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.
Serious question relating to us and FFP(update P17)
- Thread starter Johnsonontheleft
- Start date
BluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,562
Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP
City appear confident that they will comply with the regulations introduced by UEFA. The club appear to believe that income will rise rapidly enough in the short, as well as the long, term to mean that we can compete with the European heavyweights. This should be taken seriously because those in charge of our club have shown that their judgement is sound. Their appears to be a suspicion of City at UEFA that amounts to paranoia, and this focuses on the willingness of the owner to writ off annual losses/deficits and also the fear that City will benefit from generous related party sponsorship deals. There is the fear that UEFA will try to rule such ANY of City's major sponsorship deals inadmissible. UEFA need to watch their step here because City could seek redress if it feels FFP is being enforced in a partisan or unfair way. I think UEFA is on quicksand should it come to court.
City oppose completely the introduction of fundamentally the same regulations to the PL, but I think, are confident that it will not have any adverse effect on our ability to compete for, and win, the PL title. This may be because our two new executives are to “rationalise” costs on wages this close season while new sponsorship deals are in the pipeline to add to the new TV deal and give our revenue a serious increase. The sponsorship opportunities offered by the new training complex and the development of the collar site seem to take care of the long term future. City seem to have cause to be unconcerned about financial regulation.
Others are not so lucky. In the lead up to the formation of the PL many chairmen appear to have been so dazzled the promise of vastly increased income that they forgot that every year three teams would be relegated from it! No-one asked how easy it might be to climb back on the gravy train when you'd fallen off. City were one of the first to find out, and it was a salutary experience. A relegation battle focuses the mind. We have seen this January that, when faced with relegation, QPR had no intention of going down without giving their owner's cheque book an airing. Now clubs like Everton, Fulham and others could find in years to come that they are supposed to sit back and accept relegation rather than violate their wage cap or fail to break even. How seriously might Liverpool be prepared to push for the top four? How seriously might Arsenal want to stay in it? I think in the case of the last two Henry and Kroenke would put their profit above anything, but relegation, or its threat, may push an owner into court.
City appear confident that they will comply with the regulations introduced by UEFA. The club appear to believe that income will rise rapidly enough in the short, as well as the long, term to mean that we can compete with the European heavyweights. This should be taken seriously because those in charge of our club have shown that their judgement is sound. Their appears to be a suspicion of City at UEFA that amounts to paranoia, and this focuses on the willingness of the owner to writ off annual losses/deficits and also the fear that City will benefit from generous related party sponsorship deals. There is the fear that UEFA will try to rule such ANY of City's major sponsorship deals inadmissible. UEFA need to watch their step here because City could seek redress if it feels FFP is being enforced in a partisan or unfair way. I think UEFA is on quicksand should it come to court.
City oppose completely the introduction of fundamentally the same regulations to the PL, but I think, are confident that it will not have any adverse effect on our ability to compete for, and win, the PL title. This may be because our two new executives are to “rationalise” costs on wages this close season while new sponsorship deals are in the pipeline to add to the new TV deal and give our revenue a serious increase. The sponsorship opportunities offered by the new training complex and the development of the collar site seem to take care of the long term future. City seem to have cause to be unconcerned about financial regulation.
Others are not so lucky. In the lead up to the formation of the PL many chairmen appear to have been so dazzled the promise of vastly increased income that they forgot that every year three teams would be relegated from it! No-one asked how easy it might be to climb back on the gravy train when you'd fallen off. City were one of the first to find out, and it was a salutary experience. A relegation battle focuses the mind. We have seen this January that, when faced with relegation, QPR had no intention of going down without giving their owner's cheque book an airing. Now clubs like Everton, Fulham and others could find in years to come that they are supposed to sit back and accept relegation rather than violate their wage cap or fail to break even. How seriously might Liverpool be prepared to push for the top four? How seriously might Arsenal want to stay in it? I think in the case of the last two Henry and Kroenke would put their profit above anything, but relegation, or its threat, may push an owner into court.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP
I can't believe the clubs and their executives have been so incredibly thick. I suppose you don't need an o'level to be on the board of most clubs, but even so their stupidity in rushing for this "improvement" to the PL, reaches a new low for the cretins.
Unfortunately for those cretins - and very fortunately for us - the genie that is CIty is out of the bottle and there is no putting it back. With our enormous financial backing, we can invest in infrastructure and training on a scale that no-one outside PSG can compete with. Our revenues will grow exponentially. Ironically these restrictions, aimed squarely at nobbling City, will have no effect on us as our income rockets. The imbeciles who voted it in will be shackled by their own stupid restrictions. They obvious never listened when their mums told them "be careful what you wish for son, be careful what you wish for".
Genuinely, I suspect Khaldoon was objecting to this for the good of the league and for the good of the wellbeing of the smaller clubs. I think we have shown consistently that we are a class act and will try to do "the right thing". I doubt for one moment Khaldoon and our board were remotely bothered by these rules, but other clubs should be very very afraid of the long term consequences.
I can't believe the clubs and their executives have been so incredibly thick. I suppose you don't need an o'level to be on the board of most clubs, but even so their stupidity in rushing for this "improvement" to the PL, reaches a new low for the cretins.
Unfortunately for those cretins - and very fortunately for us - the genie that is CIty is out of the bottle and there is no putting it back. With our enormous financial backing, we can invest in infrastructure and training on a scale that no-one outside PSG can compete with. Our revenues will grow exponentially. Ironically these restrictions, aimed squarely at nobbling City, will have no effect on us as our income rockets. The imbeciles who voted it in will be shackled by their own stupid restrictions. They obvious never listened when their mums told them "be careful what you wish for son, be careful what you wish for".
Genuinely, I suspect Khaldoon was objecting to this for the good of the league and for the good of the wellbeing of the smaller clubs. I think we have shown consistently that we are a class act and will try to do "the right thing". I doubt for one moment Khaldoon and our board were remotely bothered by these rules, but other clubs should be very very afraid of the long term consequences.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP
We had the biggest expenditure on wages last season. If I am following this correctly does this agreement enshrine our greater wage budget over the rest of the Premier League in perpetuity? If so that gives us a considerable competitive advantage. These watered down measures on the face of it are good for City. Perhaps the likes of Gill and Gazidis have come to realise that resistance is futile.
In broader terms whilst disappointed from a wider footballing perspective as it is a shame that no-one else can experience what we have, I'd much rather be on the inside of the tent pissing out than be a supporter of Everton, Villa and Newcastle. The greatest tragedy for them is that they probably don't realise that their owners today signed a death warrant on their aspirations as supporters.
We had the biggest expenditure on wages last season. If I am following this correctly does this agreement enshrine our greater wage budget over the rest of the Premier League in perpetuity? If so that gives us a considerable competitive advantage. These watered down measures on the face of it are good for City. Perhaps the likes of Gill and Gazidis have come to realise that resistance is futile.
In broader terms whilst disappointed from a wider footballing perspective as it is a shame that no-one else can experience what we have, I'd much rather be on the inside of the tent pissing out than be a supporter of Everton, Villa and Newcastle. The greatest tragedy for them is that they probably don't realise that their owners today signed a death warrant on their aspirations as supporters.
bernabias home shirt
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 14,916
Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP
Maybe now
But we will have the last laugh for sure.
bellwhaft said:David Gill will be laughing his little **** off.
Maybe now
But we will have the last laugh for sure.
Mikeegrini
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 3,730
- Team supported
- City win UEFA lose, oh City....
Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP
MihaiCity said:stonie said:Its been unanimously voted for apparently according to the radio
so what is the conclusion??/ how many teams vote for if and how many against???
Exeter Blue I am here
Well-Known Member
Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP
Possibly the finest one liner I've ever seen on these pages. Beautiful. Mr Swayze would surely have approved!
tolmie's hairdoo said:Shaelumstash said:You seriously think our turnover will surpass United's in 3 years? I hope it's true but I seriously doubt that will happen, particularly as it looks like they are likely to win more trophies than us during that period.
You seriously doubt it will happen?
Our commercial revenue is already up with them, despite prostituting themselves to over 30 companies over the last 12 months.
United are maxed-out, we are within striking distance of turnover, already. That's despite United winning silverware for 20 years and us only getting investment four years ago.
Regardless of what they win, and they certainly haven't won more trophies than us in the last two years, you need to factor in what you cannot yet see.
A campus and series of developments that are akin to printing money hand-over-fist.
Soon, everyone will see and it will seriously blow minds, as well as any concerns over FFPR.
I'm always bemused by people envisaging our owners are sat on their hands, waiting to be put back in their corner.
Nobody puts City in the corner.
Possibly the finest one liner I've ever seen on these pages. Beautiful. Mr Swayze would surely have approved!
Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP
'Full details of the agreement are expected to be disclosed later on Thursday, but Gold emerged from the vote to tell Sky Sports News: "The clubs supported change.
"We've all voted and it was overwhelmingly supported. Some clubs are a little concerned, but the vast majority voted in favour.
"That will now go to the board for putting into rules, and we'll vote on that in April."
What rules are these likely to be?
'Full details of the agreement are expected to be disclosed later on Thursday, but Gold emerged from the vote to tell Sky Sports News: "The clubs supported change.
"We've all voted and it was overwhelmingly supported. Some clubs are a little concerned, but the vast majority voted in favour.
"That will now go to the board for putting into rules, and we'll vote on that in April."
What rules are these likely to be?
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP
Not really. The big gainers here are the big clubs (no surprises there then). It's the Readings and Wigans and Stokes etc (no disrespect) that are monumentally fucked.
The cookie monster said:bellwhaft said:David Gill will be laughing his little **** off.
Maybe now
But we will have the last laugh for sure.
Not really. The big gainers here are the big clubs (no surprises there then). It's the Readings and Wigans and Stokes etc (no disrespect) that are monumentally fucked.
Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP
Compromise or not, we've been defeated for now. Until we can boost our revenues wildly we'll always be disadvantaged by these rules. Wasn't Al-Fayed threatening to take them to court over this and suddenly he backs it? Sounds like some strong-arming by the Rag-and-Gooner Alliance has taken place. Horrible cunts are both clubs, only self-interest at heart.
PS: Someone explain to me how limiting spending is legal under UK law?
Compromise or not, we've been defeated for now. Until we can boost our revenues wildly we'll always be disadvantaged by these rules. Wasn't Al-Fayed threatening to take them to court over this and suddenly he backs it? Sounds like some strong-arming by the Rag-and-Gooner Alliance has taken place. Horrible cunts are both clubs, only self-interest at heart.
PS: Someone explain to me how limiting spending is legal under UK law?