Serious question relating to us and FFP(update P17)

[Atypical]

The club has voted against the rule for a reason, which means the new rule will stop the club from improving faster than the rest.

If City are willing to sign a player that United wants, then he will end up there because City can't stretch their muscles.

Today doesn't change a thing for us.

It only strengthens resolve.

 

[MSP]

It is definitely close to being completely not important for City. City are in and that won't change.

It is an ultimate example of hypocrisy, even more from those cunts from Stamford Bridge than from usual cunts Rags and Arsenal.

Loads of clubs can forget to ever a dream of challenging for title now and yet their fans are probably happy this happened. Dumb cunts, lol

 

[BlueAnorak]

I have it on good authority that Fulham WILL challenge the ruling in the courts.

 

[masterwig]

The value of the club to the owner is only as strong as the league itself. The Premier League is losing its status as top dog and as such it's use as a marketing tool (and that's ultimately why we are where we are) will diminish. If these rules weaken the league's attraction around the globe then fewer people will be seeing the name of Manchester City and by proxy Abu Dhabi.

The PL is a very strong brand with a massive following so the effect probably won't be that great but still it could be a concern to the owner.

The door is closing behind us though, not in front of us.

 

[MSP]

Premier League won't lose too much as it already have 5-6 financially well standing clubs who are always going to be competitive in Europe and have big stars in their ranks.

Premier League was never popular due to Everton or Stoke who just signed them being small clubs forever.

 

[yatesy94]

How thick are they on Rag Cafe

"What worries me isn't that clubs like City or PSG fail the FFP - rather that they will find creative ways to get around it. No topteam in Europe can afford to be without CL - so my guess is, they will find creative ways to solve the problem. For instance - if they sign players, they will divide the costs over longer periods of time. I would assume that if they sign a player for £30 million -they can divide the costs into maybe 6 years - and only have a yearly transfer cost on that player by £5 million - rather than get the full £30 in a year. etc etc"

They really don't get how things work do they!

Well - I'm convinced - that guy talks - a lot -of sense.

 

[Tevez City]

It is definitely close to being completely not important for City. City are in and that won't change.

It is an ultimate example of hypocrisy, even more from those ***** from Stamford Bridge than from usual ***** Rags and Arsenal.

Loads of clubs can forget to ever a dream of challenging for title now and yet their fans are probably happy this happened. Dumb *****, lol

Then why City vote against it ?

 

[lancs blue]

I have it on good authority that Fulham WILL challenge the ruling in the courts.

With Al-Fayed's track record in that area I'd be amazed if he didn't, I wonder if there might be a "contribution" to his legal fees?

Abramovitch has clearly decided he's spent more than enough on Chelsea, but Everton and Newcastle voting for this simply beggars belief.

It is definitely close to being completely not important for City. City are in and that won't change.

It is an ultimate example of hypocrisy, even more from those ***** from Stamford Bridge than from usual ***** Rags and Arsenal.

Loads of clubs can forget to ever a dream of challenging for title now and yet their fans are probably happy this happened. Dumb *****, lol

Then why City vote against it ?

Because our owners are intelligent enough to see that in the long-term these rules will damage the PL's reputation and marketability.

 

[blingy]

Maybe already been said but would it not be easier to give utd the trophy 4 year out of 6 then arsenal and Liverpool have it the other two, then perhaps us and Chelsea could share it every leap year, save all the trouble of playing football matches every week

Fair play my arse, think the government should be brought in to this, we will be ok as we got in early and working towards the Uefa bull sht, but what about the so called smaller clubs

Nottingham Forest - back to back European cup winners
Notts county - oldest football club in the world
Wolves - 3 times league winners
Shef Wed - 4 league titles
Villa - 7 league titles 7 fa cup, 1 European cup
Everton - 9 league titles
Leeds – 3 leagues
Derby - 2 league titles
Preston - 2 leagues titles
Huddersfield - 2 league titles

What chance have they got to compete for major trophies ever again.
It’s a absolute joke which will result in more people dismissing there local teams to follow the cool clubs that are on TV every week, just like it has done already since the premier league monopoly started.

Kin hate these greedy bastards

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

David Conn has called it right here:

There lies the missed opportunity. These rules do something to restrain overspending, although it is notable they are aimed at a Manchester City project, which at least sees money going in, rather than the Glazers' milking of Manchester United for £550m to pay the interest and costs of their own takeover. This has been pushed for by the American owners of United, Arsenal and Liverpool, who bought English clubs as investments, and have no intention of spending money on them.