The Official Manchester City (World Club Champions)Thread
Discussion
Football clubs have always bought success, so that's not really the issue
I think the argument that the rules are protectionist have some merit, but I also think some new rules were needed to protect clubs from being bought by owners whose spending is genuinely unsustainable.
I think the argument that the rules are protectionist have some merit, but I also think some new rules were needed to protect clubs from being bought by owners whose spending is genuinely unsustainable.
Edited by TownIdiot on Wednesday 5th June 08:16
epom said:
Sadly this latest petulant action only shows City and their owners for what they really are. Arrogant and self entitled. Shamelessly suing because the rules (supposedly) won’t allow them buy success. So what do they do ? Sue so that the rules are changed so they can buy more success.
It stinks, like most things at that club (some real quality football at times excepted).
Something’s money can’t buy, City’s owners haven’t found anything a price can’t be put on just yet.
And of course my post will smack of jealousy to some, and that’s fair enough too. For real City fans while it’s great at times just like the stadium there must be some emptiness involved.
City have been accused of buying success, this current action doesn’t do anything to dampen those claims.
True enough, but all 3 of their fans in here won't care in the slightest...It stinks, like most things at that club (some real quality football at times excepted).
Something’s money can’t buy, City’s owners haven’t found anything a price can’t be put on just yet.
And of course my post will smack of jealousy to some, and that’s fair enough too. For real City fans while it’s great at times just like the stadium there must be some emptiness involved.
City have been accused of buying success, this current action doesn’t do anything to dampen those claims.
Seriously though it is actually making a mockery of all their recent success but very unlikely they'll get the punishment the club deserves.
200Plus Club said:
True enough, but all 3 of their fans in here won't care in the slightest...
Seriously though it is actually making a mockery of all their recent success but very unlikely they'll get the punishment the club deserves.
So how do you punish a club with unbelievable wealth, they won't be fined that seems pointless, they won't have their trophies or success just wiped from the record books.Seriously though it is actually making a mockery of all their recent success but very unlikely they'll get the punishment the club deserves.
Maybe a transfer ban, points deduction? City will have a poor season and then bounce back again.
The governing bodies should never have let it run this far.
If City win this, all it does is open up a can of worms for dodgy deals and costs spiraling out of control. Yes for those clubs who can afford it, it won't have anything to do with them but for the other clubs it will do. How can they compete with teams likes Chelsea, City, Newcastle etc just spending even more?
For me City know they are up the whohar here and trying to find a way to get out of it. It'll be nice to see if City ever voted for these rules because if they did, you can't exactly say that they are unfair etc if you voted for them.
I hope City lose this case and then crack on with the 115 charges, as I'm sick to death of hearing about those. We all know City aren't going to be heavily punished, if anything a 15 point deduction which means another team might have a chance of winning the league that season.
For me City know they are up the whohar here and trying to find a way to get out of it. It'll be nice to see if City ever voted for these rules because if they did, you can't exactly say that they are unfair etc if you voted for them.
I hope City lose this case and then crack on with the 115 charges, as I'm sick to death of hearing about those. We all know City aren't going to be heavily punished, if anything a 15 point deduction which means another team might have a chance of winning the league that season.
mickk said:
So how do you punish a club with unbelievable wealth, they won't be fined that seems pointless, they won't have their trophies or success just wiped from the record books.
Maybe a transfer ban, points deduction? City will have a poor season and then bounce back again.
The governing bodies should never have let it run this far.
Hasn't Serie A got a season with no winner? Fairest way to do it, no winner for any of the titles and cups City 'won' during that period. The PL need to show they've got the balls to stand up to state clubs owned clubs and make an example of them. Prize money needs to be paid back, huge points deduction or just drop them to the bottom of the pyramid and transfer bans.Maybe a transfer ban, points deduction? City will have a poor season and then bounce back again.
The governing bodies should never have let it run this far.
Or in reality a slap on the wrists, fine and maybe a transfer ban for a season.
if anyone can access The Times there is a good article that summarises the latest situation and if you read between the lines you can see how this will play out.
If City are successful I think it will bring about the end of the Premier league, just as that league ended the old Football League division one.
If City are successful I think it will bring about the end of the Premier league, just as that league ended the old Football League division one.
Fast Bug said:
Hasn't Serie A got a season with no winner? Fairest way to do it, no winner for any of the titles and cups City 'won' during that period. The PL need to show they've got the balls to stand up to state clubs owned clubs and make an example of them. Prize money needs to be paid back, huge points deduction or just drop them to the bottom of the pyramid and transfer bans.
Or in reality a slap on the wrists, fine and maybe a transfer ban for a season.
As a Watford fan I cannot agree with this - we'll win the cup 0-6 Or in reality a slap on the wrists, fine and maybe a transfer ban for a season.
Having said that, City only progressed past Swansea because of poor refereeing and the lack of VAR, despite it being in place.
The real issue started with letting Roman buy Chelsea. Where you have non-businesses (Oligarchs, nation states etc) there are no spending controls. Sure you will always have richer clubs than others but there is a limit to their spending power as they can't run up huge losses season on season, as they are run as businesses and they can't sustain continuous losses.
So there are natural checks and balances to spending. If you allow clubs to spend whatever they like, then you will ultimately have a situation where for example, City and Newcastle will be spending hundreds of millions every season to compete with each other. You are then in a situation where there is only 1 or 2 clubs competing for everything. The evidence is right before us; the club facing 115 charges is also the one that has won the league 4 years in a row....
With the league becoming less competitive, it is less attractive to viewers, meaning less interest, less TV money, less commercial deals, less money for clubs, less attraction for the best players to join etc. Everyone looses. Even the clubs winning everything lose in the end as the league no longer has the prestige that so attracted them to it in the first place. In which case, you may as well have a European Super League, where all the clubs are owned by petro-dollar nation states, who are happy to spend billions every year. The players won't be any better though and neither will the spectacle. Killing the goose the laid the golden egg springs to mind....
So there are natural checks and balances to spending. If you allow clubs to spend whatever they like, then you will ultimately have a situation where for example, City and Newcastle will be spending hundreds of millions every season to compete with each other. You are then in a situation where there is only 1 or 2 clubs competing for everything. The evidence is right before us; the club facing 115 charges is also the one that has won the league 4 years in a row....
With the league becoming less competitive, it is less attractive to viewers, meaning less interest, less TV money, less commercial deals, less money for clubs, less attraction for the best players to join etc. Everyone looses. Even the clubs winning everything lose in the end as the league no longer has the prestige that so attracted them to it in the first place. In which case, you may as well have a European Super League, where all the clubs are owned by petro-dollar nation states, who are happy to spend billions every year. The players won't be any better though and neither will the spectacle. Killing the goose the laid the golden egg springs to mind....
Edited by TEKNOPUG on Wednesday 5th June 11:46
Edited by TEKNOPUG on Wednesday 5th June 11:48
I agree and I think we are already well down that path.
It's seems inevitable to me that teams like UTD, Liverpool, Spurs and Chelsea will be sold for large profits and will join up with other similar teams around Europe.
Edited to add
This will be sold as the game going global
There is too much money from the rest of world available and the owners of the above clubs will sell when their chosen number is matched.
It's seems inevitable to me that teams like UTD, Liverpool, Spurs and Chelsea will be sold for large profits and will join up with other similar teams around Europe.
Edited to add
This will be sold as the game going global
There is too much money from the rest of world available and the owners of the above clubs will sell when their chosen number is matched.
Edited by TownIdiot on Wednesday 5th June 12:06
TownIdiot said:
Football clubs have always bought success, so that's not really the issue
I think the argument that the rules are protectionist have some merit, but I also think some new rules were needed to protect clubs from being bought by owners whose spending is genuinely unsustainable.
But that functions has not prevented the Glazers effectively hollowing out their club and foisting huge debt on the club. By only linking the financial model to revenue versus transfer - the PL have effectively turned a blind eye to all other effects. I think the argument that the rules are protectionist have some merit, but I also think some new rules were needed to protect clubs from being bought by owners whose spending is genuinely unsustainable.
Edited by TownIdiot on Wednesday 5th June 08:16
Gargamel said:
But that functions has not prevented the Glazers effectively hollowing out their club and foisting huge debt on the club. By only linking the financial model to revenue versus transfer - the PL have effectively turned a blind eye to all other effects.
Yes I agree the rules are poorly framed.
t? maybe someone should challenge them in court 
TEKNOPUG said:
tamore said:
i'm confused. don't know if we're the good guys or the bad guys.
If you'd challenged the rules in court 11 years ago, then you'd be the good guys. Breaking the rules for 11 years and then challenging them in court once you are caught, not so much
HTH
and 11 years?
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff