How UEFA shifted the goalposts on FFP. The definitive story.

[ancoats]

I agree entirely with your opening line. City was one of British football's elite clubs for decades. I think the problem is that (and maybe as fans we've contributed to this) the story of failed 3rd tier club becoming mega rich and suddenly winning trophies is a powerful story. What we need to start doing is banging the drum about what we were without that desperate late 1990s period. I go on about this a lot these days but it was the late 1990s that was out of character with our history not the present. Prior to our one season in the 3rd tier we often spent big, breaking transfer records etc. We often had huge crowds. We often challenged for honours. We were often described as one of the Big Four/Five/Six depending on the era.

Time we started focusing on the late 1990s as the blip and not the norm. There's plenty of evidence out there to thrust into the faces of anyone who says Where Were You? or even that shite about us being a small club that got lucky.

Gary great post

our history stands up to most even liverpool before the 1970s /1980s they did have a great run of titles and eurpoean cups in that glory slot in there time period, so its used by the media and fans calling them a giant of the game, manchester city and our fans are unique and we both get battered by everybody when it comes to our history and shouting about it ?? we feel like being knockdown about the new money as not the norm, but money was always there at manchester city like you said and we did match everybody in the transfer market in the 1960s/70s/80s and that come from a fan base right up there with the biggest clubs

manchester city now are rewriting the record books and forget the money tag its pointless and just a easy pop at our great club by the media, yes football has change but the record of honors have not in still goes down in black and white as MANCHESTER CITY FOOTBALL CLUB WINNERS

 

[Metalartin]

The history clubs' supporters rarely know about the full history of English football, they just cherry pick parts of it.

The way a Liverpool fan or a United fan quantify success and history, besides the 70s and 80s for Liverpool and the 90s to early 00s for United(the only times they truly pulled away from the pack rather than being top 4-6 challengers), is European success, because that obviously suits them. Real history, has no place for cherry picking though, as that removes context. UEFA was formed in the summer of 1954, that pretty much means, European football remotely resembling the format we have today has only existed since 1955(probably wasn't that great for the first few years either) and interestingly when we tell a Liverpool fan that City won a European trophy before Liverpool, they think we're making it up.

So for a large chunk of English football's history, all that we had was domestic success and standings to settle things and as Gary James says, City were very much established among the elite clubs right up into the 70s. The 80s showed some worrying signs but surely nobody really expected what happened to City in the late 90s? Not even the rags fans at that time, so to call City's lowest point in their history, that being the longest they'd ever spent out of the topflight(4 seasons in a row) and their lowest league position, as "the norm" for City, is shit-housery of the highest order.

The amount of dismissal about City's previous status is ridiculous really. I've never seen another club get it from all quarters quite as much. Did City's blip just come at the wrong time, just as the PL was taking off or is there more to it? (organised and clear?)

I was just thinking, since a Newcastle fan said it recently, that it could have been them. I don't think they said it spitefully, or to put City down as most of them don't seem to have any bitterness towards City but if it had have been Newcastle or they experience a similar takeover. Would they get the same treatment, as in the same amount of dismissal and doing down? They are a big club in their own right, always well supported(like City), who I have nothing against, but lets be fair, their achievements were even further in the past than City's at the time of the takeover. Since their FA Cup win in 1954-55, they mostly get remembered for challenging and ending up runners up a few times. Despite that the general feeling I get is that they wouldn't get it quite as bad as City did/do. Maybe there is the United influence too, adding to it but I still find it all a little strange, how football fans decide these things and stick to it.

 

[waspish]

The history clubs' supporters rarely know about the full history of English football, they just cherry pick parts of it.

The way a Liverpool fan or a United fan quantify success and history, besides the 70s and 80s for Liverpool and the 90s to early 00s for United(the only times they truly pulled away from the pack rather than being top 4-6 challengers), is European success, because that obviously suits them. Real history, has no place for cherry picking though, as that removes context. UEFA was formed in the summer of 1954, that pretty much means, European football remotely resembling the format we have today has only existed since 1955(probably wasn't that great for the first few years either) and interestingly when we tell a Liverpool fan that City won a European trophy before Liverpool, they think we're making it up.

So for a large chunk of English football's history, all that we had was domestic success and standings to settle things and as Gary James says, City were very much established among the elite clubs right up into the 70s. The 80s showed some worrying signs but surely nobody really expected what happened to City in the late 90s? Not even the rags fans at that time, so to call City's lowest point in their history, that being the longest they'd ever spent out of the topflight(4 seasons in a row) and their lowest league position, as "the norm" for City, is shit-housery of the highest order.

The amount of dismissal about City's previous status is ridiculous really. I've never seen another club get it from all quarters quite as much. Did City's blip just come at the wrong time, just as the PL was taking off or is there more to it? (organised and clear?)

I was just thinking, since a Newcastle fan said it recently, that it could have been them. I don't think they said it spitefully, or to put City down as most of them don't seem to have any bitterness towards City but if it had have been Newcastle or they experience a similar takeover. Would they get the same treatment, as in the same amount of dismissal and doing down? They are a big club in their own right, always well supported(like City), who I have nothing against, but lets be fair, their achievements were even further in the past than City's at the time of the takeover. Since their FA Cup win in 1954-55, they mostly get remembered for challenging and ending up runners up a few times. Despite that the general feeling I get is that they wouldn't get it quite as bad as City did/do. Maybe there is the United influence too, adding to it but I still find it all a little strange, how football fans decide these things and stick to it.

We get it worse for one reason the scum and there orchestrated continual put down that started with Bacon at every opportunity and that banner! Now its social media that is mever ending fake news about our ground our spending and its all orchestrated by Edwood the man who goes on about social media achievements. Hope the scum miss out on top four and crash and burn.

 

[citytilllidie]

Then we should unleash hell and stop being wimps in the transfer market!

I think we have it right.
Buy young up and comers, pay them a proper salary, develop them including their willingness to work and learn.
If they get better (Jesus/Sane/Sterling), agree a new contract on big wages.

When Sanchez went to United on a 5yr deal at £500k per week, I knew then they would have a problem ever getting him to perform.
He didn't have to put it in and was set for life, in effect, they retired him.

Gundogan's recent comments about not signing and running contract down will see us looking to get rid this Summer, which he will likely refuse and sign for someone next January.

His next move will be his last so he will want the big signing fee like Milner got at Liverpool.
I don't have a problem with that, but I wouldn't have him anywhere near the first team if;
A. He won't sign a new contract
or
B. He won't agree to be sold to another club.

Not sure if Pep feels that way, he probably doesn't, but it will certainly rankle with the fans, and banishment to the development squad will let other players know what to expect.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I agree entirely with your opening line. City was one of British football's elite clubs for decades. I think the problem is that (and maybe as fans we've contributed to this) the story of failed 3rd tier club becoming mega rich and suddenly winning trophies is a powerful story. What we need to start doing is banging the drum about what we were without that desperate late 1990s period. I go on about this a lot these days but it was the late 1990s that was out of character with our history not the present. Prior to our one season in the 3rd tier we often spent big, breaking transfer records etc. We often had huge crowds. We often challenged for honours. We were often described as one of the Big Four/Five/Six depending on the era.

Time we started focusing on the late 1990s as the blip and not the norm. There's plenty of evidence out there to thrust into the faces of anyone who says Where Were You? or even that shite about us being a small club that got lucky.

Historically, City have always been one of England's big clubs. We were mismanaged so badly from the late 70's onwards that it took it's toll. People go on about empty seats etc, wasn't an issue when the rags couldn't sell out a home Derby (same season as the 5-1) or got under 30k v Wimbledon for a league game when Ferguson was manager.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Anyone see this? https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/17/how-a-deluge-of-money-nearly-broke-the-premier-league

Long and very interesting article which is an extract from a new book about the rise of the PL. We (naturally) get the blame for leading the demand for a greater share of the foreign TV revenue, which is currently shared equally. There's no great evidence to support that but a bit later on there's the story about the old guard - United, Liverpool & Arsenal - meeting up to discuss just that.

Bizarre article. It claims City are very naughty wanting more money and are responsible for wanting to change the overseas media rights division formula. Yet the Arsenal, Utd and Liverpool cheif exec meeting in the US restaurant is not naughty at all.
Journalists have some very strange ideas.

 

[Essex blue]

Our demise was a sustained period of poor buys and poor managers (remember Kevin Reeves)

I remember a quote in the 90’s “city had spent almost as much as Arsenal had and they won the league”! We got relegated!

We have never been shy and splashing the cash just not on the right players until recent years.