February 21, 2020, 05:54:26 AM

Author Topic: Champions League next season?  (Read 4121 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

February 15, 2020, 03:27:46 AM
Reply #45
Offline

KoemansNumberTens


To be honest, I kinda think it's almost as likely that this ban comes into effect as it is they take it to court and try and get the whole FFP laws overturned themselves.

Always kinda thought if it came to this sort of action the clubs would contest the legality of the laws themselves.

Surely thereís nothing wrong with FFP legally. If they want to play in UEFA competitions they play by their rules. Itís like us taking the premier league to court because we donít like 3 points for a win


February 15, 2020, 03:39:35 AM
Reply #46
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
Spot on. Who are UEFA to tell people what to do with their money.

Man U are debt-ridden with a crumbling stadium, Barca are broke and Munich are being pushed this year to maintain their dominance.

Why shouldnít football embrace more money and competition into the game. This doesnít bode well for our hoped financial input by Usmanov, or anyone else outside the established elite who wants to have any aspirations of success.

I hope itís overturned and they get reinstated, for the good of the game albeit not for our European hopes this season.

It's not for the good of the game at all. There still needs to be a control on spending, if there's no control we might as well pack up and go home, even if we had Usmanov on board he couldn't compete with Man City's wealth and it still comes back to the fact that most people are into Premier League clubs as an investment, not as a play thing like Man City's owner, not many owners have bottomless pockets like him. If there was no control, they could single handedly blow wages and transfer to an unsustainable level.

February 15, 2020, 03:50:52 AM
Reply #47
Offline

Lxxx


It's not for the good of the game at all. There still needs to be a control on spending, if there's no control we might as well pack up and go home, even if we had Usmanov on board he couldn't compete with Man City's wealth and it still comes back to the fact that most people are into Premier League clubs as an investment, not as a play thing like Man City's owner, not many owners have bottomless pockets like him. If there was no control, they could single handedly blow wages and transfer to an unsustainable level.

As long as they donít saddle the club with unserviceable debt and take it to the edge of oblivion then who cares. Itís a sport, let people invest and dream.

If UEFA decide £30m for future stadium naming rights is taking the piss and sponsoring a training ground that isnít even the property of the club is a circumvention of the rules then weíd be the first to complain.

Let as much money as possible come in and as long as we have checks and balances to stop a Leeds Utd happening then the more the better. Otherwise we may as well pack up and go home ourselves as we donít sell millions of shirts in Asia and we canít sell out a pre season game in Boston.


February 15, 2020, 03:53:40 AM
Reply #48
Offline

TheRam

NSNO Subscriber
Will likely be overturned, reduced or suspended upon appeal.

But. But...

Imagine 5th gets you CL. Instant rocket fuel on the moshiri project if somehow we managed that.

I would honestly be shocked if we got 7th nvm 5th but Jesus what it would do for this club...

Weíre getting fucked by ffp ourselves I reckon.

That £30m sponsorship for a ground that doesnít exist is dodgy as fuck
Hey there mister can you tell me what happened to the seeds I've sown
Can you give me a reason sir as to why they've never grown

February 15, 2020, 04:01:36 AM
Reply #49
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
As long as they donít saddle the club with unserviceable debt and take it to the edge of oblivion then who cares. Itís a sport, let people invest and dream.

If UEFA decide £30m for future stadium naming rights is taking the piss and sponsoring a training ground that isnít even the property of the club is a circumvention of the rules then weíd be the first to complain.

Let as much money as possible come in and as long as we have checks and balances to stop a Leeds Utd happening then the more the better. Otherwise we may as well pack up and go home ourselves as we donít sell millions of shirts in Asia and we canít sell out a pre season game in Boston.

It's not about saddling a club with debt, it's about a "fairly" level playing field. Why should Man City (or anyone else with owners wealthy enough) be allowed to have an owner pumping in say an extra £100m a year, buying all the best players, paying huge wages and transfers that no one else can match, skewing the prices and strolling to the title every year? That's the exact reason lots of sports have wage caps etc in place, Saracens in rugby being a prime example of financial doping and cheating their way to titles.

Selling shirts in Asia and selling out pre season friendlies isn't a concern for a club if they can just keep throwing as much money as they want at the club.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2020, 04:03:00 AM by Gash »

February 15, 2020, 04:05:34 AM
Reply #50
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
Weíre getting fucked by ffp ourselves I reckon.

That £30m sponsorship for a ground that doesnít exist is dodgy as fuck

Didn't the Premier League clear the deal?

I agree, it's a bit dodgy when the ground hasn't even got planning permission. I wouldn't be surprised if our next accounts reveal that we're just under the 3 year losses allowance thanks to the £30m we received for it.


February 15, 2020, 04:07:49 AM
Reply #51
Online

blueToffee

NSNO Subscriber
Weíre getting fucked by ffp ourselves I reckon.

That £30m sponsorship for a ground that doesnít exist is dodgy as fuck

There sponsorship deals came in because through FFP they've stopped owners putting money directly into the club. Why? They didn't like that owners like Abramovich came in and broke into the private members area. It was never a concern as to these clubs going under, because they could've made sure there were assets behind the owners or some such rather than capping the spend.

It's ridiculous. I know short term it presents an opportunity, but long term the only way we have to really compete at the top again is via investment into the club.

So I hope Man City take them on and win. I don't want to see Man United and Liverpool take turns winning the title for 30 seasons in a row.

February 15, 2020, 04:12:17 AM
Reply #52
Online

blueToffee

NSNO Subscriber
It's not about saddling a club with debt, it's about a "fairly" level playing field. Why should Man City (or anyone else with owners wealthy enough) be allowed to have an owner pumping in say an extra £100m a year, buying all the best players, paying huge wages and transfers that no one else can match, skewing the prices and strolling to the title every year? That's the exact reason lots of sports have wage caps etc in place, Saracens in rugby being a prime example of financial doping and cheating their way to titles.

Selling shirts in Asia and selling out pre season friendlies isn't a concern for a club if they can just keep throwing as much money as they want at the club.

If it were about a level playing field, there would be transfer caps, wage caps and the like. They could deduct points if you spend over a certain amount. However, it's not about fairness it's about keeping power in the hands of certain clubs.

Everyone kinda pretends at the start of the season all the clubs in the PL are playing on a level playing field, but just because Liverpool get revenue from a worldwide fan base how is it fair to the competition that they get to spend a ton of money and others don't.

February 15, 2020, 04:13:28 AM
Reply #53
Offline

Lxxx


It's not about saddling a club with debt, it's about a "fairly" level playing field. Why should Man City (or anyone else with owners wealthy enough) be allowed to have an owner pumping in say an extra £100m a year, buying all the best players, paying huge wages and transfers that no one else can match, skewing the prices and strolling to the title every year? That's the exact reason lots of sports have wage caps etc in place, Saracens in rugby being a prime example of financial doping and cheating their way to titles.

Selling shirts in Asia and selling out pre season friendlies isn't a concern for a club if they can just keep throwing as much money as they want at the club.

It should be a free market. Let clubs do it for a period and see some success, it wonít be sustainable long term anyway.

The top 8 clubs in this league all have billionaire owners, probably more if you went through them, some invest wisely and others donít.

The more the merrier, itís good for the game as long as they underwrite the huge spending personally. Iíd much rather a Man City than what happened at Man U with owners buying clubs on huge finance and sucking money out of it every year.

February 15, 2020, 04:15:14 AM
Reply #54
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
There sponsorship deals came in because through FFP they've stopped owners putting money directly into the club. Why? They didn't like that owners like Abramovich came in and broke into the private members area. It was never a concern as to these clubs going under, because they could've made sure there were assets behind the owners or some such rather than capping the spend.

It's ridiculous. I know short term it presents an opportunity, but long term the only way we have to really compete at the top again is via investment into the club.

So I hope Man City take them on and win. I don't want to see Man United and Liverpool take turns winning the title for 30 seasons in a row.

So you'd rather Man City win it for the next 30 years, because that's what'll happen in they're allowed unlimited spending.

There needs to be financial controls in place, Man City etc didn't try and appeal it when they were introduced, probably because they thought they could get round it, they've been caught and punished.

From what I've read as well, they're not actually denying any wrong doing just that they don't agree with how UEFA have done the investigation.

February 15, 2020, 04:21:12 AM
Reply #55
Offline

irishtoffee


Liverpool fans all celebrating in a whatís app group Iím in. My comment was that at least city got themselves banned and not a whole country. First reply- UEFA can use the 30million to build a decent wall! Cunts

February 15, 2020, 04:24:17 AM
Reply #56
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
If it were about a level playing field, there would be transfer caps, wage caps and the like. They could deduct points if you spend over a certain amount. However, it's not about fairness it's about keeping power in the hands of certain clubs.

Yeah, I tend to find that angle a load of rubbish, but fair enough if that's what you think, plenty people do but a club like Man City coming in and raising the profile of a league or competition can only be a good thing for the authorities in charge of them. Pretty sure the likes of AC Milan would have been given a big leg up if that were the case.

Everyone kinda pretends at the start of the season all the clubs in the PL are playing on a level playing field, but just because Liverpool get revenue from a worldwide fan base how is it fair to the competition that they get to spend a ton of money and others don't.

Who pretends everyone's on a level playing field, genuinely never heard anyone think that? You honestly think people "pretend" that Bournemouth, Sheffield Utd, Norwich etc, etc are on a level playing field, rubbish. Liverpool have been a huge club for years and have a global fans base that they've built up, but they're spending honestly (as far as we know) and I don't think anyone's complaining that it's not a level playing field for the smaller clubs, it's just the way it is, that goes with most sports. Strange points you're trying to put across to be honest.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2020, 04:31:16 AM by Gash »

February 15, 2020, 04:29:16 AM
Reply #57
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
It should be a free market. Let clubs do it for a period and see some success, it wonít be sustainable long term anyway.

The top 8 clubs in this league all have billionaire owners, probably more if you went through them, some invest wisely and others donít.

The more the merrier, itís good for the game as long as they underwrite the huge spending personally. Iíd much rather a Man City than what happened at Man U with owners buying clubs on huge finance and sucking money out of it every year.

It's good for the game to have more competition, I agree with that. There still needs to be controls on spending though, you're saying it's good for the game, but it's only good for the handful of clubs that can sustain it, the rest get left behind. Having a billionaire owner is one thing, having a billionaire owner who doesn't have one eye on a return is completely different, Arsenal fans with Kronke will vouch for that.

February 15, 2020, 04:40:10 AM
Reply #58
Offline

KoemansNumberTens


It's not about saddling a club with debt, it's about a "fairly" level playing field. Why should Man City (or anyone else with owners wealthy enough) be allowed to have an owner pumping in say an extra £100m a year, buying all the best players, paying huge wages and transfers that no one else can match, skewing the prices and strolling to the title every year? That's the exact reason lots of sports have wage caps etc in place, Saracens in rugby being a prime example of financial doping and cheating their way to titles.

Selling shirts in Asia and selling out pre season friendlies isn't a concern for a club if they can just keep throwing as much money as they want at the club.

I agree but the top clubs have such a pull in terms of sponsorship that the playing field is already completely slanted. Is cityís advantage over Utd larger than Utds over the 14 poorest clubs in the league

February 15, 2020, 04:48:15 AM
Reply #59
Offline

Paddockoldie


Nothing to do with Saudi, owner is Emirati, Abu Dhabi.

Different finger but same hand