Spot on. Doesn't bother me what City does, it's expected and it would have been whichever club they bought out. It's winning the lotto, pure stroke of luck they stuck their money in a nothing club. Could have easily been a bigger club like Everton or Newcastle, or they could have splashed on a championship club in 2009ish and that side would now be dominating the top flight.
Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros | CAS - Ban lifted, fined 10 million
- Thread starter roonster09
- Start date
Spot on. Doesn't bother me what City does, it's expected and it would have been whichever club they bought out. It's winning the lotto, pure stroke of luck they stuck their money in a nothing club. Could have easily been a bigger club like Everton or Newcastle, or they could have splashed on a championship club in 2009ish and that side would now be dominating the top flight.
It always makes me laugh when Chelsea fans moan about City's riches.
It's like they have no memory from 15 years ago when it was your lot doing what they're doing.
It's just they've upped the ante.
Chelsea fans don't moan about City's riches though.
You should read the CAS decision and then edit this post with regards to time limits. It is verifiably untrue and clearly described as such by CAS.
I agree at the begining there was a level field in which good managment equalled more money, but then top teams stablished and generated a fan base in which they could capitalize on so the money gap expanded, then it grew exponentialy after globalization exploded in the late 90s and being good/bad on the performance side of the game doesnt transalate necessarily to more income between clubs. For example Liverpool went on a 20 year dry run and still had funds, we have been dross for 8 years and still are one of the richest clubs in the world.
I disagree with what you say about football being a cycle, truth is in most leagues the "big" teams have always won. Juventus has 36 serie A leagues, Inter and Milan have 18 and after them its Genoa with 9 (all won between 1898 and 1923), Torino with 7 (1 in the 20s , 5 in the 40s and their last one in 75-76) , then some random team that won 7 between 1900-1920 called Pro Vercelli and then the top winner is Roma with 3. Thats not a cycle in any way thats a league that has been controlled by the same 3 teams.
Bayern has more won bundesliga titles than all the other german clubs combined, not even joking about that one. In england until the appareance of oil money from Chelsea and City the top winners were ManUtd, Liverpool and Arsenal, then after them by some distance Everton and Aston Villa who havent won one since the 80s.
Thats no a cycle at all, those are stablished teams running the show in every league, beneffited of the marketing and way superior budget. Truth is before oil money no small team would had rised to the very top, sure they can do a good job such as Leicester and be a top 4-6 team but not a dominant one.
In reality financially strong clubs, oil funded or not, are the ones that avoid the consequences of poor managment. Look at us, we've been dross and still have money to go out there and buy more and more talent. A small club without or financial muscle but our poor managment would be in relegation zone surely. As I said in my post before, I think the anger comes from fans thinking oil funded clubs "dont deserve" to have that money, since its injected and not owned by the club or whatever. So what? We are still a rich club and still take advantage of it, its just that oil clubs have done it as well so now we dont have the luxury to do it poorly without falling behind.
Fair enough. Can you post a link summarising it for me? Everything I search for is backing up what I’ve said.
ToucheThat's not what's scandalous about Man City's financial affairs mate
It's odd because both clubs spent to get to the top but in different ways. Chelsea were a top 4 team when purchased, and had won trophies in the preceding years. We didn't break any individual transfer records from memory but we did absolutely splurge on anyone and everyone who would improve us, inflating the market massively. I would say our effect on world football prices was perhaps the biggest of any club in history. Once we'd splurged over 2-3 seasons the spending leveled off and now our net spend for the past 10 seasons is nothing special.
City started much lower and had to sustain spending for many more years to reach the top. Similar to us they splurged but that investment still leaves them top of the net spend charts 10-15 years later.
Either way i don't see rich owners as a problem in football, without City and Chelsea it is arguable Utd would have walked the league 10 seasons or more in a row. The PL needed other rivals or risked becoming the Bundesliga with Utd being Bayern.
FFP has been a complete farce, without it we could have had even more teams challenging given the takeovers at clubs like Everton and Leicester...
Yes you make a decent comparison. City of course came in when fees were a lot higher. But I'd say City had more of a role in inflating the market, as they were the first team to boot 50m on a bloody full back!
There's also talk about how Tevez and Aguero were 40-50m each, above what was reported, and other talk suspecting the actual fees and wages quoted are just a fraction of the actual truth.
Chelsea spent a lot of £20m fees when that was a lot, and blew everyone out of the water, but I can't remember any whispers about any of it being "Illegitimate" as such. The fees and wages felt accurate.
I might be wrong on that but that's how it felt.
I don't necessarily buy that United "needed" these souped up rivals. Natural rivals such as Arsenal/Liverpool, or even Chelsea developing more naturally could have filled that position.
All City especially have done, is make some of the traditional big rich teams lesser, and know they have to get it absolutely spot on to compete now. Leicester showed and are showing it can be done, but time will tell how long term it is.
Can't say I'm chuffed since it's implementation and application has been absolutely shambolic with the double standards exhibited.
I hope it's replaced with a new set of rules though like maybe a salary cap because I fear the oil clubs will have the green light to go even crazier and unchallenged in the market without regulation.
Is it? We never did it before Chelsea or City came on the scene. Arsenal might argue they’d have been better off without City and Chelsea poaching their players.
You say this like it's a bad thing
In all seriousness though, I don't think that would have been the case, although it would have made the post-Fergie years way more digestible for us.
The club who has felt the impact of the new super-rich owned clubs the most has surely been Arsenal. Chelsea were essentially injected with riches beyond their wildest dreams whilst Arsenal were on the back of their best ever season/moving into their new stadium. Them having to save cash whilst you could spend loads/we were able to reinvigorate our squad absolutely killed them. They've never recovered from that.
Without the "new" EPL owners, the Arsenal/Utd rivalry would have dominated for much longer, and with the TV money you'd probably have seen more Leicester-esque winners cropping up every few seasons.
The question now is, can City get Haaland and Mbappe to work together?
Indeed. Allegations from our euro elite rivals, investigated by our rivals, found guilty and banned by our rivals, No wonder CAS threw it out with the comment "Fruit from a poisonous branch"
Imagine, Utd being investigated by City owners? Absolutely ridiculous and I hope what they replace it with is truly equal for all teams, because despite the money and wealth and oil, Pep has changed City, the money allows us to have a good setup but Pep has changed the playing field, not money, where was all this shit when Pellers or Mancini was in charge and we werent blasting the PL apart? It#'s pure and simple attacks from our rivals based on the success we've had under Pep I am sorry to say!
The good news is that we will be back to normal City of 2012-14 when Pep leaves, we'll win some stuff but we wont dominate, that will be lfc unless utd get their shit into gear!
How will City fill their new 300k seater stadium with gold plated chairs?
All FFP does is fix whoever the big clubs are at the (an arbitrary) time. If FFP had existed 20 years ago we wouldn’t have had Chelsea, or City.
I’m not celebrating those teams, but to get to the top you need money, and these things need to go in cycles, not just have the same clubs year in, year out over decades.
there does need to be some financial controls to stop clubs spending above their means, so we don’t have clubs going into administration. But if a clubs owner wants to spend their own money on players, and as long as they can sustain it - then it should be allowed.
if a team like Villa or Newcastle got taken over by a billionaire, they should be able to spend the money needed to compete at the top.
If that disrupts some of the so called ‘big clubs’ at the top of the league, then so be it.
I’m not celebrating those teams, but to get to the top you need money, and these things need to go in cycles, not just have the same clubs year in, year out over decades.
there does need to be some financial controls to stop clubs spending above their means, so we don’t have clubs going into administration. But if a clubs owner wants to spend their own money on players, and as long as they can sustain it - then it should be allowed.
if a team like Villa or Newcastle got taken over by a billionaire, they should be able to spend the money needed to compete at the top.
If that disrupts some of the so called ‘big clubs’ at the top of the league, then so be it.
Of course it's arguable, it's certainly a debate. Without Chelsea in 05/06 Utd most likely would have won the title (finished 2nd). Utd then won the next three, came second again to Chelsea in 09/10, won again in 10/11. Utd and City finished 19 points ahead the next season... it goes on with utd winning the next season
That's 8 in a row if you directly remove Chelsea and City. Of course it's not quite as simple as that but it's certainly very plausible when you look at each season
IMO UEFA is full of (continental) ex big club players / execs, so upon realizing that clubs like City can cook the books all they want and UEFA can't do anything about it, they'll propose some other way to try to rein them in. I think the competition from the PL also makes them uncomfortable - the best managers are flocking to the PL and increasingly the best players.
I suspect they'll come up with some variant of a salary cap to keep European clubs competitive.
The fact city and Chelsea still continue on the pitiful gate receipts they receive speaks volumes really
Lerner was a billionaire but I think he was in the EPL strictly to line his pockets.
I'm pretty sure Chelsea almost always fill their stadium. I read somewhere that in the 19/20 season they had a near 99% average occupancy. Granted their ground isn't huge, but I don't think its fair to bunch them with City.
You get my point, someone who wants to spend their own money on the club.
It's no bigger than villa park for perspective. That's the point.
Explain Leicester and Liverpool or how Spurs got up there in recent years. With FFP introduced 20 years ago the top 4/6 would probably still include Arsenal and Liverpool, but clubs like Everton, Spurs and Leicester would be around. United would likely still have dropped off after Fergie left, but we would have probably won two more leagues under him.
I agree that you should allow clubs the ability to break the top 4, but disagree that stopping FFP would do that. If you let clubs like Chelsea and City spend without any control then the league would basically just be between them and any other team lucky to be bought by a multi multi billionaire. It is already based on money, but that would take it to another level. It would basically just become who has the biggest chequebook. Do you honestly think that there would be a marked change in the status quo? Or would the status quo just be PSG and City competing for the CL every year.
Liverpool aren’t a small club. they also spend a world record fee on a CB and a world record fee on a GK, which were the missing pieces to the team which went onto win the league.
Leicester is an anomaly, the exception that proves the rule of you like. It’s also probably the greatest achievement in modern football for them to have won the league. Far bigger than Denmark or Greece winning the Euros. A 5000/1 shot. It’s unexplainable - especially given the financial clout that other clubs had.
I want more clubs to do a Leeds in 92 or Blackburn in 95. Again, I don’t like those clubs, but we need competition. If we just have the same 4-5 clubs at the top of the league, it’s boring, and football will eventually die.
it’s even worse on other countries - Bayern, PSG, Juventus have won the league 8 or 9 times in the past decade.
I agree there needs to be some controls, where that line is drawn is incorrect at the moment, it just keeps the big clubs where they are.
I want to see the next Forest or Derby come along and win the league - without allowing them to invest, we will be waiting another 100 years until we get an anomaly like Leicester again.
Nonsense - CAS found in City's favour on balance of evidence AFTER first having to decide they must disallow several dodgy transactions as time barred that otherwise might have led to a totally different conclusion. These transactions were the cornerstone of UEFA's case and so when they were disbarred the conclusion was inevitable. You got off on a technicality which is nothing to be proud of. Your club were so evasive with their own governing body's investigation that CAS DID still uphold a fine of 10m Euros for non-cooperation:
"viii) The Panel is not comfortably satisfied (my emphasis inserted) that MCFC disguised equity funding...
ix) The Panel finds it appropriate that a fine of EUR 10,000,000 is imposed on MCFC"
(Page 90 Conclusion from CAS 2020/A/6785 Manchester City FC v UEFA)
Remember, this is all after your club also entered into an earlier settlement agreement with UEFA in 2014 to pay them EUR 60,000,000 (although 40m was eventually reimbursed for future compliance).
If I was you I don't think I'd be drawing more attention to all this embarrassing behaviour
Last edited:
What is the point? Chelsea is in the middle of expanding the stadium. With the current stadium...good luck getting tickets for a PL match.
Blackburn were funded with Jack Walker's help and Arsenal's titles under Wenger were largely due to Danny Fiszman's cash injection.
Without "sugar daddy's" it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Fergie would have won the title every year from 93 until he retired.
You say that like it’s a bad thing....
The point is you haven't needed the legitimate revenue since Roman hence leaving your stadium well alone.
You went from a championship/bottom end Premier league team, to suddenly competing at the top end.
It was always going to the case that if you got a good manager it'd be an almost unbeatable combo. It just took you years to get a top manager. Fergie's genius, and Klopp's quite insane cycling season last year were the only things that stopped you being the league's Bayern.
But you still won the league without Pep. That shouldn't be forgotten. And like you say if you do go back tothe Mancini/Pello type managers you'll be one of the winners not THE winner for a spell after.
But with your money it'd take some real United style mismanagement to even fall out of the top 4.
Let's be honest it's very likely not a coincidence this has happened at a time Real and Barca are hugely in debt and need massive rebuilds.
CAS did not throw it out - you were fined 10m Euros for non co-operation and basically got off on a technicality. They never said anything about 'fruit from a poisonous branch' but please feel free to keep making things up, just like your plastic club makes up its financial statements. The rest of us know what was going on.
As for this being somehow new, City has been under investigation for financial doping for the last decade and had to enter into a 60m Euro settlement with UEFA back in 2014 to avoid the threat of an earlier ban, all long before you landed Pep as coach.
Finally, whilst I have a great deal of respect for Pep as a coach, it is naive to imagine that he has done something no-one else could. He inherited probably the most expensive squad in Premier League history and has continued to spend unprecedented transfer fees to bolster it. There has been a net spend of nearly £1 bn over the last 10 years and we all know that the funds for this didn't come from Emptihad seat sales.
Very weird to see United fans say that football needs a salary cap to stop City or PSG from pulling ahead.
Liverpool spent that through player sales. In terms of where they were financially a few years ago they were probably comparable to Chelsea before Abramovich.
You’re speaking like a whole host of smaller clubs would be invested in heavily. It’s incredibly unlikely that that would happen. The amount of investment it took for Blackburn is insignificant compared to the amount it would take to bring a small club up to compete with City. City already have an incredible structure and academy in place, one of the best managers ever and a squad full of unbelievable players. To get to that point would take comfortably more than a billion. You would then be competing with a City side who are improving on that level with huge investment.
Do you realistically see any world where a small club with the right investment could catch up?
TV revenue is where the money is at. Stadium revenue is a smaller percentage of profit every year for clubs in the top flight.
Facts and figures? It seems normally sustained clubs think differently with even Liverpool expanding whilst on top as did both United and arsenal. Odd Chelsea didn't feel the need...
All the facts you want. Domestic and Overseas TV revenue is over 3 times that of gate. Also important to remember gate revenue has costs to offset, TV is profit.
https://www.planetfootball.com/quic...club is given an,each from overseas TV rights.
Other clubs must be daft developing stadiums then. May as well be jumpers for goal posts. Get the cameras in.
With the amount of money being generated from TV rights, stadiums are becoming a club status symbol. The NFL went through the same experience and many of the 100,000 seat stadiums being replaced with 50-60,000 seat stadiums only a decade after being built. The mega stadiums have huge upkeep and personnel cost as well as sever traffic congestion. If your club is really about the bottom line, a medium sized stadium is a better profit maker with the TV revenues.