SuperiorXI
Full Member
It's like that comic film Avengers assemble
What about Liverpool?
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”
Explains the stance of certain clubs
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”
This is a bizarre little post.
Of course they were. People have been talking about teams (Inc Chelsea) having to sell players to meet FFP for ages.Were they not aware of the rules beforehand?
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.
You think the Chelsea people didn't see the FFP requirements coming?Chelsea people could have seen coming a mile off, spending over £1bn, ofcourse there would be repercussions.
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.
You'd have to ask him!Ooh, don't know.
Why did the doctor quit at Bayernb while he was there?
You think the Chelsea people didn't see the FFP requirements coming?
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.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.
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.
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.
If you trust City's figures for wages, agents fees etc.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.
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.
How to say you don't understand the charges, without saying you don't understand the charges.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”
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)
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)
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.
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.
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).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.
Wondering why Villa, Chelsea and Newcastle are backing City? Because they could be next for punishment under profit and sustainability rules
This is a bizarre little post.
Trying and doing is different.
Which club do you support? I suspect you are in favour of the Super League then.
Wondering why Villa, Chelsea and Newcastle are backing City? Because they could be next for punishment under profit and sustainability rules
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”
Explains the stance of certain clubs
I think most just don’t understand the extent of the cheating and, importantly, look at the difference in media coverage and influential people like G Nev, the ultimate shill, saying nada on this.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”
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”
I think people are also waiting on the outcome. I mean the PL has charged them with 115 charges, it's not like nothing is happening.I think most just don’t understand the extent of the cheating and, importantly, look at the difference in media coverage and influential people like G Nev, the ultimate shill, saying nada on this.
2 different things really.
What City is doing is obviously dreadful for the top end of the league, but probably makes zero difference to half the league and even less to the rest of the football league.
A super league cherry picking the biggest out of the Premier league, into a system with no relegations would utterly ravage the dream of making it to the big league - a dream that is still almost impossible for most clubs, but is still a possibility as it stands.
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.
I mean it’s similar, since it’s virtually impossible to compete long term in the premier league now unless your club is bought by a country with a bottomless pit of money. Everyone else is just making up the numbers.