Wondering why Villa, Chelsea and Newcastle are backing City? Because they could be next for punishment under profit and sustainability rules
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It’s funny how English made this huge protests over SuperLeague but are happy to stay on their couches now that City is literally trying to takeover the PL and make their own rules 
. “Football is for the fans”
. “Football is for the fans”No I meant it didn't make sense, so can you explain what the original point was. Wage cap would help smaller clubs so I am not sure what you are saying.
FFP is not perfect but it's misunderstood because smaller clubs want something tangible to point to as an inhibitor but let's actually look at it. FFP came into play in 2012, people always say it was to stop City the reality was the league was a financial pit for most clubs, hard ot imagine now everyone is enjoying the pie but it wasn't until 2014 the combined clubs were in profit. Anyway. back to FFP, here are the revenues from the clubs 2012/13.
| Club | (m) | 2023 (m) | % increase |
| United | 363 | 583 | +160 |
| Arsenal | 283 | 367 | +130 |
| City | 271 | 619 | +228 |
| Chelsea | 260 | 481 | +185 |
| Pool | 206 | 594 | +288 |
| Spurs | 147 | 442 | +300 |
| Newcastle | 96 | 179 | +186 |
| WHUM | 91 | 255 | +280 |
| Everton | 86 | 181 | +210 |
| Villa | 84 | 217 | +258 |
Obviously City's % is much higher if you go back another couple of seasons pre takeover. Point out this cartel to me that is stopping the growth of these other clubs?
The protectionism comment degrades your post, that clubs who win the FA cup will then get done away with is madness. Everton I will address below, Leicester ironically City probably harmed more than anyone as their model needed CL qualification and they missed out 2 years running so couldn't buy anyone, the irony of bringing up Pompey should not be lost on you in an FFP conversation. Wigan were bought by an owner who basically destroyed them, look up Kieran Maguire's commentary on this and, again, ironic to bring them up in an FFP conversation.
Your Everton comment makes me think you are very young or just trolling, Everton put themselves in the shit by having back to back mental windows for a club of their size, buying terribly and reaping the rewards. Moshiri even admitted this. There's that bonkers fact about them spending more than Real and Bayern since 2014.
What's the issue with not having cup replays, we need to cut down on # of games? I'd rather England games got canned but that's just me.
No idea what you mean re threatening to leave as you can't mean the ESL as City were in on that.
And every single one of them have spent poorly and quite clearly beyond their means over the years. They made their own mess.
How is that "breaking news"?
It also totally ignores the fact that United's spending has ramped up as a necessity due to City's spending. And City's spending has meant that the quality of the players available to us has declined while their prices have increased dramatically. Add in incompetance at board and managerial level at United and you get the expensive mess we're currently in.
Just for context though, while we've got supposed neutrals in this thread praising City for spending less than everyone else, let's look back on the transfer climate from three years either side of City's takeover:
'Big Four/Cartel' + Manchester City transfers, pre-Abu Dhabi takeover, between 2005/06 to 2007/08:
United: 19.5 (13.5) + 18.7 (-5) + 59.1 (25.8)
Chelsea: 54.7 (27.7) + 66.3 (39.3) + 36.5 (4.5)
Liverpool: 26.7 (12.7) + 27.2 (14.4) + 71.9 (37.9)
Arsenal: 36.9 (30.1) + 13.9 (-17) + 31 (13.4)
City: 8.3 (-13.9) + 3 (-2.5) + 50 (43.1)
Chelsea: 54.7 (27.7) + 66.3 (39.3) + 36.5 (4.5)
Liverpool: 26.7 (12.7) + 27.2 (14.4) + 71.9 (37.9)
Arsenal: 36.9 (30.1) + 13.9 (-17) + 31 (13.4)
City: 8.3 (-13.9) + 3 (-2.5) + 50 (43.1)
Total spend seasons 2005/06 - 2007/08 (net figures in brackets, top spenders in bold, lowest spenders in italics):
United: £97.3 (£34.3m)
Chelsea: £157.5m (£71.5m)
Liverpool: £125.8m (£65m)
Arsenal: £81.8m (£26.5m)
City: £61.3m (£26.7m)
Average spend per season:
United: £32.4 (£11.4m)
Chelsea: £52.5m (£23.8m)
Liverpool: £41.9m (£21.7m)
Arsenal: £27.3m (£8.8m)
City: £20.4m (£8.9m)
Post-Abu Dhabi takeover, between 2008/09 - 2010/11
United: 42.5 (35.5) + 21.5 (-64.6) + 28.1 (13.3)
Chelsea: 24.2 (-10.8) + 23.5 (17.5) + 94.6 (82.6)
Liverpool: 39 (6.5) + 36.6 (-8.2) + 84.6 (-2.4)
Arsenal: 15.8 (-3.5) + 10 (-31) + 14.5 (6.8)
City: 126.9 (118) + 144.5 (123) + 153.7 (124.8)
Chelsea: 24.2 (-10.8) + 23.5 (17.5) + 94.6 (82.6)
Liverpool: 39 (6.5) + 36.6 (-8.2) + 84.6 (-2.4)
Arsenal: 15.8 (-3.5) + 10 (-31) + 14.5 (6.8)
City: 126.9 (118) + 144.5 (123) + 153.7 (124.8)
Total spend seasons 2008/09 - 2010/11:
United: £92.1m (-£15.8m)
Chelsea: £142.3m (£89.3m)
Liverpool: £160.2m (-£4.1m)
Arsenal: £40.3m (-£27.7m)
City: £425.1m (365.8m)
Average spend per season:
United: £30.7m (-£5.3m)
Chelsea: £47.4m (£29.8m)
Liverpool: £53.4m (-£1.4m)
Arsenal: £13.4m (-£9.23m)
City: £141.7m (£121.9m)
In short, Chelsea were outliers in terms of transfer spending in the Premier League following their own takeover by Roman Abramovic. They spent double the amount United were spending and a considerable amount more than second-top spenders Liverpool. Meanwhile, City went from having a net spend of £7.6m less than United did between 2005/06 to 2007/08, to spending four times what Chelsea were, while having commercial deals at the time such as a Thomas Cook shirt sponsorship worth £1.5m per season.
They were bringing in £6.5m in sponsorship revenues in 2008/09, yet were able to spend 18 times that on transfers! And within a year or so, on the back of winning absolutely nothing at that point, they suddenly increased their sponsorship income to £32.4m a year. £29m of that came directly from Abu-Dhabi-based organisations. And in 2011 - after spending £425m on transfers since the takeover, and winning a solitary FA Cup, they suddenly got multiple world-record sponsorship deals totalling £400m. All from an airline that had yet to record an operating profit, but is owned by the family of the guy who bought City. What a coincidence!
It was blatant financial doping back then, and yet it's all been forgotten about and rewritten as City having been scrappy underdogs.
Last edited:
That's the most cowardly stance and hate it when I hear Jay Motty use it on Stretford Paddock. Going back to your actual question there aren't any plusses whatsoever.
Net spend is a high level metric only, and can be somewhat contorted by things such as lucky, one-off transfers that mask a lot of bad buys (Coutinho @ Liverpool for example). It is also open to misdirection, like the city situation and some of the multi-club shenanigans that have been going on, Watford back in the day were a prime example of this.
The football regulator is proposed to get control of finances, and promote stability, not open up spending to go completely wild.
Wish people would stop banging on about the Tories, there will be a Labour government and they would have to be the ones pressuring the PL, the Tories will be toast and irrelevant to the whole thing. With the context of the proposed Regulator it also seems unlikely that any government would involve themselves in this, but you never know with the successive brain trusts we've had for years.
The other side to this is if you consider it as having the possibility to affect investment in Manchester (Labour Council, Labour Mayor) maybe there is some scope for politicians to be open to some "persuasion" (blackmail). Nationally too, new government won't want to be seen to be anti-business/investment. I'd hope there are stronger morals at play, but will they view investment in the city as a higher priority than who wins the Premier League.
As a side not - on the proposed regulator surely the "best" thing for the PL is if the government try to interfere, since it is a blatant support of unfettered spending by a nation state, that will surely promote instability if clubs try to keep up. The PL could then point out the hypocrisy of the government and tell them to bugger off with regards to any regulation.
Interesting times to put it mildly.
Correct that's exactly what's happened
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Damn it, they only would need one more
Yet it's the fans who have had enough. Don't believe everything you see or hear in the media. Liars, shills and sycophants have championed the cheating 115 for too long and now they're turning tails like the self preserving scum they are.It’s funny how English made this huge protests over SuperLeague but are happy to stay on their couches now that City is literally trying to takeover the PL and make their own rules
It's like that comic film Avengers assemble
It's ironic that City pay a fortune for Mr Burns team of high priced lawyers and just like with Mr Burns, not one of them has the balls to tell City that they have no friends in the game and the chance of getting enough support in their attack on the Premier League, which is literally an attack on the club's themselves is an absolute certainty to fail.
That's the issue with paying top dollar. You get yes men. Slimey cnuts who's sole purpose is to extract as much brown from the hole as possible forthr biggest fee. That's what City have fighting for them.
Even if they succeeded legally, the Premier League, by which I mean the 19 other clubs are under no obligation to accept any ruling and will simply follow the now over 3 decades old format of putting it to vote. People worry that the UK government will side with City's owners so not to lose investments from the middle east but imagine what they would do if one of the biggest English exports was at risk? They wouldn't dare risk the Premier Leagues position to save City or to keep a tiny insignificant gulf State happy. There's loads of dodgy countries to fill the gap if you lose Abu Dhabi money just as there was plenty ready to fill the gap for Russian money.
City are done. The last few days has all but confirmed they know they have lost. This is the twelfth and final round, John Fury is wittering gibberish in their ear telling them they've won and the rest of footballs just stood in the middle of the ring laughing.
That's the issue with paying top dollar. You get yes men. Slimey cnuts who's sole purpose is to extract as much brown from the hole as possible forthr biggest fee. That's what City have fighting for them.
Even if they succeeded legally, the Premier League, by which I mean the 19 other clubs are under no obligation to accept any ruling and will simply follow the now over 3 decades old format of putting it to vote. People worry that the UK government will side with City's owners so not to lose investments from the middle east but imagine what they would do if one of the biggest English exports was at risk? They wouldn't dare risk the Premier Leagues position to save City or to keep a tiny insignificant gulf State happy. There's loads of dodgy countries to fill the gap if you lose Abu Dhabi money just as there was plenty ready to fill the gap for Russian money.
City are done. The last few days has all but confirmed they know they have lost. This is the twelfth and final round, John Fury is wittering gibberish in their ear telling them they've won and the rest of footballs just stood in the middle of the ring laughing.
What about Liverpool?
I think they're still in mourning over Klopp, give them some space.
Trying and doing is different.It’s funny how English made this huge protests over SuperLeague but are happy to stay on their couches now that City is literally trying to takeover the PL and make their own rules
Which club do you support? I suspect you are in favour of the Super League then.
Were they not aware of the rules beforehand?
This is a bizarre little post.It’s funny how English made this huge protests over SuperLeague but are happy to stay on their couches now that City is literally trying to takeover the PL and make their own rules
It doesn't even make sense.
Of course they were. People have been talking about teams (Inc Chelsea) having to sell players to meet FFP for ages.
I've no idea why it's 'breaking news" today.
Which is why the likes of Chelsea, Villa, Everton are joining City.
Chelsea people could have seen coming a mile off, spending over £1bn, ofcourse there would be repercussions.
You think the Chelsea people didn't see the FFP requirements coming?
The cartel introduced 5 subs, scrapping fa cup replays implemented rules to stop any challengers to them like Leicester Everton Newcastle Villa. No investment allowed restrictions.
Expanded the champions league, also trying to make it so if you finish out the top 4 you can still get in it based on prior finishes. Not to mention the super league. European coefficients, league cup draw fixing.
As for the comment on Everton’s spend look at net spend + wages the narrative around Everton’s spend is rubbish more than Bayern etc don’t make me laugh. So we signed a few bad players doesn’t mean we should have to sell our good ones below market value. It is also convenient for the cartel and a by product of their devious means.We’ve also took a huge hit in revenue due to all this FFP. Look at spurs Richarlison, Maddison, Johnson they’d never sign for them prices or for them if not for FFP.
Why the hell are we getting deducted points for building a stadium and investing in a team when our spend is way lower on players and wages than most teams? last 5 years net spend 17th. The only one reason is to stop competition. Want to build a stadium increase revenue and compete? back in your box!
In fact, if City / Leicester weren’t cheating Everton would have been top 4 and European places over the last ten years. I think you forget where we were under Moyes Martinez and not a small club huge potential. it’s only the last 5 years we’ve dropped out the top 8 with FFP direct cause + Ukraine war.
Look at the last 30 years league placing trophies won, v the 30 years prior. The spread of trophies and revenue over them periods. Then tell me coupled with the above something not seriously wrong and there is not a protectionist cartel! the evidence is overwhelming.
United’s position on this is: City spent less than us over the last 10 years, and a bit to catch up, wahhhhhh, so we want the rules fixed in our favour. Sorry it just doesn’t wash with me, you want to swap corrupt crap with corrupt crap for your benefit. The whole thing needs a massive reset.
You'd have to ask him!
They probably did, its either they will sell a couple players or saw City and realised you can just fight it.
The PL clearly are too scared of the bigger lawyers.
@Dean60 , are you sure you didn't put your blue jeans in the wash with your city top, cos you seem to be confused.
Not that I'm saying that that is what he's doing, I'm just playing Beelzebub's Barrister
To be fair, and respecting the point you're making, and not to throw out personal opinions; if, hypothetically, he was making the question out to the forum in general, being aware that he was either totally neutral or was in the centrist camp, testing the water without exaggerating a point to make a point would mean he couldn't get definitive opinions.
Not that I'm saying that that is what he's doing, I'm just playing Beelzebub's Barrister
Do we know for sure these clubs are 'backing' City in their lawsuit against the PL? The article posted in here that mentioned something to that effect was talking about Chelsea sent a letter to the PL, when the PL invited clubs to provide statements, specifically around the issue of multiclub ownership, which is why I think headline writers have taken a few liberties with the facts. I haven't seen anything anywhere that suggests Chelsea, or any of the other clubs mentioned, would vote with City and stand side by side with them in their fight against the league.
No we dont know for sure, I can only go by what is reported. I dont have any links or sources that can confirm anything. I guess we wont know.
This is a ploy from City to get the 115 case thrown out, which I reckon will happen.
City will get away with it and accept the new rules once their case is dropped.
If you trust City's figures for wages, agents fees etc.
Look at how Mancini was allegedly payed off.
Problem is some of the charges relate to not being honest about finances. So your net spend point is invalid.
There is only one relevant question now: which players should we get from these clubs before the end of the month for cheap? Hehehehe
Or will they find some „levers“ now too?
Or will they find some „levers“ now too?
I think the opposite to be honest. I think City doing this now shows they're nervous about what's coming and they've decided to press the nuclear button and burn everything down, if they can.
How to say you don't understand the charges, without saying you don't understand the charges.
Its alright these smaller clubs wanting their owners to be able to pump in as much money as they want but what happens a couple of years down the line when one of these owners gets fed up of investing millions and seeing nothing in return due to the other clubs investing the same or more and decides to pull the plug? Their club will be left with an expensive squad and huge wage bill they cant afford so will fall in to financial disarray with the possibility of falling in to administration or even bancrupcy.
The fans of these smaller clubs need to realise that no matter how much they are allowed to spend they will never be able to spent enough to even keep up with the big 6 and spending beyond their means will likely end in disaster like it did for Leeds, Portsmouth, Bury, Malaga, Anzi, Gretna and many others.
The fans of these smaller clubs need to realise that no matter how much they are allowed to spend they will never be able to spent enough to even keep up with the big 6 and spending beyond their means will likely end in disaster like it did for Leeds, Portsmouth, Bury, Malaga, Anzi, Gretna and many others.
It's pointless to talk about City's net spend when they're actively being investigated for falsifying their financial records. It has repeatedly been reported that they're paying more under the table than they put in their records. That makes it absurd to point to their self-professed net spend as evidence of anything. We already know from things like the Haaland deal that their "transfer expenses" only tell half the story.
So so true. But this is what happens with time, and city know this. People forget what was normal, you can dig up posts of mine from almost a decade ago complaining that the market was clearly being inflated and ok United were lucky enough to have the money to try catch up but very few others did. It was so evident what was happening
The Haaland deal didn't suddenly reveal to the world that agent fees and signing bonuses exist.
Ok so 5 subs I agree with, it favours the bigger squads, I do think there’s a secondary argument here that PL teams have the disadvantage of extra games (Carabao) and no winter break (and that’s going again although Chelsea and City won the CL in that period).
Expanding the CL ruins your point, the more places the more chance of other teams getting in. Your point would be the top clubs restricting the big money for others but the reality is there’s more access to European money than before. Poor argument.
If you’re an Everton fan you’d know that was a fact re Bayern and Real. See here. You might have just blown your cover if other posters are correct about you being a City fan.
Re points deduction it’s about psr, you know this and it’s not hard to adhere to. Every club has the same rules. Re Everton in Europe, exactly, which is why when a club has cheated and taken your CL or EL place you should hate them. Tell me what the difference is between you before the awful spending and Villa now, you’ve just recruited poorly.
Im completely confused by the last para. United aren’t trying to fix any rules?
Maybe those teams should break away and form their own league and see how they do. Maybe join the Saudi league...