Man city escape ban! Or did they? [Update 6/2/23]

Permabanned
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
7,412
Location
South West
Oh as a small club with no external investment you can't hope to compete with the biggest clubs in the league or the rich ones. Thats been the case for a long time. The point was that City could have done what they did and stuck to FFP. It would just have taken them a little longer to achieve their goals.

The fact football is a global market and the PL is fantastically rich means that smaller teams can build good teams. Problem is that its all relative so all the other teams in the league are the same. The overall quality of the league is higher than ever but that doesn't matter unless you are playing in Europe.
But neither can your local corner shop compete with a supermarket, unfairness has always existed.

Look I think we all knew what was going to happen when Abramavich came in then oil money. No one is really shocked by any of this, are they?
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Oct 2002
Posts
27,223
Location
Boston, Lincolnshire
Give over. FFP wasn't just introduced to stop your City's of this world but to stop any clubs from disrupting the status quo. If clubs can only spend what they can afford and these clubs have tiny revenues then how can they compete?

As for Benfica, read the football leaks book. Lots of Portuguese and South American clubs have very questionable ownership structures and illegal 3rd party ownership deals in place.

I said if it was done correctly and yes rightly so should the status quo be kept but that doesn't mean smaller teams could not compete and get better by being run well over time. If FFP was correct you would have situations like Brighton who have increased their revenue by selling players for excellent money. Slowly but surely they become a regular in European competitions and grow from that to one day they are challenging for titles. In the current climate you only have to look at Newcastle 300 odd million spent in two windows and have gone from bottom of the table to champions league challengers in less than a season. (Not saying Newcastle aren't well run)
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Oct 2002
Posts
27,223
Location
Boston, Lincolnshire
But neither can your local corner shop compete with a supermarket, unfairness has always existed.

Look I think we all knew what was going to happen when Abramavich came in then oil money. No one is really shocked by any of this, are they?

Maybe in today's world yes but there was nothing to say that corner shop couldn't grow to the size of Tesco but like you said that ship has sailed as the market is already saturated. Football isn't the same though as teams that are run well can in theory compete if a proper FFP system was invoked.
 
Permabanned
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
7,412
Location
South West
Maybe in today's world yes but there was nothing to say that corner shop couldn't grow to the size of Tesco but like you said that ship has sailed as the market is already saturated. Football isn't the same though as teams that are run well can in theory compete if a proper FFP system was invoked.
There was nothing stopping other clubs becoming as big as United when the Premier League was born. Shoulda woulda coulda.

We have the situation we have, it’s here and it’s not going anywhere without a fight. Anyone expecting the bigger teams to not want to gain every advantage they can is living in a dream world. Apple isn’t giving its market share away, Amazon aren’t, its up for others to find their own way of breaking the mould.

FFP is not going to be perfect, what is? But having smaller clubs stay smaller is better than having smaller clubs go out of existence.
 
Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,422
I said if it was done correctly and yes rightly so should the status quo be kept but that doesn't mean smaller teams could not compete and get better by being run well over time. If FFP was correct you would have situations like Brighton who have increased their revenue by selling players for excellent money. Slowly but surely they become a regular in European competitions and grow from that to one day they are challenging for titles. In the current climate you only have to look at Newcastle 300 odd million spent in two windows and have gone from bottom of the table to champions league challengers in less than a season. (Not saying Newcastle aren't well run)
Lets start with Newcastle - in a world where FFP was effectively enforced, what happens to Newcastle this summer? The answer to that question should be fairly easy to reach, we've already seen it start with Brighton, we've seen it happen to Leicester after they had some success, we saw it with Southampton 6-8 years ago, we see it happen in the Budesliga every year. The vultures will circle and pick their squad apart because in a world where you can only spend what you generate and that rule is enforced, Newcastle could never pay the wages required to keep their best players. Newcastle's entire revenue for last season was just shy of £180m, that's roughly 50% of what Liverpool, City and Utd pay in wages each season.

I did mention your Brighton example in another post. Brighton would have no choice but to sell their best players if they qualified for Europe because they're losing money. Their last two sets of published accounts show, even once you deduct the impact of covid, a loss of around £80-100m - under FFP which you want enforced, they could only lose £30m(ish) over 3 seasons!

I'm not sure if you just long for the days where Utd had a huge financial advantage over everybody else or whether you genuinely believe that under FFP a smaller club could realistically compete but either way, it's nonsense. A club with revenues of £150-180m cannot, without the help of divine intervention, expect to grow to a level with clubs that have 4x their revenue. Your Brighton's of this world do not have the fanbase or global appeal to ever generate the revenue that Liverpool and Utd could. Brighton's total commercial and matchday revenue totals around £25m - Utd's was around £350m. No matter how well Brighton do, that gap will never close, not in your life time or your kids.
 
Associate
Joined
14 Apr 2019
Posts
888
I don't want oil money in the club and I don't want a Boely situation either. It would be nice if there wasn't one club that was blowing everyone out of the water with their spending.
So you're saying none of the money that has come into United has been from oil? None of the investment, sponsorship or rights sold? Every club in the EPL is riddled with dirty money. If they didn't exist all we would have had the last 15 years is more United dominance buying anyone who looked half decent in the league.

Teams like Brighton and Leicester who are ran well would be able to build over the years.

#

Didn't they just have to clear 190m debt? Sounds well run to me. Anyway build into what? Sure they won the league once, which we can all agree we probably won't see the like of that happen again in our lifetime. Then they got picked apart because they couldn't spend the money to keep them even if they could. Realistically both have built to maybe winning a cup every 20 years. They can't build on that with any meaningful revenue because kids support serial winners.

All these clubs build into is feeders. Even Arsenal couldn't keep players from United. You cannot build into anything when they just take your players and managers on whim. At least we are getting different winners now.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Oct 2007
Posts
8,831
Location
newcastle
Lets start with Newcastle - in a world where FFP was effectively enforced, what happens to Newcastle this summer? The answer to that question should be fairly easy to reach, we've already seen it start with Brighton, we've seen it happen to Leicester after they had some success, we saw it with Southampton 6-8 years ago, we see it happen in the Budesliga every year. The vultures will circle and pick their squad apart because in a world where you can only spend what you generate and that rule is enforced, Newcastle could never pay the wages required to keep their best players. Newcastle's entire revenue for last season was just shy of £180m, that's roughly 50% of what Liverpool, City and Utd pay in wages each season.

I did mention your Brighton example in another post. Brighton would have no choice but to sell their best players if they qualified for Europe because they're losing money. Their last two sets of published accounts show, even once you deduct the impact of covid, a loss of around £80-100m - under FFP which you want enforced, they could only lose £30m(ish) over 3 seasons!

I'm not sure if you just long for the days where Utd had a huge financial advantage over everybody else or whether you genuinely believe that under FFP a smaller club could realistically compete but either way, it's nonsense. A club with revenues of £150-180m cannot, without the help of divine intervention, expect to grow to a level with clubs that have 4x their revenue. Your Brighton's of this world do not have the fanbase or global appeal to ever generate the revenue that Liverpool and Utd could. Brighton's total commercial and matchday revenue totals around £25m - Utd's was around £350m. No matter how well Brighton do, that gap will never close, not in your life time or your kids.
Your bang on there TBH, Bruno and big Jo would most likely be off to liverpool this summer and big Sven would be off the Chelsea as we wouldn’t Be able to give them a new contract of FFP was adhered to stringently
 
Permabanned
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
7,412
Location
South West
Your bang on there TBH, Bruno and big Jo would most likely be off to liverpool this summer and big Sven would be off the Chelsea as we wouldn’t Be able to give them a new contract of FFP was adhered to stringently
With the greatest of respect I’m not sure United are looking at Newcastle’s players. This will come back to bite me no doubt :cry:
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jul 2009
Posts
7,231
Anyone decrying past unfair spending needs to go back to the beginning of the Premier League, the massive influx of TV money and the collusion in that and what effects it had with Man Utd and BSkyB. Everyone complained about it at the time, except Man U fans who came out with the same apologist nonsense that Chelsea, Man City and Newcastle amongst others have done since.

If Man Utd get bought by Qatar we'll see the same thing again, it's started already with the "oh, we won't be bad as ____" and the "we're the biggest, bestest club in the land so we deserve to win everything, all the time, forever, so how we do that isn't really as relevant to us as it to other clubs".
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jul 2009
Posts
7,231
The only way it would make it fair is to have a Salary Cap and spending cap....but then no one would ever sign off on that.....

This unlimited money glitch is what drives the PL up and up and be the most watched one in the world.

It could probably be done in a much simpler way.

Just have very specific rules about where finance can come from, make clubs submit accounts to an independent regulator a month before the start of the season and dock points for irregularities. Transfer bans that don't mean clubs can spend more in future windows for serial offenders. Expulsion for proper serious breaches.

The big problem we have at the moment is that by the time clubs are captured cheating, years have gone past, times have changed and people just want to get on with it.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
7,412
Location
South West
It’s rather boring though. Any other club could’ve done that, Arsenal and Leeds were the previous champions and Liverpool were the biggest team in the country. Why weren’t you continuing your previous advantage? United weren’t a sure thing Fergie was on the verge of the sack and had that had happened we wouldn’t have had the success we had.

We took advantage of the circumstances provided we didn’t receive unlimited funds, we had a perfect storm and capitalised on it. Arguably we largely made the league as big as it is. The bitterness needs to stop.
 
Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,422
It’s rather boring though. Any other club could’ve done that, Arsenal and Leeds were the previous champions and Liverpool were the biggest team in the country. Why weren’t you continuing your previous advantage? United weren’t a sure thing Fergie was on the verge of the sack and had that had happened we wouldn’t have had the success we had.

We took advantage of the circumstances provided we didn’t receive unlimited funds, we had a perfect storm and capitalised on it. Arguably we largely made the league as big as it is. The bitterness needs to stop.
Irony overload! This debate stems from you and other Utd fans upset that somebody else can now spend as much as Utd.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jul 2009
Posts
7,231
It’s rather boring though. Any other club could’ve done that, Arsenal and Leeds were the previous champions and Liverpool were the biggest team in the country. Why weren’t you continuing your previous advantage? United weren’t a sure thing Fergie was on the verge of the sack and had that had happened we wouldn’t have had the success we had.

We took advantage of the circumstances provided we didn’t receive unlimited funds, we had a perfect storm and capitalised on it. Arguably we largely made the league as big as it is. The bitterness needs to stop.

Lol. 10% of Man Utd was owned by the same company that was pumping all the money into the league. They were picked by commercial interests as the banner wavers, marketed and therefore financed as such. It's not bitterness, it was just plain as day to anyone without Man Utd spex on.

And whilst there's some argument about Man Utd making the league as big as it is, there's no argument at all about the league and the TV coverage of it making Man Utd as big as they are, especially in the early years of the PL.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
7,412
Location
South West
Lol. 10% of Man Utd was owned by the same company that was pumping all the money into the league. They were picked by commercial interests as the banner wavers, marketed and therefore financed as such. It's not bitterness, it was just plain as day to anyone without Man Utd spex on.

And whilst there's some argument about Man Utd making the league as big as it is, there's no argument at all about the league and the TV coverage of it making Man Utd as big as they are, especially in the early years of the PL.
Look I’m not getting into this again. Your club could’ve done the same. Blame those running your club that they didn’t have the vision and whereabouts to strike the same deal.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jul 2009
Posts
7,231
Look I’m not getting into this again. Your club could’ve done the same. Blame those running your club that they didn’t have the vision and whereabouts to strike the same deal.

My club, nor any others were partly owned by the company that was refinancing and remarketing the league. That's like arguing that any club could have bought by Abu Dhabi, so it's all okay. It's exactly the hypocrisy I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
7,412
Location
South West
My club, nor any others were partly owned by the company that was refinancing and remarketing the league. That's like arguing that any club could have bought by Abu Dhabi, so it's all okay. It's exactly the hypocrisy I'm talking about.
10% stake isn’t being bought by Abu Dhabi though is it? Why didn’t they buy a 10% stake in your club?
 
Back
Top Bottom