City & FFP

Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by Marvin, 1 Feb 2014.

  1. waspish

    waspish

    Joined:
    25 Jan 2009
    Location:
    Blue Moon
    And made a 24m loss this 1/4
     
  2. Prestwich_Blue

    Prestwich_Blue

    Joined:
    26 Jan 2006
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wherever I lay my hat that's my home
    I think it has been and that it's now £55m a year for the whole package, although there's been nothing public on that. Given that Chelsea get £40m for their shirt sponsorship alone and the rags get £53m, I'd say that it's still market value at £40m for the shirt, £10m for the stadium and £5m for the Campus.

    You may have a point about fees but I think the rags are just desperate Marvin. It's all about social media and shirt sales with them. There's no coherent squad building strategy that I can see there. A lot of it may just be dick-waving as well as in "Look - we can afford to pay this for a player". Also they have to be in the CL to be relevant and a lot of their spending has been forced on them to achieve that. They've only qualified once via league position (and that was only 4th) since Baconface retired don't forget.


    I thought it was extraordinarily generous, given the market at the time. €60-70m would have been closer to the mark in my view.
     
  3. aguero93:20

    aguero93:20

    Joined:
    21 Oct 2013
    Occupation:
    Worshipping the great bald one
    Location:
    The Guardiola Circle Jerk
    No, it's been exactly the same and therein lies the issue. We've actually tried to do things by the book (their book) bar an accelerated period of investment that we were arguably forced into by FFPR being on the horizon. PSG have just given them the metaphorical finger from day 1 (not that I've an issue with that in itself). This despite PSG being in a better position to slowly invest than us due to our differing domestic league situation.

    In any case the fault here lies with UEFA trying to artificially fix competition in an economic market, not with PSG (or ourselves) for choosing to invest. The current financial and sporting position of both clubs is proof of this.
     
  4. Wreckless Alec

    Wreckless Alec

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2009
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Gone fishin'
    And you are right to have a bee in your bonnet. The fact that the Qatar sponsorship was reducd from £200m to £100m was fantastic sleight of hand to make it look as though they were being punished alongside us. £100 fucking million pounds ? Who decided that was the market rate ? They were a fig-leaf to cover the real purpose of FFP.

    The fact is that PSG were one of the G14 teams that set up the Champions League, they have never had the same treatment as us and never will. They know this which is why they can take the piss.
     
  5. City Raider

    City Raider

    Joined:
    14 Jul 2008
    Location:
    follow me I'm right behind you
    Manchester United’s Philip Townsend lined up for top UEFA communications role . . . keirradnedge.com/2018/02/13/uef…

    Hmmm
     
  6. TimH

    TimH

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2017
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney
    The whole structure is totally corrupt. Blatter, Platini, Smugfantino, etc. They are all the same and it's only a matter of time before Smugfantino is involved in a Blatter-esque scandal (he's flirted with a few so far). What other industry actively seeks to discourage investment in the industry then cries poverty when a world cup doesn't generate enough Five Star hotel and First Class flights for Smugfantino and his cronies. The hypocrisy is absurd!

    Then we move on to all the other clubs trying to complain about City spending too much, whilst complying with the current regulations. You're not allowed to mention City these days unless you mention in the same sentence that they spent 50 million, sorry, 50 MILLION!!!!!! on a right back. Much more acceptable to spend 90m on Poobag or 80 odd million on Lukaku (incidentally there are 11 players in a team - not jut a striker, but a right back plays in the same game too y'know - Moneyball anyone??)

    Sugardaddies have been around for ever, in every industry, not just football. The Rags have dreamed of the likes of Robert Maxwell, Michael Knighton (remember his ball juggling on the Swamp) taking over and pumping millions into the club. They even welcomed Glazer - his track record and wealth meant he MUST pump millions into the transfer kitty, only to throw their toys out of the pram when he didn't by setting up Ragtown FC - What rank hypocrisy! Throwing a tantrum when your sugar daddy doesn't spend enough for you by setting up your own TEAM!!

    Then we have other clubs - Liverpool, Villa, Sunderland, Arsenal, Chelsea, Blackburn, to name but a few who's fans have welcomed their supposed sugar daddy with open arms, salivating at the potential transfer kitty. Blackburn happened twice- Shearer (rank hypocrite number 1) happily took sugar daddy Jack Walkers dollar, preferring their money to Man United! Then he became a 15m player due to sugar daddy John Halls nostalgic indulgence! Shearer is the definition of a sugar daddy plaything, so ho he can criticise any team that spends money within the rules, is ridiculous.

    The problem that these clubs and Smuggy have now is that City are actually a money spinner for Football. (As are PSG and similar "spending beyond their means clubs" like Barcelona and Real Madrid who are both made solvent by injections or asset sales to their local councils). Now Fifa have a problem which is the old clubs are complaining about new kids spoiling their oligopoly, whilst FIFA are trying to get the most for the TV rights (pumped up due to PSG, Man City, etc).

    Rules are rules but when the likes of Gill and Smuggy make them up as they go along, anything can happen. Their hypocrisy should be called out for what it is. Hypocrisy run by (in my opinion) crooks.
     
  7. Exeter Blue I am here

    Exeter Blue I am here

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2011
    Location:
    Take a wild guess.......
    Nonetheless I’m grateful for their existence. Without PSG as an inconvenient comparator, those c**ts at UEFA would have gone way beyond fining us. In fact I think we would have been banned from European competition sine die. Whilst they could bend the rules and stretch credibility to the very limit in terms of their stance on PSG’s utterly absurd £200m deal with the tourist board of a country that no-one sane would ever wish to visit, the similarity with City (ie cash rich Arab owners) meant that they could never destroy us without risking destroying PSG in the process
     
  8. M18CTID

    M18CTID

    Joined:
    15 Jul 2008
    Location:
    In the cricket club at Burnley away
    Wait until the Saudi government buy United. That will throw a hilarious curveball into things when it comes to all the sanctimonious twats moaning about our spending and where our owner comes from.
     
  9. hmblue

    hmblue

    Joined:
    17 Nov 2009
    Great post.
     
  10. Dave S

    Dave S

    Joined:
    17 Aug 2009
    Location:
    Manchester
    Spot on. Excellent post.
     

Share This Page