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

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.
 
Wreckless Alec said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
TimH said:
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.
Click to expand...
Great post.
 
TimH said:
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.
Click to expand...
Spot on. Excellent post.
 
M18CTID said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can't see that happening mate.

There's a new sheriff in town in Saudi and most of the playboy big-spending princes are under house arrest.

The Crown Prince wants reform not relegation from the top four.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I'm sure they could but he said the Saudi Government. Who are borrowing money hence.....oh never mind!
Click to expand...
No. You replied to TH’s post saying the “big spending” Saudi Princes were under house arrest.

Ps, Abu Dhabi has also issued gilts. It’s not just Saudi and their tiny $10bn bond issue.
 
How powerful off and on the pitch can we be ? Smashing records still in all competitions young squad can only get better

More sponsors more TV money Amazon documentary money new kit deal

still loads of players out on loan that we can sell

New clubs India ? Malaysia ? Singapore Vietnam ? Indonesia China ? South Africa ? I think have all been suggested a rovers fan at work says we have some sort of club / school/ academy venture with the Venkies

Then the Etihad campus
 
M18CTID said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why would the Saudi government buy united I know it's hypothetical but I can't ever see Saudi buying an expensive club like Utd in the midst of their struggling economy.
 
Juventus president Andrea Agnelli spoke to a number of modifications coming to football across Europe. Agnelli, who is also the president of the European Club Association, gave the remarks at a press conference held by the ECA in Rome <...> FFP? There is a great collaboration with UEFA, we came to new agreements for the rules for FFP. If a club goes outside of the rules, they will be investigated." Anderlecht's director added: "In a season you may spend a maximum of €100m, if you go above this amount UEFA will be allowed to oversee the financials of the club to verify that they are in accordance with the rules. It will allow for a more timely verification with is good for everyone."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top