City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th September 2024

FrankFoot said:
Milan and Ajax don't have the money, and they can't even rely on past success cause they peaked in the 70s,80s, 90s and early 2000s when internet wasn't global and football clubs were not 100% marketable brands as they are today.

Teams certainly can create more profit if they peaked around the late 2000s when social media (Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, forums, etc) became huge.
Click to expand...

So the key to huge revenues is being a big club, AND peaking in the late 2000s? And success had after this period has only a marginal impact on finances?

Sounds implausible.

Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Nonsense considering both Liverpool and Leicester have won the fexking thing since SAF retired, and the scouse have broke 90 points 3 times right?
Spurs likely would have had a title too.

FFP wouldn’t have ensured anything post Fergie, clearly.
Click to expand...

Outliers aside, the eejit who quoted me in a rabid rage was making the point that with FFP being a thing from the beginning, it would have enabled Arsenal to win more. I don't disagree with that. It precisely locks in the winners and erects a barrier preventing other clubs from winning. If I recall correctly, weren't Leicester found guilty of violating FFP before their miraculous win?

FFP wouldn't have saved us from the Glazers's stupidity, sure. It would have just entrenched a few at the top.

And you're speaking to someone who's for enacting strict wage and transfer caps across the game to level all inequalities and attach success to pure sporting competence, history or oil benefactors be damned alike.
 
adexkola said:
That's exactly why it's idiotic from a neutral position. FFP would have ensured the title stayed between United and Arsenal. You dumb weapon.
Click to expand...

I’m a lethal weapon.

Arsenal and United weren’t insurmountable - Wenger scouted, acquired and developed relatively obscure talent on a modest budget and won league titles with a couple of different teams. Ferguson won the lot with a raft of academy boys and mediocre squad players featuring regularly - their duopoly was earned and legitimate.

City literally pay circa £50m for their squad players so injuries aren’t a factor, while also taking them out of circulation so title rivals can’t acquire them to strengthen either.

If FFP isn’t reinforced, normal clubs will never win anything ever again; no more Leicester or Forest fairytales, just the soulless Arabian embassies perpetuating hollow, superficial ‘success’.
 
Jeppers7 said:
Seriously…I’ve not met one
Click to expand...
I've found that if you bring it up they'll either call you bitter, say that's it's the competition that is wrong, or say that legally they've done nothing wrong before giving a sly wink. A lot seem to do the latter.
 
Orion. said:
I’m a lethal weapon.

Arsenal and United weren’t insurmountable - Wenger scouted, acquired and developed relatively obscure talent on a modest budget and won league titles with a couple of different teams. Ferguson won the lot with a raft of academy boys and mediocre squad players featuring regularly - their duopoly was earned and legitimate.

City literally pay circa £50m for their squad players so injuries aren’t a factor, while also taking them out of circulation so title rivals can’t acquire them to strengthen either.

If FFP isn’t reinforced, normal clubs will never win anything ever again; no more Leicester or Forest fairytales, just the soulless Arabian embassies perpetuating hollow, superficial ‘success’.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I really don’t see how people don’t get this. Trophies in general were always shared out, with the bigger clubs obviously winning more but there was always a way for giant killings in cup competition and smaller clubs to compete with 4/5 class players.

Nowadays you’d be surprised if City don’t win the league next year and don’t make the final in every other competition. Without earning the right and cheating the competition. Marvellous.
 
We are struggling with FFP and City has no problem with FFP whosoever even though their "declared" spendings are almost the same with us, says it all.
 
I’ll repeat this, because it always bares repeating.

Fergie won 4 League Cups in his entire career, with teams like Birmingham. Swansea, Middlesborough, Blackburn, Leicester and Spurs winning it between the turn of the century and City’s rise.

City have won 6 of the last 9. It’s obviously nonsense to say it’s the same kind of “domination”… City have bought a whole supplementary team to basically just play in that competition & games like it.

Football needs mandatory squad limitations, or something equally as drastic if state owned clubs are to become the new normal.
 
Last edited:
Pretty obvious to me that the dominance is due to Pep just like SAF and when he goes City will be back to winning 1 in 2 or 3. If you guys had competent people upstairs you would have won 1 in 2 or 3 since SAF left. I don't think there is any coach out there other than Klopp that can do back to backs or 3 peats.
 
Greyfog said:
Pretty obvious to me that the dominance is due to Pep just like SAF and when he goes City will be back to winning 1 in 2 or 3. If you guys had competent people upstairs you would have won 1 in 2 or 3 since SAF left. I don't think there is any coach out there other than Klopp that can do back to backs or 3 peats.
Click to expand...

No, no, no. And once again no.
It’s Pep + financial doping beyond anything ever seen + off the books payments to entice the top people + other unreported/undiscovered stuff like drugs to combat injuries.

There is no comparison whatsoever in English football. Maybe PSG, but they have no notable competition there
 
Greyfog said:
Pretty obvious to me that the dominance is due to Pep just like SAF and when he goes City will be back to winning 1 in 2 or 3. If you guys had competent people upstairs you would have won 1 in 2 or 3 since SAF left. I don't think there is any coach out there other than Klopp that can do back to backs or 3 peats.
Click to expand...

This is hugely disrespectful toward SAF and what he achieved.

The convicted drug cheat is running a club which has systematically broken the rules for the last 10+ years.

Yeah, just like fergie. :rolleyes:
 
Wasn’t Lance Armstrong suspended pending investigation once he was charged? Why isn’t this the case here?
 
I’ve said it numerous times but the dereliction of duty from the media who are so invested in the domestic football product is what hurts the most.

Sky, BT, ITV and the BBC all have various packages that they have spent millions to billions on in the EPL, FA Cup, League Cup and European football. As such they are so desperate to protect their investment that it’s become a footnote and not even a “however…”.

Any impartial, independent media source should be transparent with their viewers and appropriately contextualise every one of their victories otherwise it’s a complete disservice to all of City’s competitors.
 
Mockney said:
I’ll repeat this, because it always bares repeating.

Fergie won 4 League Cups in his entire career, with teams like Birmingham. Swansea, Middlesborough, Blackburn, Leicester and Spurs winning it between the turn of the century and City’s rise.

City have won 6 of the last 9. It’s obviously nonsense to say it’s the same kind of “domination”… City have bought a whole supplementary team to basically just play in that competition & games like it.

Football needs mandatory squad limitations, or something equally as drastic if state owned clubs are to become the new normal.
Click to expand...

It’s incredible how people ignore City’s league cup haul. It’s quite a laughable statistic and rather telling of how broken the game is now.
 
Pexbo said:
I’ve said it numerous times but the dereliction of duty from the media who are so invested in the domestic football product is what hurts the most.

Sky, BT, ITV and the BBC all have various packages that they have spent millions to billions on in the EPL, FA Cup, League Cup and European football. As such they are so desperate to protect their investment that it’s become a footnote and not even a “however…”.

Any impartial, independent media source should be transparent with their viewers and appropriately contextualise every one of their victories otherwise it’s a complete disservice to all of City’s competitors.
Click to expand...

I've no doubt that City will have made sure the media know that if they make to much noise about City cheating, their lawyers will be in touch.

That said, the media still have a responsibility to report on these things but given the stories about City winning and dining journalists in the early days of the takeover while threatening to blacklist any that didn't report on them in a positive light, it wouldn't be a surprise if they were cautious.
 
To be honest i wouldn't expect journalistic integrity to be hugely significant to the likes of Shearer, Jenas or Neville. Not really trying to be critical, just feels realistic. Any sports journalist who I actually have some regard for commented on it, if not centred their entire article on it.
 
Greyfog said:
Pretty obvious to me that the dominance is due to Pep just like SAF and when he goes City will be back to winning 1 in 2 or 3. If you guys had competent people upstairs you would have won 1 in 2 or 3 since SAF left. I don't think there is any coach out there other than Klopp that can do back to backs or 3 peats.
Click to expand...

Has Klopp had three strong seasons in a row at Liverpool? Genuine question, because I can't remember. I know they've had back to back good ones.
 
Judas said:
Has Klopp had three strong seasons in a row at Liverpool? Genuine question, because I can't remember. I know they've had back to back good ones.
Click to expand...
If he had Pep money, he too can afford 2 world class players in every position.
 
Mockney said:
I’ll repeat this, because it always bares repeating.

Fergie won 4 League Cups in his entire career, with teams like Birmingham. Swansea, Middlesborough, Blackburn, Leicester and Spurs winning it between the turn of the century and City’s rise.

City have won 6 of the last 9. It’s obviously nonsense to say it’s the same kind of “domination”… City have bought a whole supplementary team to basically just play in that competition & games like it.

Football needs mandatory squad limitations, or something equally as drastic if state owned clubs are to become the new normal.
Click to expand...

Fully agree with this.

What we need is

A) A hard limit on transfers in and out per season. This includes signings and loans.

B) A hard limit on the amount of senior players that can be registered in a squad. And I mean something like 20-22. Enough for your first team, subs bench and a few reserves. If you have an injury crisis, then dip into your youth academy. That's what they're there for.
 
Manchester Dan said:
There’s a perception that City fans deny ownership investment along the way to get us to where we have today. I don’t think that’s the case. We just don’t care about FFP because the intent of it was to stop teams like City winning big trophies. If anything it just makes it all the more sweet.
Click to expand...
This cracks me up.
 
Judas said:
Has Klopp had three strong seasons in a row at Liverpool? Genuine question, because I can't remember. I know they've had back to back good ones.
Click to expand...

I'd have to grudgingly concede that a CL final followed by a 97 points season and a CL, which was then followed by a 98 points season and the title counts as three strong seasons in a row.
 
Berbaclass said:
Click to expand...

UEFA will look back at this case as their failed opportunity to take a stance, make a difference, and retain control. In a few years, when Saudia Arabia signs European/Global top clubs to join their Super League, they will regret their spineless efforts, and it'll be too late. UEFA's greed and fear will have led to their downfall. The FA absolutely must swing the full force of the hammer. Their ruling will have a massive impact on all of European football, not just the PL. But even if they rule in favour of football, I still don't see any measures in place to prevent any other state-owned club from trying to get around rules and regulations. I can't see what is supposed to stop the next City from happening. Footy is doomed.
 
Pexbo said:
I’ve said it numerous times but the dereliction of duty from the media who are so invested in the domestic football product is what hurts the most.

Sky, BT, ITV and the BBC all have various packages that they have spent millions to billions on in the EPL, FA Cup, League Cup and European football. As such they are so desperate to protect their investment that it’s become a footnote and not even a “however…”.

Any impartial, independent media source should be transparent with their viewers and appropriately contextualise every one of their victories otherwise it’s a complete disservice to all of City’s competitors.
Click to expand...

It's also been said numerous times that they're not going to go too hard on City until the case is resolved because they know there is an army of lawyers waiting to go after anybody who accuses them of anything. They've been incredibly aggressive in trying to shut down anything against them, it's so important that the league doesn't bottle the case because once it's over i expect all the journos who have been forced to keep quiet will turn on them.
 
11101 said:
It's also been said numerous times that they're not going to go too hard on City until the case is resolved because they know there is an army of lawyers waiting to go after anybody who accuses them of anything. They've been incredibly aggressive in trying to shut down anything against them, it's so important that the league doesn't bottle the case because once it's over i expect all the journos who have been forced to keep quiet will turn on them.
Click to expand...
They don’t need to accuse them of anything. They’ve been charged with these offences, until they are proven it’s perfectly within the media’s rights to discuss them as “allegations” and it’s an editorial decision to choose not to rather than a legal decision.
 
Pexbo said:
They don’t need to accuse them of anything. They’ve been charged with these offences, until they are proven it’s perfectly within the media’s rights to discuss them as “allegations” and it’s an editorial decision to choose not to rather than a legal decision.
Click to expand...

Just the threat is enough, that's the weapon they have used to close down other discussion against them. Its a common tactic in big business.
 
That's a hard watch. They truly have ruined the sport and it's not or never if the game is to ever have a degree of integrity again.
 
MrMarcello said:
I find that was more SAF finding excuse/reason in selling his best defender. The club hadn't spent much in the previous two summer windows, 1999 and 2000, so the funds where there for a bigger spree in 2001.
Click to expand...

They'd just spent 80m on RVN, Forlan and Veron.

The book stuff was just a smokescreen, they had to sell to balance the books. He was the one that went.
 
Oranges038 said:
They'd just spent 80m on RVN, Forlan and Veron.

The book stuff was just a smokescreen, they had to sell to balance the books. He was the one that went.
Click to expand...

They had spent 50m in 2001 funds - 28m on Veron, 19m on Ruud, 2.5m on Carroll, and 500k on Richardson. Forlan was bought for 7.5m in January 2002 after selling Cole for 8m. They had plenty of funds to spend. SAF was pissed off over the tapping up allegations and dropped Stam after the horror showing (Gary was worse that day) against Fulham. Believe what you want to believe, maybe both talking points apply.

They spent 10.5m total in 1999 and 7.9m in 2000 without considering transfers out that brought in some funds. They had plenty of funds to spend in 2001 without needing to balance books. Ruud was practically signed in early 2000 if not for the knee injury, his transfer was basically 2000 funds that were not used.
 
MrMarcello said:
They had spent 50m in 2001 funds - 28m on Veron, 19m on Ruud, 2.5m on Carroll, and 500k on Richardson. Forlan was bought for 7.5m in January 2002 after selling Cole for 8m. They had plenty of funds to spend. SAF was pissed off over the tapping up allegations and dropped Stam after the horror showing (Gary was worse that day) against Fulham. Believe what you want to believe, maybe both talking points apply.

They spent 10.5m total in 1999 and 7.9m in 2000 without considering transfers out that brought in some funds. They had plenty of funds to spend in 2001 without needing to balance books. Ruud was practically signed in early 2000 if not for the knee injury, his transfer was basically 2000 funds that were not used.
Click to expand...

I know there were few signings, the reality was that during that period Utd didn't need to sign players, because the squad was relatively strong in every department with every player at the peak of their powers.

Stam had also just come back off an achilles injury, there were concerns about his longevity as well. So Utd need to sell someone that will get a good fee.

Now, according to Stam, the main reason he was sold was to balance the books.

https://m.independent.ie/sport/socc...meone-it-was-not-about-the-book/35348396.html
 
Oranges038 said:
I know there were few signings, the reality was that during that period Utd didn't need to sign players, because the squad was relatively strong in every department with every player at the peak of their powers.

Stam had also just come back off an achilles injury, there were concerns about his longevity as well. So Utd need to sell someone that will get a good fee.

Now, according to Stam, the main reason he was sold was to balance the books.

https://m.independent.ie/sport/socc...meone-it-was-not-about-the-book/35348396.html
Click to expand...

Sounds like spin but perhaps in the business side of the sport clubs must shuffle high salary players around at times, except for the state-backed clubs of course. The wage structure had been busted around 2000 and the likes of Ruud and Veron arrived on high salaries. The club was forced to spend 30m on Rio in 2002 to fill the void left by Stam. Getting a large fee for player that had recently returned from a bad injury was certainly good business, per say, but selling your best defender was crazy. Maybe it was difficult for SAF and the club to admit they received an offer they could not refuse, at the time when the season just started.

It is curious exactly what "balancing the books" was necessary considered the constant post-tax profit the club was turning in the multi-millions per year. Maybe it was increased dividends to be paid out to investors thus a need to balance the books. It certainly was not to reduce player wages as Blanc arrived on the same wage, possibly higher than Stam, and a hefty signing bonus from what I recall being reported (or rumored). Rio later arrived on a high wages as well.

Appears Stam's transfer fee did not affect the books until 2002 year-end reporting and for only a fraction of the 16.5m fee agreed, seems about 4.5m initially paid. https://www.worldsoccer.com/world-s...-take-legal-action-to-recover-stam-cash-52768

http://catarina.udlap.mx/u_dl_a/tales/documentos/lcp/garcia_v_j/apendiceE.pdf
Year ------------------------------------- 2002 ---- 2001 ----- 2000 ----- 1999 ----- 1998
Taxation ----------------------------- (7,308) -- (7,399) -- (4,838) -- (7,023) -- (8,211)
Profit for the year ----------------25,039 -- 14,379 -- 11,950 -- 15,388 --- 19,628
Dividends --------------------------- (8,053) -- (5,195) -- (4,936) -- (4,676) -- (4,416)
Retained profit for the year - 16,986 -- 9,184 ---- 7,014 ---- 10,712 --- 15,212
 
You must log in or register to reply here.