DCJonah Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 12 minutes ago, DJ_Villain said: Barry Milner Delph Three perfectly good reasons why I hate City... When they had seemingly unlimited finances to afford any player from any club they liked, they used them to destabilise us over and over... Phuck ‘em! You seriously think their aim was to destabilise aston villa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted February 15, 2020 Author Share Posted February 15, 2020 1 hour ago, DJ_Villain said: Barry Milner Delph Three perfectly good reasons why I hate City... When they had seemingly unlimited finances to afford any player from any club they liked, they used them to destabilise us over and over... Phuck ‘em! They spent less than 50 million on all 3. They paid more to other clubs in top flight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 3 hours ago, DJ_Villain said: Barry Milner Delph Three perfectly good reasons why I hate City... When they had seemingly unlimited finances to afford any player from any club they liked, they used them to destabilise us over and over... Phuck ‘em! Boro signed Ugo, Southgate and Boateng. Utd signed Yorke and Bosnich. Top teams always do that 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Plus all three wanted to leave anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadridVilla Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 This just illustrates how utterly useless FFP has actually been in promoting fairer competition, when in fact all it has done is promoted positive feedback loops at the top of the game. The biggest European clubs before FFP was introduced have been at a significant benefit as it has essentially acted as a barrier to smaller clubs like City displacing those at the top. The European elite have been given an oligopoly at the top of the game by UEFA where they know the FFP rules make it extremely hard to compete with them. How is this a level playing field for other clubs like City? How long will it be before fans get bored of seeing the same clubs winning the Champions League on rotation year after year? If City manage to fight it in the courts and win the case by virtue of having better and more expensive lawyers than UEFA then what will FFP have achieved? It will only show that the more money you have, the more success you can have, which is the complete antithesis of what FFP was supposed to do. I'm not sure who is doing more damage to the integrity of football in this case, City or UEFA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 As long as the owners are gifting money to the clubs, not saddling them with loans that could potentially be requested (like Abramovic at least used to do) then what’s the harm? If the owner is willing to write off any losses then it should be perfectly legal. The problem is, I assume Man City has signed up to working within certain rules and now they’ve been caught breaking them. They could and should have challenged them before if they were not happy with them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 6 hours ago, Genie said: The problem is, I assume Man City has signed up to working within certain rules and now they’ve been caught breaking them. They could and should have challenged them before if they were not happy with them. Exactly. Don't sign up to something you don't agree with. City were more than happy to be part of the problem, and sign up to enter Europe and it's reap it's lucrative rewards. As soon as it doesn't work for them "Oh poor us, we're such a victim!". Absolute joke of a club. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 What was the alternative to "signing up", just curiously? Not playing in Europe? Not playing in the Premier League? Is that really a reasonable thing for them to be expected to forego? The laws are unjust. They "signed up" because their was no reasonable alternative but to do so. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 7 hours ago, Genie said: As long as the owners are gifting money to the clubs, not saddling them with loans that could potentially be requested (like Abramovic at least used to do) then what’s the harm? If the owner is willing to write off any losses then it should be perfectly legal I'm torn really. With no restrictions it often just means the club with the richest owner wins. In principle I like the idea of not just letting billionaires buy success. The problem is there's already so many of them in the game, that effectively if these rules do work it's just the wealthy clubs ensuring their continued success, pulling the ladder up behind them. The sport is broken, really, when clubs like Manure can spend a billion on players and fail, and it's fine because money is still pouring in. "Fair play" my arse. An unrestricted capitalistic nightmare of a sport is probably the lesser of two evils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 There’s one way you can ensure something like a level playing field (well, two ways): 1. Introduce a proper cap on squad size (no more loaning out of 30 odd players at a time. 2. Bring in a salary cap alongside that, not so much a cap on individual salaries but a max amount a club can spend in total, per season and based on the division they’re in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 just thinking that this could focus their minds more to win the league cup final. Which is an arse.I mean we're heavy underdogs anyway, but a final onslaught for silverware etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 11 hours ago, ThunderPower_14 said: What was the alternative to "signing up", just curiously? Not playing in Europe? Not playing in the Premier League? Is that really a reasonable thing for them to be expected to forego? The laws are unjust. They "signed up" because their was no reasonable alternative but to do so. The owners could have taken their billions elsewhere if they didn’t like the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 Interesting view that City have breached the terms of the players contracts and they could walk away for free, or demand better terms to stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 3 minutes ago, Genie said: The owners could have taken their billions elsewhere if they didn’t like the rules. Nobody likes the rules though. They're objectively bad rules that need to be changed for the good of football. Someone is bound to challenge them and win eventually. Remember, if we fall foul of FFP we'll have fans of other teams gleefully wishing us to be relegated and calling us cheats because we tried to overhaul our squad so we could stay up. Better that a club with Man City's financial backing goes after the system first. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, ThunderPower_14 said: Nobody likes the rules though. They're objectively bad rules that need to be changed for the good of football. Someone is bound to challenge them and win eventually. Remember, if we fall foul of FFP we'll have fans of other teams gleefully wishing us to be relegated and calling us cheats because we tried to overhaul our squad so we could stay up. Better that a club with Man City's financial backing goes after the system first. I don’t think anybody can win if it’s a clear breach of the rules. Having highly paid lawyers won’t help them. The clubs chiefs get together and have various meetings and discussions. They could bring FFP to the agenda if they want to challenge it going forwards but I doubt they’ll get it changed as not enough people will want it over turned. If Man City want to spend like the big boys they need to grow the club organically. They’re practically giving the tickets away for the league cup final and don’t drum up an awful lot of interest in a lot of the CL games so they’re in a bit of a bind. Much bigger clubs have been punished by UEFA in recent years and not managed to get off Edited February 16, 2020 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 14 minutes ago, ThunderPower_14 said: Nobody likes the rules though. They're objectively bad rules that need to be changed for the good of football It doesn't matter. Its a rule, a rule they knew existed. If you have an issue with something, you argue it beforehand. Not break it and try to cover it up. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 Just now, kurtsimonw said: It doesn't matter. Its a rule, a rule they knew existed. If you have an issue with something, you argue it beforehand. Not break it and try to cover it up. Their stance on the matter suggests they've been arguing against FFP for a number of years. UEFA being legislator, investigator, judge jury and executioner on this has been unfair and it'll be interesting to see how the CAS see it. I personally think it's manifestly unfair to have a competition with such a great correlation between spending and success, and then artificially stopping clubs spending when those clubs can easily afford to do so. If it were really protecting clubs from themselves that'd be one thing, but it's not, and it's not designed to. Look at Bury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 27 minutes ago, ThunderPower_14 said: UEFA being legislator, investigator, judge jury and executioner on this has been unfair UEFA are the governing body, so how is it unfair? 29 minutes ago, ThunderPower_14 said: I personally think it's manifestly unfair to have a competition with such a great correlation between spending and success, and then artificially stopping clubs spending when those clubs can easily afford to do so. This is something separate to the crime Man City are reportedly guilty of. They declared they were getting more than they actually were from sponsorship so it’s a clear attempt at “cheating” the system. If people don’t like the rules then they should lobby the powers that be for them to change. Or they could rally some like minded clubs for support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 47 minutes ago, ThunderPower_14 said: I personally think it's manifestly unfair to have a competition with such a great correlation between spending and success, and then artificially stopping clubs spending when those clubs can easily afford to do so. If it were really protecting clubs from themselves that'd be one thing, but it's not, and it's not designed to. Look at Bury. While I think FFP is wrong and agree with you in principle, it's not quite as black and white as that and I can fully understand why UEFA has it in place in its current form. If you can only spend what you've earned, then you are self sustaining. You aren't needing any outside resources in order to run. I appreciate Man City can spend a billion quid a year and run perfectly fine, with their current backing. But what if they get bored, pull the plug? Transfer fees are usually paid in installments, so the incoming owner who may not have much money would be then left with colossal transfer fees to pay going forward before even signing anyone new. A huge wage bill and the potential for future sponsors paying less as City are no sure thing anymore. They'll disappear as quick as they came on the scene. I know that this isn't fully the truth behind FFP, but it is a potential failsafe. What that said I think it's nonsense and shouldn't exist. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted February 16, 2020 Author Share Posted February 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Genie said: Interesting view that City have breached the terms of the players contracts and they could walk away for free, or demand better terms to stay. Well I am sure a lot of City players wont get the same contracts elsewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts