Uefas new money laws?

[ssg2]

I don't get why City fans think UEFA don't want them part of their competitions.
If anything UEFA must be chomping at the bit, more publicity, more advertising revenue, its a win win for UEFA for city to be in the champions league.

Same with the Sky "big 4", creates more headlines, more advertising etc and more importantly more money as bigger players (silva, ballotelli etc) come to this country.

Stop being so insecure and enjoy your ride

 

[i kne albert davy]

You're very wrong, mate. In terms of ticket sales to actual fans we have sold out virtually every home game since Rosenborg in 2007. We have certainly sold out every home ticket we have had available online in the 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11 seasons, most of which have sold out at a one ticket per member on a loyalty points basis, and in order to get a season ticket you'd have to have attended something like 28-32 (at £50-£70 per game) games as a member to qualify.

The only reason our official attendance may show below 42,000 is allocation. Away fans may take their full allocation and as a result we may need extra policing, thus lowering the attendance, or away fans might not fill their allocation. In the Champions League we have to give away 3,000 tickets to UEFA members, and have to give up a further 1,000 seats to the media. If you look at the Chelsea website, you'll notice that all of the games sell out (we are one of the only top clubs that actually sell out Carling Cup and FA Cup games for example).

The fact of the matter is we really need a stadium with a capacity between 55,000 and 58,000.

Our fan base has skyrocketed with success and many of these fans are plastics and glory hunters, but the fan base is there and the core fan base is there too. I'm not saying we are as big a club as Arsenal, but we are a huge club worldwide and that is largely to do with the money (depsite the fact we were a pretty big club before the buy out, regularly getting attendances of 40,000 once the building work was complete). If City's execs play their cards right, their fan base will multiply too.

Also, check this out <a class="postlink" href="http://www.sportundmarkt.com/fileadmin/Mailing/PK_Football_Top_20_2010/20100909_SPORT_MARKT_Football_Top_20_2010_Abstract_Press.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sportundmarkt.com/fileadmin/ ... _Press.pdf</a>

We certainly weren't the fourth most supported club in Europe before the success (I'm sure many of the fans siding with Chelsea there would swap us for the latest trophy winner in a heartbeat, though).

Mate the 42K was a reference to the Chavs' capacity. Isn't yours 47K? But at least you are 1 City fan who accepts that any increase in fan base will be plastics.

-- Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:59 pm --

Tut...and I even extracted and repeated the post I was referring to. *shakes head*

so you write we're becoming plastic chav fans then quote a different post and you've never called us plastics careful shakin that head it don't seem screwed on right to me.

 

[The Shrike]

Defensive? - check
Insular? - check
Chippy? - check
Hostile? - check
Exciteable? - check
Deranged - check

Oh, and thanks for admitting that you are becoming patronising :good:

-- Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:24 pm --

{/quote]

Erm, i didn't i said you and other fans were, good to see reading and comprehension are still out of the grasp of your average Gooner.

Yes, yes you did.

the patronising likkle city fans

in the context of which

good to see reading and comprehension are still out of the grasp of your average Gooner

is a bit embarassing, non?

..and as for being rattled - why would we be? We have always had clubs far more wealthy than ours to compete with, and have done. Talk about all this going to your heads before you have won anything at all. What you all going to be like if you actually win somethign doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Defensive? - check
Insular? - check
Chippy? - check
Hostile? - check
Exciteable? - check
Deranged - check

Oh, and thanks for admitting that you are becoming patronising :good:

-- Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:24 pm --

{/quote]

Erm, i didn't i said you and other fans were, good to see reading and comprehension are still out of the grasp of your average Gooner.

Yes, yes you did.

in the context of which

good to see reading and comprehension are still out of the grasp of your average Gooner

is a bit embarassing, non?

..and as for being rattled - why would we be? We have always had clubs far more wealthy than ours to compete with, and have done. Talk about all this going to your heard before you have won anything at all. What you all going to be like if you actually win somethign doesn't bear thinking about.

Thats the problem with you Arsenal fans, your current squad has won you fuck all for over 5 years and you still have the arrogance to come on here and tell us we doing it wrong talking to us all like your lot won the treble last year. What will we be like when we win something by the sounds of someone like yourself probably at lot less arrogant. 5 fucking years and you still bang on like you own the Premiership

 

[samharris]

Defensive? - check
Insular? - check
Chippy? - check
Hostile? - check
Exciteable? - check
Deranged - check

Oh, and thanks for admitting that you are becoming patronising :good:

-- Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:24 pm --

{/quote]

Erm, i didn't i said you and other fans were, good to see reading and comprehension are still out of the grasp of your average Gooner.

Yes, yes you did.

in the context of which

good to see reading and comprehension are still out of the grasp of your average Gooner

is a bit embarassing, non?

..and as for being rattled - why would we be? We have always had clubs far more wealthy than ours to compete with, and have done. Talk about all this going to your heads before you have won anything at all. What you all going to be like if you actually win somethign doesn't bear thinking about.

Sorry to knit pick buddy but I find it quite ironic that you spelt embarrassing wrong. :)

 

[Skashion]

I don't get why City fans think UEFA don't want them part of their competitions.
If anything UEFA must be chomping at the bit, more publicity, more advertising revenue, its a win win for UEFA for city to be in the champions league.

Same with the Sky "big 4", creates more headlines, more advertising etc and more importantly more money as bigger players (silva, ballotelli etc) come to this country.

Stop being so insecure and enjoy your ride

Quite possibly because of the rules against owners investing money in the form of equity and 'fair value' calculations. There is pretty much only one club who those rules hurt.

UEFA might only be acting in their own interests insofar as their own power is based upon the passive consent of the G18 clubs. Do those clubs see City as a threat? Well, if they don't, they are fools.

-- Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:05 pm --

What you all going to be like if you actually win somethign doesn't bear thinking about.

We'll all go back to supporting United as we were two years ago if we don't.

 

[The Shrike]

in the context of which



is a bit embarassing, non?

..and as for being rattled - why would we be? We have always had clubs far more wealthy than ours to compete with, and have done. Talk about all this going to your heard before you have won anything at all. What you all going to be like if you actually win somethign doesn't bear thinking about.

Thats the problem with you Arsenal fans, your current squad has won you fuck all for over 5 years and you still have the arrogance to come on here and tell us we doing it wrong talking to us all like your lot won the treble last year. What will we be like when we win something by the sounds of someone like yourself probably at lot less arrogant. 5 fucking years and you still bang on like you own the Premiership

Not really. Its your own chippiness that interprets what others say in this way. Most of what I have seen here is ultra defensiveness and the result of years of being overshadowed by Manure.

Most Gooners that I know are far from arrogant - getting stuffed each and every year for the past 5 seasons by stronger teams than you will tend to have that effect. We know our team cost less than the rest of the top 6 in transfer fees - and we know its not the finished article.

We are also well aware we've won nothing for a while - couldn't really not be when after Wenger's whinging its the thing that's talked about most. We accept that you and Citeh have raised the bar money wise, and that we are a team in progress - largely caused by re-building our stadium.

So why not simmer down, and get back on track with the thread.

From the Independent 8/10

Manchester City face a much tougher fight than they expected if they are to avoid a ban from European football from 2013 onwards because of a £250m burden that must remain on their books for the next five years.


Uefa has told The Independent that this nine-figure sum, accrued from recent transfers, cannot be written off as a loss on next year's accounts alone, but must be spread over the length of the relevant players' contracts. As a result, the club must rethink its strategy as it hopes to meet the terms of Uefa's Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations, which demand that, from 2013, clubs must lose no more than £13m per year or risk being shut out of all European competitions.

Uefa's calculations are made as an average over a rolling three-year period and, though this would allow some flexibility, City's recent spree means they will be starting each year until 2015 some £50m in the red, before they spend another penny. The club acknowledges privately that "a huge challenge" lies ahead to meet Uefa's break-even targets.

 

[jimbo101]

This is a genuine question - so don't throw the toys out. But do you genuinely feel that a club bankrolled like yours is is good for football?

This might sound like sour grapes coming from a Gooner - as we have had a much shorter time out of the trophies than you lot, and haven't had to bear the heartache that you have in the EPL era.

And what's more we are a wealthy club, and its a bit hypocritical the way some Gooners play the pauper card.

But if your model is replicated, the league becomes nothing more than a contest to see which billionaire has the biggest cock. After the first couple of titles, won't it all get a bit pointless?

To answer your original point (from which we have somewhat strayed) Is our funding model good for football.
To a greater or lesser extent football has always been this way. Richer clubs being dominant. You were paying £13m for Wiltord & £8m for Jeffers when we were scratching about for freebies. Utd spent £28m on Veron, £19m on VanNistlecheat & £28m on Wio over 2 seasons alone!
So yes, whilst our owners have wealth previously unknown in football circles, post EPL & CL it is the ONLY way for a club to break through the glass ceiling.
You Sky 4 were in a position to turn their cosy little world into a virtual closed shop, pulling up the ladder after them.
Where else are non CL clubs supposed to get the £30m a year of CL income to compete with you. Everton & Villa, with settled squads & good managers, failed to break your cosy cartel. the reason - money.
Spurs only managed it because the dippers imploded.
Will our success seem hollow?
You go 35 years without winning anything & see what answer you give!

 

[The Shrike]

in the context of which



is a bit embarassing, non?

..and as for being rattled - why would we be? We have always had clubs far more wealthy than ours to compete with, and have done. Talk about all this going to your heads before you have won anything at all. What you all going to be like if you actually win somethign doesn't bear thinking about.

Sorry to knit pick buddy but I find it quite ironic that you spelt embarrassing wrong. :)

Maybe - but I didn;t brand your supporters ignorant - there's the difference, see.

...and its nit picking :good:<br /><br />-- Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:25 pm --<br /><br />

This is a genuine question - so don't throw the toys out. But do you genuinely feel that a club bankrolled like yours is is good for football?

This might sound like sour grapes coming from a Gooner - as we have had a much shorter time out of the trophies than you lot, and haven't had to bear the heartache that you have in the EPL era.

And what's more we are a wealthy club, and its a bit hypocritical the way some Gooners play the pauper card.

But if your model is replicated, the league becomes nothing more than a contest to see which billionaire has the biggest cock. After the first couple of titles, won't it all get a bit pointless?

To answer your original point (from which we have somewhat strayed) Is our funding model good for football.
To a greater or lesser extent football has always been this way. Richer clubs being dominant. You were paying £13m for Wiltord & £8m for Jeffers when we were scratching about for freebies. Utd spent £28m on Veron, £19m on VanNistlecheat & £28m on Wio over 2 seasons alone!
So yes, whilst our owners have wealth previously unknown in football circles, post EPL & CL it is the ONLY way for a club to break through the glass ceiling.
You Sky 4 were in a position to turn their cosy little world into a virtual closed shop, pulling up the ladder after them.
Where else are non CL clubs supposed to get the £30m a year of CL income to compete with you. Everton & Villa, with settled squads & good managers, failed to break your cosy cartel. the reason - money.
Spurs only managed it because the dippers imploded.
Will our success seem hollow?
You go 35 years without winning anything & see what answer you give!

Good post - thanks. Its amazing that when points are made in a non-confrontational way, they make much more sense. And I guess its sad that what its come to is events in the boardroom (Liverhoof imploding - Manure on the verge - you and the Chavs finding sugar-daddies) are the only things that can alter the status quo.

But I accept that you are a consequence and not a cause.

Personally - I'd have the US-type draft system in a heartbeat - because that would weed out the nonsence that to my mind is ruining the game.

And you lot have taken matters to the ultimate conclusion - as ain't noone coming along with more financial muscle than you.

 

[Chippy_boy]

All this talk of plastics kind of misses the point. Football is a game. Watching football is a hobby - a passionate hobby to some, a casual one to others.

Why anyone should think that attracting more people to games when we have better facilities, play more attractive football and have a chance of winning something is in someway "bad", is beyond me.

What do you want, city support to be limited to a bunch of die hard fans standing in the rain in a shit hole of a stadium watching crap football?

Who the fook cares if we were to fill a 70,000 seater every week with a mix of fans - tourists, families, corporates and hard core fans. Is this so bad? I'd far rather it be like that than the old days in the 60's and 70's where football was a no-go area for kids and families and you had a pretty decent chance of a punch up before/during/after every match.