Platini Warns City

[The Future's Blue]

I'm following this debate with interest and nothing against you personally but you seem to be quite naive when it comes to this subject, although I'd suggest you have the right meaning at heart.

Just take the new set-up, bisband the old G14 and bring in a far more representational version, headed by the old guard. It may look better to the naked eye but when you look a little deeper you realise that nothing has changed.

For about the tenth time. I don't think that Platini is a knight in shining armour who has saved football. I'm as cynical as they come when it comes to football.

What is naive is thinking that City are being targeted specifically by a process that started long before our take over.

I personally don't think football will ever go back to the way it was - but saying 'fuck it - we've got money now, so what do we care' isn't naive, it just makes us sound like rags.

It doesn't make us sound like Rags because none on here have that issue and I'm amazed you can even insinuate that.

This is all about timing and although it's not just about City, we are one of the main reasons for its implementation. Platini's idea to bring clubs into check is actually good but the way it has been set-up has only gone to aide those G14 members (plus a few others) who have been coining it in for years.

The one question that comes from all this is the very simple 'Who will benefit from these changes?'. If you can answer that honestly then you do not have to look any further.

We all remember the dream, just like Hammers fans, Villa fans and every other fan out there. In one swoop they have taken that dream away with only those currently able being the one's to prosper.

 

[bluenova]

You are clamouring to a sepia-tinted nostalgic time past when it's clear you have a belief rather than evidence to back up your views.

There are dozens of ways you can compare the competitiveness of the league in the 70s with the league now, and each way the 70s comes out on top. I mentioned that more than twice as many clubs finished in the top 3 compared with the last decade.

Forest may have outspent United, which is very important:

1. United only finished in the top 3 twice in the 70s so outbidding them isn't a big deal.

2. Forest were able to come up from the Second Division and then buy good players with input from wealthy owners. At the time though there were probably tens of thousands people in England with similar wealth who could have bought a club and outbid them. The evidence is that the transfer record was broken by a range of clubs throughout the 70s. Today there are probably only a few hundred in the entire world who could take a Chapionship team and win the league - and no-one could do it within a season.


ps. FFP probably will be good for City. In it's current form, I think at the top level it entrenches the status quo and City are now part of that group.

 

[hgblue]

I'm not sure you quite understand the role the big clubs have had in fashioning FFP. It may well be that Platini set off with good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. FFP should have been about tackling clubs with 'massive' debt. A restriction on the amount of debt allowable (as a proportion of income), excluding clubs from European competition that fail to meet this criteria within a specified time frame, identifying a Rangers type situation before it reaches meltdown and enforcing some financial sense on clubs like these by hitting them where it hurts. Sensible regs like these will NEVER see the light of day because the big clubs won't wear it. They will, however, allow Platini to bring in regs that will carve their financial advantage in stone, and prevent anyone else 'doing a City' and threatening their domestic dominance, and participation in the cash cow that is the Champions League. People shouldn't underestimate how much of a threat City are to the established elite in this country. One of the big four will miss out on the Champions League for the forseeable future and they simply can't afford it. United can no longer trawl all the best talent keeping themselves in a dominant position and are in big trouble with an ageing squad and not enough money to compete with City for the top quality replacements they need. This was the nightmare scenario they tried to prevent and why they gave FFP the thumbs up, but fortunately for us, this came just too late to stop us, but will stop anything like City happening again. This is the real issue, and why FFP is so insidious.

I mostly agree - but summing up some of the points I've made.

1. I think Platini had good intentions but that politics, and having to get teams to agree to the plans, means they've been watered down. To suggest it is aimed at us doesn't explain why on earth he's been trying to implement it for years. If anyone thinks he had no intention of implementing it till we came around, or that we're the only club that will fail, then I simply can't argue with that, as it flies in the face of all the evidence.

2. He campaigned for a reduction if CL spots from 4 to 3 - as big a threat to the old 'big four' as City are.

3. FFP isn't going to stop City - our owners have too much influence in Abu Dhabi and money will flow in that will easily bypass FFP. Chelsea and the Italian clubs will be much more affected. Our turnover will match Chelsea's soon and Roman can't call in favours to get more sponsorship.

4. FFP isn't going to stop lots of 'City' transformations happening again. The amount of money needed now is so big that you need to be a multi-billionnaire to take a club to the top. There is a limited supply of those, and fewer still who are football fans.

5. FFP isn't just about the biggest clubs. UEFA only have direct control over the main competitions, but they've been encouraging leagues to introduce their own systems. Our own Football League is introducing FFP for all it's members, which will prevent a lot of clubs failing financially.


Anyway - I think it's time I head off to a Christian website to tell them that God doesn't exist. Faith will be a lot easier to challenge than bluemoon.

1. FFP was meant to be something completely different and wouldn't have seen the light of day, even in it's current watered down state, if it hadn't been for big clubs wanting something done about the likes of City.

2. He campaigned for it but it didn't happen. Wonder why?

3. It won't stop City but that doesn't stop the likes of Wenger/Ferguson being absolutely gutted that it hasn't stopped us, and constantly bemoaning this fact. Do you get the feeling that they feel let down?

4. Maybe it won't stop many City like transformations, but it has effectively killed the dream that it MAY happen to your club.

5. Imo, FFP has been brought in in it's current format to placate the big clubs and prevent a breakaway European Super League.

 

[Anonymous]

Absolutely hates the premiership and English football in general, it also speaks volumes that the other prat in charge of Fifa allows Platini to rule in Europe, both as bent as they come and both hate English football.

 

[bluenova]

It doesn't make us sound like Rags because none on here have that issue and I'm amazed you can even insinuate that.

There's a link further back in this thread to a United forum four years ago complaining that Platini was targeting them when he called them cheats, and protecting Real and Barca. Yet Platini had also called Barca and Real cheats.

I think a lot of the people who've posted longer responses on here have very good points, but the thread is full of comments about Platini picking on City and ignoring the rags, Chelsea etc.

My comments about rags are that now we're doing well people are getting paranoid that we're being picked on. The rags thought exactly the same - that they were the ones being picked on, and not the Spanish clubs, which wasn't true. Now we're saying we are being singled out, because we read Platini's comments on City only, when we're actually in a better position that a lot of clubs to meet FFP.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

The fact is Platini couldn't have got the ffp rules through without having the backing of Europe's biggest clubs. The biggest clubs have the largest income's so ffp in it's current (flawed) state suits them down to the ground.

Large debt is a far bigger threat to football clubs than a genuine benefactor pumping money into HIS BUSINESS.

Why hasn't debt been tackled? All clubs to be debt free in x number of years?

Wouldn't have anything to do with most of the big powerful clubs having large debt would it?

 

[johnny crossan]

Absolutely hates the premiership and English football in general, it also speaks volumes that the other prat in charge of Fifa allows Platini to rule in Europe, both as bent as they come and both hate English football.

on the button

 

[Soulboy]

You are clamouring to a sepia-tinted nostalgic time past when it's clear you have a belief rather than evidence to back up your views.

There are dozens of ways you can compare the competitiveness of the league in the 70s with the league now, and each way the 70s comes out on top. I mentioned that more than twice as many clubs finished in the top 3 compared with the last decade.

Forest may have outspent United, which is very important:

1. United only finished in the top 3 twice in the 70s so outbidding them isn't a big deal.

2. Forest were able to come up from the Second Division and then buy good players with input from wealthy owners. At the time though there were probably tens of thousands people in England with similar wealth who could have bought a club and outbid them. The evidence is that the transfer record was broken by a range of clubs throughout the 70s. Today there are probably only a few hundred in the entire world who could take a Chapionship team and win the league - and no-one could do it within a season.


ps. FFP probably will be good for City. In it's current form, I think at the top level it entrenches the status quo and City are now part of that group.

One last time, I can't let it go without correcting some of your more bizarre points.

Outbidding United in the 70's wasn't a big deal? They were the biggest support in the country, double the size of Forest's. Their revenue dwarfed Forest's. Yet Forest bought their way to success... a bit like City?

Forest had rich owners?

Where did you get that nugget from? Forest were run by a committee. They were unbelievably dated in their management structure, and the reason why Clough had so many run-ins with them during his time as manager.

Why keep harping back to the 70's (almost 50 years ago) about how football was run, as a comparison with today. They are nothing like. I'm sure there people of your mind in the 70's waxing lyrical about how noble the game was in the 1920's and how the shorts were a decent length, the players played for £2 (and £1 for a draw) and everybody wore a suit and tie to the match!

In the world of football today we are swimming with sharks. Get used to it.

 

[bluenova]

The fact is Platini couldn't have got the ffp rules through without having the backing of Europe's biggest clubs. The biggest clubs have the largest income's so ffp in it's current (flawed) state suits them down to the ground.

Large debt is a far bigger threat to football clubs than a genuine benefactor pumping money into HIS BUSINESS.

Why hasn't debt been tackled? All clubs to be debt free in x number of years?

Wouldn't have anything to do with most of the big powerful clubs having large debt would it?

You're right - debt is the main threat. And you may well be right about why FFP has been changed from the original idea of debt, to its current form.

However there are only a few clubs that have huge debts, but also the profits to sustain them. Platini played on Italy and that's where FFP will likely hit hardest. Many of the really big names in Italy have debts and run at a loss. If anything they are being targeted mostly by FFP, not us.

 

[mancunial]

I'm following this debate with interest and nothing against you personally but you seem to be quite naive when it comes to this subject, although I'd suggest you have the right meaning at heart.

Just take the new set-up, bisband the old G14 and bring in a far more representational version, headed by the old guard. It may look better to the naked eye but when you look a little deeper you realise that nothing has changed.

For about the tenth time. I don't think that Platini is a knight in shining armour who has saved football. I'm as cynical as they come when it comes to football.

What is naive is thinking that City are being targeted specifically by a process that started long before our take over.

I personally don't think football will ever go back to the way it was - but saying 'fuck it - we've got money now, so what do we care' isn't naive, it just makes us sound like rags.

And there's your answer in a nutshell. And you even answered it yourself!


You are clamouring to a sepia-tinted nostalgic time past when it's clear you have a belief rather than evidence to back up your views.

You mention Forest.
You mean the same Forest who were the biggest spenders in the English game when they reached the top division?
You mean the same Forest that outbid the rags for Peter Shilton?

Cloughie in his times at Forest and Derby spent millions. Too many forget that or never realised it in the first place!

This is the sort of guff I've come to expect from Colin Schindler and David Conn, where there is almost fear-like reluctance for City to dip their toes into the murky waters of "buying the league"... that somehow we should be purer and more noble.

Did you see the supporters reactions to the weekend's events? No one cared that we bought the league. Seriously. Everyone does it, and have done going back to Chelsea, the rags, Arsenal, Blackburn Rovers, Liverpool (ah yes, Liverpool, financed by the Littlewoods organisation in the late 60's, taking them from the 2nd. division to European glory!).

We sound like rags? Why say that? Why not say we sound like Chelsea or Blackburn or whatever club you want to name that has won the league in modern times.

Methinks you are a bit too obsessed by the rags mate. Let it go. We'll NEVER be like them.

Anyway, I'm going round in circles with this. You think FFPR is fair to City. I don't. And that's coming from someone who thinks that FFPR will have little impact upon us and merely close the door behind other similar clubs to us who still have dreams.

Now THAT is unfair.

this and this only