Football 19/20

[Wooderson]

1 hour ago, eastynh said:

Yet you continually comment about them and their fans 🤷‍♂️

City's biggest european win etc.

[pink_triangle]

Interesting the "big clubs" WhatsApp group are very unhappy about the City verdict. Of course FFP is not about trying to protect the big boys!

[eastynh]

Pep Guardiola on the CAS decision: "I’m incredibly happy for the decision. It shows everything that people said about the club was not true. We will defend on the pitch what we won on the pitch."

"Like I said many times, if we did something wrong we would accept the decision of UEFA and CAS because we did something wrong. We can defend ourselves. We have the right to defend ourselves when we

Pep Guardiola: "Yesterday was a good day for football..."

Pep Guardiola reacting to Mourinho/Klopp: "We should be apologised to because if we did something wrong we will accept the decision from UEFA because we did something wrong but we don’t expect Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal, Chelsea or Wolves to defend us..."

"But we have the right to defend when we believe what we have done is correct and three independent judges said this. Today is a good day, yesterday was a good day for football because we play by the same rules as all the clubs in Europe...

"If we had broken FFP, we would have been banned but we have to defend ourselves - we were right. People said we were cheating, lying and the presumption of innocence was not there. When we were proved right we were incredibly happy.


"It would be nice but I don't think so [people now stopping saying negative things about #ManCity]"

"We can play in the Champions League next season because what we have done is right. They have to accept it, go on the pitch and play against us."

Pep Guardiola on staying at #ManCity beyond 2021: "My opinion hasn’t changed. Maybe I would be able to stay longer but people cannot understand how difficult it was for everyone as a club being under suspicion. Now we have proven it, we go again on the pitch."

Pep Guardiola on rivals 'whispering' about #ManCity: "They lost off the pitch. They have to go on the pitch and try to beat us. If we did something wrong, I accept our ban. They showed we played by the same rules of all the clubs."

Pep Guardiola on rivals 'whispering' about #ManCity: "They lost off the pitch. They have to go on the pitch and try to beat us. If we did something wrong, I accept our ban. They showed we played by the same rules of all the clubs."

Pep Guardiola on Javier Tebas: "He’s another one. He must be so jealous of the Premier League."

"He’s an incredible legal expert from what I say, maybe next time I’ll ask them which court and judges we have to go to. He has to be worried and concerned about La Liga and focus on there..

Pep Guardiola responding to Javier Tebas: "Normally when the sentence is good for him it is perfect, but when it is against the problem is for the other ones. We will be in the Champions League next season, Senor Tebas, because what we did we did it properly."

Pep Guardiola on plans for the summer: "Now is a normal situation like every season. If we were banned and the situation was uncertain, I don’t know what would have happened. My personal situation was clear, I would have stayed here..."

“I know for the elite clubs like [Manchester] United, Liverpool, and Arsenal it is uncomfortable for them. We don’t have to ask for permission to be there. We deserve to be there. Guys - accept it."

[strummer77]

 

5 hours ago, eastynh said:

So its alright for Wooderson to call City fans bitter and deluded and the club tiny and oil doped? Do you not think that is childish?

 

I think your Heysel comments last week for point scoring were childish. My dad was in that end and escaped. So jog on with taking offence to being called bitter and deluded!
 

As for tiny and oil doped - both those things are true really aren’t they? Even with more than a decade of oil money to boost you into relevance I still don’t care if City win the CL but would hate United to get their hands on a Community Shield (which is officially a friendly by the way even though City try and include it in ‘quadruples’)

Says it all. Not close to the biggest club in your own city. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by strummer77

[strummer77]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

Interesting the "big clubs" WhatsApp group are very unhappy about the City verdict. Of course FFP is not about trying to protect the big boys!

I think FFP is flawed but also I think if there’s no limits the alternative isn’t some utopia world where everybody can compete. It’s just City probably become something akin to our PSG.

A competitive solution will be hard to find with all the vested interests at home and abroad. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by strummer77

[eastynh]

35 minutes ago, strummer77 said:

 

I think your Heysel comments last week for point scoring were childish. My dad was in that end and escaped. So jog on with taking offence to being called bitter and deluded!
 

As for tiny and oil doped - both those things are true really aren’t they? Even with more than a decade of oil money to boost you into relevance I still don’t care if City win the CL but would hate United to get their hands on a Community Shield (which is officially a friendly by the way even though City try and include it in ‘quadruples’)

Says it all. Not close to the biggest club in your own city. 

Was your dad in the neutral end with the Jeventus fans?

Now I don't care less how big City are, or how succesful they are. I don't support them because they are big or successful. Just because your club has more fans in Ireland or Norway, who really gives a toss? Is that how you measure how good your club is? You seem to suggest that your club is somehow greater than another club, just because there are more glory hunters around the world who associate themselves to Liverpool, even though they could not point out where Liverpool is on a map.

Your comment about not even being close to being the biggest club in our own city is wrong as well. Worldwide United are arguably the biggest club there is. In Manchester it is fairly even in regards to support. If I was arsed about how big a club is, I would have supported United. My dad is a rag, all my mates are rags, I come from Newton Heath, which is where United actually come from. I am not a City fan because we were big or succesful.

Now considering none of you Liverpool fans care about City, thats 3 of you who have piped up, dishing out insults since me and Neil started discussing the CAS verdict yesterday. None of you have added anything to the debate, it has just been vitriol and abuse directed at the club and its supporters. Yet none of you care about City apparently, our fans are plastic and we are a small club. Thats the crap you talk. Now I would hazzard a bet that I have been to more matches than the 3 of you put together. None of you want to discuss football, CAS or FFP, you just want to dish out insults. Then when I either correct you or give you's a bit back, you all get upset.

Self awareness is totally lacking.

[strummer77]

1 hour ago, eastynh said:

Was your dad in the neutral end with the Jeventus fans?

Now I don't care less how big City are, or how succesful they are. I don't support them because they are big or successful. Just because your club has more fans in Ireland or Norway, who really gives a toss? Is that how you measure how good your club is? You seem to suggest that your club is somehow greater than another club, just because there are more glory hunters around the world who associate themselves to Liverpool, even though they could not point out where Liverpool is on a map.

Your comment about not even being close to being the biggest club in our own city is wrong as well. Worldwide United are arguably the biggest club there is. In Manchester it is fairly even in regards to support. If I was arsed about how big a club is, I would have supported United. My dad is a rag, all my mates are rags, I come from Newton Heath, which is where United actually come from. I am not a City fan because we were big or succesful.

Now considering none of you Liverpool fans care about City, thats 3 of you who have piped up, dishing out insults since me and Neil started discussing the CAS verdict yesterday. None of you have added anything to the debate, it has just been vitriol and abuse directed at the club and its supporters. Yet none of you care about City apparently, our fans are plastic and we are a small club. Thats the crap you talk. Now I would hazzard a bet that I have been to more matches than the 3 of you put together. None of you want to discuss football, CAS or FFP, you just want to dish out insults. Then when I either correct you or give you's a bit back, you all get upset.

Self awareness is totally lacking.

He had a neutral ticket yes  

As for the rest, people are chipping in because you have been making jibes about other clubs.

Well that’s why I jumped in: about you moaning about being called small and oil tainted when you were using a tragedy for point scoring the other day.

And I’ve seen woeful comments this season on twitter and boards elsewhere where City fans have been poor losers. Resorting to these sort of points and Hillsborough jibes. And I think it’s poor form from anyone from any side. That’s all. 
    

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by strummer77

[jyoung]

Wigan putting up a real fight.

[strummer77]

45 minutes ago, jyoung said:

Wigan putting up a real fight.

That’s a hell of a goal difference swing between Wigan and Hull on the edge of relegation zone

[eFestivals]

 

18 hours ago, eastynh said:

I would much rather stick to discussing football and the issues surrounding it.

I'd much rather you did, too.

Keep screaming "no evidence" in the light of plenty evidence and "not guilty" when found guilty isn't discussion, it's Trump-level moronic.

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, eastynh said:

"If we had broken FFP, we would have been banned but we have to defend ourselves - we were right. People said we were cheating, lying and the presumption of innocence was not there. When we were proved right we were incredibly happy.

if City are (really) innocent the City execs were lying in the emails.  If City are (really) guilty the City execs lied after the charges were made.

Either way City are liars.  

[Wooderson]

16 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Interesting the "big clubs" WhatsApp group are very unhappy about the City verdict. Of course FFP is not about trying to protect the big boys!

Cool with countries financing footie teams? Difference between City and LFC not dissimilar to diff between LFC and Wrexham.

[pink_triangle]

12 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Cool with countries financing footie teams? Difference between City and LFC not dissimilar to diff between LFC and Wrexham.

I would prefer salary cap and clubs competing on equal terms, but if that wont happen then if the only way of new clubs competing is for countries to finance them, then maybe that is a risk worth taking.  I have huge moral concerns with the owners of Man City and (potentially) Newcastle, but at the same time lets not pretend rich men like Abrahmovic don't have a history.  From a financial perspective I struggle to see why Man City = bad, while Man U, Barcelona, Madrid = fine.

[lost]

Overseas tv money was shared equally until the bigger clubs made the argument that people overseas were only tuning in to see them, so they should get more of the money. They got their way but then equally don't want the other clubs trying to source that revenue from other places to try to become a successful club/business who people overseas want to watch, they just have to take the financial hit and never be able to compete.

Edited July 15, 2020 by lost

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, lost said:

Overseas tv money was shared equally until the bigger clubs made the argument that people overseas were only tuning in to see them, so they should get more of the money. They got their way but then equally don't want the other clubs trying to source that revenue from other places to try to become a successful club/business, they just have to take the financial hit and never be able to compete.

whether or not the FFP rules are fit for purpose is one thing, breaking the rules is something entirely different. The two things shouldn't be mixed together.

Because if breaking rules you don't agree with is the thing in football, there is no football.  

[lost]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

whether or not the FFP rules are fit for purpose is one thing, breaking the rules is something entirely different. The two things shouldn't be mixed together.

Because if breaking rules you don't agree with is the thing in football, there is no football.  

Well through out history cartels form and sometimes are powerful enough to influence those rules to the detriment of everyone else. It might not be football it maybe say a countries water market. If the government was bent in that country I certainly wouldn't be attacking someone who found a loophole to get cheap water to the poorest.

[Comfy Bean]

30 minutes ago, lost said:

Overseas tv money was shared equally until the bigger clubs made the argument that people overseas were only tuning in to see them, so they should get more of the money. They got their way but then equally don't want the other clubs trying to source that revenue from other places to try to become a successful club/business who people overseas want to watch, they just have to take the financial hit and never be able to compete.

Good point well made.

See Scotland. Celtic going for 10 titles in a row. 

Any change to the rules involving finances in the top league can be vetoed by just one “no” vote - so Celtics. This covers the share of tv and prize money. It’s a joke and has stifled competition.

The old firm now also wanting to put Colt teams in the championship to further increase their advantage 🤷‍♂️

Im almost glad my team don’t play in the top league and are involved in some sort of competition.

[Hugh Jass]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

I would prefer salary cap and clubs competing on equal terms, but if that wont happen then if the only way of new clubs competing is for countries to finance them, then maybe that is a risk worth taking.  I have huge moral concerns with the owners of Man City and (potentially) Newcastle, but at the same time lets not pretend rich men like Abrahmovic don't have a history.  From a financial perspective I struggle to see why Man City = bad, while Man U, Barcelona, Madrid = fine.

Those other teams made their money BEFORE they pulled the ladder up.

[The Nal]

22 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Those other teams made their money BEFORE they pulled the ladder up.

And decades of success. City went from mid table, losing 8-1 to Boro to winning the league in 3 seasons. Spent half a billion or something just on players doing it too.

Not sure I like that model although you could argue Spain, Germany and Italy need a similar shot in the arm. Bayern have won 8 in a row, Juve are about to win their 9th league in a row. Thats boring.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, lost said:

Well through out history cartels form and sometimes are powerful enough to influence those rules to the detriment of everyone else. It might not be football it maybe say a countries water market. If the government was bent in that country I certainly wouldn't be attacking someone who found a loophole to get cheap water to the poorest.

I'd like to see different better FFP rules, but as i say that's irrelevant.

Because if any club is able to get away with saying fuck you to the current FFP rules, it's no different with another better set of FFP rules.

And if the FFP rules don't count because a club decides that for itself, then why should (for example) the offside rule count if a club says it shouldn't?

Allowing a get out for the likes of City just because you don't like the current rules doesn't lead to anything better. It just leads to the powerful clubs being even more powerful and warping the game even more in their favour.

[Hugh Jass]

FFP needs revamping, there’s no doubt about that. It needs to be set in stone what is and is not acceptable in terms of percentages of revenue on expenditure, sources of revenue, ensuring all loopholes are shut, etc. It should be mandated by UEFA then fed down through individual FAs so all clubs, whether Barcelona or Barnet, are playing to the same rules. It should be flexible to allow a small degree of outside investment after takeovers but not to the extent of City/PSG where oligarchs pump billions in to artificially inflate the club.

I would set these rules out clearly and then say they come into effect two seasons from now to allow clubs time to get their houses in order. Once they begin clubs will be regularly audited by their FAs and breaches will be severely punished with points deduction and/or European disqualification.

[lost]

The problem seems to be there doesn't seem to be a legislative body above UEFA. Cas can rule if the rules have been broken but not if they are correct in the first place. So we are just going to carry on as we are. 

From the sounds being made around the Newcastle takeover it suggests any new owners are pretty confident they can get around them. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by lost

[kaosmark2]

3 hours ago, Wooderson said:

Cool with countries financing footie teams? Difference between City and LFC not dissimilar to diff between LFC and Wrexham.

 

3 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I would prefer salary cap and clubs competing on equal terms, but if that wont happen then if the only way of new clubs competing is for countries to finance them, then maybe that is a risk worth taking.  I have huge moral concerns with the owners of Man City and (potentially) Newcastle, but at the same time lets not pretend rich men like Abrahmovic don't have a history.  From a financial perspective I struggle to see why Man City = bad, while Man U, Barcelona, Madrid = fine.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

Those other teams made their money BEFORE they pulled the ladder up.

You're all forgetting how Franco doped Madrid and sanctioned Barca during the fascist era of Spain. 

[pink_triangle]

40 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

FFP needs revamping, there’s no doubt about that. It needs to be set in stone what is and is not acceptable in terms of percentages of revenue on expenditure, sources of revenue, ensuring all loopholes are shut,

Ensuring all loopholes are shut is easy to say, but difficult to do.  Clubs will always employ expensive accountants and lawyers to find new ways around the current rules. You close one loophole and often another opens.

40 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

 It should be flexible to allow a small degree of outside investment after takeovers but not to the extent of City/PSG where oligarchs pump billions in to artificially inflate the club. 

I guess it depends how you define small, but I suspect a small amount of investment isn't enough to bridge the huge gap that the big boys already have.  It probably results in a side closing the gap and then the big teams taking their best players and widening it again.  I honestly think the huge PSG/Man City investment is the only way for a club to close the gap and stay competitive.

[eFestivals]

39 minutes ago, lost said:

From the sounds being made around the Newcastle takeover it suggests any new owners are pretty confident they can get around them. 

Saudi have just banned BEin. Can't see how they get given the go ahead for Newc now.