Will FFP ever deal with Citeh? I don't know enough about it to know.
Transfer Tweets - 2017/18
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
- Status
Will FFP ever deal with Citeh? I don't know enough about it to know.
They can always get away since they can do some fake sponsor to pump money in.
Doesn't look like it. Their dodgy sponsorship deals with their owners' companies seem to ensure as much. Same with PSG.
It's a piss-take. At least with Chelsea they joined the party, rather than utterly ruined it for every other club trying to compete.
Added to that, they'd already had success in recent years - unlike citeh.
It's crazy that it's almost turning out to be everyone but city who gets affected by FFP - the team who the rule was supposedly put in place for!
Remember when they got Lampard to promote for their american club only to play for City? City use all the tricks in the book.
I wouldn't be worked up so much. You can only field 11 players and make 3 subs in games. They may get a strong starting and few great sub, but in the end they would reach a point where players wouldn't be benched, and Manchester is not the best place to live when your club ain't having much history to worth be associated as squad player. It's like City has monopoly in this approach. Between PSG and City, PSG has the edge which they themselves would self eliminate each other and balance thing out.
It's more about us (even Chelsea) going in the right direction.
Edit: @Orc, it's about history. Team with history wouldn't want their stadium named after a sponsor for example.
Honestly, since City and PSG seem to be getting away with it I'm surprised that other big clubs aren't doing it. The authorities don't seem bothered.
Spot on, selling Sanchez doesn’t affect them in terms of winning the league. It does make them weaker though. But can you imagine the uproar amongst arsenal fans if Ozil came to us this month!!!! Claude would need CPR!!!
City clearly found a way to avoid ffp and they know it, uefa know it, we all know it. That is why ffp is stupid.
Oh, but wasn’t the rule only put in place to stop financial disaster for football clubs, rather than to stop clubs daring to take a trophy from the already successful? Glad you saw right through it.
Happy to dominate for 20 years as the most financially powerful club around, and now somebody can compete and spend SIMILAR amounts you’re upset. Hope you’re OK.
We built our own success. It wasn’t handed to us on a silver platter that you’re all happy to get down on your knees for.
Think we all can move this discussion elsewhere. Just be short, there is huge difference between self generating revenue and being part of something else and being fed by it.
We dominated for 20 years through great management and team building. We weren't even the biggest spenders for most of that period. The financial doping of City by oil money is in no way similar. It's why despite being theb est team i nthe land you still have a half empty stadium; people just aren't that interested in your soulless plastic club.
United spent money the club earned commercially as opposed to money handed out by an Uber-rich owner. If city had built their own revenue and spent this money nobody can complain.
We also filled our team with youth products and had amazing success this way too. Maybe we'll see more of your excellent youth players come through and less of the buying big policy. Again, if that happens then fair enough.
Eh. Arsenal have history and have a sponsored stadium.
You seem to've missed what I said about Chelsea in the very same post you've quoted...
That's their problem. They're working for money for the owner but no longer for the club interest. They're slipping from being a big club and ruining their status. They're clearly losing out on all front.
Edit: I am talking specifically about English football when it comes to stadium matter.
Last edited:
He can play in the CL.
Then like I said, the board should fecking make a bid now and try to get him in.
Try and make something great of the season. The amount of money the club makes for them it's the least they should be doing.
The horses have bolted. I'm sure City threatened them with legal action or some mumbo jumbo.
It's impossible now for a club to grow organically anymore. PSG and City have upped everyone's game, they will be fighting like mad to win the Champions League.
Fifa could stop this FFP issue and guarantee clubs looking to their youth setup in one go. Limit how many players you can sign a season to a maximum of 2. City, Real, PSG Barca or Utd could only buy the 10 best players in the world between them that season, leaving the rest to the other clubs, instead of all the best players migrating to one or two clubs. This would then force the clubs to look to the reserves sooner or later. If you had bought your 2 in the summer, you couldnt strengthen then in Jan.
It’s easy to fall back on this argument when you’re on that side of the coin, but given the volume of money United have been getting since the creation of the PL, realistically how can any club consistently compete for trophies without huge outside investment?
People point to Leicester, but they had a one-off season which has been done once in decades and have now fallen back to mid-table, with the bigger clubs snapping up the majority of their successful side (and still threatening to do it further). Sustained success without outside investment just isn’t possible anymore.
Without investment teams would never be able to compete, so it’s not surprising you all find it barbaric, because you’d have another 5 titles to your name without it.
You’re on to something there. Would be good to see something like this.
Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool and this Chelsea side compete.
We did finish 6th last year, I mean come on..
We did finish 6th last year, I mean come on..
I was thinking about that earlier. Its becoming stupid how many players a club can sign.
It was Platini's idea, conceived when English teams, including Chelsea and City, looked set to dominate the Champions League. He lost interest when a French side, PSG, became the principal beneficiary of 'financial doping.' He started listening to what clubs were telling him, and apparently 'they didn't want it.'
So many tweets
Maybe with the exception of players signed on a free.
Arsenal was competing head to head with us on budget. L'pool challenged from time to time. Newcastle had some great seasons. Chelsea was a nuisance even before Abramovic took over.
You're talking from your club position. Instead of steadily move up the rank, needed the oil money to transform from a club who plays in Championship every other years. We also got relegated once and worked our way back up. It's not like we got handed on plate. Who needs your club to be competitive other than your own fans, when Arsenal, L'pool with good management work would be a much tastier rivalry and good for English football as a whole.
Last edited:
Why do you think it’s fair just to barge your way to the front of the queue because you lack the patience to do it properly? It’s a completely fake and hollow and everyone knows it except City.
And yet arsenal managed to compete with united until they opted for Cashburden Grave. Chelsea have won two out of the last three without buying 17 players in 18 months.
Also, Leicester's title will have way more merit to it than any of the titles won by any side in a long time.
I'm sure if I was a city fan (dear Lord no!) I'd have lapped up the good fortune like the rest of you. I get that as fans you'll take it and enjoy every minute of it. It's more that we could just as easily be talking about Everton, Leeds, West Ham etc had your owners pulled a different club name out of the lottery hat.
To anyone other than a city fan there really is nothing special about your club. You don't even own your own stadium and still can't regularly fill it. Given how glory hunters usually behave you'd have thought you'd be full of plastic fans by now. It's a bit odd really.
Yeah that's how I remember it.
PSG employ his son also, very convenient.
Haha it's funny how the tides have turned considering how abramovich was the first sugar daddy owner and basically bought the title and bought you into the position you are currently in.
I don't see it lasting, he has fulfilled every ambition possible at Chelsea now what's more for him to achieve. No surprise the money is drying up.
Apologies for posting this topic in this thread but seeing as there are a few comments above... Why are people complaining about PSG and City yet choosing to ignore the amount of money Barcelona have spent on players? Particularly the large sums on Dembele and Coutinho.
I think this is a great idea personally Would be good but never pass
Imagine you could only move jobs once every couple of years even if someone was throwing money at you.
I'm sure it is breaking some regulatuons
Barcelona isn’t a fake entity.
Yeah good exception
Means most players also have to honour their contract or buy themselves out? Which has its own problems with clubs basically re embursing players via large transfer fees
- Status