I'm disgusted.
We are Man City, we do what we want...
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
You're labelling UEFA a corrupt soulless joke yet FFP was implemented specifically to help clubs like Bayern and United remain at the top; or in your case, get back there.
The only disgusting thing about all this is that we have Dedryck Boyata in our Champions League squad.
So deliciously deep, no more citizens now.
You can't blame us for having a worldwide following and a big ground that we fill most weeks, it isn't our fault that you fail to fill wastelands despite having 2 league wins in 3 years and a plethora of superstars on show. Say what you want about us but our spending, even this year has been within our means, can City say the same? No, you are funded by an Arab billionaire.
But that wasn't even my entire point, the main point was that for years and years your fanbase were taking shots about our spending, our 'glory hunting' fanbase, being corrupt and on and on, take a long hard look at your fan base now, justifying your spending which is not within your means, defending this huge adjustment to FFP rules that has seemingly only changed to accommodate you and generally running around defending everything that is happening to your club that you used to hate about us.
Of course we didn't get back to the top with players we developed or worked hard to buy or anything but yeah, sure, as you were.
Those clubs haven't had the rule on how many academy trained players they have to select changed.
Back to the actual rule. It's stupid because it makes English players more valuable than their skills merit. Good enough to make up numbers in the squad and yet not good enough to be on the pitch with any regularity. So instead of playing every week and developing at clubs like Everton or Swansea, there is an artificially inflated bidding war involving money that clubs and players can't turn down. So you get situations like Sinclair and Rodwell.
I'm talking about United's situation now. How you attained your previous success is immaterial. FFP is there to protect you.
And the reason behind that rule changing is not because of City, but because FifPro expressed concerns over it and it may contravene EU Law. So no, no special treatment for City. Our special treatment is a £40m fine and a spending cap of £50 million. As was PSG's.
Would the same not then be true of all the other clubs who have to comply with those rules?
That would be fair enough, but the rules were only introduced after Sheikh Mansour purchased City and started the spending spree. Clubs like United, Bayern, Madrid etc. are in a position to always comply with FFP and therefore have a clear advantage that establishes a cartel.
I'm referring to the rules on homegrown players.
It's not an issue for the other clubs because they can name up to 25 players.
For the record, FFP was introduced so that clubs spend within their means, so as to avoid another Leeds, the fact that it benefits us is simply because we are one of the biggest clubs in the world and have the following, which means we make more money and can spend more money
Me too. I always thought UEFA was persil and run by men with halos.
The issue is supposedly restricting movement of employment according to you. Does that only apply to Man City players? Your 'punishment' is not a punishment.
To be fair I do think the City bashing is a bit ironic considering we've just spent north of £150 million and replaced a young homegrown player with a star name.
We're doing this year exactly what City and Chelsea did to get into the CL in the first place. We might not be doing it with money given to us by a rich owner but apart from that its no different.
Yeah because we earn the money we spend, our club can sustain itself, take the Sheikh away and no more Manchester City. Maybe FFP is trying to protect over-reaching clubs as well. I know you City fans like to think there was a rosy successful history prior to the Oil money but there really wasn't and without him, the club would be done for, financially speaking.
Coming out with the conspiracy bollocks then?What City fans think we had a successful history prior to the takeover? One of the main things City fans talk about is how shit we used to be. We are under no illusions, it's impossible to be when you have Samaras and Vassell up front. FFP isn't to protect over-reaching clubs. It's protecting PSG and City from further investment from their owner's own pockets. That benefits United, Bayern etc. not the club itself.
I'm not the one arguing it restricted movement of employment.
The Independent understands that the player union Fifpro has been involved in the slackening of restrictions on City, possibly pressing Uefa to allow City fewer home-grown players by indicating that the governing body could be guilty of creating a restriction of movement for players with a more stringent regime. That could result in a complex legal action.
You've been banging that drum for ages.
You're incredibly naive to think FFP wasn't implemented to help benefit the established clubs.
I've never mentioned the issue on here before.
Tell that to the club now then, City fans have a warped view on things for sure. Always have had, we didn't call you a massive club for no-reason. It was a genuine belief from the twenty-odd thous... twenty odd fans you had and oh how we mock(ed) it.
You've been banging on about EU law for I don't know how long.
I think you'd have to be incredibly stupid to be believe it was. You as a city fan defending UEFA's decision to allow this but then attacking FFP for the same reasons as deeply hypocritical.
Its not ironic because we didn't break the rules.
Come on now. If that is hypocritical, so is you taking the opposite positions whilst supporting the club you support. Argue the merits.
I was referring strictly to the restricted squad. I've never mentioned EU law concerning that.
You're confused. For me to be defending City for the same reason would mean I was suggesting I see City as part of the cartel who are benefiting from FFP.
Unsurprisingly, you've totally missed my point.
I'm not referring to breaking of FFP rules, I'm talking about the general trend of people on here banging on for years about how disgusting it is being an Oil rich club and blowing mega amounts of cash on transfers in pursuit of success whilst paying players hugely inflated wages.
Those same people are most likely uncomfortable with our recent spending spree and the exit of Welbeck. I'm sure you've noticed the numerous threads to that effect.
From the owner's own pockets. NOT your club's money. Your club did nothing to earn the money, and here you are moaning that FFP prevents your precious club from going on another spending spree using money that DON'T BELONG TO YOU. You either chose not to see it or is too far gone to see it.
I'm sure some are, and fair enough. All I'd say to that is that they're likely to be dissapointed going forward because the relaity is, at times you need to buy the best players in order to compete. Players from the youth side simply are not good enough, often enough to do it any other way. There is some though I suspect who've gone a bit quiet now we're spending big to get back into the Champions League.
That is a fair point - but however clubs earn money, it doesnt change the fact that the outcome is the same. If we (or any other club with large turnover) can spend £150 million ever summer, but other clubs can't then you've got a disparity. We'll get better players and likely be more succesful.
To that end, the argument that FFP protects those who have already reached the top table has significant merit. The established clubs will continue to be succesful and as a result will grow commercially getting richer year on year. The other clubs won't, will no develop commercially and will not be able to bridge that gap with "given" money. The gap will likely widen.
Its highlighted by the fact that Chelsea support FFP. They're at the top table and realise the new system prevents other clubs from doing what they did. It makes it a closed shop.
I can see what UEFA are trying to do here in preventing clubs being reliant on one investor who could pull the plug at any time and its a noble intention, but the rules do not promote a level playing field as some seem to suggest. That just doesn't stack up.
There's also some irony in talking about money that "doesnt belong to you" when in theory, according to the rules, you could have another United style leveraged takeover of a club and saddle it with debt sufficent to cripple the club in the event of any unexpected turbulence in the stock markets. The rationale behind "protecting clubs" seems to be lost a bit there.
For sure. And I appreciate that all our spending is a bit ironic, regardless. It's definitely made it harder to take any sort of moral highground. Although the fact we have the league's highest number of academy products in our first team is pleasing. Not to mention the fact that City have the lowest. Long may that particular difference last.
Indeed. The club will I suspect never abandon the youth set up I suspect - it pays for itself and its worth it if and when we get the odd gem. I'd like to seemore investment there and get a kind of La Masia style production line on the go.
Would Utd need to be spending these sums of money they have of late where it not for clubs like Man City distorting the market?
There's that too. I have absolutely no doubt that PL salaries would be a fraction what they are without the massive injection of oligarch derived cash over the last decade. Ditto transfer fees.
That's the really insidious and damaging effect of oligarchs and gulf states picking up football clubs in the same way they do trophy wives. It's also the reason for FFP. Not to protect the big club "cartel" as City fans would like to think. It's to preserve the viability of smaller clubs trying to remain competitive in a market which has become insanely over-inflated.