£50m bid

Re: City & FFP (continued)

tolmie's hairdoo said:
We have a £50m offer in writing on the table for someone right now.

And no, it's not Ross Barkley ;)

There is absolutely no way the nature of our present business suggests a cap of any sort.

What no video clues, TH? ;)

Oh well, I'm heading back to the transfer forum!
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

tolmie's hairdoo said:
We have a £50m offer in writing on the table for someone right now.

And no, it's not Ross Barkley ;)

There is absolutely no way the nature of our present business suggests a cap of any sort.

That narrows down the targets a tad....... id guess Bale.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

FantasyIreland said:
tolmie's hairdoo said:
We have a £50m offer in writing on the table for someone right now.

And no, it's not Ross Barkley ;)

There is absolutely no way the nature of our present business suggests a cap of any sort.

That narrows down the targets a tad....... id guess Bale.

I'm going for Pogba.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

hgblue said:
FantasyIreland said:
tolmie's hairdoo said:
We have a £50m offer in writing on the table for someone right now.

And no, it's not Ross Barkley ;)

There is absolutely no way the nature of our present business suggests a cap of any sort.

That narrows down the targets a tad....... id guess Bale.

I'm going for Pogba.

Agreed.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Chippy_boy said:
FanchesterCity said:
Chippy_boy said:
That's an over-simplification. The only thing UEFA have said (actually the CFCB have said, to be more accurate) is in the document linked above. When you read it, as I have done many times, it lists a number of sanction, some of which are listed after one year if we meet certain criteria. There is no over-arching statement that they are all suspended after one year. People assuming this are reading into the document, terms that simply do not exist.

A completely separate debate is, what level is the 2nd year spending restriction set at, and how much of a problem is it for us. So it may be that the restriction is not too bad and doesn't cause us too many isues. Let's hope so.

I agree with you!
That was my point... the document is quite ambiguous in places and vague in others. Generally it's ok, but there's a couple of places where it's not at all clear what restricting will remain. The Chairman's made statements that we hope to be without restriction, and that's fine, but we've been there before haven't we?
The is definitely 'seeming' contradictions.
There's also the issues that suggest players salaries and bonuses cannot be increased, and yet we are also lead to believe players have dropped their salaries in favour of larger bonuses. Again, this seems contradictory.

My over simplification was simply to illustrate the smoke and mirrors way of operating in UEFA. A 3 year financial penalty with 2 years suspended if we behave, a 2 year embargo with 1 year suspended if we behave, it's just over complicating things. They could just have easily said it's a one year punishment and we'll look again next year to see if it needs repeating.
The caveat was that UEFA wanted sanctions to sound bigger... so they shouted about overall sanctions, and whispered about the suspensions. Ergo the headlines were 2 year embargo... huge fine.... etc etc.

Yes we are in agreement.

I find it impossible to believe that either this UEFA document, or our club's statement have been carelessly worded or that they contain mistakes. Both sides were in deep and lengthy discussion preceding this and had teams of top lawyers on it. The only logical conclusion is that the document is very carefully and precisely worded, as was our statement.

I think the objectives on both sides were to save face - in UEFA's case, to make the punishment sound as harsh as they could, in order to keep the Wenger, Rummenigge et al happy - and in ours to make it sound like it was "a pinch" and that our "strategy" is still valid and on track.

This is why I am leaning towards believing that both statements are correct. That yes, technically we will still have transfer spending sanctions in 15/16, but for whatever reason (maybe it's for the summer only?) we are operating without restriction from the start of the season.

City's words "at the commencement of the 2015-16 season" is not some throw-away line, imho. I think it's been worded very carefully. Why did we not just say "for the 2015/16 season".
Can't see that for a moment as the season starts before the end of transfer window.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

I am going for both ha ha , stick a bid of 50 in for both Pogba and Bale
I would prefer Bale , in fact a dream summer for me would be Ancellotti Bale Isco and Pogba then get rid of the usual 6,7, or 8 suspects .Then fill the squad with our promising youngsters .
Fewer buys but real quality and a home grown player , all young and hungry .Can we afford for Utd or whoever to get Bale ??
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

tolmie's hairdoo said:
We have a £50m offer in writing on the table for someone right now.

And no, it's not Ross Barkley ;)

There is absolutely no way the nature of our present business suggests a cap of any sort.

Let's hope it's someone decent who will actually improve us not the overpriced relative dross we've been buying the last couple of seasons.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

tolmie's hairdoo said:
We have a £50m offer in writing on the table for someone right now.

And no, it's not Ross Barkley ;)

There is absolutely no way the nature of our present business suggests a cap of any sort.

That's just for starters bud, main course and deserts to follow :-)
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.