Tbilisi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 8,229
- Team supported
- City and Darlington FC
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I like this idea....would be brilliant.
bellsouth said:
I like this idea....would be brilliant.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Agree.
MrE said:MSP said:Can't believe the flapping here..
At best, if SM decide to not fight it, this can slow us for year or two, after that we'll have a revenue enough to never bother about this shit.
In SM I trust,
He has invested not only on the playing side of the club, but in the infrastructure, the community around the club, the marketing and the facilities. He has brought our club from being spectators to being the main event.
If SM decided to sell our name I would back him, after all we have been St Marks, Gorton and Ardwick in the past, if the future says we are named Etihad City then so be it... It would still be my club, just a different name with a benefit to the club. He is probably the best sports team owner in the World.
The point I am trying to make is not that I want a name change, but that SM should be allowed to invest as he wishes. He is an intelligent man, and is investing not out of the same love we have for city, but for a future financial return. UEFA cannot be allowed to stall his vision, to hinder his return on investment or to deter future investors in football. Its not a case of "flapping" its a case of encouraging SM to do what is right, fight for justice, and conveying the message the fans are behind him.
If UEFA discourage him from doing it in Europe, then whats to stop him making us a secondary project and concentrating his resources wholly on (say NYCFC).
SM has been fantastic for us, he should fight, we should SUPPORT whatever his decision.
In the meantime our support should be shown by EVERYONE (not only blue moon users but every City fan) emailing a protest to there MP, MEP, FIFA, and UEFA... instead of moaning on here we should agree a plan of action and be heard at a level where our efforts can be turned into real actions.
Agree.
Wilf Wild 1937
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 2,612
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I like the rival competition idea especially if we include the top South American clubs.
A competition involving say City, Boca Juniors, River Plate, Sao Paulo, Flamingo, a team from China, New York City and Melbourne Hart
might well work. The South American clubs generally don't have a pot to piss in (it's just starting to improve in Brazil) and are forever
losing their best players to Europe's elite. We could set up a rival global competition to the CL which could grow over the years
and would eventually surpass the CL.
bellsouth said:I say pull out of CL next year. Go on and win Premier League by Easter, which will piss off Sky as it won't give them any title challenging games after that. Win the Cups too which will piss off fans of Arsenal, rags, pool etc. And finally set up our own invitation only event for clubs from S America, USA, Asia and maybe even teams that haven't qualified for any UEFA comp including big clubs from Championship etc, create a potential rival comp and really f*** UEFA off
I like the rival competition idea especially if we include the top South American clubs.
A competition involving say City, Boca Juniors, River Plate, Sao Paulo, Flamingo, a team from China, New York City and Melbourne Hart
might well work. The South American clubs generally don't have a pot to piss in (it's just starting to improve in Brazil) and are forever
losing their best players to Europe's elite. We could set up a rival global competition to the CL which could grow over the years
and would eventually surpass the CL.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Any young legal eagle want to put together a PDF so all can sign and send to their Euro MP? FIFa would be a good approach as they hate EUFA in any case
dubblue said:MrE said:MSP said:Can't believe the flapping here..
At best, if SM decide to not fight it, this can slow us for year or two, after that we'll have a revenue enough to never bother about this shit.
In SM I trust,
He has invested not only on the playing side of the club, but in the infrastructure, the community around the club, the marketing and the facilities. He has brought our club from being spectators to being the main event.
If SM decided to sell our name I would back him, after all we have been St Marks, Gorton and Ardwick in the past, if the future says we are named Etihad City then so be it... It would still be my club, just a different name with a benefit to the club. He is probably the best sports team owner in the World.
The point I am trying to make is not that I want a name change, but that SM should be allowed to invest as he wishes. He is an intelligent man, and is investing not out of the same love we have for city, but for a future financial return. UEFA cannot be allowed to stall his vision, to hinder his return on investment or to deter future investors in football. Its not a case of "flapping" its a case of encouraging SM to do what is right, fight for justice, and conveying the message the fans are behind him.
If UEFA discourage him from doing it in Europe, then whats to stop him making us a secondary project and concentrating his resources wholly on (say NYCFC).
SM has been fantastic for us, he should fight, we should SUPPORT whatever his decision.
In the meantime our support should be shown by EVERYONE (not only blue moon users but every City fan) emailing a protest to there MP, MEP, FIFA, and UEFA... instead of moaning on here we should agree a plan of action and be heard at a level where our efforts can be turned into real actions.
Agree.
Any young legal eagle want to put together a PDF so all can sign and send to their Euro MP? FIFa would be a good approach as they hate EUFA in any case
Healdplace
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2013
- Messages
- 15,985
Re: City & FFP (continued)
The more I think about this the more it appears that the concern here with the powers that be is not so much with owners like Sheikh Mansour but WITH him specifically.
Why? Because he has behaved with utter respect to all and been above reproach. He has tried to do things honourably and run the club in a way that does not deal in backhanders and fiddles to try to get approval. Moreover he has clearly not just bought the club as a play thing like his own personal Subuteo set. He has done so to invest, improve and regenerate a city - with an eye on business potential long term, of course.
What is looking worryingly obvious is that these controlling powers fear this kind of owner more than any other and so see City as a possible template for other benefactors in the future. What with revolutionary ideas like creating a City brand with teams around the world - a strategy that will help boost other countries where football is not as dominant as here. Such a 'threat' appears to be terrifying someone, somewhere.
Ganging up on City is what sends the real message. If (as by the sounds of it) it is pretty much just City - assuming PSG have gotten off with a lesser as opposed to far worse punishment for in effect ignoring FPP rather than trying to comply as best as possible. And by certainly not doing things as openly and for the community as City. Then that points to a real fear of a City type owner as in the Sheikh.
Then you have to worry about exactly why they would run so scared of someone who to anyone who can think this through is benefitting football on a global scale. Precisely the type of person they should be wining and dining and encouraging more of in the future - not hoping to scare away from the table by offending them with tactics that appear to be less than open and honourable.
Again, what is worrying is that if the Sheikh had not invested in Manchester as well as the club and instead done some backhander abuse of that same sort of money to try to persuade non related big sponsors to back city, then FPP compliance might well have been 'buyable' just by circumventing the rules in a way these bigwigs approve.
As it might also have been achieved by boosting income through huge price rises put onto the supporters instead of City still being one of the cheapest teams to support.
It is deeply disturbing that you are punished for doing things the right way, openly and honestly, and by bringing wider benefits beyond the club to a whole community, but also boosting football globally. Yet likely not punished if instead you did things in the traditional way of greasy palms and telling everyone - from your own supporters to the wider community - to get lost, because we are a big business and we make money any way to pass these rules.
Hopefully, this realisation of will come back and bite those who are behind the engineering of such a shameful situation.
The more I think about this the more it appears that the concern here with the powers that be is not so much with owners like Sheikh Mansour but WITH him specifically.
Why? Because he has behaved with utter respect to all and been above reproach. He has tried to do things honourably and run the club in a way that does not deal in backhanders and fiddles to try to get approval. Moreover he has clearly not just bought the club as a play thing like his own personal Subuteo set. He has done so to invest, improve and regenerate a city - with an eye on business potential long term, of course.
What is looking worryingly obvious is that these controlling powers fear this kind of owner more than any other and so see City as a possible template for other benefactors in the future. What with revolutionary ideas like creating a City brand with teams around the world - a strategy that will help boost other countries where football is not as dominant as here. Such a 'threat' appears to be terrifying someone, somewhere.
Ganging up on City is what sends the real message. If (as by the sounds of it) it is pretty much just City - assuming PSG have gotten off with a lesser as opposed to far worse punishment for in effect ignoring FPP rather than trying to comply as best as possible. And by certainly not doing things as openly and for the community as City. Then that points to a real fear of a City type owner as in the Sheikh.
Then you have to worry about exactly why they would run so scared of someone who to anyone who can think this through is benefitting football on a global scale. Precisely the type of person they should be wining and dining and encouraging more of in the future - not hoping to scare away from the table by offending them with tactics that appear to be less than open and honourable.
Again, what is worrying is that if the Sheikh had not invested in Manchester as well as the club and instead done some backhander abuse of that same sort of money to try to persuade non related big sponsors to back city, then FPP compliance might well have been 'buyable' just by circumventing the rules in a way these bigwigs approve.
As it might also have been achieved by boosting income through huge price rises put onto the supporters instead of City still being one of the cheapest teams to support.
It is deeply disturbing that you are punished for doing things the right way, openly and honestly, and by bringing wider benefits beyond the club to a whole community, but also boosting football globally. Yet likely not punished if instead you did things in the traditional way of greasy palms and telling everyone - from your own supporters to the wider community - to get lost, because we are a big business and we make money any way to pass these rules.
Hopefully, this realisation of will come back and bite those who are behind the engineering of such a shameful situation.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
jonmcity said:dubblue said:MrE said:In SM I trust,
He has invested not only on the playing side of the club, but in the infrastructure, the community around the club, the marketing and the facilities. He has brought our club from being spectators to being the main event.
If SM decided to sell our name I would back him, after all we have been St Marks, Gorton and Ardwick in the past, if the future says we are named Etihad City then so be it... It would still be my club, just a different name with a benefit to the club. He is probably the best sports team owner in the World.
The point I am trying to make is not that I want a name change, but that SM should be allowed to invest as he wishes. He is an intelligent man, and is investing not out of the same love we have for city, but for a future financial return. UEFA cannot be allowed to stall his vision, to hinder his return on investment or to deter future investors in football. Its not a case of "flapping" its a case of encouraging SM to do what is right, fight for justice, and conveying the message the fans are behind him.
Great Idea, surely somebody can do this
If UEFA discourage him from doing it in Europe, then whats to stop him making us a secondary project and concentrating his resources wholly on (say NYCFC).
SM has been fantastic for us, he should fight, we should SUPPORT whatever his decision.
In the meantime our support should be shown by EVERYONE (not only blue moon users but every City fan) emailing a protest to there MP, MEP, FIFA, and UEFA... instead of moaning on here we should agree a plan of action and be heard at a level where our efforts can be turned into real actions.
Agree.
Any young legal eagle want to put together a PDF so all can sign and send to their Euro MP? FIFa would be a good approach as they hate EUFA in any case
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Why do the Baptists always get left out?Damocles said:This is becoming a more common occurrence recently than I'm comfortable with but can we have less of the Jewish/anti-Arab conspiracy theories please?