable.

 

 

 

f***ing hell man

 

You’re talking crap seriously.

 

There is zero comparison between the two full stop. Give it up!

 

There's lots of comparison's, if city became a plc now then Abu Dhabi would make their money back for starters.

[Ketsbaia]

Creating the CL was the formation of the European (big club) cartel. FFP is merely the drawbridge they've created to protect themselves. City will take their rap on the knuckles and rejoin in a year or two. The money will continue to roll in, the biggest get bigger and if you're not in the club now you never fucking will be.

 

Yep. This is the worst thing to happen to the game yet imo. Like I said in a different thread, the sooner the elite fuck off by themselves the better.

 

Agree totally. Let City, Man U, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea and Liverpool join a European superleague. Throw real, barca, atletico, benfica, sporting Lisbon, bayern, Dortmund, milan, inter, roma, lazio, Napoli, psg, marseille and zenit in and let the fuckers get on with it.

 

I've never really got this opinion. If 5/6 English clubs go to a Super League, what's the point in winning the Premier League? It'd mean nothing.

[midds]

Creating the CL was the formation of the European (big club) cartel. FFP is merely the drawbridge they've created to protect themselves. City will take their rap on the knuckles and rejoin in a year or two. The money will continue to roll in, the biggest get bigger and if you're not in the club now you never fucking will be.

 

Yep. This is the worst thing to happen to the game yet imo. Like I said in a different thread, the sooner the elite fuck off by themselves the better.

 

Agree totally. Let City, Man U, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea and Liverpool join a European superleague. Throw real, barca, atletico, benfica, sporting Lisbon, bayern, Dortmund, milan, inter, roma, lazio, Napoli, psg, marseille and zenit in and let the fuckers get on with it.

 

I've never really got this opinion. If 5/6 English clubs go to a Super League, what's the point in winning the Premier League? It'd mean nothing.

 

I agree, it would be the ‘best of what’s left’ each year. Everyone would know they’re not the very best the country could offer but I think it would be a better competition than the current situation. I just want a more level playing field and a bit of healthy competition tbh

[Guest]

Creating the CL was the formation of the European (big club) cartel. FFP is merely the drawbridge they've created to protect themselves. City will take their rap on the knuckles and rejoin in a year or two. The money will continue to roll in, the biggest get bigger and if you're not in the club now you never fucking will be.

 

Yep. This is the worst thing to happen to the game yet imo. Like I said in a different thread, the sooner the elite fuck off by themselves the better.

 

Agree totally. Let City, Man U, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea and Liverpool join a European superleague. Throw real, barca, atletico, benfica, sporting Lisbon, bayern, Dortmund, milan, inter, roma, lazio, Napoli, psg, marseille and zenit in and let the fuckers get on with it.

 

I've never really got this opinion. If 5/6 English clubs go to a Super League, what's the point in winning the Premier League? It'd mean nothing.

 

There’s only been two other clubs that have won the league outside of those 6 in the last 28 years, 4 in the last 40 years. Two of the the other ‘regular five’ title winners could only do it because of outside money being pumped in, otherwise it’d pretty much have been Arsenal, Man Utd & Liverpool.

[Pandamninator]

Don’t see the point in the question about the 90s. Football wasn’t as polarised as it is now and I was a young lad. Pointless comparison.

 

f*** off, so it was ok for nufc to spend way beyond their means because no one else was doing it and you're a nufc fan?  God, you are gormless at times. 

 

In 6 months nufc had spent £31m.  When our turnover was £32m.

 

Wrong!

 

Must be right, you haven't provided an essay.

 

Do you think NUFC actually paid out 31m in full in 6 months with an annual turnover of 32m? Really? Under SJH and KK we were self sufficient and every piece of spending was totally in line with the club’s revenues, profits and profitability. The most SJH put in of his own money outside of buying up shares and legal fees, was 50k.

 

We didn’t spend way beyond our means are any point. We spent less for example in 92-93 than West Ham.

 

Jesus. 

 

We would never have to become a plc if it was all sustainable.

 

We became a PLC because that was the plan from day dot - for the Halls and their fellow investors to make a killing from the new Premier League.

 

Any reason why you've chosen to ignore the fact we were still being outspent by other clubs?

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Don’t see the point in the question about the 90s. Football wasn’t as polarised as it is now and I was a young lad. Pointless comparison.

 

f*** off, so it was ok for nufc to spend way beyond their means because no one else was doing it and you're a nufc fan?  God, you are gormless at times. 

 

In 6 months nufc had spent £31m.  When our turnover was £32m.

 

Wrong!

 

Must be right, you haven't provided an essay.

 

Do you think NUFC actually paid out 31m in full in 6 months with an annual turnover of 32m? Really? Under SJH and KK we were self sufficient and every piece of spending was totally in line with the club’s revenues, profits and profitability. The most SJH put in of his own money outside of buying up shares and legal fees, was 50k.

 

We didn’t spend way beyond our means are any point. We spent less for example in 92-93 than West Ham.

 

Jesus. 

 

We would never have to become a plc if it was all sustainable.

 

 

 

f***ing hell man

 

You’re talking crap seriously.

 

There is zero comparison between the two full stop. Give it up!

 

There's lots of comparison's, if city became a plc now then Abu Dhabi would make their money back for starters.

 

I’m out, sorry

[Guest]

We spent more than any other club during the 1990s fwiw (£109.8m)

[jdckelly]

Absolute joke like. Pretty much stops anyone breaking the elite consistently anymore. We might as well give up now.

 

But don’t the elite exist precisely because of the ridiculous financial situation?

 

It’s barely a sport if the only way to compete is to get a Sheik to put £400m a year in.

 

But the only reason Man City could compete consistently was doing it they way they did.

 

 

 

Tough s***. What Man CIty have done is make it even harder for anyone else to get in. It’s also not guaranteed they wouldn’t have been able to do it without Sheikh Mansour. Don’t get me wrong they wouldn’t have dominated in the way they have, but they have always been a big club, with good owners they’d have been capable of challenging For Champions league spots. I mean Leicester have done it with fewer means at their disposal. With average /forward thinking owners we would have too.

Without the sheikh cash what would have happened is the moment city even got close to cl places the rich clubs pick apart the team like vultures. The rich get richer and everyone else is there to make up the numbers. f*** modern football and everything it stands for

 

 

 

I mean there are three elite clubs in this country. Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal. You could add Chelsea but they’re just the same as Manchester City, in that without a mega rich owner they’d be in that group of about 10 clubs below the elite. It’s absolutely possible Man City could break in to the top 4 and occasionally compete similar to how we did, all those years ago, or how Leicester and Tottenham have today. Maybe big clubs would come in for players, if they were well run they could gradually improve their club and become even more competitive.

all it takes is one fuck up of a season/transfer window to send a team crashing down to where they started undoing years of work, see us appointing graham souness as an example of that there is no margin for error. All the while man utd liverpool etc are too big to fail since they can afford to correct mistakes by throwing more money at it until something works. Until very strict spending rules along the lines of american sports then there is nothing fair about financial fair play 

[Guest neesy111]

Don’t see the point in the question about the 90s. Football wasn’t as polarised as it is now and I was a young lad. Pointless comparison.

 

f*** off, so it was ok for nufc to spend way beyond their means because no one else was doing it and you're a nufc fan?  God, you are gormless at times. 

 

In 6 months nufc had spent £31m.  When our turnover was £32m.

 

Wrong!

 

Must be right, you haven't provided an essay.

 

Do you think NUFC actually paid out 31m in full in 6 months with an annual turnover of 32m? Really? Under SJH and KK we were self sufficient and every piece of spending was totally in line with the club’s revenues, profits and profitability. The most SJH put in of his own money outside of buying up shares and legal fees, was 50k.

 

We didn’t spend way beyond our means are any point. We spent less for example in 92-93 than West Ham.

 

Jesus. 

 

We would never have to become a plc if it was all sustainable.

 

We became a PLC because that was the plan from day dot - for the Halls and their fellow investors to make a killing from the new Premier League.

 

Any reason why you've chosen to ignore the fact we were still being outspent by other clubs?

 

Any reason why you're wrong?  We were the biggest spenders in the PL in the 90's.

[Guest]

I remember the start of the 99/00 season we had the most expensively assembled squad, even more expensive than Man Utd and Arsenal, Chelsea who were spending big at the time...

[Rafalove]

Absolute joke like. Pretty much stops anyone breaking the elite consistently anymore. We might as well give up now.

 

But don’t the elite exist precisely because of the ridiculous financial situation?

 

It’s barely a sport if the only way to compete is to get a Sheik to put £400m a year in.

 

But the only reason Man City could compete consistently was doing it they way they did.

 

 

 

Tough s***. What Man CIty have done is make it even harder for anyone else to get in. It’s also not guaranteed they wouldn’t have been able to do it without Sheikh Mansour. Don’t get me wrong they wouldn’t have dominated in the way they have, but they have always been a big club, with good owners they’d have been capable of challenging For Champions league spots. I mean Leicester have done it with fewer means at their disposal. With average /forward thinking owners we would have too.

Without the sheikh cash what would have happened is the moment city even got close to cl places the rich clubs pick apart the team like vultures. The rich get richer and everyone else is there to make up the numbers. f*** modern football and everything it stands for

 

 

 

I mean there are three elite clubs in this country. Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal. You could add Chelsea but they’re just the same as Manchester City, in that without a mega rich owner they’d be in that group of about 10 clubs below the elite. It’s absolutely possible Man City could break in to the top 4 and occasionally compete similar to how we did, all those years ago, or how Leicester and Tottenham have today. Maybe big clubs would come in for players, if they were well run they could gradually improve their club and become even more competitive.

all it takes is one f*** up of a season/transfer window to send a team crashing down to where they started undoing years of work, see us appointing graham souness as an example of that there is no margin for error. All the while man utd liverpool etc are too big to fail since they can afford to correct mistakes by throwing more money at it until something works. Until very strict spending rules along the lines of american sports then there is nothing fair about financial fair play

 

We made more mistakes than just Souness tbf. Plus I don’t see how adding Chelsea and Man City in to the mix has made anything better, all that’s happened is we have another 2 clubs inflating fees and pushing the likes of ourselves further away. I don’t like what Manchester United in particular have done with commercialisation but at least they along with Arsenal and Liverpool are where they are based on some kind of meritocracy. Theyve built their clubs organically over decades.

[Guest]

Absolute joke like. Pretty much stops anyone breaking the elite consistently anymore. We might as well give up now.

 

But don’t the elite exist precisely because of the ridiculous financial situation?

 

It’s barely a sport if the only way to compete is to get a Sheik to put £400m a year in.

 

But the only reason Man City could compete consistently was doing it they way they did.

 

 

 

Tough s***. What Man CIty have done is make it even harder for anyone else to get in. It’s also not guaranteed they wouldn’t have been able to do it without Sheikh Mansour. Don’t get me wrong they wouldn’t have dominated in the way they have, but they have always been a big club, with good owners they’d have been capable of challenging For Champions league spots. I mean Leicester have done it with fewer means at their disposal. With average /forward thinking owners we would have too.

Without the sheikh cash what would have happened is the moment city even got close to cl places the rich clubs pick apart the team like vultures. The rich get richer and everyone else is there to make up the numbers. f*** modern football and everything it stands for

 

 

 

I mean there are three elite clubs in this country. Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal. You could add Chelsea but they’re just the same as Manchester City, in that without a mega rich owner they’d be in that group of about 10 clubs below the elite. It’s absolutely possible Man City could break in to the top 4 and occasionally compete similar to how we did, all those years ago, or how Leicester and Tottenham have today. Maybe big clubs would come in for players, if they were well run they could gradually improve their club and become even more competitive.

all it takes is one f*** up of a season/transfer window to send a team crashing down to where they started undoing years of work, see us appointing graham souness as an example of that there is no margin for error. All the while man utd liverpool etc are too big to fail since they can afford to correct mistakes by throwing more money at it until something works. Until very strict spending rules along the lines of american sports then there is nothing fair about financial fair play

 

We made more mistakes than just Souness tbf. Plus I don’t see how adding Chelsea and Man City in to the mix has made anything better, all that’s happened is we have another 2 clubs inflating fees and pushing the likes of ourselves further away. I don’t like what Manchester United in particular have done with commercialisation but at least they along with Arsenal and Liverpool are where they are based on some kind of meritocracy. Theyve built their clubs organically over decades.

 

But because of the UEFA Champions League, those three in particular were only ever going to pull further away. You’d get the odd exception, you’d get the likes of Spurs who’d flirt with them but fall short and ultimately have their best players taken away, but without Man City and Chelsea doing what they did, the top 3 most seasons would be those 3 clubs.

[Dinho lad]

Be amazed if it’s upheld mind. Be funny as fuck if they won it this season now.

 

Man Utd licking their putrid lips at blagging that CL place n all.

 

Which would certainly soften the blow of the 2 year ban? Nah, it would be funny as fuck if they lost the final in dramatic circumstances.

[Yorkie]

I can't make my mind up as to how I feel about the Man City thing. On the one hand I'm pleased and relieved to see the breaking of financial rules being met with meaningful punishment. But I do understand the other side of the argument; i.e. can you really blame an ambitious club for using the gargantuan wealth of its benefactor as a means of challenging for titles? What other way is there, for a mid-sized club like them?

 

Do I have it right that, basically, they've tried to dress external investment up as sponsorship deals? I.e. they've got money coming in which hasn't been generated by the club (i.e., it's come from Abu Dhabi as opposed to revenue), but they've tried to hide it? Or do I have that all wrong?

 

If I have it right, then I think the key question in determining whether or not this punishment is proportionate (given how there are seldom other other means of formulating title challenges): to what extent did City actually need to diddle their figures? Unless they're just better at hiding it - similarly-funded clubs like Chelsea and PSG haven't diddled, so why have they?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I just don’t understand how it’s applied. Surely loads of clubs are overspending? Is it just because Man City’s normal income base is lower?

[Happinesstan]

Absolute joke like. Pretty much stops anyone breaking the elite consistently anymore. We might as well give up now.

 

But don’t the elite exist precisely because of the ridiculous financial situation?

 

It’s barely a sport if the only way to compete is to get a Sheik to put £400m a year in.

 

But the only reason Man City could compete consistently was doing it they way they did.

 

 

 

Tough s***. What Man CIty have done is make it even harder for anyone else to get in. It’s also not guaranteed they wouldn’t have been able to do it without Sheikh Mansour. Don’t get me wrong they wouldn’t have dominated in the way they have, but they have always been a big club, with good owners they’d have been capable of challenging For Champions league spots. I mean Leicester have done it with fewer means at their disposal. With average /forward thinking owners we would have too.

Without the sheikh cash what would have happened is the moment city even got close to cl places the rich clubs pick apart the team like vultures. The rich get richer and everyone else is there to make up the numbers. f*** modern football and everything it stands for

 

 

 

I mean there are three elite clubs in this country. Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal. You could add Chelsea but they’re just the same as Manchester City, in that without a mega rich owner they’d be in that group of about 10 clubs below the elite. It’s absolutely possible Man City could break in to the top 4 and occasionally compete similar to how we did, all those years ago, or how Leicester and Tottenham have today. Maybe big clubs would come in for players, if they were well run they could gradually improve their club and become even more competitive.

all it takes is one f*** up of a season/transfer window to send a team crashing down to where they started undoing years of work, see us appointing graham souness as an example of that there is no margin for error. All the while man utd liverpool etc are too big to fail since they can afford to correct mistakes by throwing more money at it until something works. Until very strict spending rules along the lines of american sports then there is nothing fair about financial fair play

 

We made more mistakes than just Souness tbf. Plus I don’t see how adding Chelsea and Man City in to the mix has made anything better, all that’s happened is we have another 2 clubs inflating fees and pushing the likes of ourselves further away. I don’t like what Manchester United in particular have done with commercialisation but at least they along with Arsenal and Liverpool are where they are based on some kind of meritocracy. Theyve built their clubs organically over decades.

 

But because of the UEFA Champions League, those three in particular were only ever going to pull further away. You’d get the odd exception, you’d get the likes of Spurs who’d flirt with them but fall short and ultimately have their best players taken away, but without Man City and Chelsea doing what they did, the top 3 most seasons would be those 3 clubs.

 

The FA have done more to create that, than any other organisation. They bent over backwards to accommodate Man U's attempts to win the CL for England.

[Guest]

Absolute joke like. Pretty much stops anyone breaking the elite consistently anymore. We might as well give up now.

 

But don’t the elite exist precisely because of the ridiculous financial situation?

 

It’s barely a sport if the only way to compete is to get a Sheik to put £400m a year in.

 

But the only reason Man City could compete consistently was doing it they way they did.

 

 

 

Tough s***. What Man CIty have done is make it even harder for anyone else to get in. It’s also not guaranteed they wouldn’t have been able to do it without Sheikh Mansour. Don’t get me wrong they wouldn’t have dominated in the way they have, but they have always been a big club, with good owners they’d have been capable of challenging For Champions league spots. I mean Leicester have done it with fewer means at their disposal. With average /forward thinking owners we would have too.

Without the sheikh cash what would have happened is the moment city even got close to cl places the rich clubs pick apart the team like vultures. The rich get richer and everyone else is there to make up the numbers. f*** modern football and everything it stands for

 

 

 

I mean there are three elite clubs in this country. Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal. You could add Chelsea but they’re just the same as Manchester City, in that without a mega rich owner they’d be in that group of about 10 clubs below the elite. It’s absolutely possible Man City could break in to the top 4 and occasionally compete similar to how we did, all those years ago, or how Leicester and Tottenham have today. Maybe big clubs would come in for players, if they were well run they could gradually improve their club and become even more competitive.

all it takes is one f*** up of a season/transfer window to send a team crashing down to where they started undoing years of work, see us appointing graham souness as an example of that there is no margin for error. All the while man utd liverpool etc are too big to fail since they can afford to correct mistakes by throwing more money at it until something works. Until very strict spending rules along the lines of american sports then there is nothing fair about financial fair play

 

We made more mistakes than just Souness tbf. Plus I don’t see how adding Chelsea and Man City in to the mix has made anything better, all that’s happened is we have another 2 clubs inflating fees and pushing the likes of ourselves further away. I don’t like what Manchester United in particular have done with commercialisation but at least they along with Arsenal and Liverpool are where they are based on some kind of meritocracy. Theyve built their clubs organically over decades.

 

But because of the UEFA Champions League, those three in particular were only ever going to pull further away. You’d get the odd exception, you’d get the likes of Spurs who’d flirt with them but fall short and ultimately have their best players taken away, but without Man City and Chelsea doing what they did, the top 3 most seasons would be those 3 clubs.

 

The FA have done more to create that, than any other organisation. They bent over backwards to accommodate Man U's attempts to win the CL for England.

 

The 7 seasons between the CL expanding beyond one club per country from the 96/97 season to Abramovich buying Chelsea after the 02/03 season, 17 of the 21 top 3 places were taken by Man Utd, Arsenal & Liverpool. We managed it twice, Chelsea & Leeds once apiece. After Chelsea started spending, it was the same clubs in the top 4 for the next 6 seasons but for Everton finishing 4th. Even then, UEFA changed their competition rules to allow Liverpool back in the following season when it wasn’t the rule at the time. Spurs upset the applecart once before Man City broke into the top 4 for the first time. 2004-2009 was UEFAs dream. Don’t think they minded Chelsea because there was still 4 spots and it didn’t really affect Arsenal going for 4th every year to qualify. Once City came along and it put Liverpool, Man Utd & Arsenal’s position at the top table under pressure, they didn’t like it.

[Happinesstan]

Absolute joke like. Pretty much stops anyone breaking the elite consistently anymore. We might as well give up now.

 

But don’t the elite exist precisely because of the ridiculous financial situation?

 

It’s barely a sport if the only way to compete is to get a Sheik to put £400m a year in.

 

But the only reason Man City could compete consistently was doing it they way they did.

 

 

 

Tough s***. What Man CIty have done is make it even harder for anyone else to get in. It’s also not guaranteed they wouldn’t have been able to do it without Sheikh Mansour. Don’t get me wrong they wouldn’t have dominated in the way they have, but they have always been a big club, with good owners they’d have been capable of challenging For Champions league spots. I mean Leicester have done it with fewer means at their disposal. With average /forward thinking owners we would have too.

Without the sheikh cash what would have happened is the moment city even got close to cl places the rich clubs pick apart the team like vultures. The rich get richer and everyone else is there to make up the numbers. f*** modern football and everything it stands for

 

 

 

I mean there are three elite clubs in this country. Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal. You could add Chelsea but they’re just the same as Manchester City, in that without a mega rich owner they’d be in that group of about 10 clubs below the elite. It’s absolutely possible Man City could break in to the top 4 and occasionally compete similar to how we did, all those years ago, or how Leicester and Tottenham have today. Maybe big clubs would come in for players, if they were well run they could gradually improve their club and become even more competitive.

all it takes is one f*** up of a season/transfer window to send a team crashing down to where they started undoing years of work, see us appointing graham souness as an example of that there is no margin for error. All the while man utd liverpool etc are too big to fail since they can afford to correct mistakes by throwing more money at it until something works. Until very strict spending rules along the lines of american sports then there is nothing fair about financial fair play

 

We made more mistakes than just Souness tbf. Plus I don’t see how adding Chelsea and Man City in to the mix has made anything better, all that’s happened is we have another 2 clubs inflating fees and pushing the likes of ourselves further away. I don’t like what Manchester United in particular have done with commercialisation but at least they along with Arsenal and Liverpool are where they are based on some kind of meritocracy. Theyve built their clubs organically over decades.

 

But because of the UEFA Champions League, those three in particular were only ever going to pull further away. You’d get the odd exception, you’d get the likes of Spurs who’d flirt with them but fall short and ultimately have their best players taken away, but without Man City and Chelsea doing what they did, the top 3 most seasons would be those 3 clubs.

 

The FA have done more to create that, than any other organisation. They bent over backwards to accommodate Man U's attempts to win the CL for England.

 

The 7 seasons between the CL expanding beyond one club per country from the 96/97 season to Abramovich buying Chelsea after the 02/03 season, 17 of the 21 top 3 places were taken by Man Utd, Arsenal & Liverpool. We managed it twice, Chelsea & Leeds once apiece. After Chelsea started spending, it was the same clubs in the top 4 for the next 6 seasons. Spurs upset the applecart once before Man City broke into the top 4 for the first time. 2004-2009 was UEFAs dream. Don’t think they minded Chelsea because there was still 4 spots and it didn’t really affect Arsenal going for 4th every year to qualify. Once City came along and it put Liverpool, Man Utd & Arsenal’s position at the top table under pressure, they didn’t like it.

 

Yeah, but before that Man U were complaining that they couldn't achieve their aim of winning the CL (for England) and maintain an assault on the PL. So the FA went out of their way to help in any way they could.

[Pata]

I can't make my mind up as to how I feel about the Man City thing. On the one hand I'm pleased and relieved to see the breaking of financial rules being met with meaningful punishment. But I do understand the other side of the argument; i.e. can you really blame an ambitious club for using the gargantuan wealth of its benefactor as a means of challenging for titles? What other way is there, for a mid-sized club like them?

 

Do I have it right that, basically, they've tried to dress external investment up as sponsorship deals? I.e. they've got money coming in which hasn't been generated by the club (i.e., it's come from Abu Dhabi as opposed to revenue), but they've tried to hide it? Or do I have that all wrong?

 

If I have it right, then I think the key question in determining whether or not this punishment is proportionate (given how there are seldom other other means of formulating title challenges): to what extent did City actually need to diddle their figures? Unless they're just better at hiding it - similarly-funded clubs like Chelsea and PSG haven't diddled, so why have they?

 

Read the article posted by Disco. PSG did exactly the same but their president is in UEFA's executive committee and chairman of Bein Sports (who have made investments worth of billions with UEFA) so PSG's case just got wiped under the mat. This stuff is just ridiculous, FIFA and UEFA are so massive organizations that I don't think there's any chance to get rid of the corruption.

[Happinesstan]

We're not getting rid of corruption, full stop. It's the way things are done. Fining somebody for corruption is just a legal way of accepting bribes.

[mrmojorisin75]

Absolute joke like. Pretty much stops anyone breaking the elite consistently anymore. We might as well give up now.

 

How they punish city and not PSG who spent €350m euros on 2 players is pretty laughable.

 

is there answer to this btw?  because if not it's presumably going to be part of man city's defence

[Guest]

Absolute joke like. Pretty much stops anyone breaking the elite consistently anymore. We might as well give up now.

 

But don’t the elite exist precisely because of the ridiculous financial situation?

 

It’s barely a sport if the only way to compete is to get a Sheik to put £400m a year in.

 

But the only reason Man City could compete consistently was doing it they way they did.

 

 

 

Tough s***. What Man CIty have done is make it even harder for anyone else to get in. It’s also not guaranteed they wouldn’t have been able to do it without Sheikh Mansour. Don’t get me wrong they wouldn’t have dominated in the way they have, but they have always been a big club, with good owners they’d have been capable of challenging For Champions league spots. I mean Leicester have done it with fewer means at their disposal. With average /forward thinking owners we would have too.

Without the sheikh cash what would have happened is the moment city even got close to cl places the rich clubs pick apart the team like vultures. The rich get richer and everyone else is there to make up the numbers. f*** modern football and everything it stands for

 

 

 

I mean there are three elite clubs in this country. Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal. You could add Chelsea but they’re just the same as Manchester City, in that without a mega rich owner they’d be in that group of about 10 clubs below the elite. It’s absolutely possible Man City could break in to the top 4 and occasionally compete similar to how we did, all those years ago, or how Leicester and Tottenham have today. Maybe big clubs would come in for players, if they were well run they could gradually improve their club and become even more competitive.

all it takes is one f*** up of a season/transfer window to send a team crashing down to where they started undoing years of work, see us appointing graham souness as an example of that there is no margin for error. All the while man utd liverpool etc are too big to fail since they can afford to correct mistakes by throwing more money at it until something works. Until very strict spending rules along the lines of american sports then there is nothing fair about financial fair play

 

We made more mistakes than just Souness tbf. Plus I don’t see how adding Chelsea and Man City in to the mix has made anything better, all that’s happened is we have another 2 clubs inflating fees and pushing the likes of ourselves further away. I don’t like what Manchester United in particular have done with commercialisation but at least they along with Arsenal and Liverpool are where they are based on some kind of meritocracy. Theyve built their clubs organically over decades.

 

But because of the UEFA Champions League, those three in particular were only ever going to pull further away. You’d get the odd exception, you’d get the likes of Spurs who’d flirt with them but fall short and ultimately have their best players taken away, but without Man City and Chelsea doing what they did, the top 3 most seasons would be those 3 clubs.

 

The FA have done more to create that, than any other organisation. They bent over backwards to accommodate Man U's attempts to win the CL for England.

 

The 7 seasons between the CL expanding beyond one club per country from the 96/97 season to Abramovich buying Chelsea after the 02/03 season, 17 of the 21 top 3 places were taken by Man Utd, Arsenal & Liverpool. We managed it twice, Chelsea & Leeds once apiece. After Chelsea started spending, it was the same clubs in the top 4 for the next 6 seasons. Spurs upset the applecart once before Man City broke into the top 4 for the first time. 2004-2009 was UEFAs dream. Don’t think they minded Chelsea because there was still 4 spots and it didn’t really affect Arsenal going for 4th every year to qualify. Once City came along and it put Liverpool, Man Utd & Arsenal’s position at the top table under pressure, they didn’t like it.

 

Yeah, but before that Man U were complaining that they couldn't achieve their aim of winning the CL (for England) and maintain an assault on the PL. So the FA went out of their way to help in any way they could.

 

To be fair to the PL, they stuck up to UEFA when Everton finished 4th. UEFA were pretty much expecting them to do what La Liga did with Real Madrid & Real Sociedad when Sociedad finished 4th, Madrid won the CL, so La Liga took the 4th slot from Real Sociedad to Real Madrid.

 

The Premier League didn’t bow to them, so they decided to change their rules to let Liverpool back in anyway. It’s fucking pathetic.

[Guest]

Might have been Zaragoza not Sociedad...