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

Pep talking like its a level playing field. Bring in Transfer and wage caps plus maximum squad sizes including youth and how many players you can loan out. Make the rule each of those has to be transparent. Paying a manager 1 million a year but then he's getting 2 million as a consultant won't wash and will result in a 5 year ban. Using a sport group to hoard players and transfer to your lead club when they are near peak won't wash. The oil states are going to kill European football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, davelfc* said:

MARTIN SAMUEL: 'Hateful Eight' step up war against Man City in FFP saga as Jurgen Klopp and Jose Mourinho give the game away... the richest clubs are operating as a protectionist cartel

 

They did not waste time, the cartel. Within hours of the Court of Arbitration announcement, there was a remote scrambling of Manchester City's elite rivals and a discussion about the next plan of action.

This is not over. There is still a Premier League investigation into City ongoing. 

 

There is still the chance to pressure and influence those proceedings, as was attempted with UEFA's case, when nine leading Premier League clubs — Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham, Chelsea, Leicester, Wolves, Newcastle and Burnley — wrote to CAS on March 9 to argue City should be excluded from Europe while their appeal was heard. They hadn't a clue.

 

They thought City were stalling, when they were actually pushing to get the appeal completed — the club couldn't move forward until it was — but the remnants of that group remain, as angry and desperate to protect their turf as ever.

 

UEFA are reluctant to appeal against CAS's verdict in the Swiss courts, where they have a dismal record but the Hateful Eight — as they are now known within the walls of the Etihad, because Wolves are believed to have pulled out — may join forces with the elites of Europe in an attempt to persuade them otherwise. 

There was certainly talk of taking further legal advice, of poring over the longer CAS explanation of the verdict when it is published this week, seeking flaws that could be challenged or exploited. 

 

Perhaps they will engage the same law company who wrote the legal letter to CAS the last time, Russells.

So that was stage one of the resistance. Stage two came when the managers sat in front of the cameras on Tuesday and toed the party line.

Mikel Arteta was off-message — due only to his connections with Manchester City and Pep Guardiola, because Arsenal are certainly part of this, perhaps even its greatest driving force — but Jurgen Klopp and Jose Mourinho did their duty. 

'A bad day for football… disgraceful… FFP is a good idea…'

 

The irony of Mourinho, who benefited hugely from owner investment during his first spell at Chelsea under Roman Abramovich, advocating financial regulation now he is with frugal Tottenham is almost too ripe for comment.

Chelsea did everything that Manchester City have subsequently, and then worked to change the rules from the inside so that their path to the top could not be travelled again. 

 

Yet, leaving even that gross hypocrisy aside, Mourinho's commentary was flawed. He argued that as City were fined £9million, they were guilty, so their ban should not have been lifted. It's a little more complicated than that. 

The fine was for refusing to comply with UEFA's initial investigation — the ban was for falsifying accounts. It's like being charged with murder, and also resisting arrest. A person could be found not guilty of murder, but guilty of resisting arrest.

 

He wouldn't, however, then get a murderer's sentence. And even City's fine was reduced by two-thirds. Mourinho tried to be outraged but his heart didn't seem in it. Even he must be aware how straightforwardly logical CAS's decision was.

Klopp was different. Klopp imagined a dangerous world of super leagues and super clubs, crushing those below with untrammelled wealth. 

 

'If the richest people or countries can do what they want in football, then that could make the competition really difficult,' he said. 

'I think that would lead automatically to a kind of world super league with, like, 10 clubs.'

What — the sort of league that Liverpool keep talking about, in those secret meetings with other elite members like Arsenal and Manchester United, that always end up being uncovered and reported in the media?

Meetings with foreign power-brokers, often American, who want to create a closed shop Champions League, composed of the established elite?

 

As for making competition difficult, Klopp went on to espouse the German vision of club ownership, a system so competitive it has resulted in Bayern Munich winning the Bundesliga title for the last eight seasons — when no club in the history of German football stretching back to 1903 had previously won more than three on the spin. 

 

Owner investment does not kill competition: it creates more. The penny is beginning to drop over what is being attempted here.

Wolves, having signed the original letter to CAS, are understood not to have been part of Monday's group call. Everton and Sheffield United were always outside the conversation. Why would they lobby to wrap ambitious clubs in red tape, stunting their growth and leaving them at the mercy of predators?

 

The big lie of FFP is that clubs should grow organically. Yet how is that possible if a middling organisation cannot invest further to compete, while its best players are poached? Leicester won the League and lost N'Golo Kante to Chelsea that summer. Ben Chilwell is likely to travel the same route this year.

Southampton could have been an outstanding team across the last decade, maybe another Leicester, but were denuded by Liverpool and others. FFP kills challengers.

 

There is no other industry that does not allow competition from companies injecting capital to improve performance and output.

If Saudi Arabian investment now makes Newcastle a force, how is that bad for the game? Don't Newcastle fans deserve that? Isn't the city worthy?

 

We all know the majority of the 10 super clubs that Klopp is talking about, and Manchester City aren't even part of the group, no matter their wealth. 

Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Juventus, Bayern Munich, AC Milan — there won't be room for too many others after that lot grab their share. Paris Saint-Germain might get a pass but only because Qatar, through beIN Sports, own the game.

 

Newcastle, Wolves, Tottenham, Everton, Leicester, Leeds, Sunderland, Aston Villa — there is no room for them at this table. And the fact one or more might even hope or begin to emulate City is what terrifies the cabal.

Arsenal, with all their advantages, are ninth, Manchester United still outside the top four. If they do not qualify for the Champions League next season £25m of their deal with adidas is lost.

 

Damn right they have a vested interest in finding ways to bar City, or any new challenger. The richest clubs are operating, ever more nakedly, as a protectionist cartel. And that's what is bad for football.

 

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

 

 

He shoots, he misses. Could have written a great article and went for this shite instead. Hope he enjoys his silver pieces. 

 

They aren't complaining because they are being oppressed, they are complaining because they want to be the oppressors. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samuels was a cheerleader for Abramovich when he started throwing his money around. Apparently it's justified because it's what it takes to compete with established clubs. That the established clubs took decades to get where they are doesn't seem to matter.

 

It's the kind of disruptive capitalism that tech firms use but for football clubs. Get massively wealthy backers that are prepared to spend big and sustain losses for years in the hope of a big payday- venture capitalists in the case of tech firms, oil states or multi-billionaires for football clubs. Use the wealth to force established players to their knees as they can't compete while following the rules and can't break the rules without going bankrupt. If all goes well, you end up as the top dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VERBAL DIARRHEA said:

Martin Samuels is on the payroll and deffo eats lard and fucks goats.

Samuel's stance is bizarre. I could be wrong(!) but he seems to be the only prominent journalist against any form of FFP.

 

He seems to have the mindset that having one supremely rich not to mention dominant club in the PL is a good thing. He thinks owners should be able to pour unlimited funds into a club as that would encourage other clubs to compete and 'break into' the cartel of elite clubs as he calls them.

 

Instead, it would just turn the league into a procession like in Italy, Germany, France and a lesser extent, Scotland. How are clubs expected to compete with the wealth of an oil nation? Oh that's ok because not every club will be owned by an oil nation, just by some mega rich individual or other organisation.

 

Well first off, who is really going to try and 'compete' with an oil nation season on season? You spend £250m on players trying to keep up, the oil rich spends £350m. Yeah, good luck catching up. Virtually any club would be pissing in the wind. In fact, you'd be fucking mad to even try unless you enjoy willy waving competitions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

Samuel's stance is bizarre. I could be wrong(!) but he seems to be the only prominent journalist against any form of FFP.

 

He seems to have the mindset that having one supremely rich not to mention dominant club in the PL is a good thing. He thinks owners should be able to pour unlimited funds into a club as that would encourage other clubs to compete and 'break into' the cartel of elite clubs as he calls them.

 

Instead, it would just turn the league into a procession like in Italy, Germany, France and a lesser extent, Scotland. How are clubs expected to compete with the wealth of an oil nation? Oh that's ok because not every club will be owned by an oil nation, just by some mega rich individual or other organisation.

 

Well first off, who is really going to try and 'compete' with an oil nation season on season? You spend £250m on players trying to keep up, the oil rich spends £350m. Yeah, good luck catching up. Virtually any club would be pissing in the wind. In fact, you'd be fucking mad to even try unless you enjoy willy waving competitions.

 

Exactly. If you think that having an inaccessible super-wealthy clique at the top of the league (due to club revenue and CL riches) is a bad thing, then why do you support the idea of petroclubs? You're just replacing one super-rich elite with another - and it's not like the petroclub elite is any more accessible (apart from the fact a sovereign wealth fund could theoretically buy anyone): you'll still have a cabal of clubs that are so wealthy they're bound by totally different rules and the gap between them and the rest will still be vast - even larger in fact.

 

Manchester City aren't some sort of everyman club flying the flag for all the non-established clubs out there and winning trophies on their behalf and looking to level the playing field. They represent Abu Dhabi and City Football Group and nothing else - and they're no more Corinthian in ambition than Real Madrid. So Martin Samuel can fuck off - if you want to campaign for a more equitable game, good luck to you. But yesterday's news isn't heralding a more equitable game, it's just reshuffling who's entrenched at the top.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samuel's argument is pathetic because it is based on the premise that the only way for a club to break through is via massive investment from the super-rich rather than gradual improvement by good financial and player management. Both Leicester  and Wolves have been trying to do it the hard way but their chances of succeeding are hugely impeded by the unlimited financial resources of an oil-state. How is that good for the game? 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

Samuel's stance is bizarre. I could be wrong(!) but he seems to be the only prominent journalist against any form of FFP.

 

He seems to have the mindset that having one supremely rich not to mention dominant club in the PL is a good thing. He thinks owners should be able to pour unlimited funds into a club as that would encourage other clubs to compete and 'break into' the cartel of elite clubs as he calls them.

 

Instead, it would just turn the league into a procession like in Italy, Germany, France and a lesser extent, Scotland. How are clubs expected to compete with the wealth of an oil nation? Oh that's ok because not every club will be owned by an oil nation, just by some mega rich individual or other organisation.

 

Well first off, who is really going to try and 'compete' with an oil nation season on season? You spend £250m on players trying to keep up, the oil rich spends £350m. Yeah, good luck catching up. Virtually any club would be pissing in the wind. In fact, you'd be fucking mad to even try unless you enjoy willy waving competitions.

 


Samuel is wrong more often than he eats. 
 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samuels club is West Ham. The only way they are going to win anything is to be taken over by owners similarly to City, and pissing over the rules in the same way. The “advantage” they have is they are a London club, with a new (dodgy) ground. No wonder he doesn’t want FFP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, coachpotato said:

Samuels club is West Ham. The only way they are going to win anything is to be taken over by owners similarly to City, and pissing over the rules in the same way. The “advantage” they have is they are a London club, with a new (dodgy) ground. No wonder he doesn’t want FFP.


 

D5BDC866-8A46-403B-BC5B-7230D798ED79.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, BeefStroganoff said:

Well it looks like Christmas for City with the 5 sub rule being implemented next season. Might as well give them the trophy now.

Sir Bob was outspent by man u , real Madrid Barcelona etc for years . Look at his record and have some faith!

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...