pascell
Full Member
FIFA is rotten to the core, always will be unless a major shake up is undertaken, sadly this won't happen as those at the top have too much power.I got told on another site that nothing would change when Blatter left.
FIFA is rotten to the core, always will be unless a major shake up is undertaken, sadly this won't happen as those at the top have too much power.I got told on another site that nothing would change when Blatter left.
Yes, thank you for bringing this up again. It looks blatantly obvious that since the first fine in 2014 city have continued to get hidden cash injections by the owner, inflating their income to appear compliant with ffp. No way they have that much more legitimate commercial income than Liverpool.I've asked before and didn't get a reply.
It appears they haven't mentioned City's current commercial?
Looking at it 'logically' its almost like you'd think City are still at it!!
United' commercial revenue £270 approx
City £232
Liverpool 130m approx
Chelsea 130m approx
Its safe to assume City would be behind both Chelsea & Liverpool if all things were equal
Do you have a link for that mate? I could be wrong but as i remember the deal was always a two year loan with an option to buy at £25m and we would decide whether or not to activate that option to sign him at the end of the two years.
FIFA is rotten to the core, always will be unless a major shake up is undertaken, sadly this won't happen as those at the top have too much power.
Most popular Premier League jerseys in each U.S. state revealed
https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2018/1...ier-league-jerseys-in-each-us-state-revealed/
Clearly more oil money is needed, here is the map
I would say a big factor is where marketing efforts are placed, perhaps ex players are impacting, maybe even ex pats. But given city are making alot of money from sponsorship you would think their global footprint would be larger to justify that type of money. How very curious, its almost as if they are sponsoring themselves with state money and hiding itClearly, this only represents exactly what it says on the tin, however, as the 'biggest club in the world' how come United are only the biggest seller in around a third of the US states? And, I'm curious why are Spurs so popular in around six/seven states?
And, as a City fan, I am astonished that my team's shirts are the most popular in even one state? Why do the good folk of New Jersey have such good taste? Is it related to New York City FC?
Purely anecodotal but on my last visit to the US (Las Vegas and southern California three years ago), I saw far more Chelsea shirts than anyone else.
I would say a big factor is where marketing efforts are placed, perhaps ex players are impacting, maybe even ex pats. But given city are making alot of money from sponsorship you would think their global footprint would be larger to justify that type of money. How very curious, its almost as if they are sponsoring themselves with state money and hiding it
Maybe they are bigger in other market's but a recent study for most searched clubs would suggest not. Very curious that all these big sponsors are paying huge sums for a team with little recognition
https://m.sportskeeda.com/football/...n-europe-africa-and-asia-based-on-search-data
Most popular Premier League jerseys in each U.S. state revealed
https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2018/1...ier-league-jerseys-in-each-us-state-revealed/
Clearly more oil money is needed, here is the map
With the way Pellegrini spent whatever sum was available to him, N500m entrusted to him wouldn't do too much good. They bought a lot within that period, outspent everyone in the league but yet their best players still remained their old guard. My Barca mate that supports city too told me that when they bought Bony, Dybala was angling for a move to city. (City fans please correct me if this is BS).To be fair Pellegrini coached City amid the faux-FFP ‘compliance’ - Pep added the likes of Stones and Sane to the same squad and only finished 3rd. Had Mancini or Pellegrini been able to spend the £500m Pep has had on top of the squads they coached to the title, they’d have similarly monopolised too; their squad players were Adam Johnson, Scott Sinclair, Navas, Javi Garcia etc, not fecking Gundogan, Bernardo, Mahrez and Otamendi.
Most popular Premier League jerseys in each U.S. state revealed
https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2018/1...ier-league-jerseys-in-each-us-state-revealed/
Clearly more oil money is needed, here is the map
Most popular Premier League jerseys in each U.S. state revealed
https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2018/1...ier-league-jerseys-in-each-us-state-revealed/
Clearly more oil money is needed, here is the map
I agree, it's a sad state of affairs as football won't benefit from having those that are in power, it'll actually start to have the adverse effect if we're not careful. Everything to do with the association's of football needs a shake up, unfortunately that won't happen.And the issue is that clubs, national associations and other associations like the ECA are also rotten to the core which means that there isn't really an easy way out. The two super league projects also shows that some people that aren't really in football also add to the problem.
I’m really a tad confused over this entire “revelation”. I mean in all honesty, who the feck didn’t think that there were FFP irregularities/breaches by City and PSG?
City’s commercial income sky rocketed since the takeover, but lo and behold, most of those increases iirc, were deals signed with (what we in accounting refer to as) “related parties” to their owners. And the terms were definitely not at arms length or in line with City’s support and stature within the game.
I mean, that was pretty clear all along, wasn’t it? How they managed to pass FFP regulations - I don’t know enough about the topic, but I just thought uefa or whoever didn’t have the balls or clout to judge against these so called “related party” dealings.
So what else is new....has derSpiegel (excuse the sp?) discovered more payments to players funneled through different avenues? Sorry again, I didn’t read the OP
Aye, nothing surprising really. Thanks bud.It pretty much spelled out what everyone suspected, gives a fairly detailed breakdown or how they funneled money around. On extra payments to players - they payed Mancini twice. A club in abu dhabi gave him a wage for consulting or something that was higher than his wage at city.
I knew United were well supported in the US but I had no idea it was to this extent, that's practically 50% of the entire country.
If you consider all CL clubs PSG is pretty fine.
You do understand that different states have vastly different population levels, yes?Clearly, this only represents exactly what it says on the tin, however, as the 'biggest club in the world' how come United are only the biggest seller in around a third of the US states? And, I'm curious why are Spurs so popular in around six/seven states?
And, as a City fan, I am astonished that my team's shirts are the most popular in even one state? Why do the good folk of New Jersey have such good taste? Is it related to New York City FC?
Purely anecodotal but on my last visit to the US (Las Vegas and southern California three years ago), I saw far more Chelsea shirts than anyone else.
Even if UEFA and the EPL gave City a clean slate and they started declaring what they were actually earning/spending, they wouldn’t even be able to pay the wages of every person on their books. Which means they are continuing to break the rules since 2014, when they paid off UEFA.
The VERY minimum that should happen, is that the owners should be made to sell the club for what they are actually worth, to somebody that will stay within the rules. If they don’t comply with this, then ban them from taking part.
They are simply going to carry on as they have been doing and are very likely to hide even more payments. This time, more discreetly. It will all come out in years to come and will be remembered as the disgrace that it is.
Even if UEFA and the EPL gave City a clean slate and they started declaring what they were actually earning/spending, they wouldn’t even be able to pay the wages of every person on their books. Which means they are continuing to break the rules since 2014, when they paid off UEFA.
The VERY minimum that should happen, is that the owners should be made to sell the club for what they are actually worth, to somebody that will stay within the rules. If they don’t comply with this, then ban them from taking part.
Their currently at an operating loss of 22.2m and only made a profit because of player sales.
You do understand that different states have vastly different population levels, yes?
Sorry, I don't really understand how your question relates to what I said.
Perhaps I was too subtle for you but when I said: 'Clearly, this only represents exactly what it says on the tin', I thought most would pick up on it being a clear reference to the headline nature of the map and article. Notwithstanding the shallow nature of the article I'm still curious as to how Man City could be more popular than United in one state, Spurs more popular in half a dozen states and all told United only being the most popular in around a third of the states....and that's before we even get onto the topic of PSG being so popular..
Congratulations on being huge in Alaska but any thoughts on PSG and Spurs?
Why do other clubs not come out and threaten legal action? This has to be stopped.
PSG is the Neymar effect. The Instagram generation follows individuals, not organisations. The day Neymay is sold, PSG is nowhere near that popular (Mbappé's excellence notwithstanding).
Will we be celebrating when they get a big points deduction and it means Liverpool win the league?
Been very busy with work and family duties so not been able to follow the news as much as I'd have loved. Can someone intimate me about what exactly is happening with respect to thos case. Thanks in advance.
Yes I can summarise.
The authorities are going to impose the below sanctions
No. I'd rather Citeh won it - they're a nothing club hollowed out and filled with oil money, it means very little when they win stuff.
Liverpool, to be fair to them are a proper club, with a rich history, and they've waited decades to win the League - they'll be soooo annoying when they win it again.
They summed this up quite well on Sunday Supplement last week, in that Uefa are basically scared of City and PSG, as they know if they try and press home any punishment too harshly then these clubs will set their lawyers on them, and lawyers paid for by these bottomless pits will be the best in the business, and they just don't want it.
It is what it is, we just need to accept it, and see it for what it is.
They summed this up quite well on Sunday Supplement last week, in that Uefa are basically scared of City and PSG, as they know if they try and press home any punishment too harshly then these clubs will set their lawyers on them, and lawyers paid for by these bottomless pits will be the best in the business, and they just don't want it.
It is what it is, we just need to accept it, and see it for what it is.
I never understood this complaint, fear of lawyers doing what exactly? Lawyers and mafioso thugs going to go round Ed Woodward’s house. All lawyers can do is appeal the legality of the rules and they’d be found either valid or void. If they’re void then that should be found out too.
Thing is, that excuse doesn't wash. Others can afford these hyper lawyers yet still face punishment from the EU, EC and ECJ.
The more likely issue is that UEFA is corrupt to the core and should someone look deep enough, payments to offshore accounts could be traced to various officials from City and PSG owners.
It's how these things operate