Let alone a team that finished 6th... Can't see it happening in the near future tbh - City will get a fine or a warning as an initial punishment, and by the time a ban would actually come around the new PL financial deal and steady CL revenues will have bailed them out. Doubt any club will actually be banned, unless they really **** their finances up, and they'll get a couple of fines and warnings before the ban hammer descends.
Unfortunately the exact opposite is true. Platini even rigs qualification to ensure France qualify for European tournaments, he has twice, refs giving completely dodgy goals, sudden last minute changes to the format. All the Sheik has to do is bung the garlic eating nonce a bag of onions and City will face no ban. PSG will face no ban purely for being a top tier French club.
Aren't Madrid state owned and last time they needed money sold their training ground for a ridiculous sum to the state who then let them use still anyway?? Many clubs find ways of keeping at the top and it's easy to bash the City's and PSG's etc but plenty are at it. Like how can a mid table club afford to pay Rooney 300k a week?
I know mate, so was I! Madrid are owned by the fans. Which arguably makes them own the local government - Madrid council will do nothing to piss off Real cos they'd lose the votes of all the Real fans and basically end their own careers. Selling the training ground and leasing it back was pretty dodgy, but then you could say the same about City having a stadium built for them, and leased to them for peanuts whilst they sell the naming rights for an eight figure sum. I think there are always ways to fiddle the books a wee bit, as long as you aren't obviously taking the piss. Then again, you could just win 20 league titles, bring in 75,000 plus fans a week, and get a world record shirt sponsorship deal. That way you can afford to pay £300k a week to anyone you fancy, no matter how **** you might be
What you pay your players is dependent on whether you can afford it or not, your income, etc and not on your position in the league. Most people with a bit of intelligence could have worked that out... As to Madrid, at the time it was such an obvious scam. But then if the club is being supported and funded by the people (via the council's subsidies) what's wrong with that? Barcelona is the same. City PSG and Chelsea have been pumped with unlimited money irrespective of their support and at the whim of one billionaire owner or a group of billionaire owners. That is the main problem.
Mata claims Utd will finish 4th, so relax. http://www1.skysports.com/football/...-manchester-united-can-finish-in-the-top-four
Most people with a bit of intelligence could work out my comment was a joke. What's your excuse? As for Madrid, I'd rather a rich owner pump money into a club rather than the state who shouldn't be helping our football clubs worth millions to over spend on players they can't really afford but use the money for schools, hospitals etc. It's a farce frankly and it'd never be allowed to happen here.
Don't slag off the joke cos you didn't get it!! No need to get all aggressive either. You've been embarrassed, much like United most of the year. Have a little sit down, a little calm down and all will be ok. It's only football lad.
Where do you think all City's money is coming from? The state of Abu Dhabi mate. And all Abramovich's money has been made on the back of knock down deals he got as political favours from the Russian state. 20% of people in the UAE are below the poverty line, and 13% of Russians, but the state still supports spending money on funding foreign football clubs rather than alleviating poverty. So it's ok for states to invest, or proxy invest, in a foreign football club, but not to invest in their own? Reverse protectionism ahoy!
I mean it would never be allowed for our government in the UK to plough money into mega rich football clubs rather than the NHS, schools etc. Where Roman's money originally comes from is an entirely different point. Chelsea aren't directly funded by the Russian state are they?!? FFS Swarbs.
You need to get a sense of humour, you're well known for your meltdowns and it's all a little tiresome frankly.
Really? So City didn't get a stadium entirely paid for by the government? And West Ham aren't getting one either? My point is that you can look at these things in any number of different ways. The Madrid government didn't directly fund Madrid either - they bought a piece of land that the club owned for an inflated price. Is that so massively different from the Russian government allowing Abramovich to buy Sibneft for about 5% of its market value? They may not have directly funded Chelsea, but they certainly directly funded the man who funds Chelsea - and if it's abhorrent that the Madrid government made a corrupt deals to support a local club that is a vital part of the lives of many local residents, is it any less abhorrent that the Russian government made a corrupt deal to support an individual, who then used that corrupt money to buy and fund a football club? Either way, that money could have been ploughed into local schools and clinics in Russia, and god knows they need it more than the UK. Or is it somehow more acceptable when it happens in Russia rather than Spain or the UK?
