Man City financial investigations – you've got to laugh

[Blackpuddin]

So, it seems that UEFA is investigating Man City for alleged financial fair play violations:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47490375
Surely this cannot be the same UEFA that, according to an eight-month investigation last year by 80 journalists, 'knowingly helped (Man City and PSG) to cover up their own irregularities for 'political reasons'?
https://www.france24.com/en/20181103-uefa-football...
Private Eye has been banging on about the UAE's 'unusual' cash injections into Man City for years, but the Theatre of Dirhams has always seemed to be above reproach up to now.

[Blib]

I'm sick of these doped clubs buying trophies.

City, Chelsea & PSG's achievements always have a big, red asterix beside them in my book.

[macushla]

They’ll be found guilty of a minor offence, cleared of everything significant, fined £10k and warned about their future conduct. All while continuing to draw the weakest team in every round of the competition.

[bigpriest]

Blib said:

I'm sick of these doped clubs buying trophies.

City, Chelsea & PSG's achievements always have a big, red asterix beside them in my book.

'Doped' You mean had cash pumped in to buy players and win trophies. A bit like every team since 1888-89.

[mike74]

The only way the allegations could be thoroughly established to have any credence would be in a court of law.... and somehow I don't think UEFA or any of the individual domestic FA's would quite want that to happen, given the corruption and favouritism levels that have been going on for decades with the traditional 'big clubs' throughout Europe (including the UK Premier League)

[franki68]

Uefa have to establish if city broke their rules ,not sure what a court of law would have to do with it .
Don’t worry mike ,Uefa couldn’t really afford to take on your owners and any decision against city would be challenged and drowned in legal gobbledegook for decades.

[Ascayman]

Blib said:

I'm sick of these doped clubs buying trophies.

City, Chelsea & PSG's achievements always have a big, red asterix beside them in my book.

Nothing will happen though.

[Melchett1905]

Blib said:

I'm sick of these doped clubs buying trophies.

City, Chelsea & PSG's achievements always have a big, red asterix beside them in my book.

Out of interest, who do you support?

[macushla]

mike74 said:

The only way the allegations could be thoroughly established to have any credence would be in a court of law.... and somehow I don't think UEFA or any of the individual domestic FA's would quite want that to happen, given the corruption and favouritism levels that have been going on for decades with the traditional 'big clubs' throughout Europe (including the UK Premier League)

Ah yes, the classic two wrongs make a right a defence. Life doesn’t work like that and internal rulers between companies don’t need to be proven in a court of law, it’s just that most head that way to defer any sanction.

I’m sure that Man City are all,above board and have suddenly become the money-making machine you believe. Maybe your empty seats are buying season tickets too.

[anniesdad]

Rules are rules Mike, whether City like them or not. If the emails are to be believed then it seems abundantly clear that City chose to drive a great big wedge through the rules, ergo sanctions should follow. It's not that their calculator suddenly stopped working correctly. In order to catch up and quickly, the owner pumped millions of his own money in but dressed it up as sponsorship. Naughty naughty.

[Fast Bug]

anniesdad said:

In order to catch up and quickly, the owner pumped millions of his own money in but dressed it up as sponsorship. Naughty naughty.

Sadly there isn't really any other way for clubs to catch up these days. Produce good young talent and they get picked off by "bigger" clubs, same with unearthing a gem from a lower league or from abroad. The only way for so called smaller clubs to catch up is to break the rules, even the likes of Bournemouth have done it in order to break in to the Premier League, £4.75m fine in order to gain a minimum of nigh on £100m is nothing.

For as long as I can remember the clubs with the richest owners and deepest pockets have been the ones winning things, Blackburn Rovers buying the league, or go even further back to my club (Everton) and the Moores Millionaires in the sixties. The only danger is when the owners get bored or the money runs out and the clubs do a Leeds or a Portsmouth.

[anniesdad]

Fast Bug said:

anniesdad said:

In order to catch up and quickly, the owner pumped millions of his own money in but dressed it up as sponsorship. Naughty naughty.

Sadly there isn't really any other way for clubs to catch up these days. Produce good young talent and they get picked off by "bigger" clubs, same with unearthing a gem from a lower league or from abroad. The only way for so called smaller clubs to catch up is to break the rules, even the likes of Bournemouth have done it in order to break in to the Premier League, £4.75m fine in order to gain a minimum of nigh on £100m is nothing.

For as long as I can remember the clubs with the richest owners and deepest pockets have been the ones winning things, Blackburn Rovers buying the league, or go even further back to my club (Everton) and the Moores Millionaires in the sixties. The only danger is when the owners get bored or the money runs out and the clubs do a Leeds or a Portsmouth.

Quite but of course they changed the rules to protect the clubs from themselves. Can't have one rule for one and one rule for another. Regardless, if Guardiola is such an amazing coach then surely he could take the cream of City's academy and build a team on a shoestring that competes at the highest level? Oh....

The reason he chose City over others is money. It's certainly not because of their history. They have the most money and intended on spending it regardless of the rules.

[jcremonini]

Fast Bug said:

anniesdad said:

In order to catch up and quickly, the owner pumped millions of his own money in but dressed it up as sponsorship. Naughty naughty.

Sadly there isn't really any other way for clubs to catch up these days. Produce good young talent and they get picked off by "bigger" clubs, same with unearthing a gem from a lower league or from abroad. The only way for so called smaller clubs to catch up is to break the rules, even the likes of Bournemouth have done it in order to break in to the Premier League, £4.75m fine in order to gain a minimum of nigh on £100m is nothing.

For as long as I can remember the clubs with the richest owners and deepest pockets have been the ones winning things, Blackburn Rovers buying the league, or go even further back to my club (Everton) and the Moores Millionaires in the sixties. The only danger is when the owners get bored or the money runs out and the clubs do a Leeds or a Portsmouth.

Indeed. The only difference between now and before the beginning of this millennium is that globalization and the internet makes it much harder to avoid scrutiny. It's no longer cheque books in drawers.

I don't have a problem with cash injections - after all it's like any other business and if the owner has money to sink into that business then why not (The whole American sports scene is based on the principle). The only caveat I would add is that a club should be able to maintain it's own finances after a period of time (again, just like any other business should). Chelsea are a case in point - they no longer rely on their owner to maintain them at the level they are.

If a club is using sponsorship as a way to inject money into a club then that's just creative accounting. The authorities, if they feel it is required, should ensure it is not allowed - but then any business worth their salt is going to try some other way to get around the regs.

The EPL would be a pretty boring place if it protected the historical monopoly of the older clubs which were, themselves, propped up by their owners in the good times ( Liverpool and the Moores being a case in point). Supporters of those clubs can't cry foul now just because someone richer comes along and usurps what they were doing.

[Ascayman]

jcremonini said:

Indeed. The only difference between now and before the beginning of this millennium is that globalization and the internet makes it much harder to avoid scrutiny. It's no longer cheque books in drawers.

I don't have a problem with cash injections - after all it's like any other business and if the owner has money to sink into that business then why not (The whole American sports scene is based on the principle). The only caveat I would add is that a club should be able to maintain it's own finances after a period of time (again, just like any other business should). Chelsea are a case in point - they no longer rely on their owner to maintain them at the level they are.

.

Chelsea are a case in point indeed but not for the point your making, they owe RA a billion quid in interest free loans thats the very definition on relying on the owner.

[macushla]

Fast Bug said:

anniesdad said:

In order to catch up and quickly, the owner pumped millions of his own money in but dressed it up as sponsorship. Naughty naughty.

Sadly there isn't really any other way for clubs to catch up these days. Produce good young talent and they get picked off by "bigger" clubs, same with unearthing a gem from a lower league or from abroad. The only way for so called smaller clubs to catch up is to break the rules, even the likes of Bournemouth have done it in order to break in to the Premier League, £4.75m fine in order to gain a minimum of nigh on £100m is nothing.

For as long as I can remember the clubs with the richest owners and deepest pockets have been the ones winning things, Blackburn Rovers buying the league, or go even further back to my club (Everton) and the Moores Millionaires in the sixties. The only danger is when the owners get bored or the money runs out and the clubs do a Leeds or a Portsmouth.

That’s not true about the clubs with the richest owners. Since the start of the Premier League one club has dominated it and they have owners that drain money, rather than pump it in. The clubs who have bought their way in don’t always survive. Blackburn didn’t, Chelsea are just about remaining there, but can’t survive independently and need their owner to be happy with the amount the club owes him, Arsenal have been living on a shoestring for over decade, but are always in the top performers come the end of the season and Tottenham in recent years are where they are despite not spending anything of note.

Man City are different, due to the size of the financial gifts they’re receiving. However, the issue isn’t whether they were a bit naughty with FFP necessarily, it’s that they lied about how the money was coming in directly to the powers that be. That’s the bit that’s going to cause them the most pain.

However, the most likely outcome is a nominal fine and a warning about future conduct, which they’ll ignore and UEFA will continue to tell them this is their final warning indefinitely.

[jcremonini]

Ascayman said:

jcremonini said:

Indeed. The only difference between now and before the beginning of this millennium is that globalization and the internet makes it much harder to avoid scrutiny. It's no longer cheque books in drawers.

I don't have a problem with cash injections - after all it's like any other business and if the owner has money to sink into that business then why not (The whole American sports scene is based on the principle). The only caveat I would add is that a club should be able to maintain it's own finances after a period of time (again, just like any other business should). Chelsea are a case in point - they no longer rely on their owner to maintain them at the level they are.

.

Chelsea are a case in point indeed but not for the point your making, they owe RA a billion quid in interest free loans thats the very definition on relying on the owner.

Look at the Spurs stadium - £900m all financed by a loan from various banks. I am pretty sure Chelsea could, quite easily, shift their loan from RA to the same sort of thing. Chelsea don't 'rely' on their owner, they are simply leveraging the right financial deal at this time. Even at 4% interest that is only £40m a year to service the debt - not that difficult for Chelsea to do considering the profitability of the club.

[Downward]

Blib said:

I'm sick of these doped clubs buying trophies.

City, Chelsea & PSG's achievements always have a big, red asterix beside them in my book.

Erm this has been the case for decades not just a recent thing.

[Fast Bug]

macushla said:

Fast Bug said:

anniesdad said:

In order to catch up and quickly, the owner pumped millions of his own money in but dressed it up as sponsorship. Naughty naughty.

Sadly there isn't really any other way for clubs to catch up these days. Produce good young talent and they get picked off by "bigger" clubs, same with unearthing a gem from a lower league or from abroad. The only way for so called smaller clubs to catch up is to break the rules, even the likes of Bournemouth have done it in order to break in to the Premier League, £4.75m fine in order to gain a minimum of nigh on £100m is nothing.

For as long as I can remember the clubs with the richest owners and deepest pockets have been the ones winning things, Blackburn Rovers buying the league, or go even further back to my club (Everton) and the Moores Millionaires in the sixties. The only danger is when the owners get bored or the money runs out and the clubs do a Leeds or a Portsmouth.

That’s not true about the clubs with the richest owners. Since the start of the Premier League one club has dominated it and they have owners that drain money, rather than pump it in. The clubs who have bought their way in don’t always survive. Blackburn didn’t, Chelsea are just about remaining there, but can’t survive independently and need their owner to be happy with the amount the club owes him, Arsenal have been living on a shoestring for over decade, but are always in the top performers come the end of the season and Tottenham in recent years are where they are despite not spending anything of note.

Man City are different, due to the size of the financial gifts they’re receiving. However, the issue isn’t whether they were a bit naughty with FFP necessarily, it’s that they lied about how the money was coming in directly to the powers that be. That’s the bit that’s going to cause them the most pain.

However, the most likely outcome is a nominal fine and a warning about future conduct, which they’ll ignore and UEFA will continue to tell them this is their final warning indefinitely.

Blackburn decline started when Jack Walker died and then went massively pear shaped when the Venkys came along, that's mismanagement of the club, and as we've seen with Bolton, Sunderland and several others things can escalate pretty quickly and before you know it you're in league 1 wondering how the hell you get back to the promised land of riches that is the Premier League.

Arsenal's shoestring has seen them be the third highest spenders over the last 5 seasons, but they did have some very lean years after moving in to their new stadium. Spurs are a good case on how to run a club, although they've been "lucky" with Kane coming through and the good buying of Alli. Their spending would have to have been a lot higher without those 2, or their performances would have been far worse each season. They seem to have a good line of talent coming through which helps, but you only have to look at how much more money Tripper earns since his move to show that the tight ship Levy runs could easily come to an end.

Manchester United is a good point, being one of the biggest clubs in the world helps to retain home grown talent (god knows they've had a lot over the years!). But since that conveyor belt has slowed down they've spent a fortune on players

Slightly off topic, I see FIFA have refused Chelsea's request to suspend their transfer ban. It'll be interesting to see what unfolds from that

[TEKNOPUG]

Whilst I believe that FFP rules are purely there to stop the likes of City challenging the established elite by investing money and are therefore a bad a thing; the rules do still exist. We can't be in a position where some clubs are allowed to ignore the rules (and even aided by UEFA/FIFA) whilst everyone else is trying to compete whilst attempting to comply with them. Either the rules apply equally to everyone or the rules need to be scrapped altogether.

It does however make a mockery of all the claims that Klopp has to win the league and Poch has to win a trophy when you seeing other clubs illegally (cheating?) pumping billions in the pursuit of silverware and even having the authorities assist them in doing so....

[macushla]

Fast Bug said:

Blackburn decline started when Jack Walker died and then went massively pear shaped when the Venkys came along, that's mismanagement of the club, and as we've seen with Bolton, Sunderland and several others things can escalate pretty quickly and before you know it you're in league 1 wondering how the hell you get back to the promised land of riches that is the Premier League.

Arsenal's shoestring has seen them be the third highest spenders over the last 5 seasons, but they did have some very lean years after moving in to their new stadium. Spurs are a good case on how to run a club, although they've been "lucky" with Kane coming through and the good buying of Alli. Their spending would have to have been a lot higher without those 2, or their performances would have been far worse each season. They seem to have a good line of talent coming through which helps, but you only have to look at how much more money Tripper earns since his move to show that the tight ship Levy runs could easily come to an end.

Manchester United is a good point, being one of the biggest clubs in the world helps to retain home grown talent (god knows they've had a lot over the years!). But since that conveyor belt has slowed down they've spent a fortune on players

Slightly off topic, I see FIFA have refused Chelsea's request to suspend their transfer ban. It'll be interesting to see what unfolds from that

I can’t tell whether you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me. The point wasn’t necessarily around how much gets spent, more to counter the claim that only clubs with rich benevolent owners can be successful.

I should’ve added Leicester in there. Obscene money pumped in from a benevolent owner, one thing won and then fade away like all the other doped clubs. No doped club has managed financial independence, if they could’ve done that then they would already have been independent.