City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[Newman Noggs]

Exactly, if it's not aimed at City as he claims, then why since 2008? A more telling comparison would be the first 5 years since 2008 vs the last 5 years as the first 5 were the trickiest(catching up) and the last 5 shows how far we've come. He's not really interested in where we are heading though.

He does explain the inflation yes:

Ha ha ! Hadn't spotted that. "Outliers like Neymar" and Pogba and Lukaku and Di Maria !

 

[CityStu]

so adjusted for magical inflation, we've somehow spent 1.5bn Euros in 10 years, whilst the rags, who've just committed to spending £180m on one player without a transfer fee, and spent £323m just on Pogba, Lukaku, Di Maria, Martial and Mata, somehow spend less than a billion. Lolz.

It's net transfer spend and the money they got for Ronaldo in 09 will be very well inflated as it was a long time ago. Makes the whole thing kind of pointless really (at least in a City v United) way as United obviously had high value assets at the start of the time period whereas City didn't.

 

[Metalartin]

Someone get on twitter and boo the guy for me. Needs the full UEFA treatment haha. :)

 

[Newman Noggs]

It's net transfer spend and the money they got for Ronaldo in 09 will be very well inflated as it was a long time ago. Makes the whole thing kind of pointless really (at least in a City v United) way as United obviously had high value assets at the start of the time period whereas City didn't.

This is something that is always ignored as is the value of the current "stock". Our squad far exceeds what we have paid for it and will only increase in value. The rags' squad loses value by the week.

 

[Jalfraag]

Someone get on twitter and boo the guy for me. Needs the full UEFA treatment haha. :)

I've questioned his time frame. I doubt the fucker will reply.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Exactly, if it's not aimed at City as he claims, then why since 2008? A more telling comparison would be the first 5 years since 2008 vs the last 5 years as the first 5 were the trickiest(catching up) and the last 5 shows how far we've come. He's not really interested in where we are heading though.

He does explain the inflation yes:

I don't think 10 years is unreasonable as a date range to use - if it had been 11 or 9 then it would look more dubious.
As you mention, it doesn't make any allowance for the immediate catch-up process before the imposition of FFP.

Inflation - thanks, I'd not seen that. Seems reasonable at first read.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Ha ha ! Hadn't spotted that. "Outliers like Neymar" and Pogba and Lukaku and Di Maria !

I think Neymar is the rogue one - 75M/90M isn't that extreme when you think of Ronaldo and Bale.

@CityStu also points out something that may have a disproportionate effect - it would have to be recalculated to know why.

The only flaw in it is that is missing the catch-up/initial values caveat.

 

[caseball]

Someone should send him a Cann league table and tell him we're the team that's hard to see riiiiiight at the top.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

• I for one couldn't give a toss about how much we've spent. It's the way that humanity has developed ever since our caveman ancestors learned that it is far easier and far more civilised to barter their wares rather than club the next man to get their hands on his possessions. The only argument is what to barter with and how much of it to trade off in exchange for whatever the other man had hold of. Three sheep for your one cow might have been a good deal for each trader, but what if the cow was old and manky, or what if it is young and fully developed? On this basis, either fewer sheep could be traded OR a whole flock of sheep might have been required. And it is the same for any commodity you care to name, not least of all footballers. If the cow was as prize worthy as, say, De Bruyne, and the sheep were as valuable [relatively] as the Barca's youth squad, then there would be little chance of any deal, but if today's trading chips [money] were offered instead of livestock then there would have to be a whole load of it offered to make a deal possible. It's just a matter of what each dealer has and how willing each dealer is to make such a deal work to the satisfaction of each party. Journalists, and the general public too, do not seem to grasp this principle but are only too willing to pontificate on it as talk is cheap and easy and requires no knowledge whatsoever, the only qualification required to become an expert on these things is to have either a pen or a big mouth.

 

[Jordie]

• I for one couldn't give a toss about how much we've spent. It's the way that humanity has developed ever since our caveman ancestors learned that it is far easier and far more civilised to barter their wares rather than club the next man to get their hands on his possessions. The only argument is what to barter with and how much of it to trade off in exchange for whatever the other man had hold of. Three sheep for your one cow might have been a good deal for each trader, but what if the cow was old and manky, or what if it is young and fully developed? On this basis, either fewer sheep could be traded OR a whole flock of sheep might have been required. And it is the same for any commodity you care to name, not least of all footballers. If the cow was as prize worthy as, say, De Bruyne, and the sheep were as valuable [relatively] as the Barca's youth squad, then there would be little chance of any deal, but if today's trading chips [money] were offered instead of livestock then there would have to be a whole load of it offered to make a deal possible. It's just a matter of what each dealer has and how willing each dealer is to make such a deal work to the satisfaction of each party. Journalists, and the general public too, do not seem to grasp this principle but are only too willing to pontificate on it as talk is cheap and easy and requires no knowledge whatsoever, the only qualification required to become an expert on these things is to have either a pen or a big mouth.

Carlos Carvahal?

 

[caseball]

Is the cow still breathing?

 

[Blue Pete]

We've spent lots of money but look where we are, that's where the money has gone. If you want to win on a regular basis you spend money. It's like this now, it was like this 10 years ago, and it was like this 80 years ago.

We had to spend a lot to catch up with the cartel teams. In recent times that has been both us and PSG, the cartel introduced ffp to stop us, it failed.

The Premiership signs a new deal making it richer than everyone else. The cartel look to ffp2.

If it fails I think you will see the cartel set up a nice cosy European league, it will probably need to include us and PSG but that just means we will have become part of the cartel.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Won't stop them recycling it even if they don't understand it, you know what the rags are like.

What makes me laugh is all these fans of clubs moaning about prices of players while City are yet to break the £60m mark on a single transfer as Pep rightly pointed out yet it's our fault Utd spent £100m+ overall on Pogba, £90m with add-ons on Lukaku and Liverpool spent £75m on a CB? I also have a sneaking suspicion Arsenal tried as hard as they could to keep Aubameyang's fee down near Laporte's release clause for fear of not having room to talk anymore.

Whats even funnier is the opposition fan`s that moan the most about us spending to much, are the one`s that complain that their owner`s dont spending enough

 

[dickie davies]

We've spent lots of money but look where we are, that's where the money has gone. If you want to win on a regular basis you spend money. It's like this now, it was like this 10 years ago, and it was like this 80 years ago.

We had to spend a lot to catch up with the cartel teams. In recent times that has been both us and PSG, the cartel introduced ffp to stop us, it failed.

The Premiership signs a new deal making it richer than everyone else. The cartel look to ffp2.

If it fails I think you will see the cartel set up a nice cosy European league, it will probably need to include us and PSG but that just means we will have become part of the cartel.

If there were a European super league and it were by invitation, which clubs do you think would be invited?

There is always the should Celtic and Rangers play in the PL argument
Celtic have the potential to be a leading European club, but are restricted because of lack of TV money and play in a shite league. Should they be invited?
What about Turkish clubs, they generate large enthusiastic crowds
How many from the Prem would be allowed, considering that English clubs make up the majority of the top 20 biggest revenue clubs in Europe!
Spurs are moving to a lovely big new stadium but have won next to nowt in recent times
Liverpool are huge but have won hardly anything recently

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Bbbbbut, I thought money didn't buy success?

That's what they said, right?

But 'history' is the only thing that matters now, right?

Oh wait, we're creating further history at the same time.

First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight/fear you.

We got there in the end, eh blues?

 

[ranxerox]

If there were a European super league and it were by invitation, which clubs do you think would be invited?

There is always the should Celtic and Rangers play in the PL argument
Celtic have the potential to be a leading European club, but are restricted because of lack of TV money and play in a shite league. Should they be invited?
What about Turkish clubs, they generate large enthusiastic crowds
How many from the Prem would be allowed, considering that English clubs make up the majority of the top 20 biggest revenue clubs in Europe!
Spurs are moving to a lovely big new stadium but have won next to nowt in recent times
Liverpool are huge but have won hardly anything recently

Would be interesting to say the least how it got decided. Spurs and Liverpool rank in the middle the Forbes top 20 so I would expect them in regardless of a lack of recent wins. Liverpool also has a sizeable international following which would help that type of league with TV revenues.

Can't just use Forbes/Forbes though as teams like Leicester, West Ham, and Newcastle occasionally pop up on that list. There would be lots of pressure for regional balance too.

 

[crazyg]

We've spent lots of money but look where we are, that's where the money has gone. If you want to win on a regular basis you spend money. It's like this now, it was like this 10 years ago, and it was like this 80 years ago.

We had to spend a lot to catch up with the cartel teams. In recent times that has been both us and PSG, the cartel introduced ffp to stop us, it failed.

The Premiership signs a new deal making it richer than everyone else. The cartel look to ffp2.

If it fails I think you will see the cartel set up a nice cosy European league, it will probably need to include us and PSG but that just means we will have become part of the cartel.

You mean like when Arsenal bought most of the Huddersfield team plus their manager, Herbert Chapman, when they moved into their new ground in Nowf Landan. Huddersfield had just won the league 3 years in a row, then Arsenal did the same.

But that's not financial doping. I'm sure you'll agree with that, eh Arsene?

 

[cookster]

You mean like when Arsenal bought most of the Huddersfield team plus their manager, Herbert Chapman, when they moved into their new ground in Nowf Landan. Huddersfield had just won the league 3 years in a row, then Arsenal did the same.

But that's not financial doping. I'm sure you'll agree with that, eh Arsene?

You should know by now the likes of Arse, Manure and the Dippers are only interested in talking about their glorious istree when it suits.

 

[domalino]

You mean like when Arsenal bought most of the Huddersfield team plus their manager, Herbert Chapman, when they moved into their new ground in Nowf Landan. Huddersfield had just won the league 3 years in a row, then Arsenal did the same.

But that's not financial doping. I'm sure you'll agree with that, eh Arsene?

That didn't actually happen though.

Chapman won 2 league titles with Huddersfield in 1924 & 1925, before applying for the Arsenal job.

Huddersfield then won the league without Chapman in 1926 and finished 2nd in 1927 & 1928 while Chapman's Arsenal were midtable.

In fact it wasn't until 5 years at Arsenal that Chapman's Arsenal won the league, and from a quick look up of their starting XI, none of them played for Huddersfield before Arsenal.


So pretty much everything you wrote was fiction.

 

[crazyg]

That didn't actually happen though.

Chapman won 2 league titles with Huddersfield in 1924 & 1925, before applying for the Arsenal job.

Huddersfield then won the league without Chapman in 1926 and finished 2nd in 1927 & 1928 while Chapman's Arsenal were midtable.

In fact it wasn't until 5 years at Arsenal that Chapman's Arsenal won the league, and from a quick look up of their starting XI, none of them played for Huddersfield before Arsenal.


So pretty much everything you wrote was fiction.

Give me some credit. I got the teams and manager right!
So they didn't buy any Huddersfield players then?
And Arsenal didn't move to Highbury from Woolwich?
And it wasn't financial doping?

Other than that, I should have started with "once upon a time....."

;-)