We are Man City, we do what we want...

[RedRover]

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?

Man City and Chelsea have never spent the sums of money on players, or paid wages that the likes of Real Madrid and Barcelona do to be fair. Chelsea and City's biggest outlay on individual players is pretty comparable to what United were paying years ago when inflation is considered. Ferdinand and Veron were big money at the time - far more than anyone else was paying. Keane, Ronaldo and Rooney have all been (supposedly) the best paid players in the Country at one time or another.

I think suggesting that they're solely responsible for increased fees is unfair. The march of transfer fees was happening long before the "new money" clubs came about and was driven by increased money into the game - which was itself down to increased commercialisation driven by the big clubs and especially United, who were at the forefront of it as a PLC.

Leeds United highlight the point. There were no "big money" clubs - they spent big to try and catch United and Arsenal.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Man City and Chelsea have never spent the sums of money on players, or paid wages that the likes of Real Madrid and Barcelona do to be fair. Chelsea and City's biggest outlay on individual players is pretty comparable to what United were paying years ago when inflation is considered. Ferdinand and Veron were big money at the time - far more than anyone else was paying. Keane, Ronaldo and Rooney have all been (supposedly) the best paid players in the Country at one time or another.

I think suggesting that they're solely responsible for increased fees is unfair. The march of transfer fees was happening long before the "new money" clubs came about and was driven by increased money into the game - which was itself down to increased commercialisation driven by the big clubs and especially United, who were at the forefront of it as a PLC.

Leeds United highlight the point. There were no "big money" clubs - they spent big to try and catch United and Arsenal.

On individual players, occasionally, sure but the market isn't driven by the occasional exceptional case. It's driven by the type of reckless spending that City and Chelsea have both indulged in since their new owners took over. Sustained massive expenditure on dozens and dozens of players over several years. United have never done anything of the sort.

Same is true of fees. Incremental increase was inevitable but the money being offered to attract the worlds best players to City's "project" was way above anything that could have been predicted based on the ongoing commercialisation of the sport.

 

[RedRover]

On individual players, occasionally, sure but the market isn't driven by the occasional exceptional case. It's driven by the type of reckless spending that City and Chelsea have both indulged in since their new owners took over. Sustained massive expenditure on dozens and dozens of players over several years. United have never done anything of the sort.

Same is true of fees. Incremental increase was inevitable but the money being offered to attract the worlds best players to City's "project" was way above anything that could have been predicted based on the ongoing commercialisation of the sport.

The point I was making is that spening £30 million on a player isnt a big deal if its happened numerous times before. The allegation was that they were responsible for high fees - the response was that other clubs had already spent massive fees on individual players regularly over the preceding decade. You can go back to the early 1990's and see clubs doubling and the transfer records.

Long before City and Chelsea the british record jumped from £7 million to £15 million in a few years and while Shearer went to Newcastle, we would have happily paid that. That's not an "incremental" increase for me. Likewise £30 million plus for Rio Ferdinand - I don't think a defender has gone for any more than that in the world since. I don't see how spending that sort of money is any less "reckless" in terms of driving up fees than any thing other clubs have done. Veron, Ferdinand and RVN represented a mega spend over a short time.

The madnessof moeny in football goes back years to when the best players all went to Italy in the late 80's and early 90's. Milan paid £13 million for Lentini when fees in this country were minsicule in comparison.

At the end of the day they needed to spend big to get the players they wanted for their "project" - just like we've had to with Van Gaal's "project" now. You could suggest we're increasing fees and wages in the same way if you go down that route.

People might want to put all of modern football's ills at the door of Chelsea and their ilk but to me its nonsense. United started the commercialisation of this sport, along with other forward thinking big clubs. When people see United making a fortune and increasing their owners wealth year on year, being valued at £1 billion plus then its only a matter of time before other businessmen want to get involved from around the world, and be part of this "PL brand" that United did as much as anyone to create and perpetuate.

The increased fees and wages are a symptom, not a cause because when there's big money about you can be sure everyone wants their share - including the players, agents, and other clubs looking at what the top sides are raking in.

 

[BobbyManc]

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.

A football club is a business. Do you think it's fair to limit what an owner can invest into a business that he owns? It's not and it is a concept that goes against EU Law. Manchester City prior to Sheikh Mansour's takeover were in a dire financial position but with his investment the club is on course to become self-sustainable, not to mention successful.

 

[JPRouve]

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.

FFP isn't targetting you, you are only a collateral damage. Man City owners are doing what should be done by creating a proper business. The FFP has been created for all the Malaga, Valencia or PSG of this world clubs who live (lived) way beyond their means.

 

[Gee Male]

A football club is a business. Do you think it's fair to limit what an owner can invest into a business that he owns? It's not and it is a concept that goes against EU Law. Manchester City prior to Sheikh Mansour's takeover were in a dire financial position but with his investment the club is on course to become self-sustainable, not to mention successful.

Eh?

1 - What EU Law states that an owner may invest whatever he wants into his own business? Where is that concept indoctrinated?

2 - City may end up being self-sustainable or successful, they certainly won't be both for the foreseeable future.

 

[acnumber9]

A football club is a business. Do you think it's fair to limit what an owner can invest into a business that he owns? It's not and it is a concept that goes against EU Law. Manchester City prior to Sheikh Mansour's takeover were in a dire financial position but with his investment the club is on course to become self-sustainable, not to mention successful.

FFP was designed in conjunction with the EU. If it were as illegal as you are suggesting you can bet your club would not be complying.

 

[Eboue]

What EU Law states that an owner may invest whatever he wants into his own business? Where is that concept indoctrinated?

If anyone tried to make a rule that limited what the owner of a company could invest into their own company, they would be laughed at endlessly. The only industry where anyone would even think of defending it is football.

 

[Gee Male]

If anyone tried to make a rule that limited what the owner of a company could invest into their own company, they would be laughed at endlessly. The only industry where anyone would even think of defending it is football.

Of course, common sense would dictate so.

Bobby has stated that the rule contravenes EU law, I'm just curious as to what law it's contravening. I suspect that the law doesn't exist as there has never been a need for one, and that the EU have more pressing concerns than legislating specifically for a football audience. Therefore, it would be down to CAS. Neither City nor PSG went to CAS on the sanctions recently handed down, why do you think that is?

 

[Eboue]

Because they get their way and UEFA backed down?

 

[RedRover]

Eh?

1 - What EU Law states that an owner may invest whatever he wants into his own business? Where is that concept indoctrinated?

2 - City may end up being self-sustainable or successful, they certainly won't be both for the foreseeable future.

As regards point 1 - I think the relevant point is in a free capitalist economy how can you legally restrain someone from investing their own money in their own business. The concept of the EU is a common market and free trade.

For point 2 - That's a fair assesment, but a lot of succesful businesses initially run at a loss. In football it looks like the TV deals and other commercial deals will just keep going up and up. I'd say sooner rather than later they'll be turning over a profit or at least be sustainable, especially if the spending is reigned in in line with FFP which given this summer compared to others it looks like it will be.

 

[Barca84]

You're labelling UEFA a corrupt soulless joke yet FFP was implemented specifically to help clubs like Bayern and United remain at the top.

Ah yes...the predicted response ie that FFP is just an evil plot to keep a cartel of football clubs in pole position. A plot that is being heroically challenged by our poor, downtrodden, blue friends and all for the good of football and fair play the world over! Hurrah for City!!

A window into the world of Blue thinking here folks

 

[Eboue]

Even if FFP wasn't implemented with the intention to consolidate the position of United and Bayern and...Arsenal, the fact is that it does do that so you ought to at least be able to understand where they are coming from.

 

[BobbyManc]

Eh?

1 - What EU Law states that an owner may invest whatever he wants into his own business? Where is that concept indoctrinated?

2 - City may end up being self-sustainable or successful, they certainly won't be both for the foreseeable future.

1. The section of EU law that FFP contravenes by restricting spending is Article 101 TFEU. That cannot be denied. UEFA have to argue that this is justified in the pursuit of legitimate objectives. I have confidence Dupont will win his court case but that's been discussed already.

FFP was designed in conjunction with the EU. If it were as illegal as you are suggesting you can bet your club would not be complying.

Just because it was designed in conjunction with the EU does not mean it is infallible. Only the Court can ultimately provide an authoritative interpretation of EU law.

Of course, common sense would dictate so.

Bobby has stated that the rule contravenes EU law, I'm just curious as to what law it's contravening. I suspect that the law doesn't exist as there has never been a need for one, and that the EU have more pressing concerns than legislating specifically for a football audience. Therefore, it would be down to CAS. Neither City nor PSG went to CAS on the sanctions recently handed down, why do you think that is?

You're right, the EU doesn't legislate specifically for a football audience. It legislates for all businesses. Such as a football club.

 

[acnumber9]

Even if FFP wasn't implemented with the intention to consolidate the position of United and Bayern and...Arsenal, the fact is that it does do that so you ought to at least be able to understand where they are coming from.

The same avenues to make money exist to every football club. There is also laws on fair competition. Being able to spend without limit is not fair competition.

 

[BobbyManc]

Ah yes...the predicted response ie that FFP is just an evil plot to keep a cartel of football clubs in pole position. A plot that is being heroically challenged by our poor, downtrodden, blue friends and all for the good of football and fair play the world over! Hurrah for City!!

A window into the world of Blue thinking here folks

You find it completely implausible that Bayern Munich, Manchester United, Real Madrid etc. have not applied pressure to UEFA in order for FFP to be introduced? It would be more improbable that they didn't. Why wouldn't they? They're trying to preserve their status. Platini has already admitted that these clubs used their influence to delay any renegotiations over the distribution of Champions League revenue.

I'm not saying City are the heroes here. They're challenging it for the same reasons United wanted it introduced. Self-interest.

 

[RedRover]

Even if FFP wasn't implemented with the intention to consolidate the position of United and Bayern and...Arsenal, the fact is that it does do that so you ought to at least be able to understand where they are coming from.

Indeed. Im sure the intention for FFP is noble - but arguing that it doesn't help the established, richer clubs is bizzarre.

I'm a United fan and we can seemingly go and spend £150 million whilst not being in the CL and comply with FFP, so really, I'm not that fussed about the whole thing. My club isnt going to be hamstrung by it. If I were a City fan, Chelsea fan or a fan of any other club who might happen to be taken over by a rich owner I'd obviously feel very different because the rules as they are act to make it more difficult for my club to compete.

The attitude seems to be from some United fans that "we earned our place at the top, and it should stay that way". The reality is with the way things are, its not possible for a club to break into the top tier without serious investment. The suggestion that a club can "build gradually" is bollocks - have a talented youth team and the vultures will circle like at Southampton.

The bottom line is that some United fans try to take the moral highground and dress the argument up as if City stand for something different to United when really that's not the case - especially since this summer spending spree.

The truth is that a lot of fans just dont like that a local rival is doing well, especially now when we're in transition. They liked it how it was before and want it to go back to that.

 

[RedRover]

You find it completely implausible that Bayern Munich, Manchester United, Real Madrid etc. have not applied pressure to UEFA in order for FFP to be introduced? It would be more improbable that they didn't. Why wouldn't they? They're trying to preserve their status. Platini has already admitted that these clubs used their influence to delay any renegotiations over the distribution of Champions League revenue.

I'm not saying City are the heroes here. They're challenging it for the same reasons United wanted it introduced. Self-interest.

Self interest is the key. Everyone has an agenda and to suggest otherwise is naive in the extreme. Its the obvious reason why the City fan doesnt like FFP and the United fan does.

 

[Eboue]

The same avenues to make money exist to every football club. There is also laws on fair competition. Being able to spend without limit is not fair competition.

No they don't. At several times in their history, Manchester United was given a massive boost by outside investment. That avenue is no longer available to other clubs.

 

[acnumber9]

One of the reasons clubs can't rise gradually is because two clubs of similar sizes have used outside money to congest the competition for Champions League places.

 

[BobbyManc]

Indeed. Im sure the intention for FFP is noble - but arguing that it doesn't help the established, richer clubs is bizzarre.

I'm a United fan and we can seemingly go and spend £150 million whilst not being in the CL and comply with FFP, so really, I'm not that fussed about the whole thing. My club isnt going to be hamstrung by it. If I were a City fan, Chelsea fan or a fan of any other club who might happen to be taken over by a rich owner I'd obviously feel very different because the rules as they are act to make it more difficult for my club to compete.

The attitude seems to be from some United fans that "we earned our place at the top, and it should stay that way". The reality is with the way things are, its not possible for a club to break into the top tier without serious investment. The suggestion that a club can "build gradually" is bollocks - have a talented youth team and the vultures will circle like at Southampton.

The bottom line is that some United fans try to take the moral highground and dress the argument up as if City stand for something different to United when really that's not the case - especially since this summer spending spree.

The truth is that a lot of fans just dont like that a local rival is doing well, especially now when we're in transition. They liked it how it was before and want it to go back to that.

Well said.

 

[acnumber9]

No they don't. At several times in their history, Manchester United was given a massive boost by outside investment. That avenue is no longer available to other clubs.

They do. Any club can receive TV money, sell tickets, have commercial partners etc.

 

[Eboue]

You didn't address my point.

 

[acnumber9]

You didn't address my point.

Which was what? That Utd had outside investment? There is still nothing stopping that. What was stopping other clubs from doing likewise at the time?

 

[Gee Male]

1. The section of EU law that FFP contravenes by restricting spending is Article 101 TFEU. That cannot be denied. UEFA have to argue that this is justified in the pursuit of legitimate objectives. I have confidence Dupont will win his court case but that's been discussed already.



Just because it was designed in conjunction with the EU does not mean it is infallible. Only the Court can ultimately provide an authoritative interpretation of EU law.



You're right, the EU doesn't legislate specifically for a football audience. It legislates for all businesses. Such as a football club.

Well bless my days. Here we have a City fan quoting an Article of EU law that is aiming to prevent distortion of competition as a defence. I would imagine it would be pretty easy to argue that the investment in City itself is a distortion of competition itself, but no matter.

You have said above that FFP contravenes Article 101 and that this "cannot be denied". Article 101 itself allows for circumstances in which its own provisions can be deemed inapplicable, so I'm not sure how anyone can ever make a claim that it's application "cannot be denied".

Paragraph 3 of Article 101 says that the Article's application will be declared inapplicable in certain cases, and cites one of those cases as an agreement/decision/practice that "contributes to ... promoting technical or economic progress". Again, I'm guessing that UEFA can make an easy argument that their agreement (which this is - City ad PSG have both agreed to FFP on introduction) contributes to promoting economic progress.

So your "This cannot be denied" is ridiculous. I ask again, where does FFP contravene EU law?

 

[Eboue]

They can't now. You're being obtuse.

 

[Gee Male]

Because they get their way and UEFA backed down?

They haven't got their way though, not yet anyway. Even if the restriction to 21 players didn't affect City, the cap on spending this summer will have. You would hope that the first sanction handed down will differ than that handed down for repeat offenders, but I guess that is yet to be tested.

 

[Gee Male]

Indeed. Im sure the intention for FFP is noble - but arguing that it doesn't help the established, richer clubs is bizzarre.

I'm a United fan and we can seemingly go and spend £150 million whilst not being in the CL and comply with FFP, so really, I'm not that fussed about the whole thing. My club isnt going to be hamstrung by it. If I were a City fan, Chelsea fan or a fan of any other club who might happen to be taken over by a rich owner I'd obviously feel very different because the rules as they are act to make it more difficult for my club to compete.

The attitude seems to be from some United fans that "we earned our place at the top, and it should stay that way". The reality is with the way things are, its not possible for a club to break into the top tier without serious investment. The suggestion that a club can "build gradually" is bollocks - have a talented youth team and the vultures will circle like at Southampton.

The bottom line is that some United fans try to take the moral highground and dress the argument up as if City stand for something different to United when really that's not the case - especially since this summer spending spree.

The truth is that a lot of fans just dont like that a local rival is doing well, especially now when we're in transition. They liked it how it was before and want it to go back to that.

All fair enough, but City haven't been dragged into FFP kicking and screaming. Their fans might not be happy, but the club itself has spent more time talking about the investment in the area around Eastlands and the money they will eventually generate - they've entered FFP knowing full well what they were getting into. Maybe they over-estimated the influence their success would have, maybe they thought they would appeal to a larger fan base, maybe it's just not going well for them so far?

Can't argue that FFP benefits the established clubs, but I would believe that is more of a side-effect than anything else. Hopefully it's just the first step with further moves to empower smaller clubs from the vultures you refer to above so that they can actually hold onto players and build teams.

It's far from a perfect solution, but ask a Pompey fan or a Leeds fan if they think it's necessary - it's not as simple as to point to the richer non-big-clubs like City and say 'poor them'.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The point I was making is that spening £30 million on a player isnt a big deal if its happened numerous times before. The allegation was that they were responsible for high fees - the response was that other clubs had already spent massive fees on individual players regularly over the preceding decade. You can go back to the early 1990's and see clubs doubling and the transfer records.

Long before City and Chelsea the british record jumped from £7 million to £15 million in a few years and while Shearer went to Newcastle, we would have happily paid that. That's not an "incremental" increase for me. Likewise £30 million plus for Rio Ferdinand - I don't think a defender has gone for any more than that in the world since. I don't see how spending that sort of money is any less "reckless" in terms of driving up fees than any thing other clubs have done. Veron, Ferdinand and RVN represented a mega spend over a short time.

The madnessof moeny in football goes back years to when the best players all went to Italy in the late 80's and early 90's. Milan paid £13 million for Lentini when fees in this country were minsicule in comparison.

At the end of the day they needed to spend big to get the players they wanted for their "project" - just like we've had to with Van Gaal's "project" now. You could suggest we're increasing fees and wages in the same way if you go down that route.

People might want to put all of modern football's ills at the door of Chelsea and their ilk but to me its nonsense. United started the commercialisation of this sport, along with other forward thinking big clubs. When people see United making a fortune and increasing their owners wealth year on year, being valued at £1 billion plus then its only a matter of time before other businessmen want to get involved from around the world, and be part of this "PL brand" that United did as much as anyone to create and perpetuate.

The increased fees and wages are a symptom, not a cause because when there's big money about you can be sure everyone wants their share - including the players, agents, and other clubs looking at what the top sides are raking in.

We've covered this plenty of times before so I'm surprised you're still (perhaps deliberately?) missing my point. Yes, there have always been clubs in the top flight of English footballs that have been wealthier than other clubs. Yes, these clubs have been able to sign players that smaller clubs cannot afford. Yes, these big clubs were likely to continue to get more and more wealthy as football became more effectively commercialised.

What has never happened before has been any club embarking on sustained spending sprees that is even remotely comparable with the amount of money spent by Chelsea and City over a relatively short space of time. This is entirely new ground and has had a seismic effect on the transfer market (and salaries) that has never happened before, in the history of football. Football previously worked as a market where income had to be sustainably earned, within the constraints that exist within that market-place. This meant that smaller clubs could at least aspire to step up and mix it with the big boys if they were run as an efficient business and did whatever they could to maximise their income.

Arsenal upgrading their stadium is a good example of this. They reined in spending for years, with a long term ambition of building a stadium that would let them compete on an equal financial footing with the best clubs in the land. What City and Chelsea have done is inflate transfer fees higher and quicker than has ever been seen before in football. They've done the same with wages and every club with aspirations of finishing in the top half of the league is feeling the pinch of this pressure. That is why the governing bodies have felt obliged to take the unprecedented step of intervening in the financial matters of football clubs. It's not about some cozy cartel, trying to lock out aspirational clubs. That's nonsense. If anything, it's the exact opposite. It's trying to alter the market so that clubs that are run without external funding have a slightly better chance of bridging the gap between them and the biggest clubs around. Without FFP there's not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. Now that it's in place there's at least a slim chance of a club like Arsenal competing with a club like Chelsea or City on a relatively level playing field.

 

[BobbyManc]

Well bless my days. Here we have a City fan quoting an Article of EU law that is aiming to prevent distortion of competition as a defence. I would imagine it would be pretty easy to argue that the investment in City itself is a distortion of competition itself, but no matter.

You have said above that FFP contravenes Article 101 and that this "cannot be denied". Article 101 itself allows for circumstances in which its own provisions can be deemed inapplicable, so I'm not sure how anyone can ever make a claim that it's application "cannot be denied".

Paragraph 3 of Article 101 says that the Article's application will be declared inapplicable in certain cases, and cites one of those cases as an agreement/decision/practice that "contributes to ... promoting technical or economic progress". Again, I'm guessing that UEFA can make an easy argument that their agreement (which this is - City ad PSG have both agreed to FFP on introduction) contributes to promoting economic progress.

So your "This cannot be denied" is ridiculous. I ask again, where does FFP contravene EU law?

Don't be stupid.

Anyway, as I have already pointed out, there are instances where the article can be contravened with justification. EU Law is very complex in certain areas and remains open to interpretation. But it cannot be denied that, superficially, FFP contravenes the article I named. UEFA can try and justify that. We'll see in court whether that justification is successful.

 

[BobbyManc]

All fair enough, but City haven't been dragged into FFP kicking and screaming. Their fans might not be happy, but the club itself has spent more time talking about the investment in the area around Eastlands and the money they will eventually generate - they've entered FFP knowing full well what they were getting into. Maybe they over-estimated the influence their success would have, maybe they thought they would appeal to a larger fan base, maybe it's just not going well for them so far?

Can't argue that FFP benefits the established clubs, but I would believe that is more of a side-effect than anything else. Hopefully it's just the first step with further moves to empower smaller clubs from the vultures you refer to above so that they can actually hold onto players and build teams.

It's far from a perfect solution, but ask a Pompey fan or a Leeds fan if they think it's necessary - it's not as simple as to point to the richer non-big-clubs like City and say 'poor them'.

FFP would not have helped Portsmouth, Leeds, Rangers or any other club that faced/is facing financial turmoil.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

FFP would not have helped Portsmouth, Leeds, Rangers or any other club that faced/is facing financial turmoil.

Implemented effectively, a few years before they went tits up it might have. It would have helped keep their wage bills a little better under control, that's for sure. The single biggest outgoing for most football clubs.

 

[acnumber9]

FFP would not have helped Portsmouth, Leeds, Rangers or any other club that faced/is facing financial turmoil.

Forcing a club to spend within its means should stop clubs spending money they don't have and help them avoid administration. It wouldn't have saved Rangers.

 

[Gee Male]

Don't be stupid.

Anyway, as I have already pointed out, there are instances where the article can be contravened with justification. EU Law is very complex in certain areas and remains open to interpretation. But it cannot be denied that, superficially, FFP contravenes the article I named. UEFA can try and justify that. We'll see in court whether that justification is successful.

Of course it can be denied. I've just denied it, and UEFA will do likewise - my guess is successfully so, seeing as how City and PSG were a party to the FFP regulations being introduced in the first place.

And you don't think that the Sheikh's investment distorted the Premier League? Right.

 

[acnumber9]

They can't now. You're being obtuse.

Of course they can. There is no law stopping people investing in a football club. You're taking shite.

 

[Gee Male]

FFP would not have helped Portsmouth, Leeds, Rangers or any other club that faced/is facing financial turmoil.

Wouldn't have saved Rangers, their problems had nothing to do with what FFP are trying to achieve. hence why I didn't mention Rangers in the first place.

We are currently in the embryonic days of FFP and at this time it would not have any effect in saving Leeds or Portsmouth. But in 10 years time it will be much rarer for an owner of any club to apply policies like those at Leeds and Portsmouth due to FFP restrictions and the equivalent restrictions in place by the Football League.

 

[BobbyManc]

Implemented effectively, a few years before they went tits up it might have. It would have helped keep their wage bills a little better under control, that's for sure. The single biggest outgoing for most football clubs.

Martin Samuel who has devoted a lot of time to FFP has said that those 3 clubs wouldn't have failed FFP.

 

[Eboue]

Of course they can. There is no law stopping people investing in a football club. You're taking shite.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Martin Samuel who has devoted a lot of time to FFP has said that those 3 clubs wouldn't have failed FFP.

Individually, you'll always get feck ups. The simple fact that they all managed to hit the wall prior to the recent transfer market/wage inflation does imply they wouldn't have been helped much by FFP. My main point will be that any measures which take the heat out of the market will make it less likely for clubs like them to hit the wall in the future. That and whatever pressure it puts on clubs who risk ending up like them to spend within their means.

 

[acnumber9]

Your contribution here is nothing short of fantastic. Go on and explain how it can't happen.