Uefas new money laws?

[jimbo101]

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.

Lazy journalism as usual. Read the article on <a class="postlink" href="http://www.swissramble.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">www.swissramble.blogspot.com</a> for a properly considered verdict on the FFP rules.

 

[The Shrike]

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 after every match.

Plastics in my book referes to fans who start supporting a club just because its on the up but go elsewhere as soon as something better comes along. Just bad form, I guess.

 

[ssg2]

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.

Different fans want different things though. Its great I can take my lad to an all seater stadium and not worry about fighting etc but at the same time he doesn't get the buzz i got walkiing up the steps to electric atmospheres and standing (which was great when I was a kid).

 

[squirtyflower]

just need a red scouser and we'll have a full house

they've been thrown out of their respective forums for being boring pedants

 

[lloydie]

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.

Sorry mate, but, although you on the whole seem reasonable and obviously have some interest in the sustainability of our business model, you keep letting yourself down by relying on media cliche to which we've become (perhaps overly) sensitised. You keep referring to our "arrogance" which is non-existant unless you seriously misunderstand the term. Excited, yes. Eager, yes. And Yes, we've become defensive and it's no wonder when we have to put up with the condescending nonsense and factually incorrect accusations that you and others like you constantly direct at OUR club, can you honestly say you're surprised? I defy you not to defend your club when it's attacked with the usual media driven cliche, in fact you've done it several times in this very thread.
To put your worried and patronising mind at rest, have a read of this......

<a class="postlink" href="http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-manchester-city-could-break-even.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/10 ... -even.html</a>

The bottom line is that we have a different business model to you at the moment and whether it all comes to fruition is open to conjecture but what is certain is that to dine at the top table requires significant resources that are denied to non CL teams to the point of a restrictive practice. Our ability to sustain this beyond the pump priming stage will very much depend on ourselves and our far from guaranteed success. Should we succeed will you be happy for us? I very much doubt it.... which would signal your concern for us as disingenuous at the very least. Your concern, I suspect. is as it should be for your own club and it's prospects at a time when the competition just got a bit harder. It's no good crying it's not fair all of a sudden when in reality it never has been.

 

[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.

Different fans want different things though. Its great I can take my lad to an all seater stadium and not worry about fighting etc but at the same time he doesn't get the buzz i got walkiing up the steps to electric atmospheres and standing (which was great when I was a kid).

I agree with that, but on the other hand the more family orientated, less threatening environment is good too. I took my best mate - who was a gooner (he died last year, sadly) - to the Arsenal game last season and we were chatting with the guys next to us and my mate said he was a gooner (which I thought was brave) and he got no aggro at all. Unthinkable when I was a lad - he would probably have had his head kicked in.

 

[i kne albert davy]

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 after every match.

Plastics in my book referes to fans who start supporting a club just because its on the up but go elsewhere as soon as something better comes along. Just bad form, I guess.

would you like to enlighten us when you started going up the arsenal then late 90s or earlier perhaps and why arsenal not millwall charlton qpr or the orient

 

[ssg2]

Different fans want different things though. Its great I can take my lad to an all seater stadium and not worry about fighting etc but at the same time he doesn't get the buzz i got walkiing up the steps to electric atmospheres and standing (which was great when I was a kid).

I agree with that, but on the other hand the more family orientated, less threatening environment is good too. I took my best mate - who was a gooner (he died last year, sadly) - to the Arsenal game last season and we were chatting with the guys next to us and my mate said he was a gooner (which I thought was brave) and he got no aggro at all. Unthinkable when I was a lad - he would probably have had his head kicked in.

Totally agree that football is now more family friendly the only negative with that is the cost to take a family.

 

[samharris]

I agree with that, but on the other hand the more family orientated, less threatening environment is good too. I took my best mate - who was a gooner (he died last year, sadly) - to the Arsenal game last season and we were chatting with the guys next to us and my mate said he was a gooner (which I thought was brave) and he got no aggro at all. Unthinkable when I was a lad - he would probably have had his head kicked in.

Totally agree that football is now more family friendly the only negative with that is the cost to take a family.

I was outside the Emirates last game 0-0 sat on one of the big letter type sculpture thingymebobs opposite the Drayton watching those tosser coppers on horseback getting all fussy cos City fans were singing and drinking, this bloke with a crash helmet in his hands came over and started chatting about how did I think we'd do..Nice bloke.. turns out he's a gooner who was off to work afternoon shift...That wouldnt have happened back in the day..

 

[KenTheLandlord]

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.

Beautiful, just beautiful, you walked straight onto that rake. Now, if you have been around football, for say longer than 10 minutes, you would know "likkle city fans" (a piss take of our pronunciation of little) along with cITY and Citeh are all patronising terms for us. You clearly had no idea. Which makes me suspect the Gooner bubble you live in has made you completely unaware of the absolute arse you have made of yourself.

Funny really, you don't even see the irony of being in a competition called CHAMPIONS League which has made you very rich and you haven't stepped near a championship for 6 years. Not as brass necked as Liverpool but certainly moving that way. So, having not won a championship for the last 6 years and wanting financial fair play, would you propose that all the monies won by yourself and Liverpool be divvied up between the other 90 clubs? That would be fair as we haven't won it either otherwise your words sound very hollow.

Now, having been shown you didn't understand the term likkle and being pulled for not spelling embarrassing correctly, shall we now go and look up "somethign"?

Oh dear, how embarrassing for the English teacher.

Btw, are you going to address any of the points raised or just continue to patronise and be lost in a world of irony.