Oil Money in Football | New City expose

Glad to see Klopp made those comments.

Someone at the Mirror said Jose said their operations were untouchable. I took it differently. I thought Jose was saying that the quality that they have and the way they've organised the team is beyond reproach but that he's got thoughts on the rest of it..
 
OutlawGER said:
Spiegel has attacked/exposed Bayern, Hoeneß, Beckenbauer and others many times in the past. Just recently they exposed Bayern for wanting to leave the Bundesliga (for the Supercup) etc.


Bayern surely hates Spiegel. :lol:
Click to expand...
I think its vice versa . Der Spiegel loaths Bayern.
 
I don't understand why all the other clubs dont just agree that City and PSG are out of the club?

That's all it would take really.
 
Ibrahimorich said:
I don't understand why all the other clubs dont just agree that City and PSG are out of the club?

That's all it would take really.
Click to expand...

Because most clubs don't care, the sugar daddy model is old and fairly common, only a handful of clubs at the top of the pyramid have an actual issue for obvious reasons. Ironically, one of them owes everything to one family who bankrolled them for decades.
 
Ibrahimorich said:
I don't understand why all the other clubs dont just agree that City and PSG are out of the club?

That's all it would take really.
Click to expand...
The other top clubs are lobbying hard behind the scenes against City and PSG but are mostly busy trying to shift more money to the top clubs at the expense of the small and medium ones. PSG and City are way better for the small clubs than the other top ones.

And no that's not all it would take, there's a difference between forming a cartel and going full mafia.
 
Tincanalley said:
And...?
Click to expand...
Yeah sorry, it's a bit complicated.

The yellow ribbon is about freeing the political prisoners who have been detained without charge by the Spanish authorities. It doesn't necessarily mean you support what those prisoners say, just that you want to see them get a fair trial etc.

Live in Barcelona myself and would happily wear the ribbon, even though I am against Catalan independence.

Imagine most of the City fans who wore the ribbon didn't have a clue though. They were just wearing it to support Guardiola.
 
Maagge said:
Why are they so different from regular people though? Say, if a tobacco company promised me a 50% raise to come and work for them, I wouldn't do it. Simple as that. It's not like these players wouldn't make millions playing elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Most footballers have been playing football full-time since their mid-teens and, in a lot of cases, they haven't had a good education to begin with. Doesn't mean they're thick, just that they haven't had the opportunities some others have had, and they're probably not going to be that interested in issues such as human rights in the Middle East.
 
BBRBB said:
The other top clubs are lobbying hard behind the scenes against City and PSG but are mostly busy trying to shift more money to the top clubs at the expense of the small and medium ones. PSG and City are way better for the small clubs than the other top ones.

And no that's not all it would take, there's a difference between forming a cartel and going full mafia.
Click to expand...
I think it’s a week argument to suggest that ‘top clubs’ like Bayern, United, Barcelona, Liverpool shouldn’t be able to benefit from their history. All these clubs were built on great decision making from youth level to first team for many years, winning trophies organically in the process. They have earned their right to have the revenue to spend a bit more. But despite that illustrious history, these clubs still can’t match the oil money of psg or city, who came from nowhere.
Also, ffp allowed for 50m deficit in the first couple of seasons, city would still have been able to buy 2 or 3 top players instead of 5 or 6, if they played by the rules and were smart.
 
The Irish Connection said:
I think it’s a week argument to suggest that ‘top clubs’ like Bayern, United, Barcelona, Liverpool shouldn’t be able to benefit from their history. All these clubs were built on great decision making from youth level to first team for many years, winning trophies organically in the process. They have earned their right to have the revenue to spend a bit more. But despite that illustrious history, these clubs still can’t match the oil money of psg or city, who came from nowhere.
Also, ffp allowed for 50m deficit in the first couple of seasons, city would still have been able to buy 2 or 3 top players instead of 5 or 6, if they played by the rules and were smart.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Bayern or british clubs but your "top clubs" were also built on various scandals, financial or not, when it wasn't regulated. So is it really that fair to say "yeah ok, we benefited from huge tax cuts by our government when we were in huge debts but you can't invest your own money now because FPF started in 2010 so it's too late". I'm not convinced.

As I said earlier, FPF is necessary to me but they should allow new investors to inject a reasonable amount of money (with guarantees) when they acquire a club so it doesn't take 15 years to develop their new business.
 
BBRBB said:
The other top clubs are lobbying hard behind the scenes against City and PSG but are mostly busy trying to shift more money to the top clubs at the expense of the small and medium ones. PSG and City are way better for the small clubs than the other top ones.

And no that's not all it would take, there's a difference between forming a cartel and going full mafia.
Click to expand...

PSG are better for the smaller clubs how exactly? Lyon dominated French football organically until, Marseille, Lille and Montpellier sportingly disrupted the dynasty....then came the Qataris and PSG have practically monopolised the league title since; the only season they didn’t was when Monaco managed to assemble a team capable of usurping them.....but then got pillaged for Mbappe, Bernardo and Mendy by.....CITY AND PSG!!! Two teams they’d overcome that season.

Soriano himself admitted that such clubs are the enemy of football; trying to deny it is moronic.
 
AP88 said:
PSG are better for the smaller clubs how exactly? Lyon dominated French football organically until, Marseille, Lille and Montpellier sportingly disrupted the dynasty....then came the Qataris and PSG have practically monopolised the league title since; the only season they didn’t was when Monaco managed to assemble a team capable of usurping them.....but then got pillaged for Mbappe, Bernardo and Mendy by.....CITY AND PSG!!! Two teams they’d overcome that season.

Soriano himself admitted that such clubs are the enemy of football; trying to deny it is moronic.
Click to expand...
The cartel of greedy clubs looking to hoover the money currently going to medium clubs for themselves is Real, Barca, Juve, Bayern & co, not City and PSG who mind their own business and inject money that ends up trickling down.
 
AP88 said:
PSG are better for the smaller clubs how exactly? Lyon dominated French football organically until, Marseille, Lille and Montpellier sportingly disrupted the dynasty....then came the Qataris and PSG have practically monopolised the league title since; the only season they didn’t was when Monaco managed to assemble a team capable of usurping them.....but then got pillaged for Mbappe, Bernardo and Mendy by.....CITY AND PSG!!! Two teams they’d overcome that season.

Soriano himself admitted that such clubs are the enemy of football; trying to deny it is moronic.
Click to expand...

First, Tv rights will increase enormously next year in France, thanks to PSG. And btw, small clubs will benefit from this growth far more than PSG.

Second, Bayern pillages clubs in Germany even without the kind of money that was injected in PSG so I don't see what's more virtueous about it. If anything, PSG recruits far more abroad than in France. Lyon was far better at pillaging during their dominating years.

Third, Mbappé wouldn have been bought by Real Madrid if he hadn't been bought by PSG (they also had a huge offer on the table, almost identical as PSGs), at least he still plays in France. Same thing for Bernardo and Mendy, Monaco are forced to sell in order to survive (since they don't have enough revenues otherwise). They would not have stayed.

You clearly didn't watch ligue 1 in 2010 to think that it was more interesting back then, it was truely terrible. Most clubs in France but 2 or 3 are really happy that PSG invested that much.
 
CA1 said:
The embarrassment this must cause the Premier League?

The team that is going to win the league at a canter for the 2nd year running is doing so based on lies, fraudulence and corruption.

When the teams below them can't keep up and everybody knows City are cheats, I can't see people rushing to watch the PL.
Click to expand...

It's funny how some of the City fans use the excuse "how are small teams supposed to come up and battle with the big players (if they can't do what City and PSG are doing)?" but fail to realise that they have made it exponentially worse for any team. Basically a club needs to be backed by a state to have any chance of competing at this point. The double standards are baffling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveJ
It's reasonable to ask for investigations about the irregular financial investments, shoddy contracts to flout the FFP regulations but people are bang out of order calling City fans or the City players or Guardiola hypocrites for enjoying their success with the oil money. We all use fuel regularly without thinking about what the poor people in Abu Dhabi endure everyday from the regime, all the developed Western countries are complicit in helping the Middle East hold the monopoly in the oil industry and propping up the middle east governments by providing arms and protection and bombing anyone who dares rise against them in the middle east and most people vote these Western country governments into power, you guys(me included) are also indirectly responsible for the wealth and power gathered by the dictators and "royal" families in the middle east.
 
Oly Francis said:
First, Tv rights will increase enormously next year in France, thanks to PSG. And btw, small clubs will benefit from this growth far more than PSG.

Second, Bayern pillages clubs in Germany even without the kind of money that was injected in PSG so I don't see what's more virtueous about it. If anything, PSG recruits far more abroad than in France. Lyon was far better at pillaging during their dominating years.

Third, Mbappé wouldn have been bought by Real Madrid if he hadn't been bought by PSG (they also had a huge offer on the table, almost identical as PSGs), at least he still plays in France. Same thing for Bernardo and Mendy, Monaco are forced to sell in order to survive (since they don't have enough revenues otherwise). They would not have stayed.

You clearly didn't watch ligue 1 in 2010 to think that it was more interesting back then, it was truely terrible. Most clubs in France but 2 or 3 are really happy that PSG invested that much.
Click to expand...

And all the clubs he mentioned have or had bankrollers in the near past, Dreyfus, Seydoux or Nicollin, alsmot all the other clubs currently have one too, as an aside last year Marseille were in breach of FFP. If it wasn't for PSG or even Monaco's FFP breaching between 2013-2015, the league would be in deep troubles because it is pillaged by bigger leagues anyway and FFP makes it even easier.
 
Mordownm35 said:
For what it’s worth I think that out of the 4 days of releases only one point was really worth any kind of real look at which is obviously the sponsorship one. The rest of the point weren’t really very sensational or out there.

In regards to the sponsorship deals people seem to be forgetting they are not more than the specified amount. City receive from the sponsorship the exact amount that is declared in their accounts and these have been signed off by uefa as falling within the market value that they deem correct. Now the outrage from most is that some of these sponsorships are subsidised by Abu Dhabi investment companies. Now within the FFP laws that is acceptable, but people, rightly or wrongly, are upset by it as they see it a circumventing FFP. As a city fan who saw FFP purely as a vehicle to protect a certain established clubs I have no Issue with the club working around it and finding loopholes within the system which is effectively what they have done in order to remain competitive with the richest clubs.

The only part of the leaks that as a City fan I was unhappy with was the regional sponsorship deal with arabtec. If you don’t want bad press off a sponsorship deal and so make it regional in order to avoid that I would argue the club shouldn’t be making it at all.

Other than that the nothing has changed from these leaks in my eyes.
Click to expand...
And the fact that player wages are inflated by a shell company paying all the image rights which equated to £30 million over 2 years. Which hid the real wage bill. Makes all the talk about Sanchez wages look silly.

Also Mancini, over half of his income while at City came from a "ghost" role at an Abu Dhabi organisation. They paid him to be an advisor but paid more than City did to be a manager. Again, hiding the wage bill.

The sponsorships you say are subsidised by Abu Dhabi companies are actually subsidised by ADUG, City's owners. I.e Etihad.

Have you even read the 4 Der Spiegel articles? The mental gymnastics of denial and blinkered vision by City fans on this is beyond a joke.
 
Mordownm35 said:
Unfortunately you’ve just embodied the very type of fan who these leaks are lost on. The arabtec deal is the only one I had an issue with because they regionalised it because of the negative media it would bring, if they worried about that it should have just been binned off from the start.

You’ve gone off topic here and resorted to the moralistic rhetoric that you use to justify hatred of our owners that because they hail from Abu Dhabi who have a poor history of rights against migrant workers. I’m not sure what your argument entails, that because of this I should stop supporting my club who I supported before they came in as owners? Or that now all fans of clubs are complicit in the actions or beliefs of there owners purely through association of the football club they support? Does the fact that the glazer family donated to Donald trumps presidential election fund mean that everything the president says or does is a reflection on the glazers who own your football club? That because you support the club they own you That by association you agree with everything president trump says or does? No, thought not.

That’s the murky path the logic in your post leads and when I put it like that sounds stupid doesn’t it. But we were talking about the Der Spiegel leaks and that was my opinion on them above before you went off topic.
Click to expand...

Probably, yes.

This wasn't a hostile takeover, Manchester City's internal communications team said that getting in to bed with these people would damage the clubs reputation beyond repair. It was only the promise of riches which changed the minds of the decision makers at the top and the rats in Manchester City Council who sold off half the city in exchange for cushy jobs and (probably) backhanders.

Argue all you like about FFP, I don't care and I'm not looking for sanctions which will never happen. Clearly this is just like cheating on Football Manager, but corruption is commonplace in football, I struggle care either way and hardly consider our relationship with whatever Manchester City is now a rivalry. You'll always have my support over Liverpool because you just don't matter.

What your club represents is worse than corruption in football.

Comparing your owners to the Glazer family is interesting. The Glazers do donate money to Trump, a man I find abhorrent, but being leader of the free-world is different to being the overseers of an obsessive, dark age regime. However, I won't defend Trump or the Glazer family. In fact, I joined MUST and attended games in a green and gold scarf.

What did your fans do?

Dress up as Sheikhs, the overseers of an obsessive, dark-age regime, and erect creditworthy banners thanking them for picking your club as their new toy.

It's a funny feeling being taken under the wing of a dragon. It's warmer than you'd think.

Who cares about where the money comes from? We've got Roque Santa Cruz.

You brought up Trump, but Manchester is a city famous for it's support of another president and abolition of slavery, it's a city about to commemorate the Peterloo Massacre.

You can't go around putting up signs welcoming players to Manchester and calling yourselves 'The Citizens'.

You're the antithesis of everything good about our city.

You can can do something about that as fans, something more worthy than signing up to a rival clubs message board and defending your overseers.

Tell yourselves whatever you like, we know and you know.
 
Last edited:
beedoubleyou said:
Probably, yes.

This wasn't a hostile takeover, Manchester City's internal communications team said that getting in to bed with these people would damage the clubs reputation beyond repair. It was only the promise of riches which changed the minds of the decision makers at the top and the rats in Manchester City Council who sold off half the city in exchange for cushy jobs and (probably) backhanders.

Argue all you like about FFP, I don't care and I'm not looking for sanctions which will never happen. Clearly this is just like cheating on Football Manager, but corruption is commonplace in football, I struggle care either way and hardly consider our relationship with whatever Manchester City is now a rivalry. You'll always have my support over Liverpool because you just don't matter.

What your club represents is worse than corruption in football.

Comparing your owners to the Glazer family is interesting. The Glazers do donate money to Trump, a man I find abhorrent, but being leader of the free-world is different to being the overseers of an obsessive, dark age regime. However, I won't defend Trump or the Glazer family. In fact, I joined MUST and attended games in a green and gold scarf.

What did your fans do?

Dress up as Sheikhs, the overseers of an obsessive, dark-age regime, and erect creditworthy banners thanking them for picking your club as their new toy.

It's a funny feeling being taken under the wing of a dragon. It's warmer than you'd think.

Who cares about where the money comes from? We've got Roque Santa Cruz.

You brought up Trump, but Manchester is a city famous for it's support of another president and abolition of slavery, it's a city about to commemorate the Peterloo Massacre.

You can't go around putting up signs welcoming players to Manchester and calling yourselves 'The Citizens'.

You're the antithesis of everything good about our city.

You can can do something about that as fans, something more worthy than signing up to a rival clubs message board and defending your overseers.

Tell yourselves whatever you like, we know and you know.
Click to expand...

nailed it

city fans roll on their backs for a tummy rub like good pets.
 
For the sake of the future of the Premier league, the clubs need to band together with the football league and banish City for cheating. They have undeniably ruined the game in this country.
If City were kicked out, it’s only about 30,000 match day fans at the most that will be bothered. Compared to millions, even billions of football fans around the world.
The players will be fine, as I’m sure they will be wanted.
The only big losers would be the owners, who will no longer be able to launder their dirty money or promote their vile country which has appalling human rights issues.

We barely noticed City before the oil money, so who is going to miss them if they are gone?
 
beedoubleyou said:
Probably, yes.

This wasn't a hostile takeover, Manchester City's internal communications team said that getting in to bed with these people would damage the clubs reputation beyond repair. It was only the promise of riches which changed the minds of the decision makers at the top and the rats in Manchester City Council who sold off half the city in exchange for cushy jobs and (probably) backhanders.

Argue all you like about FFP, I don't care and I'm not looking for sanctions which will never happen. Clearly this is just like cheating on Football Manager, but corruption is commonplace in football, I struggle care either way and hardly consider our relationship with whatever Manchester City is now a rivalry. You'll always have my support over Liverpool because you just don't matter.

What your club represents is worse than corruption in football.

Comparing your owners to the Glazer family is interesting. The Glazers do donate money to Trump, a man I find abhorrent, but being leader of the free-world is different to being the overseers of an obsessive, dark age regime. However, I won't defend Trump or the Glazer family. In fact, I joined MUST and attended games in a green and gold scarf.

What did your fans do?

Dress up as Sheikhs, the overseers of an obsessive, dark-age regime, and erect creditworthy banners thanking them for picking your club as their new toy.

It's a funny feeling being taken under the wing of a dragon. It's warmer than you'd think.

Who cares about where the money comes from? We've got Roque Santa Cruz.

You brought up Trump, but Manchester is a city famous for it's support of another president and abolition of slavery, it's a city about to commemorate the Peterloo Massacre.

You can't go around putting up signs welcoming players to Manchester and calling yourselves 'The Citizens'.

You're the antithesis of everything good about our city.

You can can do something about that as fans, something more worthy than signing up to a rival clubs message board and defending your overseers.

Tell yourselves whatever you like, we know and you know.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
Based on what I have read City can have broken the following laws (outside of FFP etc):

- Receiving overvalued revenue from sponsor-deals with related parties is not illegal per se law however City have failed to enclose the revenue-transactions under “Related Party Transactions” in their annual report (note 23 in their Financial Statement). One of the points of having this information is to give the reader of the annual report the possibility to judge how much of the income etc comes from related parties and thus judge if they are at an unrealistic level and thus making the company’s financial statement not comparable to the statements of competitors etc (Financial statement rules generally are focused on the point of view of an investor). This is generally viewed as a high risk note from an auditors point of view since transactions with related parties historically have been used to manipulate annual reports (ie showing a better financial statement than the actual value created by the company). Though the auditor of City (BDO) has made no comment on this in their auditor report.

- Receiving over-valued sponsorship deals from an abroad related party is also a breach of the Transfer Pricing-policy. The Transfer pricing rules state that transactions with controlled (/related) parties should be valued at an arms-length-principle (as in close to market value). However this breach is an advantage for England since it means more taxable income in England and thus probably the reason why the English tax-system looks the other way.

- Paying salaries to employees (Machini and possibly the players and the rights thing too) from an abroad subsidiary and thus probably taxing this income in the abroad country even though the income is clearly related to the work done in England. This would probably be evasion of the Transfer Pricing rules. (If it was legal more companies would just hire their staff in subsidiaries in tax-free countries and thus not paying any taxes on the salaries at all)

- Possible issues with the negotiations with UEFA (blackmailing, bribe etc). However no clear evidence of this.

From my point of view the worst thing is though the companies deliberate focus to break laws/rules from the top level (owner, Board, directors etc). This is from my point of view very unethical and not a business I would work with in any professional manner.

I should note I am no expert in English laws etc so I might have missed something important. And sorry for some of the wording - English is not my main language.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Niall
beedoubleyou said:
Probably, yes.

This wasn't a hostile takeover, Manchester City's internal communications team said that getting in to bed with these people would damage the clubs reputation beyond repair. It was only the promise of riches which changed the minds of the decision makers at the top and the rats in Manchester City Council who sold off half the city in exchange for cushy jobs and (probably) backhanders.

Argue all you like about FFP, I don't care and I'm not looking for sanctions which will never happen. Clearly this is just like cheating on Football Manager, but corruption is commonplace in football, I struggle care either way and hardly consider our relationship with whatever Manchester City is now a rivalry. You'll always have my support over Liverpool because you just don't matter.

What your club represents is worse than corruption in football.

Comparing your owners to the Glazer family is interesting. The Glazers do donate money to Trump, a man I find abhorrent, but being leader of the free-world is different to being the overseers of an obsessive, dark age regime. However, I won't defend Trump or the Glazer family. In fact, I joined MUST and attended games in a green and gold scarf.

What did your fans do?

Dress up as Sheikhs, the overseers of an obsessive, dark-age regime, and erect creditworthy banners thanking them for picking your club as their new toy.

It's a funny feeling being taken under the wing of a dragon. It's warmer than you'd think.

Who cares about where the money comes from? We've got Roque Santa Cruz.

You brought up Trump, but Manchester is a city famous for it's support of another president and abolition of slavery, it's a city about to commemorate the Peterloo Massacre.

You can't go around putting up signs welcoming players to Manchester and calling yourselves 'The Citizens'.

You're the antithesis of everything good about our city.

You can can do something about that as fans, something more worthy than signing up to a rival clubs message board and defending your overseers.

Tell yourselves whatever you like, we know and you know.
Click to expand...

Wow well I’ve highlighted the above as it’s very inspiring for me and other fans of Manchester City, what colour scarfs do you think we should wear to protest? If we did that would it make us accepted by you and other fans of big clubs?

Football isn’t intrinsically linked to politics despite who owns my club. Again I’ve supported my club before the owners came in just because I don’t agree with their culture and society doesn’t mean I should stop supporting my club.

Yes the owner is part of a royal family that has a poor migrant worker rights record. Your most famous manager accepted a knighthood and invitation into an order from a family which has a lot more blood on its hands than the royal family of the Abu Dhabi. Where was your outrage then? I take it your not a hypocrite and you lambasted him on forums for accepting an honour from a royal family that is one of the bloodiest in history? Or are you holding city fans to a higher standard than “SIR” Alex Ferguson?

I said it in my previous post, this kind of logic isn’t feasible in any argument because it’s hypocritical. Your outrage has to be consistent and as I’ve just shown above it isn’t. I take the owner of my football club as just that, the owner of the club I’ve supported since a child. I am not held accountable for what his family’s human rights record is in the Middle East. Nor would I hold any football fan to account for the actions or beliefs of there owners. I’m not that sanctimonious.
 
OldSchoolManc said:
For the sake of the future of the Premier League, the clubs need to band together with the football league and banish City for cheating. They have undeniably ruined the game in this country.
If City were kicked out, it’s only about 30,000 match day fans at the most that will be bothered. Compared to millions, even billions of football fans around the world.
The players will be fine, as I’m sure they will be wanted.
The only big losers would be the owners, who will no longer be able to launder their dirty money or promote their vile country which has appalling human rights issues.

We barely noticed City before the oil money, so who is going to miss them if they are gone?
Click to expand...

"Ruined the game", really? Don't you think that it's a bit exagerated? Since 2010, City invested 1.2 billion €, Chelsea 1 billion, Man Utd 950 millions, Liverpool 900 millions. So basically you're telling us that you can ruine the game investing 200 extra millions over 8 years? Especially since Chelsea invested a lot before 2010, so should we also ban chelsea? Or is it fine because Russia isn't as bad as the UAE according to your standards?

It's pretty fascinating for me to see the moral lessons given here. Talking about "dirty money", "corruption" without giving any proof or even knowing the basic definition. They sell OIL, not cocaine!

Are you that appalled when you talk about Man Utd's chinese sponsors? Doesn't China have human rights issues as well?

You do realize that Man Utd won't play better if you ban City from the league right?
 
https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/spor...n-Citys-reliance-Sheik-Mansours-billions.html

In March last year City became the first Premier League club to announce — with fanfare — a shirt sleeve deal, with Korean tyre firm Nexen. In July, in a less heralded deal, Nexen agreed to ‘explore strategic partnership opportunities’ with Mubadala (state-owned holding company based in Abu Dhabi), and were paid what sources say was a ‘significant equity injection’ by Mubadala for doing so. From August, City wore Nexen on their sleeves as part of a deal that adds around £10m a year to City’s books.

It is not known how many of City’s 36 most significant sponsors and partners are linked financially to the UAE or City’s immediate parent company City Football Group (CFG). City have declined to answer any questions on these issues.

They have also declined to confirm how much the club’s wage bill has been reduced by paying some staff via CFG instead of the club itself, and declined to confirm how manager Pep Guardiola’s salary is routed — solely via the club, or, like former manager Roberto Mancini, via City and a second consulting contract in Abu Dhabi.

City’s 2017-18 financial accounts appear to acknowledge UAE cash remains vital to keeping them out of the red, even now, when they say: ‘Manchester City Football Club Limited is reliant on its ultimate parent undertaking, Abu Dhabi United Group Investment and Development Ltd (‘ADUG’), for its continued financial support.’
 
Oly Francis said:
"Ruined the game", really? Don't you think that it's a bit exagerated? Since 2010, City invested 1.2 billion €, Chelsea 1 billion, Man Utd 950 millions, Liverpool 900 millions. So basically you're telling us that you can ruine the game investing 200 extra millions over 8 years? Especially since Chelsea invested a lot before 2010, so should we also ban Chelsea? Or is it fine because Russia isn't as bad as the UAE according to your standards?

It's pretty fascinating for me to see the moral lessons given here. Talking about "dirty money", "corruption" without giving any proof or even knowing the basic definition. They sell OIL, not cocaine!

Are you that appalled when you talk about Man Utd's chinese sponsors? Doesn't China have human rights issues as well?

You do realize that Man Utd won't play better if you ban City from the league right?
Click to expand...

Every teams spending has had to go up exponentially and it still isn’t enough to get within spitting distance.
You are defending the indefensible. What is the point of a one (financially doped) horse race?

Seriously, fans will start switching off soon.
 
Oly Francis said:
"Ruined the game", really? Don't you think that it's a bit exagerated? Since 2010, City invested 1.2 billion €, Chelsea 1 billion, Man Utd 950 millions, Liverpool 900 millions. So basically you're telling us that you can ruine the game investing 200 extra millions over 8 years? Especially since Chelsea invested a lot before 2010, so should we also ban Chelsea? Or is it fine because Russia isn't as bad as the UAE according to your standards?

It's pretty fascinating for me to see the moral lessons given here. Talking about "dirty money", "corruption" without giving any proof or even knowing the basic definition. They sell OIL, not cocaine!

Are you that appalled when you talk about Man Utd's chinese sponsors? Doesn't China have human rights issues as well?

You do realize that Man Utd won't play better if you ban City from the league right?
Click to expand...
Admittedly I haven't followed this very closely but aren't the problem that the €1.2 billion or whatever is only the official part of what they have spend?
 
OldSchoolManc said:
Every teams spending has had to go up exponentially and it still isn’t enough to get within spitting distance.
You are defending the indefensible. What is the point of a one (financially doped) horse race?

Seriously, fans will start switching off soon.
Click to expand...

Chelsea, Liverpool and Tottenham are only 2 points behind City, how is PL ruined?

The fact that Man Utd sucks after investing 950M has nothing to do with City. Try to convince yourself that it's the case if it makes you feel better but other clubs do manage to be competitive.
 
Oly Francis said:
"Ruined the game", really? Don't you think that it's a bit exagerated? Since 2010, City invested 1.2 billion €, Chelsea 1 billion, Man Utd 950 millions, Liverpool 900 millions. So basically you're telling us that you can ruine the game investing 200 extra millions over 8 years? Especially since Chelsea invested a lot before 2010, so should we also ban Chelsea? Or is it fine because Russia isn't as bad as the UAE according to your standards?

It's pretty fascinating for me to see the moral lessons given here. Talking about "dirty money", "corruption" without giving any proof or even knowing the basic definition. They sell OIL, not cocaine!

Are you that appalled when you talk about Man Utd's chinese sponsors? Doesn't China have human rights issues as well?

You do realize that Man Utd won't play better if you ban City from the league right?
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. No one says PSG or City owners can't invest in their clubs but you can't break the rules to get an unfair advantage over others. If Khaldoon or Al-Khelafi thought the FFP was unfair, they should have taken UEFA to court. Instead they decided to pretend they followed the guidelines and then proceded to make up elaborate schemes to make it look like their clubs were complying. United not getting good value for their money in the transfer market has nothing to do with it.
 
Giggsyking said:
It already falling. TV ratings are falling with a free fall.
Click to expand...
Any reasons why?

I know for me a big minus was a few years ago when they weren't allowed to show more than one game when several had kick-off at the same time
 
antihenry said:
You're missing the point. No one says PSG or City owners can't invest in their clubs but you can't break the rules to get an unfair advantage over others. If Khaldoon or Al-Khelafi thought the FFP was unfair, they should have taken UEFA to court. Instead they decided to pretend they followed the guidelines and then proceded to make up elaborate schemes to make it look like their clubs were complying. United not getting good value for their money in the transfer market has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

No, i'm not missing the point because I agree with your assertion, but it's not what I refuted. I'm merely replying to the comment stating that it "ruined the game" with "dirty money" or "corruption" as if all evils came from City. It's just wrong, Chelsea won 2 years ago and this year is still very tight, it didn't ruin anything and I don't see why fans would switch off.

On a side note, PSG didn't make eleborate schemes, they over-valued a couple of contracts with state companies, it was in plain sight and UEFA knew about it. Nothing was hidden unless UEFA didn't realize that Qatar Tourism Agency was owned by Qatar...


Any reasons why?
I know for me a big minus was a few years ago when they weren't allowed to show more than one game when several had kick-off at the same time
Click to expand...

Didn't they raise TV subscriptions in the UK after paying unreasonnably high TV rights?
 
Last edited:
Oly Francis said:
Chelsea, Liverpool and Tottenham are only 2 points behind City, how is PL ruined?

The fact that Man Utd sucks after investing 950M has nothing to do with City. Try to convince yourself that it's the case if it makes you feel better but other clubs do manage to be competitive.
Click to expand...
Your inaccurate assumption has been broken down perfectly by antihenry in his post.

Ironically, I read your name as Oily Francis...
 
Oly Francis said:
Chelsea, Liverpool and Tottenham are only 2 points behind City, how is PL ruined?

The fact that Man Utd sucks after investing 950M has nothing to do with City. Try to convince yourself that it's the case if it makes you feel better but other clubs do manage to be competitive.
Click to expand...

11 games into the league? Are you serious?
Have you already forgotten the record points, goals and gap from last year?!
 
beedoubleyou said:
Probably, yes.

This wasn't a hostile takeover, Manchester City's internal communications team said that getting in to bed with these people would damage the clubs reputation beyond repair. It was only the promise of riches which changed the minds of the decision makers at the top and the rats in Manchester City Council who sold off half the city in exchange for cushy jobs and (probably) backhanders.

Argue all you like about FFP, I don't care and I'm not looking for sanctions which will never happen. Clearly this is just like cheating on Football Manager, but corruption is commonplace in football, I struggle care either way and hardly consider our relationship with whatever Manchester City is now a rivalry. You'll always have my support over Liverpool because you just don't matter.

What your club represents is worse than corruption in football.

Comparing your owners to the Glazer family is interesting. The Glazers do donate money to Trump, a man I find abhorrent, but being leader of the free-world is different to being the overseers of an obsessive, dark age regime. However, I won't defend Trump or the Glazer family. In fact, I joined MUST and attended games in a green and gold scarf.

What did your fans do?

Dress up as Sheikhs, the overseers of an obsessive, dark-age regime, and erect creditworthy banners thanking them for picking your club as their new toy.

It's a funny feeling being taken under the wing of a dragon. It's warmer than you'd think.

Who cares about where the money comes from? We've got Roque Santa Cruz.

You brought up Trump, but Manchester is a city famous for it's support of another president and abolition of slavery, it's a city about to commemorate the Peterloo Massacre.

You can't go around putting up signs welcoming players to Manchester and calling yourselves 'The Citizens'.

You're the antithesis of everything good about our city.

You can can do something about that as fans, something more worthy than signing up to a rival clubs message board and defending your overseers.

Tell yourselves whatever you like, we know and you know.
Click to expand...
Preach brother preach.
 
Not reading the article but not surprised with this hack.
 
Red Katie said:
Any reasons why?

I know for me a big minus was a few years ago when they weren't allowed to show more than one game when several had kick-off at the same time
Click to expand...
Since they changed how they air the 3 o'clock matches I guess, and the fact the premierleague had no shiny superstars like Ronaldo and Messi did shift some of the fans toward the Spanish side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.