I'll quote the honorable Clay Davis
So fair play to Liverpool for taking the money and "putting it back on the street" like Marlo would have done. But there aren't that many mugs in football, at some point you need to lean more on your own income
Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros | CAS - Ban lifted, fined 10 million
- Thread starter roonster09
- Start date
I'll quote the honorable Clay Davis
So fair play to Liverpool for taking the money and "putting it back on the street" like Marlo would have done. But there aren't that many mugs in football, at some point you need to lean more on your own income
This is the point though, Aston Villa could get 70 m for Grealish this summer, if you invest money wisely then you can grow organically.Liverpool wouldn’t have been able to spend world record fees without selling their best player, nothing stopping the likes of Spurs doing the same with Kane for example.
Who are the already established elite? it’s harder to make these arguments in the Premier League, the established elite for the 30 years have been United Liverpool Leeds Aston Villa Arsenal and at one time Nottingham Forest, half of these clubs are in the bottom half, If City or Chelsea wasn’t around who’s to say Newcastle or Aston Villa wouldn’t be in better positions?
Growing organically surely means living on your own means.
Not selling a player for a whopping fee as a one off.
But at the same token Sheffield United and Wolves and Leicester are in the top 7? Leicester have grown organically and they are ahead of clubs who have spent far more money.
https://www.cityam.com/worlds-richest-football-clubs-2020/
Read the bit on commercial income.
FFP also has the effect of inflating the values of existing elite clubs, because before you could create an elite club, like Roman did with us. Buy us for very cheap and then invest in the team.
That is now impossible.
Last edited:
It’s not a one off because Liverpool have had a history of selling their best players for bigger fees than purchased for, the key this time is the manager at helm and the signings being made. Spurs could have done the same with Kane under Pochettino but chose to operate differently. This is growing organically, a team who spent zero now at the top of the league and CL holders, Leicester are doing the same, Sheffield United and Wolves can make similar transitions(as Leicester).
I would have thought PSG would be in a worse position given their spending .
No way they had that much money coming in
After Barcelona and Athletico both mugged off Uefa and instead got a rather inconsequential punishment. Subsequently Chelsea got a proper ban.
Given this is the first time UEFA have issued such a punishment, I expect the same to happen. No way is UEFA watertight on this, City will find a loophole, they are good at that! They have had 2 years to prepare for this.
Leicester did not grow organically.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/feb/21/leicester-settlement-football-league-ffp
One could argue Wolves had an unfair advantage as well with their connections with Mendes.
And this is not a whataboutism argument. My ultimate hope is that City get sanctioned and also this sparks a conversation in football once FFP gets destroyed.
Problem is now its common knowledge they cheated. If they go back on the ban they're advocating cheating and the fair play rule may as well be removed.
Coincidentally Barca and Real will be pushing UEFA harder than even to ban City and possibly PSG, they've been clear on wanting all these sugar daddy clubs banned and im sure that's playing on UEFA too.
I hope you are right. But time and time again we have seen UEFA talk big about FFP and other irregularities and the result in the end is watered down so much, that it barely has an effect.
Quite frankly, if this is so serious that they are being banned for two years, why not just chuck 'em out now, before the next round matches begin. Someone else can take their place. 
I really think it does.
I appreciate you coming on here and admitting you got it wrong but I think it does belittle and devalue all your success since 2011. It was built on cheating.
Quite frankly, if this is so serious that they are being banned for two years, why not just chuck 'em out now, before the next round matches begin. Someone else can take their place.
That would be a mess because others would argue their results from the group stages are invalid. Donetsk would argue that they should go to the next round.
Thumbs up for Marlo reference. Well done.
This opinion whilst valid at times is massively overstated here on the caf.
It totally excludes the fact that every manager and club has a different starting point with regards to the squad quality in each window.
People like to compare what one manager has spent compared to another and then label one manager shite without factoring in many other factors, particularly the state of the squad they inherited. Hint hint
Always room for a Wire reference!
I know....but if I was president, in another dimension, in a galaxy far far away...
So what you want is for football to simply revolve around who has the richest owner. Oh I might wake up one morning and we’ve been taken over by the saudis....the joy.
There’s nothing wrong with earning the right. I’m sick of hearing people go on about it just protecting the elite. The alternative is that history, tradition and hard work fly out the window and a club like City who squandered fortunes through the 80s and 90s through poor management get a free ride to the top.
Great. You can keep your ideal, whoever you support, I’m happier finishing 5th, 6th or 8th with a system apparently designed to keep us at the top, we don’t have to earn it apparently it will just be given us, than to sit waiting for someone to use us as a sports washing project.
As much as I love the wire, that reference is irrelevant here. But yes, clubs should not have it held against them for players being sold on for healthy fees.
You dont understand. The reason sugar daddies actually have appeal is because they give other clubs a chance to taste some glory and get to the top. And that is partly because since the sport got commercialised the hierarchy has gotten ossified. You can toss out arguments to the effect that one was hard earned and the other a lottery but clubs becoming commercial behemoths like we did in the 90s was also as much of a crapshoot for us to take the high ground now with official printer and noodle partners.
If I buy something and sell it at a profit.....then spend the profit....how am I not living on my own means? I’m completely missing your point here because to my mind part of running a football club is the purchase and sale of players. Doesnt matter if you sell 1 or 10 and spend the money on more players, it’s your money, you earned it through buying and selling.
Weird non argument
So we shouldn’t grow organically and maximise our potential through marketing? Because football teams have supporters we should Not have ambitions beyond attracting the wealthiest owners....well because we can all have that dream.
I run a business and work hard to make it grow. There’s people I know in my industry who do little to grow their business.....perhaps we should all just put the lottery on and whoever wins is best !
I can see why someone would enjoy the rewards, but I’d hate for that to be the limit of my ambition.
And that’s the sad part really is that those who work hard and achieve aren’t the clubs that will attract the rich owners if we allow the trend to continue. So it will be poorly managed underachieving clubs rewarded....our best hope is for us to continue being as shite as we’ve been post Ferguson, which I’ve no problem with btw it’s what we deserve as we are a very poorly run club....but perhaps it’s Ed’s master plan. Make us shite for ten years reduce the value of the club and have us taken over by an Arab state.
only three more years till major achievement!
Truly how football should be, because fans and that.
This.
Side note but I've always felt that it would make more sense if the US sport system switched places with the European sport system, given the political leanings in both places.
You don't understand. One of the issues with sugar daddies is if they ever decide they are bored and don't want to spend anymore the club is fecked. Look at what happened to Portsmouth.
This notion that sugar daddies are good for football is completely skewed, since fans tend to only focus on the winners (Chelsea, City, and PSG). If they are not, you can end up like Blackburn or Pompey.
there’s probably far more clubs ruined by sugar daddies in the long run than the opposite.
Simple solution (can't take credit for this someone else brought it up)
Put in escrow an amount equal to expenses that can't be organically generated. If your stadium and revenue is $100M and you want to pump more money into the club all funds need to be accounted for ahead of time, to avoid a financial collapse.
Should have been 5 years.
The US sports system makes virtually no sense in Europe. It exists to entrench the wealth of the owners and as a result limits labor opportunities. The US system would be considered an illegal monopsony in the US if it wasn't for an anti-trust exemption.
What financially savvy owner would do that? These guys aren't stupid. They can easily gain 5% on that 100M even with the safest investments, plus given what City spent it would be much more than 100M.
It would work but good luck getting any potential sugar daddy to agree to that.
That's very possible, as we know PSG has been under many investigations, they have been fined in the past, but they seem to learn their lessons. Is it possible that tomorrow it comes out they got banned too? Sure, I'm not looking at their books, but they have made shrewd moves. Marketing wise, PSG is a club on the rise. Their partnership with the Jordan brand has been a smash hit, I live in the US and I have never seen so many PSG jerseys until the last few years, whether it's on the streets or US athletes wearing the jerseys because it's Jordan who's a god here. It's anecdotal evidence, sure, but the facts are they've reduced their debts substantially (to the tune of 60m IIRC) while City increased theirs by almost 100m just this last year.
What other shrew moves have they made? Well, just this season they got Icardi on loan with an option to buy for 60m for a top striker, a bargain nowadays, their new deal with Accor has effectively doubled their revenue per year from the jersey sponsorship. In the last three years, they got Neymar and also Mbappe on a loan to not screw up their finance and got him for the second highest fee ever but will likely sell him for more than 100m profit. Both his, and Mbappe's arrival has been a huge boon to their marketing and jersey sales, especially after Mbappe won the world cup.
Neymar will also likely go soon enough, he will be another massive sale. City has been far more irresponsible in their spending than PSG, because while the focus is on the near half-billion spent on two players, those are players that will help make a huge chunk of that money back. City's bought really expensive players for almost every position when only a few will bring in money back off-the-field.
Time will tell, personally I hope this City ban sticks and that any offenders, whether it's PSG or anybody else, is held accountable. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that City and other clubs will find ways to weasel their way out of serious penalties.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...inancially-powerful-club-report-idUKKBN20810L
Exactly. People are crazy to think billionaire owners with no ties club, spending beyond the club's means is a good thing.
I'll leave this here:
Nah. Most are claiming its "bent" UEFA. To everyone else it was obvious from the start.
Personal opinion, but I've always found Peps tactics boring to watch. The tactical fouls kill any entertaining counter attacks and they often struggle to break down defences.
While I could have some sympathy for city; I don’t, they’ve caused other teams to overpay using financial doping..
Yeah just saying from the perspective of leveling the playing field the US sport system is way more effective. It is geared towards the owners, I concede that
100%. FFP has been proven to stabilise clubs economically in a broader sense. Hard to buy into the idea that oil rich micro-states are being disadvantaged here. City deserve the worst because they signed up to the rules and then sought to break them on an industrial scale. Regrettably further corruption or economic bullying will get them off the hook.
I'm saying that if the concern was about preventing a Leeds or Portsmouth from happening again, rather than banning outside funds, you could just mandate that all funds be accounted for that can't be organically generated. There are much better investments than football clubs, I agree. Just stick your money in a stock account and eat off the interest.
In my mind it was always cheapened by cheating.