bluemoon.
19 years ago
6 months ago
2,411
Premium
Poe
20 years ago
1 week ago
3,676
Nice to see them actually doing something about clubs that spend beyond their means. I thought they'd fanny on.
Slashman X
20 years ago
2 years ago
6,000
Giving City the same punishment as PSG is ridiculous though
Poe
20 years ago
1 week ago
3,676
Slashman X
20 years ago
2 years ago
6,000
Cos they were so blatantly disregarding all the FFP rules (back dating a €200m a year sponsorship ffs). Whilst City actually invested a lot of money in the "community". The whole point of FFP is to stop a situation where a club is fucked if the owners decide to just pull out. City's owners' investments in new stadium, academy, community work etc should at least show that they're there for the long haul
Ninja
16 years ago
9 years ago
5,341
Can someone explain the sense of the Sagna rumours to me now please.

Why are you being (strongly) linked to a £100,000 a week, back up right back, who is non-home grown (even though he is actually good)? Surely is one of the last positions you'd be wanting to actively increase your wage bill.
Poe
20 years ago
1 week ago
3,676
When has the Man City transfer policy ever made sense though?
Poe
20 years ago
1 week ago
3,676
Cos they were so blatantly disregarding all the FFP rules (back dating a €200m a year sponsorship ffs). Whilst City actually invested a lot of money in the "community". The whole point of FFP is to stop a situation where a club is fucked if the owners decide to just pull out. City's owners' investments in new stadium, academy, community work etc should at least show that they're there for the long haul


If they've spent the same amount of money as you lot have on players I'd be very surprised.
Slashman X
20 years ago
2 years ago
6,000
Can someone explain the sense of the Sagna rumours to me now please.

Why are you being (strongly) linked to a £100,000 a week, back up right back, who is non-home grown (even though he is actually good)? Surely is one of the last positions you'd be wanting to actively increase your wage bill.


We need top class cover for Zaba, not hard to understand. Barry, Lescott and Richards off the wage bill. Mancini plus 7 staff off too, wage bill is not a problem

If they've spent the same amount of money as you lot have on players I'd be very surprised.


Doesn't matter, at least we tried to adhere to FFP, they just gave themselves a fuckton of money just to hide it. City only failed due to those "network" payments (about 20m I think). PSG still failed with a free €100m cash injection (at least)

City should be punished yeah, but PSG should be punished a helluva lot more
Ninja
16 years ago
9 years ago
5,341
We need top class cover for Zaba, not hard to understand. Barry, Lescott and Richards off the wage bill. Mancini plus 7 staff off too, wage bill is not a problem


3 home grown players off the wage bill to be replaced by one non-home grown. Still not making a great deal of sense to me.
Slashman X
20 years ago
2 years ago
6,000
3 home grown players off the wage bill to be replaced by one non-home grown. Still not making a great deal of sense to me.


Lopes, Huws (maybe Boyata and Rekik if he stays), will be called up. Pellegrini has always wanted 2 top players for every position RB and CB are the 2 areas we don't have cover. Keeping those players just cos they're homegrown would be stupid, cos they'd want stupid money
Poe
20 years ago
1 week ago
3,676
Didn't your chairman somehow inject 300m into your club but disguise it as sponsorship?
Slashman X
20 years ago
2 years ago
6,000
Didn't your chairman somehow inject 300m into your club but disguise it as sponsorship?


30m per year for 10 years for Stadium, Shirt, training ground + academy sponsorship vs €200m a year for 4 years for "Tourism partnership" which was backdated a year. Bit different, and definitely not "disguised"

Etihad deal was cleared, nothing wrong with it
Poe
20 years ago
1 week ago
3,676
If their deal was cleared then there's also nothing wrong with it then.
Slashman X
20 years ago
2 years ago
6,000
If their deal was cleared then there's also nothing wrong with it then.

It wasn't cleared, it was reduced to "fair value" of only €100m a year
Poe
20 years ago
1 week ago
3,676
Ah well, what you complaining about then?
Slashman X
20 years ago
2 years ago
6,000
They should be punished more for failing more... Tarring City with the same brush as PSG is a bit odd given the extremes PSG went to
Poe
20 years ago
1 week ago
3,676
They've been punished more though if they've had that payment knocked down by 50%?

At least PSG were semi-competitive before the massive financial takeover, City were useless.
Slashman X
20 years ago
2 years ago
6,000
They've been punished more though if they've had that payment knocked down by 50%?

At least PSG were semi-competitive before the massive financial takeover, City were useless.


Exact same punishment regarding fine, transfer/wage caps, CL squad limitation etc. The fine should at least be bigger, but I'm guessing they're taking the €100m as a "fine". That deal is still way overpriced at €100m a year
Ninja
16 years ago
9 years ago
5,341
Exact same punishment regarding fine, transfer/wage caps, CL squad limitation etc. The fine should at least be bigger, but I'm guessing they're taking the €100m as a "fine". That deal is still way overpriced at €100m a year


Or what you both got was a fairly standard first time offence punishment for clubs of your stature?
Slashman X
20 years ago
2 years ago
6,000
Or what you both got was a fairly standard first time offence punishment for clubs of your stature?


"Fairly Standard" It's a brand new rule/legislation, there is no "standard" punishment. Just don't see why PSG didn't get a harsher punishment
Ninja
16 years ago
9 years ago
5,341
"Fairly Standard" It's a brand new rule/legislation, there is no "standard" punishment. Just don't see why PSG didn't get a harsher punishment


You know what I meant.

The fact you both got the same indicates thats about the sort of punishment that Uefa are handing out for breaching the rules the first time round.
Slashman X
20 years ago
2 years ago
6,000
You know what I meant.

The fact you both got the same indicates thats about the sort of punishment that Uefa are handing out for breaching the rules the first time round.


Did the other 7 clubs get the same?
Ninja
16 years ago
9 years ago
5,341
Did the other 7 clubs get the same?


'of your stature'
Slashman X
20 years ago
2 years ago
6,000
But they're obviously dishing out punishments on a 'per-club' basis (no set punishment), which is why I don't like that we got the exact same punishment as PSG
Ninja
16 years ago
9 years ago
5,341
Maybe, but I'd be amazed if they treated anyone else of a similar stature and financial clout particularly differently from now on.

Also, I know City (and by extent you) are probably of the opinion you've 'failed' on a technicality rather than failed, thats probably not an opinion that Uefa share hence the similar punishments.
Slashman X
20 years ago
2 years ago
6,000
Maybe, but I'd be amazed if they treated anyone else of a similar stature and financial clout particularly differently from now on.

Also, I know City (and by extent you) are probably of the opinion you've 'failed' on a technicality rather than failed, thats probably not an opinion that Uefa share hence the similar punishments.


True, it's just the fact that PSG were so blatant that has me peeved
Poe
20 years ago
1 week ago
3,676
Man City were pretty blatent tbf.

Without their mass transfer spending they were midtable at best - they're now one of the best teams in the world.

Since 2008 City have spent 639m - that's absolutely ridiculous
Slashman X
20 years ago
2 years ago
6,000
I don't mean blatant in getting to that level, I mean blatent in actually trying to adhere to FFP. City updated all their contracts to lower the wage bill drastically (mainly bonuses), invested massively in infrastructure and the "brand". PSG just spent a shit load and then gave themselves €200m a year, that's what I mean by blatent

You'll need to Login to comment