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

[Metalartin]

what an absolute man child :D

It's a valid question, I never called you a rag or a ****, so don't assume it was one of those posts. I stayed on topic, although it was a lengthy reply I guess. Am I not allowed to ask why was it removed?

Oh and by the way "I intentionally boiled a few peoples piss" glass houses kid. Grow up! ;)

edit: Actually, I've just double checked for what it's worth. I assumed the post I responded to was still there because it was still visible in other people's quotes. It does appear that post is gone now, so that makes more sense.

 

[failsworthblueboy]

I support Manchester City man and boy. I'm not giving out about spending money, you can try put words in my mouth like the rest of them if you wish.

Having a handful of teams able to dominate financially isn't good for the game long term, they can drive prices up to make other teams pay over the odds and inflate the market to suit themselves (PSG and Neymar for example)

Manchester City football club have been impeccable thus far and I wholeheartedly disagreed with FFP - it was unfair - as an implementation it was corrupt - I do however think the intention to make the game of football somewhat fairer financially speaking is worthwhile.

I just think it would be hypocritical to support unrestricted spending when we'd be in a cartel of two who could pretty much blow everyone out of the water.

It is just an opinion. I don't get why people are so militant about it, but there you go

It has always been the case that clubs like Liverpool, United, Barcelona, Real Madrid etc, "the cartel" have always spent more money than everyone else could.
Now they are crying because City and PSG have greater spending power, which is hypocritical, thay are the ones who hold all the transfer records, other clubs who complain such as the hateful eight, hike transfer prices the minute we are involved.
We are the best run club in the world IMO, FFP was to protect the cartel, it failed, onwards and upwards for me, if they don't like it, tough, I ain't gonna lose any sleep.

 

[Esteban de la Sexface]

It has always been the case that clubs like Liverpool, United, Barcelona, Real Madrid etc, "the cartel" have always spent more money than everyone else could.
Now they are crying because City and PSG have greater spending power, which is hypocritical, thay are the ones who hold all the transfer records, other clubs who complain such as the hateful eight, hike transfer prices the minute we are involved.
We are the best run club in the world IMO, FFP was to protect the cartel, it failed, onwards and upwards for me, if they don't like it, tough, I ain't gonna lose any sleep.

nor will I lose any sleep either, just seems hypocritical to replace one cartel with another, which is what could very well happen and is what they're afraid of. PSG fucked it really with the Neymar deal. It's all gone a bit mental since then.

FFP was corrupt from the very beginning in it's implementation and was poison wrapped in caramel. I don't trust UEFA or FIFA in any way shape or form to implement financial regulations on the game. It would have to be an independent body.

 

[Metalartin]

Honestly, I can see the value in curbing spending and levelling the playing field but isn't it a bit late for all that though?

Where was this talk about fairness when the big Sly3 built their fortunes in the 90s and left the rest of English football in their dust? I don't think there was any going back by the time the early 00s rolled around, it was already too far gone when City came into fresh investment. So the blame doesn't lie at City's door at all for where football is today.

None of the cartel want a level playing field anyway. That's the last thing they want, not in terms of competition on the field, nor transfers or wages(to a lesser extent). So transfer/salary caps wont happen.

Also, I personally think greedy agents and clubs who consistently inflate the market with their transfers are a bigger problem to football than City's volume spending approach. City would love to pay less for their targets I'm sure but the market is what it is, it wasn't City who made it that way.

 

[Esteban de la Sexface]

None of the cartel want a level playing field, that's the last thing they want, not in terms of transfers or wages(to a lesser extent).

when you're as far behind something as they are behind us you'd take level, it would be a major win. City are in a different stratosphere in terms of potential spending power if unrestricted. The City premium will come back in a big way. We'll be paying 100m for everyone

 

[BlueBanger]

There should be no regulation for me. Business works best as a free enterprise...the stupidity of ffp is that its looked at through the lense of only city and psg. Who's to say, if there had been no meddling from UEFA, that many more mid tier clubs wouldn't have been taken over by wealth by now and we'd have fiercly competitive leagues all over europe. This would then bring more money into the sport, more jobs, more development, more everything.

The only downside would be to clubs run by economic vampires(glazers etc) who dont want to put anything in and instead want to take out. But thats not the problem of other cluibs...screw the cartel.

 

[kun]

Honestly I can see the value in curbing spending and levelling the playing field but isn't it a bit late for all that though?

Where was this talk about fairness when the big Sly3 built their fortunes in the 90s and left the rest of English football in their dust? I don't think there was any going back by the time the early 00s rolled around, it was already too far gone when City came into fresh investment, so the blame doesn't lie at City's door at all.

None of the cartel want a level playing field, that's the last thing they want, not in terms of transfers or wages(to a lesser extent). Also I personally think greedy agents and clubs who consistently inflate the market with their transfers are a bigger problem to football than City's volume spending approach. City would love to pay less for their targets I'm sure.

This. Even before Sky football had been heading in that direction. Shit, even in the 50s players were moving to Italy and Colombia because they could afford higher pay packets /or didn't have salary caps.

(Back when we had a salary cap, the best players fucked off: Neil Franklin, John Charles, John Fox Watson, George Mountford, Charlie Mitten, Jimmy Greaves etc.)

 

[failsworthblueboy]

nor will I lose any sleep either, just seems hypocritical to replace one cartel with another, which is what could very well happen and is what they're afraid of. PSG fucked it really with the Neymar deal. It's all gone a bit mental since then.

FFP was corrupt from the very beginning in it's implementation and was poison wrapped in caramel. I don't trust UEFA or FIFA in any way shape or form to implement financial regulations on the game. It would have to be an independent body.

nor will I lose any sleep either, just seems hypocritical to replace one cartel with another, which is what could very well happen and is what they're afraid of. PSG fucked it really with the Neymar deal. It's all gone a bit mental since then.

FFP was corrupt from the very beginning in it's implementation and was poison wrapped in caramel. I don't trust UEFA or FIFA in any way shape or form to implement financial regulations on the game. It would have to be an independent body.

nor will I lose any sleep either, just seems hypocritical to replace one cartel with another, which is what could very well happen and is what they're afraid of. PSG fucked it really with the Neymar deal. It's all gone a bit mental since then.

FFP was corrupt from the very beginning in it's implementation and was poison wrapped in caramel. I don't trust UEFA or FIFA in any way shape or form to implement financial regulations on the game. It would have to be an independent body.

That would hold water if we’d actually spent more than them. They pay higher transfer fees and higher wages than we do. There problem is us, how dare we break up there precious cartel.
Like a lot of people, they are frightened we will dominate football, who knows we might, I’d sooner enjoy the ride rather than worrying about upsetting that shower.

 

[Metalartin]

when you're as far behind something as they are behind us you'd take level, it would be a major win. City are in a different stratosphere in terms of potential spending power if unrestricted. The City premium will come back in a big way. We'll be paying 100m for everyone

I don't really understand where you're coming from there.

If you mean the cartel, they could potentially fall behind and we could go on to dominate but none of that has happened yet and it might not. Liverpool could well bounce back next season, all their owner has to do is loosen the purse strings and allow the scouting team(which have done well to be fair) to do their thing. Why do we make excuses for owners like that? What is so unusual about Sheikh Mansour allowing the club to reinvest the money it generates back into the club to ensure it keeps improving or at the very least stays competitive? Isn't that part of being a good owner? Liverpool have a higher revenue than us this season, so their owner really can't say they don't have the money.

We were the most successful team of the last decade but not by a wide margin, Chelsea were only one major honour away from levelling with us. The last decade was still more competitive than the 90s to early 00s by a wide distance too. The only thing that has changed since then is that a big 3 that were untouchable gradually became a big 4 and then a big 6. The old sly 3 should get no sympathy and I'm tired of the press pushing that narrative. How they've managed to get fans outside of the big 6 to be more concerned with how unfair City's rise is on poor United and Liverpool "who earned it", than how unfair the big 3-6 has always been on clubs outside of it I don't know. It's quite scary how good at manipulating people the press are.

Anyway, I say we should at least be allowed 10 years of dominance, until United and Liverpool fans know how it feels to be sick of us winning titles, before we humour any talk of a spending caps and what not.

 

[Esteban de la Sexface]

I don't really understand where you're coming from there.

If you mean the cartel, they could potentially fall behind and we could go on to dominate but none of that has happened yet and it might not. Liverpool could well bounce back next season, all their owner has to do is loosen the purse strings and allow the scouting team(which have done well to be fair) to do their thing. Why do we make excuses for owners like that? What is so unusual about Sheikh Mansour allowing the club to reinvest the money it generates back into the club to ensure it keeps improving?

We were the most successful team of the last decade but not by a wide margin, Chelsea were only one major honour away from levelling with us. The last decade was more competitive than the 90s to early 00s by a wide distance.

I say we should at least be allowed 10 years of dominance until they are sick of us winning titles before we humour any talk of a spending caps and what not.

fuck those guys that have an unfair advantage. I want an unfair advantage :D

you just become them