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

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I mean, even if it were all true what’s so wrong with “oil money” anyway compared to other types of money? Liverpool had “Pools money” so effectively gambling money, West Ham have “porno money” as a result of the Dildo Brothers owning the club, and United had “Rotten meat” money as Louis Edwards was poisoning schoolkids across Greater Manchester before conveniently doing a Robert Maxwell on the eve of a World In Action expose into his activities. Latterly it became “sex pest” money when his son took over the reigns.

For better or worse, the world we inhabit today is founded upon oil. If it ran out tomorrow, the world would be in the serious shit.

 

[failsworthblueboy]

I think the truth is that FFP wasn't what UEFA and the cartel wanted, accusations we are just a new type of cartel with PSG are bollox. Football is now (for me sadly) a business with a certain people in powerful positions that only want there darling clubs to win the trophies.
What has really changed? in Spain, Germany, Italy or France? apart from having to compete with us, Nothing!
The real change is in the Premier Leaugue where two of the darling clubs are having to compete, they want there devine right status back. They slurs and insults are ridiculous and quite frankly, desperate.
Sadly even some City fans? have bought into this garbage, dirty oil money, human rights breaches,It's not your money, you haven't earned it. Neither have these dickheads who borrow borrow and borrow some more. I often point out to Rags that only one country has used a nuclear weapon, and only one country has commited geniside on several nations. Slavery,and America has a lot to answer for, they reply Not our owners, well not ours either !!
Its boiling there piss and I love it !!

this is the real problem for them

 

[give it to gordon]

The thing for me is the racist undertones 'dirty oil money' etc.
Yet the premier league turns a blind eye to other clubs
You would have thought with the premier league wanting a wholesome image, a good clean league were families are welcome, encouraging kids and women to attend matches, a more family atmosphere.
Yet its frowned upon when owners pump millions onto the local community, working with the local council to improve the area.
Build the best campus in football our ladies ( I think ) are the only ladies team with their own statium. Yet utd ladies are treated like the men, and are seen as being great for the woman's game. Bloody hell they have only been going 2 seasons !! Yet you would think they are the founding members, not a club that was embarrassed into forming a ladies team
Our owners have help save banks from going bust, and are going to pump millions into the uk over the few years.

Yet other clubs get good press for being owned by porn barrens, that's a good family image ! And our taxes paid for their new stadium to be converted into a football ground , that's was wrong.
Clubs can have betting shops plastered everywhere, on shirts etc ( I know City have as well and I dont agree with it )
Or have shirt sponsor who money launder. Or buy up houses around the stadium and leave derelict to force the other house prices down.
Two of the biggest clubs liverpool and utd both play in run down old fashion stadiums, where most clubs have updated and moved to state of the art new stadium. Why dont the press/media and the premier league insist they update ?
Yet we all know should England ever host a WC or the euros one game will be played at that shit hole old trafford. Why ? That's just hope it isnt raining on that day and the rats have been got rid of ;)

I think the biggest danger to the premier league is not oil money but America money. The American owners want a closed shop no promotion no relegation, salary caps etc. The American franchise model will be a disaster for English football.
Yet these American owners come from a country with a terrible human rights record. They still kill people by electrocution, or injection. They carry guns and shot each other on a daily basis. Plus look at the way the American police deal with non white Americans....BLM started in America good human rights dont make me laugh They start nearly ever war by poking their nose into other countries.
The American have a world series on which only they play in ! Says it all that !!

Citys owners are a credit to football and the premier league and should be held up as the correct way to run a football club. Work for and in the local community, City in the community has been going for decades.
Our owners still understand our roots.
A club that believes in being self sufficient and not loaded with huge debt.

 

[M18CTID]

I think the truth is that FFP wasn't what UEFA and the cartel wanted, accusations we are just a new type of cartel with PSG are bollox. Football is now (for me sadly) a business with a certain people in powerful positions that only want there darling clubs to win the trophies.
What has really changed? in Spain, Germany, Italy or France? apart from having to compete with us, Nothing!
The real change is in the Premier Leaugue where two of the darling clubs are having to compete, they want there devine right status back. They slurs and insults are ridiculous and quite frankly, desperate.
Sadly even some City fans? have bought into this garbage, dirty oil money, human rights breaches,It's not your money, you haven't earned it. Neither have these dickheads who borrow borrow and borrow some more. I often point out to Rags that only one country has used a nuclear weapon, and only one country has commited geniside on several nations. Slavery,and America has a lot to answer for, they reply Not our owners, well not ours either !!
Its boiling there piss and I love it !!

this is the real problem for them


View attachment 13171

I like to think I'm pretty well clued up on who has won what in the English game but until I saw that, one thing that had passed me by is that Sheffield United have a league title to their name

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Football has managed to con itself into a false sense of insecurity and has opened fire at entirely the wrong enemy. Football's problem is not financial but administrative. It has conjured up the predatory state masquerading as the super rich bogeyman determined to win "all the trophies" by inflating the transfer market, paying wages no other club can compete with and dominating the game. It is clear which two clubs are the villains here but it is also clear that the construct is without validity. If we take the game at a European level and begin at the time Sheikh Mansour (NOT Abu Dhabi) bought City in 2008 we note that Manchester City have not yet reached the final of the CL, PSG reached it for the first time, but were beaten, in 2020 and only one club has won the CL for the first time. That club is Chelsea, certainly owned by a very rich man and raised to the first rank by his money, but all the other winners won it for the first time in the 1950s, '60s or '70s - with the exception of Barcelona who had to wait until1992. Real Madrid have won it 6 times this century, which mirrors nicely the 7 times they won it last century. No doubt it will be argued that this is the consequence of FFP which maintained a gloriously level playing field and gave everyone a fair chance, but with that fiction we leave reality and begin telling fairy stories.

The PL has seen two clubs taken over by the super rich enemies of fair play and in the 17 seasons since Mr Abramovitch arrived Chelsea and City have won the title 7 times so far, though they have dominated increasingly in recent years. But in the 11 seasons before Abramovitch only on one occasion did a side other than Manchester United or Arsenal win the title and United won it no fewer than 8 times. Since 2003 United have won it a further 5 times - as many as Chelsea and one more than City. This period of domestic domination by one club - Manchester United - is not put down to money but rather to the brilliance of their manager. What is interesting is that when Ferguson was appointed he was provided with lavish owner investment every season to buy a team which might "knock Liverpool off their f****** perch". This unprecedented spending culminated in the floating of the club on the stock exchange to provide even greater funds and the very next season, with the arrival Schmeichel, Kanchelskis and Cantonna the GPC did buy the title at long last. United were a public company - not exactly state owned, but owned by any member of the public who could grab a share.

So, as we all know full well, involvement of the very rich and the buying of titles here and in Europe is nothing new and little concern was expressed. So what is new? It is, of course, the active participation of UEFA in this bean feast and their alliance with one group of clubs. The exploitation of soccer on the TV and of sponsorship meant that the dominant group of clubs in the 1990s were in a great position along with UEFA to make themselves very rich indeed and dominate the game at home and abroad. The alliance became rather one sided as breakaways were threatened and UEFA was forced to accept club officials on their committees as competition grew. This competition was not only financial - City have shown that they employ their resources better and in Guardiola have the best manager of the day. But UEFA's problem is administrative in that it feels the need to protect not football but its allies of the 90s now they face real difficulty. Football has never been threatened by money but certain clubs are.

UEFA have never identified one rich individual who intends to spend, spend and spend again and to establish a total dominance and win all the trophies. Abramovitch has spent a lot and won a lot but Chelsea have won one CL and are certainly not dominating English football. Sheikh Mansour has never expressed any desire to spend without restraint. In what other area of activity would someone who bought a business, planned a period of heavy investment to become competitive at the high end of the market so as to generate revenue to pay staff and shareholders better be regarded as a dangerous threat. The CBI might express concern about productivity and unit costs but would it really lay down as one of its aims to keep wages down and force them lower!

Football needs investment whether through debt or from the personal wealth of shareholders and any protectionist measures now to protect an elite which maintains its position through "undue influence" when its claim to a place at the top table belongs to yesterday would be disastrous.

 

[blueju]

Football has managed to con itself into a false sense of insecurity and has opened fire at entirely the wrong enemy. Football's problem is not financial but administrative. It has conjured up the predatory state masquerading as the super rich bogeyman determined to win "all the trophies" by inflating the transfer market, paying wages no other club can compete with and dominating the game. It is clear which two clubs are the villains here but it is also clear that the construct is without validity. If we take the game at a European level and begin at the time Sheikh Mansour (NOT Abu Dhabi) bought City in 2008 we note that Manchester City have not yet reached the final of the CL, PSG reached it for the first time, but were beaten, in 2020 and only one club has won the CL for the first time. That club is Chelsea, certainly owned by a very rich man and raised to the first rank by his money, but all the other winners won it for the first time in the 1950s, '60s or '70s - with the exception of Barcelona who had to wait until1992. Real Madrid have won it 6 times this century, which mirrors nicely the 7 times they won it last century. No doubt it will be argued that this is the consequence of FFP which maintained a gloriously level playing field and gave everyone a fair chance, but with that fiction we leave reality and begin telling fairy stories.

The PL has seen two clubs taken over by the super rich enemies of fair play and in the 17 seasons since Mr Abramovitch arrived Chelsea and City have won the title 7 times so far, though they have dominated increasingly in recent years. But in the 11 seasons before Abramovitch only on one occasion did a side other than Manchester United or Arsenal win the title and United won it no fewer than 8 times. Since 2003 United have won it a further 5 times - as many as Chelsea and one more than City. This period of domestic domination by one club - Manchester United - is not put down to money but rather to the brilliance of their manager. What is interesting is that when Ferguson was appointed he was provided with lavish owner investment every season to buy a team which might "knock Liverpool off their f****** perch". This unprecedented spending culminated in the floating of the club on the stock exchange to provide even greater funds and the very next season, with the arrival Schmeichel, Kanchelskis and Cantonna the GPC did buy the title at long last. United were a public company - not exactly state owned, but owned by any member of the public who could grab a share.

So, as we all know full well, involvement of the very rich and the buying of titles here and in Europe is nothing new and little concern was expressed. So what is new? It is, of course, the active participation of UEFA in this bean feast and their alliance with one group of clubs. The exploitation of soccer on the TV and of sponsorship meant that the dominant group of clubs in the 1990s were in a great position along with UEFA to make themselves very rich indeed and dominate the game at home and abroad. The alliance became rather one sided as breakaways were threatened and UEFA was forced to accept club officials on their committees as competition grew. This competition was not only financial - City have shown that they employ their resources better and in Guardiola have the best manager of the day. But UEFA's problem is administrative in that it feels the need to protect not football but its allies of the 90s now they face real difficulty. Football has never been threatened by money but certain clubs are.

UEFA have never identified one rich individual who intends to spend, spend and spend again and to establish a total dominance and win all the trophies. Abramovitch has spent a lot and won a lot but Chelsea have won one CL and are certainly not dominating English football. Sheikh Mansour has never expressed any desire to spend without restraint. In what other area of activity would someone who bought a business, planned a period of heavy investment to become competitive at the high end of the market so as to generate revenue to pay staff and shareholders better be regarded as a dangerous threat. The CBI might express concern about productivity and unit costs but would it really lay down as one of its aims to keep wages down and force them lower!

Football needs investment whether through debt or from the personal wealth of shareholders and any protectionist measures now to protect an elite which maintains its position through "undue influence" when its claim to a place at the top table belongs to yesterday would be disastrous.

It’s also bred the worldwide entitled fan base of said clubs , one which is milked relentlessly and who’s numbers are used as a stick to beat ‘small clubs’ as proof they have’no history’

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

Money securing success in football. ‘‘Twas ever thus. A few years ago I read this article which stuck with me. I found it again today. I think it’s worth five minutes.

Using ‘new’ money to invest whilst bending rules in order to challenge the establishment and actually compete for trophy’s seems to have been around since the early inception of the modern game and structure.

Football's working-class roots | The National

The 'beautiful game', in its organised form, was born in England's grim industrial towns.

www.thenationalnews.com

 

[raybo]

I think the truth is that FFP wasn't what UEFA and the cartel wanted, accusations we are just a new type of cartel with PSG are bollox. Football is now (for me sadly) a business with a certain people in powerful positions that only want there darling clubs to win the trophies.
What has really changed? in Spain, Germany, Italy or France? apart from having to compete with us, Nothing!
The real change is in the Premier Leaugue where two of the darling clubs are having to compete, they want there devine right status back. They slurs and insults are ridiculous and quite frankly, desperate.
Sadly even some City fans? have bought into this garbage, dirty oil money, human rights breaches,It's not your money, you haven't earned it. Neither have these dickheads who borrow borrow and borrow some more. I often point out to Rags that only one country has used a nuclear weapon, and only one country has commited geniside on several nations. Slavery,and America has a lot to answer for, they reply Not our owners, well not ours either !!
Its boiling there piss and I love it !!

this is the real problem for them


View attachment 13171

Copy and paste us in for 2021

 

[spiny]

Money securing success in football. ‘‘Twas ever thus. A few years ago I read this article which stuck with me. I found it again today. I think it’s worth five minutes.

Using ‘new’ money to invest whilst bending rules in order to challenge the establishment and actually compete for trophy’s seems to have been around since the early inception of the modern game and structure.

Football's working-class roots | The National

The 'beautiful game', in its organised form, was born in England's grim industrial towns.

www.thenationalnews.com

Brilliant article and relevant today.

It highlights the conflict between the Northern commercially competition driven league clubs and the amateur Southern based FA elite governing body and rule makers.

Conflicts between the Football League and FA on the running of the game continued and were particularly challenging in the late 1950's, 1960's and 1970's when the pattern was set for the game as it is today, including the abolition of the maximum wage for players. Key figures worth checking out were Stanley Rous, Alan Hardaker and Jimmy Hill. (Respectively the FA and FIFA, Football League and Players Union)

The creation of the Premier League can be seen as a further development. The self styled European Royalty found a way of dominating their domestic competitions through European Cups by changing them from knockout to a quasi league formats. European competitions became a closed shop cash cow administered by UEFA so outside the juristiction of national FA's and leagues. It was easy for G14 clubs to stuff UEFA with their cronies and shills who in turn made their own rules and competitions.

The self serving elite could afford to moralise whilst the money rolled in and there was little danger of new clubs breaking through. The problem was their greed and hubris. Top officials from FIFA and UEFA have been found guilty of corruption and it is hard to conceive that it was not endemic and extended to other bodies such as the PL and FA with the same names cropping up and much "circumstantial" evidence not persued in the courts.

If FFP was such a good idea when it worked for the rich clubs is it being dropped now it is working against them? The answer is the same as Qatar hosting the WC. Always follow the money.

 

[KS55]

The Grauniad today says that the new ffp rules will focus on wages and fees. There is no material diff between this an the old ffp. It still focusses on expenditure rather than the real enemy, debt. We all know why, but one wonders just what UEFA AND G14 think this will achieve.
I wonder if some inside that nasty alliance have believed their own propaganda and think that City pay huge wages, agents' fees and transfer fees. If so, they are in for a surprise. They could have checked our accounts, but their case against us was that they were falsified. What irony.
City, ruining footy since, oh, forever.