Football Leaks: UEFA Investigation into Manchester City

eigrod

Johnmb wrote: »

I think those teams would want to be careful. It might make them short-term money, but I don't think it'll work long-term, and their domestic leagues might not take them back, or will make them start at/near the bottom.

As much as the idea of (for example) Man Utd v Barca sounds like a great match, it is when it's rare. If it's twice EVERY season, in a league format not a European semi or something like that, it'll lose it's special status. They bulk of Utd fans will always be up for playing their main rivals in England (Liverpool, City, etc.), but playing big names from Europe doesn't have the same draw if the uniqueness is lost.

None of that would worry the money men as they take those games to the US and Asia, plus the tv revenue. The match going fan in England is long since being seen as a consideration.

Johnmb

eigrod wrote: »

None of that would worry the money men as they take those games to the US and Asia, plus the tv revenue. The match going fan in England is long since being seen as a consideration.

I think then the likelihood is that the league will end up like the MLS, the place where big names go to retire with a big pay-off. The top footballers in their prime will continue to play in the domestic leagues, and the bread and butter fans will abandon these teams and find domestic ones to support. Short/medium term it'll make money, medium/long term it'll disappear. MSL is just about surviving because those teams have core fans, the teams in this league won't. The domestic leagues will win out, and that's without any FA intervention. There is a very real possibility that the various FAs will block it or kill it in the short-term...

IncognitoMan

A real mystery :pac:

https://twitter.com/RFFH/status/1059922462299832320

Minderbinder

eigrod wrote: »

Johnmb wrote: »

I think those teams would want to be careful.  It might make them short-term money, but I don't think it'll work long-term, and their domestic leagues might not take them back, or will make them start at/near the bottom.

As much as the idea of (for example) Man Utd v Barca sounds like a great match, it is when it's rare.  If it's twice EVERY season, in a league format not a European semi or something like that, it'll lose it's special status.  They bulk of Utd fans will always be up for playing their main rivals in England (Liverpool, City, etc.), but playing big names from Europe doesn't have the same draw if the uniqueness is lost.

None of that would worry the money men as they take those games to the US and Asia, plus the tv revenue. The match going fan in England is long since being seen as a consideration.

I think the size and potential of the market in Asia and the US is overestimated. I would venture that very few Americans are paying for the EPL for example as a standalone product and it's more likely they paid for some American sports and football was just an added extra.
In Asia, I would say similar but also most people aren't paying and can get it free. If they are paying the price is very cheap right now because they're not prepared to pay any more.
I think in terms of economics it's a massive gamble and I'd be surprised if the English clubs especially walked away from the goldmine that is the EPL to take a risk of alienating their domestic and European fanbase in the hope of attracting more paying fans worldwide.

IncognitoMan

Chapter 3: Recruiting Pep Guardiola

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/manchester-city-exposed-chapter-3-recruiting-pep-guardiola-a-1236621.html

IncognitoMan

Maybe changing the thread title to just football leaks would be a good idea because it's gone beyond the super league now.

Underground

So City's owners, Abu Dhabi United group, led by Khaldoon Al Mubarak, one of the UAE Royal family's most trusted advisors, turned out to be dodgy blokes? I am absolutely gobsmacked.

gstack166

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Chapter 3: Recruiting Pep Guardiola

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/manchester-city-exposed-chapter-3-recruiting-pep-guardiola-a-1236621.html

I think at first Spiegel could’ve looked like the were legitimately being investigative, this just looks like a vendetta now.

The mask has slipped.

gstack166

https://twitter.com/mcrfootysocial/status/1059888667903303682?s=21

Think Martin Samuel is an excellent journalist to be fair.

He’s been highly critical of FFP for years, around the illegalities of introducing it & the hypocrisy in maintaining it.

Never once had a journalist called him out on the matter, not once. He backs City in this situation but suddenly now all the other Sports journalists have turned in to Football Financial advisors over night. Why haven’t they spoken before?

Martin Samuel & every city fan to fair agree the books were cooked, everyone knew that, the point is, they shouldn’t of have to had done it.

An owner (Mike Ashley, the Glazers) can take hundred of millions of pounds out of a club & it’s ok. No problem. But it’s wrong to put money into the club.

Farcical

Harry Palmr

What about the inhuman rights are you okay with that?

Dr.Winston O'Boogie

Judging them on the countrys poor human rights record seems a bit much, its like judging American owners on the countries poor gun murders record.

Harry Palmr

Well it's the difference between owners who come from a country with mad gun laws v owners who are part of the State

Just in case anyone is in any doubt

Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan bin Zayed bin Khalifa Al Nahyan (born 20 November 1970), commonly known as Sheikh Mansour,[2][3][4] is the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, minister of presidential affairs and member of the royal family of Abu Dhabi. He is the half brother of the current President of UAE, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.[5

Flogging and stoning are legal punishments in the UAE. The requirement is derived from Sharia law, and has been federal law since 2005.[240] Some domestic workers in the UAE are victims of the country's interpretations of Sharia judicial punishments such as flogging and stoning.[172] The annual Freedom House report on Freedom in the World has listed the United Arab Emirates as "Not Free" every year since 1999, the first year for which records are available on their website.[90]


Protest against the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, March 2018
The UAE has escaped the Arab Spring; however, more than 100 Emirati activists were jailed and tortured because they sought reforms.[70][241][242] Since 2011, the UAE government has increasingly carried out forced disappearances.[243][244][245][246][247][248] Many foreign nationals and Emirati citizens have been arrested and abducted by the state. The UAE government denies these people are being held (to conceal their whereabouts), placing these people outside the protection of the law.[242][244][249] According to Human Rights Watch, the reports of forced disappearance and torture in the UAE are of grave concern.[245]

gstack166

Harry Palmr wrote: »

What about the inhuman rights are you okay with that?

Why is that always the go to reference for a balance argument on the FFP. I never mentioned the Human rights, due to my own ignorance of knowing nothing about it.

The leaks are about FFP. A football supporter cannot be held accountable for their owners actions.

brinty

Harry Palmr wrote: »

What about the inhuman rights are you okay with that?

Suppose he'd be a fine bloke if he'd bought your club instead of City??

The grass is always greener/ browner depending on which side of the argument you're on

But don't let me deny you of your preaching time at the lectern good sir

UrbanFret

Important to remember that paragon of virtue Platini was the one who started the witch hunt against city. The accusation when you boil it down to its bare essentials is that City found a way round the regulations, and didn't tell UEFA what they had done. It might not have been in the spirit of the thing but they are guilty of **** all. As for human rights issue , really scraping the barrel there.

Kristopherus

Breaking News on SS News. Infantino is saying that any player who partakes in the so-called super league will be banned from international football.

LiamoSail

brinty wrote: »

Suppose he'd be a fine bloke if he'd bought your club instead of City??

Surely the point that should be addressed then is not the valid criticism, but the impartial defence offered on the basis of football allegiance?

Jimbob1977

European Football is already at saturation point.

25 years ago, people would be getting butterflies at the thought of a match between Manchester United and Juventus.

These days, they're ten a penny.

Weepsie

Dr.Winston O'Boogie wrote: »

Judging them on the countrys poor human rights record seems a bit much, its like judging American owners on the countries poor gun murders record.

There's hardly a club in the top end of football that isn't associated with a country with shady human rights abuses be it, Qatar, Saudi, China, USA etc etc. Now some are obviously vastly more associated with these countries than others, but they're all basically passing the money around to one another and happy to take it


It's a bit of a lazy way to attack a club to be honest as they are all a bit ethically shady.

ERG89

Kristopherus wrote: »

Breaking News on SS News. Infantino is saying that any player who partakes in the so-called super league will be banned from international football.

Guy:Incognito

Kristopherus wrote: »

Breaking News on SS News. Infantino is saying that any player who partakes in the so-called super league will be banned from international football.

The premier league is a breakaway league.

ozzy jr

gstack166 wrote: »

An owner (Mike Ashley, the Glazers) can take hundred of millions of pounds out of a club & it’s ok. No problem. But it’s wrong to put money into the club.

Farcical

FFP allows owners to invest as much as they want in infrastructure. They can build a 500,000 capacity stadium if they want.

It's the risky overspending on transfers and player wages, that threatens the future of clubs, that they're trying to reel in. Who wants to see another Leeds or Portsmouth?

What we've seen over the last few days is, city without these Arabs cannot sustain this kind of spending (only a deluded idiot couldn't see this anyway).

What would happen to city if the Arabs pulled out? Who'd pay the huge wages? They'd collapse overnight.

gstack166

ozzy jr wrote: »

FFP allows owners to invest as much as they want in infrastructure. They can build a 500,000 capacity stadium if they want.

It's the risky overspending on transfers and player wages, that threatens the future of clubs, that they're trying to reel in. Who wants to see another Leeds or Portsmouth?

What we've seen over the last few days is, city without these Arabs cannot sustain this kind of spending (only a deluded idiot couldn't see this anyway).

What would happen to city if the Arabs pulled out? Who'd pay the huge wages? They'd collapse overnight.

They’re going nowhere, why can’t people see that? They’ve built a consortium of football clubs & pumped hundreds of millions of pounds into the local area.

The over spending as you’ve put it, An loose analogy of that is like saying to a lotto winner, you can’t spend your winnings you can only spend your yearly income before you won it just incase you go broke.

PhlegmyMoses

Im okay with getting rid of FFP if we can scrap the collective TV deal or any collective deal for the PL. Allowing some clubs to spend whatever their owners want, whilst hamstringing clubs who want to actually run their club like a business is ridiculous.

IncognitoMan

UrbanFret wrote: »

Important to remember that paragon of virtue Platini was the one who started the witch hunt against city. The accusation when you boil it down to its bare essentials is that City found a way round the regulations, and didn't tell UEFA what they had done. It might not have been in the spirit of the thing but they are guilty of **** all.

Platini backed down once Qatar got involved with PSG. Also voted for Qatar for WC2022. Not hard to work out what happened.

Look, you can be fine with City cheating that's up to you but the facts are there now. They did cheat. Just because you don't like the rules doesn't mean you get to break them.

I'd be absolutely ashamed of United if this was them. That's honest even if you don't think it is. Especially as I think something like FFP is vital to the game of football not being totally destroyed.

For City to come along and just be like we're too rich to play by the rules is wrong. Very wrong.

Like seriously why should City be let away with spending way above their means while every other Club ,bar PSG, played by the rules?

I'm not sure what level of punishment would be fitting as it's such a unique case but they cannot get away with this although I suspect they magically will.

IncognitoMan

gstack166 wrote: »

Martin Samuel & every city fan to fair agree the books were cooked, everyone knew that, the point is, they shouldn’t of have to had done it.

I genuinely can't understand how anyone can think this. We've seen the dangerous of spending beyond your means and now people are saying it's fine to do it on multiple times the scale of what we've seen happen to Leeds and Portsmouth. City would be wiped out.

It also ends up costing every supporter more in the long run as clubs try to compete with an endless pit of oil money.

How is it fair on every other club who played by the rules either?

gstack166 wrote: »

An owner (Mike Ashley, the Glazers) can take hundred of millions of pounds out of a club & it’s ok. No problem. But it’s wrong to put money into the club.

Farcical

No, it's not fine. There should be measures against that kind of owner as well. What the Glazers did was an absolute joke. Basically got the club for free and put all the burden on the club putting it in danger.

There should be some rules against how much you can take out of a club or how much debt it can carry.

A football club shouldn't be treated like a normal business, it needs special attention because of their importance to local communities and supporters around the world. That's up to FA, UEFA and FIFA to insure but I can't see them ever giving a bollocks.

Agents are another leach that needs removing from the game.

ozzy jr

gstack166 wrote: »

The over spending as you’ve put it, An loose analogy of that is like saying to a lotto winner, you can’t spend your winnings you can only spend your yearly income before you won it just incase you go broke.

That's a really bad analogy.

City signed up to FFP and they broke the rules. Whether you think they should be able to spend what they want is neither here nor there.

If you read the leaks or even the city accounts, you'll realise that they wouldn't be around the top of the table much longer, if they didn't have the financial backing that the Arabs are giving them.

It's mad the way people lose all rational thought when it comes to football teams. Imagine any other business been run like city

theoneeyedman

brinty wrote: »

Suppose he'd be a fine bloke if he'd bought your club instead of City??

The grass is always greener/ browner depending on which side of the argument you're on

But don't let me deny you of your preaching time at the lectern good sir

It's clear that the Man City owners are using the club to 'launder' the reputation of Abu Dhabi/UAE.Sure they're a great bunch of lads, look at all the money they spent in Manchester, look at the great team they have, pep etc.... and much of it built on corruption and foreign slaves.

Many peoples won't care about this, but the Football Leaks crew is doing a decent job shining a light on shady dealings. While FFP is/was a pile of crap, the interesting part for me was the threats outlined of dragging UEFA through the courts for years if they perused them for FFP.

Hopefully they keep digging.... there is so much money swilling around soccer in Europe in particular that there is a lot of corruption in it. I hope they dig more around money being laundered through clubs, back handers being disguised as 'agents fees', organised PED use etc.

IncognitoMan

gstack166 wrote: »

They’re going nowhere, why can’t people see that? They’ve built a consortium of football clubs & pumped hundreds of millions of pounds into the local area.

You don't know that. You don't know what might happen in the UAE and they decide to pull all their western investment

gstack166 wrote: »

The over spending as you’ve put it, An loose analogy of that is like saying to a lotto winner, you can’t spend your winnings you can only spend your yearly income before you won it just incase you go broke.

Sweet Jesus. You actually just don't get what could be at stake.

Weepsie

Bit rich of La Liga complaining about city breaking the rules after all the nonsense with Madrid and their debts years ago and some of the nonsense sponsorship arrangements with Barcelona

BenK

gstack166 wrote: »

...The over spending as you’ve put it, An loose analogy of that is like saying to a lotto winner, you can’t spend your winnings you can only spend your yearly income before you won it just incase you go broke.

That analogy might work if it was your friend who had actually won the lotto and had decided to give you a load of money out of the kindness of his heart. You are at your friend's whim as to whether he keeps giving you money or cuts you off.

Guy:Incognito

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Sweet Jesus. You actually just don't get what could be at steak.

T-bone or sirloin?

IncognitoMan

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

T-bone or sirloin?

:pac:

Agent Coulson

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

T-bone or sirloin?

IncognitoMan wrote: »

:pac:

Are you guys Incognito as each other?

IncognitoMan

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Are you guys Incognito as each other?

Didn't you die back in 2012?








tv doesn't count.

UrbanFret

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Platini backed down once Qatar got involved with PSG. Also voted for Qatar for WC2022. Not hard to work out what happened.

Look, you can be fine with City cheating that's up to you but the facts are there now. They did cheat. Just because you don't like the rules doesn't mean you get to break them.

I'd be absolutely ashamed of United if this was them. That's honest even if you don't think it is. Especially as I think something like FFP is vital to the game of football not being totally destroyed.

For City to come along and just be like we're too rich to play by the rules is wrong. Very wrong.

Like seriously why should City be let away with spending way above their means while every other Club ,bar PSG, played by the rules?

I'm not sure what level of punishment would be fitting as it's such a unique case but they cannot get away with this although I suspect they magically will.

Absolutely ashamed indeed. The cozy cartel is well and truly gone and its all for the better. :rolleyes:

Guy:Incognito

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Are you guys Incognito as each other?

No one is as incognito as me.

PhlegmyMoses

UrbanFret wrote: »

Absolutely ashamed indeed. The cozy cartel is well and truly gone and its all for the better. :rolleyes:

The cozy cartel in the PL are forced into a collective television deal that benefits every club in the league. So clubs like City get to massively benefit from a league profile that they did nothing to create and can simultaneously spend with impunity if we got rid of FFP. Forgive me if I think that that is absolutely bull****.

Agent Coulson

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Didn't you die back in 2012?








tv doesn't count.

I’m Incognito

IncognitoMan

UrbanFret wrote: »

Absolutely ashamed indeed. The cozy cartel is well and truly gone and its all for the better.

The "cozy cartel" will be at the top a lot longer because they can actually stand on their own feet and do it without cheating. City are one man's change of heart away from nonexistence.

Cartel :pac: An excellent choice of word given City's current situation.

gstack166

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

The cozy cartel in the PL are forced into a collective television deal that benefits every club in the league. So clubs like City get to massively benefit from a league profile that they did nothing to create and can simultaneously spend with impunity if we got rid of FFP. Forgive me if I think that that is absolutely bull****.

‘So clubs like City get to massively benefit from a league profile they did nothing to create’

Expect be a founder memebers of the Premier League!

Forgive me, but you talk absolute bullsh*t..

elefant

Dr.Winston O'Boogie wrote: »

Judging them on the countrys poor human rights record seems a bit much, its like judging American owners on the countries poor gun murders record.

I'm honestly bamboozled that there are people out there that could cod themselves into thinking a comparison like this is legitimate.

I suppose it's a sign that the Man City project is working for the UAE though.

The J Stands for Jay

Agent Coulson wrote: »

All former European Cup winners and Champions League winners should be in.

Throw in the cup winners cup winners too

PhlegmyMoses

gstack166 wrote: »

‘So clubs like City get to massively benefit from a league profile they did nothing to create’

Expect be a founder memebers of the Premier League!

Forgive me, but you talk absolute bullsh*t..

Okay, let's try again from the actual angle I am coming from so we can deal with it properly. My point is, that there are loads of restrictions in place to keep the league competitive to an extent and to stop teams from completely pulling away. The TV deal is the biggest example of this. Crying about FFP protecting a cartel is disingenuous when you are happy for other restrictions to be in place when they actively benefit your club to a greater extent than other clubs.

And to address the point you are making, if we are arguing that City were equal in their creation of the global brand of the PL, then City fans should be onboard with my suggestion, because they will surely receive as much money as United and Liverpool when negotiating individual deals with TV providers.

gstack166

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Okay, let's try again from the actual angle I am coming from so we can deal with it properly. My point is, that there are loads of restrictions in place to keep the league competitive to an extent and to stop teams from completely pulling away. The TV deal is the biggest example of this. Crying about FFP protecting a cartel is disingenuous when you are happy for other restrictions to be in place when they actively benefit your club to a greater extent than other clubs.

The premier league is the most competitive league out of the top 5 biggest leagues in Europe FFS, nobody has reclaimed the title in 10 years.

The 4 main teams who pushed for FFP to come in (United, Bayern, Madrid & Barcelona) who have dominated their respected league for over 20 years prior to the introduction of it. You genuinely are going to sit there and tell me they wanted it in to keep their leagues competitive. Do me a favour.

Edit. Open to correction of this, but I think City were televised more in england last year than other & generated for tv income from European games from other clubs too, so yeah, I think they’ll be ok with individual rights, matter of fact wasn’t their a report for a few months ago that they wanted a deal like in Spaib, that the bigger teams who are winning trophies get more money from tv.

Drumpot

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Okay, let's try again from the actual angle I am coming from so we can deal with it properly. My point is, that there are loads of restrictions in place to keep the league competitive to an extent and to stop teams from completely pulling away. The TV deal is the biggest example of this. Crying about FFP protecting a cartel is disingenuous when you are happy for other restrictions to be in place when they actively benefit your club to a greater extent than other clubs.

And to address the point you are making, if we are arguing that City were equal in their creation of the global brand of the PL, then City fans should be onboard with my suggestion, because they will surely receive as much money as United and Liverpool when negotiating individual deals with TV providers.

You are wasting your time trying to discuss this. It’s like trying to get a trump supporter to awknowledge anything negative about his presidency... “You are just bitter” can summarize the welcoming acceptance and ignorance of what City and Chelsea have done. Both owners buying legitimacy under a cloud of corruption , dirty money and questionable motives.

PhlegmyMoses

gstack166 wrote: »

The premier league is the most competitive league out of the top 5 biggest leagues in Europe FFS, nobody has reclaimed the title in 10 years.

The 4 main teams who pushed for FFP to come in (United, Bayern, Madrid & Barcelona) who have dominated their respected league for over 20 years prior to the introduction of it. You genuinely are going to sit there and tell me they wanted it in to keep their leagues competitive. Do me a favour.

Edit. Open to correction of this, but I think City were televised more in england last year than other & generated for tv income from European games from other clubs too, so yeah, I think they’ll be ok with individual rights, matter of fact wasn’t their a report for a few months ago that they wanted a deal like in Spaib, that the bigger teams who are winning trophies get more money from tv.

So we are agreed then. Get rid of other restrictions on clubs maximising revenue potential and we can get rid of FFP.

I think, actually I know, that you are grossly overestimating City's ability to draw similar television revenue as Manchester United and Liverpool. (without a little help from their friends )

Until that time though, FFP is a good thing to prevent teams from completely pulling away. As we can see with the money spent by City over the last few years though, no team without sugar daddies can really come close and it shows in league performance. And this is exactly the issue that you believe existed before City and Chelsea broke the glass ceiling. Same situation, just your team causing it.

Unearthly

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Okay, let's try again from the actual angle I am coming from so we can deal with it properly. My point is, that there are loads of restrictions in place to keep the league competitive to an extent and to stop teams from completely pulling away. The TV deal is the biggest example of this. Crying about FFP protecting a cartel is disingenuous when you are happy for other restrictions to be in place when they actively benefit your club to a greater extent than other clubs.

And to address the point you are making, if we are arguing that City were equal in their creation of the global brand of the PL, then City fans should be onboard with my suggestion, because they will surely receive as much money as United and Liverpool when negotiating individual deals with TV providers.

City would then get a 1 billion a year deal from Abu Dhabi network to cater for the demand :pac:

gstack166

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

So we are agreed then. Get rid of other restrictions on clubs maximising revenue potential and we can get rid of FFP.

I think, actually I know, that you are grossly overestimating City's ability to draw similar television revenue as Manchester United and Liverpool. (without a little help from their friends )

Until that time though, FFP is a good thing to prevent teams from completely pulling away. As we can see with the money spent by City over the last few years though, no team without sugar daddies can really come close and it shows in league performance. And this is exactly the issue that you believe existed before City and Chelsea broke the glass ceiling. Same situation, just your team causing it.

Look, I’m a football fan. Have been a fan of City for over 30 years, my Grandparents lived in the City for over 50 years before moving back home to Ireland, both my mother & father grew up there, no reverence to this discussion but just saying. I support the club, have a season ticket, go to home, away & European games. The day I start being bothered about tv money & how much they’re spending is the day I give up watching football. They’re not spending my money.

Football is to be enjoyed & appreciated & if you can’t do both of them things watching this team then football really isn’t for you, you’re in the wrong sport.

I hate Man United with a passion but I can appreciate the fantastic teams they’ve had down the years & great players. I can hate them & I can respect them for the football they played, I suggest you try doing both too.

I have no problem with anyone hating City, I hate plenty of clubs, but don’t try water down the achievements of the players & of the manager by blowing up this FFP thing. The players have no control over that, the fans have no control over that. FFP doesn’t dictate a style & way of playing football.

Every set of supporters of every club deserve their day in the sun, now City fans are basking in it, it won’t last forever as history tells us. Just let them enjoy it for god sake.

IncognitoMan

gstack166 wrote: »

Edit. Open to correction of this, but I think City were televised more in england last year than other & generated for tv income from European games from other clubs too, so yeah, I think they’ll be ok with individual rights, matter of fact wasn’t their a report for a few months ago that they wanted a deal like in Spaib, that the bigger teams who are winning trophies get more money from tv.

Arsenal were the most. United second. City down in 6th.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/revealed-most-televised-english-football-12483996

Edit: And I know I seen somewhere that United earned more money finishing 2nd than City did finishing 1st. Due to match day revenue and TV.