|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 17, 2020 15:58:34 GMT
Leicester are owned by multi billionaires too. They won The Championship because they spent more than their competitors doing so. Likewise Wolves did by spending £30M bringing in Neves and Jota when they were in the 2nd tier. Leeds were spending money back then trying to compete with Man United. Leeds won the title a year before The Premier League, it didn't stop United poaching their best player the season after, they were also still signing Rio Ferdinand for a record fee for a defender. United used to poach most clubs best players whether it was Eric Cantona, Andy Cole, Dwight Yorke, Rio Ferdinand, Wayne Rooney, Michael Carrick or Dimitar Berbatov. It was still their financial clout. Well, most of the Premier League and the Championship have billionaires behind them. Most of them multi-billionaires. I still don't equate that as equal to a state-funded club who are happy to spend endless amounts, incur incredible financial losses, without a care for the bottom line. How's that sustainable in the longer-term? How does that promote fair competition? I'm not even going to discuss the entire sport-washing element behind City's ownership and their deplorable human rights record. This entire argument of City cheated because they had to is absurd. They knew the rules of the competition they competed in. Why should other clubs suffer due to a rival club gaining an unfair advantage? City knew they were breaking the rules and the reason they've been punished so severely is because they lied and deceived the authorities. I genuinely don't understand what else UEFA and the Premier League could do in this situation. Should they just look the other way and tell them not to do it again? Exactly. That was my counter argument, all Premier League Clubs and the majority of The Championship clubs are all owned by Multi Billionaires, over the last 25 years we've also seen Wigan, Fulham and Reading etc being owned by extremely wealthy benefactors which has seen them rise from the 3rd tier to the top tier through outspending their competitors to do so. Fleetwood and Salford have also done it to get from the lower reaches of local Non League Football to the Football League. Its the way Footballs gone. Man City are the wealthiest of the lot and that seems why they're getting all the pelters. If everybody is so up in arms with FFP and Clubs spending why don't we just ban owners full stop and only allow the already super Rich clubs to get richer and for other clubs to not be able to compete at all. You can only spend what you bring in? That's why Football Clubs have these super wealthy owners now to hopefully help them succeed and progress. That was my point.
|
|
|
Post by theduke on Feb 17, 2020 17:05:52 GMT
Well, most of the Premier League and the Championship have billionaires behind them. Most of them multi-billionaires. I still don't equate that as equal to a state-funded club who are happy to spend endless amounts, incur incredible financial losses, without a care for the bottom line. How's that sustainable in the longer-term? How does that promote fair competition? I'm not even going to discuss the entire sport-washing element behind City's ownership and their deplorable human rights record. This entire argument of City cheated because they had to is absurd. They knew the rules of the competition they competed in. Why should other clubs suffer due to a rival club gaining an unfair advantage? City knew they were breaking the rules and the reason they've been punished so severely is because they lied and deceived the authorities. I genuinely don't understand what else UEFA and the Premier League could do in this situation. Should they just look the other way and tell them not to do it again? Exactly. That was my counter argument, all Premier League Clubs and the majority of The Championship clubs are all owned by Multi Billionaires, over the last 25 years we've also seen Wigan, Fulham and Reading etc being owned by extremely wealthy benefactors which has seen them rise from the 3rd tier to the top tier through outspending their competitors to do so. Fleetwood and Salford have also done it to get from the lower reaches of local Non League Football to the Football League. Its the way Footballs gone. Man City are the wealthiest of the lot and that seems why they're getting all the pelters. If everybody is so up in arms with FFP and Clubs spending why don't we just ban owners full stop and only allow the already super Rich clubs to get richer and for other clubs to not be able to compete at all. You can only spend what you bring in? That's why Football Clubs have these super wealthy owners now to hopefully help them succeed and progress. That was my point. Your point is clear. My point is that I would not equate the type of wealth that's behind Man City to the wealth of the other elite clubs. Man City are light years ahead of anybody else in world football, with the exception of PSG. I think that they're an exceptional case. Fundamentally FFP isn't about stopping others from competing, it's about creating a sustainable environment so football clubs can continue to operate and don't go under. Ethically it's about ensuring that there's still a competition worth watching and not a 38-game procession. I just don't agree that the only way to compete is through money and rich benefactors. That's my point.
|
|
|
Post by toddy1953 on Feb 17, 2020 17:37:56 GMT
Well, most of the Premier League and the Championship have billionaires behind them. Most of them multi-billionaires. I still don't equate that as equal to a state-funded club who are happy to spend endless amounts, incur incredible financial losses, without a care for the bottom line. How's that sustainable in the longer-term? How does that promote fair competition? I'm not even going to discuss the entire sport-washing element behind City's ownership and their deplorable human rights record. This entire argument of City cheated because they had to is absurd. They knew the rules of the competition they competed in. Why should other clubs suffer due to a rival club gaining an unfair advantage? City knew they were breaking the rules and the reason they've been punished so severely is because they lied and deceived the authorities. I genuinely don't understand what else UEFA and the Premier League could do in this situation. Should they just look the other way and tell them not to do it again? Exactly. That was my counter argument, all Premier League Clubs and the majority of The Championship clubs are all owned by Multi Billionaires, over the last 25 years we've also seen Wigan, Fulham and Reading etc being owned by extremely wealthy benefactors which has seen them rise from the 3rd tier to the top tier through outspending their competitors to do so. Fleetwood and Salford have also done it to get from the lower reaches of local Non League Football to the Football League. Its the way Footballs gone. Man City are the wealthiest of the lot and that seems why they're getting all the pelters. If everybody is so up in arms with FFP and Clubs spending why don't we just ban owners full stop and only allow the already super Rich clubs to get richer and for other clubs to not be able to compete at all. You can only spend what you bring in? That's why Football Clubs have these super wealthy owners now to hopefully help them succeed and progress. That was my point. Certain clubs have always been able to outspend their competitors. They have done it due to rich owners, more money coming into the club through attendances sponsorship etc. But if there are rules in place to ensure sustainability, then these rules need to be adhered to, or there is no point in the rule. I would agree that many more clubs need investigation. There is nothing wrong with rich clubs, but breaking the agreed rules should be dealt with. We always hear from our owners about the need to stick to FFP rules, but is it fair on us if others don’t? I don’t think the governing bodies are fit for purpose, you only have to look at the Bury situation - people on this forum could sense what would happen there, long before it became news. Look at Bolton, they were in a mess first time they dropped to L1, yet still had players on £14k + pw. Neither situation was sustainable. Rugby Union, albeit too slow, have come up with the correct punishment.
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 17, 2020 17:53:06 GMT
Exactly. That was my counter argument, all Premier League Clubs and the majority of The Championship clubs are all owned by Multi Billionaires, over the last 25 years we've also seen Wigan, Fulham and Reading etc being owned by extremely wealthy benefactors which has seen them rise from the 3rd tier to the top tier through outspending their competitors to do so. Fleetwood and Salford have also done it to get from the lower reaches of local Non League Football to the Football League. Its the way Footballs gone. Man City are the wealthiest of the lot and that seems why they're getting all the pelters. If everybody is so up in arms with FFP and Clubs spending why don't we just ban owners full stop and only allow the already super Rich clubs to get richer and for other clubs to not be able to compete at all. You can only spend what you bring in? That's why Football Clubs have these super wealthy owners now to hopefully help them succeed and progress. That was my point. Your point is clear. My point is that I would not equate the type of wealth that's behind Man City to the wealth of the other elite clubs. Man City are light years ahead of anybody else in world football, with the exception of PSG. I think that they're an exceptional case. Fundamentally FFP isn't about stopping others from competing, it's about creating a sustainable environment so football clubs can continue to operate and don't go under. Ethically it's about ensuring that there's still a competition worth watching and not a 38-game procession. I just don't agree that the only way to compete is through money and rich benefactors. That's my point. Man City's owners may be wealthier than most, but I don't think they're taking it that far in regards to heavyweight spending. They're certainly not PSG, paying individuals 500k a week and signing players for £150M. They haven't broke any transfer records, they didn't buy Maguire because he was to expensive, they also didn't sign Sanchez because they didn't think it was value for Money, unlike Manchester United. Man City's owners have also improved the facilities and infrastructure around one of the poorest areas of Manchester. Which I think should be applauded. Fundamentally FFP actually was brought in to stop other clubs competing. The already rich elite clubs the Uniteds, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Juventus created the G14, where all the big clubs got together to try and stop clubs like Manchester City and their new investment from getting to the top table. Since Man City have had their investment United, Chelsea, Leicester and now Liverpool will have won The Premier League and as I've said clubs like Spurs are no longer push overs and a feeder club to a Manchester United. Its become a far more competitive competition. Man City haven't won the league 12 years in a row have they? Rich Benefactors have helped other clubs keep their best players, unlike previously.
|
|
|
Post by theduke on Feb 17, 2020 18:07:30 GMT
Your point is clear. My point is that I would not equate the type of wealth that's behind Man City to the wealth of the other elite clubs. Man City are light years ahead of anybody else in world football, with the exception of PSG. I think that they're an exceptional case. Fundamentally FFP isn't about stopping others from competing, it's about creating a sustainable environment so football clubs can continue to operate and don't go under. Ethically it's about ensuring that there's still a competition worth watching and not a 38-game procession. I just don't agree that the only way to compete is through money and rich benefactors. That's my point. Man City's owners may be wealthier than most, but I don't think they're taking it that far in regards to heavyweight spending. They're certainly not PSG, paying individuals 500k a week and signing players for £150M. They haven't broke any transfer records, they didn't buy Maguire because he was to expensive, they also didn't sign Sanchez because they didn't think it was value for Money, unlike Manchester United. Man City's owners have also improved the facilities and infrastructure around one of the poorest areas of Manchester. Which I think should be applauded. Fundamentally FFP actually was brought in to stop other clubs competing. The already rich elite clubs the Uniteds, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Juventus created the G14, where all the big clubs got together to try and stop clubs like Manchester City and their new investment from getting to the top table. Since Man City have had their investment United, Chelsea, Leicester and now Liverpool will have won The Premier League and as I've said clubs like Spurs are no longer push overs and a feeder club to a Manchester United. Its become a far more competitive competition. Man City haven't won the league 12 years in a row have they? Rich Benefactors have helped other clubs keep their best players, unlike previously. "They have a net transfer spend of more than £1.2 billion over the 11 seasons since the 2008 takeover. That’s almost 50 per cent more than their closest rival over that period – the Qatar-funded PSG – and half a billion pounds more than the team in third place, Manchester United." www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/english-soccer/ken-early-city-s-domination-has-been-bought-and-they-re-paying-the-price-1.3897613
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 17, 2020 18:25:45 GMT
Man City's owners may be wealthier than most, but I don't think they're taking it that far in regards to heavyweight spending. They're certainly not PSG, paying individuals 500k a week and signing players for £150M. They haven't broke any transfer records, they didn't buy Maguire because he was to expensive, they also didn't sign Sanchez because they didn't think it was value for Money, unlike Manchester United. Man City's owners have also improved the facilities and infrastructure around one of the poorest areas of Manchester. Which I think should be applauded. Fundamentally FFP actually was brought in to stop other clubs competing. The already rich elite clubs the Uniteds, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Juventus created the G14, where all the big clubs got together to try and stop clubs like Manchester City and their new investment from getting to the top table. Since Man City have had their investment United, Chelsea, Leicester and now Liverpool will have won The Premier League and as I've said clubs like Spurs are no longer push overs and a feeder club to a Manchester United. Its become a far more competitive competition. Man City haven't won the league 12 years in a row have they? Rich Benefactors have helped other clubs keep their best players, unlike previously. "They have a net transfer spend of more than £1.2 billion over the 11 seasons since the 2008 takeover. That’s almost 50 per cent more than their closest rival over that period – the Qatar-funded PSG – and half a billion pounds more than the team in third place, Manchester United." www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/english-soccer/ken-early-city-s-domination-has-been-bought-and-they-re-paying-the-price-1.3897613Who really cares about Net Spend? Its like saying if you win a billion on some lottery, you're not allowed to spend it. Its only because Man City's owners are wealthier than everybody else that people are starting to get the hump. When Wigan were spending relative fortunes getting from Division 4 to the top flight with Dave Whelan's wealth the media were calling it a fairy tale romance and a club living the dream. Man City are no different really. Also lets not forget Man City are refuting these claims completely, nothings been proven, its down to the Arbitration For Sport. Its also interesting to know the guy who supposedly outed this story, is under investigation for email hacking and other stuff. I couldn't care less about Man City, and I think Pep Guardiola is an overrated fraud. I'm just being the voice of reason with the counter argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 19:37:04 GMT
City have put hundreds of millions into the community and brought life to a run down area of the city. They may have spent huge amounts of money on signings but that money filters its way down the leagues to other clubs, money that is new to this country and new to football. Is that really that bad? City are debt free. Man United are £500m in debt, are now registered in a tax haven and have been breaking transfer records for years. They are also the club that pay Sanchez over £500k per week.
Who are the real enemies of football? I think those suggesting the football authorities look out for the established elite have a point.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 18, 2020 8:29:16 GMT
No love for Man City, but as I say are they any worse than anyone else.
meanwhile in Spain
Barcelona will trigger the €20m release clause of Leganes striker Martin Braithwaite this week, report Cadena Cope.
The Denmark international has netted six goals and provided one assist for struggling Lega across 24 La Liga appearances this campaign.
The Blaugrana found out on Monday that they are allowed by La Liga to sign a contracted player from another Spanish club this month following a long-term injury for Ousmane Dembele, who will not feature again this campaign.
This ruling has provoked some controversy, as Lega are now powerless to stop Braithwaite leaving but unable to sign a replacement themselves.
That followed on from a similar season-ending injury to main striker Luis Suarez, while Abel Ruiz and Carles Perez were both sold by the Catalan giants last month.
Leganes have already lost star striker Youssef En-Nesyri last month, when Sevilla signed him in a €20m deal.
Getafe striker Angel Rodriguez, and Alaves frontman Lucas Perez are said to be two possibilites for the Catalan club, with the option of Real Sociedad striker Willian Jose now discarded, according to El Mundo Deportivo.
A report in El Mundo Deportivo on Thursday claimed that Levante striker Roger Marti – who has 10 La Liga goals to date this campaign – had emerged as the frontrunner.
|
|