If enough palms are greased and City get their way, per the title, how do things look for us?
What would a Premier League without financial restrictions look like for Manchester United?
- Thread starter Fortitude
- Start date
I don’t think we have the same level of wealth accessible like City and Newcastle.
If they get their way it’ll mean future transfer fees will be driven up due to the amount of disposable money they have. Basically means the league is unregulated in regards to sponsorship deals and they can claim unlimited funds for fake sponsors to spend on players and wages.
It would spell the end of the league and football as we know it, all clubs would be requesting ridiculous amounts for players especially from teams with inflated finances. Bad enough City have a sponsorship already from a betting company that doesn’t exist that uses models/actors as employees of the “company”.
If they get their way it’ll mean future transfer fees will be driven up due to the amount of disposable money they have. Basically means the league is unregulated in regards to sponsorship deals and they can claim unlimited funds for fake sponsors to spend on players and wages.
It would spell the end of the league and football as we know it, all clubs would be requesting ridiculous amounts for players especially from teams with inflated finances. Bad enough City have a sponsorship already from a betting company that doesn’t exist that uses models/actors as employees of the “company”.
We'd be chasing 3rd at best behind Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia.
Yeah I dont think anyone would get anywhere near City and Newcastle, even if INEOS threw their billions behind us we would probably still sttuggle to get anywhere near them.
People understimate how rich City and Barcodes owners are.
We would be scraping for CL spots.
We would be scraping for CL spots.
When the Glazers went with Jimmy and not the sheik we were condemned, for better or for worse, to being financially handcuffed. We need the financial restrictions, assuming they're honestly enforced, to give us any chance to compete with City and Newcastle for new talent.
But we still have to sort out the management problem which has plagued this club since Ferguson left and no endless vault of cash can fix that.
But we still have to sort out the management problem which has plagued this club since Ferguson left and no endless vault of cash can fix that.
It would destroy football, transfer fees would go beyond reasonable and smaller clubs would struggle to bridge the gap. I really hope that city don’t win this.
despite this, I know there will be United fans getting all giddy that they will be able to buy some new shiny toys but we will still be in the sh1t. Players who cost 100m now will then become 200m players
despite this, I know there will be United fans getting all giddy that they will be able to buy some new shiny toys but we will still be in the sh1t. Players who cost 100m now will then become 200m players
Probably worse, all things considered. We spend a lot of money already. I would guess that we are probably at the upper limit of what we can actually spend now, which really is already a huge amount on transfer fees and wages, whereas city and newcastle are not. Removing any restrictions would cement both of them in the top two I believe, and the rest of us would be left fighting for scraps.
This.
Player prices mean nothing to City and Newcastle. Though INEOS are rich, there's just no way we can compete with Abu Dhabi FC & Saudi Arabia FC.
Will always finish behind City, Saudi, and Chelsea.
Ineos is one of the biggest companies in the world, but even them can’t compete against two sovereign states with vast petroleum reserves.
It will be a war between Newcastle and $hitty, players will cost various times what they cost now.
Money isn’t United’s issue, zero to non sporting direction is. We had spent more than $hitty in players and look what we have won in recent years compared to them. Hopefully Ineos fix it, and get us back to where we belong, taking into account all the financial rules both FA and UEFA have.
It will be a war between Newcastle and $hitty, players will cost various times what they cost now.
Money isn’t United’s issue, zero to non sporting direction is. We had spent more than $hitty in players and look what we have won in recent years compared to them. Hopefully Ineos fix it, and get us back to where we belong, taking into account all the financial rules both FA and UEFA have.
Imagine a watermelon competition
Now imagine a watermelon that has been scientifically altered to be 5 times bigger
Now imagine a farmer who raised his watermelon like it was his child, naturally, without doping substances
Now imagine a watermelon that has been scientifically altered to be 5 times bigger
Now imagine a farmer who raised his watermelon like it was his child, naturally, without doping substances
At least it means Liverpool would not win it.
Is this what Harry Styles was singing about?
In fairness, it wouldn't be as bad for us as it would be for many other teams who do not have our financial resources.
City and Newcastle would clearly be well out in front, Chelsea and United are then probably the only clubs with the financial resources to match them, for a time anyway.
Ultimately, any club that's not state owned would end up going bankrupt trying to match them in terms of recruitment. Liverpool, Arsenal, Man United, Spurs etc would eventually be left fighting for the crumbs left by City and Newcastle.
Eventually it would be a case of getting Middle Eastern owners, or bankruptcy / accepting fate a perpetual 'challenger'. Sounds pretty grim, but this is sportswashing in all its glory.
City and Newcastle would clearly be well out in front, Chelsea and United are then probably the only clubs with the financial resources to match them, for a time anyway.
Ultimately, any club that's not state owned would end up going bankrupt trying to match them in terms of recruitment. Liverpool, Arsenal, Man United, Spurs etc would eventually be left fighting for the crumbs left by City and Newcastle.
Eventually it would be a case of getting Middle Eastern owners, or bankruptcy / accepting fate a perpetual 'challenger'. Sounds pretty grim, but this is sportswashing in all its glory.
City and Newcastle will win the league for the next 30 years and transfer values will rise so high that every other club is leveraged to the hilt by US vulture funds hell bent on tearing out the soul of the game.
Meanwhile, like monkeys in a cage hiding from a banana on a ladder, the grandchildren of people who had their childhoods ruined by Fergie will still be blaming United and Liverpool for their teams having to travel to Abu Dhabi for the World Series of Soccer every 6 months.
Meanwhile, like monkeys in a cage hiding from a banana on a ladder, the grandchildren of people who had their childhoods ruined by Fergie will still be blaming United and Liverpool for their teams having to travel to Abu Dhabi for the World Series of Soccer every 6 months.
You just know that Qatar would buy Liverpool.
If there were no restrictions it would be open season for any club with money to burn.
Football is bad enough as it is with top teams able to spend on 1 player what lower teams spend on an entire squad, it's already ridiculous in that sense.
Could you imagine no limit? If it isn't already fantasy football for some club, it certainly would be then. Like playing EA FUT with all the Gold cards and unlimited funds for new ones. It would create a Super League overnight, because teams like Wolves, Forest, Crystal Palace...just couldn't keep up.
That's why it's important that City do get done for the 115 charges, even if its not all of them. The message has to be clear, no cheating, otherwise everyone can cheat and then it all just goes to shit, if it hasn't already.
It's not just about money though, it's about the human, moral code. What are we teaching our kids getting into football, or going to matches? That you can cheat your arse off in life and trample over everyone else?
Human beings aren't very good at limiting themselves, that's why other people need to do it for them, it's why the Football governing bodies need to set limits and apply consequences when they are broken.
Football is bad enough as it is with top teams able to spend on 1 player what lower teams spend on an entire squad, it's already ridiculous in that sense.
Could you imagine no limit? If it isn't already fantasy football for some club, it certainly would be then. Like playing EA FUT with all the Gold cards and unlimited funds for new ones. It would create a Super League overnight, because teams like Wolves, Forest, Crystal Palace...just couldn't keep up.
That's why it's important that City do get done for the 115 charges, even if its not all of them. The message has to be clear, no cheating, otherwise everyone can cheat and then it all just goes to shit, if it hasn't already.
It's not just about money though, it's about the human, moral code. What are we teaching our kids getting into football, or going to matches? That you can cheat your arse off in life and trample over everyone else?
Human beings aren't very good at limiting themselves, that's why other people need to do it for them, it's why the Football governing bodies need to set limits and apply consequences when they are broken.
Sounds familiar
United as it stands, does not have owners that are rulers of countries of unlimited wealth, therefore once there are no limitations on wealth, we will finish up in a pecking order that reflects this... as night follows day.
Whether the changes City are attempting to force the PL to make are taken up or not, the writing is on the wall, for the PL (....as we know it Jim) is doomed and a new 'all singing and dancing' Super League Mk 2.0 will emerge.
With a certain amount of hindsight its become apparent that the PL was launched before it's business foundations were fully developed and embedded, and what has become seen as the 'virus', of nation states (of unlimited wealth) sneaking-in, under the cover of the supposed intention of 'sports washing'.
Any hope that the UK government would (also belatedly) appointment a regulator have also been dashed, because it's clear whoever forms the next government, this is not going to be high priority on its 'to do' list.
*Does anyone know if Jeff Bezos is interested in Soccer
Whether the changes City are attempting to force the PL to make are taken up or not, the writing is on the wall, for the PL (....as we know it Jim) is doomed and a new 'all singing and dancing' Super League Mk 2.0 will emerge.
With a certain amount of hindsight its become apparent that the PL was launched before it's business foundations were fully developed and embedded, and what has become seen as the 'virus', of nation states (of unlimited wealth) sneaking-in, under the cover of the supposed intention of 'sports washing'.
Any hope that the UK government would (also belatedly) appointment a regulator have also been dashed, because it's clear whoever forms the next government, this is not going to be high priority on its 'to do' list.
*Does anyone know if Jeff Bezos is interested in Soccer
You do realize that united has spent the most money out of anybody else in the last decade right???
Sure. I also believe in unicorns, fairies and equality amongst men regardless of creed or colour.
The bigger issue is not the money at the top, it is the money at the bottom, for the majority of SAF's reign we could cherry pick players from nearly every other club because Utd had money and most other clubs needed to sell players, but the amount of money being successively pumped into the Premier League means that even the relegation fodder don't have to sell unless they run foul of restrictions, and can demand a big price to part with their players, over all this is obviously better for the league but worse for us....
At the top there are only so many players in a squad and no reason we cannot afford a squad capable of challenging the oil state clubs if we have the right structure and manager, there are enough top players to go around.
Pep is the primary reason behind City's success, even with all their money pre Pep they were just part of the fight, if Pep goes they will be back in it, between the top clubs it will be down to the manager and not wholly the budget
At the top there are only so many players in a squad and no reason we cannot afford a squad capable of challenging the oil state clubs if we have the right structure and manager, there are enough top players to go around.
Pep is the primary reason behind City's success, even with all their money pre Pep they were just part of the fight, if Pep goes they will be back in it, between the top clubs it will be down to the manager and not wholly the budget
City's current level of dominance is not sustainable post Guardiola. This is not normal. Once he goes the league title will be up for grabs and a club with our resources should be able to compete for it.
We'd be fecked unless we're oil run as well.
Last edited:
INEOS are worth more than Chelsea's owners, no?
Agreed, the manager is the single most important person at any given club and unfortunately for us Guardiola is the best in the business. He's scarred a lot of people but their dominance started and will end with him.
It would be terrible for us.
The current restrictions are actually massively in our favour as this club is able to generate huge amounts of money by itself.
Makes it even more disappointing how terrible we've been this past 11 years considering the money spent on transfers.
The current restrictions are actually massively in our favour as this club is able to generate huge amounts of money by itself.
Makes it even more disappointing how terrible we've been this past 11 years considering the money spent on transfers.
A Premier League without financial restrictions, would be like losing a dragrace in your Golf GTI to an 18 year old tw*t, who borrowed Daddys Lamborghini. And he would brag about it afterwards.
Not cool.
Not cool.
It would be game over for the rest of the league. People seem to forget that FFP is the only thing stopping city (and PSG/Newcastle etc) from offering insane, completely unrefusable transfer fees for any players they feel like having, and offer the kind of wages that would make almost any player choose to go there.
Apart from the complete elimination of any realistic competition, it would force transfer fees and player wages up to a level completely unsustainable for non sugar-daddy clubs, who would inevitably get into financial trouble trying to stretch themselves to compete, and we'd see a lot more Leeds/Portsmouth scenarios.
If city win, I just don't really see what the point of football is for clubs like ourselves - and I'm aware we're one of the richest ones - that aim to compete at the top instead of just existing.
Apart from the complete elimination of any realistic competition, it would force transfer fees and player wages up to a level completely unsustainable for non sugar-daddy clubs, who would inevitably get into financial trouble trying to stretch themselves to compete, and we'd see a lot more Leeds/Portsmouth scenarios.
If city win, I just don't really see what the point of football is for clubs like ourselves - and I'm aware we're one of the richest ones - that aim to compete at the top instead of just existing.
People acting like City can't already cherry pick players and pay them off the books!
Well City would be able to sign players for figures that no other club in the world side from oil clubs could afford. Similar to the Saudi clubs throwing money at players, we'd see the likes of Madrid and Barcelona miss out on the Mmboppes of the future cause City would offer £500m and 700,000 per week in wages or something equally ridiculous. They would be able to collect players like Thanos collected those rings.
Don't think they will need Ped when they have bought every single one of the world's best players. Oh, Arsenal beat them because Odegaard had a great game? City buy Odegaard and pay him a million pounds per week to work in marketing
It depends if we finally get the management of the club right, fused with a worldly of a manager.
Liverpool have just stayed competitive with City for a number of years with the two things. Yes we laugh that they only won a single league and Euro, but they had 2 super close league finishes too.
Whereas our nearest in 10 years post Fergie was being about 20 points off top in 2nd, but never competing properly. That's with spending huge amounts.
Liverpool have just stayed competitive with City for a number of years with the two things. Yes we laugh that they only won a single league and Euro, but they had 2 super close league finishes too.
Whereas our nearest in 10 years post Fergie was being about 20 points off top in 2nd, but never competing properly. That's with spending huge amounts.
I think it already looks like what it would look like, personally... I find it odd when people consider Manchester United's spending and write it of as "well, United spend as much as anyone".
Do they think we'd spend that amount of money if we weren't having to compete with Chelsea and then City over the last 20 years? They helped fuel the media in terms of how much was spent every transfer window to turn it into a competition. They have contributed greatly to the inflated prices of players and extortionate contracts. We are just trying to keep tabs with them by spending big, because we feel like we need to if we are going to be anywhere near.
So, yeah, they'd keep spending silly money and we'd spend silly money to keep up with them. What's happening now would just be exacerbated.
Do they think we'd spend that amount of money if we weren't having to compete with Chelsea and then City over the last 20 years? They helped fuel the media in terms of how much was spent every transfer window to turn it into a competition. They have contributed greatly to the inflated prices of players and extortionate contracts. We are just trying to keep tabs with them by spending big, because we feel like we need to if we are going to be anywhere near.
So, yeah, they'd keep spending silly money and we'd spend silly money to keep up with them. What's happening now would just be exacerbated.
If they won, I see United being sold to an oil state within the next 5 years. In fact, I think the whole league would be taken over within 10.
Edit: if we're not involved in a breakaway league or the Super League.
Edit: if we're not involved in a breakaway league or the Super League.
Last edited:
If City win then effectively all financial restrictions are removed. Surely this would mean that teams like United and Liverpool would not have to participate in selling the TV rights of premier league games as a block. It would be every man for himself. Can you imagine United’s income if they could sell their own TV rights all round the world.
It’s significant that Sky and TNT never tell us how many people tune into the TV matches.
Of course this would never happen as the smaller clubs simply wouldn’t be able to compete. And, of course, United signed up to the rules. But it does make you think.
It’s significant that Sky and TNT never tell us how many people tune into the TV matches.
Of course this would never happen as the smaller clubs simply wouldn’t be able to compete. And, of course, United signed up to the rules. But it does make you think.
United, Liverpool and Arsenal would not be able to compete anymore and would probably all get their own sugar Daddy owners. Might as well do the super league if City win.
No FFP means we'd be wishing Qatar had got us instead of INEOS