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

[Pam]

so the rules governing this sham will be changed in june, how can we take the hand brake off our spending until they tell us what the new rules will be, i`m sure these c**t are trying to hold us back further buy leaving it till june.

No, this happened last year with the sanction announcements, which they flagged in May and ratified in June.

P.S. Well done to PSG for kicking off big style and getting the Twatini name check to prove it.

 

[Pam]

The massive London Club without a league title for 54 years, never even been close to winning it since then either.

Made there name winning FA Cups beating shit teams like Watford along the way.

No bigger than City and never have been yet they look down there noses at us.

Bitter jealous bastards

They wouldn't have been saying this if Abromovich had bought Spurs instead of the Chavs, which was the original plan. I look forward to the day West Ham become the biggest club in London.

Fixed that for you Pam.

Thanks. Exactly what I meant.

 

[Mr Ed (The Stables)]

Spurs fans need to be reminded that they, almost more than any other club, were the ones who changed the financial side of the game.

First to set up a holding company, which allowed them to flout FA restrictions.

One of the five clubs who threatened a breakaway unless the revenue sharing agreement was torn up in their favour.

One of the clubs involved in the setting up of the PL, with Sugar giving inside information about the bidding to Sky when it looked like they might lose out.

One of the four clubs who signed that infamous letter pleading for tighter financial regulation in the PL.

And where has that got them?

Interesting stuff PB, I wasn't aware of any of that.

When you retire you need to contemplate writing a book with some of the knowledge you have, I'd buy it for certain!!

 

[Andy Conway]

Spurs fans need to be reminded that they, almost more than any other club, were the ones who changed the financial side of the game.

First to set up a holding company, which allowed them to flout FA restrictions.

One of the five clubs who threatened a breakaway unless the revenue sharing agreement was torn up in their favour.

One of the clubs involved in the setting up of the PL, with Sugar giving inside information about the bidding to Sky when it looked like they might lose out.

One of the four clubs who signed that infamous letter pleading for tighter financial regulation in the PL.

And where has that got them?

Still waiting patiently in that queue.

When Utd and Arsenal have finished gorging themselves, they might get called in to help themselves to the crumbs at the table.

 

[Pam]

Clearly the statement of a week and a bit ago that City would not be under any sanctions next season allowed them to kill FFP because the target it was supposed to take down (City) had met it's obligations under FFP. The fact that City are NO LONGER UNDER SANCTION has allowed them to move.
Without FFP sanctions hitting home against the intended target (City) there is no point in penalising other clubs especially those that started the G14 Cartel - including PSG. So they may as well ditch them in a way that gives no credit to City for meeting FFP and to hide the fact that City complied in a mist of G14 angst and fan-boy anger.
Honestly if I was the Sheikh (and I wasn't playing the long game that he clearly is) then this summer I'd send a message in the transfer market that the G14 Cartel old boys would never forget. i.e. Don't park your tanks on my lawn.

The timing is interesting, it has to be said.

 

[City Raider]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'm just waiting for the 'rules still apply to previous offenders' clause

 

[Ric]

Ian Herbert's article in The Independent today is wonderful. It's like a last desperate plea that FFP is altruistic in its nature, not the most corrupt bit of sporting legislation you're ever likely to see.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/q-and-a-how-clubs-put-uefa-on-back-foot-over-financial-fair-play-10259711.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 59711.html</a>

"Financial doping"? Check. "Ruining the game"? Check. "Level the playing field"? Check.

One of the most enjoyable things when this gets overturned will be the tears of the likes of Herbert, Nick Harris and Raphael Honigstein.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

I'm just waiting for the 'rules still apply to previous offenders' clause

Would have thought that was a given - and they're increasing the punishment. City to pay fine directly to AC Milan.

 

[Pam]

I have just remembered about this:-

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/oct/13/manchester-city-uefa-psg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... y-uefa-psg</a>

 

[Damocles]

Ian Herbert's article in The Independent today is wonderful. It's like a last desperate plea that FFP is altruistic in its nature, not the most corrupt bit of sporting legislation you're ever likely to see.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/q-and-a-how-clubs-put-uefa-on-back-foot-over-financial-fair-play-10259711.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 59711.html</a>

"Financial doping"? Check. "Ruining the game"? Check. "Level the playing field"? Check.

One of the most enjoyable things when this gets overturned will be the tears of the likes of Herbert, Nick Harris and Raphael Honigstein.

He blocked me on Twitter for pointing out a mistake in his FFP article a few years back.

The busy ****.

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

I wonder what would have happened if city had failed ffp this time spectacularly, and the Italian clubs were still putting on the pressure to allow their takeover.
Joking apart how would they have played it ?

 

[fbloke]

Wishing people dead because of football?

You bunch of numb cunts need to get your heads from up your arses.

Fucking idiotic tubthumping turds.

 

[petrusha]

Ian Herbert's article in The Independent today is wonderful. It's like a last desperate plea that FFP is altruistic in its nature, not the most corrupt bit of sporting legislation you're ever likely to see.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/q-and-a-how-clubs-put-uefa-on-back-foot-over-financial-fair-play-10259711.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 59711.html</a>

"Financial doping"? Check. "Ruining the game"? Check. "Level the playing field"? Check.

One of the most enjoyable things when this gets overturned will be the tears of the likes of Herbert, Nick Harris and Raphael Honigstein.

An Twitter exchange here between Jonathan Norcroft of the Times and author/Freelancer/man behind the Blizzard Jonathan Wilson. The gist is that poor old Liverpool want to do things the right way and just can't compete:

Jonathan Northcroft‏@JNorthcroft FSG strategy for Liverpool is clever signings and youth development. But if you can't hold on to your signings or youth, what's the point? 11:48 AM - 19 May 2015

Jonathan Wilson ‏@jonawils · 1h1 hour ago
@JNorthcroft There's all but about 8 clubs in the world probably asking that.

Jonathan Northcroft ‏@JNorthcroft · 1h1 hour ago
@jonawils You're right - and those 8 know it. Increasing sense among them that their wages can just blow the rest out of the water.

Would bring a tear to a glass eye.

 

[aguero93:20]

Wishing people dead because of football?

You bunch of numb cunts need to get your heads from up your arses.

Fucking idiotic tubthumping turds.

Which what where?

 

[FanchesterCity]

Spurs were one of the big clubs who wanted to go with ITV (who were the big money bet) before Sky came along.

However, Alan Sugar (the then Spurs chairman) swung away from ITV to Sky which was pivotal. It was no coincidence that Sugar's Amstrad was supplying receiver equipment for BSkyB, and stood to gain enormously from Sky winning coverage of football.

Essentially, the 'unfair' TV rights distribution model in Spain, is the same model that the big 5 (I'm sure it was 7 at one point) wanted. It's partly why the PL was formed, because the big clubs believed they were the main attraction, and should get the lion's share of TV money. The formation of the PL was brought about as a result... where the top division (instead of the top few clubs) got the lion's share of TV money instead.

 

[City Raider]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

None of the media hacks have been able to answer my question on why it was alright when lfc and mufc were cherrypicking players for 30 years but now it's not - same shit, different clubs

 

[SilverFox2]

I have just remembered about this:-

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/oct/13/manchester-city-uefa-psg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... y-uefa-psg</a>

ADUG had already overcome FFP when the above suggestion by our Chairman was made.
They brought in the skewed rules because of fear, so imagine their panic if others can be enticed into the lucrative football sector of business.

The dilemma now is that if they allow more time for investors to bail out the Italians they encourage bids for say Aston Villa etc..

Currently UEFA have been unable to stop just two new investors, I wonder if they will vote for rule changes that encourage more or will they sacrifice current casualties for the good of the rest ?

 

[Pam]

I have just remembered about this:-

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/oct/13/manchester-city-uefa-psg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... y-uefa-psg</a>

ADUG had already overcome FFP when the above suggestion by our Chairman was made.
They brought in the skewed rules because of fear, so imagine their panic if others can be enticed into the lucrative football sector of business.

The dilemma now is that if they allow more time for investors to bail out the Italians they encourage bids for say Aston Villa etc..

Currently UEFA have been unable to stop just two new investors, I wonder if they will vote for rule changes that encourage more or will they sacrifice current casualties for the good of the rest ?

Talk Shite were whining yesterday about how funds from rich benefactors will be exempted as long as those funds are not accessed via a loan.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Spurs fans need to be reminded that they, almost more than any other club, were the ones who changed the financial side of the game.

First to set up a holding company, which allowed them to flout FA restrictions.

One of the five clubs who threatened a breakaway unless the revenue sharing agreement was torn up in their favour.

One of the clubs involved in the setting up of the PL, with Sugar giving inside information about the bidding to Sky when it looked like they might lose out.

One of the four clubs who signed that infamous letter pleading for tighter financial regulation in the PL.

And where has that got them?

Still waiting patiently in that queue.

When Utd and Arsenal have finished gorging themselves, they might get called in to help themselves to the crumbs at the table.

The levels of Stockholm Syndrome that fans of clubs like Spurs, Everton and to a lesser extent Newcastle and Villa suffer from towards their oppressors, in the form of united, Arsenal and Liverpool is fucking comical. Their bile towards us is focused on entirely the wrong target. Fucking clowns.

 

[M18CTID]

Ian Herbert's article in The Independent today is wonderful. It's like a last desperate plea that FFP is altruistic in its nature, not the most corrupt bit of sporting legislation you're ever likely to see.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/q-and-a-how-clubs-put-uefa-on-back-foot-over-financial-fair-play-10259711.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 59711.html</a>

"Financial doping"? Check. "Ruining the game"? Check. "Level the playing field"? Check.

One of the most enjoyable things when this gets overturned will be the tears of the likes of Herbert, Nick Harris and Raphael Honigstein.

An Twitter exchange here between Jonathan Norcroft of the Times and author/Freelancer/man behind the Blizzard Jonathan Wilson. The gist is that poor old Liverpool want to do things the right way and just can't compete:

Jonathan Northcroft‏@JNorthcroft FSG strategy for Liverpool is clever signings and youth development. But if you can't hold on to your signings or youth, what's the point? 11:48 AM - 19 May 2015

Jonathan Wilson ‏@jonawils · 1h1 hour ago
@JNorthcroft There's all but about 8 clubs in the world probably asking that.

Jonathan Northcroft ‏@JNorthcroft · 1h1 hour ago
@jonawils You're right - and those 8 know it. Increasing sense among them that their wages can just blow the rest out of the water.

Would bring a tear to a glass eye.

You get the popcorn and I'll get the candles. It's laughable that people peddle this myth about clubs like Liverpool doing things "the right way". It's a load of bollocks - Liverpool's owners and those of Tottenham, Arsenal, etc, aren't employing their particular business models because they have the best interests of the sport at heart and believe in organic growth or some other such hackneyed cliche. They're simply doing it because they're too fucking tight to put their hands in their pockets and invest their own money. They're only interested in making money out of those clubs.