Josep Dowling
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2014
- Messages
- 7,970
There won't be many Tories left by this time next month.
I'm sure there will be plenty of Labour politicians willing to accept brown envelopes as well.
There won't be many Tories left by this time next month.
yeah it's pathetic there is one small section on the bbc,you just know if this was united there would be uproar and constant media attention just shows you who's been bought off over the years imo.The media should be all over this as this could impact British football forever. Nothing on the BBC yesterday. The journalist on Talksport this morning was suggesting that City wouldn't suddenly make their sponsorship unrealistic if they win the case. They are already inflating their sponsorship revenue now, and saying they have the largest revenue in the Premier League. What exactly does he think they'll do with FFP removed? So sick and tired of media being bought by these scumbags. At this point their owners should be forced to sell the club just like Abramovich had to. Remove all state ownership from football.
It's incredibly shortsighted to make that point without factoring in how in the 8 years between City's takeover and Pep's arrival, they spent at least £660m net (£870m gross) on transfer fees. The sales of those stockpiled players balanced out the books considerably from 2016/17, although the true figures are obviously unlikely to be reflected in the headline amounts alone.City’s net spend since pep took over is 4th. At the end of the day given United’s net spend they should have done better.
Arsenal, Liverpool and United have all wrangled the FFP rules to their own advantage(amongst other things, e.g. cup rules) , whilst hiding behind sponsors from unethical companies with sweat shops / funding terrorists etc. Then cry foul because City have spent less(but more than you’d like) and dared to get into the self appointed elite. The only thing you lot care about is your position.
The teams in the league who are supporting City make sense to me. If you want the rest of the league on side introduce a wage cap and salary cap that is obtainable for everyone! or why shouldn’t we want to burn it down? the rest are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
Crying about your own position being taken whilst trying to pull up the draw bridge on everyone else is hilarious. Also Liverpool’s sponsor being linked to terrorism is a big deal, people cry about betting companies yet turn a blind eye to this it seems. Frankly, it’s all disgusting.
https://www.givemesport.com/every-p...et-spend-since-pep-guardiola-joined-man-city/
There won't be many Tories left by this time next month.
People never learn with this. Everyone prepares for them to lose, and then they go out and vote for different random parties, while all the rich people consistently vote Conservative, therefore ensuring that they win because everyone else can't vote for one party.
I was just about to post this, look through his posts and it's obviously a City fan, no reason to keep posting his stuff.Why do people keep posting this guy in the thread?
It's literally just a City fan account.
What absolute tosh! Transfer fees aren't just lump sums, they don't take into account agents fees and wages, not to mention a whole host of other things only accountants care about. Do you really think Haaland only cost City £50m? Because that's what it'll say on their accounts. Easily covered by selling two reserve GKs to championship clubs, which isn't suspicious at all.
All that really matters is revenue, and clubs can spend every penny of that if they want to. That's the whole point of this 115 farce. City didn't, and still don't, make enough money to match the ambitions of their nation state owners, so they've been inflating that through fake sponsorships.
Honestly, if all you care about is a clubs net spend and how well they do in the 'transfer balance book league', then you might as well support any old business. Go and support IKEA when they next have a match against B&Q or DFS.
Yes. But the government could use the regulator as leverage to help City.From everything I read conducte of internal disciplinary matters weren’t within the remit of the regulator
Firstly, City haven't spent less. Since City were taken over they've spent almost a billion pounds more than any other team (though Todd is doing his bestest to reduce that gap). And that's just on gross transfers, they've also been at the top of the (declared) wages for 15 odd seasons. Now, City have had great success in that time, so you can argue it's 'worth' it. But it doesn't change the amount nor the fact that they're charged with breaking rules that they signed up for.City’s net spend since pep took over is 4th. At the end of the day given United’s net spend they should have done better.
Arsenal, Liverpool and United have all wrangled the FFP rules to their own advantage(amongst other things, e.g. cup rules) , whilst hiding behind sponsors from unethical companies with sweat shops / funding terrorists etc. Then cry foul because City have spent less(but more than you’d like) and dared to get into the self appointed elite. The only thing you lot care about is your position.
The teams in the league who are supporting City make sense to me. If you want the rest of the league on side introduce a wage cap and salary cap that is obtainable for everyone! or why shouldn’t we want to burn it down? the rest are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
Crying about your own position being taken whilst trying to pull up the draw bridge on everyone else is hilarious. Also Liverpool’s sponsor being linked to terrorism is a big deal, people cry about betting companies yet turn a blind eye to this it seems. Frankly, it’s all disgusting.
https://www.givemesport.com/every-p...et-spend-since-pep-guardiola-joined-man-city/
The last time I tried to 'read' City's accounts it was almost impossible due to the way that they bury costs across entities. Maybe that has changed and in the notes they release things like what you mention, but it's certainly not clear purely from the statements.Net spend not being the only metric that matters does not make it "tosh". It is an extremely informative metric which tells us how a club's transfer dealings impact their finances.
City's accounts will not say that Haaland cost them £50m. They will include the transfer payments to Dortmund, the fees to Raiola's company, and the fees to Haaland's dad.
The 115 charges are about inflating income from sponsors, deflating wage expenditure, not cooperating, and failing FFP/PSR based on what the adjusted accounts say. Nothing to do with transfer fees in or out.
He used to work for them. I think he tells it like it is.Why do people keep posting this guy in the thread?
It's literally just a City fan account.
Seems to be a universally accepted truth in here that they have bought FA, the media, and whatever faction in the government?
Maybe if these clubs try to buy from the others they should just charge minimum of 100m for a player.So it looks like Villa are also proposing an increase the amount you can lose under PSR rules.
I feel like Villa may just be trying to ensure they can maintain and improve on their current league position which will obviously be difficult with limitations. Maybe they will back away from supporting City if the PSR issue is resolved.
City’s net spend since pep took over is 4th. At the end of the day given United’s net spend they should have done better.
Also only based on declared expenses, not the parallel salary in the UAE or to offshore accounts.Net Spend is a nonsencical figure though that means nothing as it doesnt account fot the agents fees they pay, wages and bonusses they pay, the massive fees paid to players parents, and the fees they pay to intermeadarys all of which are alledgedly a lot higher than other clubs pay.
City also paid out a world ammount of wages last year.
City’s net spend since pep took over is 4th.
https://www.givemesport.com/every-p...et-spend-since-pep-guardiola-joined-man-city/
One of the biggest red herrings in this whole conversation has been the spotlight on Uniteds spending. Which has been awful. Nobody is ever saying city haven't spent well or implemented an excellent management and off pitch football operation. Of course they have and they can get all the praise they like for it, but it will still come caveated by the fact that none of it was possible without cheating. Pivoting to 'but United have spent a fortune' has nothing to do with anything, we're making our mess all by ourselves. United are proof that even with money, any team will go through sporting black holes. City are proof that with STATE money and cheating, you'll win it all - robbing other clubs of the chance to take Uniteds spot
This is it.
It has to be said that City have managed their signings brilliantly in the main, unlike United who have barely made a wise one in a decade.
But City have hyped the market up, meaning even fullbacks can be 50m now, so teams well behind have to lash out wildly and put the wages in to match. But unlike City, other clubs can't just write off relative failures, and have 100m England wingers on the bench for example.
Yeah as much as i can praise their business, people forget at how easily they've been able to move on from flops
Suddenly I see a lot of twitter handles supporting City pop up on my feed. Oddly a lot of them are supposedly Everton fans. Probably a marketing ploy from Abu Dabi to whip up some momentum.
Explains the stance of certain clubs
It really doesn't, I agree, and I find it weird that it's used as an argument by fans and pundits alike - it's incredibly lazy and doesn't stand the test of scrutiny.One of the biggest red herrings in this whole conversation has been the spotlight on Uniteds spending. Which has been awful. Nobody is ever saying city haven't spent well or implemented an excellent management and off pitch football operation. Of course they have and they can get all the praise they like for it, but it will still come caveated by the fact that none of it was possible without cheating. Pivoting to 'but United have spent a fortune' has nothing to do with anything, we're making our mess all by ourselves. United are proof that even with money, any team will go through sporting black holes. City are proof that with STATE money and cheating, you'll win it all - robbing other clubs of the chance to take Uniteds spot
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.Financial Fair Play, that stops spending and growing whilst keeping the turnover for the top 6 artificially high. My sentence on a wage cap and salary cap would be true FFP. For example, all teams can spend the same, or spend the turnover of the largest club turnover.
If you think FFP stops the bigger clubs, that’s madness, it locks their turnover in at 2/3 times the competition hence the one sided top 4 positions(only Everton Leicester Newcastle Villa been in sparingly) and the trophy wins of the last 30 years. FA Cup winners old top 4 clubs repeatedly + Everton(points deduction) Wigan(relegated) Portsmouth(relegated + points deduction) + Leicester(relegated+ 2 point deductions incoming + prior FFP fine) and City(huge investment 115 charges) see a pattern here!? pure protectionism.
Everton have had to sell their best players below market value, lost their position from 5th to 8th in and around Europe to fighting relegation. And then deducted 8 points to boot and now you want Branthwaite on the cheap to meet FFP. When the new stadium comes with increased turnover and with a rich benefactor we could be right up there, hence the coming after us.
I look at City’s case like this, if the current FFP rules protect position and turnover the only way round that is a rich owner which is not allowed. So the only way anyone can progress is a rich owner(based on last 30 years) if City win the case rich owners become a possibility. Hence support for them, unless a more equitable solution is put forward.
People saying Arsenal, Liverpool and United will protect the football pyramid whilst they are cancelling cup replays etc are frankly deluded. I don’t want a league where Nike sponsor determines the winner any more than a state owner club ploughing money in.
Also Net spend is just a measure of players brought in and out, however much City have “cheated” if they have, they still spent 4th on players in the last 8 years or so. Also factor in wages. In the end, net player spend + wages = final position and trophies, almost with a 1-1 correlation over time so it is very relevant. You could also argue rigging the rules in your favour via threats to leave is “cheating”
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 |
Explains the stance of certain clubs
Wondering why Villa, Chelsea and Newcastle are backing City? Because they could be next for punishment under profit and sustainability rules
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.One of the biggest red herrings in this whole conversation has been the spotlight on Uniteds spending. Which has been awful. Nobody is ever saying city haven't spent well or implemented an excellent management and off pitch football operation. Of course they have and they can get all the praise they like for it, but it will still come caveated by the fact that none of it was possible without cheating. Pivoting to 'but United have spent a fortune' has nothing to do with anything, we're making our mess all by ourselves. United are proof that even with money, any team will go through sporting black holes. City are proof that with STATE money and cheating, you'll win it all - robbing other clubs of the chance to take Uniteds spot
Playing devil's advocate, what would be the plusses to them winning. If there are any.
Net spend is the metric if you want to compare how well clubs are investing their money on transfers, and there is no evidence of anything being wrong with those numbers from City.
Was always going to happen. The football regulator could possibly nuke the case.
There won't be many Tories left by this time next month.
A judgement is not likely to come until 2025. A lot of time for UAE to put political pressure on the new government.
I'm sure there will be plenty of Labour politicians willing to accept brown envelopes as well.
Seems to be a universally accepted truth in here that they have bought FA, the media, and whatever faction in the government?
Explains the stance of certain clubs
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 . “Football is for the fans”