Bluemoon goes into Meltdown

Oly Francis said:
The information we have come from the football leaks so it's likely to be pretty accurate.

Mbappe was loaned 1 year for free with a 145M option (+bonuses unlocked if he's sold or if his contract is extended) when he was 18, not to bend the rules of FFP but because Monaco wanted to manage their corporate tax for that year, then a 4 years contract. His salary is 50M for 5 years (started at 7M/year and increase every year).
PSG's president mentionned the fact that as far as the FFP is concerned, Mbappe was registered when he was loaned (and not when he was actually transfered) because we all sort of know that it wasn't a real option and that PSG was compelled to buy him (is think the option was completed if PSG managed to stay in Ligue 1 or something like that).

Does that answer your question?
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks mate.
 
horsechoker said:
Just imagine Sheikh Mansour in a white jeep being chased by the police through Manchester. Months later he shows up in court to reveal that all the money he's spent on City doesn't fit in his wallet and therefore "you must acquit"

Mansour then goes on to write a book "If I cooked the books"
Click to expand...
:lol: I know this story!
 
wolvored said:
Exactly. City would be perrenial floaters between premier and league 1. Chelsea 12-6th in the Premier but never really challenge top 4
Click to expand...


The one thing Chelsea have going for them is location when trying to sign overseas players.
 
AltiUn said:
Personally, I dislike City a lot more than Leeds, but that's mainly to do with not knowing any Leeds fans whereas the City fans I know are insufferable, since the takeover they're indisputably my second most disliked team in the same time period Leeds have been irrelevant to us.
Click to expand...
The hatred of Leeds probably stems back from the Don Revie days. Older fans remember them kicking the hell out of every side they faced and winning titles.

City play beautiful football on the opposite side but cheat in a different way. Real Madrid are still my most hated team ever though with Leeds. Leeds even wore white because of wanting to be Madrid too essentially.

Leeds fans are super aggressive to United supporters. More so than any out there and Madrid have been essentially financial doping for 70 years and calling it ‘gods club’. City aren’t that dillusional yet.
 
wolvored said:
Exactly. City would be perrenial floaters between premier and league 1. Chelsea 12-6th in the Premier but never really challenge top 4
Click to expand...
Chelsea were already a feature in the top 4 before Abramovich. Saying that they wouldn't challenge top 4 is not a claim you can comfortably make when we've got teams like Sheffield United and Wolves challenging the current top against Chelsea and United with money to name a few.
 
There is a thread for City's CL ban, this is for Bluemoon.
 
Top1 hits a worldie - watch and laugh
Last edited:
SportingCP96 said:
Guys why is anyone surprised or care? City is a wee club and always have been. We are talking about a club which is smaller then Blackburn.

Caring about city makes them look bigger then they are because the truth is they are a pebble in the shoe of a club the stature of United or Liverpool.

They got banned...100% deserved. Same should go with PSG. Clubs who were nothing in there leagues before oil money.
Click to expand...
Well said that poster
 
This is how it feels to be city
This is is how it feels to rich
See you in court UEFA
Where we make you our bitch
Make you our bitch
 
I reckon UEFA are trolling City fans because of their booing of the anthem. You can imagine Infantino thinking 'I'll give you something to boo out'. :lol:
 
Josep Dowling said:
I reckon UEFA are trolling City fans because of their booing of the anthem. You can imagine Infantino thinking 'I'll give you something to boo out'. :lol:
Click to expand...
Can anyone remember why the booing started in the first place?

It's the sign of a small-time club and have never understood the origins of it.
 
The funny thing about City's players is that most of them love the place. So trying to pry them away will still be a challenge.
 
Irrational. said:
Can anyone remember why the booing started in the first place?

It's the sign of a small-time club and have never understood the origins of it.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it to do with getting caught cheating in 2014 for FFP? City fans said they were being victimised.
 
Irrational. said:
Can anyone remember why the booing started in the first place?

It's the sign of a small-time club and have never understood the origins of it.
Click to expand...

The booing started when Cska got a last minute stadium ban for racism. Lots of City fans left broke unable to reclaim expenses/deposits on a trip to Moscow because of short notice.
Then when the match went ahead you could plainly see on tv, there was about 1k CSKA fans in the stadium. So basically City fans ended up out of pocket and punished by Uefa for CSKA's racism.
 
Nicked from the CL ban thread, but Paddy Power have done Bluemoon Goes Into Meltdown: The Movie :lol:
 
Snow said:
Chelsea were already a feature in the top 4 before Abramovich. Saying that they wouldn't challenge top 4 is not a claim you can comfortably make when we've got teams like Sheffield United and Wolves challenging the current top against Chelsea and United with money to name a few.
Click to expand...

And they financially ruined themselves to do it. If Abramovich hadn't come along, they'd have been screwed.

At the time of the Abramovich takeover, the club also had debts of around £100 million, which included a ten-year £75 million Eurobond taken out in 1997 by the Bates regime to buy the freehold of Stamford Bridge and finance the redevelopment of the stadium. The 9% interest on the loan cost the club around £7 million a year and according to Bruce Buck, Chelsea were struggling to pay an instalment due in July 2003.[143] Abramovich paid off some of this debt immediately, but the outstanding £36 million on the Eurobond was not fully repaid until 2008.[144] Since then, the club have had no external debt.[145]

Abramovich changed the ownership name to Chelsea FC plc, whose ultimate parent company is Fordstam Limited, which is controlled by him.[146] Chelsea are additionally funded by Abramovich via interest free soft loans channelled through his holding company Fordstam Limited. The loans stood at £709 million in December 2009, when they were all converted to equity by Abramovich, leaving the club themselves debt free,[147][148] although the debt remains with Fordstam.[149]

Chelsea did not turn a profit in the first nine years of Abramovich's ownership, and made record losses of £140m in June 2005.[150] In November 2012, Chelsea announced a profit of £1.4 million for the year ending 30 June 2012, the first time the club had made a profit under Abramovich's ownership.[150][151] This was followed by a loss in 2013 and then their highest ever profit of £18.4 million for the year to June 2014.[152] In 2018 Chelsea announced a record after-tax profit of £62 million.[153]
Click to expand...
 
Bill.s.preston said:
And they financially ruined themselves to do it. If Abramovich hadn't come along, they'd have been screwed.
Click to expand...
If they had stopped the lavished spending they probably would have been fine as it wasn't a huge sum of money but with Roman they could simply spend a lot more. They got in before, or rather were the reason why FFP is a thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.