Its Going To Get Ugly / Ganging up [MERGED]

[patrickblue]

Nice article by Stuart Brennan in the MEN (I decline to call them the MuEN in this instance).

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchesterevening ... a-bit-rich


Manchester United's FFP stance a bit rich

Stuart Brennan

January 17, 2013

United couldn’t beat City on the pitch or in the title race last season, so it seems they have hatched a dastardly plot to undermine them off the field.

The Reds have teamed up with Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham to press for the Premier League to adopt its own financial fair play rules, specifically targeting clubs with rich benefactors – just like Chelsea and City, by sheer coincidence!

United are suddenly worried that all this money being pumped into unnamed clubs is bad for the game, as it creates ‘inflationary spending’.

They want to adapt Uefa’s new rules, aimed at stopping clubs spending beyond the money they generate themselves, to our domestic league.

Of course, by a happy twist of fate, this would mean United – whose revenue is way ahead of everyone else in the league – could buy all the best players, give them the best wages, and win everything, from here to eternity.

And, by another weird coincidence, it would also mean Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs would suddenly edge ahead of City and Chelsea in chasing lucrative Champions League places.

We could even stop playing each other at football altogether, re-name the Premier League the Manchester United League, hand them all the trophies in August and fly off somewhere warm for the winter.

This self-interested foursome are now trying to sell their idea to the rest of the Premier League, to get the 14 votes, out of 20, they would need to change the rules.

“It’s a debate – we’re having a discussion on financial fair play,” said Gill. “The impact of the new TV money has clearly focused the minds. Seven or eight clubs are going to have to abide by UEFA’s regulations in any case.

“The league are working on this and will put a paper together to be discussed at the February meeting. Whatever’s decided is dictated by 14 clubs.”

United need to hope that, if their plan for world domination goes through, that the Premier League doesn’t start applying it retrospectively.

The Reds were one of the main movers behind the Greedy League which aimed to concentrate the wealth in the hands of the few at a time when football was turning from a sport into a multi-billion pound business.

As the richest club in the country, they drove the agenda as English football underwent the biggest inflation – of transfer fees, player wages and, as a consequence, ticket prices – in football history.

They more than quadrupled the record fee paid by an English club – which they already held for the 1981 signing of Bryan Robson – in 1995 when they paid £7m for Andy Cole.

They almost doubled the record by paying over £28m for Seba Veron in 2001, only to break it again a year later to bring in Rio Ferdinand.

They happily paid top dollar to their squad of top players, forcing other clubs to either take financial risks to try and catch them, or simply be content to sit back and admire as United won everything.

It was natural law, they thought. They were earning their own money and spending it. Only Blackburn, who briefly found a rich owner, and moneyed Arsenal interrupted their dominance, and they were just a temporary irritation.

It was a great arrangement. Then along came Chelsea, and more latterly, City to mess up this perfect world, by finding wealthy foreign owners who were prepared to pour money into the clubs they bought.

At the same time, United – despite a brave effort by a minority of their fans – found an American owner who did the exact opposite and began leeching money OUT of their club.

Suddenly, clubs throwing their money around are doing a bad thing, says Gill.

It is not their own money, so they shouldn’t spend it, goes the new mantra.

But the market doesn’t care whether Gill made the money by grafting at a coal face for 12 hours a day, or was handed it by a friendly Arab.

Spending more than the others inflates, wherever the cash come from.

Leeds nose-dived, financially and in football terms, by trying to keep up with United, long before Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour came on the scene.

City and Chelsea have played the game by rules which United liked when it suited them. Now the rules suit other clubs more, United and the other three want to change them.

If they truly want financial fair play, all revenue should be centrally pooled and dished out, preferably with the Football League and grassroots football getting a fair share.

Chances of United going for something truly fair? Don’t hold your breath.

[john68]

CONGRATULATIONS MEN, PETER SPENCER AND STUART BRENNAN. That is a very very brave piece of journalism and the courage to take this stance on our behalf against one of their main benefactors should not be underestimated. It may not bother the rags on global scale but will hurt them badly locally...and they will respond. Will the MEN stand firm or wilt? It took a lot of bollocks to write and publish that piece, much easier to sit on the fence and merely report events than take an active part. Will the MEN have the bollocks to stand firm when the rags go kicking and screaming at their door? That remains to be seen. We live in hope.

As brave as it is, I cannot see this being done by the MEN for simple journalistic reasons. they have too much to lose with a major benefactor and local readership. Too many faces to put out of joint. To my mind it can only have been done at the request (insistence) of City and that opens up another whole new sphere of debate. Why?

Whatever the common view of the domestic FFPR debate, workable,legal or otherwise, City obviously see it as an imminent and major danger to our short and medium term progress. All through the previous European FFPR debate, City have followed a path of trying to comply and have never entered into a public debate. This is a major change in club policy.

Major questions emerge...
1...Is this an admission by City that they are unable to balance the books and cannot comply?
2...Have our considered corrupt media come to the conclusion that this outrages bid for total control of domestic football by a group of 4 elitist clubs is a step too far even for them to consider and decided enough is enough, these clubs MUST be stopped?
3...Is it because the time frame (weeks rather that months or years), means it is imperative to act quickly with any fair and just means at our disposal?
4...Is it a policy change by City, taken by our new CEO Soriano, to come out in public and fight our corner more aggressively and publicly?

This is one battle we HAVE to win, Losing is NOT an option.

[Swales4ever]

given its broader audience, we should also CONGRATS the Time, as well, shant we?
Or shoudda said the upgraded professionalism at The Club, Dad?.... :-)

anyways, here the take from OS:
http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/What-the-pap ... TMS-17-Jan

We start this morning with an interesting perspective by sports economist Stefan Szymanski on the subject of Financial Fair Play.

Writing in The Times today, Szymanski puts forward the following.

"Adopting Uefa’s rules will only make it harder for small clubs to break into the elite," he claims.

"Manchester United, Spurs, Liverpool and Arsenal are quietly lobbying the chief executive of the Premier League to limit the spending power of Chelsea and Manchester City. It is no surprise that some of the big clubs advocate the adoption of Uefa’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules. Clubs are struggling to be profitable and insolvency is rife.

"Under FFP, clubs have to maintain solvency and must not spend more than their football income — the so-called break-even rule — which restricts the ability of owners to cross-subsidise the team from other business income. According to Uefa, this would “protect the long-term viability and sustainability of European club football”. Worthy goals indeed, but the rules may have less virtuous consequences.

"Given that the more successful teams generate the largest incomes, the only way lesser teams can challenge them is for someone to inject money from outside. It’s no coincidence that the only teams to break the dominance of the established clubs in the past 20 years have been Blackburn Rovers, Chelsea and Manchester City, all of whom had “sugar daddies”. FFP would make it harder for upstart clubs to challenge those already at the top.

"Uefa presents itself as a benevolent regulator with the best interests of football as its sole objective. But it has a financial interest as well. According to its 2010-11 accounts it generated €1.4 billion from the sale of rights, primarily to the Champions League, and paid out €1 billion to clubs, thus keeping 28 per cent to spend as it sees fit. The relationship is analogous to that between a car manufacturer and its dealers, a brewer and the pubs that sell its beer or a newspaper publisher and the corner shops that sell papers.

"EU competition law prohibits companies competing in the same industry from making agreements that restrain competitive behaviour. This protects consumers from conspiracies to raise prices or lower the quality of goods and services, and protects workers from employers ganging together to cut wages.

"Restrictions imposed from above can be good for consumers if they ensure that the product is delivered to them in good condition. Joaquín Almunia, the European Commissioner in charge of competition, appears to have approved FFP, thinking that it will benefit fans. This may be true when it comes to requiring clubs to pay their debts (including players’ wages) and maintain solvency. But by appearing to endorse the break-even rule the European Commission is failing to uphold the best interests of the fans.

The likely effect will be to ossify competition and maintain the dominance of established clubs (ironically, Chelsea and Manchester City may be the greatest beneficiaries, having already paid to join the elite). Less competition will reduce the pressure to spend on players’ salaries. While few may shed a tear for multimillionaire footballers, the quality of competition will also fall, as owners funnel their income into profits, not players.

"The Premier League case seems even simpler. Chapter One of the Competition Act prohibits agreements between undertakings that “have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the United Kingdom” and this applies to agreements that “limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment”. This move by some of the Premier League clubs would appear to be an open-and-shut agreement to limit investment, and therefore illegal.

"To those who say that these rules are necessary to preserve the fabric of English football I would ask how many professional clubs have gone out of business in the past hundred years. Of the 88 members of the Football League in 1923, 85 still exist today, most still in the top four divisions (the exceptions being Aberdare Athletic, Merthyr Town and South Shields). Insolvency and restructuring of the limited liability companies that own football clubs are commonplace but should not be confused with the termination of the club, which almost never happens.

"English football is healthier than it has been for decades — the quality of the game has risen immeasurably in the past 20 years, attendances have almost doubled despite astronomic increases in ticket prices, upwards of £2 billion has been invested in stadiums. The Premier League is a global phenomenon, generating as much money from selling rights overseas as at home. And foreign investors have flocked to put their money in.

"Having thrived in a competitive environment, why on earth should the big clubs now be allowed to end that competition? If they manage to persuade the rest of the Premier League to adopt FFP it will be time to call in the Office of Fair Trading."

[Swales4ever]

[highlight]This is one battle we HAVE to win, Losing is NOT an option.[/highlight]

I
Don't stress Your GoodSelf, my Lord, Mentor, Beloved Friend and preferred target of my FFPR piss takings: WE WILL NEVER LOSE IT, actually we NOT EVEN have to win as I tried hard to stamp on You, we just have to keep it going for another two seasons..... You know?

[john68]

Mancio,
I have not mentioned you or your argument in my recent posts on this because I simply gave up bashing my head against a brick wall.
Sorry my pal but you really don't get any of this mate...honestly...you really don't seem to have a clue.

If the answer to the FFPR (prem and Europe) was as simple as you suggest, That Sheik Mansour uses his political clout or Khaldhoon wanders round on his fuclin camel handing out sweeties to the children to pay them off, or that Soriano will replace Jimmy fuclin Saville as Sorry'll fix it...then why the fuck have they spent the last 3 years pulling their arses over their heads trying to comply? Why the fuck haven't they taken your advice aleady and said fuck the FFPR and carried on as though it doesn't exist? Why the fuck are they now considering putting a case together to fight it in court?...and why the fucl am I having this same fuckin conversation with a brick fuckin wall?

With all the love I have for you, are you Balotelli in disguise? Answer the simple question Why the fuck haven't City, with all their teams of accountants, advisors and lawyers, with all their business partners and political contacts just taken your advice and sorted it all out 3 fuclin years ago?

Now please for the love of God give up.

[Swales4ever]

Yeah Matey,
I do not have a clue.
despite everything is revolving as I keep saying since more than two years.
I lay it down to my language barriers... :-)

I have surrendered as well, just keep enjoying piss taking of one of the smartest arse I ever bumped into.... :-)
Meanwhile, I cannot wait for the next pansotti and human cannonballs.

God bless Your blood pressure and sleeps. any distress of them, due to this NON ISSUE, would be a shame that I'll never forgive You... :-)

xxx
M4e

[blue long time]

I,m sure that we can argue a strong case against these clubs who do not want investment into a club if it is not generated by football income. This could be compared to supermarkets who generate more income than corner shops.The corner shops will only get bigger if they can get more funds to enable them to grow or the status quo is maintained. Why have four divisions of football if this is the case . No club would be able to break the monopoly. There again ...that is the aim of these same clubs. We should be able to persuade other clubs to fight against these probably illegal proposals. It would be pleasant to know what our club is proposing in opposition to them.Why would a majority of clubs vote for financial constraints which would for ever condemn them to season after season defeats at those same clubs who have shared the lions share of spoils between them for years

[City64]

Wow !

Amazingly open journalism from the M.E.N.

Very refreshing and welcome ..... well done to them !

[spiny]

Martin Samuel in the mail today with another demolition of the EPL FFP proposals. He replies to comments on his recent article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... ccess.html

Cracking read. Too much to print. Here is the intro and a taster sample

First of all, thanks. Having written about financial fair play for years and been told variously that I’m obsessed, it’s a dry subject and nobody’s interested, it was slightly gratifying to press the word count button on the replies to the column and see the figure 41,438.

Gratifying and daunting because I’ve then got to read them all and then decide which ones to answer. Apologies if you’re not included here, but if you print each one of 40,000 plus words and reply in kind, well you know. We’ve all got jobs to go to. I’ve done my best. You’re not absent because we didn’t agree. As you will see, I’ve tried to include many of the dissenting arguments.

Strap yourselves in folks. We’re going to be here a while. Martin.


I hope the market remains open to investment with a limited level of protectionism aimed at stopping clubs like Portsmouth going into meltdown. Daddywoodland, Leeds.

Ah, the sweet voice of reason. It’s too late for that mate, I think you’ll find.

'And the modern era’s greatest achievement would never have happened?’ Really? Blackburn Rovers winning the league in 1995 was the greatest achievement? Arsene Wenger building a side for less than £40m and going an entire season unbeaten, a feat which had not been done for over 100 years previously, when there were about 12 teams instead of 20? Get a grip. Inzagi, Dublin.

Don’t they do arithmetic in Ireland any more? Thierry Henry £11m, Dennis Bergkamp £7.5m, Sylvain Wiltord £13m, Jose Reyes £10.5m, so that’s £42m right there and we’re only through the forward line. Having watched Arsenal for much of that wonderful season, I’m pretty sure they had a defence, a midfield and a goalkeeper too, and that the best player was Robert Pires, who cost a further £6m. Lauren was £7.2m, Gilberto Silva £4.5m, so let’s leave it there, shall we? Every team, to some extent, buys the title, including lovely Arsenal. The moment they could not buy at the same level, success dried up. Blackburn’s season was exceptional because they also overcame all the disadvantages of being a smaller club, something Arsenal have never known.

What's the difference between financial and chemical doping, Martin? Czerwonadupa, Wembley.

Well, one is a process for cheating by the consumption of performance-enhancing drugs, which is illegal, the other is a catchphrase made up by idiots to explain the process of investing in a business to enable it to grow. Glad to be of assistance.

Excellent idea, Mr Samuel. While we are at it let us scrap any idea of FFP completely and allow the entire Premier League to be bought up by oligarchs and Sheiks. Then we can watch teams of extravagantly expensive foreign imports and the competition for their services will drive salaries and transfer fees ever higher. This will really encourage clubs to invest in domestic talent. The four signatories of the letter to Richard Scudamore are all clubs which grew organically over years or decades: they were not suddenly presented with hundreds of millions like Chelsea or Manchester City. GzzzaEsq, London.

Is this the moment for the Manchester United history lesson? John H Davies is the man who formed Manchester United from Newton Heath in 1902, when the club was burdened with a debt of £2,670 and faced liquidation. For the time, his investment was immense, buying players and improving the ground. James Gibson was another chairman whose investment was disproportionate. He spent £40,000 during the Great Depression and rebuilt Old Trafford after the war. These seem trifling amounts now but equate to millions, in real terms. Nobody is advocating a whole league of billionaire owners, but the point is that every club has needed to make a great leap at some point in its history. In the days of Davies and Gibson the finance required for these moves was more realistic. Chelsea and Manchester City did not create the circumstances in which only £500m was good enough; the organisations and clubs that now seek to judge them did. So there is no moral difference. As for inflated salaries, look at the progression of record transfers. You’ll find Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool did as much to inflate the market as Chelsea and Manchester City.

Financial fair play means that a wealthy owner cannot put his own money into a club, but the Glazers can put Manchester United in hock to the banks for millions without penalty. How on earth is that financially sound? Of course it isn't. It's just an anti-competitive scheme to maintain the status quo dreamt up by Bayern, United, Real Madrid and Barçelona. It is no coincidence that the very lines of income that are OK under FFP are the ones where the established clubs fare best. There are lots of major companies that make losses. As long as those losses are sustainable because they have a strong balance sheet, nobody in financial circles is the least bit worried. Paris Saint-Germain seem to be ignoring it. I can only think that they have taken sound legal advice and have resolved to take the whole thing to EU competition authorities as soon as Michel Platini and his mates try to enforce it. Big Blue, Manchester.

Randy Lerner, the chairman of Aston Villa, said pretty much the same to me earlier in the season. He said the FFP rules focus on one specific part of the balance sheet as if it is the whole picture. One wonders why.

Utter nonsense. Financial fair play should be bought in ASAP to bring a more level playing field. Martin Samuel fails to address the point that Man City and Chelsea have contributed hugely to the inflation of players wages, which in turn is fed through to fans by increasing ticket prices: simple economics. If you look back to the Eighties and Nineties there were many teams competing and winning trophies, such as Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest. FFP properly implemented would allow managers of clubs outside the top four to mount a challenge, particularly if player wages were reduced or even capped. Jay1200, Sydney, Australia.

So let’s go back to Jay’s golden Eighties and Nineties. A few highlights. Stan Collymore (Nottingham Forest to Liverpool), £8.5m, British transfer record. Dennis Bergkamp (Inter Milan to Arsenal), £7.5m, British transfer record. Andy Cole (Newcastle United to Manchester United), £7m, British transfer record. Jaap Stam (PSV Eindhoven to Manchester United), £10.75m, record for a defender, record foreign signing. Sander Westerveld (Vitesse Arnhem to Liverpool), £4m, record for a goalkeeper. Marc Overmars (Ajax to Arsenal), £7m, record for a winger. Dean Saunders (Derby County to Liverpool), £2.9m, British transfer record. Bryan Robson (West Bromwich Albion to Manchester United), £1.5m, British transfer record. But you’re right, it is only Manchester City and Chelsea that have been forcing prices up.

Every club should earn what they get, not buy it. Look at Borussia Dortmund, they've done it and believe it or not that could happen in England if the playing field was fairer. Thatguyoverthere, Galway.

Dortmund were kept afloat by a loan from Bayern Munich that was so above board it wasn’t disclosed for 10 years. Before that, they were in a financial black hole every bit as disastrous as Leeds. This is their resurgence, not the way it has always been. Bill makes a very valid point about the way stadiums are financed on the continent. We have tied ourselves in knots over the City of Manchester Stadium and the London Olympic Stadium here, yet German or French governments offer direct assistance to clubs on infrastructure, rebuilding and relocation.

So, in other words, if a club owner invested heavily in the 20th century, that's perfectly acceptable. But if they've invested in the 21st century then that's not financially fair? Harry, Newcastle.

Got it in one, H.

[spiny]

Maybe the tide of popular opinion is turning against the self proclaimed elite. More press against FFP and in particular against the rag establishment. Lets hope it backfires on them.

[Cocacolajojo1]

I've picked out my favourites. Some really good answers from Samuel.

Surely these new rules help small clubs? They will destroy the illusion that being bankrolled has any benefits in the long term. Where are Blackburn now? They are where Manchester City and Chelsea will probably be when the money taps close. JR1994, Hastings.

And if so, so what? Is that what you want, a league in which nobody can ever fail and get relegated? Why does it matter where Blackburn are now? That was nothing to do with Jack Walker. The company was sold to poor owners who made a series of key management mistakes. It happens. Most relegated clubs have got either the football or the finance wrong at some time, and often both. So clubs move up and down the league, which is why if Cardiff City are promoted they will be the 46th club of the Premier League era. And what help to a small club is it to be expected to compete with Manchester United but to have a fraction of their budget available?

Yeah, I don't know when safe budgeting and accounting became a core factor in how we value football clubs.

Successful teams like Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool have been built up on the back of support of their fans. Decades of loyally supporting their clubs, watching the club grow and the stadium improved, are suddenly turned over by a rival having a foreign dictator spending hundreds of millions of in ill-gotten gains on their latest plaything. This repellent injection of money bypasses decades of development undergone by other clubs. Only one word for it: cheating. Brianconwy, Conwy.

Oh, cut the sanctimony mate. There is not a single elite club that did not at one time invest to the very limit of its means, and in some cases beyond, as a way of growing the business. Just because that happened before you were alive or took an interest in football does not make it any less significant. And why does it matter whether the owner is foreign? Aren’t they foreign at Liverpool, United and Arsenal, too?

The success of Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool was founded on visionary football people like Sir Matt Busby, Herbert Chapman and Bill Shankly and their current financial power is a result of that. Over the years, they have built up the fan base and infrastructure to make them the leading clubs in the country. Chelsea and City's recent success is entirely the result of a foreign owner spending an obscene amount of money. Apparently Martin Samuel prefers the latter but he knows it is difficult to defend so he pulls out Jack Walker as an example instead. Presumably even he knows that it was at least 10 years since a local millionaire could afford to buy the title for his club. Today it takes a multi-billionaire with money to burn which you will only find in countries where they don't have the mechanisms for redistributing the wealth that we have in western democracies. I'm struggling to see why turning the Premier League into a fantasy football league for those kind of people is a good thing. Hans, London.

If Sir Matt Busby’s vision was so enduringly successful, how come Manchester United went from 1967 to 1993 without winning the league, and were relegated in that time? Sir Alex Ferguson built the modern Manchester United and his success coincided with a financial sea change in English football, making one club disproportionately powerful and advantaged. We can only hope that, when he goes, the next guy really messes up, because if he doesn’t, with Michel Platini’s rules in place, one club will keep getting stronger and stronger. Why this is unfair is that the elite position of the clubs you mention is a moment in time but it is a moment that they are seizing to alter football irrevocably and ensure their superiority through the ages. It is the richest clubs, in league with UEFA, who have ensured that the money required to succeed in football these days is beyond the average local businessman. They made the top of the table a territory for only the wealthy, and now they bleat that wealthy people are buying their way in. And don’t tell me what I prefer, Hans. I prefer room for all. And change. Because it’s interesting.

Blackburn bought the title, they didn't win it. Clubs that buy it don't win it and are remembered in a different way to the others. Everyone will feel the same about the success that Manchester City and Chelsea have had. It is as hollow as you can get, with a big fat # by every trophy. Stephen, London.

So there will be a # next to Manchester United this year, to indicate the difference was Robin van Persie. And a # next to the titles that were down to Cristiano Ronaldo. And a # next to Arsenal’s Invincibles for the signing of Thierry Henry. And next to the Double because of Dennis Bergkamp. And one next to Liverpool’s achievements for Kenny Dalglish, yes? Grow up.

[Cocacolajojo1]

More:

I am an Arsenal fan. Financial fair play will benefit Manchester United, not us, and make second the best we can hope for. If spending is only linked to revenue no-one can live with United. Maybe if Ivan Gazidis did his job properly instead of just preaching about financial austerity, while earning £2.1m a year, we might be able to challenge United without these new flawed regulations. Also, it is a bit rich of us to complain about Manchester City's money but accept their inflated transfer fees. We've pocketed £70m from them since 2008, more than we've made from Emirates. Maybe City should be our shirt sponsors. KennyA87, London.

I love letters like this, when a person is not swayed by club self-interest. The day after I wrote this piece I got a text from an international footballer, a legend at one of the four elite clubs mentioned, agreeing with the anti-FFP stance. On so many subjects, club allegiances shine through, so when someone goes against the grain, it stands out. You’re spot on, Kenny. Why sign up to be second fiddle to Manchester United? How dare Gazidis lecture on financial sobriety while drawing £2.1m for selling Arsenal’s best player every season? And if Arsenal don’t like Manchester City’s methods, don’t take Manchester City’s money. That would be more of a principled stand than some elite club coup.

To be truly fair all clubs should be restricted to the percentages of the club with the smallest turnover. That way there will be a level playing field and all executives would be restricted to paying the basic wage of the smallest club. Restrict everything to the finances of the smallest. Ghostrider, Fareham

This article is arguing that the only way to compete is by bringing in a billionaire owner, but what about the teams without? They are truly in trouble. A decade ago Spurs would have had a realistic shot at the League, bringing in good young players like Gareth Bale and spending money wisely. What hope have they of getting ahead of moneybags Manchester City though? None and they never will as things stand. So what are you arguing for? A world where the team that spends the most wins and everyone else just worries about finding a new investor? Crazy. And in what world can Arsenal be the bad guys for opposing billionaire owners and focusing on organic growth. How did Arsenal become such a big club in the first place? On the training pitch, and that's a lesson for every club. Taiwo Temilade, London.

No, my argument is that the elite clubs have made it so wealth is all that matters and are now horrified that billionaires want to play their game. Don’t you see that just as Manchester City and Chelsea are said to be thwarting Tottenham, so Tottenham thwarted Southampton by buying Gareth Bale. Some clubs will always be bigger, just don’t enshrine it in law. As for how Arsenal became such a big club, where do want to start? The dubious process by which they entered the top division, the day they poached Huddersfield Town’s manager, breaking the British transfer record for Dennis Bergkamp, or that training field stuff. Because I’m sure they have trained every day through their history, they just haven’t always won the league. So it might not be that alone.

The only club run in a good, proper and fair way in the top five is Spurs. Londonli, London.

The lot embroiled in the Olympic Stadium hacking scandal, due in court later this year, yes?

The problem the others have is that Manchester City already have a very good squad and it only needs topping up each year. With the introduction of the new training facility and infrastructure investment the horse is already safe in the stable, but other clubs won’t be able to follow. KL, Manchester.

True. City insist they will be all right but Everton, for instance, could be made unsellable.


'From former Arsenal captain, Tony Adams: 'I think that a significant factor, 90 per cent, in why we achieved so much is that Danny Fiszman invested £50m in the club and we were able to go to the next level. I got my first decent contract at the club, so did David Seaman, we were able to bring in Dennis Bergkamp and that was before Arsène Wenger arrived. David Platt, Patrick Vieira, Nicolas Anelka came, and we were able to pay top players from around the world.' Simon, Manchester.

And there it is, from the mouth of Arsenal’s great captain and from Simon, who appeared to take every pro FFP post as a personal slight. Every club, at some time, needs to invest, to expand, to take that next step. The hypocrisy over attitudes to Manchester City and Chelsea rankles because it is the judgemental elite that have made this so financially prohibitive in the first place. You may think Arsenal rose to prominence organically but I’d say Tony knows the truth.

[Duckman]

[quote="Cocacolajojo"].../quote]

awesome stuff. Samuel loves his job.

[john68]

What the fuck is happening? For the very first time in my living memory, our club are getting some good press.

I sincerely hope that our media have reached a point where they consider the final grab for total control a step too far.

[Swales4ever]

What the fuck is happening? For the very first time in my living memory, our club are getting some good press.

I sincerely hope that our media have reached a point where they consider the final grab for total control a step too far.

Perhaps You won't realize it, because it was just anticipated by the clueless italian wum who once explained why Mancini was not a caretaker, nor a negative catenaccio nightmare from the italian past, but You have been told that CIty now have a professional senior CEO and a professional senior sporting director.
Amongst the benefits, You are starting to see what professionals can do.
or perhaps some insider at the Club have suggested You that those journalists, all the sudden, have seen the light of the TRUTH and the GOOD?

piss funny.
next stop, the first market summer window, professionally run (i.e. get targets at market price)

The Clueless WUM has sponken, once again (also because is getting sick of idiocy)

btw, Mods, may I start a fourth thread on the same subject, as in the last 2 weeks we have toppe BlueMoon on the League of Threads Starting, apparently? I mean, if this was a serious topic, it would be schizophrenic to jump from thread to thread in order to follow it.
nah, it can be true, it's just the clueless italian wum

[Slim]

What the fuck is happening? For the very first time in my living memory, our club are getting some good press.

I sincerely hope that our media have reached a point where they consider the final grab for total control a step too far.

Perhaps You won't realize it, because it was just anticipated by the clueless italian wum who once explained why Mancini was not a caretaker, nor a negative catenaccio nightmare from the italian past, but You have been told that CIty now have a professional senior CEO and a professional senior sporting director.
Amongst the benefits, You are starting to see what professionals can do.
or perhaps some insider at the Club have suggested You that those journalists, all the sudden, have seen the light of the TRUTH and the GOOD?

piss funny.
next stop, the first market summer window, professionally run (i.e. get targets at market price)

The Clueless WUM has sponken, once again (also because is getting sick of idiocy)

btw, Mods, may I start a fourth thread on the same subject, as in the last 2 weeks we have toppe BlueMoon on the League of Threads Starting, apparently? I mean, if this was a serious topic, it would be schizophrenic to jump from thread to thread in order to follow it.
nah, it can be true, it's just the clueless italian wum

Roger, I think you're a great guy and you know I am your biggest fan, why in heaven's name are you coming across like a prick all of a sudden?(I think, still trying to get a handle on your posting style, it's a great source of amusement to me) I don't think this is you and john is a well respected member around here and I have told him the same thing. We have enough cunts around here, there is no club so stop trying to join it.

[Chinners]

Roger, I think you're a great guy and you know I am your biggest fan, why in heaven's name are you coming across like a prick all of a sudden?(I think, still trying to get a handle on your posting style, it's a great source of amusement to me) I don't think this is you and john is a well respected member around here and I have told him the same thing. We have enough cunts around here, there is no club so stop trying to join it.

[youtube]IxAKFlpdcfc[/youtube]

[Beefymcfc]

What'd a miss?

Apologies for not joining in but I am enjoying the read.

[Swales4ever]

Roger, I think you're a great guy and you know I am your biggest fan, why in heaven's name are you coming across like a prick all of a sudden?(I think, still trying to get a handle on your posting style, it's a great source of amusement to me) I don't think this is you and john is a well respected member around here and I have told him the same thing. We have enough cunts around here, there is no club so stop trying to join it.

SLIM,
sentiments are well reciprocated, and felt. I am quite flattered by the use of the condom, too.

Then, there are many and many things I can wholeheartedly make to please my beloved Mancityfans.netters fella, but disrespecting the utmost opinion I have of Sir John is not amongst those.

To agree with His funny scare of the FFP joke, would not only constitute a blatant denial of everything I've have seen and learnt in the last 25 years of professional experience (or anyone's else who happened to get close enough to practically understand what runs and how is run a billion GB pounds corporate business) and neither equating to the ridiculous idea that midgets like Gill and accolades might ever come closer than a mile distance from a position whereas being able scratch the balls sack of a business giant like dr. Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak (not only in terms of wealth power, but in terms of professional qualifications and experiences), but first and foremost would be a factual disrespect of one of the smartest, broadly open minds I ever had the honour and mental pleasure to encounter: Sir John68.

So please, Pal, do not ask me that: if saying that FFP is a no more than a sterile, public cry from a bunch of inadequate, desperate fallen angels, which has the same percentage of chances (=zero) to stop the rise of MCFC, than what I have in dating Angelina Jolie, makes me a leading member of the club of cunts, so be it.
I will wait, quietly, other two years of more desperate and sterile attempts, shite talked on the media, funny threads started hysterically on here, and finally I might go open and share everyone's joy and relief at, finally, realizing that 2 years have passed by, MCFC turnover has broke even and more than even, and NOTHING happened other than shite talked.

What, instead, I can promise You, in whole heart and mind, to do are:
1) stop posting the sole opinion on FFP which shall turn real in 2 years time, so that I will automatically stop from hurting the average sensibility on subject matter: I have already done my promise to John, privately, and I swear it now here, publicly;
2) commit myself to not come here, when this joke will finally be over, and for everyone to see and understand, by saying a cheap and nasty "I told You so";
3) stop laughing at anyone who starts a personal thread at every article edited on the same subject matter (and thiis point, believe me, shall require me a little effort, because I love this forum and I hate to see Bluemoaners on Mancintyfans)
4) abort my purposed amusement to start, tomorrow, the fifth or sixth thread on the same subject matter, originally intended to apply a little irony to this pathetic hysteria.

thanks for bothering and caring of my sentiments, anyway. much appreciated.

[Beefymcfc]

Q. If we paid 38 mil for Aguero, how much does UEFA and possibly PL FFP make him worth?