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

[Davs 19]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I say let the UEFA muppets talk.

The more they do the more the world understands how unbelievably arrogant they are. Those implementing and defending FFP seem not to realise that they are digging a deeper hole from which they will, at some point have to extricate themselves.

I'm just looking forward to Liverpool's first assessment next year >:) "warrya mean we failed la, we've got loads of istreeeeee"

They're not in a great place. May as well book the vigil now.

 

[gio's side step]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Apologies if someone has posted reference to these academics before but if anyone is interested check out the abstract below published this month.

<a class="postlink" href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/1468-0327.12031/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced ... 327.12031/</a>

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I say let the UEFA muppets talk.

The more they do the more the world understands how unbelievably arrogant they are. Those implementing and defending FFP seem not to realise that they are digging a deeper hole from which they will, at some point have to extricate themselves.

Sadly they don't.

A huge percentage of fans buy into this fear, and UEFA are exacerbating it.
And lets not forget, the clubs with the huge numbers of fans (like United and Liverpool) stand to feel the impact of investment going to other clubs.

Not every fan buys into this, admittedly, and there's some fairly decent fans of other teams who do see things as they are, but the vast majority do little real research, are unable to put aside their allegiances, and are only to willing to believe everything UEFA tell them.

You can spot these fans a mile away:

1) They believe City bought the title.
We didn't. We bought a massive improved chance of success.

2) They believe United and Liverpool et al earned their money.
To a large extent, they did, but that's changing the argument from spending power into 'who has a right to outspend others'.

3) They believe City are cheats, because FFP imposed sanctions on us (therefore we were 'proven' to be guilty)
We were judged to have breached the rules, not by a lot, but enough, and as per the same rules, we took our medicine. That's no different to a player being sent off and taking his medicine.

4) They believe every commercial deal City have done is a) inflated and b) with some related party (i.e. 'fixed').
They simply fail to accept that if you DO invest a fortune in a business, and you do put good people in place, you do stand a decent chance of increasing your profile and revenues - which is what City have done. They just won't accept it.
I suspect some our deals have been a little 'favourable', but I expect that's been the case with many big name clubs for a long time!

5) They constantly refer to City as a small club.
If we're honest with ourselves, we're not at the level of Liverpool or United, and probably not Chelsea in recent years, but we are on the up.
We are a large domestic club who are now gaining huge exposure all over the world. We are growing rapidly.
It's just a complete myth to believe we are a 'small' club though.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

2) They believe United and Liverpool et al earned their money.
To a large extent, they did, but that's changing the argument from spending power into 'who has a right to outspend others'.

When you say they 'earned it', I presume you mean changed the rules of the game to ensure a financial advantage over the competition, for what they thought was, and certainly wanted to be, ad infinitum?

If that isn't cheating I don't know what is.

It's funny how fans of clubs like that talk about 'cheat codes' when it comes to City, without relishing who it was who wrote that particular book in the first instance.

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

2) They believe United and Liverpool et al earned their money.
To a large extent, they did, but that's changing the argument from spending power into 'who has a right to outspend others'.

When you say they 'earned it', I presume you mean changed the rules of the game to ensure a financial advantage over the competition, for what they thought was, and certainly wanted to be, ad infinitum?

If that isn't cheating I don't know what is.

It's funny how fans of clubs like that talk about 'cheat codes' when it comes to City, without relishing who it was who wrote that particular book in the first instance.

red relish

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

2) They believe United and Liverpool et al earned their money.
To a large extent, they did, but that's changing the argument from spending power into 'who has a right to outspend others'.

When you say they 'earned it', I presume you mean changed the rules of the game to ensure a financial advantage over the competition, for what they thought was, and certainly wanted to be, ad infinitum?

If that isn't cheating I don't know what is.

It's funny how fans of clubs like that talk about 'cheat codes' when it comes to City, without realising who it was who wrote that particular book in the first instance.

red relish

This fucking iPad drives me insane at times.

 

[Balti]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

2) They believe United and Liverpool et al earned their money.
To a large extent, they did, but that's changing the argument from spending power into 'who has a right to outspend others'.

When you say they 'earned it', I presume you mean changed the rules of the game to ensure a financial advantage over the competition, for what they thought was, and certainly wanted to be, ad infinitum?

If that isn't cheating I don't know what is.

It's funny how fans of clubs like that talk about 'cheat codes' when it comes to City, without relishing who it was who wrote that particular book in the first instance.

red relish

I think what he means is that their revenue comes largely from gate receipts, sponsorship and TV rights which have now become the only acceptable/honourable revenue streams according to FFPR. This, of course, was never the case until the clubs were taken over by American groups used to a rigged market. Indeed Liverpool are still overspending and United's success at the start of PL was built on massive injections of cash from their sugar daddies (their shareholders) between 1986 and 1993, in the form of of rights issues and flotation. Someone may like to give us the full chapter and verse on the financial regulations then in place which United broke in that period.

 

[Gary James]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

5) They constantly refer to City as a small club.
If we're honest with ourselves, we're not at the level of Liverpool or United, and probably not Chelsea in recent years, but we are on the up.
We are a large domestic club who are now gaining huge exposure all over the world. We are growing rapidly.
It's just a complete myth to believe we are a 'small' club though.

The Chelsea line proves that City are not a small club in many ways. Let's not forget where Chelsea were before Harding's investment (and then Abramovich) in the 80s/early 90s. In terms of success, support, stadium etc. Chelsea were much further behind than City were at that time and look how far they've come. Better still compare the investment City have experienced in every area and it's clear that within a few years - and it won't be long - City will be proven to be the model that other clubs aspire to. The stuff about FFP and City 'buying' success will be forgotten - or only churned out by those who have actually lost their place at the top table.

Don't be surprised to find UEFA supporting City in future years - it's a funny old game and taking the hit this year will probably turn out to be one of the wisest (even if it was unjust) moves the club has made. Football politics will begin to move City's way.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

5) They constantly refer to City as a small club.
If we're honest with ourselves, we're not at the level of Liverpool or United, and probably not Chelsea in recent years, but we are on the up.
We are a large domestic club who are now gaining huge exposure all over the world. We are growing rapidly.
It's just a complete myth to believe we are a 'small' club though.

The Chelsea line proves that City are not a small club in many ways. Let's not forget where Chelsea were before Harding's investment (and then Abramovich) in the 80s/early 90s. In terms of success, support, stadium etc. Chelsea were much further behind than City were at that time and look how far they've come. Better still compare the investment City have experienced in every area and it's clear that within a few years - and it won't be long - City will be proven to be the model that other clubs aspire to. The stuff about FFP and City 'buying' success will be forgotten - or only churned out by those who have actually lost their place at the top table.

Don't be surprised to find UEFA supporting City in future years - it's a funny old game and taking the hit this year will probably turn out to be one of the wisest (even if it was unjust) moves the club has made. Football politics will begin to move City's way.

Yes, I agree entirely. Our starting position was essentially better than Chelsea's albeit we'd had a more turbulent recent history.
Admittedly, London has a certain 'pull' that Manchester doesn't but it never stopped United and Liverpool overcoming it, and it won't stop us.

And the part about buying success being forgotten - spot on. This was partly what I was trying to allude to early. When we go back in time almost all clubs received some level of investment (money they didn't actually 'earn'). But over half a century on, it's overlooked or discounted as mere 'pennies' compared with our investment.
But a few hundred thousand pounds 50 years ago can turn into hundreds of millions today. In the same way, our billions today might turn into hundreds of billions in 30 years time.

As for UEFA, if there's one thing they love, it's money. And providing we are a key component of their increased revenues, they'll want 'in'. There's little honour amongst thieves, and whichever former 'elite' clubs fail to contribute to the pot accordingly will be cast aside.

But that then raises (for some) a moral dilemma. We will soon be one of the 'elite' - will we join their ranks in keeping it a pretty closed shop, or will we fight the system from within and try and make it much more open? - I suspect the former, which is a shame.