Football Leaks: UEFA Investigation into Manchester City

gstack166

rob316 wrote: »

A corrupt organization looking into another. Nothing will ever happen.

Makes you question why FFP came in at all then. Not the reasons for it, the reasons are clear but why if they’re so corrupt which I don’t doubt, did they bring a rule in to stop the likes of City challenging on the same levels as Europes royalty clubs if they won’t punish the same clubs for breaking the very rules they brought in to hold them clubs back in the first place?

Mr.H

How obvious could they be? They published their salaries for a could of seasons ago and they where about the 3rd or 4th from top. Lets call a spade a spade here. They are lying through their teeth. Liverpool spurs and arsenal aside from ozil coutinho and bale have had nobody close to the wages of an average squad player at city. I know united have been spending big but its laughable to suggest city spend within their means.

I've said it before and ill always maintain it, city are lucky to be where they are. Fulham could have easily been the ones bought out in the exact same way. City havent earnt their success. They won a lottery and it was bought for them.

There is no science behind trying to buy the arsenal team and then trying to add absolutely any star that will actually take the money.

gstack166

Mr.H wrote: »

How obvious could they be? They published their salaries for a could of seasons ago and they where about the 3rd or 4th from top. Lets call a spade a spade here. They are lying through their teeth. Liverpool spurs and arsenal aside from ozil coutinho and bale have had nobody close to the wages of an average squad player at city. I know united have been spending big but its laughable to suggest city spend within their means.

I've said it before and ill always maintain it, city are lucky to be where they are. Fulham could have easily been the ones bought out in the exact same way. City havent earnt their success. They won a lottery and it was bought for them.

There is no science behind trying to buy the arsenal team and then trying to add absolutely any star that will actually take the money.

Salah is the top Liverpool earner on £200k a week. KDB is top City earner on £280k a week both basic salary’s so yes, they do come close, £80k a week in football wages is nothing.

Who are these ‘stars’ that took the money that there’s no science behind as you say? Every single player City have bought they have been accused of overpaying. Who was actually a ‘star’ before they bought them?

You’d swear City are the only ones with United spending they way you’re talking. Where’s the ‘science’ behind forking out over £300m Liverpool spent on Alison, VVD, Ox, Fabinho, Keita, Salah & Mane?

Or is it classed as a ‘science’ if you recoup that money from your ongoing transfers, just not if you spend an owners own money.

Butt hurt comment from you. No football fan in the world would disagree they won the lottery, least of all City fans but saying fans of a club who sold out in the old division 2, every week & watched them go close to liquidation, haven’t earned this success is laughable. If any club deserves to ‘win the lottery’ they were right up there with the best of them.

ozzy jr

gstack166 wrote: »

who sold out 32k seats in the old division 2, every week.

They sold out every single game?

Come on don't be silly. There's not a chance they did. You're just making stuff up now.

theoneeyedman

280k is 40% more than 200k, hardly a pittence.

gstack166

ozzy jr wrote: »

They sold out every single game?

Come on don't be silly. There's not a chance they did. You're just making stuff up now.

Average crowd 28,261, 13th highest in all leagues that year for a team in third tier. Reason it is down under the 30 is because travelling fans came in tiny numbers.

ozzy jr

gstack166 wrote: »

Average crowd 28,261, 13th highest in all leagues that year for a team in third tier. Reason it is down under the 30 is because travelling fans came in tiny numbers.

So they didn't sell out every game then?

gstack166

ozzy jr wrote: »

So they didn't sell out every game then?

They sold out their own end, yes. They can’t make away fans travel.

ozzy jr

gstack166 wrote: »

They sold out their own end, yes.

ffs

Anyway, more importantly, do you think they may have broke the FFP regulations?

gstack166

ozzy jr wrote: »

ffs

Anyway, more importantly, do you think they may have broke the FFP regulations?

Who knows, possibly but I’d imagine not even close to the scale being reported is my own opinion.

I see that City have welcomed the investigation & I think it's needed to clear this up once and for all. The question is whether people will accept it if City are cleared.

ozzy jr

gstack166 wrote: »

Who knows, possibly but I’d imagine not even close to the scale being reported is my own opinion.

Is that a yes?

gstack166

ozzy jr wrote: »

Is that a yes?

They have already broken them & been fined. They have said time again that they comply with FFP since. How can I say yes or no, I don’t look at their books.

Could just be a PR statement from UEFA, to be seen to be doing something when doing nothing. They cant use stolen evidence, so they will ask Der Speigel to prove they have a legal source, it wont be provided so it will end up being an ‘investigation concluded with no evidence of wrongdoing found’ is my guess.

Mr.H

gstack166 wrote:

Salah is the top Liverpool earner on £200k a week. KDB is top City earner on £280k a week both basic salary’s so yes, they do come close, £80k a week in football wages is nothing.

Salah has not appeared on any released salary report yet which is why i named coutinho.

How many players at city are on 200+

How many at liverpool?

Huge difference.

Also players that took the money tevez robinho etc

gstack166

Mr.H wrote: »

Salah has not appeared on any released salary report yet which is why i named coutinho.

How many players at city are on 200+

How many at liverpool?

Huge difference.

Also players that took the money tevez robinho etc

Etc? You’ve named two, agreement on Robinho, you’re not letting no cat out of the bag with that one. Tevez won an FA Cup as captain & Premier League at City & was crucial to both triumphs along with being the clubs top goal scorer so that’s money well spent. You’ll have to come up with better than that.

UrbanFret

ozzy jr wrote: »

ffs

Anyway, more importantly, do you think they may have broke the FFP regulations?

Liverpool had a novel approach to getting around the ffp rules .When they breached them they made sure they didn't qualify for champions league. Genius.!

Mr.H

gstack166 wrote:

Etc? You’ve named two, agreement on Robinho, you’re not letting no cat out of the bag with that one. Tevez won an FA Cup as captain & Premier League at City & was crucial to both triumphs along with being the clubs top goal scorer so that’s money well spent. You’ll have to come up with better than that.

Tevez. The same tevev who wanted to leave united because he didnt like living in manchester......

How much more could city have bent over backwards for kaka?

Adaboyour clichy sagna all players city paid over the odds because they where nobody before that. Just a nobody with a cheat code.

Fact is City back then where trying to buy status, not quality. Any big name they could convince to come, they would go for. They needed to target a big name as most world class players wouldnt entertain an approach. Thats why they paid over the odds.

It definitely is nothing to do with players buying into the man city way.

I dont really have issue with it to be honest. But i find it laughable that most city and chelsea fans forget that their recent success is nothing to do with the word deserve. It could have just as easily been fulham.

gstack166

Mr.H wrote: »

Tevez. The same tevev who wanted to leave united because he didnt like living in manchester......

How much more could city have bent over backwards for kaka?

Adaboyour clichy sagna all players city paid over the odds because they where nobody before that. Just a nobody with a cheat code.

Fact is City back then where trying to buy status, not quality. Any big name they could convince to come, they would go for. They needed to target a big name as most world class players wouldnt entertain an approach. Thats why they paid over the odds.

It definitely is nothing to do with players buying into the man city way.

I dont really have issue with it to be honest. But i find it laughable that most city and chelsea fans forget that their recent success is nothing to do with the word deserve. It could have just as easily been fulham.

I stopped reading after the Clichy & Sagna sentence because you obviously don’t have a clue. Clichy cost £6m & won 2 Premier Leagues & 2 league cups. Sagna was a free transfer & won a League cup.

If that’s paying over the odds for players then I’ll pay over the odds every day of the week.

Another butt hurt poster. Green with envy is all ye are.

Shanotheslayer

In fairness Mr.H if you're going to be making an argument at least look up your facts :pac:

citytillidie

gstack166 wrote: »

They have already broken them & been fined. They have said time again that they comply with FFP since. How can I say yes or no, I don’t look at their books.

Could just be a PR statement from UEFA, to be seen to be doing something when doing nothing. They cant use stolen evidence, so they will ask Der Speigel to prove they have a legal source, it wont be provided so it will end up being an ‘investigation concluded with no evidence of wrongdoing found’ is my guess.

UEFA are not the police why can't they use stolen evidence? Also Man City did comply before but now that evidence they used is been showing as incorrect information passed on according to leaked reports, leaving UEFA with egg on their face for trusting the information passed on by Man City. If UEFA were the police they could just go in and take computers and documents from Man City but they can't they have to rely on the clubs been full transparent and truthful with the documents they send them for their investigation.

Harry Palmr

The only thing UEFA will do with the e-mails is seek to corroborate the contents and as they say "follow the money"

gstack166

citytillidie wrote: »

UEFA are not the police why can't they use stolen evidence? Also Man City did comply before but now that evidence they used is been showing as incorrect information passed on according to leaked reports, leaving UEFA with egg on their face for trusting the information passed on by Man City. If UEFA were the police they could just go in and take computers and documents from Man City but they can't they have to rely on the clubs been full transparent and truthful with the documents they send them for their investigation.

They can’t use them because City will bring them to court & the evidence won’t be admissible. It’s the sponsorship that’s questionable that they’re going to investigate, that all money is come through the Sheiks Abu Dhabi companies that are inflated.

UEFA will not have any power to compel any Abu Dhabi company to open its books so the investigation would focus purely on City. If UEFA can't prove that these companies are related parties or that the source of funds is ADUG then they have no case.

Mr.H

gstack166 wrote:

I stopped reading after the Clichy & Sagna sentence because you obviously don’t have a clue. Clichy cost £6m & won 2 Premier Leagues & 2 league cups. Sagna was a free transfer & won a League cup.

The fees where low yes but the wages were 150k each and thats back then!

Thats about 8 million a season without sign on fees.

You can claim jealousy if youd like but it doesnt change the fact that ye were merely a decision. Thats all. Ye dint earn. Ye won the lotto and bought a profile. Ye are the exact same as anzi or monaco. A rich guys play thing. Nothing more than a toy.

Mr.H

Shanotheslayer wrote:

In fairness Mr.H if you're going to be making an argument at least look up your facts

Like the fact that the kaka mention was ignored?

How about adabouyor? Ignoring that too huh?

Lets throw in another name Jo

Yea city didnt just buy status!

gstack166

Mr.H wrote: »

The fees where low yes but the wages were 150k each and thats back then!

Thats about 8 million a season without sign on fees.

You can claim jealousy if youd like but it doesnt change the fact that ye were merely a decision. Thats all. Ye dint earn. Ye won the lotto and bought a profile. Ye are the exact same as anzi or monaco. A rich guys play thing. Nothing more than a toy.

Please stop talking & digging. Clichy was on £90k a week. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/clichy-ramps-up-his-wages-at-manchester-city-after-wengerrsquos-refusal-to-pay-2305083.html%3Famp

Sagna was always going to command big wages because he was a free transfer & was on £150k a week in 2014. Considering he was a free transfer, a full French international with champions league experience then that was a good deal also, when you consider Nathaniel Clyne I’m after reading earns £70k a week this season & not only has he not got any of the experience in European & International football if you compare the 2, then that doesn’t smack of paying over the odds either.

As for being a toy, I’m sure if you ask any City in Europe would they like the investment & gentrification to a city they would bite your hand off. It wasn’t just Manchester City FC who won the lotto, the entire City did with boosted jobs creation & a run down area of the city getting a new lease of life.

As for the Monaco comparison they’ve won 1 league title since being took over by a Russian Billionaire in 2011 & 2 others before that since 1990, so they would be a much more successful domestic team than Liverpool in that time regardless of the money, and seeing as though their best players got cherry picked 2 years ago after winning Ligue 1 maybe the comparison to your own club would be better suited. A selling club perhaps.

Shanotheslayer

Mr.H wrote: »

Like the fact that the kaka mention was ignored?

How about adabouyor? Ignoring that too huh?

Lets throw in another name Jo

Yea city didnt just buy status!

Unless I've mistaken, Kaka never went to City so it's irrelevant

Ade was 25million ish? Looking up Jo was a 19million signing and a record for City at the time, so I guess Ade then broke that record.

I'm not ignoring anything, but if you're going to give examples of something at least make sure they're correct.

I wasn't disagreeing you just joking about the examples

gstack166

Mr.H wrote: »

Like the fact that the kaka mention was ignored?

How about adabouyor? Ignoring that too huh?

Lets throw in another name Jo

Yea city didnt just buy status!

Jo was bought before the Sheik takeover. So no, the Shieks didn’t overspend on him, Kaka never signed so how can they have overspent on him?

Adebayor In hindsight was a bust at £25m but that was the going rate for him, he was linked that year previous to AC Milan for £30m dam sight better value for money than Andy Carroll was at £35m anyways

dfx-

thread title amended at the request of the OP

Harry Palmr

Ta, the Liverpool thread is full of FFP BS.

ozzy jr

I'm sure city could cope with a transfer ban for a season or two.
I'm sure they could cope with a ban from the CL for a season or two.
The killer for them would be the end of the financial doping.

In other news, the majority of PL clubs are seeking action over the alleged breaches of FFP.....

At least a dozen top-flight clubs are planning to write to the Premier League to ask what action they intend to take over alleged breaches of financial fair play by Manchester City. In an unprecedented move, the clubs intend to call on the Premier League to clarify its position over the accusations.

The Times understands that a majority of clubs are already on board with the proposal and more were being asked to sign up last night. The development illustrates how scepticism over City’s practices permeates beyond their immediate top-six rivals.

The news comes as Uefa yesterday announced a formal investigation into alleged financial fair play violations by City, stemming from information released in the Football Leaks data cache, but which the club strongly deny. The Football Leaks website was set up in 2015 to reveal alleged corruption in football and has supplied documents to several European news outlets over the past four years. The Times has learnt that Uefa has contacted France’s financial prosecutor seeking access to millions of Football Leaks documents.

Meanwhile, the latest leaked files suggest City discussed a plan to pay Jadon Sancho’s family £225,000 before recruiting the England star when he was a 14-year-old at Watford’s academy. City dismissed as “entirely false” accusations they may have flouted FFP rules.

Their statement said: “Manchester City welcomes a formal Uefa investigation to bring an end to the speculation resulting from the illegal hacking and out of context publication of City emails.


“The accusation of financial irregularities are entirely false. The club’s published accounts are complete and a matter of legal and regulatory record.”

Uefa’s club financial control body said its investigation would “focus on alleged violations of FFP that were made public in various media outlets”.

eagle eye

Are people here against a club trying to improve and become a powerhouse?

City have spent a lot of money but they now have the manager considered by many as the best in the business.

I was looking at the last five years and they've spent the most but United and Liverpool have both spent over half a billion on transfers. You might want to talk about nett spend but I haven't looked at those figures and if you are selling big name players then you are a smaller club than you want to admit.

City are getting there globally, they need an ECL win to put them in the same category as the biggest clubs in football. If they win a couple then they are firmly in that category and it's likely they won't have to depend on their owners anymore.

I've no issue with any owner spending big to make his club bigger.

gstack166

ozzy jr wrote: »

I'm sure city could cope with a transfer ban for a season or two.
I'm sure they could cope with a ban from the CL for a season or two.
The killer for them would be the end of the financial doping.

In other news, the majority of PL clubs are seeking action over the alleged breaches of FFP.....

What do they want to be done? Investigation into ‘alleged’ doping from ‘stolen’ documents from a now un-reputable publication.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/19/top-der-spiegel-journalist-resigns-over-fake-interviews

The_Kew_Tour

Didn't seem be much problem with this in 2012.

Or even last year. It's a up in air stuff now though.

ozzy jr

eagle eye wrote: »

Are people here against a club trying to improve and become a powerhouse?

Absolutely not.

gstack166

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Didn't seem be much problem with this in 2012.

Or even last year. It's a up in air stuff now though.

They failed it in I think 2013 & were fined £50m but had 2 years to get the books in order & it would be suspended, UEFA were satisfied with the update & the fine was wiped clear, it’s now alledged they cooked the books to make up the deficit & theyre opening up an investigation to see if that was the case, but like I posted earlier UEFA will have no power to get Abu Dhabi companies to open their books so it’s going to be very difficult for UEFA to prove anything if infact City have inflated all their sponsorships.

It really could mean the end of FFP what ever the outcome. Either clubs don’t obey the rules from here on in if City get off or if City drag UEFA threw the courts challenging any dicision against them on the grounds of the information being from stolen documents. A court could easily determine FFP to be in breach of European Trade laws preventing an owner investing in his business.

SM01

eagle eye wrote: »

if you are selling big name players then you are a smaller club than you want to admit.

This is blinkered thinking.

citytillidie

eagle eye wrote: »

Are people here against a club trying to improve and become a powerhouse?

City have spent a lot of money but they now have the manager considered by many as the best in the business.

I was looking at the last five years and they've spent the most but United and Liverpool have both spent over half a billion on transfers. You might want to talk about nett spend but I haven't looked at those figures and if you are selling big name players then you are a smaller club than you want to admit.

City are getting there globally, they need an ECL win to put them in the same category as the biggest clubs in football. If they win a couple then they are firmly in that category and it's likely they won't have to depend on their owners anymore.

I've no issue with any owner spending big to make his club bigger.

If they are now breaking rules yes that is bad and will as for the last line well you do support Blackburn who did that for their win in 95 and as you seen it is not sustainable. Leeds also tried it and look at them now, only really recovering after it went pear shaped for them.

gstack166

gstack166 wrote: »

They failed it in I think 2013 & were fined £50m but had 2 years to get the books in order & it would be suspended, UEFA were satisfied with the update & the fine was wiped clear, it’s now alledged they cooked the books to make up the deficit & theyre opening up an investigation to see if that was the case, but like I posted earlier UEFA will have no power to get Abu Dhabi companies to open their books so it’s going to be very difficult for UEFA to prove anything if infact City have inflated all their sponsorships.

It really could mean the end of FFP what ever the outcome. Either clubs don’t obey the rules from here on in if City get off or if City drag UEFA threw the courts challenging any dicision against them on the grounds of the information being from stolen documents. A court could easily determine FFP to be in breach of European Trade laws preventing an owner investing in his business.

Edit: also Galatasaray recently took Uefa to CAS, and CAS ruled that Uefa could not re-investigate a previous settlement so this investigation could be over before it might start also.

gstack166

citytillidie wrote: »

If they are now breaking rules yes that is bad and will as for the last line well you do support Blackburn who did that for their win in 95 and as you seen it is not sustainable. Leeds also tried it and look at them now, only really recovering after it went pear shaped for them.

Not a great comparison. Leeds United borrowed that money from the banks & could not repay it. Manchester City is debt free & spending an owners money. It’s completely different once the owner stays in control of the club, which for the long foreseeable future seems to be the case.

Drumpot

There’s nothing unique about city or psg or Chelsea. Any club in the respective leagues could do the exact same thing with the same financial backers. They are not successful because of growth or the way they are run or their histories. They had rich people buy them with questionable motives Who are using questionable accounting practices to get around the rules everybody else follows.

There is a massive difference between for example what Liverpool and united (since people quote these clubs as comparable spenders) spend to these clubs. In many regards United and Liverpool should be respected in much higher regard for financing themselves and sticking within their own self sustaining budgets. They are in essence the poseter clubs of how to grow and utilize your own resources.

Of course fans of city and psg should not apologize for getting so fortunate to be chosen for financial steroids. But United and Liverpool built their legacies a completely different way and have vast amounts of resources to invest in their squads because the clubs grew themselves organically.

Mr.H

gstack166 wrote:

Not a great comparison. Leeds United borrowed that money from the banks & could not repay it. Manchester City is debt free & spending an owners money. It’s completely different once the owner stays in control of the club, which for the long foreseeable future seems to be the case.

So lets say the city owners think "ypu know what? We will make more money by changing the name to dubai fc and moving the club to london". They change the colours, branding. The lot. Would you be still happy? Because that is the type of owners ye have. You really think they give two tosses about the city or the fans in the city.

The money cheat dont buy class

Shanotheslayer

Mr.H wrote: »

So lets say the city owners think "ypu know what? We will make more money by changing the name to dubai fc and moving the club to london". They change the colours, branding. The lot. Would you be still happy? Because that is the type of owners ye have. You really think they give two tosses about the city or the fans in the city.

The money cheat dont buy class

Talk about a stretch!

TitianGerm

Drumpot wrote: »

There’s nothing unique about city or psg or Chelsea. Any club in the respective leagues could do the exact same thing with the same financial backers. They are not successful because of growth or the way they are run or their histories. They had rich people buy them with questionable motives Who are using questionable accounting practices to get around the rules everybody else follows.

There is a massive difference between for example what Liverpool and united (since people quote these clubs as comparable spenders) spend to these clubs. In many regards United and Liverpool should be respected in much higher regard for financing themselves and sticking within their own self sustaining budgets. They are in essence the poseter clubs of how to grow and utilize your own resources.

Of course fans of city and psg should not apologize for getting so fortunate to be chosen for financial steroids. But United and Liverpool built their legacies a completely different way and have vast amounts of resources to invest in their squads because the clubs grew themselves organically.

And the Glazer's take a ball of money out of United every year and landed them with huge debt repayments. Shows you how strong they are financially.

gstack166

Drumpot wrote: »

There’s nothing unique about city or psg or Chelsea. Any club in the respective leagues could do the exact same thing with the same financial backers. They are not successful because of growth or the way they are run or their histories. They had rich people buy them with questionable motives Who are using questionable accounting practices to get around the rules everybody else follows.

There is a massive difference between for example what Liverpool and united (since people quote these clubs as comparable spenders) spend to these clubs. In many regards United and Liverpool should be respected in much higher regard for financing themselves and sticking within their own self sustaining budgets. They are in essence the poseter clubs of how to grow and utilize your own resources.

Of course fans of city and psg should not apologize for getting so fortunate to be chosen for financial steroids. But United and Liverpool built their legacies a completely different way and have vast amounts of resources to invest in their squads because the clubs grew themselves organically.

That is some load of waffle that. For starters ‘the rules every else follows’ have only be rules since 2012. If we were pre 2010 nobody would have a problem with what those clubs are spending.

Liverpool would be non existent today had it not been for the Littlewood family who owned Littlewoods pools. Pumped an absolute fortune into them. Please, check it up before you drivel on about ‘making something organically’

gstack166

Mr.H wrote: »

So lets say the city owners think "ypu know what? We will make more money by changing the name to dubai fc and moving the club to london". They change the colours, branding. The lot. Would you be still happy? Because that is the type of owners ye have. You really think they give two tosses about the city or the fans in the city.

The money cheat dont buy class

Not even sure what point your making on that. Seems your problem isn’t with the money or the club, it’s with the owners & it stinks of racial undertones.

rob316

https://twitter.com/AnfieldHQ/status/1103918382422712322

ozzy jr

gstack166 wrote: »

That is some load of waffle that. For starters ‘the rules every else follows’ have only be rules since 2012. If we were pre 2010 nobody would have a problem with what those clubs are spending.

Liverpool would be non existent today had it not been for the Littlewood family who owned Littlewoods pools. Pumped an absolute fortune into them. Please, check it up before you drivel on about ‘making something organically’

The Moores family

gstack166

ozzy jr wrote: »

The Moores family

JUst about to edit it. I’ll leave it now .

Drumpot

gstack166 wrote: »

That is some load of waffle that. For starters ‘the rules every else follows’ have only be rules since 2012. If we were pre 2010 nobody would have a problem with what those clubs are spending.

Liverpool would be non existent today had it not been for the Littlewood family who owned Littlewoods pools. Pumped an absolute fortune into them. Please, check it up before you drivel on about ‘making something organically’

I think you have intentionally skewered the "organically" statement because you cant debate the the motives of the owners and/or the sinister methods they use to get around the rules of the game.

Philanthropist or rich fan owners are not the same as what City and Chelsea have. Jack Walker pumping vast money into Blackburn because he loves the club is nothing like the Arab or Russian billionaires investing in clubs for completely different reasons. Its like saying that every method of earning money is equal, legal and illegal its all the same.


Your defense of them breaking the rules is that they would of been ok doing it pre 2012 ? So its ok to break newish rules ?

gstack166

Drumpot wrote: »

I think you have intentionally skewered the "organically" statement because you cant debate the the motives of the owners and/or the sinister methods they use to get around the rules of the game.

Philanthropist or rich fan owners are not the same as what City and Chelsea have. Jack Walker pumping vast money into Blackburn because he loves the club is nothing like the Arab or Russian billionaires investing in clubs for completely different reasons. Its like saying that every method of earning money is equal, legal and illegal its all the same.


Your defense of them breaking the rules is that they would of been ok doing it pre 2012 ? So its ok to break newish rules ?

OK first of all, nobody on this forum can debate the motives of the owners as none of us are in that circle so draw a x through that right away. The ‘sinister’ ways, have the club been proved guilty of an offence that I’m not aware of yet? Draw an x under that too until after the investigation is complete.

I didn’t compare any owner to Jack Walker or owners at all for that matter, You stated Liverpool & United’s achievements should be held to higher regard which is drivel, & I merely pointed out that without huge financial backing Liverpool would of been nowhere, as a contrary to your statement about them being built organically.

I didn’t make a defence for breaking the rules, I just pointed out that they’re new rules because you made it out every club had been following them since the beginning of time. I’m all for whatever rules but this rule was designed specifically to hinder clubs reaching the top, not in the slightest of helping them avoiding dropping to the bottom.

If I clear €500 a week after tax & I win the euro millions tonight for a €100m jackpot, would I not feel aggrieved a law being passed next year that forbids me from spending over €500 a week?

TitianGerm

gstack166 wrote: »

OK first of all, nobody on this forum can debate the motives of the owners as none of us are in that circle so draw a x through that right away. The ‘sinister’ ways, have the club been proved guilty of an offence that I’m not aware of yet? Draw an x under that too until after the investigation is complete.

I didn’t compare any owner to Jack Walker or owners at all for that matter, You stated Liverpool & United’s achievements should be held to higher regard which is drivel, & I merely pointed out that without huge financial backing Liverpool would of been nowhere, as a contrary to your statement about them being built organically.

I didn’t make a defence for breaking the rules, I just pointed out that they’re new rules because you made it out every club had been following them since the beginning of time. I’m all for whatever rules but this rule was designed specifically to hinder clubs reaching the top, not in the slightest of helping them avoiding dropping to the bottom.

If I clear €500 a week after tax & I win the euro millions tonight for a €100m jackpot, would I not feel aggrieved a law being passed next year that forbids me from spending over €500 a week?

You could set up 100s of companies and have them spend €500 each, every week for you. Problem solved.

Bit like what the City owners did when they used their state companies to pump extra funds into City, but only in reverse.