ifiwasarichfan said:
cleavers said:
Its a decent article, but irelevant. What united are trying to get through here is "after the horses bolted", far too late for them to stop us anyway now. It couldn't be brought in immediately, they also need agreement from the Premier League, and their sponsors, and excluding the team that gave the PL its greatest moment so far isn't going to happen, nor is trying to prevent us competing on an even footing, our profile is now too big.
On top of that our revenue is also getting there pretty quickly I'm sure, and even if they do try to bring it in rapidly (next season), we'll have lawyers all over it, and could tie it up in legal wrangling for as long as we want, meanwhile we'll still be improving our revenue streams.
I don't know why people worry so much about financial fair play, we've already beaten it imho.
This has basically been my take on matters but GDM's eloquent posts in the similar FFP thread reference Gill; basically his power and that as far as we are concerned he is the anti-christ with allies all over the place has me worried again. They will try and alter things if things aren't going their way.
What could possibly be in Gill's proposals for the decent Prem teams ( and in my opinion it's these who despise us the most since the money came) - Everton,Villa,Newcastle? surely it cuts off what little hope they have left of smashing up the cosy cartel at the top.
I think City's revenue should go through the 200m barrier in the next set of figures, and there is a new TV deal to come, plus 20 odd million from the Chimps League (even if we fail to escape from the group of death), which should bump us up toward the 250m mark the year after. There is also our, as yet unratified, deal with Etihad, which will be worth another 35m p.a. I don't doubt that UEFA are currently dreaming up ways to torpedo that deal on the grounds of nepotism or whatever, but it will be hard for them given Liverpool's dubious in-house dealings with Warrior, so I think Cleavers is broadly right, that by the time FFP might be implemented domestically, it will be too late to stop us completely, although it would serve to leave the rags in a position where they could massively outspend us to guarantee themselves success.
That said, I do fear the Premier League chairmen will vote for this. Small timers like Whelan, who can't, and probably don't want to, spend millions, will welcome having a newfound scapegoat (FFP) to blame when their fans start criticising them, there is a group of mid sized clubs, who will acknowledge they have no chance of competing for trophies and who will be happy to reduce costs, through lower wages, without having to jeopardise their Premiership status in the process (Fulham, Swansea etc), and that pretty much leaves just the better supported clubs, who dream of one day having an owner like ours and actually winning trophies, as our only natural allies. I'd say we're looking at Chelsea, Spurs, Newcastle, Sunderland, Everton, Villa, West Ham and, unexpectedly, QPR. Of these, Gold has already come out and admitted that he will be one of the turkeys voting for Christmas, Lerner's clear aim at Villa is not investment of any sort, but clawing back as much money as he possibly can, Chelsea's revenue streams are already up around the 350m p.a. mark and they are more likely to vote for the establishment of Gill's monopoly than against it, and anyone who trusts that tight arsed cnut Levy is a bloody fool. I'd say Gill has a very good chance of getting this bullshit through, and if I were City I would not be lobbying against it, but proposing our own alternative version, which would give the small town johnnies what they want, but also insist that the writing up of debt against a club be a consideration as well.
