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

[BoyBlue_1985]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Chelsea voted yes for the PL version of FFP. Fucking hypocrites.

ROman the showman voted for it along with Brucey McBuck but im sure they didn't consult Mourinho who was managing Real Madrid at the time, be silly really

Inter surely?

Long time no see.

Not entirely sure when the vote was passed but im sure he was spending some ones money some where

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

ROman the showman voted for it along with Brucey McBuck but im sure they didn't consult Mourinho who was managing Real Madrid at the time, be silly really

Inter surely?

Long time no see.

Not entirely sure when the vote was passed but im sure he was spending some ones money some where

Undoubtedly, however rules and regulations are only wrong when they stop Maureen doing what he wants, being proved right and winning trophies for his club. In that order.

 

[schfc6]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Where's Dupont up to? How's his case in Belgium getting on?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Where's Dupont up to? How's his case in Belgium getting on?

Last I heard of the case was the PSG fans signing up alongside our lot about 3 weeks ago, all quiet on that front since.

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The whole point of FFP was to stop City. They did not want to spend the kind of money needed to keep up with the sheikh.
They spelled that out to platini , and he changed the whole ethos of FFP from debt to revenue at their behest.
They were so obsessed with us that they could only see it affecting one target- City. All that stuff about it being to protect clubs from their own reckless spending now shown as a total lie and complete fallacy.
This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. They are paying their own price for their own short-sightedness.
Reaping what you sow.

Good point. When the self appointed "Big 5" stole the smaller clubs share of gate receipts and television money before,during and after
setting up the PL they thought that they were elite clubs forever. It didn't work out well for Liverpool and was a total disaster for
Spurs and Everton. Of all the clubs you would have thought that Chelsea, like City, would have opposed FFP. Roman was blinded by
his fear of City to the extent he's put himself at a permanent disadvantage to the "establishment" clubs. Ironically City, PSG and
Dupont are likely to be the people who save him.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The whole point of FFP was to stop City. They did not want to spend the kind of money needed to keep up with the sheikh.
They spelled that out to platini , and he changed the whole ethos of FFP from debt to revenue at their behest.
They were so obsessed with us that they could only see it affecting one target- City. All that stuff about it being to protect clubs from their own reckless spending now shown as a total lie and complete fallacy.
This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. They are paying their own price for their own short-sightedness.
Reaping what you sow.

Good point. When the self appointed "Big 5" stole the smaller clubs share of gate receipts and television money before,during and after
setting up the PL they thought that they were elite clubs forever. It didn't work out well for Liverpool and was a total disaster for
Spurs and Everton. Of all the clubs you would have thought that Chelsea, like City, would have opposed FFP. Roman was blinded by
his fear of City to the extent he's put himself at a permanent disadvantage to the "establishment" clubs. Ironically City, PSG and
Dupont are likely to be the people who save him.

The irony is that City, who opposed FFP, are far better equipped to deal with it, than Chelsea, who supported it.

 

[whipper]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The whole point of FFP was to stop City. They did not want to spend the kind of money needed to keep up with the sheikh.
They spelled that out to platini , and he changed the whole ethos of FFP from debt to revenue at their behest.
They were so obsessed with us that they could only see it affecting one target- City. All that stuff about it being to protect clubs from their own reckless spending now shown as a total lie and complete fallacy.
This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. They are paying their own price for their own short-sightedness.
Reaping what you sow.

Good point. When the self appointed "Big 5" stole the smaller clubs share of gate receipts and television money before,during and after
setting up the PL they thought that they were elite clubs forever. It didn't work out well for Liverpool and was a total disaster for
Spurs and Everton. Of all the clubs you would have thought that Chelsea, like City, would have opposed FFP. Roman was blinded by
his fear of City to the extent he's put himself at a permanent disadvantage to the "establishment" clubs. Ironically City, PSG and
Dupont are likely to be the people who save him.

The irony is that City, who opposed FFP, are far better equipped to deal with it, than Chelsea, who supported it.

It's only just starting to click with Chelsea as well

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Good point. When the self appointed "Big 5" stole the smaller clubs share of gate receipts and television money before,during and after
setting up the PL they thought that they were elite clubs forever. It didn't work out well for Liverpool and was a total disaster for
Spurs and Everton. Of all the clubs you would have thought that Chelsea, like City, would have opposed FFP. Roman was blinded by
his fear of City to the extent he's put himself at a permanent disadvantage to the "establishment" clubs. Ironically City, PSG and
Dupont are likely to be the people who save him.

The irony is that City, who opposed FFP, are far better equipped to deal with it, than Chelsea, who supported it.

It's only just starting to click with Chelsea as well

We've completely outflanked everybody on this. In the next year or so it's really going to dawn on people.

 

[chris85mcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The irony is that City, who opposed FFP, are far better equipped to deal with it, than Chelsea, who supported it.

It's only just starting to click with Chelsea as well

We've completely outflanked everybody on this. In the next year or so it's really going to dawn on people.

It certainly hasn't dawned on a couple of my rag mates, who I was having a 'chat' with on Saturday night

I've tried pointing a few things out to them already, but its fallen on deaf ears, apparently the academy that we've built (you know that state of the art training complex we've built for ALL the levels of City teams) was built just so we can say we've got a fancy academy, and that we will always buy marquee signings as opposed to looking to bring players coming through the academy

I then pointed out to him that our last 'marquee' signing was Aguero, and he cost less than Juan Mata :)

 

[whipper]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The irony is that City, who opposed FFP, are far better equipped to deal with it, than Chelsea, who supported it.

It's only just starting to click with Chelsea as well

We've completely outflanked everybody on this. In the next year or so it's really going to dawn on people.

Finally Mourinho has seen it for what it is.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/542356/Jose-Mourinho-FFP-Arsenal-Liverpool-Man-Utd-Chelsea" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football ... td-Chelsea</a>