Football Leaks: UEFA Investigation into Manchester City

gstack166

citytillidie wrote: »

Again where did I say they won it?

What’s ‘again’ about? Have you already asked that question?

Why post about someone losing a final? Especially when it was in reference to me saying every English club since Chelsea hasn’t won the cup, you come along and say Liverpool got to the final. We know that, but they didn’t win it, as was my point.

UrbanFret

citytillidie wrote: »

Why?

You cant be a city supporter going by what your posting.

gstack166

UrbanFret wrote: »

You cant be a city supporter going by what your posting.

I think it’s either Cork or Derry City he is a supporter of lol. It’s not Man City anyways, I know that

citytillidie

UrbanFret wrote: »

You cant be a city supporter going by what your posting.

More than one City, but it refers to Derry City

gstack166

RoboKlopp wrote: »

City the club. Denying everything. Thought that was obvious.

Fair enough. Thought you meant me, apologies.

citytillidie

gstack166 wrote: »

What’s ‘again’ about? Have you already asked that question?

Why post about someone losing a final? Especially when it was in reference to me saying every English club since Chelsea hasn’t won the cup, you come along and say Liverpool got to the final. We know that, but they didn’t win it, as was my point.

Because you seem to be reading things into a post that is not there

UrbanFret

citytillidie wrote: »

More than one City, but it refers to Derry City

Thanks for clearing that up.:D

IncognitoMan

gstack166 wrote: »

Of course Liverpool the model club who only spend the going rate (£15m) more than our record defender but City are over paying & Liverpool are paying the going rate. Go way and ****e

Ok maybe you don't get it but yeah that's the effect of the likes of City and PSG. There will always be inflation naturally over time but this is not normal inflation.

Had VVD been sold before that Neymar deal what do you think he would have gone for? Still 75m?

Had Southampton not been able to point to City spending 50m on Stones what do you think he might have gone for? Still 75m?

Do you honestly believe that City and PSG spending money that they couldn't possibly have generated would not have an effect on the big clubs when they go looking? There is now extra money in the market and all fees have gone up as a direct result. United have also been guilty of overpaying for players who are not worth near the price (Fred). The difference being when Man Utd and Liverpool overpay they overpay and have to make that money back or show that they are generating enough to cover. There's nobody there to throw in extra money to balance the books back up. This is where people take issue.

I think you are a bit too concerned with defending the honor of City that you can't look at it any other way.

Anyway I'm sure you are just gonna come back and say something like "but Liverpool did this" or "Man Utd did this" and ignore everything I said.

dmigsy

UrbanFret wrote: »

There's a reason they're little known. Non story. In fact bull****.:rolleyes:

Your rolleyes emoji, while a strong argument, hasn't convinced me. Care to expand on why it's a non story? I'd be more worried about a European government body investigation than any of the generally laughable football authorities investigating anything. European authorities tend to have more teeth.

Mr.H

gstack166 wrote:

What trophy did they lift for that honour?

Watching you post is like watching incest porn. Its weird and i know i should hate it but i just cant stop.

UrbanFret

dmigsy wrote: »

Your rolleyes emoji, while a strong argument, hasn't convinced me. Care to expand on why it's a non story? I'd be more worried about a European government body investigation than any of the generally laughable football authorities investigating anything. European authorities tend to have more teeth.

Where exactly is this investigation taking place? Who are they investigating and why? Tax evasion, money laundering etc. You seriously believe citys owners need to money launder or evade tax.

Agent Coulson

UrbanFret wrote: »

Where exactly is this investigation taking place? Who are they investigating and why? Tax evasion, money laundering etc. You seriously believe citys owners need to money launder or evade tax.

To avoid footballs financial fair play guidelines they may have too do all of that.

That is what is being investigated by some of the Organisations.

Bridge93

Im curious as to why it seems to be exclusively Liverpool fans on here fighting. Not getting into the rights and wrongs of the debate but curious as to why this thread is 95% Liverpool. Where are all the United/Chelsea/Arsenal fans etc? Surely everyone is as equally affected in theory?

PhilipsR

Bridge93 wrote: »

Im curious as to why it seems to be exclusively Liverpool fans on here fighting. Not getting into the rights and wrongs of the debate but curious as to why this thread is 95% Liverpool. Where are all the United/Chelsea/Arsenal fans etc? Surely everyone is as equally affected in theory?

One City fan is posting enough for them all.

.G.

Bridge93 wrote:

Im curious as to why it seems to be exclusively Liverpool fans on here fighting. Not getting into the rights and wrongs of the debate but curious as to why this thread is 95% Liverpool. Where are all the United/Chelsea/Arsenal fans etc? Surely everyone is as equally affected in theory?

Chelsea would be a bit hypocritical but fair point for the other two.

Drumpot

Bridge93 wrote: »

Im curious as to why it seems to be exclusively Liverpool fans on here fighting. Not getting into the rights and wrongs of the debate but curious as to why this thread is 95% Liverpool. Where are all the United/Chelsea/Arsenal fans etc? Surely everyone is as equally affected in theory?

I’m a United fan. Just got fed up with that lad who’s talking some amount of horsesh*t. There’s enough coming out of him to fertilize a couple of fields, I’m not interested in ploughing through that much crap.

And it’s no surprise that Liverpool fans are the ones most complaining right now because they would prob win a league if it wasn’t for City. United and Arsenal have been way off top spot for awhile so don’t really feel it’s affecting them as much, even though it is actually hurting them. Chelsea fans are prob glad some other club is in the spotlight so are keeping quiet while the going is good.

Mr.H

I just find it funny that the last time we challenged for the league, it was the year City were also accused of this stuff. Not a great omen for the outcome. Gotta say it looks like its been taken more seriously this time.

Drumpot

Mr.H wrote: »

I just find it funny that the last time we challenged for the league, it was the year City were also accused of this stuff. Not a great omen for the outcome. Gotta say it looks like its been taken more seriously this time.

In all fairness, neither Uefa or FIFA have any real moral authority to tackle corruption within the sport. Would it surprise anybody if at least some people higher up in the football authorities had a personal/financial motive to protect City and PSG?

kippy

Drumpot wrote: »

In all fairness, neither Uefa or FIFA have any real moral authority to tackle corruption within the sport. Would it surprise anybody if at least some people higher up in the football authorities had a personal/financial motive to protect City and PSG?

I made this point earlier in the thread - there needs to be an independent review of what has gone on here.
UEFA and FIFA have skin in the game and they themselves have been found, in the past, as not the most transparent.

IncognitoMan

You only have to look at Michel Platini's comments about FFP before and after PSG (who his son has business connections with) were bought to know that UEFA turned a blind eye when it suited them. He had a conflict of interests and nobody forced him to step down.

Also there's no way on this Earth the Man City naming rights for their stadium should have passed all the way back in 2011 either. That alone should be a massive red flag. They doubled the previous sponsorship record which was for Madison Square Garden. MSG worth half of the city of Manchester stadium? Not a chance.

FIFA and UEFA are as bent as could be but there's a lot of attention on this now and multiple bodies investigating. I still think we'll probably see some slap on the wrist punishment at the same time so won't hold out much hope.

Mr.H

Drumpot wrote:

In all fairness, neither Uefa or FIFA have any real moral authority to tackle corruption within the sport. Would it surprise anybody if at least some people higher up in the football authorities had a personal/financial motive to protect City and PSG?

Of course. But hopefully the hardline approach against Chelsea is the start of the redemption.

City and psg have been sticking two fingers up at the ffp. Its wrong that they dont play by the rules despite everyone else trying to do so. It might sound drastic but when you try to cheat the rules then you should be punished. But whatever the punishment it should be from next season.

.G.

Drumpot wrote:

In all fairness, neither Uefa or FIFA have any real moral authority to tackle corruption within the sport. Would it surprise anybody if at least some people higher up in the football authorities had a personal/financial motive to protect City and PSG?

PSGs chairman was recently elected to the UEFA executive Committee.

POKERKING

IncognitoMan wrote: »

You only have to look at Michel Platini's comments about FFP before and after PSG (who his son has business connections with) were bought to know that UEFA turned a blind eye when it suited them. He had a conflict of interests and nobody forced him to step down.

Also there's no way on this Earth the Man City naming rights for their stadium should have passed all the way back in 2011 either. That alone should be a massive red flag. They doubled the previous sponsorship record which was for Madison Square Garden. MSG worth half of the city of Manchester stadium? Not a chance.

FIFA and UEFA are as bent as could be but there's a lot of attention on this now and multiple bodies investigating. I still think we'll probably see some slap on the wrist punishment at the same time so won't hold out much hope.

Some reading material for you, its a few years old but goes along way to explain the "fair value" of the deal(not to be confused with market value). Your numbers about MSG are off according to this, and this is a neutral indepth opinion on it.

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/07/manchester-citys-incredible-deal-know.html

ozzy jr

Some have questioned how it could make sense for a loss-making company like Etihad Airways to splash out such a large sum in sponsorships, but that ignores the fact that this investment is all about “building the brand” in the same way as Emirates have done in the past.

One thing is for certain, Etihad haven't benefited from the deal. Their loses continue to mount up.

POKERKING

ozzy jr wrote: »

One thing is for certain, Etihad haven't benefited from the deal. Their loses continue to mount up.

Thats all u took from that indepth article?

ozzy jr

POKERKING wrote: »

Thats all u took from that indepth article?

Well the article is nearly 8 years old and the we know an awful lot more about citys "creative accouting" since then.

IncognitoMan

POKERKING wrote: »

Some reading material for you, its a few years old but goes along way to explain the "fair value" of the deal(not to be confused with market value). Your numbers about MSG are off according to this, and this is a neutral indepth opinion on it.

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/07/manchester-citys-incredible-deal-know.html

Which numbers about MSG are off?

Now I don't know how reliable that blog is (never heard of it until now) but the Guardian seems to think City did in fact more than double the previous record for the most famous sports arena in the world.... for a club that in 2011 that was just getting started on this project.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways

Manchester City will bank up to £400m under their new sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, making it the largest deal of its kind in sport and reinforcing City's position as a football club with unprecedented financial power.

The 10-year agreement, which means City's ground is renamed the Etihad Stadium, will be worth more than twice the previous record, JP Morgan Chase's $300m (£187m) for the new Madison Square Garden, while simultaneously demonstrating the growing disparity between the top clubs in English football.

To put it into context, the deal Arsenal struck with Emirates in 2004 was valued at £90m over 15 years. Around £48m of that came via shirt sponsorship, with the naming rights worth only £2.8m a year. Chelsea and Tottenham have both scoured the market for a deal in the region of £10-15m a year but found no serious interest. Newcastle have also been unable to find a sponsor since the club's owner, Mike Ashley, tested the waters with a short-term arrangement in the 2009-10 season that resulted in their ground taking the name of his sportswear business as the sportsdirect.com@St James' Park Stadium.

Considering the stature of the Club at the time (and even now to be fair) do you not see something off with the numbers? Now I know the City deal includes kit sponsorship but that doesn't explain the gap still.

A bit more context the current holder of the most expensive naming rights is Scotiabank Arena signed last summer which has a 20 year $800m (dollars) deal. Man City's £400m (pounds) 10 year deal in 2011 still looks pretty good eh? Still worth more per year, something doesn't add up.

It would have been an outrageous deal for Barca or Real never mind City. In fact according to Spanish financial newspaper El Economista Real Madrid lost out on a stadium naming rights deal worth €400million (£351m) only last year.

2018 and Real Madrid naming rights £350m.
2011 and Man City naming rights £400m.

Come on man at some stage you've just got to admit they boosted their income with an overvalued deal.

eagle eye

Why do people care about this stuff so much? It's not like all the big clubs haven't done things wrong and used their money unfairly in the past.

IncognitoMan

The broke the rules and were successful off the back of breaking those rules. Do you think that's a fair and even playing field for sporting competition?

I would like to see a lot more teams looked into to be honest. PSG next after City would be nice.

POKERKING

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Which numbers about MSG are off?

Now I don't know how reliable that blog is (never heard of it until now) but the Guardian seems to think City did in fact more than double the previous record for the most famous sports arena in the world.... for a club that in 2011 that was just getting started on this project.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways



Considering the stature of the Club at the time (and even now to be fair) do you not see something off with the numbers? Now I know the City deal includes kit sponsorship but that doesn't explain the gap still.

A bit more context the current holder of the most expensive naming rights is Scotiabank Arena signed last summer which has a 20 year $800m (dollars) deal. Man City's £400m (pounds) 10 year deal in 2011 still looks pretty good eh? Still worth more per year, something doesn't add up.

It would have been an outrageous deal for Barca or Real never mind City. In fact according to Spanish financial newspaper El Economista Real Madrid lost out on a stadium naming rights deal worth €400million (£351m) only last year.

2018 and Real Madrid naming rights £350m.
2011 and Man City naming rights £400m.

Come on man at some stage you've just got to admit they boosted their income with an overvalued deal.

Im not saying they didnt(and i never have), as the article talks about its how its judged fair value.

The etihad deal includes shirt sponsorship and the academy sponsorship. As the article points out that the commercial name of the stadium prob more valuable than most others in england simply due to the fact no one would start calling old tradford or anfield by a sponsored name but they would do at eastlands because its a new stadium.

Havent re read the article but there is a section on madison square garden and the comparison. I dont have numbers off hand.

On a side note swiss ramble is excellent, it covers all teams and is far more reliable than any other newspaper on financial matters in football. I recommend having a read around the site if you are interested in that kind of thing.

.G.

It really doesn't matter if it was deemed fair value as it was assumed, incorrectly it would now seem, that the money was coming from Etihad as sponsorship when the City emails now tell us most of it was coming from the owners via Etihad. That's the issue, not the fair value or otherwise of the deal.

However as Comical Ali is at pains to state to us numerous times, that was investigated and dealt with in 2014 so the years up to 2014 can't be looked at again. The years since then under the same deal are, however, fair game.

Agree on Swiss ramble, for all things football finance related, he's great.

Mr.H

superg wrote:

However as Comical Ali is at pains to state to us numerous times, that was investigated and dealt with in 2014 so the years up to 2014 can't be looked at again. The years since then under the same deal are, however, fair game.

Of course they can look at pre 2014. People seem to be mistaking this with a court of law. If uefa feel they where tricked they have every right to look at it. If city dont play ball then they dont get to play ball in europe. In fact uefa could go further and force the fa to punish city.

Drumpot

Mr.H wrote: »

Of course they can look at pre 2014. People seem to be mistaking this with a court of law. If uefa feel they where tricked they have every right to look at it. If city dont play ball then they dont get to play ball in europe. In fact uefa could go further and force the fa to punish city.

Uefa will need to factor in the “but sure aren’t we all guilty of cheating on some level when you really think about it” defence..

.G.

Mr.H wrote:

Of course they can look at pre 2014. People seem to be mistaking this with a court of law. If uefa feel they where tricked they have every right to look at it. If city dont play ball then they dont get to play ball in europe. In fact uefa could go further and force the fa to punish city.

The don't have to, they've got 5 years of accounts since then to tide them over.

ozzy jr

Article from Matthew Syed in The Times.

I vividly remember a television interview with an elderly couple who refused to pay the poll tax. They had obeyed the law all their lives, but felt that the tax was regressive and unfair, and were prepared to risk a jail sentence to signal their disapproval. Cabinet ministers later admitted that the protests of peaceful people (rather than the fanatics who infiltrated such protests) warned them that they had come up with a frankly awful policy. Not long afterwards it was abandoned.

The point, really, is that the existence of rules does not necessarily imply that one should obey them. There is an honourable path of campaigning for their abolition, fighting for their eradication, even to the point of risking sanctions. This is true in politics, in society and, yes, even in sport. There are dozens of examples of principled stances that have overturned poor laws and codes.

This brings me to Manchester City, who are alleged, among other things, to have broken the rules of financial fair play (FFP) and are being investigated. Now, there are many who have argued that they should avoid punishment should the allegation be proved. Indeed, some have argued that they should not have been investigated in the first place. Why? Because they think that the strictures of FFP are less than ideal, and may represent a restraint of trade.

Now, I am not a fan of FFP, which was introduced in 2011-12 by Uefa to prevent clubs that qualify for European competitions from spending beyond their means and potentially getting into financial difficulty. Clubs can only spend a limited amount more on transfers than they earn during a specified period. Such rules tend to help the so-called heritage clubs at the expense of newly-wealthy clubs such as City and Paris Saint-Germain.

I can nevertheless see that it has principled supporters and, indeed, has had at least some of the consequences that Uefa predicted. The spiralling losses of top-division European clubs, which stood at £1.47 billion in 2011 and led to fear of bankruptcies, have been converted into a collective profit of £517 million in 2017. Net equity has quadrupled from £1.53 billion in 2008 to £6.6 billion in 2017, albeit unevenly spread between participating nations.

Football, then, is a more financially stable place. But let us persist with the assertion that the rules are restrictive. Doesn’t this raise an obvious question? Why did City not challenge FFP through the courts? Why did they not lobby in other ways?

Leaked emails appear to show that they did something rather different: namely, that they signed up to the rules, published fictionalised balance sheets purporting to demonstrate their alignment, and then gerrymandered the system. If proved, this is not an attempt to overturn the rules but to cheat them.

The contrast will be obvious to anyone not blinded by blue-tinted spectacles. A few years ago, excess caffeine was banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency. I felt that this was a flawed rule given the wide availability of the substance in everyday products. But to have broken the rule would have been cheating, because I would have gained an unfair advantage (caffeine provides a stimulant and preserves glycogen, which fuels muscle use for longer) over those who obeyed it. This would not have been principled, and would have done nothing to overturn the rule. Instead, it would have given me a chance to win while keeping schtum about my deceit.

City, meanwhile, say that the allegations against them are “entirely false” and are based on “out of context materials”. But should they be proved, breaking FFP will have conferred a performance advantage beyond any amount of caffeine. It allows you to purchase players who would otherwise be beyond your budget.

There are many clubs who would have loved to have spent more cash, but (assuming that they are not lying) refused to do so. They were following the rules, perhaps imperfect rules, but rules nonetheless. They understood that sport is vacuous if participants sign up and then cheat. Either overturn the system or withdraw. Don’t pretend that you are in compliance and then swindle your competitors.

And isn’t this why so many clubs came forward last week to ask the Premier League to investigate too? This unprecedented move included teams from outside the top six. This was not about shafting City but about sustaining sanity.

Clubs have looked on aghast as the allegations have piled up, including allegations of millions coming from the owners rather than sponsors, the non-disclosure of involvement with a fund that held economic rights of players, City’s creation of “Project Longbow”, which allegedly sold players’ image rights to another company, which was then reimbursed by the Abu Dhabi United Group, the club’s owners, and the alleged payment of £200,000 to the agent of Jadon Sancho when they signed the forward from Watford when he was only 14. If proved, this is a full house.

There is another thing too. There has been a view that it is morally sophisticated to look not merely at the specific rules of FFP but the broader power dynamics that led to their enactment. The idea is that when it comes to ethics, you should always take a step back. Well, if so, why stop there? Why not take one further step back and ask about the money bankrolling City? Why not point out the questionable human rights record of the United Arab Emirates, the realpolitik, and the broader objective of a dictatorial regime seeking to launder its reputation?

Sports-washing is the phrase, and it does the job rather well. I ought to say that Manchester City are a great club. They have many wonderful fans. But what I find perplexing is the inability of (some) fans to draw a distinction between the club itself and the people who own the title deeds, and who will be gone the moment that their purposes are served.

How can certain supporters have allowed themselves to become such brainless apologists and enablers for alleged wrongdoing? Much of the sports-washing today is carried out not by paid PR consultants but by ordinary people blinded in extraordinary ways.

As for the club, they have denied the allegations and said that they have not broken any rules. Furthermore, they have “welcomed” the Uefa investigation. If they are exonerated, they should leave this saga with no stain and I, for one, will be writing follow-up columns to sing this from the rooftops. Natural justice demands no less.

But can we at least agree that the initial reluctance of Uefa and the Premier League to get involved, worried about the fallout from confronting a high-profile club, was craven and depressing? An investigation was critical and should be conducted fearlessly. And if City are guilty, it is not just a Champions League ban that must be forthcoming, but an asterisk against everything that they achieved while cheating.

theoneeyedman

"Sports-washing is the phrase, and it does the job rather well............. But what I find perplexing is the inability of (some) fans to draw a distinction between the club itself and the people who own the title deeds, and who will be gone the moment that their purposes are served.

How can certain supporters have allowed themselves to become such brainless apologists and enablers for alleged wrongdoing? Much of the sports-washing today is carried out not by paid PR consultants but by ordinary people blinded in extraordinary ways."

The perfect example.of this all through this thread, people unable to see the wood from the trees, and engaging in willful nieveity and whataboutery to defend the City owners

TFBubendorfer

ozzy jr wrote: »

Article from Matthew Syed in The Times.

I know this is completely beside the point, but if Matthew Syed doesn't even know that caffeine has been allowed to be used freely rather than banned as he claims, it doesn't help his credibility.

All that is pure speculation anyway. If the allegations are proven, City will be punished, to what extend remains to be seen. Until then, articles like that are just hot air.

Drumpot

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I know this is completely beside the point, but if Matthew Syed doesn't even know that caffeine has been allowed to be used freely rather than banned as he claims, it doesn't help his credibility.

All that is pure speculation anyway. If the allegations are proven, City will be punished, to what extend remains to be seen. Until then, articles like that are just hot air.

Part of the problem is that we dont know how "honest" this probe will be or how much information/evidence will be gathered/attained. And then there is the credibility of UEFA and FIFA whereby people high up have their own connections and lined pockets courtesy of our Arab friends. Sure why else is the world cup going to a country with horrible human rights record, a weather that isnt safe for players to play in and the actual tournament has to be changed from summer to winter to facilitate it.

It makes me think of the Mueller investigation of trump. If that investigation doesnt turn up any evidence that Trump was colluding with Russia does anybody actually believe its a complete coincidence that everybody around Trump is dodgy as f**k and pleading guilty to all sorts of charges and that Trump was an innocent pawn ? There is a decent argument that its in the US interest to bury any evidence , publicly back Trump and privately force him to step down.

The city investigation is no surprise because we all know they have been doing things to get around the rules. The only question is whether or not the powers have the will to properly act and the capacity to find the evidence to convict. This could all be grandstanding , like many "investigations" , to give the illusion of regulation.

.G.

theoneeyedman wrote: »

"Sports-washing is the phrase, and it does the job rather well............. But what I find perplexing is the inability of (some) fans to draw a distinction between the club itself and the people who own the title deeds, and who will be gone the moment that their purposes are served.

How can certain supporters have allowed themselves to become such brainless apologists and enablers for alleged wrongdoing? Much of the sports-washing today is carried out not by paid PR consultants but by ordinary people blinded in extraordinary ways."

The perfect example.of this all through this thread, people unable to see the wood from the trees, and engaging in willful nieveity and whataboutery to defend the City owners

It's understandable though too. Without those owners City would be just another mid to lower table Premier league club with no hope of ever winning anything. Instead the owners have brought their fans sustained success so no surprise they'll defend them. Hell some of the younger ones probably wouldn't even be City fans if it wasn't for those owners!

Fromvert

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I know this is completely beside the point, but if Matthew Syed doesn't even know that caffeine has been allowed to be used freely rather than banned as he claims, it doesn't help his credibility.

All that is pure speculation anyway. If the allegations are proven, City will be punished, to what extend remains to be seen. Until then, articles like that are just hot air.

I don't think he's saying it's still a rule but it as an example of a rule he was against, like he is against FFP, that you can protest against and work towards getting it changed but while it's still a rule you should follow it, like FFP now.

You don't protest a rule by breaking it, you obey it, and lobby to get it changed, like what happened with caffeine.

That's how I read it anyway.

UrbanFret

superg wrote: »

It's understandable though too. Without those owners City would be just another mid to lower table Premier league club with no hope of ever winning anything. Instead the owners have brought their fans sustained success so no surprise they'll defend them. Hell some of the younger ones probably wouldn't even be City fans if it wasn't for those owners!

And the monster that is ffp has made sure no one else can follow. Reminds me of ben johnsons Olympics and all the whinging squeaky clean ****ers who were out with the washing. History shows us they were as guilty as he was.

Mitch Connor

IMO if an ownder wants to pump money in, and fully guarantee the contracts/fees of a club that have been committed to under their ownership they should be allowed to. As long as a club is not put in debt, or risk of debt due to the owner looking to spend beyond the means of the club.... whats the problem.

However, the rules are as the rules are, and City signed up to them - if they have broken the rules they should be punished accordingly.

Drumpot

Drumpot wrote: »

Uefa will need to factor in the “but sure aren’t we all guilty of cheating on some level when you really think about it” defence..

UrbanFret wrote: »

History shows us they were as guilty as he was.

TFBubendorfer

Fromvert wrote: »

I don't think he's saying it's still a rule but it as an example of a rule he was against, like he is against FFP, that you can protest against and work towards getting it changed but while it's still a rule you should follow it, like FFP now.

You don't protest a rule by breaking it, you obey it, and lobby to get it changed, like what happened with caffeine.

That's how I read it anyway.

But if that's his line of thinking then he does undermine himself right at the start of the article when the elderly couple did the right thing by breaking a rule, and forced it to be changed by doing exactly that, deliberately breaking it.

Drumpot

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

But if that's his line of thinking then he does undermine himself right at the start of the article when the elderly couple did the right thing by breaking a rule, and forced it to be changed by doing exactly that, deliberately breaking it.

I agree that the example he used was bad . .

But the elderly couple admitted on tv to breaking the law. As far as I am awar they didn't use creative accounting, spin doctors and their relationships with those high up in the powerful institutions to convince the UK revenue that they were all above board . . :pac:

Fromvert

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

But if that's his line of thinking then he does undermine himself right at the start of the article when the elderly couple did the right thing by breaking a rule, and forced it to be changed by doing exactly that, deliberately breaking it.

True, he does contradict himself.

ozzy jr

UrbanFret wrote: »

And the monster that is ffp has made sure no one else can follow. Reminds me of ben johnsons Olympics and all the whinging squeaky clean ****ers who were out with the washing. History shows us they were as guilty as he was.

If you want to use the Ben Johnson analogy, we could say the city fans are saying "he can run faster than everyone else, but there's a doctor saying he can't. Why shouldn't an athlete be able to do what he wants. It's the IOC trying to protect the Americans".

ozzy jr

Mitch Connor wrote: »

IMO if an ownder wants to pump money in, and fully guarantee the contracts/fees of a club that have been committed to under their ownership they should be allowed to. As long as a club is not put in debt, or risk of debt due to the owner looking to spend beyond the means of the club.... whats the problem.

Is that really what you'd want to see? Honestly?

We're not talking about a Jack Walker at Blackburn, or John Hall at Newcastle. This is a whole different level of richness. If the Arabs were given free reign within the criteria you set out, you may give up on any competition in football. Would you really want that?

Mitch Connor

ozzy jr wrote: »

Is that really what you'd want to see? Honestly?

We're not talking about a Jack Walker at Blackburn, or John Hall at Newcastle. This is a whole different level of richness. If the Arabs were given free reign within the criteria you set out, you may give up on any competition in football. Would you really want that?

Then put in global spending or wage caps to stop infinite spending. Cap squad sizes. There are other ways that the clubs could be reigned in when it comes to spending without stopping a club from moving to a position to compete.

Arbitrarily stopping an owner from investing what they want to, without harm to the club, I just don't see how that can be justified.

jacool

ozzy jr wrote: »

Is that really what you'd want to see? Honestly?

We're not talking about a Jack Walker at Blackburn, or John Hall at Newcastle. This is a whole different level of richness. If the Arabs were given free reign within the criteria you set out, you may give up on any competition in football. Would you really want that?

Do you believe there is competition in football?
That's totally down to perspective.
Look at the teams that are able to spend money e.g. City, United, Liverpool and those who are not e.g. the Southamptons of the world.
Look at the fact that the 3 spending clubs mnetioned above, along with Arsenal and Chelsea, were considering being part of a European Super League.
That wasn't going to introduce competition to a closed off group.
Look at the way money is distributed unevenly across teams in a tournament, so that clubs who get knocked out at the groups stage can actually "earn" more money than clubs who get to the quarter-finals.