Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Wigan is of little interest to people in Wigan, let alone anyone else.fbloke said:
And that last question should read "Stoke. Why?"
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.
Martin Samuel: The plot to shackle City & Chelsea
- Thread starter LoveCity
- Start date
And that last question should read "Stoke. Why?"
crystal_mais
Well-Known Member
Prestwich_Blue said:Wigan is of little interest to people in Wigan, let alone anyone else.fbloke said:If you think further ahead FFPR might help secure a couple more years of PL football for the likes of Wigan but it also means that the club itself becomes of little interest to a man like Sheikh Mansour.
Why buy Wigan when you cant do what Sheikh Mansour has at City?
Why buy Everton? Why but Stoke?
And that last question should read "Stoke. Why?"
Stoke"ist" :)
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
According to The Express City will mount a legal challenge if necessary
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/370857
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/370857
MANCHESTER CITY will go to war with neighbours United and other leading Premier League rivals over the financial support they can receive from their Abu Dhabi billionaire owner Sheikh Mansour.
City are prepared to make a legal challenge to attempts by Liverpool, United, Tottenham and Arsenal to toughen up UEFA’s financial fair play rules for Premier League clubs.
A letter from those four clubs to Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore calls for full spending controls – where clubs must break even – without wealthy owners, such as City’s sheikh and Roman Abramovich at Chelsea, being allowed to cover the losses.
City and Chelsea are opposing any spending controls being brought in but it is likely the 20 clubs will agree on a compromise at their February meeting, which will allow a fixed amount of losses to be covered by owners.
The letter from the four clubs states: “Thank you for your continued work on the vital subject of Financial Regulation for the Premier League.
“However, we do not feel the latest proposals go far enough to curb the inflationary spending which is putting so much pressure on clubs across the entire League.
“We continue to believe that to be successful and have the best chance of gaining at least the 14 votes necessary, any proposals for Financial Regulation must include meaningful measures to restrict the owner funding of operating losses.”
ì
City and Chelsea are opposing any spending controls being brought in but it is likely the 20 clubs will agree on a compromise at their February meeting
î
West Brom and Fulham also oppose any spending controls, while the other 12 clubs favour some form of compromise solution.
City have been trying to reduce their reliance over the last year.
They made a pre-tax loss of £93.4million for last season, when they won the Premier League title, down from £189.6m in 2010-11.
But officials admit they face a struggle to comply with UEFA’s financial rules which allow for losses of only £35m a season until 2014 when clubs must start to break even.
kramer said:According to The Express City will mount a legal challenge if necessary
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/370857
MANCHESTER CITY will go to war with neighbours United and other leading Premier League rivals over the financial support they can receive from their Abu Dhabi billionaire owner Sheikh Mansour.
City are prepared to make a legal challenge to attempts by Liverpool, United, Tottenham and Arsenal to toughen up UEFA’s financial fair play rules for Premier League clubs.
A letter from those four clubs to Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore calls for full spending controls – where clubs must break even – without wealthy owners, such as City’s sheikh and Roman Abramovich at Chelsea, being allowed to cover the losses.
City and Chelsea are opposing any spending controls being brought in but it is likely the 20 clubs will agree on a compromise at their February meeting, which will allow a fixed amount of losses to be covered by owners.
The letter from the four clubs states: “Thank you for your continued work on the vital subject of Financial Regulation for the Premier League.
“However, we do not feel the latest proposals go far enough to curb the inflationary spending which is putting so much pressure on clubs across the entire League.
“We continue to believe that to be successful and have the best chance of gaining at least the 14 votes necessary, any proposals for Financial Regulation must include meaningful measures to restrict the owner funding of operating losses.”
ì
City and Chelsea are opposing any spending controls being brought in but it is likely the 20 clubs will agree on a compromise at their February meeting
î
West Brom and Fulham also oppose any spending controls, while the other 12 clubs favour some form of compromise solution.
City have been trying to reduce their reliance over the last year.
They made a pre-tax loss of £93.4million for last season, when they won the Premier League title, down from £189.6m in 2010-11.
But officials admit they face a struggle to comply with UEFA’s financial rules which allow for losses of only £35m a season until 2014 when clubs must start to break even.
Dont you hate it when the detail is wrong. :-(
BluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,562
I think there could be real mayhem in football if the four manage to get their way on financial regulation. We all know that it is difficult to insist on clubs having to break even when the same four clubs behind the plans have been allowed to run up sizeable losses and debts themselves. It seems ludicrous that an American/Japanese/Indian car company can put what it likes into a club to finance whatever plans the club has, but an owner can't put anymore than compatative chicken feed into his own club. If he feels his club isn't performing he can't do anything about it (but sack the manager) and must sit back and take relegation as "one of those things" and watch his investment go bust. You can own but not invest. Funnily enough Henry never told the Scousers this was exactly the reason he bought Liverpool! Another point is that football has many problems with the law. The retain and transfer system has been a longstanding sore. The present system of binding a player to a club for the duration of a contract has no basis in law whatsoever. Some clubs may decide that while challenges are flying around...
I
I
IH8MUFC
Guest
gills speech has so many holes in it that you could drive a truck a train and a plane through it. you want fair competition you say? take away rom, mansour and walkers ivestment and the rags would have won the title another 5-6 times in the premier league era. whats rediculous is that mansour had to spend 1 billion pounds just to compete with your empire. you want competition mr gill? as previously stated on here, ask for the nfl system. a salary cap. the worst team drafts the best young player. thats fair! oh yeah i have a problem with the word fair in this situation. take the word fair out of it. why dont you call it the rich stay rich trsr play or we dont want competion wdwc play. there is nothing fair about your proposal and the last thing you want is competition. not to mention before you rags got where you are now you over spent your budget. look it up gill go back to the late 80's. your club wasnt asking for fifa (fair) play then. i hope bill gates decides to buy newcastle or sunderland ect and makes mansours spending look like manopoly money and have another team break your mafia cartel on the league table.
I
I
IH8MUFC
Guest
since 1993 when the premier league bean there have been 4 winners. in the nfl there have been 12. so since you want competition mr gill i reccomend we use nfls rules and evenly divide the money between all clubs. we will see how fair you want the competition then you corrupt rag
Liked this that Neil custis just tweeted
@ncustisTheSun: Remember 500million generated through the success of Alex ferguson and the team has gone out the window and people think Mansour is wrong
Put it this way.
The Glazer's/United are only halfway through paying off the original £700mill debt.(I stand corrected on that figure) So far it has cost them £5-600mill in interest payments if you believe the press/interweb.
If that figure is repeated until the original debt is finally paid off, it will have cost the Glazer's/Manchester United not far short of £2bill to buy the club outright.
And that figure doesn't include the money that the Glazer's have taken out of Manchester United for themselves. Not to mention other payments(NYSE, etc) that have been made throughout this sorry episode.
Oh I forgot. The Cayman Islands. ;-)
Yet City(and Chelsea) are seen as the real villians.
The Glazer's/United are only halfway through paying off the original £700mill debt.(I stand corrected on that figure) So far it has cost them £5-600mill in interest payments if you believe the press/interweb.
If that figure is repeated until the original debt is finally paid off, it will have cost the Glazer's/Manchester United not far short of £2bill to buy the club outright.
And that figure doesn't include the money that the Glazer's have taken out of Manchester United for themselves. Not to mention other payments(NYSE, etc) that have been made throughout this sorry episode.
Oh I forgot. The Cayman Islands. ;-)
Yet City(and Chelsea) are seen as the real villians.
cleavers
Moderator
Maybe because its twitter, but I don't know if that's a dig at us or them personally.bobmcfc said:Liked this that Neil custis just tweeted
@ncustisTheSun: Remember 500million generated through the success of Alex ferguson and the team has gone out the window and people think Mansour is wrong