The Official Manchester City (World Club Champions)Thread
Discussion
Leicester Loyal said:
In what way is FFP fair though, bigger clubs will just have bigger budgets for the rest of time. Leicester will never be a bigger club than United, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea, so they'll always be able to spend more money than us. Even if we get CL and they get EL, they'll still have bigger transfer budgets. Bigger teams hide behide this 'protecting smaller clubs' statement (I've seen this used a lot this morning on social media), yet Bury and Wigan didn't end up doing very well did they? As long as you've got owners that can fund the spending, I see no issue with it.
Man City winning things doesn't piss me off, their owners want to invest and they've had to buy the right players and get the right manager to make it work. What they're doing now is no different to the early 00s when Fergie was spending 30m on Rio Ferdinand or Juan Sebastian Veron.
Arguably us and Wolves should be most upset by this decision this morning, but we aren't, it seems to be fans of the other big top 6 clubs who are so against it.
If we want to make it fair then lets put a salary cap on all teams? We'll see how many bigger teams vote in favour of that...
Bigger clubs will always have bigger budgets regardless of FFP or not.Man City winning things doesn't piss me off, their owners want to invest and they've had to buy the right players and get the right manager to make it work. What they're doing now is no different to the early 00s when Fergie was spending 30m on Rio Ferdinand or Juan Sebastian Veron.
Arguably us and Wolves should be most upset by this decision this morning, but we aren't, it seems to be fans of the other big top 6 clubs who are so against it.
If we want to make it fair then lets put a salary cap on all teams? We'll see how many bigger teams vote in favour of that...
The only way you can truly level the playing field is with something like a salary cap. However, that only works if you implement it across all leagues and countries. Once that's in place, the deciding factors for player transfers begin to be history of the club, managers and location. Which nearly all the big clubs excel at, so it still doesn't level the playing field.
FFP was brought in to make sure the likes of Leeds and Plymouth didn't keep happening. It tries to make sure that clubs spend within their means. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative. Definitely.
If you allow rich billionaires to come in and buy clubs and spend without limits, all that happens is rampant inflation in player wages and prices. The only people that win are the players and agents. Eventually the costs get pushed down on to the fans.
m3sye said:
Why would that make a difference if all clubs have it... youre not suddenly going to get Player A wanting to go to Burnely ahead of say Chelsea just because they pay the same...
My own clubs shows what you can do with the right team working to FFP rules.
Aren't you Liverpool? So how is it fair that you can spend more than Swansea or Leeds? You just want FFP because it'll mean you'll have one of the biggest budgets every yearMy own clubs shows what you can do with the right team working to FFP rules.
jammy-git said:
Bigger clubs will always have bigger budgets regardless of FFP or not.
The only way you can truly level the playing field is with something like a salary cap. However, that only works if you implement it across all leagues and countries. Once that's in place, the deciding factors for player transfers begin to be history of the club, managers and location. Which nearly all the big clubs excel at, so it still doesn't level the playing field.
FFP was brought in to make sure the likes of Leeds and Plymouth didn't keep happening. It tries to make sure that clubs spend within their means. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative. Definitely.
If you allow rich billionaires to come in and buy clubs and spend without limits, all that happens is rampant inflation in player wages and prices. The only people that win are the players and agents. Eventually the costs get pushed down on to the fans.
Yeah so all FFP ends up doing is stopping the smaller clubs spending the same amounts as the biggest clubs. The only way you can truly level the playing field is with something like a salary cap. However, that only works if you implement it across all leagues and countries. Once that's in place, the deciding factors for player transfers begin to be history of the club, managers and location. Which nearly all the big clubs excel at, so it still doesn't level the playing field.
FFP was brought in to make sure the likes of Leeds and Plymouth didn't keep happening. It tries to make sure that clubs spend within their means. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative. Definitely.
If you allow rich billionaires to come in and buy clubs and spend without limits, all that happens is rampant inflation in player wages and prices. The only people that win are the players and agents. Eventually the costs get pushed down on to the fans.
In order to stop the costs going up, they put a limit on the price of away tickets, I'd imagine they could do the same on season tickets, cap it at inflation + a couple of percent or something.
m3sye said:
Leicester Loyal said:
If we want to make it fair then lets put a salary cap on all teams? We'll see how many bigger teams vote in favour of that...
Why would that make a difference if all clubs have it... youre not suddenly going to get Player A wanting to go to Burnely ahead of say Chelsea just because they pay the same...My own clubs shows what you can do with the right team working to FFP rules.
However perhaps look at it a different way: Chelsea and Burnley are capped at £65m year annum on wages for their entire squad with a maximum weekly wage of £50k. Chelsea's wages are £65m per annum therefore they have no headroom. Burnley have the finances to pay £65m per annum in wages and they have headroom for additional signings.
Chelsea can't afford Player A (a highly rated young Bournemouth player) as they have already committed their entire budget for the year. If Chelsea want Player A then they will have to sell another player (Player B) or reduce their wages to afford signing Player A. Player A may sign for Burnley as it's his only option of Premier League football and he can earn the same money as he would at Chelsea or Chelsea may sell Player B to Burnley so they can afford Player A. Either way, Burnley's team improves.
At the moment Chelsea can stockpile players and pay them wages that Burnley can't so it's not really a fair system.
jammy-git said:
Leicester Loyal said:
In what way is FFP fair though, bigger clubs will just have bigger budgets for the rest of time. Leicester will never be a bigger club than United, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea, so they'll always be able to spend more money than us. Even if we get CL and they get EL, they'll still have bigger transfer budgets. Bigger teams hide behide this 'protecting smaller clubs' statement (I've seen this used a lot this morning on social media), yet Bury and Wigan didn't end up doing very well did they? As long as you've got owners that can fund the spending, I see no issue with it.
Man City winning things doesn't piss me off, their owners want to invest and they've had to buy the right players and get the right manager to make it work. What they're doing now is no different to the early 00s when Fergie was spending 30m on Rio Ferdinand or Juan Sebastian Veron.
Arguably us and Wolves should be most upset by this decision this morning, but we aren't, it seems to be fans of the other big top 6 clubs who are so against it.
If we want to make it fair then lets put a salary cap on all teams? We'll see how many bigger teams vote in favour of that...
Bigger clubs will always have bigger budgets regardless of FFP or not.Man City winning things doesn't piss me off, their owners want to invest and they've had to buy the right players and get the right manager to make it work. What they're doing now is no different to the early 00s when Fergie was spending 30m on Rio Ferdinand or Juan Sebastian Veron.
Arguably us and Wolves should be most upset by this decision this morning, but we aren't, it seems to be fans of the other big top 6 clubs who are so against it.
If we want to make it fair then lets put a salary cap on all teams? We'll see how many bigger teams vote in favour of that...
The only way you can truly level the playing field is with something like a salary cap. However, that only works if you implement it across all leagues and countries. Once that's in place, the deciding factors for player transfers begin to be history of the club, managers and location. Which nearly all the big clubs excel at, so it still doesn't level the playing field.
FFP was brought in to make sure the likes of Leeds and Plymouth didn't keep happening. It tries to make sure that clubs spend within their means. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative. Definitely.
If you allow rich billionaires to come in and buy clubs and spend without limits, all that happens is rampant inflation in player wages and prices. The only people that win are the players and agents. Eventually the costs get pushed down on to the fans.
m3sye said:
Leicester Loyal said:
If we want to make it fair then lets put a salary cap on all teams? We'll see how many bigger teams vote in favour of that...
Why would that make a difference if all clubs have it... youre not suddenly going to get Player A wanting to go to Burnely ahead of say Chelsea just because they pay the same...My own clubs shows what you can do with the right team working to FFP rules.
Wombat3 said:
Exactly this. FFP is just a budget cap mechanism. Its not perfect but it can at least be applied across multiple countries & If you want to play in UEFA's competitions then you are obliged to abide by it whether you agree with it being a good mechanism or not. If you don't like it then maybe stay out of the competitions?
Very easy to say when you're a top 4 club with huge revenues. Not so easy when you're a smaller club who's trying to stay in the division.Leicester Loyal said:
Yeah so all FFP ends up doing is stopping the smaller clubs spending the same amounts as the biggest clubs.
In order to stop the costs going up, they put a limit on the price of away tickets, I'd imagine they could do the same on season tickets, cap it at inflation + a couple of percent or something.
I cannot speak for Liverpool as I am unclear as to their financial structuring but most teams have an ability to spend commensurate with their ability to earn.The argument for example that United are owned by billionaires is just such insane drivel only a peanut brain could make it.In order to stop the costs going up, they put a limit on the price of away tickets, I'd imagine they could do the same on season tickets, cap it at inflation + a couple of percent or something.
The owners plunged the club into huge debt,but United can spend big because of the on and off field success,same with most other teams ,the exceptions are city ,psg etc clubs who's ability to spend big is purely determined by how much money the owner is willing to pump in.
In some ways you can argue that it is good to see the status quo broken,but that fails to see the danger that a new status quo will bring in as clubs try to play catch up with people they can't catch up with.
Leicester Loyal said:
m3sye said:
Why would that make a difference if all clubs have it... youre not suddenly going to get Player A wanting to go to Burnely ahead of say Chelsea just because they pay the same...
My own clubs shows what you can do with the right team working to FFP rules.
Aren't you Liverpool? So how is it fair that you can spend more than Swansea or Leeds? You just want FFP because it'll mean you'll have one of the biggest budgets every yearMy own clubs shows what you can do with the right team working to FFP rules.
jammy-git said:
Bigger clubs will always have bigger budgets regardless of FFP or not.
The only way you can truly level the playing field is with something like a salary cap. However, that only works if you implement it across all leagues and countries. Once that's in place, the deciding factors for player transfers begin to be history of the club, managers and location. Which nearly all the big clubs excel at, so it still doesn't level the playing field.
FFP was brought in to make sure the likes of Leeds and Plymouth didn't keep happening. It tries to make sure that clubs spend within their means. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative. Definitely.
If you allow rich billionaires to come in and buy clubs and spend without limits, all that happens is rampant inflation in player wages and prices. The only people that win are the players and agents. Eventually the costs get pushed down on to the fans.
Yeah so all FFP ends up doing is stopping the smaller clubs spending the same amounts as the biggest clubs. The only way you can truly level the playing field is with something like a salary cap. However, that only works if you implement it across all leagues and countries. Once that's in place, the deciding factors for player transfers begin to be history of the club, managers and location. Which nearly all the big clubs excel at, so it still doesn't level the playing field.
FFP was brought in to make sure the likes of Leeds and Plymouth didn't keep happening. It tries to make sure that clubs spend within their means. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative. Definitely.
If you allow rich billionaires to come in and buy clubs and spend without limits, all that happens is rampant inflation in player wages and prices. The only people that win are the players and agents. Eventually the costs get pushed down on to the fans.
In order to stop the costs going up, they put a limit on the price of away tickets, I'd imagine they could do the same on season tickets, cap it at inflation + a couple of percent or something.
Allowing billionaires and states to financially dope a few clubs over the league doesn't make the system any more fair, it makes it more unfair. Yes, you might break a monopoly on the title, or the top four - which I think just about every fan would welcome, but ONLY for those one or two clubs that are being financially doped. And then just play that out over the years. It's City and Chelsea and PSG now. Next year it'll be Newcastle throwing billions into trying to buy quick success. Player wages and prices sky rocket again. Then in another few years maybe some billionaire buys Swansea and the cycle repeats. All the whilst these clubs are saddled with hundreds of millions in debt that they owe to their owners that they've never got a hope in repaying.
We shouldn't be looking at undermining or trying to get rid of FFP, we should be looking to evolve it so that it is more fairer to all clubs.
Personally I would be in favour of a tiered FFP system based on league position or FIFA/UEFA coefficient. So the more successful you are over a 3-5 year period, the percentage of your revenue you're allowed to spend on player wages decreases, whilst those at the bottom of the league/ranking still expected to spend within their means.
Wombat3 said:
jammy-git said:
Leicester Loyal said:
In what way is FFP fair though, bigger clubs will just have bigger budgets for the rest of time. Leicester will never be a bigger club than United, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea, so they'll always be able to spend more money than us. Even if we get CL and they get EL, they'll still have bigger transfer budgets. Bigger teams hide behide this 'protecting smaller clubs' statement (I've seen this used a lot this morning on social media), yet Bury and Wigan didn't end up doing very well did they? As long as you've got owners that can fund the spending, I see no issue with it.
Man City winning things doesn't piss me off, their owners want to invest and they've had to buy the right players and get the right manager to make it work. What they're doing now is no different to the early 00s when Fergie was spending 30m on Rio Ferdinand or Juan Sebastian Veron.
Arguably us and Wolves should be most upset by this decision this morning, but we aren't, it seems to be fans of the other big top 6 clubs who are so against it.
If we want to make it fair then lets put a salary cap on all teams? We'll see how many bigger teams vote in favour of that...
Bigger clubs will always have bigger budgets regardless of FFP or not.Man City winning things doesn't piss me off, their owners want to invest and they've had to buy the right players and get the right manager to make it work. What they're doing now is no different to the early 00s when Fergie was spending 30m on Rio Ferdinand or Juan Sebastian Veron.
Arguably us and Wolves should be most upset by this decision this morning, but we aren't, it seems to be fans of the other big top 6 clubs who are so against it.
If we want to make it fair then lets put a salary cap on all teams? We'll see how many bigger teams vote in favour of that...
The only way you can truly level the playing field is with something like a salary cap. However, that only works if you implement it across all leagues and countries. Once that's in place, the deciding factors for player transfers begin to be history of the club, managers and location. Which nearly all the big clubs excel at, so it still doesn't level the playing field.
FFP was brought in to make sure the likes of Leeds and Plymouth didn't keep happening. It tries to make sure that clubs spend within their means. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative. Definitely.
If you allow rich billionaires to come in and buy clubs and spend without limits, all that happens is rampant inflation in player wages and prices. The only people that win are the players and agents. Eventually the costs get pushed down on to the fans.
In my opinion every club should be capped at the same amount for transfer fees and wages or clubs should be allowed to spend as they see fit as long as debts / commitments are underwritten by the owner and the cost isn't passed on to the fans. At the moment it's not a level playing field and if I supported a club like RB Leipzig then I would have no issue with them spending billions to win the champions league in exchange for a fine of a few million which highlights how FFP does not work.
Leicester Loyal said:
Yeah so all FFP ends up doing is stopping the smaller clubs spending the same amounts as the biggest clubs.
Teams will always try to find a way around the regulations though. Was there ever a conclusion from the investigation into this? On the face of it, exactly the same as City were apparently doing but on a smaller scale
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/11/l...
smn159 said:
Teams will always try to find a way around the regulations though.
Was there ever a conclusion from the investigation into this? On the face of it, exactly the same as City were apparently doing but on a smaller scale
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/11/l...
We paid a fine, don't know if we were ever found guilty, or we just paid to ensure the charge 'went away'.Was there ever a conclusion from the investigation into this? On the face of it, exactly the same as City were apparently doing but on a smaller scale
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/11/l...
Makes me laugh when our fans cry about Man Citys verdict today, we were just as bad under Sven in the Championship, we spent about 20m in transfer fees alone.
jammy-git said:
We shouldn't be looking at undermining or trying to get rid of FFP, we should be looking to evolve it so that it is more fairer to all clubs.
Personally I would be in favour of a tiered FFP system based on league position or FIFA/UEFA coefficient. So the more successful you are over a 3-5 year period, the percentage of your revenue you're allowed to spend on player wages decreases, whilst those at the bottom of the league/ranking still expected to spend within their means.
A sensible suggestion.Personally I would be in favour of a tiered FFP system based on league position or FIFA/UEFA coefficient. So the more successful you are over a 3-5 year period, the percentage of your revenue you're allowed to spend on player wages decreases, whilst those at the bottom of the league/ranking still expected to spend within their means.
TBH my issue with City blatant circumventing of FFP is more my dislike of the owners.
Not sure why clubs cannot be permitted to get large cash injections to develop and "buy success", just put a cap on it (say £100M net on top of any organic profits) and say it has to be an equity purchase so the owners are effectively giving the money to the club, not lending it and so saddling the club with huge debts repayable to the owner
Leicester Loyal said:
smn159 said:
Teams will always try to find a way around the regulations though.
Was there ever a conclusion from the investigation into this? On the face of it, exactly the same as City were apparently doing but on a smaller scale
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/11/l...
We paid a fine, don't know if we were ever found guilty, or we just paid to ensure the charge 'went away'.Was there ever a conclusion from the investigation into this? On the face of it, exactly the same as City were apparently doing but on a smaller scale
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/11/l...
Makes me laugh when our fans cry about Man Citys verdict today, we were just as bad under Sven in the Championship, we spent about 20m in transfer fees alone.
franki68 said:
I cannot speak for Liverpool as I am unclear as to their financial structuring but most teams have an ability to spend commensurate with their ability to earn.The argument for example that United are owned by billionaires is just such insane drivel only a peanut brain could make it.
The owners plunged the club into huge debt,but United can spend big because of the on and off field success,same with most other teams ,the exceptions are city ,psg etc clubs who's ability to spend big is purely determined by how much money the owner is willing to pump in.
In
Not true,The owners plunged the club into huge debt,but United can spend big because of the on and off field success,same with most other teams ,the exceptions are city ,psg etc clubs who's ability to spend big is purely determined by how much money the owner is willing to pump in.
In
City have millions coming in from season ticket sales (Av attendance 50,000 plus), shirt sponsorship, prize money from all the many competitions they have won in the past seven or eight years, ground advertising, club shop sales etc.
Yes, not disputing we were given a huge boost by Sheikh Mansour twelve years ago, but we are self financing now, which was the plan all along.
Wacky Racer said:
Not true,
City have millions coming in from season ticket sales (Av attendance 50,000 plus), shirt sponsorship, prize money from all the many competitions they have won in the past seven or eight years, ground advertising, club shop sales etc.
Yes, not disputing we were given a huge boost by Sheikh Mansour twelve years ago, but we are self financing now, which was the plan all along.
Isn’t the City stadium usually half empty?City have millions coming in from season ticket sales (Av attendance 50,000 plus), shirt sponsorship, prize money from all the many competitions they have won in the past seven or eight years, ground advertising, club shop sales etc.
Yes, not disputing we were given a huge boost by Sheikh Mansour twelve years ago, but we are self financing now, which was the plan all along.
Wacky Racer said:
City have millions coming in from season ticket sales (Av attendance 50,000 plus), shirt sponsorship, prize money from all the many competitions they have won in the past seven or eight years, ground advertising, club shop sales etc.
er wasn't the point of the investigation that your Etihad shirt and ground sponsorship (owned by Abu Dhabi) paid City vastly inflated fees in order to hide FFP breaches and make it look like your self-financed?Adam B said:
Wacky Racer said:
City have millions coming in from season ticket sales (Av attendance 50,000 plus), shirt sponsorship, prize money from all the many competitions they have won in the past seven or eight years, ground advertising, club shop sales etc.
er wasn't the point of the investigation that your Etihad shirt and ground sponsorship (owned by Abu Dhabi) paid City vastly inflated fees in order to hide FFP breaches and make it look like your self-financed?MiniMan64 said:
Isn’t the City stadium usually half empty?
No, sometimes there are empty seats if we are not playing a top 6 club, but the seat has usually have been paid for by a season ticket holder, they could be on holiday etc.
Average attendance 2018/19 (Official figures)
Manchester City 54,130
Liverpool 53,053
Newcastle United 52,238
Chelsea 40,445
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff