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

[fbloke]

The idea of selling a ticket, box, shirt or hot dog way above its value circumvent FFP is wrong, the fair price for such things would mean that such an action would be questioned by UEFA and how many would the club have to sell to make a difference?

We went from having to pay £100m for Kaka to not having or wanting to. There's no secret that we are a far more attractive proposition for players now than we were then.

The plans for the academy and much, much more including a stadium of over 80k were in place almost from day one of Sheikh Mansour's ownership. (ask TH or PB as well as a few well placed others).

The IP sale is pure speculation on your part and on the part of ill-informed and out of touch journalists.

Rather than explain YOUR speculation I would rather deal in facts so please point me to where the details of the supposed IP sales are as I would love to check it out.

-- Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:33 pm --

What if £500K is a fair price ? I've not said it wasn't a fair price. It is a multi-million development. £500,000 for a 10-seat box equates with just a £20,000. Trust me, that will be fair price for what is on offer and will be for at least 10 people as well so £2,000.00 each per game and they roll out the red carpet.

I'm not speculating. I'm seeing it for what it is or at least how it could e very easily viewed by an outside, objective observer. To that extent, we are all speculating or relying on second and third hand hearsay - no offence to the likes of PB and the others who have shown very intelligent insight.

I note you quoting PB in support of your argument and I might be wrong on this one so I apologise in advance as there have been so many contributors on this thread, but I recall it 'might' have been PB who explained/justified the whole IP sale thing in a corporate context in the first place. I was oblivious to it or its meaning until I came on here. The thesis has certainly been advanced many times on this thread and I don't recall PB reacting to it with the righteous indignation that you have shown.

I didn't ask you to explain speculation, mine or anyone else's. I asked you to explain the clear rise in revenues alongside the clear fall in ambition in the transfer market. This was against the overall background of my disagreement with you over whether our owners took FFP rules seriously or whether they were simply annoying.

So, I repeat the question. How do you explain our fall in ambition in the transfer market when our revenues are rocketing in any other way than that our owners are taking FFP rules very seriously indeed ?

Firstly, I do not deem it a fall in ambition. I would state that in the summer of 2012 we did not have an ideal executive structure in place and that we were in the middle of a transitional period, and I'll only go off what I've heard and what others have said, but that a combination of factors including not having an ideal transfer committee in place, and a lack of suitable B targets to Mancini's demanded A-listers caused to be in a more difficult situation than needed. Further to that, we were trumped on Hazard because they won the CL as much as them paying more, and ultimately, like everything in business we are entitled to our valuation on acquisitions, and we have made it a clear policy to not overpay to agents or third parties and I believe that is principally to avoid issues that for example Barca have faced or similar issues, and to continue to be held to ransom by players/clubs/agents who wanted to charge us what we were prepared to spend to get to the top. Now we have achieved a comfortable platform from which to develop further we do not want to be held to ransom and as can be seen from our dealings, particularly with Sevilla last summer, we are now doing very fair value deals for very good players.

Now, when top agents want their cut, and the top young players want a big move, they will have to approach the negotiating table far more reasonably if they want to do a deal. Ultimately I believe we have a philosophy that our season or ambitions does not end with the loss of one player and that the make-up of our squad can still be as good by refusing to bow to the demands of an A-list target but securing a very good player in their own right who's actually willing to come. That is also part and parcel of a holistic approach whereby we populate the dressing room with players who actually want to be here for the right reasons and not because of their, or their agents, paycheck.

I would not see not signing Falcao as failing to get Falcao, more that for the 2 deals on the table the deal for Negredo was far better value for money and therefore inherently more sensible to conclude. That, when trying to run a business that you would want to be run as professionally as possible, and football at least now is waking up to the reality that it is little different to other businesses when it comes to money, that to maintain that stance to agents and other clubs, and to manage the investment sensibly so that we maximise its value across the whole club, means that spunking £50m on a player when we can get a very good alternative for a third of that is just a complete waste, and against what we want to do as a club.

I would also point out that as our revenues continue to climb dramatically the club will have far more money to spend on transfers anyway, which ultimately is what this is about. It is not false to state that the club, and in the eyes of the Sheikh as well, should be spending its own money on buying players and not the Sheikh anymore, and that is where we have been aiming to get to and thus we will run our business to achieve that goal and FFPR is nothing but a sideshow. We were always going to end up being run effectively and properly and in a way it's pretty classy that unlike most other clubs City have not used FFPR as the excuse for being more sensible, they are continuing to develop the club in the right way and on the right financial path regardless.

I agree with every word of that, well said.

Its obvious that City, and now the City group of clubs are still somewhat in flux. In fact the whole premise of the CFG is new to world football and the destination the owner has in mind will no doubt be reached but perhaps with a few unexpected humps and bumps.

To talk as some have of City lacking ambition seems odd and ignores the first few weeks where we had a public spokesman, Al Fahim, who was quickly dropped as what he was saying and how he was saying it was deemed too gauche for the owner's style.

From Al Fahim we had Garry Cook, a man I have a lot of time for, who happened to drop a few boo boos in his passionate drive to get City to where we are now.

FFP hasnt caused any of the changes that we have seen in the times since we signed Robinho, perhaps it has informed how the club present things but whatever City want City will have.

 

[BlueBlood84]

Isn't it funny that they claim FFP is to keep things fair and competitive but never mention that since Chelsea and City injected huge sums of money into football it appears that the game is more competitive than it has been for a while and it's likley that it will continue to be that way.
Also if you follow the money city have spent on players it's clear that it simply recirculates through football increasing the standards in a domino effect.
One thing that get's to me is when fans of certain clubs complain about the ability of other clubs to purchase players for 50 million plus yet don't bat an eyelid when their own club sells a player for a similarly large sum. Surely they must understand that the market can't just operate at one end.

 

[fbloke]

What if £500K is a fair price ? I've not said it wasn't a fair price. It is a multi-million development. £500,000 for a 10-seat box equates with just a £20,000. Trust me, that will be fair price for what is on offer and will be for at least 10 people as well so £2,000.00 each per game and they roll out the red carpet.

I'm not speculating. I'm seeing it for what it is or at least how it could e very easily viewed by an outside, objective observer. To that extent, we are all speculating or relying on second and third hand hearsay - no offence to the likes of PB and the others who have shown very intelligent insight.

I note you quoting PB in support of your argument and I might be wrong on this one so I apologise in advance as there have been so many contributors on this thread, but I recall it 'might' have been PB who explained/justified the whole IP sale thing in a corporate context in the first place. I was oblivious to it or its meaning until I came on here. The thesis has certainly been advanced many times on this thread and I don't recall PB reacting to it with the righteous indignation that you have shown.

I didn't ask you to explain speculation, mine or anyone else's. I asked you to explain the clear rise in revenues alongside the clear fall in ambition in the transfer market. This was against the overall background of my disagreement with you over whether our owners took FFP rules seriously or whether they were simply annoying.

So, I repeat the question. How do you explain our fall in ambition in the transfer market when our revenues are rocketing in any other way than that our owners are taking FFP rules very seriously indeed ?

Firstly, I do not deem it a fall in ambition. I would state that in the summer of 2012 we did not have an ideal executive structure in place and that we were in the middle of a transitional period, and I'll only go off what I've heard and what others have said, but that a combination of factors including not having an ideal transfer committee in place, and a lack of suitable B targets to Mancini's demanded A-listers caused to be in a more difficult situation than needed. Further to that, we were trumped on Hazard because they won the CL as much as them paying more, and ultimately, like everything in business we are entitled to our valuation on acquisitions, and we have made it a clear policy to not overpay to agents or third parties and I believe that is principally to avoid issues that for example Barca have faced or similar issues, and to continue to be held to ransom by players/clubs/agents who wanted to charge us what we were prepared to spend to get to the top. Now we have achieved a comfortable platform from which to develop further we do not want to be held to ransom and as can be seen from our dealings, particularly with Sevilla last summer, we are now doing very fair value deals for very good players.

Now, when top agents want their cut, and the top young players want a big move, they will have to approach the negotiating table far more reasonably if they want to do a deal. Ultimately I believe we have a philosophy that our season or ambitions does not end with the loss of one player and that the make-up of our squad can still be as good by refusing to bow to the demands of an A-list target but securing a very good player in their own right who's actually willing to come. That is also part and parcel of a holistic approach whereby we populate the dressing room with players who actually want to be here for the right reasons and not because of their, or their agents, paycheck.

I would not see not signing Falcao as failing to get Falcao, more that for the 2 deals on the table the deal for Negredo was far better value for money and therefore inherently more sensible to conclude. That, when trying to run a business that you would want to be run as professionally as possible, and football at least now is waking up to the reality that it is little different to other businesses when it comes to money, that to maintain that stance to agents and other clubs, and to manage the investment sensibly so that we maximise its value across the whole club, means that spunking £50m on a player when we can get a very good alternative for a third of that is just a complete waste, and against what we want to do as a club.

I would also point out that as our revenues continue to climb dramatically the club will have far more money to spend on transfers anyway, which ultimately is what this is about. It is not false to state that the club, and in the eyes of the Sheikh as well, should be spending its own money on buying players and not the Sheikh anymore, and that is where we have been aiming to get to and thus we will run our business to achieve that goal and FFPR is nothing but a sideshow. We were always going to end up being run effectively and properly and in a way it's pretty classy that unlike most other clubs City have not used FFPR as the excuse for being more sensible, they are continuing to develop the club in the right way and on the right financial path regardless.

Thanks for that Joe.

You, like fbloke, have put a lot of thought into that and gone round the houses and admitted you are relying on speculation and second and third-hand hearsay. You've come up with a possible scenario.

Surely though, the easiest and most plausible scenario though is that they are mindful of the constraints of FFP rules ? Is it so hard to concede that one point ?

All I will say to that is wait and see.

I don't want to sound like an ITK arse when I say that, but I am so confident in my understanding of the situation that I will wager you a pint of your favourite cordial drink that i'm right and you're the one doing more guessing than I.<br /><br />-- Sat Apr 19, 2014 6:17 pm --<br /><br />

Isn't it funny that they claim FFP is to keep things fair and competitive but never mention that since Chelsea and City injected huge sums of money into football it appears that the game is more competitive than it has been for a while and it's likley that it will continue to be that way.
Also if you follow the money city have spent on players it's clear that it simply recirculates through football increasing the standards in a domino effect.
One thing that get's to me is when fans of certain clubs complain about the ability of other clubs to purchase players for 50 million plus yet don't bat an eyelid when their own club sells a player for a similarly large sum. Surely they must understand that the market can't just operate at one end.

Its also interesting that they have not even considered forcing some national associations to share broadcasting revenues more equitably as the PL does.

 

[CITYBOY1000]

Firstly, I do not deem it a fall in ambition. I would state that in the summer of 2012 we did not have an ideal executive structure in place and that we were in the middle of a transitional period, and I'll only go off what I've heard and what others have said, but that a combination of factors including not having an ideal transfer committee in place, and a lack of suitable B targets to Mancini's demanded A-listers caused to be in a more difficult situation than needed. Further to that, we were trumped on Hazard because they won the CL as much as them paying more, and ultimately, like everything in business we are entitled to our valuation on acquisitions, and we have made it a clear policy to not overpay to agents or third parties and I believe that is principally to avoid issues that for example Barca have faced or similar issues, and to continue to be held to ransom by players/clubs/agents who wanted to charge us what we were prepared to spend to get to the top. Now we have achieved a comfortable platform from which to develop further we do not want to be held to ransom and as can be seen from our dealings, particularly with Sevilla last summer, we are now doing very fair value deals for very good players.

Now, when top agents want their cut, and the top young players want a big move, they will have to approach the negotiating table far more reasonably if they want to do a deal. Ultimately I believe we have a philosophy that our season or ambitions does not end with the loss of one player and that the make-up of our squad can still be as good by refusing to bow to the demands of an A-list target but securing a very good player in their own right who's actually willing to come. That is also part and parcel of a holistic approach whereby we populate the dressing room with players who actually want to be here for the right reasons and not because of their, or their agents, paycheck.

I would not see not signing Falcao as failing to get Falcao, more that for the 2 deals on the table the deal for Negredo was far better value for money and therefore inherently more sensible to conclude. That, when trying to run a business that you would want to be run as professionally as possible, and football at least now is waking up to the reality that it is little different to other businesses when it comes to money, that to maintain that stance to agents and other clubs, and to manage the investment sensibly so that we maximise its value across the whole club, means that spunking £50m on a player when we can get a very good alternative for a third of that is just a complete waste, and against what we want to do as a club.

I would also point out that as our revenues continue to climb dramatically the club will have far more money to spend on transfers anyway, which ultimately is what this is about. It is not false to state that the club, and in the eyes of the Sheikh as well, should be spending its own money on buying players and not the Sheikh anymore, and that is where we have been aiming to get to and thus we will run our business to achieve that goal and FFPR is nothing but a sideshow. We were always going to end up being run effectively and properly and in a way it's pretty classy that unlike most other clubs City have not used FFPR as the excuse for being more sensible, they are continuing to develop the club in the right way and on the right financial path regardless.

Thanks for that Joe.

You, like fbloke, have put a lot of thought into that and gone round the houses and admitted you are relying on speculation and second and third-hand hearsay. You've come up with a possible scenario.

Surely though, the easiest and most plausible scenario though is that they are mindful of the constraints of FFP rules ? Is it so hard to concede that one point ?

All I will say to that is wait and see.

I don't want to sound like an ITK arse when I say that, but I am so confident in my understanding of the situation that I will wager you a pint of your favourite cordial drink that i'm right and you're the one doing more guessing than I.

-- Sat Apr 19, 2014 6:17 pm --

Isn't it funny that they claim FFP is to keep things fair and competitive but never mention that since Chelsea and City injected huge sums of money into football it appears that the game is more competitive than it has been for a while and it's likley that it will continue to be that way.
Also if you follow the money city have spent on players it's clear that it simply recirculates through football increasing the standards in a domino effect.
One thing that get's to me is when fans of certain clubs complain about the ability of other clubs to purchase players for 50 million plus yet don't bat an eyelid when their own club sells a player for a similarly large sum. Surely they must understand that the market can't just operate at one end.

Its also interesting that they have not even considered forcing some national associations to share broadcasting revenues more equitably as the PL does.

You're on ! A pint of strawberry sarsaparilla says I'm right fbloke.

But how and when will we ever find out who was right ? When will I be picking up my winnings ?

 

[fbloke]

Thanks for that Joe.

You, like fbloke, have put a lot of thought into that and gone round the houses and admitted you are relying on speculation and second and third-hand hearsay. You've come up with a possible scenario.

Surely though, the easiest and most plausible scenario though is that they are mindful of the constraints of FFP rules ? Is it so hard to concede that one point ?

All I will say to that is wait and see.

I don't want to sound like an ITK arse when I say that, but I am so confident in my understanding of the situation that I will wager you a pint of your favourite cordial drink that i'm right and you're the one doing more guessing than I.

-- Sat Apr 19, 2014 6:17 pm --

Isn't it funny that they claim FFP is to keep things fair and competitive but never mention that since Chelsea and City injected huge sums of money into football it appears that the game is more competitive than it has been for a while and it's likley that it will continue to be that way.
Also if you follow the money city have spent on players it's clear that it simply recirculates through football increasing the standards in a domino effect.
One thing that get's to me is when fans of certain clubs complain about the ability of other clubs to purchase players for 50 million plus yet don't bat an eyelid when their own club sells a player for a similarly large sum. Surely they must understand that the market can't just operate at one end.

Its also interesting that they have not even considered forcing some national associations to share broadcasting revenues more equitably as the PL does.

You're on ! A pint of strawberry sarsaparilla says I'm right fbloke.

But how and when will we ever find out who was right ? When will I be picking up my winnings ?

I would say you should know within the decade ;-)

 

[Hung]

Isn't it funny that they claim FFP is to keep things fair and competitive but never mention that since Chelsea and City injected huge sums of money into football it appears that the game is more competitive than it has been for a while and it's likley that it will continue to be that way.
Also if you follow the money city have spent on players it's clear that it simply recirculates through football increasing the standards in a domino effect.
One thing that get's to me is when fans of certain clubs complain about the ability of other clubs to purchase players for 50 million plus yet don't bat an eyelid when their own club sells a player for a similarly large sum. Surely they must understand that the market can't just operate at one end.

This is a key point Wenger bitches about clubs like City as he is a whore who’s not been paid, but has no problem with us buying the likes of Adebeyor, Toure, Clichy and Nasri at inflated prices, which they can in turn spend on players or in the case of Arsenal, pay off their stadium bill and enhance their own income flow in the future. Wenger is perhaps the worst of all when it comes to selective double standards. Perhaps it’s a French thing.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

What if £500K is a fair price ? I've not said it wasn't a fair price. It is a multi-million development. £500,000 for a 10-seat box equates with just a £20,000. Trust me, that will be fair price for what is on offer and will be for at least 10 people as well so £2,000.00 each per game and they roll out the red carpet.

I'm not speculating. I'm seeing it for what it is or at least how it could e very easily viewed by an outside, objective observer. To that extent, we are all speculating or relying on second and third hand hearsay - no offence to the likes of PB and the others who have shown very intelligent insight.

I note you quoting PB in support of your argument and I might be wrong on this one so I apologise in advance as there have been so many contributors on this thread, but I recall it 'might' have been PB who explained/justified the whole IP sale thing in a corporate context in the first place. I was oblivious to it or its meaning until I came on here. The thesis has certainly been advanced many times on this thread and I don't recall PB reacting to it with the righteous indignation that you have shown.

I didn't ask you to explain speculation, mine or anyone else's. I asked you to explain the clear rise in revenues alongside the clear fall in ambition in the transfer market. This was against the overall background of my disagreement with you over whether our owners took FFP rules seriously or whether they were simply annoying.

So, I repeat the question. How do you explain our fall in ambition in the transfer market when our revenues are rocketing in any other way than that our owners are taking FFP rules very seriously indeed ?

Firstly, I do not deem it a fall in ambition. I would state that in the summer of 2012 we did not have an ideal executive structure in place and that we were in the middle of a transitional period, and I'll only go off what I've heard and what others have said, but that a combination of factors including not having an ideal transfer committee in place, and a lack of suitable B targets to Mancini's demanded A-listers caused to be in a more difficult situation than needed. Further to that, we were trumped on Hazard because they won the CL as much as them paying more, and ultimately, like everything in business we are entitled to our valuation on acquisitions, and we have made it a clear policy to not overpay to agents or third parties and I believe that is principally to avoid issues that for example Barca have faced or similar issues, and to continue to be held to ransom by players/clubs/agents who wanted to charge us what we were prepared to spend to get to the top. Now we have achieved a comfortable platform from which to develop further we do not want to be held to ransom and as can be seen from our dealings, particularly with Sevilla last summer, we are now doing very fair value deals for very good players.

Now, when top agents want their cut, and the top young players want a big move, they will have to approach the negotiating table far more reasonably if they want to do a deal. Ultimately I believe we have a philosophy that our season or ambitions does not end with the loss of one player and that the make-up of our squad can still be as good by refusing to bow to the demands of an A-list target but securing a very good player in their own right who's actually willing to come. That is also part and parcel of a holistic approach whereby we populate the dressing room with players who actually want to be here for the right reasons and not because of their, or their agents, paycheck.

I would not see not signing Falcao as failing to get Falcao, more that for the 2 deals on the table the deal for Negredo was far better value for money and therefore inherently more sensible to conclude. That, when trying to run a business that you would want to be run as professionally as possible, and football at least now is waking up to the reality that it is little different to other businesses when it comes to money, that to maintain that stance to agents and other clubs, and to manage the investment sensibly so that we maximise its value across the whole club, means that spunking £50m on a player when we can get a very good alternative for a third of that is just a complete waste, and against what we want to do as a club.

I would also point out that as our revenues continue to climb dramatically the club will have far more money to spend on transfers anyway, which ultimately is what this is about. It is not false to state that the club, and in the eyes of the Sheikh as well, should be spending its own money on buying players and not the Sheikh anymore, and that is where we have been aiming to get to and thus we will run our business to achieve that goal and FFPR is nothing but a sideshow. We were always going to end up being run effectively and properly and in a way it's pretty classy that unlike most other clubs City have not used FFPR as the excuse for being more sensible, they are continuing to develop the club in the right way and on the right financial path regardless.

Thanks for that Joe.

You, like fbloke, have put a lot of thought into that and gone round the houses and admitted you are relying on speculation and second and third-hand hearsay. You've come up with a possible scenario.

Surely though, the easiest and most plausible scenario though is that they are mindful of the constraints of FFP rules ? Is it so hard to concede that one point ?

As I said, I don't think it's do with FFPR, that is merely a name for what we're trying to achieve anyway, which is the club funding itself, ultimately in all aspects, but at the moment at least in terms of transfer dealings and thus Sheikh Mansour not having to put another £50-100m just to balance the accounts.

I've said for the past couple of years that FFPR could be used as the excuse to the fans for us going towards profitability and self-funding but the club hasn't done so, which I believe is an even firmer indication that we do not agree or abide with FFPR, and that our ultimate message is that "we're going to be making profits soon" and that I believe as much external investment as possible will be sort from sponsors, but it will only be for infrastructure or other UEFA exempt projects anyway that Abu Dhabi will continue to invest. That's not because of FFPR, but FFPR merely exempts the things that require an investment that we as a club can't fund at the moment, like I would suspect the Campus and the Stadium (though I'm not versed on that stuff). We now have the executive structure in place though to really expand commercially and despite a British view of the MLS and the A-League, the fact remains that these are first world, highly lucrative territories through association alone, let alone the developments and expansion of the game and its popularity we can help bring that would only drive more revenue for us at it is.<br /><br />-- Apr 19th, '14, 20:52 --<br /><br />

Firstly, I do not deem it a fall in ambition. I would state that in the summer of 2012 we did not have an ideal executive structure in place and that we were in the middle of a transitional period, and I'll only go off what I've heard and what others have said, but that a combination of factors including not having an ideal transfer committee in place, and a lack of suitable B targets to Mancini's demanded A-listers caused to be in a more difficult situation than needed. Further to that, we were trumped on Hazard because they won the CL as much as them paying more, and ultimately, like everything in business we are entitled to our valuation on acquisitions, and we have made it a clear policy to not overpay to agents or third parties and I believe that is principally to avoid issues that for example Barca have faced or similar issues, and to continue to be held to ransom by players/clubs/agents who wanted to charge us what we were prepared to spend to get to the top. Now we have achieved a comfortable platform from which to develop further we do not want to be held to ransom and as can be seen from our dealings, particularly with Sevilla last summer, we are now doing very fair value deals for very good players.

Now, when top agents want their cut, and the top young players want a big move, they will have to approach the negotiating table far more reasonably if they want to do a deal. Ultimately I believe we have a philosophy that our season or ambitions does not end with the loss of one player and that the make-up of our squad can still be as good by refusing to bow to the demands of an A-list target but securing a very good player in their own right who's actually willing to come. That is also part and parcel of a holistic approach whereby we populate the dressing room with players who actually want to be here for the right reasons and not because of their, or their agents, paycheck.

I would not see not signing Falcao as failing to get Falcao, more that for the 2 deals on the table the deal for Negredo was far better value for money and therefore inherently more sensible to conclude. That, when trying to run a business that you would want to be run as professionally as possible, and football at least now is waking up to the reality that it is little different to other businesses when it comes to money, that to maintain that stance to agents and other clubs, and to manage the investment sensibly so that we maximise its value across the whole club, means that spunking £50m on a player when we can get a very good alternative for a third of that is just a complete waste, and against what we want to do as a club.

I would also point out that as our revenues continue to climb dramatically the club will have far more money to spend on transfers anyway, which ultimately is what this is about. It is not false to state that the club, and in the eyes of the Sheikh as well, should be spending its own money on buying players and not the Sheikh anymore, and that is where we have been aiming to get to and thus we will run our business to achieve that goal and FFPR is nothing but a sideshow. We were always going to end up being run effectively and properly and in a way it's pretty classy that unlike most other clubs City have not used FFPR as the excuse for being more sensible, they are continuing to develop the club in the right way and on the right financial path regardless.

Thanks for that Joe.

You, like fbloke, have put a lot of thought into that and gone round the houses and admitted you are relying on speculation and second and third-hand hearsay. You've come up with a possible scenario.

Surely though, the easiest and most plausible scenario though is that they are mindful of the constraints of FFP rules ? Is it so hard to concede that one point ?

All I will say to that is wait and see.

I don't want to sound like an ITK arse when I say that, but I am so confident in my understanding of the situation that I will wager you a pint of your favourite cordial drink that i'm right and you're the one doing more guessing than I.

-- Sat Apr 19, 2014 6:17 pm --

Isn't it funny that they claim FFP is to keep things fair and competitive but never mention that since Chelsea and City injected huge sums of money into football it appears that the game is more competitive than it has been for a while and it's likley that it will continue to be that way.
Also if you follow the money city have spent on players it's clear that it simply recirculates through football increasing the standards in a domino effect.
One thing that get's to me is when fans of certain clubs complain about the ability of other clubs to purchase players for 50 million plus yet don't bat an eyelid when their own club sells a player for a similarly large sum. Surely they must understand that the market can't just operate at one end.

Its also interesting that they have not even considered forcing some national associations to share broadcasting revenues more equitably as the PL does.

not yet, I'm still of the opinion that there are some clever people in UEFA handing the "power" to the status quo to set them up for a fall that would only strengthen UEFA's position and thus give Platini a true remit to bring in some reforms, that would hand more power to UEFA and allow them to capitalise on some of the less than welcome practices of some of the status quo. I still think the best path for UEFA to take is like FIFA in giving enough cake to all the smaller associations to keep their loyalty and thus prevent the status quo from really getting what they want. At the moment I think there's a fair bit of posturing and even some positioning by UEFA against the status quo to turn them on the rest of the European club structure and thus rein in their influence, but again, that may just be wishful thinking.

 

[mcmanus]

I just trust the fellas who run our club. They are ten times smarter than anyone and in the know on this subject.

We'll be sound.

 

[EalingBlue2]

City have talks to UEFA regularly on this and I suspect know what uefa's thinking is and very probably platini's. Where it could go pear shaped is if there are other agendas driven within UEFA by he old g 14 and decisions are made driven by another agenda or if the "court" process is driven by further agendas and decisions are made that even UEFA did not expect which I can see happening. If we are bit hard then PSG and a few of the Russian and Ukraine clubs will be absolutely f."cked and it could get very nasty from a lot of different directions. We need to sign messi early or PSG do as if we had him then UEFA would be having nightmare conversations with every single sponsor and would no doubt throw the g14 under the bus. They could then break away but honestly this would finish most of them as most Europeans like local football.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

How do you explain that ?

It's called foresight and business development. It is the thing that billionaires do with their money to generate billions MORE INCOME. You see, wealth that generates income while also growing equity is how rich people get richer!