Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Man City - the new bitters?


Naz17
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, sir roger said:

That's a good article. Unlike the one from martin samuel who continues his rant that city's owners should be able to spend what they want on the club because, it 'encourages' other potential club owners to pump money into smaller clubs and achieve the success city have.

 

But Samuel ignores the fact only city have got lucky. I dont see a plethora of smaller clubs waited to be bought by mega rich owners and pump obscene amounts of money into them. neither does it recognise like abramovic did it with chelsea and mansour with city, it just results in hyper inflation of the game's finances. Transfer fees go up and wages go up. Many more clubs struggle to compete.

 

Tits like samuel then wonder why clubs like bury go out of business and there are no reputable business men stepping forward to try and save them. What's the point if the next club is owned by a country, entity or mega rich owner who could just blow you away at every turn?

 

You'd think tits like samuel would want a level playing field where every club could compete. Blackpool got in the PL on a shoestring a few years back. Huddersfield did the same. Sure, they'd have needed more money to compete at the top of the PL but that should come via evolution not instant lottery win.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bjornebye said:

What difference will a points deduction for this season mean? Absolutely fucking none. Deduct them pants starting next season if you want to punish them for fuck sake. 

 

I actually hope they don't get a points deduction. This season or next. 


Depends how many points they are deducted obviously, Juve were deducted just enough points for them to be relegated.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

That's a good article. Unlike the one from martin samuel who continues his rant that city's owners should be able to spend what they want on the club because, it 'encourages' other potential club owners to pump money into smaller clubs and achieve the success city have.

 

But Samuel ignores the fact only city have got lucky. I dont see a plethora of smaller clubs waited to be bought by mega rich owners and pump obscene amounts of money into them. neither does it recognise like abramovic did it with chelsea and mansour with city, it just results in hyper inflation of the game's finances. Transfer fees go up and wages go up. Many more clubs struggle to compete.

 

Tits like samuel then wonder why clubs like bury go out of business and there are no reputable business men stepping forward to try and save them. What's the point if the next club is owned by a country, entity or mega rich owner who could just blow you away at every turn?

 

You'd think tits like samuel would want a level playing field where every club could compete. Blackpool got in the PL on a shoestring a few years back. Huddersfield did the same. Sure, they'd have needed more money to compete at the top of the PL but that should come via evolution not instant lottery win.

Typical Daily Mail shit from Samuel; casting the mega rich as plucky insurgents battling the elite.

 

I rather like FC Rubin Kazan's response to the article:

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

That's a good article. Unlike the one from martin samuel who continues his rant that city's owners should be able to spend what they want on the club because, it 'encourages' other potential club owners to pump money into smaller clubs and achieve the success city have.

 

But Samuel ignores the fact only city have got lucky. I dont see a plethora of smaller clubs waited to be bought by mega rich owners and pump obscene amounts of money into them. neither does it recognise like abramovic did it with chelsea and mansour with city, it just results in hyper inflation of the game's finances. Transfer fees go up and wages go up. Many more clubs struggle to compete.

 

Tits like samuel then wonder why clubs like bury go out of business and there are no reputable business men stepping forward to try and save them. What's the point if the next club is owned by a country, entity or mega rich owner who could just blow you away at every turn?

 

You'd think tits like samuel would want a level playing field where every club could compete. Blackpool got in the PL on a shoestring a few years back. Huddersfield did the same. Sure, they'd have needed more money to compete at the top of the PL but that should come via evolution not instant lottery win.

I remember him making the same points when Abramovic started pumping money into Chelsea- his rationale was that this was what it took to get a club into the elite. As you say though, it has had so many knock on effects that it's highly detrimental to the game. He, and football in general, would be far better off demanding that money is more equitably shared, one aspect of which is by taking a heavy line on FFP. Allowing mega-rich oligarchs or states to buy their way to success might disrupt the established order, but ultimately, it's just going to massively distort the top of the game and destroy anything below it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pistonbroke
4 minutes ago, manwiththestick said:

The delusions of grandeur over on Blue Moon are something else.

 

They genuinely think they are some football powerhouse. 

 

Never been on there and just read what posters were pasting on here. Just had a quick gander and my oh my. They also have a thread about us which is over 12.000 posts long! Christ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pistonbroke
11 minutes ago, TheDrowningMan said:

Typical Daily Mail shit from Samuel; casting the mega rich as plucky insurgents battling the elite.

 

I rather like FC Rubin Kazan's response to the article:

 

 

 

 

The funny thing is a lot of City fans will build their hopes up of things being overturned just because some fat cunt prints a load of bollocks in a shit rag that nobody outside of the Uk gives a fuck about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, magicrat said:

Let them keep it. Forever tainted now and we can give them the big finger for years every time their titles are mentioned. 

Nah, I reckon strip them of the titles. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the teams who came second get retrospectively awarded them. Just Man City shouldn’t be recorded as winners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IAN LADYMAN: If Manchester City have won trophies by CHEATING the system then we must put an asterisk against their success and question how long Pep Guardiola will stick around

 

There has been an asterisk against much of Manchester City’s recent achievements ever since UEFA opened their investigation against the English champions in 2018.

If our most successful modern club have assembled their haul of trophies by cheating the system then does any of it really count?

This will be the question pondered with some enthusiasm by City’s rivals at home and across the continent over the weekend and we already know the conclusion they will reach. They will forever believe that City — in the middle portion of Abu Dhabi ownership at least — have bought their success by foul means.

 

In terms of reputation, UEFA’s judgment last night is bordering on catastrophic for City.

It goes against everything they claim to stand for, against everything they have told us. It means — if all appeals subsequently fail — that history will have to be rewritten. Wherever they go, a whiff of dishonesty will follow.

But the implications for City this morning go beyond those concerning credibility and fairness. They reach deep inside the most fundamental part of the club and tap manager Pep Guardiola squarely on the shoulder. Yes, this is about numbers and pound signs and interpretations of complicated UEFA regulations that may not have been terribly well thought-out in the first place. But this is about football, too, and this may yet be the greatest threat to City of all.

 

Guardiola, for all his preaching about style and the development of footballers, is a coach who exists to win. Like all the great football people, second is nowhere to Guardiola.

He has won handsomely in England — two Premier Leagues and three domestic cups in three full seasons — but has fallen short in Europe. He has not won the Champions League since 2011, two managerial postings ago.

That is almost a nine-year cycle that a coach who arrived in England at the peak of his powers remains obsessively desperate to break. Yet, as it stands this morning, the Catalan — who will be 50 next year — is now quite literally out of the game.

The practicalities and the complexities of football’s legal system will mean that what will surely be a drawn-out appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport could yet see them play European football next season. But beyond that? Nobody — least of all Guardiola — can really be so sure.

As of last night, they are no longer members of the elite club. From Guardiola’s point of view, he might just as well be coaching on the moon.

 

Contracted to the club until the end of next season, Guardiola has recently been giving a Kevin De Bruyne body swerve to questions about his future. Maybe now we understand part of the reason why.

This is Guardiola’s fourth season at City as it is. If he doesn’t win the Champions League this time, how long will he wait? Two more years before he gets to have another go? It seems rather unlikely.

So this feels like a tipping point for City and their manager and just as club officials will now seek to protect and project their reputation, so will he.

A self-proclaimed man of principle, Guardiola has faced questions about the transparency of his employers’ conduct before and has understandably hidden behind the fact that UEFA had proven nothing.

But what now? Where does this leave a man who for so long has constructed a reputation around the most earthy, balletic beauties of our sport? What will it say about his achievements here if they were — in part at least — purchased on the never-never?

 

This is Guardiola’s quandary now. He has friends at City. That, to some extent, is why he is here in the first place. They have been telling him for a while to ignore the noise, that UEFA’s fair play rules have always been designed to punish the upwardly mobile anyway.

And they may have had a point. Strip it all away and much of this does not seem terribly fair. But that is of no comfort to Guardiola this morning.

City might not have liked the rules but they did know about them from the get-go. It may will be that this is where this business eventually starts and ends.

This story will certainly play out for a good while yet. City’s aggressive stance last night — and the fact that UEFA suggest they have never really complied with the investigation — suggests that the club always suspected this is where it was heading.

They believe they are victims in this and in some quarters they will find a sympathetic ear.

But their manager never really did like to hang around in one place for too long.

He now has his own reputation to think about. If he wants to push against the door, he now finds that it is already partly open.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

Nah, I reckon strip them of the titles. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the teams who came second get retrospectively awarded them. Just Man City shouldn’t be recorded as winners.

I think that would be best. Complete humiliation for them, and no need for the clubs that finished second to have to defend their sudden awards. Don't hand the title to us or Man Utd, just let it be known that the league was corruptly won that year and the entire season was written off because of Man City's actions.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does beg the question how a medium sized club can ever break into the European elite without pumping in vast sums of cash and falling foul of FFP rules. It's obvious years of losses will happen before they get revenue to a level where they can operate profitably, City just chose to lie and ignore the rules and the shit has hot the fan eventually . I don't know what the answer is but much as I despise City UEFA are no saints and run a crooked game to protect the established few as many have said on here over the years. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...