PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Ric said:
It’s quite possibly true as well, tbf. Not convinced that we have co-operated fully, although I understand why. Idiots like Carragher will take that as a sign of guilt, but he’s either being wilfully ignorant or is thick as shit.
Click to expand...

I think we know Carragher is incredibly ignorant, pretty stupid and happy to see anything negative in relation to City. He’s a dreadful pundit, offers little insight because he simply can’t see through his bias and bitterness.
 
nmc said:
I think we know Carragher is incredibly ignorant, pretty stupid and happy to see anything negative in relation to City. He’s a dreadful pundit, offers little insight because he simply can’t see through his bias and bitterness.
Click to expand...
But has an audience with a lower iq than himself
 
nmc said:
I think we know Carragher is incredibly ignorant, pretty stupid and happy to see anything negative in relation to City. He’s a dreadful pundit, offers little insight because he simply can’t see through his bias and bitterness.
Click to expand...
he's worse now than before the horrible bastard spate at that girl over football
i want anyone to win anything just so liverpool win fuck all
 
The Fish said:
I understood the goal they were aiming for; ensure the community entities like a football club were protected from reckless ownership. It makes sense to have rules to prevent an owner gambling the club's future on expensive transfers. A good comparison is us and Leeds in the 2000s. They spent their Champions League money on players, we did up our stadium. They didn't recruit well, league performance suffered and they tumbled down the leagues, ruining themselves financially for years.

Look at what's happened at Bury, Portsmouth, Brighton, Leicester. They were ran by cowboys and it was the fans, the non-football staff, that paid the biggest penalty. Managers and players move on, but people were losing their jobs because some dickhead owner couldn't balance the books properly. Everton have broken the rules and they should be punished, and if it wasn't for petty partisan rivalry I'd think 10pts is harsh because at the end of the day it's not the owners who'll suffer despite it being wholly their fault. But... y'know Scouse Mackems and all that.

I didn't think Man City were/are doing anything that Man Utd hadn't been doing for decades prior. Yeah, it is a bit like cheating on Football Manager, but given the nature of the headstart Man Utd and Liverpool have, it would take something like that to truly compete with them. They were happy enough to run a club riddled with debt for as long as they could and the minute someone comes along with the financial muscle to compete they throw their toys out of the pram?

There has to be a way to protect community entities, without ringfencing the established elite. I've heard people talk about a salary cap, but that's unworkable. The minute the PL brought that in, players would jump ship to La Liga or where ever else is paying the big bucks. People have talked about ensuring a majority of players must come from a predetermined geographical area, but that's unworkable for London clubs, or clubs without a sufficiently large population base. Take Newcastle for example, there was some kind of youth recruitment rule based on where a kid grew up, 50% of our catchment area was the North Sea.

Dunno what the answer is, but FFP isn't it. It perpetuates the strength of the top clubs and restricts the others.
Click to expand...

Better than your work as a weatherman.
 
The Fish said:
A good comparison is us and Leeds in the 2000s. They spent their Champions League money on players, we did up our stadium. They didn't recruit well, league performance suffered and they tumbled down the leagues, ruining themselves financially for years.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Leeds would have flown through FFP too until they were beyond the point of no return.

Small profit or small losses in the years preceding their problems iirc.

The goal of safeguarding clubs was an admirable one, but as soon as the usual suspects got hold of it, the rules were changed and safeguarding four or five clubs at the top became the only objective.
 
levets said:
And us
View attachment 100538View attachment 100539
Click to expand...
Some of that is confusing and some of that is new to me. I didn't know England's coefficent was reduced to zero.

By league places, I take it they mean qualification to the UEFA Cup by league position. The CL was still only for the champions until 1997/98 with the first expansion. England's coefficient was high enough to allow 2 teams straight from the off. It was expanded again in 1999/00 but England didn't have a coefficient high enough for a 4th spot until 2002/03 , meaning only 3 places until then. So isn't that potentially 3 seasons where English teams could have missed out thanks to Liverpool? Leeds 99/00, Liverpool 00/01 and Leeds again 01/02(at least it wasn't a club I don't dislike that missed out) Yet look at how they still tell it amongst themselves.

I think many modern PL fans have the impression that top 4 was always as big a deal as it has become today. When the reality is, that term only became relevant in the same decade as the City takeover(5 seasons before it).

Spurs only broke into it at around the same time City did as well, that needs pointing out for some. I remember when they were competing with City for their first taste of CL football under Redknapp... They made out they had always been there, saddled with an enormous amount of misplaced entitlement towards City fans in general, in my experience. They were a mid-table club for the majority of the first 13 seasons of the PL era. 2006 was the first time they'd finished higher than 7th place, which was the single highest position they'd managed of the 5 times they'd finished above 10th in that 13 year period. The rest were all between 10th and 15th place. The club who escaped a 12 point deduction from the FA via appeal in the PL era, for no other reason than blaming the old ownership for multiple financial breaches(illegal transfer payments) in the 80s, would do well to remember where THEY came from. Sorry but fuck Spurs and Daniel Levy, had to get that in. :)
 
Last edited:
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
I disagree with that. All of the opinion pieces in the Telegraph from senior writers such as Charles Moore (ex editor of the Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph and the Spectator) are specifically about Abu Dhabi being undemocratic, misogynistic etc and that they would stifle any debate about issues that don't align with AD values.

All very hostile and backed up by very senior Conservatives saying the same. The point being that when push comes to shove all parties will do what they perceive to be in their best interests. So from being courted for investment last week Abu Dhabi and our owner are being vilified this week.
Click to expand...

There’s been quite a few hit jobs on Abu Dhabi, the Beeb showing it’s not just the cretins in the sports department that make it up.

bylinetimes.com

'The BBC’s Claim About COP28 Secret Oil Deals Is Deeply Flawed' – Byline Times

The job of journalism is not to reinforce a pre-existing bias, writes Nafeez Ahmed
bylinetimes.com bylinetimes.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.