Do have to laugh at Forest defence over this breach. They’re saying oh we had a **** tonne of loan players and we didn’t expect to go up so we had to spend a load of money to be able to compete? Sorry, but whose fault was it your business model was have a load of loan players? What happened if you didn’t get promoted? You were going to start next season with only 5 players or were you going to replace them? Not the Prem fault your model of building a squad based on loan players had longer term implications. Everyone knows you can spend x amount and they continue to do so. They brought over 20 players, some of which have barely played. That’s poor management and unnecessary spending.
yeah, and the reality is they were mismanaging it so have "probably" built in anther bearch next season already? Each case is unique but all have a common theme of not really taking the rules seriously under the illusion a fine would be the maximum issue they'd face. Everton tried to bury a mountain of debt under covid. They had independant advice recommending 170mil loss as maximum covd allowance and they went and stuck in 190mil. They knowingly tried it on in other words. That single season is now hanging round thier necks like a millstone. Premier league incomptence saved them last season so now they get two points deductions this season for 2 seasons worht of offences. Forest know dmaned well what the target was and went nuts buying anoything and everything they could lay hands on. they survived as a result (barely) and so gained massively. they then find to their shcok the rules actually do apply and had not bothered to balance the books with a sale they could have made on june 30th. They deserve thier fine and the deserve 2 back on for appealing. Cheslea have spent more money that thier revenue for 2 seasons running and have played the game with amortisation to try cover it and still went and bought more and try to buy more. They will now sell yet more of the youth product to try balance the books, and feel they can get away with it.
They really need to start hammering the big clubs in order to dispel the idea that it's a conspiracy to maintain the status quo.
yes they should however it will be difficult and some frog marching/lining up against a wall russian style might be needed as this softly softly approach city have got is destroying any sort of thought this is a fair process. they should expel city and then let them sue to get back in. they can sue for billions. so what? they are so afriad of the legal stuff and it shows.
Well FFP itself does that to a degree. By not allowing large outside investment, it's harder to become the next City, or Chelsea, etc by getting a sugar daddy who openly spends... having an existing advantage should carry some inertia... (it also favours big clubs that got there honestly, like us, and Arsenal) With that said, it's ironic that City and Chelsea have that advantage and still feel the need to cheat.
FFP does not disqualify any outside investment. Look at how it works. TV money - equal share TV money prize position European football money Gate receipts. Commerical revenue If you do a pie chart for each club you'll find that the majority of clubs ahve a very unhealthy propostion of their income directly from TV West ham are a prime example of this. 2022/23 (euros) Match day: 47mil TV (in europe) 170mil Commercial: 58mil. (21%) Lets just contrast this to the blight that is city 2022/23 Match day: 83mil TV (in europe) 344mil (CL money etc) Commercial: 399mil. (48%) So this is not just about a meritocracy where a club gets to europe and then gets this extra cash and stays there. West ham are noit exploiting that stadium enough. Its a big horrid bowl but its 62k and they should be making more off it on an annual basis. West ham are in the second teir of europe now so can expect more revenues than other clubs but not near city's levels. City's CHEATING leads to higher revnues and being more able to beneift long term from CHEATING West ham are nowhere in commerica lterms. We all know 50% of that city number at least is completely fake but again this is them CHEATING and being enbaled to CHEAT as its approved. Anyone entering the market needs to look to the 3 streams. The only way to jump the queue is to get that commerical number up. Its a global number with sponsprships flowing in so you have to simply pass a very basic value test to get it done. Newcastle are actively cancelling real sponsors and getting suadi sponsors for double the value over night and getting approved. the Cheating is enabled. You break the ffp rules to get the players to get to europe to drive the commericals to drive the tv revenues. Its that simple. a mega rich owner can come in and get a club to the top but they can't do it overnight any more thats all. all the need is friendly sponsorships. the point of ffp is to stop a city buying 3 players off LFC like a bayern would/will do to leverkusen. All teams should be able to put a squad together and compete.
yes. they took 4 years of incompetent cheating to get to the point of getting to the cl. all the under the table payments were infill flow then. as it was at Chelsea.
City were bought out in 2008. I always thought FFP came into place, in part, as a response to Chelsea, and then City spending ludicrous amounts. I remember it used to be a source of amusement how much money Hughes had at his disposal and still didn't win anything. The eventual constant purchasing of expensive players did raise their game however. (as we all knew it eventually would... the incompetence would gradually end with enough money pumped in)
No, and as long as they continue to get away without punishment, why would they be? Owners still get to buy all those titles. Still get to have Etihad and other of their products advertised and appear on photos on the news when City lift a trophy. The whole thing is still acting as a giant advertisement and PR move for Abu Dhabi. It's adding cultural relevancy to their regime. It's all working in the favour. If City get booted to League 2 and banned from Premier League, it's all been a good ego project for them. They'll just sell City and repeat the process somewhere else. If the titles get stripped away, it is too late to take away years of AD getting in the limelight and potentially attracting businesses to their realm. A few billion £ investment to make Abu Dhabi look like a modern exciting and relevant place (which is what they're after) all good for them, they don't care if City end up splashing around the lower leagues when they pull out. It's been a fun decade for City fans to be City fans... but if City really do get punished the way they deserve to be, this could be the end of City as a Premier League team for a long time to come. Maybe the last time for many fan's lifetimes.
the only issue for me is why the fraud squad have not been in over unpaid tax for anyone associated with city or Chelsea. there's enough now thst prior managers of city and that executive at chelsea should have been to court. how messi and Ronaldo can be charged successfully in spain yet no case has ever come to light in thr UK is unbelievable. I'm convinced thet some refs on their deathbed will tell stories of the money they took as well. there's so much thst goes on favouring one club that it's impossible not to be the case.
I thought it was PL that did it thought first but a quick Google told me it was UEFA. It was definitely brought in after Chelsea etc, can remember laughing at Man City because they were bought by megs rich owners but this ruling made it look like it was going to help
If City do get relegated several leagues down, and A-D are no longer allowed to invest like crazy (or even pull out of the club completely), that large stadium is going to be a chain around their necks. People joke about them not being able to fill it now, but they will lose a lot of fans if they drop divisions (as any club would.. but City more than most since they're the 'glory team' of the decade so no doubt attract more glory hounds). Stadiums are expensive things to maintain. A 55k stadium in League two where games average less than 4k attendance or League one where games average less than 7k attendance is going to be a curse not a boon. Hard to tell how quick they will rebound. They will have to build a squad from scratch again, and they probably will have some advantage over other teams in their league because of their name and facilities. (all those top class training facilities, youth facilities,etc will suddenly look very expensive to maintain too). An empty stadium is a quiet stadium. They'll lose some home-team advantage. They'll no doubt have many advantages over other clubs due to being recent winners and having a certain amount of fame- but they'll be at a disadvantage in that they'll have to spend more than other clubs at that level to keep the lights on. And if they're then being scrutinized for FFP harder, it might be harder for them to cheat. If they just get knocked down to Championship, they'll probably do alright and recover OK... but if they get knocked down further, they might have a hard time adjusting down to the lower funding levels after being on top. Manchester's stadium would cost, about what, £300mill today to build (without the City of Manchester helping fund it)? Maintenance costs for facilities like that are, from what I was able to see about 2% build cost per year. So, probably £6mill to maintain a year. (And that's just the stadium). The average value of a league two club is about that price (so City would have to spend the equivalence of buying a rival team each year just to afford to maintain their stadium). If City got knocked all the way down to league two, they would HAVE to sell the stadium, or get promoted immediately to not go under financially.
Man City still had large attendances when they dropped divisions before (pre-mega rich owners). Probably same numbers attending as now but without the owners buying up all the empty seats and claiming it's a sellout
Well, and I'm sure, if you're Wrexham, or Crew, or Stockport, the novelty of playing Man City in the league would increase away attendance too. Maybe even some neutrals who can't afford Premier League prices might be tempted to come watch a famous team play that they can afford to go see.
Their "commercial" revenue is bigger than most clubs total revenue. They will be fine. they can give cheap tickets to the "loyal" fans and get 30k or so in and be fine. they will also be able to hold some players if in league 2. the issue for all of this for me is stil lthe same way that they can easily dope commerical revenue. Yes you strip tv money, yes you strip gate money, yes the real sponsors might be very unhappy. But in reality they will be propped up by their fakery and will have the players to regroup and come stright back up again. And when they hit the prem again they will just dop another 200mil on commerical to buy the players to get back into the CL slots. For the record manchester city were handed a stadium for nothing. They paid nothing for it. Spurs cost nearly a billion to build. they are simply not leeds who had to do what you said. They won't be bankrupted. they won't be sold. they will simply rise stright back up and will probabaly make some "donations" to the EFL to get a favourable league position as well. for all we know they could pay enough to the EFL that they would be voted into a 25 team championship for one season. Remmeebr the prem can only expel them. they have no influence over what the EFL decide to do next toi accomodate this. Will the prem run by only relegating the clubs in 19th and 20th? will they only have 19 clubs in the league (doubt it) Will they ask for 4 teams to come up? (complicated) I wuld suggest that the scottish model with rangers would apply. Rangers were dsiqualified and expelled and wound up. The scots chose to relegate dunfirminle and promote ross county but then they chose to grab dundee as well. this mean they were fine but lots of changes had to be made below them to accomodate new rangers I'm sure the efl clubs will be more than happy to vote for a cash donation to accomodate city.
