Football 19/20

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I honestly think the huge PSG/Man City investment is the only way for a club to close the gap and stay competitive.

Not correct. It's possible to build a club up organically alongside the allowed financial doping.

That doesn't mean it can't be done, that only means it can't be done quickly - which isn't necessarily a bad idea. That would attract committed owners and not "I won" willy-wavers.

[eastynh]

57 minutes ago, The Nal said:

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.

The thing a lot of people fail to appreciate is that City have been fantastic for the league. They have raised the standard, made it more competitive. This has in turn increased interest and thus increased tv revenues, which has then benefited every team.

There was a top 4 who were set in stone every season. United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool. They got the champions league revenues, which then kept everyone else at bay.

City have not dominated like United did. They have not won 3 titles on the trot like United. United done that twice. There was no gnashing of teeth then and people moaning it was not fair.

City had no choice but to invest an awful lot of money at the start. That was the only way they could catch up with the rest. Now City spend what they earn and are sensibly run. City walked away from Sanchez and Maguire because the costs involved were extortionate.

The FFP breaches that City have now been cleared of, were from years ago. City have been found not to have breached FFP by an independent body, regardless of what Neil says. This City team is at the top because of sensible decisions, having a plan and great management, not because they cheated.

People keep saying FFP is not fit for purpose. now City have been found not guilty of any breaches, it is clear to see what the purpose of FFP was. It was to handicap City, to the benefit of a few clubs at the top. it was not for the good of football.

Interesting tweet below. Now if the investigation by UEFA was totally independent, like it should be. Why would Liverpool have any reason to believe that City should have found guilty? They should have no idea and they should not have seen any evidence. Yet they believed City had broken the rules. Liverpool should have no knowledge of the intricacies associated with the case. It seems Liverpool wanted City done, regardless of them acting within the regulations. 

There seems to be a number of clubs who want City punished, regardless of them being innocent.

 

Liverpool’s owners were left stunned by Monday’s CAS decision and are awaiting the publication of the full report with interest. They believed that #ManCity had broken the rules and would be punished accordingly. [
@JamesPearceLFC

For Liverpool, there’s frustration that UEFA was undone to a degree by #ManCity’s legal team and its own regulations.

Jurgen Klopp: “It’s about competition. I said I’m happy that #ManCity got back in the Champions League, I don’t want them to lose money or whatever. It’s just, if there are rules, I think it makes sense that you all stick to them

[eastynh]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Not correct. It's possible to build a club up organically alongside the allowed financial doping.

That doesn't mean it can't be done, that only means it can't be done quickly - which isn't necessarily a bad idea. That would attract committed owners and not "I won" willy-wavers.

Well name one. Remember Leicester failed the championship FFP, the season they came up.

[eastynh]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Not correct. It's possible to build a club up organically alongside the allowed financial doping.

That doesn't mean it can't be done, that only means it can't be done quickly - which isn't necessarily a bad idea. That would attract committed owners and not "I won" willy-wavers.

You don't think City's owners are committed??

[eastynh]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8523111/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Hateful-eight-step-war-against-Manchester-City-FFP-saga.html

Your opinions on this article @eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Not correct. It's possible to build a club up organically alongside the allowed financial doping.

That doesn't mean it can't be done, that only means it can't be done quickly - which isn't necessarily a bad idea. That would attract committed owners and not "I won" willy-wavers.

I honestly can't think of one club who has done it organically in recent times. 

[eFestivals]

34 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Well name one. Remember Leicester failed the championship FFP, the season they came up.

the problem is we have willy waver owners.  

[eFestivals]

34 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You don't think City's owners are committed??

nope, they're willy wavers. "Let's buy success". It's the latest plaything for despots.

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, eastynh said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8523111/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Hateful-eight-step-war-against-Manchester-City-FFP-saga.html

Your opinions on this article @eFestivals

who knew that clubs use their financial muscle to try and secure their place at the table? In case it's passed you by, I know another club like that, with a conviction and fine for breaking FFP.

Meanwhile, there was clear evidence of rule-breaking by City, and the only way to operate the rules - any rules - is to have clubs honour those rules. Which City refused to do, and those clubs didn't by asking that the rules were followed by having City investigated.

[eastynh]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

who knew that clubs use their financial muscle to try and secure their place at the table? In case it's passed you by, I know another club like that, with a conviction and fine for breaking FFP.

Meanwhile, there was clear evidence of rule-breaking by City, and the only way to operate the rules - any rules - is to have clubs honour those rules. Which City refused to do, and those clubs didn't by asking that the rules were followed by having City investigated.

Neil would you be confident enough to stand up in a court and say there is clear evidence of City breaking rules?

Also what rules have City clearly broken, apart from failing to co-operate?

Are you saying you have seen evidence of City breaking FFP by disguising owner investment as sponsorship and that they are cheats? You know for certain that City are cheats?

 

 

 

[eastynh]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the problem is we have willy waver owners.  

So you can't name one then?? There has not been one club who has gtown organically and been succesful, in the premier League era. That has not been one in my lifetime and I am 41.

[pink_triangle]

7 minutes ago, eastynh said:

So you can't name one then?? There has not been one club who has gtown organically and been succesful, in the premier League era. That has not been one in my lifetime and I am 41.

You could probably say the same in La Liga, Serie A and Bundesliga as well.  The trouble is if clubs try to grow slowly, the best players (generally wont stick around for that slow growth) and sign for the top clubs, therefore the gap never closes.

[kaosmark2]

Lots of the clubs that come up and last more than 2 seasons or break into the top half are done with doping as well. Sheffield Utd, Wolves, Wigan, Leicester, Bournemouth, Watford, etc.

I don't think owners should be allowed to loan money to the club, eg. Abrahamovich/Ashley, but I genuinely have no problem with the money thrown at City.

Targeting the human rights abuses of the UAE for criticism would be fair game though.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Neil would you be confident enough to stand up in a court and say there is clear evidence of City breaking rules?

Yes. There's clear evidence.

There might be counter evidence that ultimately proves those emails wrong*, but that doesn't alter the fact of those emails being clear evidence.

(* tho unlikely, unless you think City's management are trolls?) 

 

8 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Also what rules have City clearly broken, apart from failing to co-operate?

that's a rule that they broke.  

If they have the "irrefutable proof" they claim, you have to ask yourself why they didn't provide that to UEFA and avoid all the fuss.

(then of course there's the previous FFP breech of rules by City).

 

8 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Are you saying you have seen evidence of City breaking FFP by disguising owner investment as sponsorship and that they are cheats?

Via a 3rd party (the press), yes I have.

And so have you (unless you refused to read those reports).

 

8 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You know for certain that City are cheats?

Certain? Nope.

But I'm not so fucking stupid as to believe the City management have been trolling City, so i think it's humongously likely that City are cheats. 

And even your rather laughable 'defence' of City has you recognising them as cheats, because you always dumb down to the idea of "why shouldn't the owner give the club money?"  

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, eastynh said:

So you can't name one then?? There has not been one club who has gtown organically and been succesful, in the premier League era. That has not been one in my lifetime and I am 41.

That's bollocks.

Happened in the years not long before the Prem. Everton winning the league; Villa and Forest the European cup. Etc.

What did the Prem do? Make the competition more money dependent. The answer to fixing it isn't even more money.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I don't think owners should be allowed to loan money to the club, eg. Abrahamovich/Ashley, but I genuinely have no problem with the money thrown at City.

within the world as it is, I'm in much the same place as you - but with some extra protection. The despot could decide tomorrow that he doesn't want to play any more, and leave City with stupidly high running costs and not the money to cover them. 

I'd say there needs to be some sort of protection against that, perhaps via a bond (that covers those costs if the rich man runs away).

[kaosmark2]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

within the world as it is, I'm in much the same place as you - but with some extra protection. The despot could decide tomorrow that he doesn't want to play any more, and leave City with stupidly high running costs and not the money to cover them. 

I'd say there needs to be some sort of protection against that, perhaps via a bond (that covers those costs if the rich man runs away).

The main issue for City if the owners leave is if they take the sponsorship with them. They've increased their revenue off the success of the money thrown in earlier years, but that sponsorship deal is a massive part of it.

[eastynh]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Yes. There's clear evidence.

There might be counter evidence that ultimately proves those emails wrong*, but that doesn't alter the fact of those emails being clear evidence.

(* tho unlikely, unless you think City's management are trolls?) 

 

that's a rule that they broke.  

If they have the "irrefutable proof" they claim, you have to ask yourself why they didn't provide that to UEFA and avoid all the fuss.

(then of course there's the previous FFP breech of rules by City).

 

Via a 3rd party (the press), yes I have.

And so have you (unless you refused to read those reports).

 

Certain? Nope.

But I'm not so fucking stupid as to believe the City management have been trolling City, so i think it's humongously likely that City are cheats. 

And even your rather laughable 'defence' of City has you recognising them as cheats, because you always dumb down to the idea of "why shouldn't the owner give the club money?"  

So you are calling Manchester City cheats and Liars?

Edited July 15, 2020 by eastynh

[eastynh]

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That's bollocks.

Happened in the years not long before the Prem. Everton winning the league; Villa and Forest the European cup. Etc.

What did the Prem do? Make the competition more money dependent. The answer to fixing it isn't even more money.

Everton had rich benefactors.

I stated the premier league as what happened 40 years ago is not relevant in the slightest in regards to today. It is absolutely impossible for any team to organically grow and succeed at the top.

[eastynh]

19 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

The main issue for City if the owners leave is if they take the sponsorship with them. They've increased their revenue off the success of the money thrown in earlier years, but that sponsorship deal is a massive part of it.

The Etihad deal is now considered under valued. They would get more money else where now.

[TheGayTent]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

That's bollocks.

Happened in the years not long before the Prem. Everton winning the league; Villa and Forest the European cup. Etc.

What did the Prem do? Make the competition more money dependent. The answer to fixing it isn't even more money.

That's a gross exaggeration and/or a lack of understanding/knowledge of the time. John Moores' bankrolling of Everton was the major factor behind their change in fortunes. 

Yes, Forest had Clough & Taylor, but they were also financed - Trevor Francis signing for them as the first £1m player for example. 

There isn't a domestic football club to get any kind of sustained success without an injection of money for decades.

Edited July 15, 2020 by TheGayTent

[Hugh Jass]

Can Brentford not just fuck off already??

[thetime]

31 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Can Brentford not just fuck off already??

Getting a bit close up there now. 

 

[Hugh Jass]

10 minutes ago, thetime said:

Getting a bit close up there now. 

 

We need to win our last two to be mathematically certain, but Brentford slipping would ease things a little...

[pink_triangle]

As a neutral I'm in 2 minds. From one perspective I think there are already enough southern teams in the league, however I have never found WBA to be that interesting when they have been in the league.