UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Premier League scrap the £7m wages cap. Is it a coincidence that Man Utd were were of the teams that would be most severely affected by this rule?

Fucking Non-Oil Cheats.

 

[Centurions]

Go out and buy more clubs in Europe say from Poland, Sweden, and from Eastern Europe. Then when any good youngsters look good enough to come to us. Then when they are at 14 buy them and train them so by the time they are good enough to come into the 1st team they will qualify as home grown. As you have to have been with the club for 6yrs to qualify for home grown if you come from outside of your clubs base.

This hopefully would keep us well in front of any FFP charges. That UEFA would look to throw at us, but I have no doubt that they will try some other way to get back at us.

6 years? Has something changed as I thought it was still 3 years?

 

[laserblue]

The rags must have had an advance tip off about the scrappig of the £7m annual wage incdrease limit. It's been widely known that they were maxed out on wages and would have to sell to buy and/or increase wages. Then hey presto, hours after it's announced that Rashford gets a new contract on £200,000-£250,000 a week the rule is scrapped.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

It was a stupid rule like the article says it stopped the clubs below 6th spending big or waiting to ofload players before buying! It was a rule that that K@nt Gill thought it would hamper us more than the scum! Backfired somewhat and with a wave if Gills corrupt wand puff its gone!

Its a good thing its gone though.

Pity the cnut Gill can't be wiped out as easily.

 

[Marvin]

The rags must have had an advance tip off about the scrappig of the £7m annual wage incdrease limit. It's been widely known that they were maxed out on wages and would have to sell to buy and/or increase wages. Then hey presto, hours after it's announced that Rashford gets a new contract on £200,000-£250,000 a week the rule is scrapped.

I was saying that but apparently they would have been OK for another 12 months but then would have had a problem. The argument that FFP regulations are used to protect some clubs and attack others is only strengthened by this change. I wonder if they put out any kind of press release in explanation.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

I was saying that but apparently they would have been OK for another 12 months but then would have had a problem. The argument that FFP regulations are used to protect some clubs and attack others is only strengthened by this change. I wonder if they put out any kind of press release in explanation.

Not holding my breath.

 

[Metalartin]

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ws/manchester-united-man-city-handed-16512560

Reading comments of articles these days, it appears City fans know way more about the history of the game than Liverpool or United ones, who wont stop using the word history.

Alan28
How did the club nearly go bankrupt in 1989 after Fergie made the biggest spending spree football in England had ever seen then? Why where they desperately trying to sell the debt ridden mess of a club to Micheal Knighton even though he didn't have a pot to wee in? Why do all rags live in a World of imagination?

I wasn't aware of this but I checked it out and he's spot on.

1989-90 Topflight Transfers

They did invest heavily just before the 90s arrived, to stand them in good stead to benefit from the influx in cash(maybe they got a tip off that they would be able to pay off the debts they incurred here?). Fergie broke previous spending records in 1989-90. They spent £10.10m that season(close to £9m net spend) when a lot of topflight clubs were barely breaking £1m mark, furthermore what were considered big spenders at the time, were spending between £2-3m maximum that season and normally with some big sales to allow for it. Tottenham's spending the season before must have been seen as excessive for the time, when they bought Gascoigne for £4.8m but their net spend was only £3.2m.

In short United blew previous transfer windows out of the water and it wasn't like they were anywhere near the biggest club, they had just finished 11th place going into that transfer window and hadn't won the title in 22years. After that we all know the story with the formation of the Premier League and uneven splits. "Earned not bought" though...

 

[dario2739]

Reading comments of articles these days, it appears City fans know way more about the history of the game than Liverpool or United ones, who wont stop using the word history.


I wasn't aware of this but I checked it out and he's spot on.

1989-90 Topflight Transfers

They did invest heavily just before the 90s arrived, to stand them in good stead to benefit from the influx in cash(maybe they got a tip off that they would be able to pay off the debts they incurred here?). Fergie broke previous spending records in 1989-90. They spent £10.10m that season(close to £9m net spend) when a lot of topflight clubs were barely breaking £1m mark, furthermore what were considered big spenders at the time, were spending between £2-3m maximum that season and normally with some big sales to allow for it. Tottenham's spending the season before must have been seen as excessive for the time, when they bought Gascoigne for £4.8m but their net spend was only £3.2m.

In short United blew previous transfer windows out of the water and it wasn't like they were anywhere near the biggest club, they had just finished 11th place going into that transfer window and hadn't won the title in 22years. After that we all know the story with the formation of the Premier League and uneven splits. "Earned not bought" though...

Gary James will tell you far more detailed than I, but I'm sure the Rags took out a massive loan, that - if success hadn't happened - would have seriously put them on their arse.

 

[aguero93:20]

Gary James will tell you far more detailed than I, but I'm sure the Rags took out a massive loan, that - if success hadn't happened - would have seriously put them on their arse.

If Magnier and McManus hadn't happened you mean.

 

[laserblue]

Reading comments of articles these days, it appears City fans know way more about the history of the game than Liverpool or United ones, who wont stop using the word history.


I wasn't aware of this but I checked it out and he's spot on.

1989-90 Topflight Transfers

They did invest heavily just before the 90s arrived, to stand them in good stead to benefit from the influx in cash(maybe they got a tip off that they would be able to pay off the debts they incurred here?). Fergie broke previous spending records in 1989-90. They spent £10.10m that season(close to £9m net spend) when a lot of topflight clubs were barely breaking £1m mark, furthermore what were considered big spenders at the time, were spending between £2-3m maximum that season and normally with some big sales to allow for it. Tottenham's spending the season before must have been seen as excessive for the time, when they bought Gascoigne for £4.8m but their net spend was only £3.2m.

In short United blew previous transfer windows out of the water and it wasn't like they were anywhere near the biggest club, they had just finished 11th place going into that transfer window and hadn't won the title in 22years. After that we all know the story with the formation of the Premier League and uneven splits. "Earned not bought" though...

The frequently quoted stat is that United were spending 160% of revenues on players. That was totally unsustainable but then they floated on the Stock Exchange, became a plc and the Premier League and Champions League riches started rolling in. If not for all that they'd have done a Leeds.

 

[Rolee]

The frequently quoted stat is that United were spending 160% of revenues on players. That was totally unsustainable but then they floated on the Stock Exchange, became a plc and the Premier League and Champions League riches started rolling in. If not for all that they'd have done a Leeds.

I've read that stat before but only on forums. Is there a source anywhere for that?

 

[Indaparkside]

This has gone really quiet on media outlets,
Very strange

 

[laserblue]

I've read that stat before but only on forums. Is there a source anywhere for that?

Someone on here broke it down in detail in a post several weeks ago but I can't remember who.

 

[CharliesRightPeg]

I've read that stat before but only on forums. Is there a source anywhere for that?

Companies House
From memory they spent 75% of turnover on new players in 89 with wages at a steady 50% of turnover
So potentially not the 160% quoted but they were spending mad money at the time being bailed out by loans, overdraft etc

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

This has gone really quiet on media outlets,
Very strange

I would imagine the Daily Mail are cooking something up or doing some cut and shut copy and paste of a previous article. Sari is just keeping the Juve seat warm for Pep and Silva is getting off as he knows a ban is looming. Lather rinse and repeat, always repeat.

 

[Charlesfarsbar]

Reading comments of articles these days, it appears City fans know way more about the history of the game than Liverpool or United ones, who wont stop using the word history.


I wasn't aware of this but I checked it out and he's spot on.

1989-90 Topflight Transfers

They did invest heavily just before the 90s arrived, to stand them in good stead to benefit from the influx in cash(maybe they got a tip off that they would be able to pay off the debts they incurred here?). Fergie broke previous spending records in 1989-90. They spent £10.10m that season(close to £9m net spend) when a lot of topflight clubs were barely breaking £1m mark, furthermore what were considered big spenders at the time, were spending between £2-3m maximum that season and normally with some big sales to allow for it. Tottenham's spending the season before must have been seen as excessive for the time, when they bought Gascoigne for £4.8m but their net spend was only £3.2m.

In short United blew previous transfer windows out of the water and it wasn't like they were anywhere near the biggest club, they had just finished 11th place going into that transfer window and hadn't won the title in 22years. After that we all know the story with the formation of the Premier League and uneven splits. "Earned not bought" though...

I think even Spurs would have had a positive net spend as they sold Chris Waddle to Marseille for around £4.5m not long before , the bought Gazza, Lineker and our own Paul steward with the proceeds. United spending was ridiculous during that time....

Ince £1.8m
Webb £1.5m
Palister £2.3m
Wallace £0.7m

 

[BlueRain]

I think even Spurs would have had a positive net spend as they sold Chris Waddle to Marseille for around £4.5m not long before , the bought Gazza, Lineker and our own Paul steward with the proceeds. United spending was ridiculous during that time....

Ince £1.8m
Webb £1.5m
Palister £2.3m
Wallace £0.7m

Howard Webb? ;)

 

[City Raider]

Floated on the stock exchange to raise the funds for Ferguson to splurge. They didn’t grow organically as the historians would have us believe. When they floated they hadn’t won the league in decades. Their fame was built on the tragedy of an air crash.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

This has gone really quiet on media outlets,
Very strange

Almost like it was an orchestrated smear campaign after the dippers finished joint first and we won the treble......

 

[Newman Noggs]

Almost like it was an orchestrated smear campaign after the dippers finished joint first and we won the treble......

And I'm still interested in why none of the other 3 "independent" investigations launched amid such a fanfare at the same time, have published their findings yet. You'd think at least one of them would have reached a conclusion. It's almost as though they were being orchestrated too !